Acer EI491CRG9 49-inch MiniLED curved display G-SYNC 240Hz true 1ms HDR2000

#5905863

cucaulay malkin

2021-04-19 09:26

no wonder it's on pre-order in china,it's where all the cards are atm 😀 it's a beast of a monitor

#5905892

Solfaur

2021-04-19 12:43

I'd take one if it were only 21:9 and maybe slightly less curved (though I could live with the bigger curvature with those specs).

#5905941

D1stRU3T0R

2021-04-19 16:13

What is TRUE 1ms? How is that compared to my 240Hz 0.5ms AOC for example?

#5905947

NCC1701D

2021-04-19 16:31

Anyone have a 49" monitor that can comment on the experience? I feel like my 34" UW is a pretty good size. Do you have to physically turn your head to see the whole thing? How is the game support for 32:9?

#5905957

cucaulay malkin

2021-04-19 17:08

well I have two 2560x1440 ones side by side,and watchdogs 2 lets you run borderless multimonitor. it's really nice.you're gonna see pretty much everything,I mean your fov will cover that easily.you can't focus on that much space,but it is nice and you will be able to see that on a curved display without spraining your neck.

#5905982

Agent-A01

2021-04-19 19:04

D1stRU3T0R:

What is TRUE 1ms? How is that compared to my 240Hz 0.5ms AOC for example?

It's mostly marketing and can't be a basis to ascertain if one is faster than another.

#5905989

GREGIX

2021-04-19 19:25

Still LG cx 48-65 is better, cheaper option...

#5905993

Ricepudding

2021-04-19 19:41

GREGIX:

Still LG cx 48-65 is better, cheaper option...

Disagree, those screens go to high, the nice thing about these is they are all still same height as a normal 1440p screen just much wider similar to two screens side by side. I got a 55 LG for tv/movies etc and although its great for that I think it would be to high you'd have to keep looking up and down. Still They are a ton cheaper in that regard. If LG did a 38-40inch That would be an easy win, I don't think at that point it would be too high and considering the price it would easily win out. (Minus possible burn in) 3

#5905994

Ricepudding

2021-04-19 19:42

D1stRU3T0R:

What is TRUE 1ms? How is that compared to my 240Hz 0.5ms AOC for example?

Changes are it can reach 1ms but have insane amounts of overshoot with pixels and some odd ghosting. It's all marketing numbers. I'd expect around 4-8ms with it being a VA panel give or take some

#5906031

vazup

2021-04-19 22:08

GREGIX:

Still LG cx 48-65 is better, cheaper option...

Except its huge not many want a screen that big on their desk.

#5906046

Agonist

2021-04-19 22:48

NCC1701D:

Anyone have a 49" monitor that can comment on the experience? I feel like my 34" UW is a pretty good size. Do you have to physically turn your head to see the whole thing? How is the game support for 32:9?

I have a 49 inch. Zero regret. Had a 35 inch 21:9 before. I LOVE THIS monitor. You do not have to really look to see anything. I sit pretty pretty close though in a custom cockpit. And anyone who says any size 16:9 over this or 21:9 has an intelligence issue. Cant change my mind.

#5906063

Neo Cyrus

2021-04-20 00:17

3800 Euros? Who buys these things? You're so much better off buying a high end OLED TV that has a game mode. 4K is only 12.5% higher res than that derpy resolution, and with a ratio that actually matches human eyes instead of having half of it sit in your periphery. That and the fact that ANY OLED makes any of these monitors look like hot garbage.

#5906100

richto

2021-04-20 08:44

GREGIX:

Still LG cx 48-65 is better, cheaper option...

This has proper HDR. LG CX with 100% White at only circa 130 Nits can't get close. OLEDs might be cheaper but just like the best TVs you can buy are the Mini LED QLEDs you get what you pay for.

