Dell Alienware AW3423DW 34″ QD-OLED 175Hz (3440 x 1440)

I'm probably gonna hold off on this display till 2nd gen. Got the Eve Spectrum preordered, and going for the glossy option. Not a big fan of ultrawide, but it's been very tempting. After seeing the side by side comparison shots to the LCD and LG Oled panel to the QD-OLED, the colors looked really weird on the QD-OLED. Can't base this off much since it's just pictures from the CES booth....but hopefully I can use that as a means of deterring me till the 2nd gen versions hit....Hopefully 16:9 at that time.... But man, spending 700 on an Eve Spectrum, when this will be available for 1300, is really hard to swallow....=*(.
 
Last edited:
Ikasu said:
I'm probably gonna hold off on this display till 2nd gen. Got the Eve Spectrum preordered, and going for the glossy option. Not a big fan of ultrawide, but it's been very tempting. After seeing the side by side comparison shots to the LCD and LG Oled panel to the QD-OLED, the colors looked really weird on the QD-OLED. Can't base this off much since it's just pictures from the CES booth....but hopefully I can use that as a means of deterring me till the 2nd gen versions hit....Hopefully 16:9 at that time.... But man, spending 700 on an Eve Spectrum, when this will be available for 1300, is really hard to swallow....=*(.
Click to expand...
I think 16:9 is on the way out. The creep for 21:9 has been real for awhile now. Plus look at this thing. It's a HUGE company, it's the first OLED desktop display at a reasonable price and it went 21:9. Imho... looking like a tide shift moment in monitors.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ikasu
like this
TrunksZero said:
I think 16:9 is on the way out. The creep for 21:9 has been real for awhile now. Plus look at this thing. It's a HUGE company, it's the first OLED desktop display at a reasonable price and it went 21:9. Imho... looking like a tide shift moment in monitors.
Click to expand...
Yea. I have a triple monitor setup atm. Got a six monitor mount, but only using three displays atm. Would love to play some Witcher, Cyberpunk, and immersive titles on this big beast. But working in 3d, the extended out interface might be annoying to turn my head left and right to see the panels. Also being a MOBA player, I would definitely have to lower the res to 16:9 everytime I want to play, as using my mouse to pan my screen would be annoying with the extended width...lol. With the size of the monitor, my side 27's would have to be rotated to portrait as well, which I'm not sure I would like.

Bah...But even with these concerns, I'm still contemplating going with this QD-OLED. That price is just so damn insane for the change in tech it's mind blowing. Have wanted a LCD replacement for ages, now here it comes, just at 21:9 which not really wanting to go, but still willing just for the fact that it's an OLED at a steal of a price.
 
TrunksZero said:
I think 16:9 is on the way out. The creep for 21:9 has been real for awhile now. Plus look at this thing. It's a HUGE company, it's the first OLED desktop display at a reasonable price and it went 21:9. Imho... looking like a tide shift moment in monitors.
Click to expand...

The reason why it went 21:9 is because Samsung doesn't make QD-OLED panels smaller than 55 inches for 16:9 aspect ratio.
 
Ikasu said:
Yea. I have a triple monitor setup atm. Got a six monitor mount, but only using three displays atm. Would love to play some Witcher, Cyberpunk, and immersive titles on this big beast. But working in 3d, the extended out interface might be annoying to turn my head left and right to see the panels. Also being a MOBA player, I would definitely have to lower the res to 16:9 everytime I want to play, as using my mouse to pan my screen would be annoying with the extended width...lol. With the size of the monitor, my side 27's would have to be rotated to portrait as well, which I'm not sure I would like.

Bah...But even with these concerns, I'm still contemplating going with this QD-OLED. That price is just so damn insane for the change in tech it's mind blowing. Have wanted a LCD replacement for ages, now here it comes, just at 21:9 which not really wanting to go, but still willing just for the fact that it's an OLED at a steal of a price.
Click to expand...

Rocking a 32:9 personally. As it feels like 3x 5:4 monitors in a single display. Also lets you focus a nice 27" 16:9 image dead center while having room to either side for other stuff. Rocks when you boardless windowed a game in 16:9 and can still have discord to one side and spotify/whatever to the other all on one continuous uninterrupted display. Also MS PowerToys Fancy Zones ftw :D

Really hoping Samsung Electronics ends up making a 49" 32:9 Odyssey series QD-OLED :D

MistaSparkul said:
The reason why it went 21:9 is because Samsung doesn't make QD-OLED panels smaller than 55 inches for 16:9 aspect ratio.
Click to expand...
Which means... as others start to make QD-OLED's they are likely going to use the same panel, at least for now, which means even more 21:9 OLED's. LG will likely follow suite and as gamer's start to realize the benefits of the aspect ratio they will seek it for the next display and it's a speeding up of a run away effect that was already in motion.
 
Last edited:
ziocomposite said:
So excited for this. My first and still current Ultrawide is the X34 Predator($1500 at the time) from 5-6 years ago. New UW/Higher refresh have come out but nothing has really piqued my interest until now. This is the only upgrade I've been looking for! Not only that, finally GPU's that can actually push it to the high refresh are finally here.
Click to expand...

