AW2310 vs GD245HQ (GD235HQ)
  3 / 5    
[quote name='rkuo' post='998268' date='Feb 9 2010, 11:44 AM']Ah yes, I was referring to the double images. Stereo extinction is the correct term. It's still quite present on the Alienware ... I'm looking for info on the Acer monitor when it comes.[/quote]
While it is still present I find that when I am gaming I don’t notice it. Not in the sense that it’s hard to see, but in the sense that when I am playing I am so drawn in and focused on everything going on in the important parts of the screen that I don’t notice it.

I read up a bit on the issue when I first ordered my monitor and it seemed to be believed that the problem occurs because the glasses aren’t perfectly synced with the monitors refresh. More specifically the monitor refreshes from top to bottom instead of all at once and the part on the top where you see the doubling of the image are parts where it was out of sync with the glasses.

I initially wondered why the problem seemed not to be present on videos like the Nuremburg 24H but then I realized it was letterboxed and thus the top area of the screen where this occurs wasn’t displaying anything. DOH!

I have found that if the monitor has on and working for a while the doubling occurs over and even smaller amount of space across the top as well. Other people also claim that with adjustments to contrast and brightness they make it even less noticeable.

Overall I have concluded that, bottom line, affordable TN LCD technology comes with this problem. I Read some statements that indicate it isn’t present on DLP, although I didn’t chase that dog to find out more as I had just dropped $700 on the AW2310 and Glasses so the thought of buying another display was nil. I didn’t feel slighted by nVidia or Alienware however as I read about this problem and was aware it was present on the AW2310 before I purchased it. I was just chasing the 120hz refresh rate at full 1080 more than I was 3d. I got the 3d stuff just because I figured why not it might be cool, and I am happy I did. … Maybe won’t be so happy if my copy of Bioshock 2 arrives BEFORE the promised patch to fix 3d vision, but I will just finish RE5 and BatmanAA.
[quote name='rkuo' post='998268' date='Feb 9 2010, 11:44 AM']Ah yes, I was referring to the double images. Stereo extinction is the correct term. It's still quite present on the Alienware ... I'm looking for info on the Acer monitor when it comes.

While it is still present I find that when I am gaming I don’t notice it. Not in the sense that it’s hard to see, but in the sense that when I am playing I am so drawn in and focused on everything going on in the important parts of the screen that I don’t notice it.



I read up a bit on the issue when I first ordered my monitor and it seemed to be believed that the problem occurs because the glasses aren’t perfectly synced with the monitors refresh. More specifically the monitor refreshes from top to bottom instead of all at once and the part on the top where you see the doubling of the image are parts where it was out of sync with the glasses.



I initially wondered why the problem seemed not to be present on videos like the Nuremburg 24H but then I realized it was letterboxed and thus the top area of the screen where this occurs wasn’t displaying anything. DOH!



I have found that if the monitor has on and working for a while the doubling occurs over and even smaller amount of space across the top as well. Other people also claim that with adjustments to contrast and brightness they make it even less noticeable.



Overall I have concluded that, bottom line, affordable TN LCD technology comes with this problem. I Read some statements that indicate it isn’t present on DLP, although I didn’t chase that dog to find out more as I had just dropped $700 on the AW2310 and Glasses so the thought of buying another display was nil. I didn’t feel slighted by nVidia or Alienware however as I read about this problem and was aware it was present on the AW2310 before I purchased it. I was just chasing the 120hz refresh rate at full 1080 more than I was 3d. I got the 3d stuff just because I figured why not it might be cool, and I am happy I did. … Maybe won’t be so happy if my copy of Bioshock 2 arrives BEFORE the promised patch to fix 3d vision, but I will just finish RE5 and BatmanAA.

#31
Posted 02/09/2010 07:17 PM   
[quote name='3Dalltheway' post='998271' date='Feb 9 2010, 12:51 PM']I will prolly have my mind made up after 'gekko3558' gets his Acer next to the AW (Thnx alot for your posts, they are helping alot).[/quote]

Not a problem man! I appreciate the thanks. I am actually still shocked that I bought both... I am hoping the loose return policies will allow me to return one of them! If not one will be on ebay by this weekend! :-P


***edit***
Also, I am beginning to take screen shots of the AW in 3d, will post comparison screens tomorrow evening
[quote name='3Dalltheway' post='998271' date='Feb 9 2010, 12:51 PM']I will prolly have my mind made up after 'gekko3558' gets his Acer next to the AW (Thnx alot for your posts, they are helping alot).



Not a problem man! I appreciate the thanks. I am actually still shocked that I bought both... I am hoping the loose return policies will allow me to return one of them! If not one will be on ebay by this weekend! :-P





***edit***

Also, I am beginning to take screen shots of the AW in 3d, will post comparison screens tomorrow evening

#32
Posted 02/10/2010 02:59 AM   
Im going to get the Acer on Thursday, I'll give my 2 cents with the samsung 2233rz as a comparison.

I see alot of the "ghosting" and "double images" which is my main reason for upgrading.
Im going to get the Acer on Thursday, I'll give my 2 cents with the samsung 2233rz as a comparison.



I see alot of the "ghosting" and "double images" which is my main reason for upgrading.

#33
Posted 02/10/2010 06:34 AM   
[quote name='MistaP' post='998317' date='Feb 9 2010, 11:17 AM']While it is still present I find that when I am gaming I don’t notice it. Not in the sense that it’s hard to see, but in the sense that when I am playing I am so drawn in and focused on everything going on in the important parts of the screen that I don’t notice it.

I read up a bit on the issue when I first ordered my monitor and it seemed to be believed that the problem occurs because the glasses aren’t perfectly synced with the monitors refresh. More specifically the monitor refreshes from top to bottom instead of all at once and the part on the top where you see the doubling of the image are parts where it was out of sync with the glasses.

I initially wondered why the problem seemed not to be present on videos like the Nuremburg 24H but then I realized it was letterboxed and thus the top area of the screen where this occurs wasn’t displaying anything. DOH!

I have found that if the monitor has on and working for a while the doubling occurs over and even smaller amount of space across the top as well. Other people also claim that with adjustments to contrast and brightness they make it even less noticeable.

Overall I have concluded that, bottom line, affordable TN LCD technology comes with this problem. I Read some statements that indicate it isn’t present on DLP, although I didn’t chase that dog to find out more as I had just dropped $700 on the AW2310 and Glasses so the thought of buying another display was nil. I didn’t feel slighted by nVidia or Alienware however as I read about this problem and was aware it was present on the AW2310 before I purchased it. I was just chasing the 120hz refresh rate at full 1080 more than I was 3d. I got the 3d stuff just because I figured why not it might be cool, and I am happy I did. … Maybe won’t be so happy if my copy of Bioshock 2 arrives BEFORE the promised patch to fix 3d vision, but I will just finish RE5 and BatmanAA.[/quote]
Depends entirely on the game. It's very noticeable in varying situations. And all that top/bottom stuff you read was probably me posting about it in every thread correcting people, including the 600 fps video as final proof. Video content is generally not as high contrast or saturated as games are, so you would be less likely to see stereo extinction issues in the nurburgring video.
[quote name='MistaP' post='998317' date='Feb 9 2010, 11:17 AM']While it is still present I find that when I am gaming I don’t notice it. Not in the sense that it’s hard to see, but in the sense that when I am playing I am so drawn in and focused on everything going on in the important parts of the screen that I don’t notice it.



I read up a bit on the issue when I first ordered my monitor and it seemed to be believed that the problem occurs because the glasses aren’t perfectly synced with the monitors refresh. More specifically the monitor refreshes from top to bottom instead of all at once and the part on the top where you see the doubling of the image are parts where it was out of sync with the glasses.



I initially wondered why the problem seemed not to be present on videos like the Nuremburg 24H but then I realized it was letterboxed and thus the top area of the screen where this occurs wasn’t displaying anything. DOH!



I have found that if the monitor has on and working for a while the doubling occurs over and even smaller amount of space across the top as well. Other people also claim that with adjustments to contrast and brightness they make it even less noticeable.



Overall I have concluded that, bottom line, affordable TN LCD technology comes with this problem. I Read some statements that indicate it isn’t present on DLP, although I didn’t chase that dog to find out more as I had just dropped $700 on the AW2310 and Glasses so the thought of buying another display was nil. I didn’t feel slighted by nVidia or Alienware however as I read about this problem and was aware it was present on the AW2310 before I purchased it. I was just chasing the 120hz refresh rate at full 1080 more than I was 3d. I got the 3d stuff just because I figured why not it might be cool, and I am happy I did. … Maybe won’t be so happy if my copy of Bioshock 2 arrives BEFORE the promised patch to fix 3d vision, but I will just finish RE5 and BatmanAA.

Depends entirely on the game. It's very noticeable in varying situations. And all that top/bottom stuff you read was probably me posting about it in every thread correcting people, including the 600 fps video as final proof. Video content is generally not as high contrast or saturated as games are, so you would be less likely to see stereo extinction issues in the nurburgring video.

#34
Posted 02/10/2010 10:21 AM   
[quote name='btdvox' post='998637' date='Feb 10 2010, 07:34 AM']Im going to get the Acer on Thursday, I'll give my 2 cents with the samsung 2233rz as a comparison.

I see alot of the "ghosting" and "double images" which is my main reason for upgrading.[/quote]
Im waiting for your review.
please be ruthless.
[quote name='btdvox' post='998637' date='Feb 10 2010, 07:34 AM']Im going to get the Acer on Thursday, I'll give my 2 cents with the samsung 2233rz as a comparison.



I see alot of the "ghosting" and "double images" which is my main reason for upgrading.

Im waiting for your review.

please be ruthless.

#35
Posted 02/10/2010 11:07 AM   
[quote name='rkuo' post='998712' date='Feb 10 2010, 04:21 AM']Depends entirely on the game. It's very noticeable in varying situations. And all that top/bottom stuff you read was probably me posting about it in every thread correcting people, including the 600 fps video as final proof. Video content is generally not as high contrast or saturated as games are, so you would be less likely to see stereo extinction issues in the nurburgring video.[/quote]

Mirror's Edge is the only game thus far that I have tried where you see ghosting across the whole screen and will notice it no matter what. Literally the only one, granted I havn't tried a whole whole lot of them, but other games where there was ghosting due to contrast, not the top and bottom, the ghosting was so minimal I had to go looking for it.

Honestly though, just thinking about the glasses how they work and the game Mirror's Edge ... it makes sense why it ghosts so bad. It wasn't designed for S3D and I am not talking about ingame support to fix the shadow issues and whatnot ... I mean the artistic stylings. The buildings are all so bright white you should expect that those BRIGHT white buildings are going to be able to put light through the wrong lenses.

I honestly don't feel that this is an appropriate test to use to try and convey to people the ghosting issues they will encounter in most games. The game is, how should I say, all artsy fartsy lol and not representative of the common game in terms of how everything looks. If this was considered a good and widely used "stress test" for 3d vision ... noone would use the technology.
[quote name='rkuo' post='998712' date='Feb 10 2010, 04:21 AM']Depends entirely on the game. It's very noticeable in varying situations. And all that top/bottom stuff you read was probably me posting about it in every thread correcting people, including the 600 fps video as final proof. Video content is generally not as high contrast or saturated as games are, so you would be less likely to see stereo extinction issues in the nurburgring video.



Mirror's Edge is the only game thus far that I have tried where you see ghosting across the whole screen and will notice it no matter what. Literally the only one, granted I havn't tried a whole whole lot of them, but other games where there was ghosting due to contrast, not the top and bottom, the ghosting was so minimal I had to go looking for it.



Honestly though, just thinking about the glasses how they work and the game Mirror's Edge ... it makes sense why it ghosts so bad. It wasn't designed for S3D and I am not talking about ingame support to fix the shadow issues and whatnot ... I mean the artistic stylings. The buildings are all so bright white you should expect that those BRIGHT white buildings are going to be able to put light through the wrong lenses.



I honestly don't feel that this is an appropriate test to use to try and convey to people the ghosting issues they will encounter in most games. The game is, how should I say, all artsy fartsy lol and not representative of the common game in terms of how everything looks. If this was considered a good and widely used "stress test" for 3d vision ... noone would use the technology.

#36
Posted 02/10/2010 06:01 PM   
[quote name='MistaP' post='998884' date='Feb 10 2010, 10:01 AM']Mirror's Edge is the only game thus far that I have tried where you see ghosting across the whole screen and will notice it no matter what. Literally the only one, granted I havn't tried a whole whole lot of them, but other games where there was ghosting due to contrast, not the top and bottom, the ghosting was so minimal I had to go looking for it.

Honestly though, just thinking about the glasses how they work and the game Mirror's Edge ... it makes sense why it ghosts so bad. It wasn't designed for S3D and I am not talking about ingame support to fix the shadow issues and whatnot ... I mean the artistic stylings. The buildings are all so bright white you should expect that those BRIGHT white buildings are going to be able to put light through the wrong lenses.

I honestly don't feel that this is an appropriate test to use to try and convey to people the ghosting issues they will encounter in most games. The game is, how should I say, all artsy fartsy lol and not representative of the common game in terms of how everything looks. If this was considered a good and widely used "stress test" for 3d vision ... noone would use the technology.[/quote]
I acknowledge it's a worst case game, but that's the point of using it as a stress test. I'm not sure what your objection is to that. It's a *stress test*, not an easy scene for 3d tech to handle. You test these monitors in the worst case so that you can see the limits. That's true of every product that gets tested and why people run their benchmarks against Crysis 2 and not Quake 3.

I assure you severe ghosting can be seen in other scenes in games that are representative of what is seen in Mirror's Edge ... batman's black cowl against a white moon, white flares/lights/neon signs shining out of a dark background, buildings against a blue sky.

Stress tests are a perfectly valid way of understand the tech. And BTW, DLP projectors and TV's have practically imperceptible ghosting. There's a much higher bar for this technology than I think you are aware of and LCD is just getting there.
[quote name='MistaP' post='998884' date='Feb 10 2010, 10:01 AM']Mirror's Edge is the only game thus far that I have tried where you see ghosting across the whole screen and will notice it no matter what. Literally the only one, granted I havn't tried a whole whole lot of them, but other games where there was ghosting due to contrast, not the top and bottom, the ghosting was so minimal I had to go looking for it.



Honestly though, just thinking about the glasses how they work and the game Mirror's Edge ... it makes sense why it ghosts so bad. It wasn't designed for S3D and I am not talking about ingame support to fix the shadow issues and whatnot ... I mean the artistic stylings. The buildings are all so bright white you should expect that those BRIGHT white buildings are going to be able to put light through the wrong lenses.



I honestly don't feel that this is an appropriate test to use to try and convey to people the ghosting issues they will encounter in most games. The game is, how should I say, all artsy fartsy lol and not representative of the common game in terms of how everything looks. If this was considered a good and widely used "stress test" for 3d vision ... noone would use the technology.

I acknowledge it's a worst case game, but that's the point of using it as a stress test. I'm not sure what your objection is to that. It's a *stress test*, not an easy scene for 3d tech to handle. You test these monitors in the worst case so that you can see the limits. That's true of every product that gets tested and why people run their benchmarks against Crysis 2 and not Quake 3.



I assure you severe ghosting can be seen in other scenes in games that are representative of what is seen in Mirror's Edge ... batman's black cowl against a white moon, white flares/lights/neon signs shining out of a dark background, buildings against a blue sky.



Stress tests are a perfectly valid way of understand the tech. And BTW, DLP projectors and TV's have practically imperceptible ghosting. There's a much higher bar for this technology than I think you are aware of and LCD is just getting there.

#37
Posted 02/10/2010 07:44 PM   
[quote name='rkuo' post='998949' date='Feb 10 2010, 01:44 PM']I acknowledge it's a worst case game, but that's the point of using it as a stress test. I'm not sure what your objection is to that. It's a *stress test*, not an easy scene for 3d tech to handle. You test these monitors in the worst case so that you can see the limits. That's true of every product that gets tested and why people run their benchmarks against Crysis 2 and not Quake 3.

I assure you severe ghosting can be seen in other scenes in games that are representative of what is seen in Mirror's Edge ... batman's black cowl against a white moon, white flares/lights/neon signs shining out of a dark background, buildings against a blue sky.

Stress tests are a perfectly valid way of understand the tech. And BTW, DLP projectors and TV's have practically imperceptible ghosting. There's a much higher bar for this technology than I think you are aware of and LCD is just getting there.[/quote]
Well, I wouldn’t compare this kind of test to a benchmark. There is a difference between seeing how fast something runs when running perfectly and using that to measure system performance under proper operation when compared to trying to find situations in which something runs improperly. A game generating low or high fps doesn’t really mean anything is operating incorrectly, where as I would and do consider the ghosting, while I claim my experience with it is still very acceptable, to be improper operation. An anomaly if you will.

What I was really trying to get at is that using Mirrors Edge as a “stress test” could be very misleading to someone completely unfamiliar with the technology. It could mislead someone on the outside looking in to think, “Gah! I will have to try and look through all those double imaging and whatnot to play in 3D? I certainly will not invest in this.”

I think it would be better to try and convey what the average experience will be. Obviously nVidia is going to push games like BAA and RE5 as examples of the experience you will have when in reality they are on the high end of the spectrum, if you will.

What you were saying earlier is that if someone isn’t experiencing ghosting they aren’t “pushing” the technology hard enough … so in effect your saying we need to go look for the problems and then using the worst possible game as an example. For someone just reading the threads trying to learn more before they buy it could likely convey the wrong message, such as they may believe you meant we aren’t using the technology properly or the like; which I know is not in any way your intent. I maybe took it a bit to far as I tend to start typing responses in thread and I will ramble on and on and on and I guess it takes the tone of a rant. Sorry about that.

And yes I do understand DLP is the closest to perfect at the moment, but I wouldn’t want DLP as a primary display and can’t afford to drop serious coin on a secondary display (would if I could and I am not judging anyone who can, I am jealous XD).
[quote name='rkuo' post='998949' date='Feb 10 2010, 01:44 PM']I acknowledge it's a worst case game, but that's the point of using it as a stress test. I'm not sure what your objection is to that. It's a *stress test*, not an easy scene for 3d tech to handle. You test these monitors in the worst case so that you can see the limits. That's true of every product that gets tested and why people run their benchmarks against Crysis 2 and not Quake 3.



I assure you severe ghosting can be seen in other scenes in games that are representative of what is seen in Mirror's Edge ... batman's black cowl against a white moon, white flares/lights/neon signs shining out of a dark background, buildings against a blue sky.



Stress tests are a perfectly valid way of understand the tech. And BTW, DLP projectors and TV's have practically imperceptible ghosting. There's a much higher bar for this technology than I think you are aware of and LCD is just getting there.

Well, I wouldn’t compare this kind of test to a benchmark. There is a difference between seeing how fast something runs when running perfectly and using that to measure system performance under proper operation when compared to trying to find situations in which something runs improperly. A game generating low or high fps doesn’t really mean anything is operating incorrectly, where as I would and do consider the ghosting, while I claim my experience with it is still very acceptable, to be improper operation. An anomaly if you will.



What I was really trying to get at is that using Mirrors Edge as a “stress test” could be very misleading to someone completely unfamiliar with the technology. It could mislead someone on the outside looking in to think, “Gah! I will have to try and look through all those double imaging and whatnot to play in 3D? I certainly will not invest in this.”



