Alienware's 34-inch QD-OLED Monitor Gets a Price

[FeelinFroggy]

I have had the Acer Predator x34 for about 6 or 7 years. Paid a crazy amount for it at the time and it is an amazing monitor. I have not considered an upgrade, but OLED's look great and maybe its getting close to time for an upgrade.

 

[Valantar]

Prices of these monitors are ridiculous. You can get an OLED TV at this price (or cheaper), run a custom 3840x1600 res on it and get 120 Hz, perfect blacks and awesome HDR.

Did you miss the part where this is QD-OLED, i.e. a more advanced OLED technology than literally every TV on the market? Sure, monitors are generally stupidly expensive, but this is ... kind of understandable, in a way. Certainly more understandable than $900 edge-lit 2160p HDR400 (or at best 600) 144Hz IPS monitors, that's for sure.

Exactly this.

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.

IMO LCD definitely has its uses - as I noted in my first post here I'm still skeptical of OLED for my main desktop monitor due to image retention (a lot of mostly static windows for most of the time on there), and for the living room, which is rather bright, we went for a Samsung Q80 which we've been very happy with. And considering it at times has been just bright enough, an OLED wouldn't have been acceptable in the same location. I'm not particularly sensitive to blooming though, but I can't say I've ever really noticed it at all.

Still, VESA's standards are, as you say, crap. HWUB recently covered just how broken their testing systems are as well, which is downright atrocious (they don't even require their contrast measurements to be made on the same image!), which renders the regular HDRXXXX standard essentially useless - they can be cheated quite easily, and you can pass even HDR1000 with a pretty crap display, as seen in that link.

That is why the LG C2 42-inch will be a wicked option for gaming.. you get so much more than just a simple computer monitor

But you also get some pretty serious drawbacks - a "monitor" that you need to manually switch on and off every time you turn on your PC, that doesn't go to sleep when the PC does or when the PC turns off the monitor, that makes you navigate a relatively slow and clunky OS for simple things like input switching, etc. And no DP or USB-C inputs, of course, or USB hubs or other basic monitor features. Minor annoyances to some, major to others, but they're there regardless.

Does anyone else prefer flat screens vs curved? Having tried 2 different curved widescreens, and gone back to flat, for some reason didn't appreciate the curve

Curved for a 16:9 panel at reasonable sizes (</= 32") doesn't make much sense - there's a relatively small combination of viewing distances and screen sizes (particularly widths) where it does. Ultrawides are another thing entirely though, as their with is so extreme that the curve dramatically minimizes the change in viewing distance between the centre and edges of the screen. A flat ultrawide at a desktop viewing distance would be really difficult and tiring for your eyes to pan around, as they would need to noticeably refocus between the edges and the centre. And, of course, you'd be far enough to the side of that part of the panel that you'd likely start noticing colour shifting on a VA panel or severe IPS glow on an IPS. None of these issues are relevant on a 16:9 panel at the same viewing distances unless it's huge.

 

[Fluffmeister]

That's the thing, if you use a TV in a bright well lit room as many do an OLED can still lack the brightness required when compared to even a more convential LCD based tech TV even in just SDR content, and it will certainly lack the pop of HDR content as it just doesn't get bright enough.

As always Vincent is superb and explains why they fall short in HDR:

There is a reason why OLED EX are getting brighter.

 

[Garrus]

Garbage monitor prices are paid so you don't have a netflix button on your bezel. And an Amazon button. And a Facebook button. And Youtube.

And smart menus when you push OSD buttons filled with ads and half working functions.
And constant updates and connectivity issues.

PLEASE, let me pay more to avoid that shit.

come on, I use an xbox with my TV, I never have any of those issues

 

[Totally]

come on, I use an xbox with my TV, I never have any of those issues

You have never used an Amazon branded/subsidized product, I see. It really is exactly that.

 

[FeelinFroggy]

You have never used an Amazon branded/subsidized product, I see. It really is exactly that.

Where exactly does it say this is an Amazon branded product? Is this the new Fire Monitor 34?

You are complaining about something that is not even relevant to the conversation.