Yeah my x34 has been serving me well for 6 years now, but it's time for an upgrade in technology.
Hoping seeing QD-OLED for the first time will feel like the first time I ever saw a 720p plasma tv
 
Vega said:
I noticed the image flicker at 1:58 in this video:



I hope this display doesn't use PWM dimming
Click to expand...


ChaosCloud said:
Good catch. I hope they are able to keep it truly "flicker-free".
Click to expand...

lmfao....you guys need to watch a little bit more. That screen clearly isn't the QD-OLED but just some screen that Samsung was presenting on.

1645400992084.png
 
Haha good catch. I also noticed the display specification does say "flicker free" so that is good.
 
https://tftcentral.co.uk/news/dell-alienware-aw3423dw-with-34-qd-oled-panel-and-175hz-refresh-rate

Update: Availability and Pricing​

At the time of the original press release in January, the AW3423DW was listed as being available March 2 in China, March 29 in North America and April 5 in EMEA (including the UK). A later update in February by Alienware US says it will “arrive early this Spring”. Alienware UK have been a little more specific and stated that it will land in the UK on 22nd March.

Perhaps most surprising though is the fairly modest price tag (considering the tech and spec) which Dell Alienware’s Twitter confirmed as $1,299 USD (see below tweet). The Alienware UK twitter later confirmed £1,099 GBP (inc VAT) for the UK
Click to expand...

https://twitter.com/Alienware/status/1492271181982060551
 
Leaning towards the OLED again. Bah....Wish we could get some more info on what Samsung is planning to release though. Would prefer to have an HDMI 2.1 connection....Not Hdmi 2.0.
 
Ikasu said:
Leaning towards the OLED again. Bah....Wish we could get some more info on what Samsung is planning to release though. Would prefer to have an HDMI 2.1 connection....Not Hdmi 2.0.
Click to expand...

HDMI 2.1 would be nice yes but DP 1.4 can still do the full 3440x1440 at 175Hz so it's not really a big deal. HDMI 2.1 is mostly a concern for consoles right now and I don't see too many people hooking up a 1440p ultrawide to their consoles, and even if they did then HDMI 2.0 still has enough bandwidth to do 1440p 120Hz anyway. Does the PS5 even support 1440p output yet?
 
I've never wanted another monitor after getting my 55" OLED. Every other monitor I owned looked washed out afterwards and a newer one didn't justify the price it'd take. This is the first one that has caught my eye.
 
Ziggy_Stardog said:
I've never wanted another monitor after getting my 55" OLED. Every other monitor I owned looked washed out afterwards and a newer one didn't justify the price it'd take. This is the first one that has caught my eye.
Click to expand...
I feel the same, except that the refresh rate is only 60hz on my LG C7 and it's just too big. I've gotten so used to 200hz that dropping much below that irritates me which is why this 34 inch with 175hz looks pretty much ideal. 175fps with 4.8 million pixels is not nearly as hard to drive as 4k which is 8 million pixels. I'm not wild about the curve but I'll live with it.
 
Now, I'm wondering if I'll miss the extra screen size of my 48" OLED when running flight/combat sims. Hmmm.
 
Mizzer said:
Now, I'm wondering if I'll miss the extra screen size of my 48" OLED when running flight/combat sims. Hmmm.
Click to expand...

As someone that has been using a 34" ultra wide for the last 6 years, I can tell you I miss seeing this ground and the sky.
 
Gatecrasher3000 said:
As someone that has been using a 34" ultra wide for the last 6 years, I can tell you I miss seeing this ground and the sky.
Click to expand...
That doesn't make sense unless what you are playing is -vert instead of +hor? Or I'm completely reading this wrong, in which case sorry.
 
Dan_D said:
I had an Alienware AW3418DW for a while and I never had any issues with it. A friend of mine traded me some stuff and cash for it and it's still working for him to this day. I even bought the thing at a discount from Microcenter as an open box item. I think their monitors are fine based on that experience. That being said, I wouldn't consider this monitor unless it were 38". 34" is just too small for me.
Click to expand...
I have one of those now (AW3418DW) and it's been perfect for me in overclocked 120hz mode all it's life of three years. My only complaint is screen real estate really for windows productivity.. so I agree if I were to jump to something else it would have to be 38 ~ 42" ...
 
  • Like
Reactions: Dan_D
like this
TrunksZero said:
That doesn't make sense unless what you are playing is -vert instead of +hor? Or I'm completely reading this wrong, in which case sorry.
Click to expand...

It's pretty common. Most games don't handle ultrawide well. Some games simply don't support it all. Some games let you set your own FOV but it still looks bad. Some games reduce your vertical fov which sucks. Some are just super distorted and bad looking. Competitive games purposely limit FOV to keep things "fair".
And FOV is just one crappy thing ultrawide users have to deal with. 2D user interfaces and HUDs, have fun with that.
 
sharknice said:
It's pretty common. Most games don't handle ultrawide well. Some games simply don't support it all. Some games let you set your own FOV but it still looks bad. Some games reduce your vertical fov which sucks. Some are just super distorted and bad looking. Competitive games purposely limit FOV to keep things "fair".
And FOV is just one crappy thing ultrawide users have to deal with. 2D user interfaces and HUDs, have fun with that.
Click to expand...