I think it would be better to try and convey what the average experience will be. Obviously nVidia is going to push games like BAA and RE5 as examples of the experience you will have when in reality they are on the high end of the spectrum, if you will.



What you were saying earlier is that if someone isn’t experiencing ghosting they aren’t “pushing” the technology hard enough … so in effect your saying we need to go look for the problems and then using the worst possible game as an example. For someone just reading the threads trying to learn more before they buy it could likely convey the wrong message, such as they may believe you meant we aren’t using the technology properly or the like; which I know is not in any way your intent. I maybe took it a bit to far as I tend to start typing responses in thread and I will ramble on and on and on and I guess it takes the tone of a rant. Sorry about that.



And yes I do understand DLP is the closest to perfect at the moment, but I wouldn’t want DLP as a primary display and can’t afford to drop serious coin on a secondary display (would if I could and I am not judging anyone who can, I am jealous XD).

#38
Posted 02/10/2010 08:00 PM   
GD245HQ review [url="http://3dvision-blog.com/acer-aspire-gd245hq-120hz-3d-vision-ready-monitor-review/"]here[/url].
GD245HQ review here.

3D Vision must live! NVIDIA, don't let us down!

#39
Posted 02/10/2010 08:12 PM   
Guys! It is here...

I have unboxed it and it is side by side with my AW...

I have not powered it on as I am stepping out the door to get some exercise in (lame.... i know...)

Initial impressions:

The extra screen size is noticeable and looks good. The orange accents are a very nice touch.

The stand is flimsy feeling and not all feet (or little rubber pads on the bottom) touch the desk at once... and like my other Acer, it wobbles at the slightest shake.

The lack of height adjustment is already seemingly unbearable as my AW is as tall as it can get. :-(

Acer looks cool but AW definitely wins with the actually constructions... hands down.



I will be back in a few hours with comparison screen shots and my review!

-the one and only gekko
Guys! It is here...



I have unboxed it and it is side by side with my AW...



I have not powered it on as I am stepping out the door to get some exercise in (lame.... i know...)



Initial impressions:



The extra screen size is noticeable and looks good. The orange accents are a very nice touch.



The stand is flimsy feeling and not all feet (or little rubber pads on the bottom) touch the desk at once... and like my other Acer, it wobbles at the slightest shake.



The lack of height adjustment is already seemingly unbearable as my AW is as tall as it can get. :-(



Acer looks cool but AW definitely wins with the actually constructions... hands down.







I will be back in a few hours with comparison screen shots and my review!



-the one and only gekko

#40
Posted 02/10/2010 11:46 PM   
GENTLEMEN...


This is one TOUGH call...

I will break the review down by 3 main categories... 2d, 3d, hardware

key note: please dont think im being biased, my previous acer experience has been phenomenal and my previous alienware experience has been terrible.



[b][u]2D GRAPHICS:[/u][/b]

Right on boot I knew the AW was a clear winner with the color and brightness. The ACER looked washed out and just, well obviously so, not as bright. Unlike previous AW reviews, my AW monitor came bright and vibrant with accurate colors without any changes. The Acer was vibrant, but not bright, and has some weird (barely noticeable) fading issues when drastic screen changes happened (could be because it was not "warmed up").

Another odd issue is some of the test seems to be out of focus. The same way it looks on HDTVs sometimes... kind of crispy or too sharp really. This just kind of lets me know that they focused a little too much on 3d perfection than all around gaming monitor.

[u]Gaming in 2d:[/u]

Both look nearly identical. Again I will go back to the brightness. The AW definitely wins here, but in reality, it was not that noticable in 2d... this brings us to color. The Acer preset "Graphics" looked more vibrant than the AW preset "Game". However, the AW's standard preset was ALMOST just as vibrant as the Acer.

Winner: AW

[b][u]3D GRAPHICS[/u][/b]:

Here is what we have all been waiting for...

[u]D-D-D-D-D-D-DOUBLE IMAGING!!!!![/u]

This is where it gets tricky... I do not retract my previous comments about how I barely noticed the double imagine on my AW, because I only looked mid game while I was in the midst of a gaming session. However, upon close examination, the AW had most double imaging that I had seen previously (since it was solely the thing I was looking for). It is still not noticeable to me mid-game, but stopping and looking you can see it. Far Cry 2 has it noticeable on the player's arms.

The Acer... It has less double imaging!!! (*applause*) The double imaging is less noticeable... but not by much. Do not get too excited because it is definitely there and if you are a total perfectionist as a lot of 3d people seem to be, you will undoubtedly be bothered by either the AW or the Acer. Here is when we really get dirty...

The AW has slightly more double imagine... THIS IS HANDS DOWN BECAUSE OF THE BRIGHTER DISPLAY. This now becomes a preference for the gamer... due to the brightness issue and the inherent darkness associated with the technology, the Acer has a tough time displaying the 3d images nearly as vibrant as the AW. I am not saying it is bad, but it is noticebale. On the other hand, the AW has a much better looking 3d image, but slightly more double imagine.

