ALIENWARE 34 CURVED QD-OLED GAMING MONITOR - AW3423DW Hype

[BS_ArtStuff]

This monitor looks amazing and the LTT video is encouraging. But looking at the reviews there seems to be a lot of people who get a defective product, and issues with QC.

What are yalls thoughts on this monitor?

Is this just a case of gen 1 product issues that are going to clear up?

Is OLED tech not ready for primetime?

 

I wanted this monitor, but now I'm hesitant...

https://www.dell.com/en-us/shop/alienware-34-curved-qd-oled-gaming-monitor-aw3423dw/apd/210-bcye/monitors-monitor-accessories#techspecs_section

[dizmo]

Where did you see that? If it was widespread then it would likely show up in their user reviews, which as far as I've seen, it hasn't.

It's a first gen product, so you should expect teething issues, but they have a solid enough warranty behind it that I wouldn't be overly worried about it.

[BS_ArtStuff]

1 minute ago, dizmo said:

Where did you see that? If it was widespread then it would likely show up in their user reviews, which as far as I've seen, it hasn't.

It's a first gen product, so you should expect teething issues, but they have a solid enough warranty behind it that I wouldn't be overly worried about it.

If you go to reviews and under 1 star reviews people talk about quality issues. For how pretty the display and features are, I'd expect more than a 4.2 star rating.

[lieutent]

16 minutes ago, BS_ArtStuff said:

If you go to reviews and under 1 star reviews people talk about quality issues. For how pretty the display and features are, I'd expect more than a 4.2 star rating.

Well you do have to understand that a lot of people who receive something are a lot more likely to leave a negative review if it's got something defective about it over someone who received it and had no issues. You clicked the 1 star reviews to filter and went looking for the negatives. Which I don't blame you for but looking at so many of them at a time for something that is probably going to sell hundreds of thousands of units you'll start to feel buyer's remorse before you even make the purchase.

[BS_ArtStuff]

1 minute ago, lieutent said:

Well you do have to understand that a lot of people who receive something are a lot more likely to leave a negative review if it's got something defective about it over someone who received it and had no issues. You clicked the 1 star reviews to filter and went looking for the negatives. Which I don't blame you for but looking at so many of them at a time for something that is probably going to sell hundreds of thousands of units you'll start to feel buyer's remorse before you even make the purchase.

Yeah true that! The LG ultragear 34gp950g-b looks really good to. Out of these two which do you think is best for Content Creation and some gaming (not competitive)? Or is there one at 34" thats better?

[dizmo]

1 hour ago, BS_ArtStuff said:

If you go to reviews and under 1 star reviews people talk about quality issues. For how pretty the display and features are, I'd expect more than a 4.2 star rating.

Ah, yes. But if you look at the ratios, it's far from high, especially considering hardly anyone leaves a review. People are more likely to complain than they are to praise, so 4.2 is actually quite good.

[xg32]

2 hours ago, BS_ArtStuff said:

.

the subpixel layout will never be "fixed", i personally wouldn't use this mon as a main text mon but fine as a gaming mon. The other issues are minor and can be fixed (if it hasn't been fixed already) with firmware updates.

 

people are much more likely to report negative problems than if they are happy with a product, 4.2 is extremely high.

[Andrewtst]

You need to decide the issue you can accept or not, for example that sub pixel issue is hardware limit and it can't be solve. 

 

Recently I do seen more people comment faulty after few months or weeks usage at reddit and also the link you post. 

 

Also this monitor cannot self firmware update, this is no for me as anything issue if they solve later and you will not getting it, unless you call CS and request, then another waiting time. 

 

To me 4.2 out 5 rating is not high, it is nearly reach below 4 already. To me 4.5 star and above only consider good rating. But this doesn't matter, more important is check recent comment. 

 

Buying this monitor is like gambling, same as I buy the Samsung Odyssey Neo G9 and I decide gambling on that than this (both is the only two monitor under consideration that time), lucky mine is new badge and so far very OK and don't have mentioned issue report by user except G-Sync on in Windows mode flickering. 

 

At the end, it is up to your own decision, no one can decide for you and you need to accept possible consequences as it is not perfect and got QC issue. 