#5906130

asturur

2021-04-20 10:52

I have no idea how people can still fight over LCD vs OLED. It seems clear to me that a good OLED TV is superior to any LCD TV ( of any kind ) for movies and color accuracy, and that monitors are superior in gaming, especially those one. Cheaper or not cheaper is not on the equation, because that means, that is best for you compared to what you decided is a sane amount of money to spend on one of your many hobbies. Certified or not, this monitor is probably superior in gaming than any generic tv

#5906137

alanm

2021-04-20 11:10

Agonist:

I have a 49 inch. Zero regret. Had a 35 inch 21:9 before. I LOVE THIS monitor. You do not have to really look to see anything. I sit pretty pretty close though in a custom cockpit. And anyone who says any size 16:9 over this or 21:9 has an intelligence issue. Cant change my mind.

You have a 49" @ 1080p. Same vertical height as a tiny 24" mainstream. Not comparable to this one. 🙄

#5906182

Agonist

2021-04-20 13:34

alanm:

You have a 49" @ 1080p. Same vertical height as a tiny 24" mainstream. Not comparable to this one. 🙄

Another genius who thinks resolution is tied on vertical to fov. Just stop. I see exactly the same as somebody with a 1440p super wide. You don't have any more vertical desktop space nothing. And I know this because I've had my side by side with my friends 1440p Super wide. I know exactly what the hell I have in my Monitor and what I'm talking about when it comes to them. I love when people think 8 tall monitor means you actually seem more. Only in a 16:10 or 32:10 do you see more vertical. You don't see anymore in a 40 inch 4K gaming monitor than I do gaming on my 1080p Super wide. Most games are not vert+ fov anyways.

#5906185

Agonist

2021-04-20 13:36

Neo Cyrus:

3800 Euros? Who buys these things? You're so much better off buying a high end OLED TV that has a game mode. 4K is only 12.5% higher res than that derpy resolution, and with a ratio that actually matches human eyes instead of having half of it sit in your periphery. That and the fact that ANY OLED makes any of these monitors look like hot garbage.

16:9 blows. I'd rather game on a 25 inch 21:9 1080p instead of the best 16:9 OLED 4k.

#5906204

theoneofgod

2021-04-20 15:04

Agonist:

16:9 blows. I'd rather game on a 25 inch 21:9 1080p instead of the best 16:9 OLED 4k.

Funniest thing ive read all year

#5906214

alanm

2021-04-20 15:22

theoneofgod:

Funniest thing ive read all year

I missed that. Jeezus... 😛

#5906216

metagamer

2021-04-20 15:26

NCC1701D:

Anyone have a 49" monitor that can comment on the experience? I feel like my 34" UW is a pretty good size. Do you have to physically turn your head to see the whole thing? How is the game support for 32:9?

I have the G9. I came from dual 27" monitors so I knew what to expect size wise. Normal windows tasks, it's pretty much the same experience, with a few quirks. Gaming, it feels pretty natural. I wish it was 32:10 though, could do with a bit more vertical real estate.

hallgi:

Former Samsung Odyssey G9 owner here. If you try a 49" monitor once, you will see, how superior 32:9 ratio is to 16:9 or even ultrawide. Becuse you have gamespace also in your peripherial vision, it kinda sucks you into the space, its much much more immerse. Modern games support this ratio in hud elements also, so you don't have to turn your head constantly. On top of that the 1000R curvature is also a nice upgrade from 1800R. I've had the opportunity to try them both. I aggree, that OLED screen quality is far superior, but the super ultrawide ratio makes completely up for that in my opinion. If the reviews will be good, this monitor will be my next purchase without a doubt.

I'll have to agree. I have a 55" OLED TV and it's stunning. I was thinking about going with the 48" LG CX for my monitor but I went with the G9 instead. The 48" would be way too high for normal use, having to constantly look up. That being said, by the time I'm done with the G9 in a few years, I'll probably be going OLED for my main monitor, but they'll have to be smaller, 40" or so, that would work.