 

[konga]

That's the thing, if you use a TV in a bright well lit room as many do an OLED can still lack the brightness required when compared to even a more convential LCD based tech TV even in just SDR content, and it will certainly lack the pop of HDR content as it just doesn't get bright enough.

As always Vincent is superb and explains why they fall short in HDR:

There is a reason why OLED EX are getting brighter.

And there's a reason why Vincent is so excited for QD-OLED too (hint: it's brighter than LG's W-OLED)

Anyway, I strongly disagree with TheLostSwede's take here. I've never seen anyone suggest that HDR600 LCD monitors have more impressive HDR capabilities than an OLED TV before, and this display actually offers several significant advantages over LG's OLED tech including higher brightness levels, better color saturation, and less black crush. There's more to a panel's HDR capabilities than the number at the end of the certification.

 

[Fluffmeister]

And there's a reason why Vincent is so excited for QD-OLED too (hint: it's brighter than LG's W-OLED)

Anyway, I strongly disagree with TheLostSwede's take here. I've never seen anyone suggest that HDR600 LCD monitors have more impressive HDR capabilities than an OLED TV before, and this display actually offers several significant advantages over LG's OLED tech including higher brightness levels, better color saturation, and less black crush. There's more to a panel's HDR capabilities than the number at the end of the certification.

100% agreed, the Vincmeister posted a vid a couple of days ago about potential prices of the upcoming QD-LED Sony TV's too and they seem to confirm QD-OLED based screens being more affordable than first feared, especially for such new tech, whilst doing away with some of the limitations of LG's tech, I still cringe a bit when people put it on such a high pedestal.

 

[MarsM4N]

Burn-In proof, UltraWide, curved (QD) OLED, finally a dream comes true. Expected the price to be more close to 2k instead of 1k.
Not into "Alien" branding, G-Sync tax & "G4M3R" finish, so I will wait for versions from other manufacturers (Samsung, LG, Lenovo, etc. get on it!)

Btw. here's the product video:

That is why the LG C2 42-inch will be a wicked option for gaming.. you get so much more than just a simple computer monitor

Sounds like you do not understand (new) tech & love to throw out money for products that are not designed for static content, and will get damaged in such use cases.
(Non QD) OLED will even get burn in from basic TV content, as the Real Life OLED Burn-In Test on 6 TVs shows.

Never wondered why they haven't released "wicked gaming" OLED monitors, until now (QD OLED)? Hint: Burn-In

 

[trsttte]

Expected the price to be more close to 2k instead of 1k.

They literally just announced it will be 1299$

 

[THU31]

Sounds like you do not understand (new) tech & love to throw out money for products that are not designed for static content, and will get damaged in such use cases.
(Non QD) OLED will even get burn in from basic TV content, as the Real Life OLED Burn-In Test on 6 TVs shows.

Never wondered why they haven't released "wicked gaming" OLED monitors, until now (QD OLED)? Hint: Burn-In

I am not saying the new tech will not be better, but I have been using my LG C8 as a monitor for 2.5 years and I have never had any image retention, not to mention burn-in.

Of course I have all the "safeties" enabled, I use dark mode and have it set at ~100 nits in SDR. But I would use these settings with any display.

But yes, burn-in can happen when using the display improperly (cranking up the brightness and leaving on the same image for hours).


By the way, my 2008 Samsung LCD TV developed horrible image retention after a few years. And later some permanent black spots showed up near the edges.
My 2015 Sony LCD TV developed some stuck pixels or something pretty quickly. Permanent little white spots in a few places.
The LG OLED is the best display I have ever owned so far. But I realize it will not last forever. I actually hope MicroLED will become the ultimate display tech when they can scale it down enough.

 

[MarsM4N]

They literally just announced it will be 1299$

I said "expected" and not "expecting". I did read the article, and the previous article from Jan 6th (which didn't include the price tag).

I am not saying the new tech will not be better, but I have been using my LG C8 as a monitor for 2.5 years and I have never had any image retention, not to mention burn-in.

Of course I have all the "safeties" enabled, I use dark mode and have it set at ~100 nits in SDR. But I would use these settings with any display.

But yes, burn-in can happen when using the display improperly (cranking up the brightness and leaving on the same image for hours).


