Alienware AW3225QF 32" 4K 240 Hz OLED

Errok23 said:
Supposedly QD-OLED is supposed to mitigate this when compared to WOLED (white boost pixel) according to this blog article by Samsung itself. Kinda interesting read. How much of it is marketing hype? Probably some.

https://innovate.samsungdisplay.com...with-qd-oled-see-new-details-in-old-classics/
Click to expand...
This may actually be an area where QD-OLED is better since black crush on the darkest nuances have long been a problem on WOLED. I've solved it by raising black stabilizer in game mode on my LG C2 and dark HDR movies looks much better now.
 
Armenius said:
RGB(1,1,1) isn't far away from RGB(0,0,0), but it was still distinct from the background. On my FO48U it was too bright, but that was also to be expected, since I mangled the settings to try and get the gamma to look good on my consoles.
Click to expand...
Are you using one Picture Mode globally or something? Because the Gigabyte has like 8 different picture modes to choose from and you can edit gamma and brightness in all of them
 
My gen1 aw34 qd-oled shows that lagom black levels test fine, all squares clearly visible.

It is a good pattern for seeing how dirty/film-grainy/quantum-foamy the gen1 is when showing these low-luminance colours though, has that been improved on the gen3's?

Also dumb question about how Dolby Vision works. Does that have its own tonemap/processing for plain old hdr10 content as well, distinct from the hdr10 true black and peak modes, or does it only kick in when a dolby enabled app flips to exclusive/fullscreen mode or something?
 
Self Emissive said:
It is a good pattern for seeing how dirty/film-grainy/quantum-foamy the gen1 is when showing these low-luminance colours though, has that been improved on the gen3's?
Click to expand...
According to reviewers its the same coating, so still slightly dirty and veiled, somewhat like semi glossy.
 
So I've had this monitor for a few days now. I really wanted to like it but after getting used to a 42" C2 I just can't make the switch. It's main use is for gaming and the 42" is just way more immersive. The 32" AW is just there in front of me but with the 42" I feel like I'm in the game. Most AAA games aren't hitting 240hz anyway so it didn't matter much. The C2 just feels better. Anyway, I'll be returning this and waiting for a 240hz 40-42" monitor to replace the C2.
 
so the colors don't wow you compared to the C2 eh? nor the pixel density? I have a 48 C1 and I find it a little too large, was hoping the 32 would be my next.
 
wooj said:
so the colors don't wow you compared to the C2 eh? nor the pixel density? I have a 48 C1 and I find it a little too large, was hoping the 32 would be my next.
Click to expand...

The PPI made it a little sharper, but I could see more detail on the C2 just due to the size. The colors seem more vibrant on the AW but nothing that made me go crazy vs the C2. I loaded up all my favorite games and everything just felt tiny which meant less noticeable detail. I had the AW like 20 inches from my face too but didn't really make a difference. I guess I'm just used to the larger screen. Honestly 38-40" would be perfect.
 
cvinh said:
The PPI made it a little sharper, but I could see more detail on the C2 just due to the size. The colors seem more vibrant on the AW but nothing that made me go crazy vs the C2. I loaded up all my favorite games and everything just felt tiny which meant less noticeable detail. I had the AW like 20 inches from my face too but didn't really make a difference. I guess I'm just used to the larger screen. Honestly 38-40" would be perfect.
Click to expand...

I mentioned this in another post but it seems like most games barely use any colors beyond BT.709 when running in HDR, even the latest ones. So really the wider color gamut of QD OLED isn't going to do much if it isn't even being used in the first place. The biggest advantage that QD OLED has over WOLED is the absence of a white subpixel which means colors will not get diluted at higher brightness levels, but again the games themselves are not pushing for super bright colors in the first place. This is probably why some people who have compared WOLED to QD OLED say they can't notice a big difference when it comes to games. It's because the games are not letting the monitors fully stretch their legs.

1705518807496.png


1705518865278.png


1705519469950.png
 
Last edited:
MistaSparkul said:
I mentioned this in another post but it seems like most games barely use any colors beyond BT.709 when running in HDR, even the latest ones. So really the wider color gamut of QD OLED isn't going to do much if it isn't even being used in the first place. The biggest advantage that QD OLED has over WOLED is the absence of a white subpixel which means colors will not get diluted at higher brightness levels, but again the games themselves are not pushing for super bright colors in the first place. This is probably why some people who have compared WOLED to QD OLED say they can't notice a big difference when it comes to games. It's because the games are not letting the monitors fully stretch their legs.
Click to expand...
I tried comparing the same HDR videos on my 16" M2 Macbook Pro mini-LED vs my LG CX 48" WOLED and apart from the higher brightness capabilities, I felt that with the settings I had on the OLED, it looked less saturated. Just adjusting the Color setting in HDR mode higher helped make it more similar to the Mac, which I assume would be fairly well calibrated out of the box.

Obviously the brightness difference is there, but just adjusting Color made it perceivedly more similar even if in reality it might be oversaturating some colors.
 
This monitor is pretty amazing, basically an end-game display. Played a few matches of Battlefield 2042 with everything cranked up, and having not gamed in 6+ months it revived my interest.
 
Why are there monitors in 2024 being released with DP 1.4? WTAF? Shouldn't DP 2.1 be standard now? Are there any 4K 240Hz OLED monitors coming out with DP 2.1?
 
I saw BadSeed review and he mentions there are two fan speed you can choose. I'm wondering what's the benefit of setting the speed to the highest unless there's a drawback when setting to low. More risk of burn in?
 
RogerL7 said:
I saw BadSeed review and he mentions there are two fan speed you can choose. I'm wondering what's the benefit of setting the speed to the highest unless there's a drawback when setting to low. More risk of burn in?
Click to expand...
Probably just to account for different climates. I doubt it will have any real effect on durability.
 
RogerL7 said:
I saw BadSeed review and he mentions there are two fan speed you can choose. I'm wondering what's the benefit of setting the speed to the highest unless there's a drawback when setting to low. More risk of burn in?
Click to expand...
The OSD menu option is just a fan speed test. The fan runs automatically during normal operation. Here is pg 89 of the manual:

1705679099987.png
 
MistaSparkul said:
I mentioned this in another post but it seems like most games barely use any colors beyond BT.709 when running in HDR, even the latest ones. So really the wider color gamut of QD OLED isn't going to do much if it isn't even being used in the first place. The biggest advantage that QD OLED has over WOLED is the absence of a white subpixel which means colors will not get diluted at higher brightness levels, but again the games themselves are not pushing for super bright colors in the first place. This is probably why some people who have compared WOLED to QD OLED say they can't notice a big difference when it comes to games. It's because the games are not letting the monitors fully stretch their legs.
Click to expand...
One thing that I don't think the color analysis in that tool can properly show is desaturation of WOLED at high brightness. Since it is looking at gamut in 2D it isn't considering what happens as things get brighter which, on WOLED, tends to mean they desaturate. So you could potentially have something that is in the BT.709 colorspace, yet looks more saturated on a QD-OLED because it is at 800 nits and is getting desaturated to hit that brightness.

We really should talk about color volume in 3D... but it gets hard to visualize and compare so we generally don't.
 
Sycraft said:
One thing that I don't think the color analysis in that tool can properly show is desaturation of WOLED at high brightness. Since it is looking at gamut in 2D it isn't considering what happens as things get brighter which, on WOLED, tends to mean they desaturate. So you could potentially have something that is in the BT.709 colorspace, yet looks more saturated on a QD-OLED because it is at 800 nits and is getting desaturated to hit that brightness.

We really should talk about color volume in 3D... but it gets hard to visualize and compare so we generally don't.
Click to expand...

Yes that tool just shows color space being used but not luminance levels. You can analyze that with heatmaps though and based on the limited sample of games I've looked at, most colors definitely don't go anywhere near 800 nits. They are mostly within SDR range actually, the ones that tend to go to really high brightness levels would be things like the fire so the orange/red hue would be way more saturated and fuller looking on a QD OLED and Mini LED. I'm sure HDR colors in games will get better over time so at this point I'm longer considering anything that's WOLED anymore.
 
l88bastard said:
Yea I regret selling mine, but I have an Innocn 27 4k160 that is almost as good and does some things better.....for a whole lot less $$$
Click to expand...

I have the 32" Innocn and the PG32UQX. The Innocn doesn't get quite as bright, but close enough. I use the Innocn because it has KVM and no fan.
 
Bigmonitorguy said:
I have the 32" Innocn and the PG32UQX. The Innocn doesn't get quite as bright, but close enough. I use the Innocn because it has KVM and no fan.
Click to expand...
The pg32uqx would get bright as shit and LAZOOR BEAMZ sizzled my eyeballs in battlefront 2 game!!!

I like the Innocn 27 better though because way better motion clarity and 160hz > 144hz
also for 32" and larger I prefer curved screens.... I think 27" is as big as I like to go with flat screens
 
l88bastard said:
Your Baaaasha you don't just get ONE! You get 5 and sandwich them together with no airflow!
Click to expand...
lol those days are long gone! I still have too many monitors though - Neo G9 49", Neo G9 57", PG32UQX, AW5520QF, FI32U - probably will sell the FI32U and use the PG32UQX as the accessory display and put this OLED 240Hz as the main. hmm.. You get yours yet? How're you liking it?
 
Baasha said:
lol those days are long gone! I still have too many monitors though - Neo G9 49", Neo G9 57", PG32UQX, AW5520QF, FI32U - probably will sell the FI32U and use the PG32UQX as the accessory display and put this OLED 240Hz as the main. hmm.. You get yours yet? How're you liking it?
Click to expand...
In production since Jan 14th 😞
 
Baasha said:
lol those days are long gone! I still have too many monitors though - Neo G9 49", Neo G9 57", PG32UQX, AW5520QF, FI32U - probably will sell the FI32U and use the PG32UQX as the accessory display and put this OLED 240Hz as the main. hmm.. You get yours yet? How're you liking it?
Click to expand...
Feel free to send some over if you get tired of any 😁 This is highly intriguing but I have no motivation to change my 3423DW anytime soon especially now that the FW is updateaable. Having the 65 S90C as my TV, yes, there is a slight upgrade in PQ between gen 1 and 2 but nothing too great.
 
I got mine last week and I’ve having major flickering problems with HDMI. Also seems like the firmware is buggy with keeping color profiles. Mine might be going back.
 
JohnnyFlash said:
Am I crazy for only caring about good sRGB performance?
Click to expand...
I mean... A little. HDR is pretty amazing and it is part of the reason to get an expensive monitor. However I will say good SDR/sRGB performance matters since there's still lots of games that you'll be playing like that.
 
Sycraft said:
I mean... A little. HDR is pretty amazing and it is part of the reason to get an expensive monitor. However I will say good SDR/sRGB performance matters since there's still lots of games that you'll be playing like that.
Click to expand...
That's the thing, it's 99% SDR. Only the newest titles have HDR and fewer actually work correctly.
 
JohnnyFlash said:
Am I crazy for only caring about good sRGB performance?
Click to expand...
Do monitors have poor sRGB performance anymore? Every display I've looked at for the past few years in this price/performance bracket have no issues with sRGB. The trend is so common that I don't even look at sRGB performance in reviews anymore. I'm most concerned about HDR performance since that still varies wildly.
 
Armenius said:
Do monitors have poor sRGB performance anymore? Every display I've looked at for the past few years in this price/performance bracket have no issues with sRGB. The trend is so common that I don't even look at sRGB performance in reviews anymore. I'm most concerned about HDR performance since that still varies wildly.
Click to expand...

Unless you're looking for a monitor with sRGB clamp mode that does perfect 100% coverage and not 99.999%, 0.000 delta E, and perfectly exact spot on 6500k white point, then yeah nearly every monitor these days does sRGB just fine.
 
JohnnyFlash said:
That's the thing, it's 99% SDR. Only the newest titles have HDR and fewer actually work correctly.
Click to expand...
There are getting to be a whole lot more that support it, and most that do look good if your display is good. Games I've played recently with good HDR are Jedi Survivor, the Resident Evils (2, 3, 4, Village), Hitman 3, Dead Space, Hogwarts Legacy. It's far from universal but there are a lot these days that do. Also depending on how much you like to mess around, many games can have HDR added via something like Special K since most games internally render in floating point linear light space and then tone map to sRGB. Injectors can undo that mapping and then put their own pipeline in its place.

Basically my point is that yes, you should care about SDR/sRGB performance. It does matter and will continue to matter. But don't sleep on HDR performance as more games are getting it and it really does look amazing.

Armenius said:
Do monitors have poor sRGB performance anymore? Every display I've looked at for the past few years in this price/performance bracket have no issues with sRGB. The trend is so common that I don't even look at sRGB performance in reviews anymore. I'm most concerned about HDR performance since that still varies wildly.
Click to expand...
Ya some do. You wouldn't think so but I've seen a bunch of issues looking at reviews (and some in person):

1) Locking out of controls. Some either take the "sRGB mode" too literally and will try and clamp brightness at 80nits (the OG sRGB spec has brightness specified, among other things), lock white point, and so on. Others just disable crap because their chip can't handle it along with the gamut emulation.

2) Poor gamma performance. You see some displays all over the place with their gamma and that can lead to things looking too dark, or too bright, or having crushed blacks AND blown out highlights at the same time, etc. A good, smooth, gamma curve is important to good SDR content, just like good PQ tracking matters to HDR content.

3) Banding or other issues because of the color mapping. To clamp the colors space, you have to do things like when the computer is requesting pure red 255,0,0, you don't send that, you instead send something like 255,11,14 (not a real value from a real monitor, just an example) to the panel to get the color you want. If this mapping isn't done well, you can get banding or colors that are off in other ways.

You are right it shouldn't be an issue, but it is something I always check as plenty of monitors screw it up.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top