[e22big]

There are known limitation to this monitor, there's the subpixel issue that other people mentioned although I personally think that's one of their lesser issue (it actually can be fixed by third party text rendering software), the awful coating that lower the screen contrast to that of IPS in any where but a fully black out room is a much bigger problem that can't be fixed whatsoever at the moment. 

 

It's also not that bright when it comes to HDR highlight, it's very rarely get pass 500 nit brightness, making it roughly, equivalent to a 400 nit HDR in most cases (not to be confused with HDR400 certification..) which put it in the same league as the god awful Gigabyte FO48U when it comes to highlight. It just has outstanding (for an OLED anyway) and totally usable 100 percent windows brightness and very none-aggressive ABL which makes it far more usable as desktop monitor than previous OLED TV from LG or that Gigabyte monitor. 

[Stahlmann]

9 hours ago, xg32 said:

The other issues are minor and can be fixed (if it hasn't been fixed already) with firmware updates.

That's a big problem though, as you cannot update it yourself. You'll have to get through the RMA process with dell and they will likely ship out a refurbished unit or a new one with the newer firmware (if you're lucky). If you're unlucky they might just ship a random other unit that has the same firmware again. Sadly they don't just update your monitor and ship it back to you.

 

It would be much easier when the user could just use the USB connection that is already there to manually update the firmware.

 

 

 

@OP

Overall it has some minor (or major depending on who you ask) issues, but it's still universally reviewed as the overall best gaming monitor currently on the market.

 

Main drawbacks incude:

- Has a fan that can be noticeably loud depending on your noise floor

- Subpixel layout might cause issues with text clariy - can be fixed for the most part with a 3rd party utility called "Better ClearType tuner"

- The type of coating they use raises black levels in a bright environment, basically dropping the contrast ratio to typical IPS monitor levels

- Slightly higher input lag than competing options, though it's still good enough for anyone but the sweatiest competitive gamers

- Very limited console compatibility because of it's form factor and no HDMI 2.1 ports (PS5 can only do 1080p 120Hz HDR, XBSX can do 1440p 120Hz but no HDR)

 

Main advantages are:

- Great HDR experience

- Effectively infinite contrast ratio (in a dark room)

- Great pixel response times for minimal ghosting

- Extremely wide color gamut and decent factory calibration

 

Basically, picture quality is hands down better than any other competing model. But it's still not a "no compromise" experience. You just have to be aware of the issues and decide if they're dealbreakers for you or not. I'd say if you can control your ambient light and play with headphones, then you won't find anything better.

 

The only other comparable "monitor" would be the LG C2 42" OLED TV. It's a bit more limited in terms of HDR performance, but still good overall. It has a better coating for deep blacks no matter the ambient light situation. It's also a big 42" 16:9 display with full compatibility with any console and it's features. But it's a bit more expensive.

[Doobeedoo]

Yeah it will depend from person to person what bothers them and with what they are ok as some con.

Personally not a fan of sub-pixel layout, coating as main things. Samsung is still to release their monitor, maybe better coating. We will see. But need to see tech live and with more manufacturers and models. 

[Stahlmann]

33 minutes ago, Doobeedoo said:

Samsung is still to release their monitor, maybe better coating.

So far it seems the coating is a part of the panel itself, as every display that uses QD-OLED has the same. (Namely the S95B and A95K TV's.) Because of that i wouldn't expect other models to have a different coating.

 

Maybe in a future revision of the technology.

[Doobeedoo]

26 minutes ago, Stahlmann said:

So far it seems the coating is a part of the panel itself, as every display that uses QD-OLED has the same. (Namely the S95B and A95K TV's.) Because of that i wouldn't expect other models to have a different coating.

 

Maybe in a future revision of the technology.

Yeah I suspected this... Ok this is the first monitor and specs they set up to sell it initially. They need to do that 4K 240Hz model in QD OLED now, I expect that by end of the year with new cards and DP 2.0 like come on.

[BS_ArtStuff]

Yeah looking at the coating has me concerned. In the Linus review video I saw high reflectivity from his window at an angle which I can’t abide. I work near a window and have to have the blinds open (Hate working without looking outside).

 

Sooo I’m now considering either the Asus ROG SWIFT PG35VQ 35.0" 3440x1440 200 Hz Monitor, or the LG UltraGear 34GP950G-B 34.0" 3440x1440 180 Hz Monitor…

[xg32]

30 minutes ago, BS_ArtStuff said:

Yeah looking at the coating has me concerned. In the Linus review video I saw high reflectivity from his window at an angle which I can’t abide. I work near a window and have to have the blinds open (Hate working without looking outside).

 

Sooo I’m now considering either the Asus ROG SWIFT PG35VQ 35.0" 3440x1440 200 Hz Monitor, or the LG UltraGear 34GP950G-B 34.0" 3440x1440 180 Hz Monitor…

i dont know if i'd pick up a pg35vq just cause the dell has the coating issue, paging @Stahlmann, and the LG isn't really true HDR

[MonitorFlicker]

It is not worth it.

 

1. It's not a true HDR 1000 monitor that requires at least 850-1150nits in 50%-100% window. It's just a HDR 400 (even less due to ABL) OLED  with gimmick 1-2% window size that reaches 1000nits. You will have frequent ABL in HDR 1000 mode. 

 

2. Despite other issues, the monitor flickers in way that's not good for the eyes. 

 

 

=============Part 1: flickering================

 

To record the flickering, the camera shutter speed is set below 1/1000.

 

In the below tests, the monitor flickers. The flickering is not perceptible to human eyes but is very prone to eye strain compared to the traditional DC dimming or high-frequency PWM dimming.

 

Due to OLED's physical properties, changing the current intensity alone will impact both the brightness and the color accuracy. OLED manufacturers have to use PWM combined with their analog algorithm, aka "emulated DC diming", to display color with moderate brightness control. But OLED still flickers due to the imperfect hybrid implementation.

 

In this case, AW3423DW is trying to use emulated DC dimming but ends up making a worse result. The flickering frequency is the same as the monitor refresh rate. The frequency is low.

 

To make things worse, due to the lack of a polarizing layer, it needs to be used with dim ambient light; due to the ABL, its brightness fluctuates. In the particular video, every parry comes with ABL though the camera doesn't show it clearly. Eye strain can happen very quickly in scenes where brightness fluctuates even if the overall brightness is less than 400nits.

 

The combination of these is commercially in a grey area where whether or not it results in eye damage in long-term use. In general, the flicker is not healthy for the eyes, especially in a dim environment.

 

The package, the manual, and the Dell website only describe "flicker-free" as far as one of Dell's product features without any indication of a flicker-free TÜV certification.

 

There is a TÜV certification on Certipedia stating this model was certified for flicker-free. From the description, the panel is specifically mentioned as a flat panel. It can be an early model.

 

The market trick is that Dell can still trademark their product features as ComfortView that includes only low blue light TÜV certification.

 

I don't recommend this monitor for the long intensive daily drive if a gamer only uses one monitor in a basement for 3 years.

 

If you have multiple monitors and tend to replace them every year, this monitor should be probably fine.

 

 

 

=============Part 2: HDR================

 

Now I talk about HDR: 

 

HDR 1000 videos are from The Spears and Munsil UHD HDR Benchmark.

 

This comparison needs at least two exposure settings for accurate HDR comparison in SDR pictures. This is how to compare HDR in SDR mode. 

 

The exposure is set at ISO 100, shutter speed 1/125, and ISO 100, shutter speed 1/25. 

 

The middle monitor shows the reference luminance level. When the curves are flattened at a top level, that level is where 1000nits is. 

 

In the pictures with 1/125 shutter speed, details are preserved on both monitors. In the pictures with 1/25 shutter speed, the details are not preserved but have more pronounced brightness in SDR. The difference regarding relative brightness is represented at both settings though a true HDR 1000 monitor appeared to be overexposed in 1/25 while AW3423DW appears to be dim in 1/125. I expect you can see it in the comparison to know that a true HDR 1000 monitor delivers 2x-3x more luminance, aka more contrast to the eyes, than AW3423DW in some high APL 800nits scenes without losing any details or causing distracting blooming. Therefore, a true HDR monitor delivers more realistic images. In HDR (also in SDR), except fast pixel response, AW3423DW is not at the same level as a true HDR 1000 monitor due to ABL. AW32423DW only looks the same when it displays small window size with a large black background. Also, in these high APL HDR scenes blooming is not noticeable because central object is emitting 1000nits luminance, making edge blooming unnoticeable to the eyes, even to the camera. In average HDR, blooming is not noticeable either unless you actively search for it. 

 

I have to warn you most people don't know HDR very well. They also don't have both monitors to compare but low brightness OLEDs. I suggest you don't listen to people who don't know how to use a true HDR monitor but a mere 200nits full-field OLED TV. 

 

OLED is always a mid-tier monitor and it is going to be a mid-tier compared to the FALD LCD. 

 

Its brightness is struggling. So does its contrast. I mean what I say: The contrast of OLED loses to FALD LCD if the brightness is not enough. The infinite (x/0) contrast of OLED is not the true contrast due to the compromise of brightness. The higher the brightness goes without rising the black level, the more contrast the monitor displays. And FALD LCD has more contrast in this regard. It's also why the premium/flagship product out there is always FALD LCD. Most people don't understand it. 

In some cases, a true HDR monitor with its caliber in SDR 400nits can look even better than AW3423DW in HDR when ABL kicks the OLED below sub 400nits. 

 

Ture HDR 1000 vs AW3423DW HDR

Spoiler

 

YCbCr SDR 400 vs AW3423DW HDR

Spoiler

 

 

=============CONSLUSION ================

 

The OLED or QD-OLED is struggling. Brightness is not enough. And PWM fatigue is more severe because the OLED is trying to use emulated DC dimming but end up making a worse result. The flickers frequency is the same as the monitor refresh rate. The frequency is low. The flicker is not healthy to the eyes especially under a dim environment. My eyes become rather irritated when looking at the monitor. It's not as comfortable compared to other true HDR 1000 monitors even though other monitors are much brighter.

 

The traditional DC dimming or high frequency PWM won't have the problem and it is safe to use for a long time. And the HDR monitor is going to hit 10,000nits for image quality.

 

The comparison of the latest QD-OLED vs a 4-year-old FALD 512-zone true HDR 1000 monitor is made to prove this point. 

 

In order to archive a high-level HDR performance, OLED has to deal with flickering and brightness one way or another. But that won't happen very soon. 

 

So I suggest you don't buy it. You wait. This monitor won't last even for a short pierid of time considering a better FALD LCD is becoming much cheaper. 

[BS_ArtStuff]

1 hour ago, MonitorFlicker said:

It is not worth it.

 

1. It's not a true HDR 1000 monitor that requires at least 850-1150nits in 50%-100% window. It's just a HDR 400 (even less due to ABL) OLED  with gimmick 1-2% window size that reaches 1000nits. You will have frequent ABL in HDR 1000 mode. 

 

2. Despite other issues, the monitor flickers in way that's not good for the eyes. 

 

 

=============Part 1: flickering================

 

To record the flickering, the camera shutter speed is set below 1/1000.

 

In the below tests, the monitor flickers. The flickering is not perceptible to human eyes but is very prone to eye strain compared to the traditional DC dimming or high-frequency PWM dimming.

 

Due to OLED's physical properties, changing the current intensity alone will impact both the brightness and the color accuracy. OLED manufacturers have to use PWM combined with their analog algorithm, aka "emulated DC diming", to display color with moderate brightness control. But OLED still flickers due to the imperfect hybrid implementation.

 

In this case, AW3423DW is trying to use emulated DC dimming but ends up making a worse result. The flickering frequency is the same as the monitor refresh rate. The frequency is low.

 

To make things worse, due to the lack of a polarizing layer, it needs to be used with dim ambient light; due to the ABL, its brightness fluctuates. In the particular video, every parry comes with ABL though the camera doesn't show it clearly. Eye strain can happen very quickly in scenes where brightness fluctuates even if the overall brightness is less than 400nits.