By the way, my 2008 Samsung LCD TV developed horrible image retention after a few years. And later some permanent black spots showed up near the edges.
My 2015 Sony LCD TV developed some stuck pixels or something pretty quickly. Permanent little white spots in a few places.
The LG OLED is the best display I have ever owned so far. But I realize it will not last forever. I actually hope MicroLED will become the ultimate display tech when they can scale it down enough.

Let's be honest, there is no "perfect" display tech out there. And I have to agree, for TV's OLED is still the best we got today.
It could get burn in, but LCD has to deal with dead pixels or they just break after 2 years. OLED seems more durable in the long run (while also having superior image quality).

I am still running a 60" Pioneer KURO (last version), it got a little burn in from gaming, but it is only visible at bootup or longer unicolored images.
Most won't even notice burn in unless they really looking for it, f.e. with monitor test images.

 

[lemoncarbonate]

Wow, not bad, but Alienware is not official in my country so I expect $1700-2000 price here.
If they use panel from LG, I'll wait for LG to make one. Should be cheaper.

 

[RH92]

Keep in mind this is an Alienware product + ultrawide form factor meaning it certainly comes with a significant markup , 32'' QD-OLED panes may come at sub 1000$ maybe even sub 900$ .

This is great princing for a 1st gen .

 

[MarsM4N]

Wow, not bad, but Alienware is not official in my country so I expect $1700-2000 price here.
If they use panel from LG, I'll wait for LG to make one. Should be cheaper.

QD OLED is from Samsung's tech. Highly doubt they will sell their panels to LG, or LG buy panels from their main competitor.

For now there are only confirmed Sony TV's & Alienware Monitors with QD OLED (with Samsung panels), strangely no Samsung monitor with the new tech.
Pretty sure more TV producers will follow to ditch LG OLED panels for Samsung QD OLED, same goes for those wo bought LG widescreen panels for their widescreen (gaming) monitors.

 

[RH92]

QD OLED is from Samsung's tech. Highly doubt they will sell their panels to LG, or LG buy panels from their main competitor.

Although it is unlikely , it is far more plausible than it appears to be . LG much like Samsung is divided into LG Electronics ( the ones who sell products ) and LG Display ( the ones who make panels ) . Since Samsung Electronics doesn't seem to be willing to jump on QD-OLED this generation ( it would make their LCDs TVs a very hard sell ) Samsung Displays needs to find customers for their QD-OLED panels so Samsung Display selling to LG Electronics is not an absurdity at all .

 

[MarsM4N]

Although it is unlikely , it is far more plausible than it appears to be . LG much like Samsung is divided into LG Electronics ( the ones who sell products ) and LG Display ( the ones who make panels ) . Since Samsung Electronics doesn't seem to be willing to jump on QD-OLED this generation ( it would make their LCDs TVs a very hard sell ) Samsung Displays needs to find customers for their QD-OLED panels so Samsung Display selling to LG Electronics is not an absurdity at all .

I don't see it. Samsung didn't buy LG's OLED panels either, instead they tried to "survive" with their inferior & expensive QLED TV's while LG's OLED's where selling like hot cakes.

I did read a comment on one of the QD-OLED video's on Youtube, and there was a guy who seems to have some knowledge about OLED production. He mentioned that QD-OLED will be easier to produce, better yields, which means cheaper prices. If true it will be Samsung's "turn the tide" tech & LG's OLED's will collect dust on the shelfs.

 

[lemoncarbonate]

QD OLED is from Samsung's tech. Highly doubt they will sell their panels to LG, or LG buy panels from their main competitor.

For now there are only confirmed Sony TV's & Alienware Monitors with QD OLED (with Samsung panels), strangely no Samsung monitor with the new tech.
Pretty sure more TV producers will follow to ditch LG OLED panels for Samsung QD OLED, same goes for those wo bought LG widescreen panels for their widescreen (gaming) monitors.

I see. Regardless LG may follow anytime soon with their own OLED panel, surely the will, hopefully as good as or better than Samsung's.
This monitor is really appealing.

