Acer XB321HK 32" 4k IPS 10bit G-Sync Monitor - £699 - Ebuyer - HotUKDeals
We use cookie files to improve site functionality and personalisation. By continuing to use HotUKDeals, you accept our cookie and privacy policy.
Get the HotUKDeals app free at Google Play

Search Error

An error occurred when searching, please try again!

Login / Sign UpSubmit
244

Acer XB321HK 32" 4k IPS 10bit G-Sync Monitor - £699.00 - Ebuyer

£699.00 @ Ebuyer
I was looking for a screen that suits my gaming habits as well as my Photo and 3D work and didn't realise that one existed with all this tech combined. usually you get one or the other. 4k, IPS & G-Sy… Read More
quadpatch Avatar
8m, 1d agoFound 8 months, 1 day ago
I was looking for a screen that suits my gaming habits as well as my Photo and 3D work and didn't realise that one existed with all this tech combined. usually you get one or the other. 4k, IPS & G-Sync together is extremely rare. Many of the wider colour gamut monitors don't have G-Sync and cost tons more than this, but having 100% of Adobe RGB is more of a curse than a blessing for me so this one seems perfect. It has the 10bit panel but only provides 100% of SRGB, which makes more sense for image creation when it's made for others to see on 'normal / average screens. Anyway, it's perfect for me (doing game development) and might be for a few others too so I thought I would share it around. I know this may go cold because some people will see better value in cheaper monitors (without some of these specs), but I thought this was interesting.

You can currently get it a bit cheaper for a refurbished one at Ebuyer (£679) but the saving doesn't seem worth it to me.
More From Ebuyer:
quadpatch Avatar
8m, 1d agoFound 8 months, 1 day ago
Options

Top Comments

(1)
5 Likes

No it's not, it's a 3440 x 1440 monitor that does 100hz.

All Comments

(46) Jump to unreadPost a comment
Comments/page:
Page:
#1
If it was 144Hz it would be perfect but that's a lot to ask as given it's IPS and 4K. G-Sync would be a minus for me but at least this comes with an HDMI port unlike other Gsync monitors. Pricey for sure but well worth it given the high spec.

Edited By: noiren on Aug 26, 2016 16:13
#2
I seen this, this morning as im also looking for the perfect monitor which is above 30'' but it seems nice I just don't think 60fps is good enough though, currently using acer z35 200hz g sync

still going to give this some heat



Edited By: yoyo59 on Aug 26, 2016 16:20
1 Like #3
how stupid it is that they cannot at least offer something like a 75hz or even slightly more as an example. I do not think it should add at all in terms of expenses and give at the same time something that is worth it.
1 Like #4
noiren
If it was 144Hz it would be perfect but that's a lot to ask as given it's IPS and 4K. G-Sync would be a minus for me but at least this comes with an HDMI port unlike other Gsync monitors. Pricey for sure but well worth it given the high spec.

60hz is the limit of displayport 1.2 at 4k. You need 1.3 for higher refresh rates, and that is something only the very latest graphics cards have. In fact I don't even know of any currently available monitors that have it. This doesn't not have that ability because it's cutting corners for cost, it doesn't have them because they weren't available when it was released. They're also likely to be considerably more expensive than this when they are.

The monitor may even overclock to a higher rate. My cheap 1080p 60hz monitors happily run at 75hz.

Edited By: BigYoSpeck on Aug 26, 2016 17:37
2 Likes #5
bobo53
how stupid it is that they cannot at least offer something like a 75hz or even slightly more as an example. I do not think it should add at all in terms of expenses and give at the same time something that is worth it.

1. That refresh rate is beyond the displayport 1.2 standard. There are no monitors that I'm aware of presently available using 1.3 and we only just have videocards that can output it.

2. You don't think a 25%+ increase in performance should incur any expense?
#6
BigYoSpeck
bobo53
how stupid it is that they cannot at least offer something like a 75hz or even slightly more as an example. I do not think it should add at all in terms of expenses and give at the same time something that is worth it.
1. That refresh rate is beyond the displayport 1.2 standard. There are no monitors that I'm aware of presently available using 1.3 and we only just have videocards that can output it.
2. You don't think a 25%+ increase in performance should incur any expense?
well, not saying at 120hz or 144hz but a good 75hz should not be a problem to produce for a little extra. Some 1080p monitors can be OC to that level no problems and for free. Obviously I am an ignorant and not sure what would be involved to easily reach that at the lowest cost possible. They actually do a 34" 3440x1440 @100Hz but does cost nearly £1000

Edited By: bobo53 on Aug 26, 2016 17:59
#7
bobo53
BigYoSpeck
bobo53
how stupid it is that they cannot at least offer something like a 75hz or even slightly more as an example. I do not think it should add at all in terms of expenses and give at the same time something that is worth it.
1. That refresh rate is beyond the displayport 1.2 standard. There are no monitors that I'm aware of presently available using 1.3 and we only just have videocards that can output it.
2. You don't think a 25%+ increase in performance should incur any expense?
well, not saying at 120hz or 144hz but a good 75hz should not be a problem to produce for a little extra. Some 1080p monitors can be OC to that level no problems and for free. Obviously I am an ignorant and not sure what would be involved to easily reach that at the lowest cost possible. They actually do a 34" 3440x1440 @100Hz but does cost nearly £1000

The displayport 1.2 standard doesn't allow enough bandwidth to do [email protected] It's max is 60hz. That's the standard, that's why all 4k monitors are 60hz

3440x1440 contains considerably fewer pixels than 4k, it's like 5 million vs over 8 million so can be drawn at higher refresh rates in the available bandwidth of displayport.

Maybe it can be overclocked, but they won't advertise it overtly because unlike overclocking my cheap 1080p monitors from 60 to 75hz, you have to go beyond the displayport spec, which even if the monitor is capable of, there is no guarantee a video card is capable of.
1 Like #8
Even if it's above DP standard, they would still have plenty of bandwidth available for lower resolutions at high refresh rates.
#9
BigYoSpeck
bobo53
BigYoSpeck
bobo53
how stupid it is that they cannot at least offer something like a 75hz or even slightly more as an example. I do not think it should add at all in terms of expenses and give at the same time something that is worth it.
1. That refresh rate is beyond the displayport 1.2 standard. There are no monitors that I'm aware of presently available using 1.3 and we only just have videocards that can output it.
2. You don't think a 25%+ increase in performance should incur any expense?
well, not saying at 120hz or 144hz but a good 75hz should not be a problem to produce for a little extra. Some 1080p monitors can be OC to that level no problems and for free. Obviously I am an ignorant and not sure what would be involved to easily reach that at the lowest cost possible. They actually do a 34" 3440x1440 @100Hz but does cost nearly £1000
The displayport 1.2 standard doesn't allow enough bandwidth to do [email protected] It's max is 60hz. That's the standard, that's why all 4k monitors are 60hz
3440x1440 contains considerably fewer pixels than 4k, it's like 5 million vs over 8 million so can be drawn at higher refresh rates in the available bandwidth of displayport.
Maybe it can be overclocked, but they won't advertise it overtly because unlike overclocking my cheap 1080p monitors from 60 to 75hz, you have to go beyond the displayport spec, which even if the monitor is capable of, there is no guarantee a video card is capable of.
there is the hdmi 2.0b and dp1.4 already and with the right video card of course


Edited By: bobo53 on Aug 26, 2016 18:25
#10
Ebuyer lol
#11
#12
The 144hz option is on amazon for £599, but it is 1080. This has the higher resolution, but no 144hz. Personally, while I'm sure any of these are great. I'm waiting a while until all of the various desirable aspects merge at a manageable price. A 144HZ, IPS with a decent resolution that is..
5 Likes #13

No it's not, it's a 3440 x 1440 monitor that does 100hz.
#14
I thought only quadro / firepro gpus support 10bit colour for photo work? Is this not the case now?
#15
BigYoSpeck
No it's not, it's a 3440 x 1440 monitor that does 100hz.
what another stupid resolution. What was wrong with a 3840x 1620?
#16
I have this monitor and it's stunning. The only weak point are the in built speakers, but as I have separate speakers that doesn't bother me. It is also mountable with any VESA mount that can take the weight which was a big plus for me.
3 Likes #17
bobo53
BigYoSpeck
No it's not, it's a 3440 x 1440 monitor that does 100hz.
what another stupid resolution. What was wrong with a 3840x 1620?

It's essentially an ultra wide 1440p monitor - not a stupid resolution at all.
#19
bobo53
BigYoSpeck
No it's not, it's a 3440 x 1440 monitor that does 100hz.
what another stupid resolution. What was wrong with a 3840x 1620?

