Acer Predator X38 175Hz Gaming Monitor Review: Bigger Really Is Better

A big, fast, curved performer

Acer Predator X38
Editor's Choice
(Image credit: © Acer)

Tom's Hardware Verdict

The Acer Predator X38 is a premium-priced display, but it’s it’s the ideal size and shape for immersive gameplay. Performance is superb at 175 Hz with Adaptive-Sync. And it delivers one of the most stunning images we’ve seen for both SDR and HDR. This display is highly recommended.

Pros

  • +

    + Wide, accurate color gamut

  • +

    + Excellent HDR

  • +

    + Solid build quality

Cons

  • -

    No ULMB

  • -

    Expensive

Why you can trust Tom's Hardware Our expert reviewers spend hours testing and comparing products and services so you can choose the best for you. Find out more about how we test.

In the world of jumbo gaming monitors, there are different approaches to the word “big.” Some prefer a large TV format of 55 inches or more. Or you can go with a 43-inch screen that could fit on a desk. But if you want a curve, there is yet another subset of options. The most common size is 34 inches in a 21:9 aspect ratio with curve radii ranging from 1800 to 2300mm. These are great displays that pull you into the game’s world. At the other end of the curved spectrum is the 49-inch mega-wide. You’ll need some extra desktop real estate to accommodate one of those.

But Acer has introduced a screen that sits between those extremes, the 38-inch Acer Predator X38 (currently around $1,700). With a 2300mm curve, it’s only a little wider than a 34-inch display, but offers a nice bit of extra height. Acer takes the further step of increasing resolution: The X38 is 3840 x 1600 pixels rather than the 3440 x 1440 seen in typical ultrawides. In order to compete with the best gaming monitors, the Predator X38 also offers Nvidia G-Sync, HDR and a refresh rate overclockable to 175 Hz. Is this the high-end gaming screen that's 'just right?' We'll have to dig deeper to find out, but from the outset, this display is making a smart play for our best gaming monitor list.

Latest Videos FromTom's Hardware
Christian Eberle
Contributing Editor

Christian Eberle is a Contributing Editor for Tom's Hardware US. He's a veteran reviewer of A/V equipment, specializing in monitors. Christian began his obsession with tech when he built his first PC in 1991, a 286 running DOS 3.0 at a blazing 12MHz. In 2006, he undertook training from the Imaging Science Foundation in video calibration and testing and thus started a passion for precise imaging that persists to this day. He is also a professional musician with a degree from the New England Conservatory as a classical bassoonist which he used to good effect as a performer with the West Point Army Band from 1987 to 2013. He enjoys watching movies and listening to high-end audio in his custom-built home theater and can be seen riding trails near his home on a race-ready ICE VTX recumbent trike. Christian enjoys the endless summer in Florida where he lives with his wife and Chihuahua and plays with orchestras around the state.

  • coloradoblah
    Maybe when its under 1000, 1700 is way too high, 1,000:1 contrast sucks
    Reply
  • cknobman
    LMAO Acer is smoking crack if they think this monitor is worth $1700!!

    Monitor pricing is just stupid these days. Maybe when crap does not sell prices will come back down to sane levels.
    Reply
  • coloradoblah
    cknobman said:
    LMAO Acer is smoking crack if they think this monitor is worth $1700!!

    Monitor pricing is just stupid these days. Maybe when crap does not sell prices will come back down to sane levels.
    Yeah you can get a few 34” ultrawides for around 300-400 now , obviously VA panels but is it really 4 times the cost ? The Gigabyte 34 ultrawide is actually pretty damn good for the cost, as long as you get one that has good QC.
    Reply
  • tharkis842
    Meh. For the price, might as well buy a nice gaming TV and run a custom res.
    Reply
  • brandxbeer
    tharkis842 said:
    Meh. For the price, might as well buy a nice gaming TV and run a custom res.
    I agree. Some die hards will disagree but tvs are the best option for casual pc gaming. A descent 4k tvs colour and hrd will blow a monitor away
    Reply
  • coloradoblah
    Yeah i think you can get a 120hz 4k oled for 1299, for this cost Asus should have a no light bleed, dead pixel guarantee
    Reply
  • waltc3
    Should have tested with a more mainstream GPU--because a 3090 & this monitor = well over $3,000. Also, I'm not sold on curved monitors at all. It's interesting that quite a few of these widescreen, < 4k monitor reviews of 34" and up do not list dot pitch (sometimes called pixel pitch)-- the number provides the distance between screen pixels, & the lower the better--under .20 is required for 32" 4K monitors, if you don't want to be able to see individual pixels from any distance. My 32" 4K BenQ EW-3270U has pixel pitch/dot pitch of .18 and no individual pixels are observable even 1" away from the screen.) One can only think it is because the dot pitch is less than ideal in these monitors which, given their larger size and lower resolutions (lower than 3840x2160), is understandable from a marketing standpoint, I suppose.

    Interesting that I see that Win10 supports a resolution of 3840X1620 on my BenQ--which I would think would also affect aspect ratios, were I to use it (tried it, knocks the 16:9 aspect way off.) Additionally, my BenQ supports something like 360 nits, max, but I can run HDR games set to 1000nits (No Man's Sky supports HDR 400, 600, 1000--you choose) and the HDR 1000 setting for the game looks by far the best. (I was pretty surprised by this, actually.) BG3 has the best HDR implementation in a game I've ever seen. (Game developers are finally beginning to get up to speed with HDR, finally--no more "washed out" fairly ugly appearances.)

    Best of all, the 32" 4K HDR 1000 BenQ sells for ~$440. It's a VA panel but as I don't need to view the monitor from anything except a straight-on position, broader viewing angles aren't required. BenQ also offers a newer version, the EW-3280U, which uses IPS instead of VA, for the exact same support--it's ~$700 (Which is close to what the 3270 cost before the 3280 was introduced.)

    *It's 60Hz, but that can be easily overcome by turning off vsync so that you can get hundreds of frames per second--without page tearing--which was another surprise with this monitor. All I can figure is that the anti-flicker tech in the monitor also controls page tearing, which I rarely if ever see even though my default driver setting (5700XT) is Vsync off.

    Highly recommended if you want a great HDR gaming monitor with plenty of size that won't break the bank:

    https://www.amazon.com/BenQ-EW3270U-inch-Monitor-FreeSync/dp/B078HWBGH5/ref=sr_1_1?dchild=1&keywords=benq+ew3270u&qid=1616432901&sr=8-1
    --Looks like they've sold out--getting more 3270's on April 13, the page says.

    (I seem to be pimping this monitor...;) All I can do is say that if I didn't really like it I'd not have two words to say about it...;))
    Reply
  • coloradoblah
    I dont mind the curve, makes it a bit easier to see especially on 21:9, HDR is a mess on windows currently and don’t even bother using it anymore.
    Reply
  • VinceV
    Any particular reason there aren't comparisons to the very similar LG and Alienware monitors? And no mention of the fact that neither port has the bandwidth to push these monitors to their limits.
    Reply
  • Blacksad999
    VinceV said:
    Any particular reason there aren't comparisons to the very similar LG and Alienware monitors? And no mention of the fact that neither port has the bandwidth to push these monitors to their limits.

    I was just coming here to ask the same question myself. lol It seems really odd to leave out the monitors which are direct competitors to this model from the comparison. IIRC, both Alienware and Acer get their panels from LG for the 38" models. Would have been nice to see a side by side breakdown of the strengths of each.
    Reply