 

[Tomorrow]

I don't see it. Samsung didn't buy LG's OLED panels either, instead they tried to "survive" with their inferior & expensive QLED TV's while LG's OLED's where selling like hot cakes.

I did read a comment on one of the QD-OLED video's on Youtube, and there was a guy who seems to have some knowledge about OLED production. He mentioned that QD-OLED will be easier to produce, better yields, which means cheaper prices. If true it will be Samsung's "turn the tide" tech & LG's OLED's will collect dust on the shelfs.

Plus LG Electronics did not even make a monitor using LG Display WOLED panel. I mean if LG Electronics wont use "their own" WOLED then why would it use competitors QD-OLED?

 

[nguyen]

I'm seriously considering this instead of the LG C2 42" 4k 120hz OLED...

@nguyen @R-T-B what do you think?



same... its between these two, thats 100%

34in QD-OLED for 1300usd seems like awesome deal

 

[TheLostSwede]

And there's a reason why Vincent is so excited for QD-OLED too (hint: it's brighter than LG's W-OLED)

Anyway, I strongly disagree with TheLostSwede's take here. I've never seen anyone suggest that HDR600 LCD monitors have more impressive HDR capabilities than an OLED TV before, and this display actually offers several significant advantages over LG's OLED tech including higher brightness levels, better color saturation, and less black crush. There's more to a panel's HDR capabilities than the number at the end of the certification.

Sorry, where did I say that? I said the HDR "certification" was still mostly pointless.
Never said the other display was better, I said I was surprised by the fact that the QD-OLED display was only rated at HDR400, as it seems really low.

 

[Space Lynx]

Sorry, where did I say that? I said the HDR "certification" was still mostly pointless.
Never said the other display was better, I said I was surprised by the fact that the QD-OLED display was only rated at HDR400, as it seems really low.

It does seem a little weird... @Inle will you get a review of this done before launch day or release the review on launch day? would be interesting to get some details asap... $1300 is a lot of money, but on same hand don't want to wait to long to buy this cause I am certain it will sell out...

 

[Chomiq]

Not everyone has space for a tall 42" model. Plus it has agressive auto brightness that cant be turned off.

And we still don't know if Dell won't have the same thing.

Never wondered why they haven't released "wicked gaming" OLED monitors, until now (QD OLED)? Hint: Burn-In

Hint: they ditched that test after x7 series came out. Doesn't mean you won't get burn in (just ask Wendell from L1T).

 

[Valantar]

Burn-In proof

No. More resistant? Yes. Proof? No. There is no such thing. Organic emitters will always decay over time, and will decay in ways that leave visible patterns if left showing static images for too long. That's just how the physics of OLEDs work, and there is no workaround that can fully fix this save for non-organic emitters, i.e. microLED and the like. That doesn't mean OLED can't be made to last for quite a long time without visible image retention, but it can never be removed outright.

but LCD has to deal with dead pixels or they just break after 2 years.

Sounds to me like you've had some pretty bad luck. Sure, there are absolutely a lot of crap LCDs out there where the backlight has died way prematurely, and dead pixels are also an issue (though OLEDs are by no means immune to those). But my Dell U2711 from 2011 would like to say hello, as would the hundreds of thousands if not millions of LCDs from at least a decade ago that are still in service in offices, stores, workshops, and homes across the globe. LCDs can last for a long time. There is a huge span of quality variance within LCDs as well, both in backlight longevity and image retention, but even suggesting LCDs are prone to "just breaking after 2 years" is wildly misleading.

Keep in mind this is an Alienware product + ultrawide form factor meaning it certainly comes with a significant markup , 32'' QD-OLED panes may come at sub 1000$ maybe even sub 900$ .

Have you looked at the 32" 2160p monitor market recently? The cheapest high refresh rate monitors there are still close to $1000, though they are creeping down - 27-28" variants are $100-200 cheaper. It's entirely possible that Samsung aims for QD-OLED to be disruptive on price, but I see no reason for the $1300 pricing of this to be indicative of sub-$1000 32" 16:9 panels. Also, 1440p/1600p ultrawides are generally far cheaper than 2160p 16:9 panels.

