Alienware announces the AW2725DF and AW3225QF (worlds first 4k 240hz and worlds first 1440p 360hz QD-OLED monitors - launches January 2024)

K0c6vzv.jpeg


Annoyingly the one TV show I'm watching on Prime and it's sodding not 16:9 but also not ultrawide either so I either scale it up or down between either screen lol.
 
mrk said:
K0c6vzv.jpeg


Annoyingly the one TV show I'm watching on Prime and it's sodding not 16:9 but also not ultrawide either so I either scale it up or down between either screen lol.
Click to expand...

Ah, the boys. We watch that too :)

It's weird, I actually thought that was a pic of your ultrawide there, looks pretty wide to me.
 
Last edited:
Next to each other the ultrawide isn't a huge amount wider than the 32, the 32 is obviously taller by about the same amount the 34 is wider so a tradeoff of sorts I guess, the height in this pic below should be ignored as the 34 is resting on the desk as I don't have the sodding stand, but the width is what you can judge:

lt9O8Wt.jpeg



oh yeah the QF doesn't have an ambient light sensor at the top either like the DW/DWF have. Another area of cost savings. Not that anyone actually used it mind.
 
Last edited:
Bwahahahaha. Man, been telling you this for ages and you kept comparing screenshots with me and saying no difference :cry:
 
Last edited:
Higher resolution is better, always has been. You don't need high res textures like a lot of people claim either. It does help make it better though of course.

There is a reason I was on stuck on 4K from 2014 until I got my QD-OLED. Every time I went to try 1440p or 1080p it felt like a big downgrade in image quality.

And this is why I have been wanting the 32" 4K Alienware since release :D

Nexus will see the light soon also. Though if he can't sell his 34" I can see him saying ultrawide yada yada to justify his choice of sending the 4K Alienware back :p

Looking forward on his take over the weekend also :D
 
TNA said:
Higher resolution is better, always has been.
Click to expand...
My only counter to this is that smoothness at higher refresh rates also plays a considerable factor.

I'd rather play at 1080p 240hz than 1440p 144hz - although the benefit now is that we're getting the best of both worlds with 4k 240hz. Right now I'm enjoying 1440p360hz but I am definitely tempted, when 27" OLED 4k panels release, to change to this.

My ideal would be QD-OLED 27" 4k@240hz - but with that 'dual' mode that LG have that could do 1080p@480hz. Throw in USB-C power delivery and that's honestly my dream monitor right there.
 
Totally agree higher res has always looked superior to upscaling on a lower res screen. Even when comparing a higher dpi 1440p to a low dpi 4k, the 4k is still more detailed. It surprises me that mrk is only just getting onto this :p
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: TNA
t2na said:
My only counter to this is that smoothness at higher refresh rates also plays a considerable factor.

I'd rather play at 1080p 240hz than 1440p 144hz - although the benefit now is that we're getting the best of both worlds with 4k 240hz. Right now I'm enjoying 1440p360hz but I am definitely tempted, when 27" OLED 4k panels release, to change to this.

My ideal would be QD-OLED 27" 4k@240hz - but with that 'dual' mode that LG have that could do 1080p@480hz. Throw in USB-C power delivery and that's honestly my dream monitor right there.
Click to expand...

Yep. Very valid point. It is a personal thing. I value image quality over high hz. I am simply referring to image quality in my posts. If people prefer higher fps and hz then there is a different path available for them.

That said these days most demanding games have dlss and you can whack on DLSS Performance which essentially nets you 1080p native performance. So that together with 240hz seems like a win to me.
 
Sc00p007 said:
Totally agree higher res has always looked superior to upscaling on a lower res screen. Even when comparing a higher dpi 1440p to a low dpi 4k, the 4k is still more detailed. It surprises me that mrk is only just getting onto this :p
Click to expand...

He would argue with me by comparing screenshots :p
 
How would you say 4k with dlss perf. looks compared to dldsr 3440x1440. I know you said further back about still being better clarity etc. but wasn't sure if you were factoring when using dlss performance mode in as well.

TNA said:
Nexus will see the light soon also. Though if he can't sell his 34" I can see him saying ultrawide yada yada to justify his choice of sending the 4K Alienware back :p
Click to expand...

Very possible :p

It'll be good to see if it wows me more than the 4k 55 oled, I suspect it will since higher ppi but then I am also sitting the recommended distance for said displays too so who knows! I'm most curious to see the difference in the panel itself though and if 1st gen to 3rd gen is a noticeable upgrade.

EDIT:

I am expecting good things with once human that I am playing atm as that game has awful AA, no dlss and dldsr even when set via windows doesn't work! :mad:
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: TNA
TNA said:
Higher resolution is better, always has been. You don't need high res textures like a lot of people claim either. It does help make it better though of course.

There is a reason I was on stuck on 4K from 2014 until I got my QD-OLED. Every time I went to try 1440p or 1080p it felt like a big downgrade in image quality.

And this is why I have been wanting the 32" 4K Alienware since release :D

Nexus will see the light soon also. Though if he can't sell his 34" I can see him saying ultrawide yada yada to justify his choice of sending the 4K Alienware back :p

Looking forward on his take over the weekend also :D
Click to expand...
What I mean is the screen's native res being used is the key factor here, using DLDSR on the 34" is higher than 4K res, 5160x2160, yet becaus ethe screen's native isn't that res, and the PPI is smaller, we don't see the true benefit of that ~4K res being used whereas we do on a 4K native res display at 32" thanks to the increased PPI.

What I've learned in the last 24 hours is that 3440x1440 using DLSS or DLAA offers either comparable or better picture just because native res output works with that native PPI, whilst at 4K on a 4K display of nearly the same physical size means the PPI is higher, so in terms of physics the image /has/ to be better anyway. This wasn't apparent before but now that I'm seeing it in front of me, it makes perfect sense. This is also why the games/emulators rendering at 4K on a 4K panel look better than rendering at above 4K on a non-native 4K panel!

The other benefit is DLDSR has a GPU overhead on top which native 4K panel won't have, so from a technical level 4K native panels allow the GPU to perform better at 4K than rendering via DLDSR at (or slightly above) 4K on a non 4K native display :p
 
Last edited:
Nexus18 said:
How would you say 4k with dlss perf. looks compared to dldsr 3440x1440. I know you said further back about still being better clarity etc. but wasn't sure if you were factoring when using dlss performance mode in as well.
Click to expand...
Yes DLSS Perf on a 4K display is cleaner/crisper than DLDSR 5160x2160 on a 3440x1440 panel, but that's due to the PPI being higher on the 4K panel. I was using DLDSR with both Quality and Performance and the same results apply, the lower PI on the 34" ultrawide simply means the clarity, whilst good, can never be as good as higher PPI on the native 4K 32" also using DLSS Perf or anything else.

This is the kind of thing you can't show with a video or screenshot either, since it's the display's PPI and native res doing the work.

von Humboldt said:
How do you find the curve on the smaller screen @mrk?
Click to expand...
The curve is basically not apparent but then again the 34" ultrawide at 1800R wasn't apparent either, both 1700 and 1800 are subtle curves at this size and are perfectly fine for any use I've found.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom