ALIENWARE 34 CURVED QD-OLED GAMING MONITOR - AW3423DW Hype

[Andrewtst]

46 minutes ago, Stahlmann said:

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.

To me, your feedback is misleading since you said cannot tell differences between 8-bit vs 10-bit.

 

Your opinion on Highest contrast means better HDR, HDR is not relied on contrast only.

 

Ignoring user feedback with proof but instead you can't proof anything beside keep using reviewer data not your own. 

 

Also your assumption on user is ok to this and that issue. You ok not means you can assume others people same as you. 

 

Did not own the device and can said obvious better than. Your comment became more and more no logic and not trusted.

Against turning back said how great that Alienware AW3423DW QD-OLED.

 

Yes I agreed shall end the discussion with you as no point.

[ewitte]

Most of the problems are specific to Dell's implementation.  AFAIK the only issue that can not be fixed universally is the lack of polarizing filter and not giving you complete black in a well lit room.

QD-OLED is amazing but this is immature and a first implementation.

[tikker]

14 hours ago, MonitorFlicker said:

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. 

  Which standard is that from (just curious)? VESA's DisplayHDR 1000 certification only requires 1000 nits over a 10% window, not 50-100%. Plus the Alienware doesn't have bear that label. It's just Dell claiming an not further specified 1000 nits peak brightness, but they officially only have the VESA Display HDR True Black 400 certification from what I can find.

 

8 hours ago, Andrewtst said:

Ignoring user feedback with proof but instead you can't proof anything beside keep using reviewer data not your own.

You pretend reviewers measuring or finding something isn't proof. I think people need to carefully distinguish facts/proof (reaches 500 nits in a 10% window, flicker seen on camera, colour accurace of X) from opinions (best gaming monitor ever, best experience etc.). What is, according to you, the difference between a random forum user giving their opinion and a reviewer giving theirs? It's absolutely useful to obtain many reviews, as that builds up the statistics that are necessary to deduce how prevalent issues are, but there is no difference between you measuring your display yourself and a reviewer measuring the same model except production variances, as long as you both use the proper equipment and method.

8 hours ago, Andrewtst said:

Also your assumption on user is ok to this and that issue. You ok not means you can assume others people same as you. 

Then you must agree you can also not assume these personal experiences hold much weight, as you can't assume other people are the same as you.

 

The point of a good review is that you don't have to get your own data and that you can rely on someone with the proper equipment and knowledge obtaining the data. They then present their data for your interpretation and perhaps give their opinion. The rest is up to you to decide on by considering your personal preferences and use case.

[Andrewtst]

5 hours ago, tikker said:

  Which standard is that from (just curious)? VESA's DisplayHDR 1000 certification only requires 1000 nits over a 10% window, not 50-100%. Plus the Alienware doesn't have bear that label. It's just Dell claiming an not further specified 1000 nits peak brightness, but they officially only have the VESA Display HDR True Black 400 certification from what I can find.

 

You pretend reviewers measuring or finding something isn't proof. I think people need to carefully distinguish facts/proof (reaches 500 nits in a 10% window, flicker seen on camera, colour accurace of X) from opinions (best gaming monitor ever, best experience etc.). What is, according to you, the difference between a random forum user giving their opinion and a reviewer giving theirs? It's absolutely useful to obtain many reviews, as that builds up the statistics that are necessary to deduce how prevalent issues are, but there is no difference between you measuring your display yourself and a reviewer measuring the same model except production variances, as long as you both use the proper equipment and method.

Then you must agree you can also not assume these personal experiences hold much weight, as you can't assume other people are the same as you.

 

The point of a good review is that you don't have to get your own data and that you can rely on someone with the proper equipment and knowledge obtaining the data. They then present their data for your interpretation and perhaps give their opinion. The rest is up to you to decide on by considering your personal preferences and use case.

He/She die die said OLED won't flickering, I got one OLED also flickering and naked eye can notice it.

I own Asus VivoBook 15 OLED and I can seen screen flickering from time to time, not very often but it happen. 

 

Simply Google you can get the result OLED screen in Asus laptop do flickering.

 

https://arstechnica.com/civis/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=1463525

https://www.quora.com/Why-is-the-screen-of-my-brand-new-Asus-laptop-VivoBook-15-flickering

 

Even Rtings also highlight this VivoBook 15 OLED is not flicker free. Rtings is very high reputable reviewer right and this review is one of it showing OLED can be flickering. What He/She die die said OLED won't flickering is proof by professional reviewer and also user owner where OLED can be flickering and not always flicker free.

https://www.rtings.com/laptop/reviews/asus/vivobook-15-oled-k513-2021

 

If you google OLED flickering only, many point out it is due to PWM but He/She insist not related to PWM.

 

The point of good review is a references, which is same as user own the device opinion. He/She without the device at all but said everything seriously insist, included previously He/She said no differences in between 8-bit and 10-bit and comment like I am placebo. This showing He/She only believe what He/She believe, anything He/She not believe is totally wrong and even ignore all user that actually own the device because He/She believe it won't happen means cannot happen, He/She believe no different means it is no different.

 

I never said reviewer review statistic is wrong and fake, I also check on review but I also check on user comment, they should be a balance in between, not one side stand. But He/She only one side stand to reviewer and said all user feedback is not true. This is the issue here.

[e22big]

16 hours 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. 

Eh that's not entirely fair. I do absolutely agree that OLED HDR is limited and should not be used as a sole indicative of HDR performance (ala Hardware Unboxed way) 

 

But it does have its strenght and weakenss. Even the best of FALD (aka mini-LED) wil suffer some degree of dark scene overblowning and bloom just like how the OLED will always suffer from the lack of 100 percent screen brightness (which is required for a realistic day time scene.) It may looks great in a bright scene but even the best of the best will either look way too dark in the dark scene or brighten everything up to the unrealistic degree. 

 

Blooming is actually not a big deal but the different between the bright scene and dark scene is pretty much what defined the strenghts and weakness of an OLED vs LCD. It's just the matter of what will you choose to compromise. And for pure media consumption/gaming display I can see the reason why a lot of people would likely to choose the OLED compromise over LCD. I would personally pick the versatility of LCD over OLED but that's just me and my use case, everyone have their priority.

 

Just like I had always been critical of Tim from Hardware Unboxed for advertising the strenght of OLED as the ultimate HDR experience, I would also have to criticise anyone who claim the same with FALD. There's no best solution when it comes to HDR, it's just which one suite you more than others.

*all of the images were taken from this video, he does explain the technicality of the camera and the technique he used to captured the images and its limitation but the picture does correspond to what he described them
 

 

[tikker]

4 hours ago, Andrewtst said:

He/She die die said OLED won't flickering, I got one OLED also flickering and naked eye can notice it.

I own Asus VivoBook 15 OLED and it is brand new and I can seen screen flickering from time to time, not very often but it happen. 

 

Simply Google you can get the result OLED screen in Asus laptop do flickering.

 

https://arstechnica.com/civis/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=1463525

https://www.quora.com/Why-is-the-screen-of-my-brand-new-Asus-laptop-VivoBook-15-flickering

 

Even Rtings also highlight this VivoBook 15 OLED is not flicker free. Rtings is very high reputable reviewer right and this review is one of it showing OLED can be flickering. What He/She die die said OLED won't flickering is proof by professional reviewer and also user owner where OLED can be flickering and not always flicker free.

https://www.rtings.com/laptop/reviews/asus/vivobook-15-oled-k513-2021

 

If you google OLED flickering only, many point out it is due to PWM but He/She insist not related to PWM.

That's in a different thread I think? I don't see much of that here. Some seem to use PWM and others don't from what I can find. I guess it's up to the product in that case. I'm not here to debate that.

4 hours ago, Andrewtst said:

The point of good review is a references, which is same as user own the device opinion. He/She without the device at all but said everything seriously insist, included previously He/She said no differences in between 8-bit and 10-bit and comment like I am placebo. This showing He/She only believe what He/She believe, anything He/She not believe is totally wrong and even ignore all user that actually own the device because He/She believe it won't happen means cannot happen, He/She believe no different means it is no different.

They both serve as references indeed, but a balanced review generally tries to highlight both good and bads without taking too much of a stance either way. It's perfectly fine to use reputable reviews to defend a point even if you don't own the device. That's the point of a review. If multiple reputable reviews confirm or not confirm an issue, then it's a safe assumption that is correct. If a disproportionate amount of people start complaining about some issue then yeah it warrants a revisit or deeper investigation

4 hours ago, Andrewtst said:

I never said reviewer review statistic is wrong and fake, I also check on review but I also check on user comment, they should be a balance in between, not one side stand. But He/She only one side stand to reviewer and said all user feedback is not true. This is the issue here.

I don't see that being said. Only that reputable reviewers get more trust than random forum people. I don't think that's a bad thing. Statistics I was referring to this

15 hours ago, Andrewtst said:

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

Statistics do reflect the experience and both bad and good experiences are necessary for it. The issue with user statistics is that you disporportionately hear about the bad ones compared to the good ones. If you read 100 bad reviews you'd probably wonder if it's a bad product, but if there are a million people with no issues that don't leave a review, those 100 bad ones will not be representative of the experience.

[Andrewtst]

18 minutes ago, tikker said:

That's in a different thread I think? I don't see much of that here. Some seem to use PWM and others don't from what I can find. I guess it's up to the product in that case. I'm not here to debate that.

They both serve as references indeed, but a balanced review generally tries to highlight both good and bads without taking too much of a stance either way. It's perfectly fine to use reputable reviews to defend a point even if you don't own the device. That's the point of a review. If multiple reputable reviews confirm or not confirm an issue, then it's a safe assumption that is correct. If a disproportionate amount of people start complaining about some issue then yeah it warrants a revisit or deeper investigation

I don't see that being said. Only that reputable reviewers get more trust than random forum people. I don't think that's a bad thing. Statistics I was referring to this

Statistics do reflect the experience and both bad and good experiences are necessary for it. The issue with user statistics is that you disporportionately hear about the bad ones compared to the good ones. If you read 100 bad reviews you'd probably wonder if it's a bad product, but if there are a million people with no issues that don't leave a review, those 100 bad ones will not be representative of the experience.

Not all in this thread, it is from multiple thread related to Display.

 

Statistic is not a bad thing and I always agreed but it need to be in balance, he/she said only trust on reviewer and not the user that having it as to him/her user comment is not trusted at all.

 

I am also one of the user own 2 OLED display and it is proof OLED can be flickering. Also he/she said 8-bit and 10-bit had no different is very serious thing.

I am also not here for defends either.

[MonitorFlicker]

13 hours ago, e22big said:

But it does have its strenght and weakenss. Even the best of FALD (aka mini-LED) wil suffer some degree of dark scene overblowning and bloom just like how the OLED will always suffer from the lack of 100 percent screen brightness (which is required for a realistic day time scene.) It may looks great in a bright scene but even the best of the best will either look way too dark in the dark scene or brighten everything up to the unrealistic degree.  

 

Blooming is actually not a big deal but the different between the bright scene and dark scene is pretty much what defined the strenghts and weakness of an OLED vs LCD. It's just the matter of what will you choose to compromise. And for pure media consumption/gaming display I can see the reason why a lot of people would likely to choose the OLED compromise over LCD. I would personally pick the versatility of LCD over OLED but that's just me and my use case, everyone have their priority.

You were mainly talking about Samsung's display, right? What you experienced is the result of Samsung's miniLED along with its ABL, making a 2% window blow 2000nits and a 50% window below 500nits in HDR.

 

An example is NEO G9, NEO G8; and TVs from Samsung. Though monitors have higher standards than TVs in general, neither NEO G9 nor NEO G8 has VESA Display HDR 1000 certification. When the brightness drops below 500nits in 50% window, it will be embarrassing a VESA HDR600 monitors looks better in the same situation.  

 

This is much less an issue on other monitors with LEDs or miniLEDs with sustained/accurate brightness without ABL from Qisda/Benq. 

An example is PG27UQ/X27, PG35VQ/X35, and PG32UQX. 

This is not an issue from Sony reference BVM-HX310 that does 1000nits full-field. 

Samsung needs to do some catch-ups. Its miniLED is not that good, or it won't implement ABL to prolong the miniLED lifespan of its mere 1-year warranty or search for a lesser VDE HDR certificate instead of the more strict VESA that requires at least 30 minutes of sustained brightness.

 

In comparison, OLED cannot catch up easily. I already said 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. If you add 0.002 nits (X/0.002) to measure contrast in a realistic usage instead of 0 nits. Then FALD LCD can easily have 1million:1 contrast with its 1000nits more brightness. That is enough for manufacturers to favor FALD LCD as the top-tier products instead of OLED despite the blooming effect. The future is FALD LCD I guess. 

 

[xg32]

16 hours ago, Andrewtst said:

.

i mean u were recommending non-oled, or non-fald screens to other users as hdr monitors, that's worse than 8bit imho

 

not trying to get personal, as i tend to just ignore and agree to disagree, but recommending a g7/old g9 with 65% rec2020 coverage as a hdr monitor is just ridiculous.

 

To sum up the problems coming up over and over again (for others as it's getting loaded)

 

oled+fald vs other "hdr" displays

8bit/10bit

potential oled pwm/flickering problem for users that notice/experience eye strains/headaches

blooming

subpixel layout

color gamut

 

I'm now leaning toward not ordering a AW3423DW until i can physically see one in store (fat chance)

With the x27 discontinued, personally getting a headache from black smearing, the pg32uqx not being a true 120hz display without ghosting, my options for a smaller hdr display is down to the pa32ucg, which is ridiculous.

[e22big]

1 hour ago, MonitorFlicker said:

You were mainly talking about Samsung's display, right? What you experienced is the result of Samsung's miniLED along with its ABL, making a 2% window blow 2000nits and a 50% window below 500nits in HDR.

 

An example is NEO G9, NEO G8; and TVs from Samsung. Though monitors have higher standards than TVs in general, neither NEO G9 nor NEO G8 has VESA Display HDR 1000 certification. When the brightness drops below 500nits in 50% window, it will be embarrassing a VESA HDR600 monitors looks better in the same situation.  

 

This is much less an issue on other monitors with LEDs or miniLEDs with sustained/accurate brightness without ABL from Qisda/Benq. 

An example is PG27UQ/X27, PG35VQ/X35, and PG32UQX. 

This is not an issue from Sony reference BVM-HX310 that does 1000nits full-field. 

Samsung needs to do some catch-ups. Its miniLED is not that good, or it won't implement ABL to prolong the miniLED lifespan of its mere 1-year warranty or search for a lesser VDE HDR certificate instead of the more strict VESA that requires at least 30 minutes of sustained brightness.

 

In comparison, OLED cannot catch up easily. I already said 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. If you add 0.02 nits (X/0.02) to measure contrast in a realistic usage instead of 0 nits. Then FALD LCD can easily have 1million:1 contrast with its 1000nits more brightness. That is enough for manufacturers to favor FALD LCD as the top-tier products instead of OLED despite the blooming effect. The future is FALD LCD I guess. 

 

What the heck are you talking about? QN90B is way brighter than any monitor even the PG32UQX doesn't even come close. It has never drop below 600 nit brightness in any windows size and windows and it's getting 800-900 nit in 50 percent window, and max out at near 2000 in a smaller windows. 

 

It doesn't have VESA HDR1000 because it has HDR2000 (that and VESA HDR doesn't apply to TV, no TV has their own certification system)

 

QC wise, TV also tends to be better, you just have to look at endless threats of people having trouble with PG32UQX. And even with 1000 nit brightness, an LCD is also limited by its own panel capability, if you have IPS, no matter how good your brightness and local dimming are, you will never archied contrast any more than that of a standard monitor. 

 

Want to guess how much contrast Predator X27 with 200 local dimming zone and HDR1000 certification can do? It's 1:1300, not one million, not even ten thousands (which is the typical contrast in VA mini LED. That and mini LED and FALD is pretty much the same, it just has more zones in several hundreads to a thousand instead of a few dozen.

 

*1st image is from QN90B, second is from Predator X27 - which does have HDR1000 

[MonitorFlicker]

17 minutes ago, e22big said:

 

 

When it is over 25% window, PG32UQX is already brighter than QN90B. 10% window size is meant for the VDE HDR 2000 benchmark that doesn't require sustained brightness. If you compare them in The Spears and Munsil UHD HDR Benchmark.mastered for HDR 2000, PG32UQX is more impressive I'm afraid. When the HDR video average brightness is at 800nits, QN90B might not even look as good as a VESA HDR 1000 monitor. 

 

Also, the contrast doesn't stay 1300:1 tested at 100nits with FALD disabled in SDR. When FALD is enabled and the brightness rises, the contrast will increase dramatically. It's a million:1 at 1000nits. 

 

The above will be enough to indicate the importance of sustained brightness of miniLED. Samsung doesn't have the sustained brightness. 

[Andrewtst]

4 hours ago, xg32 said:

i mean u were recommending non-oled, or non-fald screens to other users as hdr monitors, that's worse than 8bit imho

 

not trying to get personal, as i tend to just ignore and agree to disagree, but recommending a g7/old g9 with 65% rec2020 coverage as a hdr monitor is just ridiculous.

Which post I recommending non-oled, or non-fald screens?

Also I never recommended this two g7/old g9 as per your comment. I am using Neo G9, what for recommended old G9 as myself already not buying the old G9 means it is not my preferable choice. As for G7 it is 16:9 aspect ratio in curved which I never like as to me curved only nice with immersive feel in 21:9 or 32:9 aspect ratio. If you talk about another G7 which is 4K resolution with 240hz also never my choice as to me 4K is still not a good time to buy especially you are using it for gaming. Current market gaming card is still not really can push up to 240fps in 4K, sometimes 60fps also not possible in certain AAA games with maximum quality setting.

 

Stahlmann said he/she have been with g7/old g9 and said this two monitor have big issue and should always bring it out, but also didn't recommending this two display as well. No one is recommended it.

 

Please check again did you quota wrong person? or please read in proper and screenshot show me which post I ever recommended the g7/old g9.

Thank you.

[BS_ArtStuff]

Getting back to the monitors. I definitely don’t play enough games to warrant special refresh rates. Like @MonitorFlickersaid my workflow is definitely 8/1-2hrs so I’m a light gamer. Visual quality accuracy with colors, contrast and brightness range are more important. I just wanted a monitor that’s at least 144hz so I’m not restricted when playing an fps on occasion. @StahlmannIm sure your experience with the AW is true. And I can imagine there’s flickering too for people. Which is why what worries me most about the AW is that its Gen 1…

 

Reliability is key to my quest here, since this will be a work computer cause I work in game industry remotely… So i don’t want to gamble too much despite their great warranty. 
 

I haven’t heard anyone talk about the LG UltraGear 34GP950G-B 34.0" 3440x1440 180 Hz Monitor yet, does this mean it’s not in the same league even as the AW QD-OLED and the PG35VQ?

 

Im open to other monitors besides these three in the 32”-38” range. The Samsungs have a really steep curve which isn’t the best for my work since I need to avoid warping as much as possible. However the Samsung Neo G8 is looking fine as hell. 

[xg32]

2 hours ago, Andrewtst said:

.

I'm not gonna waste my time going through ur post history, you can pick these kinda arguments on twitter instead

 

but that was our last interaction, as you are the only person that i've seen to say that FALD or OLED isnt required for hdr.

 

1 hour ago, BS_ArtStuff said:

.

i have thee 34GL850-B, the contrast is too low for hdr even with local dimming, and it doesn't have local dimming.

 

When the AW3423DW launched i was looking for it to completely replace the PG35VQ as the UW HDR monitor . The AW3423DW obviously have many "little" problems, but i still wouldn't go for a PG35VQ afm if that makes sense. The neo g9 has the lowest color gamut of all the monitors mentioned but has FALD, deeper blacks but the image quality will also be off. Unfortunately, if reliability is ur top concern, then the fans in any of these monitor will be a concern, everyone i know with a hdr monitor have dealt with it, and 2 of my friends just went back to non-hdr monitors instead (the 34GL850 and the g7 in sdr mode)

 

I really do save alot of money too but going with the alienware, just waiting til the backorders go away to make my decision. It's alot of information for just buying a hdr monitor and the different flaws of each makes it a dynamic problem, i think it's down to personal preference and it's better if you can get it in person at a bestbuy so you can return the monitors if there's something your eyes cannot handle, be it crappy hdr, flickering or black smearing.

