xoutofmyheadx wrote:
from what i've seen the 34 and 27 are the same height. so 35in will be just a smudge taller.
also if anybody is interested that alienware monitor went on black friday sale (maybe?) not sure but it's marked at $999 yesterday so i did order it. it'll be here tomarrow so i'll get to it saterday. pretty excitied it's my 1st pc monitor so i can't compare it to anything.
Thanks for your reply. I should have expected as much being that the PG35VQ is 1inch bigger in screen size.
I ended up picking up a used PG348Q yesterday, and absolutely love it. Compared to the PG278Q 144hz 2K TN panel I also have, the colours are richer and more vibrant, but more so, the game play is surprisingly smoother in both feel and look, even though the PG348Q only refreshes at 100Hz. The difference was immediately noticeable. Sure it's an IPS panel vs TN panel, but wow, the increased smoothness compared to the PG278Q which also has G-Sync at 144Hz, really surprised me.
TL: DR
Will I buy the PG35VQ? Most likely. But do I think I'll be able to fully enjoy it's features and abilities? Probably not for some time until GPUs are powerful enough to take modern AAA title games to 200 FPS at a resolution of 3440x1440p.
Full opinion explanation:
I think it's an important consideration for anyone intending to buy the PG35VQ, to examine the performance capabilities of then current GPUs on the market.
I play games at maxed out graphical settings using two SLI'd, and OC'd, 1080 liquid cooled cards at 2138Mhz/5500Mhz. Some games struggle to push past 60 FPS, even when SLI scaling is supported, on the ASUS PG348Q. In more cases than not, at 2K and ultrawide 2K resolution, two SLI'd 1080s beat out a single 1080 Ti. And it should be noted that scaling for two SLI'd 1080 Ti is far lesser supported than scaling for two SLI'd 1070 Ti/two SLI'd 1080 for the same game titles. (See linked tech articles below). With my two SLI'd 1080's on the PG348Q, Tom Clancy's Ghost Recon Wildlands benchmark earns 59 FPS avg , GTA V benchmark 71 FPS avg, Rise of the Tomb Raider benchmark 53 FPS avg, Destiny 2 90~120 FPS avg, Star Wars Battlefront II 90~110 FPS avg. Older titles like Dirt 3 benchmark at 205 FPS.
Why does this even matter? When the PG35VQ is released, sure it will be the ultimate best gaming monitor, no doubt, with it's HDR, Quantum Dot and 200Hz refresh rate support, but I am worried about justifying it's cost due to GPUs not being able to output 200 FPS in games. Yes the argument can be made that it's future proof, and yes, new faster GPUs like Nvidia's Volta will come along and so forth, but will I be able to fully reap the benefits of the PG35VQ if current hardware at the time can't do so? I'm not so convinced I will. If such is the case, then the immediate benefits of buying the PG35VQ will be for it's HDR and Quantum Dot support. And I'd further expect the PG348Q to experience a price drop, making it harder to justify buying the PG35VQ right at launch.
My concern anyways, and it's OK to disagree with me.
References
I used both articles below to form my opinion. FPS across 35 games is benchmarked against resolutions of 1080p, 1440p , ultra wide 1440p, and 4K, comparing 1070 Ti vs 1070 Ti SLI vs 1080 Ti vs 1080 Ti SLI. It should be noted that the 1070 Ti is basically a "stunted" 1080, with only 128 fewer CUDA cores, and can be easily overclocked to match AIB partner 1080 card clock speeds with software like MSI Afterburner and EVGA PrecisionX OC.
1070 Ti vs 1070 Ti SLI vs 1080 Ti
https://babeltechreviews.com/the-gtx-1070-ti-sli-vs-gtx-1080-ti-performance-review-35-games-tested/1080 Ti vs 1080 Ti SLI
https://babeltechreviews.com/gtx-1080-ti-sli-performance-25-games/3/