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

^^ The manual makes no mention of taskbar dimming etc^^

Not sure if anyone has RTFM, but I just did because reasons :D

I learned that the panel health indicator means:

Normally, Panel Health displays a green dot. When a yellow dot is displayed,
Pixel Refresh is suggested to be performed; when a red dot is displayed, it
indicates that the monitor has been used for 7000 hours without performing Panel Refresh
Click to expand...

Panel Refresh: To prevent permanent image
retention caused by static content when you use the
monitor for 7000 hours, you can manually activate
this function to refresh the pixels. Alternatively, the
function is activated automatically when the
accumulated usage time exceeds the factory default
setting (7000 hours). The process takes
approximately an hour to complete.
Click to expand...

Looks like Dell have halved the Panel Refresh interval from gen 1 QD-OLED
 
Last edited:
rare said:
Yeah that’s the one! Difficult this, I’ve watched so many videos my head is spinning.
Click to expand...
I guess use case is one to consider too, are you going to exclusively be using it for gaming? If so, the general consensus so far for monitors seems to be Glossy WOLED > QD-OLED > Matte WOLED.
 
mrk said:
Glossy wins every time having owned both matte and glossy large monitors, OLED or not glossy is just clearer and the way it handles reflections from bright light sources etc.
Click to expand...
Yeah, its also even more obvious when you have them side by side. I use a glossy AW2725DF next to an IPS Dell Ultrasharp monitor (and the Dell monitor is a really great IPS monitor, 120hz too!) but even outside of IPS vs. OLED the panel finishes really do highlight glossy being better.

I guess some people can't control the light in the room so that's when a glossy monitor might not suit? I'd never be able to use one when I'm at the office.
 
  • Like
Reactions: mrk
Believe it or not, the answer is no!

It might just be that the last time I had a 16:9 on my desk was pre-2014, but the more I've been using this the more I realise that it's actually excellent. I think that a 4K res on a 38" would be absolutely perfect as the scaling in Windows would default to something like 125%, which on a 32" feels a little too small hence why Windows defaults to a recommended 150%, which as I mentioned on my initial thoughts feels too big, there is no 135% scaling option otherwise that probably would have sorted it (maybe a hack for Windows to do that? Not checked...).

I think a large size panel with the same specs otherwise would be the perfect complete replacement for ultrawide, and I say that because watching 16:9 trailers and other stuff where there is a combination of 16:9 segments in the media, as well as 4:3 and 21:9 delivers the best balance.

Here's an example of what I mean:


Watching the same trailer on ultrawide doesn't quite have the same impact as the height being less than the 16:9 comes into it so you end up with a smaller view on 34" UW than you do on 16:9, and the 21:9 segments are in ultrawide but letterboxed on the 16:9 so still gets the full width, just with the letterbox which is fine since it's OLED and they;e invisible in dim lighting - Hence why I think a 39" 16:9 would for me be the perfect replacement for an ultrawide now.

I have not actually checked if such a model exists, maybe I should, and if one doesn't exist, then one certainly will in the next year or so and I'll be looking at one of those :cool:

To get the same height from an ultrawide as the current 32" QF I think the equivalent ultrawide size would need to be around 45"? (could be wrong, just a rough guess) - 40" is the maximum I could comfortably have on my desk without having to move stuff away from behind the monitor which I don't want to do of course. So a ~39" 16:9 would satisfy rather well.
 
@mrk brilliant write up thank you. I was extremely tempted in the DWF (never owned an UW) and it’s mostly your recommendation that really swung me towards the QF. I believe it’ll be a real big improvement over my G3223D, I’m off this week aswell so I’m really looking forward to receiving it. Cheers mate.
 
Last edited:
You won't go wrong with either really. IIRC the DW/DWF are still the best that you can get currently as far as ultrawides go, especially their prices, the larger ultrawide QD-OLEDs still have the same res, so things look bigger on those relative to the ppi etc as 34" is the native size for 3440x1440. If/when I go ultrawide again it will be 5120x2160 at the native size that res applies to, so 40" most likely. I'm just hoping the height is on par with what I'm seeing now with the 32" 16:9, I think my 45" figure might be a bit off from earlier though with that in mind.

I've since checked and no QD-OLED exists thatis bigger than 32" that is also gen 3 and 240Hz. Guess we wait a year.
 
Last edited:
As long as it's at 40" then perhaps sure :p Unless a 16:9 one comes out first!

Edit*
By the way I've been switching back and forth between Creator mode SRGB and Standard mode. From what I can see, Standard mode has a little bit tighter control over shadow levels, and the obvious vibrance boost in R G and B - Otherwise it appears to be very very close in accuracy to Creator mode. This coincides with what some reviewers have measured, that Standard is still very accurate (<1 to 1.6 on deltaE).

I'll whip out my i1Display2 to do some measurements myself of both creator and standard and see what they read in a bit and decide if I should stick to one over the other. This was not the case on the DW as Standard was visibly more saturated vs Creator. This is an obvious plus point for gen 3 QD-OLED and factory calibration.
 
Last edited:
The curve slightly concerns me on the QF too. I used to own a G7 32, and that was 1000R which is very aggressive and wasn't a fan of it at all, but I remember when immersed in a game, I didn't notice it.

QF being 1700R should be a lot better but something about 16:9 curve puts me off. But hey, this is why I ordered one to try, and with the comments so far from those of you who have this monitor, it's giving me good vibes.

The specs are very good and I'm itching to try it out. 4K 240hz!!
 
Alright so done some measurements and well, this thing is insanely accurate in both Standard and Creator mode. It will merely come down to individual preference on more vibrant RGB or more neutral RGB. Both modes adhere to accurate 6500K factory target. The brightness setting in the OSD solely comes down to how comfortable you find the brightness and doesn't affect the colour accuracy.

For baseline I set DisplayCAL to "As measured", so it shows exactly what's being read. A Spectral profile exists for this display in the global DB so I used that dated this month which is handy so was confident in the measurement from the i1Display Pro.

Standard mode (brightness 54 for a 100cd/m2 target):
F8VRWW1.jpeg



Creator mode (brightness 44 for a 100cd/m2 target):
yWSdYc9.jpeg


Creator mode is obviously the closest to 6500K^ but Standard isn't far off considering it has slightly boosted RGB vibrancy.

Until now I had just eyeballed the brightness as I always had all monitors calibrated to a 100cd/m2 target, so I'm happy my eyeballing was on ball with the previous 42 brightness value in Creator mode only being 2 hour which gave about 92 cd/m2.

I think we have reached a level with QD-OLED now that they are so well calibrated for accurate colour work out of the box that manual calibration is merely a trivial "let's just see how good it is from factory" task :cry:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom