BenQ XR3501 35" UltraWide 144Hz Curved Gaming Monitor £399.96 @ Ebuyer
231°

BenQ XR3501 35" UltraWide 144Hz Curved Gaming Monitor £399.96 @ Ebuyer

£399.96Ebuyer Deals
16
Found 22nd Nov
Ultrawide 144Hz curved monitor currently £58 off via Ebuyer. Next cheapest I can see is Amazon for around £420

2000R Ultra Curve + 144Hz Refresh Rate21:9 Ultra wide & High ResolutionBlack eQualizer3 Exclusive Game ModesHDMI DisplayPort

resolution is 2560x1080, aka 1080p.
Top comments

Too much for a 1080p monitor imo
16 Comments

That stock image isn’t really selling it for me

Too much for a 1080p monitor imo

Indeed, was expecting 4k

Original Poster

chrisgrantham28 m ago

That stock image isn’t really selling it for me


Pretty bad stock image

thelagmonster16 m ago

Too much for a 1080p monitor imo


It;s 2560x1080 not 1920x1080.

2560x1080 monitors at a reasonable size start at ~£250, so an extra £150 for 144hz high contrast panel is pretty reasonable.

Original Poster

thelagmonster16 m ago

Too much for a 1080p monitor imo


I don’t think it is for the size and 144Hz.

EndlessWaves26 m ago

It;s 2560x1080 not 1920x1080.2560x1080 monitors at a reasonable size start …It;s 2560x1080 not 1920x1080.2560x1080 monitors at a reasonable size start at ~£250, so an extra £150 for 144hz high contrast panel is pretty reasonable.




We all know he was talking about vertical height, and that ultrawide is wider... pedantic lol.


1080p is going to look awful at that size I'm afraid, I'm on an Acer Predator X34a, which is 1440p 35" ultrawide, and that's just about enough - you need more vertical pixels. I'd only go for a ultrawide in 1080p res if you're looking at 29" or under.

add1ct3dd2 m ago

1080p is going to look awful at that size I'm afraid


That depends entirely on your viewing distance. It may look awful on your desk if you're sat 50-60cm away, but it would be perfect for mine where I'm sat 90-100cm away.

A 34/35" ultrawide is about the same height as a 27" 16:9 screen. I recently upgraded mine to the Dell 34" UW and it was pretty much identical in size to the 27" BenQ I had before, just a lot wider. I personally think 1440p is the right resolution for these sizes, but I tolerated 1080p on a 24" monitor for many years so it's just what you are used to really.

chrisgrantham2 h, 6 m ago

That stock image isn’t really selling it for me


tbh it's a pretty good representation of how gaming looks on an ultrawide monitor.

Lots of weirdly distorted picture at both sides. Totally pointless.

johnthehuman22 m ago

tbh it's a pretty good representation of how gaming looks on an ultrawide …tbh it's a pretty good representation of how gaming looks on an ultrawide monitor.Lots of weirdly distorted picture at both sides. Totally pointless.




I was slightly worried about that when I got mine a few weeks ago, but in all honesty everything I've played so far has been more immersive, and in a lot of cases helps - PUBG for example isn't that distorted and does give a definite advantage if you can make use of it, CSGO & Wolfenstein also looked great without ruining them

I guess it's subjective, if you can use the sides peripherally it's probably ok. I've got a naturally wide fov so I can "see" the blurry stretched edges quite easily and it's off-putting.

Plus I'd be massively disappointed if I paid extra for a big monitor, and extra for a better GPU to push those frames, if the only 'extra' bits are stretchy off screen blur

EndlessWaves2 h, 4 m ago

That depends entirely on your viewing distance. It may look awful on your …That depends entirely on your viewing distance. It may look awful on your desk if you're sat 50-60cm away, but it would be perfect for mine where I'm sat 90-100cm away.


Being sat a metre away from a monitor is unusual, but even then, the pixel density on this monitor will be quite noticeable, especially compared to a standard 24" 1920x1080 monitor. Anyone upgrading from one of those to this may very well be disappointed in image quality.

Ultrawide or not, £400 for a monitor with a lower pixel density than those you can pickup for £100 or so just strikes me as poor value for money. Much better off going with either a 29" ultrawide at this resolution and saving some cash, or investing a bit more and going for a 35" ultrawide at 1440p.
Edited by: "thelagmonster" 22nd Nov

It is subjective. If you pixel peep this isn't for you. I have the 3200 version of this which is the same but normal aspect ratio and I love it. It makes running most games at 144hz achievable with a lower graphics card and perfectly fits my needs. I use a 1070gtx and feel like it's a great combo, even better if you run amd.

It's worth noting that I came to this monitor from an LG ultra wide 1440p IPS panel. But for me the high refresh outweighs pixels. This is completely subjective but not as simple as you may think for a gamer
Edited by: "steluca5" 22nd Nov

thelagmonster2 h, 57 m ago

Being sat a metre away from a monitor is unusual, but even then, the pixel …Being sat a metre away from a monitor is unusual, but even then, the pixel density on this monitor will be quite noticeable, especially compared to a standard 24" 1920x1080 monitor.


I use the desk for more than just a computer, and the obvious place for the monitor is at the back of it. My desk is probably bigger than average but it's not huge, maybe 1.5m by 0.9m excluding the pull-out keyboard tray. I bought it a couple of decades ago when large CRTs were common but the extra depth is so useful I'd buy the same size again today if it broke.

I use 1920x1200 24" monitor right now and the pixel density is just too high. I have to leave a good 20cm between the back of it's stand and the rear edge of it's desk to distinguish between small details such as a full stop and a comma. I wish I'd bought a 27" at the time.

I've never tried a monitor of this DPI, but I had briefly had a 32" 1920x1080 TV set up and while that is too coarse, it's not too coarse by much.
thelagmonster2 h, 57 m ago

Ultrawide or not, £400 for a monitor with a lower pixel density than those …Ultrawide or not, £400 for a monitor with a lower pixel density than those you can pickup for £100 or so just strikes me as poor value for money. Much better off going with either a 29" ultrawide at this resolution and saving some cash, or investing a bit more and going for a 35" ultrawide at 1440p.



That's an absurd comparison. It's always been resolution and size that has determined cost, not pixel density.

A 29" 2560x1080 screen is the same 96dpi as my current monitor and just wouldn't be ideal for me, and a 34" 3440x1440 is even worse.

I'd go for a 34" 5120x2160 and use 2x scaling to get the same sizing as 2560x1080, but the panel manufacturers haven't started producing them yet.


If these screens don't work for you that's fine, I just get tired of people commenting that they're rubbish because of that.

johnthehuman22nd Nov

I guess it's subjective, if you can use the sides peripherally it's …I guess it's subjective, if you can use the sides peripherally it's probably ok. I've got a naturally wide fov so I can "see" the blurry stretched edges quite easily and it's off-putting. Plus I'd be massively disappointed if I paid extra for a big monitor, and extra for a better GPU to push those frames, if the only 'extra' bits are stretchy off screen blur

Don't know what games or monitors you have used but the extra horizontal pixels are exactly the same quality as the rest. This hints that you probably haven't used or owned one. They are not stretched nor blurry. I wouldn't return to a standard wide-screen after going to a 1440p ultra wide-screen. Destiny 2, Doom, Prey, RB6 Seige etc all look fantastic and provide extra immersion.
Post a comment
Avatar
@
    Text