 

The combination of these is commercially in a grey area where whether or not it results in eye damage in long-term use. In general, the flicker is not healthy for the eyes, especially in a dim environment.

 

The package, the manual, and the Dell website only describe "flicker-free" as far as one of Dell's product features without any indication of a flicker-free TÜV certification.

 

There is a TÜV certification on Certipedia stating this model was certified for flicker-free. From the description, the panel is specifically mentioned as a flat panel. It can be an early model.

 

The market trick is that Dell can still trademark their product features as ComfortView that includes only low blue light TÜV certification.

 

I don't recommend this monitor for the long intensive daily drive if a gamer only uses one monitor in a basement for 3 years.

 

If you have multiple monitors and tend to replace them every year, this monitor should be probably fine.

 

 

 

=============Part 2: HDR================

 

Now I talk about HDR: 

 

HDR 1000 videos are from The Spears and Munsil UHD HDR Benchmark.

 

This comparison needs at least two exposure settings for accurate HDR comparison in SDR pictures. This is how to compare HDR in SDR mode. 

 

The exposure is set at ISO 100, shutter speed 1/125, and ISO 100, shutter speed 1/25. 

 

The middle monitor shows the reference luminance level. When the curves are flattened at a top level, that level is where 1000nits is. 

 

In the pictures with 1/125 shutter speed, details are preserved on both monitors. In the pictures with 1/25 shutter speed, the details are not preserved but have more pronounced brightness in SDR. The difference regarding relative brightness is represented at both settings though a true HDR 1000 monitor appeared to be overexposed in 1/25 while AW3423DW appears to be dim in 1/125. I expect you can see it in the comparison to know that a true HDR 1000 monitor delivers 2x-3x more luminance, aka more contrast to the eyes, than AW3423DW in some high APL 800nits scenes without losing any details or causing distracting blooming. Therefore, a true HDR monitor delivers more realistic images. In HDR (also in SDR), except fast pixel response, AW3423DW is not at the same level as a true HDR 1000 monitor due to ABL. AW32423DW only looks the same when it displays small window size with a large black background. Also, in these high APL HDR scenes blooming is not noticeable because central object is emitting 1000nits luminance, making edge blooming unnoticeable to the eyes, even to the camera. In average HDR, blooming is not noticeable either unless you actively search for it. 

 

I have to warn you most people don't know HDR very well. They also don't have both monitors to compare but low brightness OLEDs. I suggest you don't listen to people who don't know how to use a true HDR monitor but a mere 200nits full-field OLED TV. 

 

OLED is always a mid-tier monitor and it is going to be a mid-tier compared to the FALD LCD. 

 

Its brightness is struggling. So does its contrast. I mean what I say: The contrast of OLED loses to FALD LCD if the brightness is not enough. The infinite (x/0) contrast of OLED is not the true contrast due to the compromise of brightness. The higher the brightness goes without rising the black level, the more contrast the monitor displays. And FALD LCD has more contrast in this regard. It's also why the premium/flagship product out there is always FALD LCD. Most people don't understand it. 

In some cases, a true HDR monitor with its caliber in SDR 400nits can look even better than AW3423DW in HDR when ABL kicks the OLED below sub 400nits. 

 

Ture HDR 1000 vs AW3423DW HDR

  Reveal hidden contents

 

YCbCr SDR 400 vs AW3423DW HDR

  Reveal hidden contents

 

 

=============CONSLUSION ================

 

The OLED or QD-OLED is struggling. Brightness is not enough. And PWM fatigue is more severe because the OLED is trying to use emulated DC dimming but end up making a worse result. The flickers frequency is the same as the monitor refresh rate. The frequency is low. The flicker is not healthy to the eyes especially under a dim environment. My eyes become rather irritated when looking at the monitor. It's not as comfortable compared to other true HDR 1000 monitors even though other monitors are much brighter.

 

The traditional DC dimming or high frequency PWM won't have the problem and it is safe to use for a long time. And the HDR monitor is going to hit 10,000nits for image quality.

 

The comparison of the latest QD-OLED vs a 4-year-old FALD 512-zone true HDR 1000 monitor is made to prove this point. 