 

 

[Andrewtst]

2 hours ago, xg32 said:

I'm not gonna waste my time going through ur post history, you can pick these kinda arguments on twitter instead

 

but that was our last interaction, as you are the only person that i've seen to say that FALD or OLED isnt required for hdr.

Good. This is my last respond to you as well as

you never read in proper and simply feedback on people never said thing.

 

OLED and FALD never is a requirement, it is better to have but never is a must.

2 hours ago, xg32 said:

i have thee 34GL850-B, the contrast is too low for hdr even with local dimming, and it doesn't have local dimming.

"Even with local dimming and it doesn't have local dimming". What are you talking about, this model don't have local dimming and how you could you use with local dimming. and later said it don't have local dimming. lol. I have 34GN850-B which is the later version from you and it ain't bad for HDR output, not perfect as they do cannot obtain very bright scenes but just overexpose. 34GN850-B is getting 7.1 scores from Rtings and you said like it is not usable at all.

2 hours ago, xg32 said:

The neo g9 has the lowest color gamut of all the monitors mentioned but has FALD, deeper blacks but the image quality will also be off

Lowest color gamut can make the image quality off. 1st time I ever heard! Seriously!? Wide Color Gamut will impact the image color output not the image quality. The wrong color tone mapping on Neo G9 already solved and it output great now in HDR Gaming. I also had LG C9 OLED TV for comparison.

2 hours ago, xg32 said:

the fans in any of these monitor will be a concern

Sorry for your lost on Predator X27 fans is die, fans die I believe is easier send for repairment, why don't just send for repairment, that one is 4K HDR1000 display with 384 zones local dimming, and you plan downgrade to 1440p? You so concern on numbering, 4K to 1440p is a huge downgrade. You sure you can accept and handle it? I doubt...  

 

Predator X27 with FALD only scores 7.5 in HDR Gaming which is slightly higher 0.4 scores compare with my LG-34GN850 without Local Dimming 

Is FALD helping very much in HDR? 

 

https://www.rtings.com/monitor/tools/compare/lg-34gn850-b-vs-acer-predator-x27-bmiphzx/13261/651?usage=3623&threshold=0.10

 

[Stahlmann]

32 minutes ago, Andrewtst said:

Lowest color gamut can make the image quality off. 1st time I ever heard! Seriously!? Wide Color Gamut will impact the image color output not the image quality.

Wow you really have no idea what you're talking about. It's baffling, really. If your monitor cannot display the color that is called for from the movie, then you're losing out on image quality. Just like when your monitor cannot display dark details below a certain threshholt because it's missing local dimming.

[Andrewtst]

4 minutes ago, Stahlmann said:

Wow you really have no idea what you're talking about. It's baffling, really.

That is not call image quality. Color will not impact the image quality, quality is clarity and details.

It will impact the color space output, a very dull or too vibrant is not related to quality.

[Stahlmann]

2 minutes ago, Andrewtst said:

That is not call image quality. Color will not impact the image quality, quality is clarity and details.

It will impact the color output, a very dull or too vibrant is not related to quality.

Where did you pull that definition from?

 

Color quality and accuracity also is part of the image quality. Everything you can see with your eyes is part of the image quality.

[Andrewtst]

3 minutes ago, Stahlmann said:

Where did you pull that definition from?

 

Color quality and accuracity also is part of the image quality. Everything you can see with your eyes is part of the image quality.

Sorry for my mistake on this, I accept on this. Image Quality should cover everything we can see.

[Andrewtst]

3 hours ago, BS_ArtStuff said:

Getting back to the monitors. I definitely don’t play enough games to warrant special refresh rates. Like @MonitorFlickersaid my workflow is definitely 8/1-2hrs so I’m a light gamer. Visual quality accuracy with colors, contrast and brightness range are more important. I just wanted a monitor that’s at least 144hz so I’m not restricted when playing an fps on occasion. @StahlmannIm sure your experience with the AW is true. And I can imagine there’s flickering too for people. Which is why what worries me most about the AW is that its Gen 1…

 

Reliability is key to my quest here, since this will be a work computer cause I work in game industry remotely… So i don’t want to gamble too much despite their great warranty. 
 

I haven’t heard anyone talk about the LG UltraGear 34GP950G-B 34.0" 3440x1440 180 Hz Monitor yet, does this mean it’s not in the same league even as the AW QD-OLED and the PG35VQ?

