Dell Launches Two New Alienware QD-OLED Gaming Monitors, Starting at US$550

[TheLostSwede]

Back in January, Dell/Alienware announced the 27-inch 4K AW2725Q QD-OLED monitor, which is now being joined by the 27-inch 2560 x 1440 resolution AW2725D and the 34-inch 3440 x 1440 resolution AW3425DW, both also sporting a QD-OLED panel. The AW3425DW offers a 240 Hz refresh rate, a 0.03 ms grey to grey response time and a peak brightness of 1000 cd/m². The monitor is NVIDIA G-Sync Compatible, as well as AMD FreeSync Premium Pro and VESA AdaptiveSync certified and it supports HDMI VRR for console gamers. Dell has equipped it with one DP 1.4 port, two HDMI 2.1 ports—there's support for both picture by picture and picture in picture, something normally only seen on more business savvy monitors—one USB Type-B upstreams and one USB Type-A as well as one Type-C downstream ports, all being limited to a 5 Gbps data rate, although the Type-C port supports 15 W device charging.

As for the AW2725D, we're looking at a 280 Hz refresh rate, but Dell didn't provide much else in terms of specifications, as this model isn't expected to be available until sometime this summer. However, it will be the cheapest QD-OLED monitor from Dell's Alienware brand at US$549.99. The AW3425DW will have an MSRP of US$799.99 which it launches on April 29th. Finally, the AW2725Q which launches today, will retail at the announced US$899.99. All three models will come with a three year OLED burn-in warranty.



View at TechPowerUp Main Site | Source

 

[Niceumemu]

DP 1.4
DoA

 

[TheLostSwede]

DP 1.4
DoA

How so? Neither is 4K. The 4K model has DP 2.1 support.

 

[Chrisy]

I probably will get the AW3425DW to replace my AW3423DWF (which I bought when it came out).
240Hz on 1440p is tempting but not sure how the picture quality will change...
Also loosing one DP to HDMI is not the best. One of the best features of my current AW3423DWF is that is has 2 DP inputs.
Hmmm, will see in April Maybe when it goes on sale from $800 to a bit lower.

 

[MrDweezil]

Not really up to date on the monitor market, but $550 for a 27" oled seems pretty decent?

 

[Fishymachine]

How so? Neither is 4K. The 4K model has DP 2.1 support.

DP 1.4 HBR3 can do natively up to 1440*2560 at 240Hz with 8 bit colour, and 3440 at about 200. It being a narrow miss (28.7GBps and 32.9 out of 25.92 real bandwidth for the 1.3 cable is what kills it for me). And since everyone now supports 13.5(Intel on a single port, and nVidia going to full 20), this feels like a nickle and dime situation

 

[Niceumemu]

How so? Neither is 4K. The 4K model has DP 2.1 support.

Already can't do 10 bit on 3440x1440 above 144hz

 

[Nucleoprotein]

Already can't do 10 bit on 3440x1440 above 144hz

3440x1440@144Hz in 10 bit color = 25.68 Gbps
HBR3 = 25.92 Gbit/s
Above 144Hz you need DSC.

 

[Upgrayedd]

How so? Neither is 4K. The 4K model has DP 2.1 support.

1440 ultra wide is only good uncompressed up to like 156Hz on DP 1.4, any higher requires DSC.
DP 1.4 is really pretty old by now and I thought the main difference between 1.4 and 2.1 was the encoding and not the physical interface so I don't really understand why we aren't getting DP 2.1 but instead we're still getting the same speeds we had 10years ago from DP 1.3.
16:9 1440p is 205Hz for 1.4a.
So they both use DSC technically because they're on a 10year old interface standard.

 

[TheLostSwede]

Already can't do 10 bit on 3440x1440 above 144hz

DSC doesn't exist? Also, prior to this gen of graphics cards, how many graphics cards support DP 2.1?

DP 1.4 HBR3 can do natively up to 1440*2560 at 240Hz with 8 bit colour, and 3440 at about 200. It being a narrow miss (28.7GBps and 32.9 out of 25.92 real bandwidth for the 1.3 cable is what kills it for me). And since everyone now supports 13.5(Intel on a single port, and nVidia going to full 20), this feels like a nickle and dime situation

See above. Would you be willing to pay $100 for DP 2.1 over DP 1.4 with DSC? It's hardly a nickel and dime situation as long as DP 2.1 is a premium feature, whereas DP 1.4 has been a standard feature for years and thus carries a zero premium.

 

[Nucleoprotein]

DSC doesn't exist? Also, prior to this gen of graphics cards, how many graphics cards support DP 2.1?


See above. Would you be willing to pay $100 for DP 2.1 over DP 1.4 with DSC?

DCS can be hit and miss, sometimes have compatibility problems and/or goes into chroma subsampling.

 

[TheLostSwede]

DCS can be hit and miss, sometimes have compatibility problems and/or goes into chroma subsampling.

I have had zero problems with it or at least nothing I can say that I have noticed over the past couple of years.
Might be a bad implementation in a budget display driver IC, rather than a DSC issues.

 

[trsttte]

See above. Would you be willing to pay $100 for DP 2.1 over DP 1.4 with DSC?

Yes

No need to go UHBR20 imo - even the cables for that are pretty costly - but UHBR10 should already be the standard in pretty much everything and would solve almost all complains.

 

[TheLostSwede]

1440 ultra wide is only good uncompressed up to like 156Hz on DP 1.4, any higher requires DSC.
DP 1.4 is really pretty old by now and I thought the main difference between 1.4 and 2.1 was the encoding and not the physical interface so I don't really understand why we aren't getting DP 2.1 but instead we're still getting the same speeds we had 10years ago from DP 1.3.
16:9 1440p is 205Hz for 1.4a.
So they both use DSC technically because they're on a 10year old interface standard.

It doesn't make these products DOA though, considering that up until last year, every monitor shipped with it.

Yes

No need to go UHBR20 imo - even the cables for that are pretty costly - but UHBR10 should already be the standard in pretty much everything and would solve almost all complains.

So then buy a monitor with DP 2.1, problem solved.
These are clearly targeting a certain price point.
DP 2.1 is likely to be a premium feature for at least another couple of years, even at lower data rates.

 

[Chrisy]

Ohh so no 200Hz on DP
Makes no sense to upgrade if can't do 3440x1440 200Hz HDR without compression.
165Hz -> 200Hz would be a small change anyhow but was a good "reason" to get the new model.

Only option left is HDMI 2.1 then.
Is that supported on Linux with AMD GPU?

 

[Nucleoprotein]

I have had zero problems with it or at least nothing I can say that I have noticed over the past couple of years.
Might be a bad implementation in a budget display driver IC, rather than a DSC issues.

I had issues with VRR randomly switching older LG monitor to subsampling, maybe NV driver bug.

 

[TheLostSwede]

I had issues with VRR randomly switching older LG monitor to subsampling, maybe NV driver bug.

My monitor isn't even officially G-Sync compatible and it hasn't missed a beat, admittedly only at 4K 160 Hz, so maybe the issue is at higher refresh rates?