Pop a film on and look at what aspect ratio the actual image is. Ultrawide resolutions are great for film, gaming and multitasking.
#21
Cameron583
bobo53
BigYoSpeck
No it's not, it's a 3440 x 1440 monitor that does 100hz.
what another stupid resolution. What was wrong with a 3840x 1620?
It's essentially an ultra wide 1440p monitor - not a stupid resolution at all.
I am missing something here, sometime they wrongly call it 4k ultra wide instead and not 1440p ultrawide and @ 3840x1620/1610 would be fully entitled to be called a 4k ultra wide instead. Anyway, which ever, it should have been a 3840x1620 in reality and how strange that they are not made.
#22
BigYoSpeck
bobo53
BigYoSpeck
No it's not, it's a 3440 x 1440 monitor that does 100hz.
what another stupid resolution. What was wrong with a 3840x 1620?
Pop a film on and look at what aspect ratio the actual image is. Ultrawide resolutions are great for film, gaming and multitasking.
and what suppose to be to you a 3840x1620/1610??
1 Like #23
bobo53
Cameron583
bobo53
BigYoSpeck
No it's not, it's a 3440 x 1440 monitor that does 100hz.
what another stupid resolution. What was wrong with a 3840x 1620?
It's essentially an ultra wide 1440p monitor - not a stupid resolution at all.
I am missing something here, sometime they wrongly call it 4k ultra wide instead and not 1440p ultrawide and @ 3840x1620/1610 would be fully entitled to be called a 4k ultra wide instead. Anyway, which ever, it should have been a 3840x1620 in reality and how strange that they are not made.

A true 4K ultra wide would be 5120x2160, resulting in a 4K image at 16:9 with a little bit extra on the end, making it 21:9
#24
I bought the 2k 165hz version last week, love it. GTX 1070 doing it justice
#25
Good to know this. What games have you tried? Saw a GTX1070 today driving a 32" wide 1440, that was playing GTA V. Looked smooth to me. Think it was the acer z35. Is yours the acer z35?
Panda221
I bought the 2k 165hz version last week, love it. GTX 1070 doing it justice
#26
Cameron583
bobo53
Cameron583
bobo53
BigYoSpeck
No it's not, it's a 3440 x 1440 monitor that does 100hz.
what another stupid resolution. What was wrong with a 3840x 1620?
It's essentially an ultra wide 1440p monitor - not a stupid resolution at all.
I am missing something here, sometime they wrongly call it 4k ultra wide instead and not 1440p ultrawide and @ 3840x1620/1610 would be fully entitled to be called a 4k ultra wide instead. Anyway, which ever, it should have been a 3840x1620 in reality and how strange that they are not made.
A true 4K ultra wide would be 5120x2160, resulting in a 4K image at 16:9 with a little bit extra on the end, making it 21:9
that would be called 5k ultrawide
#27
bobo53
Cameron583
bobo53
Cameron583
bobo53
BigYoSpeck
No it's not, it's a 3440 x 1440 monitor that does 100hz.
what another stupid resolution. What was wrong with a 3840x 1620?
It's essentially an ultra wide 1440p monitor - not a stupid resolution at all.
I am missing something here, sometime they wrongly call it 4k ultra wide instead and not 1440p ultrawide and @ 3840x1620/1610 would be fully entitled to be called a 4k ultra wide instead. Anyway, which ever, it should have been a 3840x1620 in reality and how strange that they are not made.
A true 4K ultra wide would be 5120x2160, resulting in a 4K image at 16:9 with a little bit extra on the end, making it 21:9
that would be called 5k ultrawide

Even more than that. Would make it 6k Ultrawide
1 Like #28
the "4k" nomenclature is a nonsense
#29
bobo53
Cameron583
bobo53
Cameron583
bobo53
BigYoSpeck
No it's not, it's a 3440 x 1440 monitor that does 100hz.
what another stupid resolution. What was wrong with a 3840x 1620?
It's essentially an ultra wide 1440p monitor - not a stupid resolution at all.
I am missing something here, sometime they wrongly call it 4k ultra wide instead and not 1440p ultrawide and @ 3840x1620/1610 would be fully entitled to be called a 4k ultra wide instead. Anyway, which ever, it should have been a 3840x1620 in reality and how strange that they are not made.
A true 4K ultra wide would be 5120x2160, resulting in a 4K image at 16:9 with a little bit extra on the end, making it 21:9
that would be called 5k ultrawide

