Monday, February 14th 2022
Alienware's 34-inch QD-OLED Monitor Gets a Price
Remember that 34-inch QD-OLED monitor that Alienware announced at CES earlier this year? The company has finally worked out how much it's going to charge for it, although there is still no fixed availability date. At US$1,299 the AW3423DW is going to be a $100 pricier than the AW3821DW, which sports a 38-inch Nano IPS panel with a resolution of 3840x1600, rather than the 34-inch QD-OLED panel with a resolution of 3440x1440 of the AW3423DW.
Obviously the two display technologies aren't comparable, but it's at least an indication of how pricy QD-OLED will be initially, compared to more traditional display technologies. Both displays feature G-Sync Ultimate, so it's not as if Dell has tried to cut any corners here. The AW3423DW does offer a higher refresh rate of 175 Hz vs 144 Hz for the AW3821DW, which may be an advantage to some, but the official HDR certification is oddly enough only HDR 400 vs HDR 600, despite the fact that Dell claims it can deliver up to 1000 cd/m². That said, the black levels of the AW3423DW should be vastly superior, as should the colour gamut. The display is said to be available sometime early this spring, presumably in the US market first.
Sources:
@Alienware, via TFT Central
Obviously the two display technologies aren't comparable, but it's at least an indication of how pricy QD-OLED will be initially, compared to more traditional display technologies. Both displays feature G-Sync Ultimate, so it's not as if Dell has tried to cut any corners here. The AW3423DW does offer a higher refresh rate of 175 Hz vs 144 Hz for the AW3821DW, which may be an advantage to some, but the official HDR certification is oddly enough only HDR 400 vs HDR 600, despite the fact that Dell claims it can deliver up to 1000 cd/m². That said, the black levels of the AW3423DW should be vastly superior, as should the colour gamut. The display is said to be available sometime early this spring, presumably in the US market first.
135 Comments on Alienware's 34-inch QD-OLED Monitor Gets a Price
Like @TheLostSwede said, QD-OLED is a new tech, it will take time before we'll get first reports on actual burn-in issues.
If anything, HDR should be scrapped entirely and be replaced by True Black that fixes some of it's initial flaws. HDR1000 has been rare in the monitor space imo because monitor manufacturers have been surprisingly honest at not trying to make a mockery of the standard but as has been seen a couple times it's not that difficult to pass even HDR1000 certification with a sub par crappy edge lit panel (Sceptre C345B-QUN168 as an example)
Thankfully Samsung Display is allowed to sell QD-OLED panels to others so i have no doubt we will see cheaper alternatives. Perhaps even under $999 (tho not by much).
Im rather suprised tho at the supposedly weak HDR performance of this panel. It seems like LCD's still hold and edge in terms of brightness. Especially Mini-LED ones that are supposed to be half step between LED and Micro-LED.
But for a first generation product QD-OLED seems to be pretty strong overall. Im sure they will increase brightness with 2nd gen panels.
Nvidia should get off its ass and produce an updated G-Sync module that has HDMI 2.1 and DP 2.0 included. Because currently the only advantage a native G-Sync module has compared to G-Sync compatible certification is variable overdrive. Meaning a consistant experience across the refresh range. Diplays that lack variable overdrive often suffer at lower refresh rates in terms of ghosting or other artifacts related to overdrive.
Tho it is possible to properly tune the overdrive to play nice across the range without the module. Problem is that most manufactures dont bother doing it.
I was fully expecting an "if you have to ask..." price.
Regular HDR400 is pretty much nonsense, especially as those monitors rarely have anything like FALD and thus don't come even remotely close to 0,05 nits black on a screen with a bright spot, but HDR400 True Black can deliver pretty good HDR as long as the room isn't too bright.
(For anyone wondering: contrast ratio is a pretty decent indicator of HDR performance for non-FALD displays, as it maps directly to dynamic range. 1000:1 contrast ratio = ~10 stops of dynamic range, 3000:1 = ~11.5 stops, etc. For true HDR you need at least 8000:1 effective contrast ratio, though that's highly dependent on how close your two measurement points are and the dimming zones of the monitor. Techspot/Hardware Unboxed's bar of 50 000:1 best case single frame contrast and 5 000:1 checkerboard contrast is a pretty good bar for good HDR - and AFAIK the only monitors to hit that bar are the Samsung Odyssey Neo G9 and that insane $4000 Asus one, with the Predator X35 coming very close, while an LG C1 48" hits it easily.)
This chart illustrates well how LCDs struggle to achieve good HDR results without cranking the brightness, while OLEDs can do it without breaking a sweat:
The first thing i do on an LCD is lower the brightness to 30-50%. By default they come out of factory with 100%. 400nits is too much. Around 150-200 is much better for daily use. Especially combined with dark mode.
I'll replace it as soon as there's something worth buying (anything would be an upgrade but I'm not into insane refresh rates and don't want to waste money on the same expensive rehashed panels that have been out for years with barely any improvements - qd-oled might very well be it).
So the price is very competitive like others have said. Sure it has slightly lower resolution (3440x1440) but it's also more compact to fit on a desk and has higher 175Hz refreshrate.
When VESA started their DisplayHDR spec it was clear as day - literally - that it served shitty LCDs with overtuned backlights. Even so they 'needed' 4-5 different labels to create product segmentation where anything up to and IMHO including HDR600 was just a total PoS, or more of the same nonsense we saw ever since marketing invented 'dynamic brightness'. Its just the next step really to fool us into thinking what we have now is some sort of standard...
Meanwhile after several decades of 'innovation' the only real gain over CRT is resolution and perhaps color accuracy. Not motion response; not black levels and not even static contrast. All those are thrown in the shitter with LCD no matter how many cool stickers you invent.
Vesa then saw OLED enter the market and finally managed to adopt a real standard... even still needing several stickers but now the standard is in fact 'honest' - it provides limitations for a tangible improvement in your viewing experience. True Black is really just 'any self emissive display' and yet, by being yet another sticker in the VESA stickerworld, fooled customers compare it to LCD stickers as if that is even remotely comparable. And VESA achieved some level if credibility and even premium 'feel' for so called 'top' HDR1000 screens.
LCD is still inferior as it always will be. 1000 nits meant nothing other than more fools and money parted while looking straight into a light bulb. Common sense, really, should have dictated extreme peak brightness is never going to be comfortable looking at. The real differentiatior was always 'static contrast'; the reason VA was a nice in between over IPS.
HDR is ultimately 'contrast steps'. If your black 'floor' is low, you have much better control over the entire brightness range. Its a total no brainer OLED is most capable here.