INSTG8RWhy? When the Alienware is out now and is by far a superior panel. I have had mine on order now for it feels like a few months. Even Dell Nordic can't get me one until the beginning of November, but I will just stick it out and wait for that email with "Your package has been shipped" When the day FINALLY comes.

I'm not entirely convinced by the Alienware monitor just yet, the subpixel arrangement is meh.

saki630please 32" 4K so i can double up. 27" 1440p is all you need because at 4K you cant see anything except smaller icons and text.

I'm gunna agree

I was always happy with 1440p 32", but 32" 4K is pure perfection

Side by side, i can run 100% on the 4k and 125% on the 1440p and they're identical in size, but you can definitely see an improvement - 1440p 27" looks just as clear, but of course everything is smaller



I really, really want a 32" OLED. None of this ultrawide shit that's half supported at best, just a 4K 32" OLED

Always puts inside one part cheap or low quality

MusselsI'm gunna agree

I was always happy with 1440p 32", but 32" 4K is pure perfection

Side by side, i can run 100% on the 4k and 125% on the 1440p and they're identical in size, but you can definitely see an improvement - 1440p 27" looks just as clear, but of course everything is smaller



I really, really want a 32" OLED. None of this ultrawide shit that's half supported at best, just a 4K 32" OLED

I've had a 32 inch TV to game on for years, and I always went couch gaming on it. Never worked out well in a desktop setting. Its too much diagonal. I played WoW on it for a while too, always found myself in some ultra unhealthy, keyboard on-lap and mouse on some plateau next to me couch seating to make it work, and at a distance of more than 1~1,5m.

The interesting part here is that if you still want more real estate in desktop setting/arm's length view distance, ultrawide is the way to get it without increasing the absolute height compared to a 27 inch 1440p. Ultrawide really is just that: wider. Not higher. The extra height is what's killing comfort on 32 inch 16:9 at short distance; your eyes aren't on top of one another.

Also, the games that 'are not supporting UW' are extremely rare, and if you have an OLED or VA, simple fix: dial back to 2560x1440 and have black bars in peripheral sight, which quickly goes unnoticed because black isn't greyish (like it is on IPS, plus glow - IPS UW I would not choose at all). I'm actually positively surprised overall by the support for UW: even old (DX9~11) content tends to just scale up fine to that res without stretching everything out, except for resolution-fixed text and UI elements, and only ever so rarely. Anything rendered just renders as it always did, except now with much wider viewport. Its absolutely glorious in isometric camera games, as well as first person, 'hitting offscreen' in ARPGs etc. 16:9 screens, even at 4K, won't get that despite rendering more pixels ;) Also in terms of support, the games that can scale a UI up to 150 or 200% are very rare, but a 125% UI scaling is much more common, which helps out in games that really aren't built for anything over 1080p or even lower with very small UI elements. I would even dare say the 4K support is lower than the UW 1440p support in that regard/terms of usability. Of course, you can run 1080p at 4K to compensate, but that's kind of eliminating the 4K res-purpose too IMHO.

Additionally, productivity wise, you have effectively 2x 1440p height in one screen. 4K 16:9 can't achieve that, if you split in half, you're missing width.

Ofc YMMV :) But I was very positively surprised by the advantages of UW over 16:9, and there aren't really drawbacks unless you just can't find the right panel to begin with in UW offerings. Also, VA + curve + UW is a real match made in heaven, if budget is an object wrt OLED. 400~500 bucks gets you very decent UW's - not perfect ones like an OLED version would be though :D

sephiroth117Yes, here you go:
www.techpowerup.com/299321/alienware-upgrades-flagship-desktop-reveals-tenkeyless-keyboard-and-new-qd-oled-display

Lol. I went from Alienware monitor to that Aurora case and then I discovered GN's coverage on it.

I'm no longer touching this brand, ever. Disgusting company. I don't even care how great QD OLED can become, if they release it, no buy.

Vayra86I've had a 32 inch TV to game on for years, and I always went couch gaming on it. Never worked out well in a desktop setting. Its too much diagonal. I played WoW on it for a while too, always found myself in some ultra unhealthy, keyboard on-lap and mouse on some plateau next to me couch seating to make it work, and at a distance of more than 1~1,5m.

The interesting part here is that if you still want more real estate in desktop setting/arm's length view distance, ultrawide is the way to get it without increasing the absolute height compared to a 27 inch 1440p. Ultrawide really is just that: wider. Not higher. The extra height is what's killing comfort on 32 inch 16:9 at short distance; your eyes aren't on top of one another.