[u]Color[/u]

As mentioned above, neither are bad, but the AW is better.


WINNER: My personal vote is the AW (sorry Acer!!!) because I really feel like the double imaging is only noticeable is you stop and look for it, and the overall 3d picture is brighter and does a good job countering the darkness behind the 3d tech.

[b][u]HARDWARE[/u][/b]

This is probably the biggest let down for me. I came from a 22" Acer that I loved... I thought it was well built! Then I got the AW.

If I had to guess, the AW probably cost Dell over $100 more to make per unit. It is PREMIUM GRADE built and feels incredible. The stand (it is metal!) lies completely flat on the desk and makes the base feel immobile. Not only this but you have the ability to raise the screen by a good 3-4" and swivel it left and right. Add the USB ports and it gets better!! Finally, the buttons are all touch sensitive and effing light up when you go to press them.. top that off with a VERY easy menu and you have an easy 10/10 build.

The acer looks cool... it has a 0.6 bigger screen. But in my honest opinion the stand is total crap. Since I have had the AW with up/down and swivel action, I see no reason at all why a $400 monitor refuses to include these. The stand feels like cheap plastic and the entire monitor wobbles if I nudge my desk. I am very dissapointed at Acer for really blowing this part of the monitor... in reality it is nearly identical to Acer's previous monitors, but after using a pro grade monitor its a huge let down. Even the little tiny rubber "feet" on the bottom of the stand dont all rest on my desk at the same time.

[u]Appearance[/u]
the orange is cool.... but in the sense that fast and furious cars look cool... the AW is like an all black BMW M5 that doesnt look like shiny panted plastic.

Winner: AW HANDS DOWN...

[u][b]CONCLUSION[/b][/u]

I wanted the Acer to win hands down, I really did. But the overall monitor quality is better on the AW. While some people would see the 3d tech on the Acer as "better" (not in my opinion), I would rather have monitor that can do everything exceptionally, including more vibrant and brighter 3d.

thanks for being patient guys and I hope this helped!

NOTE: I took tons of 3d screenshots.... then realized that they are rendered on the fly and only look as good as the 3d monitor you own so they are totally pointless :-/... sorries

-the one and only gekko

P.S. PLEASE message me or ask specific questions as I am keeping them both for a few more days since I am leaving down this weekend.. I will test just ab anything you would like on either one and give results to help you guys out as a fellow 3d enthusiast.


*NEW UPDATE

I have tested them both SIDE BY SIDE in left4dead2 and the clear visual winner is the AW. It is brighter, more clear, more colorful. The slightly extra double imagine aside, this guy is better. Also I compared the text problem mentioned in the 2d graphics above side by side. The Acer almost looks broken. The pixels simply do not blend together at all like the AW do (its actually worse than my old Acer). I will be returning/doing something with this Acer asap and sticking with the AW.

While I have them both ask away! I will be answering questions all weekend but any tests you guys need done will have to wait until this Sunday.

I FIRMLY STAND BY MY DECISION THAT THE ALIENWARE 3D GAMING MONITOR IS THE WINNER IN ALL 3 CATEGORIES (TWO OBVIOUS, ONE A PREFERENCE (that i strongly suggest everyone heeds))*
GENTLEMEN...





This is one TOUGH call...



I will break the review down by 3 main categories... 2d, 3d, hardware



key note: please dont think im being biased, my previous acer experience has been phenomenal and my previous alienware experience has been terrible.







2D GRAPHICS:



Right on boot I knew the AW was a clear winner with the color and brightness. The ACER looked washed out and just, well obviously so, not as bright. Unlike previous AW reviews, my AW monitor came bright and vibrant with accurate colors without any changes. The Acer was vibrant, but not bright, and has some weird (barely noticeable) fading issues when drastic screen changes happened (could be because it was not "warmed up").



Another odd issue is some of the test seems to be out of focus. The same way it looks on HDTVs sometimes... kind of crispy or too sharp really. This just kind of lets me know that they focused a little too much on 3d perfection than all around gaming monitor.



Gaming in 2d:



Both look nearly identical. Again I will go back to the brightness. The AW definitely wins here, but in reality, it was not that noticable in 2d... this brings us to color. The Acer preset "Graphics" looked more vibrant than the AW preset "Game". However, the AW's standard preset was ALMOST just as vibrant as the Acer.



Winner: AW



3D GRAPHICS:



Here is what we have all been waiting for...



D-D-D-D-D-D-DOUBLE IMAGING!!!!!



This is where it gets tricky... I do not retract my previous comments about how I barely noticed the double imagine on my AW, because I only looked mid game while I was in the midst of a gaming session. However, upon close examination, the AW had most double imaging that I had seen previously (since it was solely the thing I was looking for). It is still not noticeable to me mid-game, but stopping and looking you can see it. Far Cry 2 has it noticeable on the player's arms.



The Acer... It has less double imaging!!! (*applause*) The double imaging is less noticeable... but not by much. Do not get too excited because it is definitely there and if you are a total perfectionist as a lot of 3d people seem to be, you will undoubtedly be bothered by either the AW or the Acer. Here is when we really get dirty...



The AW has slightly more double imagine... THIS IS HANDS DOWN BECAUSE OF THE BRIGHTER DISPLAY. This now becomes a preference for the gamer... due to the brightness issue and the inherent darkness associated with the technology, the Acer has a tough time displaying the 3d images nearly as vibrant as the AW. I am not saying it is bad, but it is noticebale. On the other hand, the AW has a much better looking 3d image, but slightly more double imagine.



Color



As mentioned above, neither are bad, but the AW is better.





WINNER: My personal vote is the AW (sorry Acer!!!) because I really feel like the double imaging is only noticeable is you stop and look for it, and the overall 3d picture is brighter and does a good job countering the darkness behind the 3d tech.



HARDWARE



This is probably the biggest let down for me. I came from a 22" Acer that I loved... I thought it was well built! Then I got the AW.



If I had to guess, the AW probably cost Dell over $100 more to make per unit. It is PREMIUM GRADE built and feels incredible. The stand (it is metal!) lies completely flat on the desk and makes the base feel immobile. Not only this but you have the ability to raise the screen by a good 3-4" and swivel it left and right. Add the USB ports and it gets better!! Finally, the buttons are all touch sensitive and effing light up when you go to press them.. top that off with a VERY easy menu and you have an easy 10/10 build.



The acer looks cool... it has a 0.6 bigger screen. But in my honest opinion the stand is total crap. Since I have had the AW with up/down and swivel action, I see no reason at all why a $400 monitor refuses to include these. The stand feels like cheap plastic and the entire monitor wobbles if I nudge my desk. I am very dissapointed at Acer for really blowing this part of the monitor... in reality it is nearly identical to Acer's previous monitors, but after using a pro grade monitor its a huge let down. Even the little tiny rubber "feet" on the bottom of the stand dont all rest on my desk at the same time.



Appearance

the orange is cool.... but in the sense that fast and furious cars look cool... the AW is like an all black BMW M5 that doesnt look like shiny panted plastic.



Winner: AW HANDS DOWN...



CONCLUSION



I wanted the Acer to win hands down, I really did. But the overall monitor quality is better on the AW. While some people would see the 3d tech on the Acer as "better" (not in my opinion), I would rather have monitor that can do everything exceptionally, including more vibrant and brighter 3d.



thanks for being patient guys and I hope this helped!



NOTE: I took tons of 3d screenshots.... then realized that they are rendered on the fly and only look as good as the 3d monitor you own so they are totally pointless :-/... sorries



-the one and only gekko



P.S. PLEASE message me or ask specific questions as I am keeping them both for a few more days since I am leaving down this weekend.. I will test just ab anything you would like on either one and give results to help you guys out as a fellow 3d enthusiast.





*NEW UPDATE



I have tested them both SIDE BY SIDE in left4dead2 and the clear visual winner is the AW. It is brighter, more clear, more colorful. The slightly extra double imagine aside, this guy is better. Also I compared the text problem mentioned in the 2d graphics above side by side. The Acer almost looks broken. The pixels simply do not blend together at all like the AW do (its actually worse than my old Acer). I will be returning/doing something with this Acer asap and sticking with the AW.



While I have them both ask away! I will be answering questions all weekend but any tests you guys need done will have to wait until this Sunday.



I FIRMLY STAND BY MY DECISION THAT THE ALIENWARE 3D GAMING MONITOR IS THE WINNER IN ALL 3 CATEGORIES (TWO OBVIOUS, ONE A PREFERENCE (that i strongly suggest everyone heeds))*

#41
Posted 02/11/2010 02:19 AM   
I expected this to be the case pretty much as you stated it. Dell just makes a better quality panel all around where as the acer was made just a bit more with 3d vision speciifcally in mind.
I expected this to be the case pretty much as you stated it. Dell just makes a better quality panel all around where as the acer was made just a bit more with 3d vision speciifcally in mind.

#42
Posted 02/11/2010 04:02 AM   
Thanks for the review. I think LCD's are a lost cause in the short term for discriminating gamers. I'm ready to pick up a VT25 from Panasonic when it becomes available. although I'll wait for reviews first or figure out a way to see it in person first ... plasma tv's may hold more promise.
Thanks for the review. I think LCD's are a lost cause in the short term for discriminating gamers. I'm ready to pick up a VT25 from Panasonic when it becomes available. although I'll wait for reviews first or figure out a way to see it in person first ... plasma tv's may hold more promise.

#43
Posted 02/11/2010 04:47 AM   
can we see pics of them side by side??