 

Im open to other monitors besides these three in the 32”-38” range. The Samsungs have a really steep curve which isn’t the best for my work since I need to avoid warping as much as possible. However the Samsung Neo G8 is looking fine as hell. 

Stahlmann did not own the Alienware AW3423DW and never experience with it. Here so far only MonitorFlicker own it.

 

Here the comparison of LG UltraGear 34GP950G v/s Alienware AW3423DW. LG UltraGear 34GP950G is far behind compare with Alienware AW3423DW except Text Clarity LG win. LG even though have local dimming but it only have 56 zones which is bad and not helping much.

https://www.rtings.com/monitor/tools/compare/lg-34gp950g-b-vs-dell-alienware-aw3423dw/21824/31231?usage=3623&threshold=0.10

 

In general all OLED will perform much much better in HDR and I could said it is the best in normal lighting room.

If you are using at very bright room then the OLED output of brightness could be an issue as it even can't output as normal monitor of 250 cd/m² in SDR. If you set Windows ON HDR and Auto HDR Gaming (Windows 11 feature), it should be very ok and no issue even on bright room.

 

If Reliability is you main concern, you should avoid any OLED, they is still no guarantee of OLED won't burn-in even on the OQ-OLED and life span on OLED normally is shorten than LCD. Also they is some cases report their Alienware AW3423DW QD-OLED die within 1 ~ 2 months. I can't said how truth this is, only Dell know. But it is increasingly more user feedback on this.

 

LG UltraGear 34GP950G is still a good choice and great output monitor even for HDR content if you are not too demand like some people on numbering and also if you are not play in dark room as it is IPS and the IPS common issue on dark room will be very obvious and distracting.

[xg32]

1 hour ago, Andrewtst said:

Good. This is my last respond to you as well as

you never read in proper and simply feedback on people never said thing.

 

OLED and FALD never is a requirement, it is better to have but never is a must.

"Even with local dimming and it doesn't have local dimming". What are you talking about, this model don't have local dimming and how you could you use with local dimming. and later said it don't have local dimming. lol. I have 34GN850-B which is the later version from you and it ain't bad for HDR output, not perfect as they do cannot obtain very bright scenes but just overexpose. 34GN850-B is getting 7.1 scores from Rtings and you said like it is not usable at all.

Lowest color gamut can make the image quality off. 1st time I ever heard! Seriously!? Wide Color Gamut will impact the image color output not the image quality. The wrong color tone mapping on Neo G9 already solved and it output great now in HDR Gaming. I also had LG C9 OLED TV for comparison.

Sorry for your lost on Predator X27 fans is die, fans die I believe is easier send for repairment, why don't just send for repairment, that one is 4K HDR1000 display with 384 zones local dimming, and you plan downgrade to 1440p? You so concern on numbering, 4K to 1440p is a huge downgrade. You sure you can accept and handle it? I doubt...  

 

Predator X27 with FALD only scores 7.5 in HDR Gaming which is slightly higher 0.4 scores compare with my LG-34GN850 without Local Dimming 

Is FALD helping very much in HDR? 

 

https://www.rtings.com/monitor/tools/compare/lg-34gn850-b-vs-acer-predator-x27-bmiphzx/13261/651?usage=3623&threshold=0.10

 

and there u go, u just said it again, which is just flat out wrong, but to each his own

 

you should work on ur reading comprehension, i know the 34gn850 doesn't have local dimming, and i meant the contrast is too low either way on non-blacks.

 

i own both monitors, i'd never use the 34gn850 in hdr , the x27 or the c1 is miles better

 

are u really going by a 1-10 score on hdr image quality? , and i'm the one concerend on numbers?

 

the x27 is out of warranty, and i want to see the AW3423DW in person anyway, the 34gn850 will be on top of it for a 2x uw setup, i won't be the one using it though, as for the 2nd x27, it's also having problems recently, in case it just dies, i'll be replacing it with pa32ucg, but i just don't have the budget atm.

 

Anyway this will also be my last response on the matter. 