 

In order to archive a high-level HDR performance, OLED has to deal with flickering and brightness one way or another. But that won't happen very soon. 

 

So I suggest you don't buy it. You wait. This monitor won't last even for a short pierid of time considering a better FALD LCD is becoming much cheaper. 

Damn thanks for the info! What're your thoughts on the Asus ROG SWIFT PG35VQ 35.0" 3440x1440 200 Hz Monitor, or the LG UltraGear 34GP950G-B 34.0" 3440x1440 180 Hz Monitor…?

 

There's so many options and everyone has pros and cons to even the best of the best lol. I need a monitor with:

. the best color, contrast and brightness

. decent refresh rate, 144hz at least

. 32-38" UHD or 4k (not bigger and not smaller)

 

I thought between the Alienware and these two I had something. Now I'm second guessing myself.

[Stahlmann]

4 hours ago, BS_ArtStuff said:

Yeah looking at the coating has me concerned. In the Linus review video I saw high reflectivity from his window at an angle which I can’t abide. I work near a window and have to have the blinds open (Hate working without looking outside).

 

Sooo I’m now considering either the Asus ROG SWIFT PG35VQ 35.0" 3440x1440 200 Hz Monitor, or the LG UltraGear 34GP950G-B 34.0" 3440x1440 180 Hz Monitor…

The PG35VQ is a great monitor, but not as good as the AW3423dW. Both have noticeable fan noise, both deliver a good HDR experience, but the PG35VQ has quite noticeable blooming, which the QD-OLED doesn't have. And the extra brightness on the Asus isn't really worth much imo. And the PG35VQ has dark smearing, as it's a VA panel.

[MonitorFlicker]

6 hours ago, BS_ArtStuff said:

Damn thanks for the info! What're your thoughts on the Asus ROG SWIFT PG35VQ 35.0" 3440x1440 200 Hz Monitor, or the LG UltraGear 34GP950G-B 34.0" 3440x1440 180 Hz Monitor…?

 

There's so many options and everyone has pros and cons to even the best of the best lol. I need a monitor with:

. the best color, contrast and brightness

. decent refresh rate, 144hz at least

. 32-38" UHD or 4k (not bigger and not smaller)

 

I thought between the Alienware and these two I had something. Now I'm second guessing myself.

Just wait.

 

I have PG35VQ for 3 years. In terms of media consumption and HDR works, It destroys AW3423DW in both HDR and SDR content. But it is rather slow, not great for competitive gaming. It is still a good casual gaming monitor when your work/gaming hour is 8/1. AW3423DW is not good for work because of flickering. You cannot look at the monitor for long hours without eye fatigue. It is not a competitive gaming monitor either due to higher input lag and 175Hz refresh rate. There is barely any advantage in games like Escape From Tarkov. The contrast of the black level in AW3423DW's mere 260nits SDR makes enemies much difficult to spot than on the brighter PG35VQ. So you have to manually rise black level, making AW3423DW more like TN than PG35VQ. This is why I much prefer PG35VQ for casual gaming and work all day without issues than AW3423DW's eye fatigue. Don't listen to Stahlmann. We argued before. He doesn't know the monitors very well. He doesn't have a AW3423DW, he has a 200ntis full-field C1 TV, far from the true HDR 1000 capability. I even doubt he has a PG35VQ or a G9. PG doesn't have black smearing if the OD is set to Normal, it just has more pronounced blurry effect of all colors in general. The blooming is noticeable in browsing but not in media consumption if a FALD LCD like PG35VQ or G9 has good algorithm. PG35VQ still has better true HDR than G9 due to Samsung's issues with its miniLED kicked by ABL.

 

Any of them is not recommended unless you can find a deal of both PG35VQ for true HDR 1000 and PG279QM for competitive gaming at a total sub $2000 price similar to AW3423DW without 3-month of waiting. 

 

AW3423DW is not going to last even for a short pierid of time.

 

Samsung G8 is coming. Wait for the review at least. 

 

[Andrewtst]

2 hours ago, MonitorFlicker said:

Just wait.