I don't see it. Samsung didn't buy LG's OLED panels either, instead they tried to "survive" with their inferior & expensive QLED TV's while LG's OLED's where selling like hot cakes.

Samsung's QLED panels have sold like hotcakes as well, so I don't think they've seen the need. Also, calling them "inferior & expensive" is a bit odd - at least where I'm from they're generally the same price as similar LG OLEDs if not a tad cheaper (Q70 ~Bx, Q80 ~ Cx, Q90 ~Gx), and they are far superior in any semi-bright room simply due to the low overall brightness of OLED (not to mention the extremely reflective display coatings on the CX and previous generations, which reportedly the C1 fixed). OLEDs still kick their butt in dim conditions, but ... that's how technology works - different technologies have different strengths.

Plus LG Electronics did not even make a monitor using LG Display WOLED panel. I mean if LG Electronics wont use "their own" WOLED then why would it use competitors QD-OLED?

That's because WOLED for PC usage is overall pretty poorly suited to the job - that white subpixel doesn't really work well with Windows' way of rendering things, particularly with text rendering. It's usable at lower pixel densities and longer viewing distances, but close up it can lead to weird visual artifacts. It's still fantastic for gaming, video, and anything dynamic, where the white subpixel creating added brightness at the cost of saturation doesn't matter much, but for monitors it's really not the best tech around. There's a reason LG's 32" Ultrafine OLED doesn't use WOLED, but rather JOLED's printed OLED panels.

 

[Space Lynx]

No. More resistant? Yes. Proof? No. There is no such thing. Organic emitters will always decay over time, and will decay in ways that leave visible patterns if left showing static images for too long. That's just how the physics of OLEDs work, and there is no workaround that can fully fix this save for non-organic emitters, i.e. microLED and the like. That doesn't mean OLED can't be made to last for quite a long time without visible image retention, but it can never be removed outright.

Sounds to me like you've had some pretty bad luck. Sure, there are absolutely a lot of crap LCDs out there where the backlight has died way prematurely, and dead pixels are also an issue (though OLEDs are by no means immune to those). But my Dell U2711 from 2011 would like to say hello, as would the hundreds of thousands if not millions of LCDs from at least a decade ago that are still in service in offices, stores, workshops, and homes across the globe. LCDs can last for a long time. There is a huge span of quality variance within LCDs as well, both in backlight longevity and image retention, but even suggesting LCDs are prone to "just breaking after 2 years" is wildly misleading.

Have you looked at the 32" 2160p monitor market recently? The cheapest high refresh rate monitors there are still close to $1000, though they are creeping down - 27-28" variants are $100-200 cheaper. It's entirely possible that Samsung aims for QD-OLED to be disruptive on price, but I see no reason for the $1300 pricing of this to be indicative of sub-$1000 32" 16:9 panels. Also, 1440p/1600p ultrawides are generally far cheaper than 2160p 16:9 panels.

Samsung's QLED panels have sold like hotcakes as well, so I don't think they've seen the need. Also, calling them "inferior & expensive" is a bit odd - at least where I'm from they're generally the same price as similar LG OLEDs if not a tad cheaper (Q70 ~Bx, Q80 ~ Cx, Q90 ~Gx), and they are far superior in any semi-bright room simply due to the low overall brightness of OLED (not to mention the extremely reflective display coatings on the CX and previous generations, which reportedly the C1 fixed). OLEDs still kick their butt in dim conditions, but ... that's how technology works - different technologies have different strengths.

That's because WOLED for PC usage is overall pretty poorly suited to the job - that white subpixel doesn't really work well with Windows' way of rendering things, particularly with text rendering. It's usable at lower pixel densities and longer viewing distances, but close up it can lead to weird visual artifacts. It's still fantastic for gaming, video, and anything dynamic, where the white subpixel creating added brightness at the cost of saturation doesn't matter much, but for monitors it's really not the best tech around. There's a reason LG's 32" Ultrafine OLED doesn't use WOLED, but rather JOLED's printed OLED panels.

yeah if I buy this $1300 one, I will be babying it... keeping it turned off when not gaming, or movie watching. actual web browsing and desktop stuff will still be done on my laptop or tablet.