No, you're confusing the horizontal and vertical pixels. You wouldn't have the same pixel density as a 5K monitor of equal size, as the number of vertical pixels is considerably less :)
#30
Cameron583
bobo53
Cameron583
bobo53
BigYoSpeck
No it's not, it's a 3440 x 1440 monitor that does 100hz.
what another stupid resolution. What was wrong with a 3840x 1620?
It's essentially an ultra wide 1440p monitor - not a stupid resolution at all.
I am missing something here, sometime they wrongly call it 4k ultra wide instead and not 1440p ultrawide and @ 3840x1620/1610 would be fully entitled to be called a 4k ultra wide instead. Anyway, which ever, it should have been a 3840x1620 in reality and how strange that they are not made.

A true 4K ultra wide would be 5120x2160, resulting in a 4K image at 16:9 with a little bit extra on the end, making it 21:9


Yeah, I'm pretty sure you're right. 4K res is determined by the vertical 2160p, not the res on the top, even though it's named after it. Just like 2k is actually 1080p.

I'm sure I've seen someone working on a 3840 x 1600 ultra wide. I think it was a 144hz DP 1.3 spec too. That will be cool for a lot of people but I still prefer the ratio of 4K (16:9), mostly for photos.
#31
quadpatch
Cameron583
bobo53
Cameron583
bobo53
BigYoSpeck
No it's not, it's a 3440 x 1440 monitor that does 100hz.
what another stupid resolution. What was wrong with a 3840x 1620?
It's essentially an ultra wide 1440p monitor - not a stupid resolution at all.
I am missing something here, sometime they wrongly call it 4k ultra wide instead and not 1440p ultrawide and @ 3840x1620/1610 would be fully entitled to be called a 4k ultra wide instead. Anyway, which ever, it should have been a 3840x1620 in reality and how strange that they are not made.
A true 4K ultra wide would be 5120x2160, resulting in a 4K image at 16:9 with a little bit extra on the end, making it 21:9
Yeah, I'm pretty sure you're right. 4K res is determined by the vertical 2160p, not the res on the top, even though it's named after it. Just like 2k is actually 1080p.
I'm sure I've seen someone working on a 3840 x 1600 ultra wide. I think it was a 144hz DP 1.3 spec too. That will be cool for a lot of people but I still prefer the ratio of 4K (16:9), mostly for photos.
Yer Asus http://www.144hzmonitors.com/monitors/asus-computex-2016-27-inch-4k-144hz-gaming-monitor/
#32
Best of luck powering something that will reliably play most games at 4k above 60fps. My dual titans can't manage it, although in a lot of cases it's the game at fault. You just need something incredibly strong to compensate for a sloppy port.
#33
StolenDiagram
Best of luck powering something that will reliably play most games at 4k above 60fps. My dual titans can't manage it, although in a lot of cases it's the game at fault. You just need something incredibly strong to compensate for a sloppy port.

Not now maybe. but monitors are long lasting components. In 3-6 years time 4k performance will be pretty mainstream and this monitor will still be going strong, albeit limited to 60fps.
#34
hitman007
Good to know this. What games have you tried? Saw a GTX1070 today driving a 32" wide 1440, that was playing GTA V. Looked smooth to me. Think it was the acer z35. Is yours the acer z35?
Panda221
I bought the 2k 165hz version last week, love it. GTX 1070 doing it justice
the z35 is 35''. I own one :) also its not 1440p its 2560 x 1080 144- 200hz G sync and ULMB (120hz) compatible VA panel


Edited By: yoyo59 on Aug 27, 2016 14:36
1 Like #35
Got this yesterday and super happy with it! Games are a little tricky to run at native res on a GTX 970 but still look amazing. Batman: AK runs between 25-35fps on max setting though, didn't expect that. Happy to run more demanding games at 1440p until the GTX 1180 comes out. I don't think that I can justify a Titan-X.

Photos are probably the most impressive thing, although backlight uniformity on grey isn't great it looks fine when an image is being displayed. Zero backlight bleed, but IPS glow is more of an issue on this monitor and size. Photoshops scaling is so annoying! It only has 100 or 200% and neither of them really work. All that said it is stunning for photography. 8mp is just about enough to see perfect detail from a 24mp beyer pattern sensor without needing to zoom in (since 24mp is only really 6mp with cheating, but kinda gives a bit more).

3D programs look great. I tried Maya and Max and damn they look good. Very responsive on the GTX 970. I haven't tried Unreal4 or Substance Painter yet, but can't wait!!

Is it worth the money? Yeah I'd say so but I would have paid a few hundred more for a more uniform backlight (for the content creation side).
#36
quadpatch
Got this yesterday and super happy with it! Games are a little tricky to run at native res on a GTX 970 but still look amazing. Batman: AK runs between 25-35fps on max setting though, didn't expect that. Happy to run more demanding games at 1440p until the GTX 1180 comes out. I don't think that I can justify a Titan-X.
Photos are probably the most impressive thing, although backlight uniformity on grey isn't great it looks fine when an image is being displayed. Zero backlight bleed, but IPS glow is more of an issue on this monitor and size. Photoshops scaling is so annoying! It only has 100 or 200% and neither of them really work. All that said it is stunning for photography. 8mp is just about enough to see perfect detail from a 24mp beyer pattern sensor without needing to zoom in (since 24mp is only really 6mp with cheating, but kinda gives a bit more).
3D programs look great. I tried Maya and Max and damn they look good. Very responsive on the GTX 970. I haven't tried Unreal4 or Substance Painter yet, but can't wait!!
Is it worth the money? Yeah I'd say so but I would have paid a few hundred more for a more uniform backlight (for the content creation side).

I'm on the edge with this monitor, not sure what to do, I feel like spending £700 on monitor may be alot when I can feel that new monitors will be coming soon, also IPS glow lottery kind of puts me off with ebuyer
#37
yoyo59
quadpatch
Got this yesterday and super happy with it! Games are a little tricky to run at native res on a GTX 970 but still look amazing. Batman: AK runs between 25-35fps on max setting though, didn't expect that. Happy to run more demanding games at 1440p until the GTX 1180 comes out. I don't think that I can justify a Titan-X.
Photos are probably the most impressive thing, although backlight uniformity on grey isn't great it looks fine when an image is being displayed. Zero backlight bleed, but IPS glow is more of an issue on this monitor and size. Photoshops scaling is so annoying! It only has 100 or 200% and neither of them really work. All that said it is stunning for photography. 8mp is just about enough to see perfect detail from a 24mp beyer pattern sensor without needing to zoom in (since 24mp is only really 6mp with cheating, but kinda gives a bit more).
3D programs look great. I tried Maya and Max and damn they look good. Very responsive on the GTX 970. I haven't tried Unreal4 or Substance Painter yet, but can't wait!!
Is it worth the money? Yeah I'd say so but I would have paid a few hundred more for a more uniform backlight (for the content creation side).

I'm on the edge with this monitor, not sure what to do, I feel like spending £700 on monitor may be alot when I can feel that new monitors will be coming soon, also IPS glow lottery kind of puts me off with ebuyer


I know what you mean about waiting for new models, but I just couldn't wait any more. I don't think IPS glow is random though, aren't you thinking of backlight bleed? either way I've heard people say sending stuff back to Ebuyer isn't great but I've never had to do it.
#38
IPS isa little overrated if you don't do colour-critical work, plus you get the IPS glow with so many monitors these days.
I have a Dell S2716DG, if you're mainly a gamer I would suggest something similar to this as it's a lower price point than anything IPS, whilst still maintaining good colours and decent viewing angles (aside from below, but I think all TN suffers from this).
Then again, I use f.lux to reduce eye fatigue so an accurate colour panel is largely irrelevant to me I suppose :(
#39
why is g sync worth money what does it do
#40
RedRain
why is g sync worth money what does it do

it makes your gaming experience smooth even if you can't maintain 60fps or higher also if you get any tearing it will eliminate it unlike v sync which creates input lag when enabled also v sync either locks to 30fps if you can't get 60fps

Post a Comment

You don't need an account to leave a comment. Just enter your email address. We'll keep it private.

...OR log in with your social account

...OR comment using your social account

Top of Page
Thanks for your comment! Keep it up!
We just need to have a quick look and it will be live soon.
The community is happy to hear your opinion! Keep contributing!