[Andrewtst]

7 minutes ago, xg32 said:

and there u go, u just said it again, which is just flat out wrong, but to each his own

 

i own both monitors, i'd never use the 34gn850 in hdr , the x27 or the c1 is miles better

 

are u really going by a 1-10 score on hdr image quality? , and i'm the one concerend on numbers?

 

Anyway this will also be my last response on the matter. 

The scores is for you to read, not me.

 

The X27 is not better much in general, C1 do is miles better - that I agreed.

[xg32]

1 minute ago, Andrewtst said:

The scores is for you to read, not me.

 

The X27 is not better much in general, C1 do is miles better - that I agreed.

i dont look at the scores, i know the image quality is unacceptable without fald in hdr, u are the one looking at the scores.

[e22big]

13 hours ago, MonitorFlicker said:

 

When it is over 25% window, PG32UQX is already brighter than QN90B. 10% window size is meant for the VDE HDR 2000 benchmark that doesn't require sustained brightness. If you compare them in The Spears and Munsil UHD HDR Benchmark.mastered for HDR 2000, PG32UQX is more impressive I'm afraid. When the HDR video average brightness is at 800nits, QN90B might not even look as good as a VESA HDR 1000 monitor. 

 

Also, the contrast doesn't stay 1300:1 tested at 100nits with FALD disabled in SDR. When FALD is enabled and the brightness rises, the contrast will increase dramatically. It's a million:1 at 1000nits. 

 

The above will be enough to indicate the importance of sustained brightness of miniLED. Samsung doesn't have the sustained brightness. 

It's clearly stated in the screenshot that a test was done  with FLAD enabled, the they also show the contrast with FALD disabled and that is 800:1. Rting methodology is always to measure at peak brightness for the contrast. But right, if measure only the best case scenario, then PG32UQX could get better but I highly doubt it could beat the TV that already achieved 19000:1 in the same, worst case scenario test (which mean it should be able to archie the same 1 million to 1 as other HDR in the best case at max brightness.) 

 

Beside while QN90B lose out in 25 percent brightness, it's made up for in 10 percent windows and slower and you could argue that it's not a sustatin brightness (I doubt 25 percent is sustained either) but I don't think 1600 nit vs 1400 nit matter a lot here. 2000 vs 1600 though certainly do, and that's what is needed for bright highlights. 

 

In any case since these example feature both the scene that required high dynamic range display, bright highlight and max brightness, I doubt the PG32UQX would have shows a different result given the overall characteristic of the monitor. It maybe able to get a lot brighter in 100 percent windows but that's it.

 

[MonitorFlicker]

9 hours ago, e22big said:

It's clearly stated in the screenshot that a test was done  with FLAD enabled, the they also show the contrast with FALD disabled and that is 800:1. Rting methodology is always to measure at peak brightness for the contrast. But right, if measure only the best case scenario, then PG32UQX could get better but I highly doubt it could beat the TV that already achieved 19000:1 in the same, worst case scenario test (which mean it should be able to archie the same 1 million to 1 as other HDR in the best case at max brightness.) 

 

Beside while QN90B lose out in 25 percent brightness, it's made up for in 10 percent windows and slower and you could argue that it's not a sustatin brightness (I doubt 25 percent is sustained either) but I don't think 1600 nit vs 1400 nit matter a lot here. 2000 vs 1600 though certainly do, and that's what is needed for bright highlights. 

 

In any case since these example feature both the scene that required high dynamic range display, bright highlight and max brightness, I doubt the PG32UQX would have shows a different result given the overall characteristic of the monitor. It maybe able to get a lot brighter in 100 percent windows but that's it.

 

Rting doesn't have PG32UQX. It's also not measured in 1000nits, it's measured in 100nits. The contrast will rise easily.

In 10% window, the contrast is 100,000:1 

In 100% window, the contrast is easily above 90,0000:1 

 

Also, the brightness is sustained. The miniLEDs are from Qisda/BenQ. You shouldn't have doubted that. 

 

If you've seen both displays, knowing what PG32UQX is capable of, you wouldn't have a second doubt about its HDR performance is better than any other Samsung's HDR monitors or TVs with ABL miniLEDs. You put monitors with Qisda/BenQ's miniLED vs Samsung's ABL miniLED side by side, the result will be very much like my comparison pictures.

 

If you want argue further, open another topic in this forum instead of the original topic about choosing a monitor.