trsttteThat's not that great long term as the middle OLEDs will degrade and loose brightness faster and before the side bands

While burn in is a real issue (although this monitor comes with 3 year warranty) there have been some benchmarks that show OLEDs having as consistent if not better long term brightness their LCD counterparts

@5:45
Admittedly this is LG's wrgb oled panel but apparently samsung claims to have less burn in issues with their quantum dot panels

TheLostSwedeGood thing it's up for sale and you can order one then and let us know how good or not it is. Looking forward to your review.
www.dell.com/en-us/member/shop/alienware-34-curved-qd-oled-gaming-monitor-aw3423dw/apd/210-bcye/monitors-monitor-accessories

If only I was throwing $$$ at Alienware and curved displays...
I'm more into photo works, my needs are "slightly' different.

TheLostSwedePeople really need to learn to flip their phones over when shooting video...

Guy owns an alienware desktop and monitor, what did you expect :D

thunderingroarWhile burn in is a real issue (although this monitor comes with 3 year warranty) there have been some benchmarks that show OLEDs having as consistent if not better long term brightness their LCD counterparts

@5:45
Admittedly this is LG's wrgb oled panel but apparently samsung claims to have less burn in issues with their quantum dot panels

These tests are no longer used and no longer apply since they date back to B6 variant, which is 5 gens behind the current OLED panels from LG. I would game on an OLED but I certainly wouldn't do my work using one, with plenty of bright static elements present on the screen for multiple hours.

thunderingroarWhile burn in is a real issue (although this monitor comes with 3 year warranty) there have been some benchmarks that show OLEDs having as consistent if not better long term brightness their LCD counterparts

@5:45
Admittedly this is LG's wrgb oled panel but apparently samsung claims to have less burn in issues with their quantum dot panels

LG's OLEDs are white, Samsung's are blue. Blue still burns out faster. But it's not clear if, in the presence of QDs, Samsung's blues must burn with the same intensity as LG's whites.
Like I said: there are many unknowns and an award badge does little to clear up any of them.

bugLG's OLEDs are white, Samsung's are blue. Blue still burns out faster. But it's not clear if, in the presence of QDs, Samsung's blues must burn with the same intensity as LG's whites.
Like I said: there are many unknowns and an award badge does little to clear up any of them.

It's not an award, it's a paid for certification, much like 80 Plus.

thunderingroarAdmittedly this is LG's wrgb oled panel

And the 6 series to boot. The 9 series and forward saw several improvements re-burnin, most notably an enlargement of the red subpixel which substantially decreased the rate of burn-in warranty claims.
Aparently on LG's design, the red subsection ages faster.

Anecdotally, my 55" B9 has been running with no mitigations (other than a 5min screensaver) as a PC desktop for over 2 years. No burn in is visible.

bugLG's OLEDs are white, Samsung's are blue. Blue still burns out faster. But it's not clear if, in the presence of QDs, Samsung's blues must burn with the same intensity as LG's whites.
Like I said: there are many unknowns and an award badge does little to clear up any of them.

It certainly does little to clear up aging concerns, only time can reveal that.

trsttteI feel that might be way overblown, linear subpixel layouts like IPS are also not perfectly square and suffer from the same problem on anything that's not a straight horizontal/vertical line. That get's mitigated with antialiasing and higher ppi.

Higher PPI can alleviate that, but antialiasing can't - unless the pixel density is there, all AA does is make things blurry rather than jagged. And jagged text is often more readable than blurry text - but this seems to deliver both.

trsttteMy phone like most phones today uses a 1080p pentile oled, i certainly don't spend as much time reading from it as I do from a computer monitor but I still see no difference from my previous phone with 1080p IPS (the differences I see are the amazing contrast and colour and higher refresh).

Your phone is also drastically higher PPI (which is partly but not entirely balanced out by it being viewed much closer), and crucially: doesn't run Windows. Android has a ton of optimizations in text rendering and its graphics stack in general to make pentile AMOLEDs look good, thanks to Samsung contributing tons to the Android kernel and driver stack for that specific purpose (so that they can sell pentile display panels). Windows doesn't, and is rather notorious for not handling non-RGB stripe subpixel layouts poorly (which is also exacerbated by the low pixel densities of most PC monitors). ClearType helps, but is by no means a fix.

trsttteFeelings (like my own) don't mather though, is there concrete data on this that goes either way? (i'm not talking about pixel peeping, like a study with people comparing text for example or something)

This is a contradiction in terms - any such study would literally just be an aggregation of a group of people's "feelings" (i.e. sensory impressions and interpretations of those) about sharpness (likely defined in some more or less specific way, but still subjective) and subsequent analysis in order to try and find patterns, trends, ideosyncracies, etc. Sensory perception is fundamentally subjective, and there is nothing that can meaningfully be understood as "objective data" in relation to it. (Heck, one can question whether there is even such a thing as objective truth, though that's another debate entirely.) What is great for you might be unacceptable to your neighbour, and the factors affecting any such distinction are far too complex to map out across any significant number of study participants unless you really narrow the scope of the research. You can always find general trends, but those will never invalidate the experiences of those seeing things differently - they will simply be descriptions of the more common experiences, and can't be meaningfully generalized. If you are reading (about) a study saying something such as this, and you are reading as if "these findings are providing objective truth", then you are fundamentally misunderstanding how the science works.

Put it this way: the "concrete data" is the subpixel structure and how this affects rendering, and when comparing RGB stripe to this triangle thing, (assuming a conventional panel orientation) RGB stripe allows for regular, uninterrupted vertical stripes and regular, easily predictable interruptions in horizontal stripes - with anything else being spaced out depending on the specifics of the angle of the line, etc. This triangle on the other hand can only achieve any straight line with two subpixels at a time, which is an inherent deficit in that particular structure compared to RGB stripe.

The question is whether this is perceptible. And that is dependent on the use case (word processing or gaming, for example), viewing distance, ppi, the tuning of the display, GPU diver and OS, the user's visual acuity, habits and preferences, the brightness relative to ambient brightness, the display coating, whether the user's eyes are tired or rested, and a bunch of other factors that can't really be eliminated or factored in without also limiting the scope of the study. So: what you're asking is ultimately entirely subjective, and the best anyone can do is attempt to give advice consciously and explicitly situated in their own habits, preferences and experiences. No experience is universal, but with sufficient self-reflection one can make an attempt at extrapolating from experience - but this will of course always be speculative.

In this thread I've only made statements regarding my own use case and preferences, for which this seems poorly suited - my work requires hours every day of looking at text on a white background, and I am sensitive to sharpness issues (tired eyes, headaches). Thus this would seem like a particularly poor choice for me. I've never made any claim to this being applicable outside of these parameters.

bugLG's OLEDs are white, Samsung's are blue. Blue still burns out faster. But it's not clear if, in the presence of QDs, Samsung's blues must burn with the same intensity as LG's whites.
Like I said: there are many unknowns and an award badge does little to clear up any of them.

There is no such thing as a white OLED emitter. LEDs, including organic ones, emit relatively narrow spectrums of light, and are thus incapable of natively producing white light. LG's WOLED emitters are AFAIK blue with a phosphor coating transforming the blue light to a broad spectrum, i.e. white.

ValantarThe subpixels are arranged in a triangle pattern, there was a good photo of it in another thread. It's better than pentile as the pixels don't share any subpixels, but it's still not RGB stripe, and thus Windows will have trouble making it render sharp lines with high contrast. Such a weird choice.

I see. Almost like the classic CRT phosphor arrangement. But there's so much unused space - as if it were only possible to make quantum dots in the shape of dots, not rectangles.

ValantarIt still makes for fuzzier text and other high contrast lines due to the non-standard subpixel structure. It's not as bad as pentile, but still not acceptable for my use case, and certainly not in a $1300 display.

Edit: "high ppi" is also relative. The 111ppi of 3440*1600@34" is perfectly fine, better than average for desktop use, but it isn't particularly high.

Here's the post with the images:

Non-square pixels with Non-square subpixel layouts make for non-sharp lines. And sadly no amount of mitigations will fully make up for it, in part because human vision is acutely tuned for edge and line contrast detection.

This is basically true, yes. Still, most people are happy with ClearType on Windows, at least when it does what it's supposed to. Unfortunately it can't even handle portrait orientation in common LCDs. I'm also aware that most people doesn't mean all people.
With any font smoothing / anti-aliasing algorithm, you trade some sharpness for some smoothness. Then you have both, or you have none, depending on how you look at it. You can have more of both but then you get more colour fringes. The algorithm will yield better results if it can take into account the specific subpixel layout (and screen orientation!). But a good algorithm for Samsung QD display likely doesn't even exist yet, and who knows if it ever will. EDIT: it's not enough for an algorithm to exist; it must also be patented, then implemented in OSes, not interfere with browsers and graphics programs that want to smooth fonts in their own way, and used as default for specific monitors so people needn't care about subpixel layout.

Vincent has his unit in:
@bug
Preset Modes -> Creator -> Color Space

ChomiqVincent has his unit in:

@bug
Preset Modes -> Creator -> Color Space

A kid could guess it has settings for sRGB, AdobeRGB and DCI-P3. What we don't know is how well the panel covers said color spaces. Only sRGB is usually covered 100%. And while the other two can be decently covered (>99%), some manufacturers advertise support when only covering like 90%. I'm sure this is one of the better panels, but I'd like to see some numbers, so I can compare it to OLEDs.

bugA kid could guess it has settings for sRGB, AdobeRGB and DCI-P3. What we don't know is how well the panel covers said color spaces. Only sRGB is usually covered 100%. And while the other two can be decently covered (>99%), some manufacturers advertise support when only covering like 90%. I'm sure this is one of the better panels, but I'd like to see some numbers, so I can compare it to OLEDs.

Sure, but this is just the unboxing/features video so expect him to cover that in full at some point. All I meant was to show that it IS possible to clamp the monitor, which was not clearly stated in specification.

Rtings will also do their own review, as the monitor was picked by its users as the next one up for review.