Also, the games that 'are not supporting UW' are extremely rare, and if you have an OLED or VA, simple fix: dial back to 2560x1440 and have black bars in peripheral sight, which quickly goes unnoticed because black isn't greyish (like it is on IPS, plus glow - IPS UW I would not choose at all). I'm actually positively surprised overall by the support for UW: even old (DX9~11) content tends to just scale up fine to that res without stretching everything out, except for resolution-fixed text and UI elements, and only ever so rarely. Anything rendered just renders as it always did, except now with much wider viewport. Its absolutely glorious in isometric camera games, as well as first person, 'hitting offscreen' in ARPGs etc. 16:9 screens, even at 4K, won't get that despite rendering more pixels ;) Also in terms of support, the games that can scale a UI up to 150 or 200% are very rare, but a 125% UI scaling is much more common, which helps out in games that really aren't built for anything over 1080p or even lower with very small UI elements. I would even dare say the 4K support is lower than the UW 1440p support in that regard/terms of usability. Of course, you can run 1080p at 4K to compensate, but that's kind of eliminating the 4K res-purpose too IMHO.

Additionally, productivity wise, you have effectively 2x 1440p height in one screen. 4K 16:9 can't achieve that, if you split in half, you're missing width.

Ofc YMMV :) But I was very positively surprised by the advantages of UW over 16:9, and there aren't really drawbacks unless you just can't find the right panel to begin with in UW offerings. Also, VA + curve + UW is a real match made in heaven, if budget is an object wrt OLED. 400~500 bucks gets you very decent UW's - not perfect ones like an OLED version would be though :D


Lol. I went from Alienware monitor to that Aurora case and then I discovered GN's coverage on it.

I'm no longer touching this brand, ever. Disgusting company. I don't even care how great QD OLED can become, if they release it, no buy.

32" TV is not the same as a 32" monitor
As for the bold text.... you what?

I've been dual 32" monitors for years now, and my eyes are in fact side by side by side by side by side by side by side AND on top of each other

Mussels32" TV is not the same as a 32" monitor
As for the bold text.... you what?

I've been dual 32" monitors for years now, and my eyes are in fact side by side by side by side by side by side by side AND on top of each other

See! You're living proof!

Also what in your mind is the difference in looking at a 32 inch TV versus a 32 inch monitor?

Vayra86See! You're living proof!

But can you do Dual 32" 1080P@60FPS monitors? :kookoo:

Please help me.

Vayra86See! You're living proof!

Also what in your mind is the difference in looking at a 32 inch TV versus a 32 inch monitor?

1. I'm a mollusc

2. Pixel density and backlight sizes/subpixel layouts - TV's are lower res, larger pixels
You can't buy a 1440p 32" TV, and even at the same resolution the bigger inferior backlight tech makes them look a hella lot fuzzier.

3. slower response time panels (yes there are exceptions, but you dont get 32" gaming TV's with OLED or 1ms IPS panels)

4. bigger bezels

5. larger clunkier stands



They just don't come close. It's a very recent new trend for decent gaming TV's since the 120Hz tech came out on the consoles, prior to that it was a miracle if they didn't suck horribly

Mussels1. I'm a mollusc

2. Pixel density and backlight sizes/subpixel layouts - TV's are lower res, larger pixels
You can't buy a 1440p 32" TV, and even at the same resolution the bigger inferior backlight tech makes them look a hella lot fuzzier.

3. slower response time panels (yes there are exceptions, but you dont get 32" gaming TV's with OLED or 1ms IPS panels)

4. bigger bezels

5. larger clunkier stands



They just don't come close. It's a very recent new trend for decent gaming TV's since the 120Hz tech came out on the consoles, prior to that it was a miracle if they didn't suck horribly

This is mostly true, except for 2; at the same resolution screens can look identical, the backlight being shit is just part of being a crappy product, this happens on monitors as well as TVs. Fuzzier I don't recognize.

Vayra86This is mostly true, except for 2; at the same resolution screens can look identical, the backlight being shit is just part of being a crappy product, this happens on monitors as well as TVs. Fuzzier I don't recognize.

"Can"
But never do.


I also forgot the most obvious of all:
Let's call this point 0:

TV's are optimised for streamed signals - NOT low latency.
Many older TV's have panels at a different resoution to what HDMI supports
(1024x768 plasma TV's with 720p and 1080i inputs, 1366x768 TV's that only worked right on VGA, with HDMI also being 720p or 1080i - even manually adding 768p just forcibly stretched the image)"
Even now there are still plenty of 4K 30Hz TV's out there, or ones that work at 60Hz only at 4:2:0 destroying text clarity

You then get all the post processing and tweaks done designed to convert signals as low as 480i to whatever the panel uses, many that are on by default and cannot be disabled even with 'game mode' becoming more popular these days and you end up with a lot of input latency and visual issues


Can TV gaming be great? Sure! I ran a 40" and 55" as my primary screens for over 5 years, before 32" high refresh monitors existed - but it took a lot of trial and error to find TV's that didn't downright suck.