Walmart[walmart.com] has 44.5" Acer Predator UWQHD (3440 x 1440) 800R Curved Widescreen OLED Gaming Monitor for $806.34. Shipping is free. Now $718.37
Your feedback helps me find better deals! Please rate this deal or report if it's expired to save other members' time. Check out my other deals here. Thanks, niki4h
Community Notes
This collaborative space allows users to contribute additional information, tips, and insights to enhance the original deal post. Feel free to share your knowledge and help fellow shoppers make informed decisions.
Walmart[walmart.com] has 44.5" Acer Predator UWQHD (3440 x 1440) 800R Curved Widescreen OLED Gaming Monitor for $806.34. Shipping is free. Now $718.37
Your feedback helps me find better deals! Please rate this deal or report if it's expired to save other members' time. Check out my other deals here. Thanks, niki4h
Model: Acer Predator 44.5" UWQHD (3440 x 1440) 800R Curved Widescreen OLED Gaming Monitor with AMD FreeSync Premium, Up to 240Hz, 0.01ms Pixel Response Time, 1000nits @ HDR 3%, DCI-P3 99%, X45 bmiiphuzx
Deal History
Deal History includes data from multiple reputable stores, such as Best Buy, Target, and Walmart. The lowest price among stores for a given day is selected as the "Sale Price".
Sale Price does not include sale prices at Amazon unless a deal was posted by a community member.
44.5" at 3440p x 1440p seems a bit of a "stretch" ... Pun intended.
32:9 or 4K for a screen of that size would be ideal. But that's just me.
I'm curious how crisp this still is at that kind of lower resolution. Anyone use this?
I have the IPS version of this and it works perfectly for what I need it for; FPS games at higher FPS. 4k is ideal for anything but competitive games, unless you have a 4090 or better, then go for it lol. 1440p is the sweet spot for people with low to upper mid video cards in competitive games.
I have the IPS version of this and it works perfectly for what I need it for; FPS games at higher FPS. 4k is ideal for anything but competitive games, unless you have a 4090 or better, then go for it lol. 1440p is the sweet spot for people with low to upper mid video cards in competitive games.
I get that 1440p is a performance sweet spot, but my concern is more about PPI at this size. On a 34" ultrawide (3440x1440), the PPI is around 109, which keeps things sharp. But at 44.5", that drops to about 83, meaning pixels are much more spread out. That's a noticeable difference, especially for text and fine details in gaming.
Also, $800 is no small feat and feels a bit lopsided of a purchase if you're running a low-to-mid-range GPU. If 3440x1440 is where you want to be, there are far more budget friendly options that would give you the same resolution and high hz rate without the extra pixel stretch. At this size, something like 5120x1440 (32:9) would make a lot more sense in terms of clarity.
Last edited by Eshelmen March 24, 2025 at 01:19 PM.
44.5" at 3440p x 1440p seems a bit of a "stretch" ... Pun intended.
32:9 or 4K for a screen of that size would be ideal. But that's just me.
I'm curious how crisp this still is at that kind of lower resolution. Anyone use this?
i guess it would be more of a issue for mac users, but i personally think the density is pretty good at 83.3? which is just slightly lower than 2540*1440 32inch monitors (those are at 90 ppi). and those who uses 55 inch 4K TV are running at even lower PPI at 80
Thanks! I ordered this. I've been eyeing the LG and corsair 45" oled 240hz monitors. I'm assuming this also has an LG display. Seems like a very good deal in comparison to msrp and similar monitor prices.
Have a very old samsung 34" cf791 that's starting to go. Play mostly space and racing Sims with some diablo and POE. This should be pretty immersion. I run a 4070 so I would like to stay away from 4k and 1440p runs well for me currently. I guess we will see if I like it. 😜
I have the IPS version of this and it works perfectly for what I need it for; FPS games at higher FPS. 4k is ideal for anything but competitive games, unless you have a 4090 or better, then go for it lol. 1440p is the sweet spot for people with low to upper mid video cards in competitive games.
He's saying the size is too large for the resolution and I would have to agree. I have a 48" 4k oled Gaming monitor and it seems like it needs to be at 6k. Some things are just a little too fuzzy.
2
Like
Helpful
Funny
Not helpful
Sign up for a Slickdeals account to remove this ad.
I would warn anyone who is looking at purchasing this monitor, that it does not include an HMDI 2.1 port only 2.0 so it's not truly future-proof.