 

I have PG35VQ for 3 years. In terms of media consumption and HDR works, It destroys AW3423DW in both HDR and SDR content. But it is rather slow, not great for competitive gaming. It is still a good casual gaming monitor when your work/gaming hour is 8/1. AW3423DW is not good for work because of flickering. You cannot look at the monitor for long hours without eye fatigue. It is not a competitive gaming monitor either due to higher input lag and 175Hz refresh rate. There is barely any advantage in games like Escape From Tarkov. The contrast of the black level in AW3423DW's mere 260nits SDR makes enemies much difficult to spot than on the brighter PG35VQ. So you have to manually rise black level, making AW3423DW more like TN than PG35VQ. This is why I much prefer PG35VQ for casual gaming and work all day without issues than AW3423DW. Don't listen to Stahlmann. We argued before and he doesn't know the monitors very well. He doesn't have a AW3423DW, he has a 200ntis full-field C1 TV, far from the true HDR 1000 capability. I even doubt he has a PG35VQ. It doesn't have black smearing if the OD is set to Normal, it just has more pronounced blurry effect of all colors in general. The blooming is noticeable in browsing but not in media consumption if a FALD LCD like PG35VQ has good algorithm.

 

Any of them is not recommended unless you can find a deal of both PG35VQ for true HDR 1000 and PG279QM for competitive gaming at a total price similar to AW3423DW without 3-month of waiting. 

 

AW3423DW is not going to last even for a short pierid of time.

 

Samsung G8 is coming. Wait for the review at least. 

 

I accept you said AW3423DW QD-OLED flickering as it is possible as I have one of the OLED display from Asus VivoBook 15 OLED laptop, I found the information this panel also make by Samsung  and it is also flickering. But this does not apply to all OLED display, at least my LG C9 OLED did not flickering.

 

The rest comment each have it own preferable.

 

For @Stahlmann

He is obsesses with AW3423DW, did not own it but keep talking like that monitor is god. Really speechless.

Also over obsesses with whatever reviewer said, keep comment based on information gather from reviewer only instead of self experience.

[Stahlmann]

8 minutes ago, Andrewtst said:

For @Stahlmann

He is obsesses with AW3423DW, did not own it but keep talking like that monitor is god. Really speechless.

I don't think that monitor is a god. I have often talked about it's downsides and why i personally not have one. Still, i think for most people it's the best monitor available. If i'd buy an OLED display for my PC right now, i'd probably rather go with the LG C2, so there's that.

 

10 minutes ago, Andrewtst said:

Also over obsesses with whatever reviewer said. Did not own it, should not comment much based on information gather from reviewer only.

And i do trust reputable reviewers more than some random person on the internet. That's what the word reputable means; Their information is generally correct. For whatever reason it seems odd to you that i use actual data to back up my arguments.

[Andrewtst]

13 minutes ago, Stahlmann said:

I don't think that monitor is a god. I have often talked about it's downsides. Still, i think for most people it's the best monitor available.

 

And i do trust reputable reviewers more than some random person on the internet. That's what the word reputable means; Their information is generally correct. Still, for whatever reason it seems odd to you that i use actual data to back up my arguments.

Did you ever know statistic data not means always it is the output on experience?

 

Did you ever also know reputable reviewers also not means it is always correct and can be un-reputable anytime.

For example did you see any reviewer comment on Samsung Odyssey Neo G9 got those issue in their 1st review? It is only updated by reviewer later after many comments from user.

 

User with proof owning the device sometimes is more trusted than reviewer. It should have balance in between feedback from reviewer and user.

 

If you own nothing on those, you should talk on brief only not die die said how great they are and ignore actual user feedback.

[Stahlmann]

20 minutes ago, Andrewtst said:

Did you ever know statistic data not means always it is the output on experience?

Not always, but it's the best way to actually compare things. After that you can take outliers into consideration by reading user reviews and looking into common problems, etc.

 

20 minutes ago, Andrewtst said:

Did you ever also know reputable reviewers also not means it is always correct and can be un-reputable anytime.

For a reviewer to become un-reputable it'll take more than getting one thing wrong. At least in my book. That's why i said "generally correct" in my other post. Sadly, writing someone off because of one mistake is part of nowaday's "cancel culture".