I jsut got the Acer today and Lots of people think the Samsung was very nice and bright, I wont compare it to that but I can also compare it to my 30" Samsung 305T with a S-PVA screen and tell you that It's a pretty damn good TN screen, and I got to be honest the colors are pretty accurate except for a bit of blue tinging. Have you done any calibration at all? It's definitely not IPS or PVA standard but it's a better TN screen for sure.

Again coming from the 2233RZ and comparing to my 305T theres a difference. Obv my 305T beats it in terms of colors but thats also a SPVA monitor.

I'm not trying to be rude or anything but your "review" seems quite a bit biased though you state not to be biased. To each their own of course.

Also as far as brightness, it's plenty bright, it again depends on what kind of viewer you are. If you like screaming your brightness and contrast then you don't calibrate your screen much. But then again with the glasses I dont see any brightness changes at all between the samsung or Acer. its pretty moot....

Now my main concern and good news, The difference from 2MS and 3MS is huge. For anyone seeing double imaging or ghosting (which is pretty much everyone Gekko), ghosting is alot better.

That being said the Samsung 2233RZ is a good screen too, I might just end up keeping both. I'd love to see side by side screenshots of the brightness with maybe a Greyscale picture if possible! I'll put some pics up soon!

I will state that as I said before the AW is going to be much better for construction of the stand and having a height adjustable stand.

And give a more indepth review soon. Off to playing Bioshock 2:) I'll try to include some shots with my 305T and the Acer on together but I dont think I can run 2560X1600 and the Acer at the same time.
can we see pics of them side by side??



I jsut got the Acer today and Lots of people think the Samsung was very nice and bright, I wont compare it to that but I can also compare it to my 30" Samsung 305T with a S-PVA screen and tell you that It's a pretty damn good TN screen, and I got to be honest the colors are pretty accurate except for a bit of blue tinging. Have you done any calibration at all? It's definitely not IPS or PVA standard but it's a better TN screen for sure.



Again coming from the 2233RZ and comparing to my 305T theres a difference. Obv my 305T beats it in terms of colors but thats also a SPVA monitor.



I'm not trying to be rude or anything but your "review" seems quite a bit biased though you state not to be biased. To each their own of course.



Also as far as brightness, it's plenty bright, it again depends on what kind of viewer you are. If you like screaming your brightness and contrast then you don't calibrate your screen much. But then again with the glasses I dont see any brightness changes at all between the samsung or Acer. its pretty moot....



Now my main concern and good news, The difference from 2MS and 3MS is huge. For anyone seeing double imaging or ghosting (which is pretty much everyone Gekko), ghosting is alot better.



That being said the Samsung 2233RZ is a good screen too, I might just end up keeping both. I'd love to see side by side screenshots of the brightness with maybe a Greyscale picture if possible! I'll put some pics up soon!



I will state that as I said before the AW is going to be much better for construction of the stand and having a height adjustable stand.



And give a more indepth review soon. Off to playing Bioshock 2:) I'll try to include some shots with my 305T and the Acer on together but I dont think I can run 2560X1600 and the Acer at the same time.

#44
Posted 02/11/2010 08:55 AM   
[quote name='btdvox' post='999273' date='Feb 11 2010, 03:55 AM']Now my main concern and good news, The difference from 2MS and 3MS is huge. For anyone seeing double imaging or ghosting (which is pretty much everyone Gekko), ghosting is alot better.[/quote]

Yeah, I know everyone sees the double imaging... but for me it's definitely only when I want to see it. I do notice that the double imaging on the Acer is better than the AW, but not by a whole lot.

I do agree the Acer is "bright enough" for most people. But having used both monitors, I can easily see how being able to crank up the AW's brightness during 3d gaming is a huge difference.

If you are upgrading from an old 3d monitor to the Acer, you will be happy. If you have the money to dish out for the AW, I definitely believe you will be happier. I also never owned a first gen 3d monitor, these are my first. So maybe if I had terrible double imaging concerns with older generations I would see things a little different? I dunno :-/

Also, I forgot to mention, the AW has a metal stand... I will add this to the review.

-the one and only gekko
[quote name='btdvox' post='999273' date='Feb 11 2010, 03:55 AM']Now my main concern and good news, The difference from 2MS and 3MS is huge. For anyone seeing double imaging or ghosting (which is pretty much everyone Gekko), ghosting is alot better.



Yeah, I know everyone sees the double imaging... but for me it's definitely only when I want to see it. I do notice that the double imaging on the Acer is better than the AW, but not by a whole lot.



I do agree the Acer is "bright enough" for most people. But having used both monitors, I can easily see how being able to crank up the AW's brightness during 3d gaming is a huge difference.



If you are upgrading from an old 3d monitor to the Acer, you will be happy. If you have the money to dish out for the AW, I definitely believe you will be happier. I also never owned a first gen 3d monitor, these are my first. So maybe if I had terrible double imaging concerns with older generations I would see things a little different? I dunno :-/



Also, I forgot to mention, the AW has a metal stand... I will add this to the review.



-the one and only gekko

#45
Posted 02/11/2010 01:23 PM   
  3 / 5    
Scroll To Top