What do you mean by "future proof"? Its not like this monitor will gain more capabilities with new HDMI specs (or *any other monitor*)
If you want to take advantage of this monitor's 240Hz refresh rate at max resolution, you wouldn't be hooking it up using HDMI *today*, as HDMI 2.0 would only support 100Hz at that resolution. You would need to go w/ either USB-C or DisplayPort.
From the manual for this monitor, the max resolution is:
What do you mean by "future proof"? Its not like this monitor will gain more capabilities with new HDMI specs (or *any other monitor*)
If you want to take advantage of this monitor's 240Hz refresh rate at max resolution, you wouldn't be hooking it up using HDMI *today*, as HDMI 2.0 would only support 100Hz at that resolution. You would need to go w/ either USB-C or DisplayPort.
From the manual for this monitor, the max resolution is:
he/she is talking about HDMI 2.1b (or whatever they change the name to be) that can use full spec of this monitor, for connections to things like game console, which is unlikely going to equip video out port using DP or USB C. but there are HDMI 2.1 to DP 1.4 adapters for about 20 dollars. so it is not like you don't have choice if you were forced to.
I tend not to think this is as big of a issue for PC users, but i know folks connect consoles to monitors. and sometimes adding adapters does introduce issues, so that's that.
Last edited by seanleeforever March 26, 2025 at 11:53 AM.
He's saying the size is too large for the resolution and I would have to agree. I have a 48" 4k oled Gaming monitor and it seems like it needs to be at 6k. Some things are just a little too fuzzy.
You missed his point entirely then. He's wanting an ultra wide or a larger screen with higher pixel density. I game on a 4k C4 48" and it's crystal clear for me lol. My secondary monitor is this one but the IPS version and there's no fuzz, distortion, ghosting, jitter, nothing. There's zero chance that this will look worse than mine being OLED. I was trying to alleviate his concerns. Yes, this will have lower PPI on paper like the newer 45" LG, but they have ways to mitigate and simulate the full experience via the hardware, software and firmware.
Leave a Comment
Your comment cannot be blank.
Share information with community. Please follow our Community Guidelines and be kind!
11 Comments
Sign up for a Slickdeals account to remove this ad.
32:9 or 4K for a screen of that size would be ideal. But that's just me.
I'm curious how crisp this still is at that kind of lower resolution. Anyone use this?
32:9 or 4K for a screen of that size would be ideal. But that's just me.
I'm curious how crisp this still is at that kind of lower resolution. Anyone use this?
Also, $800 is no small feat and feels a bit lopsided of a purchase if you're running a low-to-mid-range GPU. If 3440x1440 is where you want to be, there are far more budget friendly options that would give you the same resolution and high hz rate without the extra pixel stretch. At this size, something like 5120x1440 (32:9) would make a lot more sense in terms of clarity.
32:9 or 4K for a screen of that size would be ideal. But that's just me.
I'm curious how crisp this still is at that kind of lower resolution. Anyone use this?
Have a very old samsung 34" cf791 that's starting to go. Play mostly space and racing Sims with some diablo and POE. This should be pretty immersion. I run a 4070 so I would like to stay away from 4k and 1440p runs well for me currently. I guess we will see if I like it. 😜
Sign up for a Slickdeals account to remove this ad.
If you want to take advantage of this monitor's 240Hz refresh rate at max resolution, you wouldn't be hooking it up using HDMI *today*, as HDMI 2.0 would only support 100Hz at that resolution. You would need to go w/ either USB-C or DisplayPort.
From the manual for this monitor, the max resolution is:
HDMI 2.0: 3440x1440@100Hz
DP 1.4/Type C: 3440X1440@240Hz
If you want to take advantage of this monitor's 240Hz refresh rate at max resolution, you wouldn't be hooking it up using HDMI *today*, as HDMI 2.0 would only support 100Hz at that resolution. You would need to go w/ either USB-C or DisplayPort.
From the manual for this monitor, the max resolution is:
HDMI 2.0: 3440x1440@100Hz
DP 1.4/Type C: 3440X1440@240Hz
I tend not to think this is as big of a issue for PC users, but i know folks connect consoles to monitors. and sometimes adding adapters does introduce issues, so that's that.
Leave a Comment
Your comment cannot be blank.
Share information with community. Please follow our Community Guidelines and be kind!