 

I don't always agree with their review conclusions and i don't have to. The data is still there and can be used.

 

20 minutes ago, Andrewtst said:

For example did you see any reviewer comment on Samsung Odyssey Neo G9 got those issue in their 1st review? It is only updated by reviewer later after many comments from user.

Hardware Unboxed talked about plenty of issues in their review, even ones that have not been noticed by most of the community. And he mentioned that there are higher than average problem reports on the internet. RTINGS tend to miss more of these QC issues, sill their data overall is very consistent. These are the only 2 reviewers that are consistent enough with their information and data to be repuatble in my book, so i use mostly their data.

 

20 minutes ago, Andrewtst said:

User with proof owning the device sometimes is more trusted than reviewer.

Yeah sometimes, but people typically need to bring out stronger arguments when they go against what is already established.

 

20 minutes ago, Andrewtst said:

If you own nothing on those, you should talk on brief only not die die said how great they are and ignore actual user feedback.

In the times of reddit you need to filter out a lot of "noisy data" when looking up information online. Minor issues can explode into huge controversies because people make them seem great.

 

Just like these flickering reports from @MonitorFlicker which makes it sound like it's a complete dealbreaker to everyone. And in that case you also chose to agree with him, even though 90% of people that own this monitor (or other OLED displays) don't have any problem with it. So who is ignoring actual user feedback at this point?

[Andrewtst]

5 minutes ago, Stahlmann said:

Not always, but it's the best way to actually compare things. After that you can take outliers into consideration by reading user reviews and looking into common problems, etc.

 

For a reviewer to become un-reputable it'll take more than getting one thing wrong. At least in my book. That's why i said "generally correct" in my other post. Sadly, writing someone off because of one mistake is part of nowaday's "cancel culture".

 

I don't always agree with their review conclusions and i don't have to. The data is still there and can be used.

 

Hardware Unboxed talked about plenty of issues in their review, even ones that have not been noticed by most of the community. And he mentioned that there are higher than average problem reports on the internet. RTINGS tend to miss more of these QC issues, sill their data overall is very consistent. These are the only 2 reviewers that are consistent enough with their information and data to be repuatble in my book, so i use mostly their data.

 

Yeah sometimes, but people typically need to bring out stronger arguments when they go against what is already established.

 

In the times of reddit you need to filter out a lot of "noisy data" when looking up information online. Minor issues can explode into huge deals because people make them seem great. Just like these flickering reports from @MonitorFlicker which makes it sound like it's a complete dealbreaker to everyone.

 

And in that case you also chose to agree with him, even though 90% of people that own this monitor (or other OLED displays) don't have any problem with it. So who is ignoring actual user feedback at this point?

Many feedback also that monitor got issue, who is ignoring who. You got nothing own, you basically should keep silent and stop fighting without valid device in your hands. If you own and proof it, then different story. else for your always want to fight and win. You should instead zip up your mouth.

 

Keep talking the AW3423DW QD-OLED is how great and assume many people is ok with those issue, when I said you obsesses, now you turn around and said you prefer and will buy C2.

[Stahlmann]

1 minute ago, Andrewtst said:

Many feedback also that monitor got issue, who is ignoring who. You got nothing own, you basically should keep silent and stop fighting without valid device in your hands.

I won't keep silent if there is something i want to talk about. That's how free speech works. If i see problems big enough i will continue to bring them to light in the future, like i have been with the G7 and G9 for example. And if the problems are small enough than they can probably be ignored when speaking about general recommendations. If you believe everything that is posted on reddit, then you cannot buy anything anymore because everything has just too many major flaws people can't live with.

 

And again, my entire argument is based around my ownership of the PG35VQ and the C9. The AW3423DW is better than the C9 in pretty much every way as a PC monitor. I already think the C9 is way better than the PG35VQ. Then it makes sense that i'll come to the conclusion that the AW3423DW is a better option than the PG35VQ. It's really not that hard to follow...

 

Anyway i'm gonna end that discussion with you now because i don't want to take over yet another thread to be 2 pages just between you and me. That's what DMs are for.