I'm hyper aware. Went through the whole same thing when 16:9/10 started to replace 4:3/5:4 and now with 21:9 and 32:9. The only type of proper support is +hor. Anything other than that, is just wrong. It's really not that bad, people often explode the issues to be larger than they are. And support is more common than not from my experience and when its not there is usually a fix.

Competitive games limiting proper support are operating on a BS premise that has been thoroughly debunked by competitive games with proper support not having a problem.(see Apex, CS:GO and to a lesser extent BF & COD series)
 
Last edited:
sharknice said:
Competitive games purposely limit FOV to keep things "fair".
Click to expand...

Developers doing this sounds kinda silly. Why don't we just limit all competitive games to 60fps for the sake of fairness then because not everyone can afford a 360Hz monitor?
 
MistaSparkul said:
Developers doing this sounds kinda silly. Why don't we just limit all competitive games to 60fps for the sake of fairness then because not everyone can afford a 360Hz monitor?
Click to expand...
Or lock the graphics to potato mode?
 
Yeah the competitive reasoning is pretty stupid when you're playing on PC. The FOV one especially. CS:GO doesn't allow you to set FOV but it's tied to aspect ratio and players change their resolution to non-native to LOWER their FOV.
Lack of FOV settings are so frustrating, even while using 16:9 monitors. Way too many games (mostly console ports) have it way too zoomed in, and it feels like you're playing with binoculars because they expect you to be playing on a tiny TV from 50 feet away. Just let people set it how they want. If someone has some sort of crazy 360 degree setup let them use it properly.
 
sharknice said:
Yeah the competitive reasoning is pretty stupid when you're playing on PC. The FOV one especially. CS:GO doesn't allow you to set FOV but it's tied to aspect ratio and players change their resolution to non-native to LOWER their FOV.
Lack of FOV settings are so frustrating, even while using 16:9 monitors. Way too many games (mostly console ports) have it way too zoomed in, and it feels like you're playing with binoculars because they expect you to be playing on a tiny TV from 50 feet away. Just let people set it how they want. If someone has some sort of crazy 360 degree setup let them use it properly.
Click to expand...
That's my endgame. 360 degrees of monitors on a desk I'd have to duck under to get into. Motorize my chair so I can use foot pedals to rotate. I'd feel like Neal Peart at a Rush concert playing a drum solo. The hell with VR.
 
For a second. I thought it was Yen....Heck yea, I'll take that baby for just over 100 dollars...lol. Really confusing that both China and Japan use the same symbol.

Damn, time is coming close, got to finalize my decision if I want this panel or not. As much as I would love one, the curved aspect has me worried, as I'm doing more 3d/art work, and curved lines are no bueno. Might end up going with the Eve Glossy, even though I cringe at the thought of paying 7-800 for it when this beauty exists.
 
My Samsung C32HG70 is dying (vertical line issue with cold starts), I'd hate to buy another Samsung product, but if Dell is covering it for 4-5 years, I might spring for this.

I'm trying to understand its HDR spec "True Black 400". According to VESA, that's peak luminance of 400 cd/m^2, which sounds like crappy DisplayHDR 400, but with better blacks. I'll have to wait for Vincent Teoh's review, but I'll pass if this isn't bright.
 
There are two different HDR standards. True Black being for Oleds, with a 400, 500, and 600 luminance rating for each. Where as the standard and more common Vesa DisplayHDR 400 up to 1400 for LCD displays.

The QD-OLED panel is rated at a peak luminance of 1000, which is brighter than WOLED LG displays. So I doubt this monitor will be dim. It is a first gen endeavor though from Samsung, but they seem pretty confident in the tech, especially if Dell is also dropping a 3 year burn in replacement. So far everything is looking good for the display.

If they released a non curved, or 16:9, I would probably pick one up, probably going to wait for the 2nd gen variants.
 
djoye said:
My Samsung C32HG70 is dying (vertical line issue with cold starts), I'd hate to buy another Samsung product, but if Dell is covering it for 4-5 years, I might spring for this.

I'm trying to understand its HDR spec "True Black 400". According to VESA, that's peak luminance of 400 cd/m^2, which sounds like crappy DisplayHDR 400, but with better blacks. I'll have to wait for Vincent Teoh's review, but I'll pass if this isn't bright.
Click to expand...

I have the 32EP950. Brightness (except in VERY bright highlights) is generally on par with my old PG27UQ. The 32EP950 can hit around 700 nits in certain situations (i.e. small 5% blocks of light on screen), even though the VESA HDR rating is much lower.

Remember, OLED VESA HDR specs are COMPLETELY different than non-OLED. Generally speaking, a 500-600 nit OLED will appear to your eyes (usually) as an FALD 1000 nit IPS panel. This is due to the massive contrast advantage that OLED has, so the difference between dark/bright is that much more pronounced to your eyes. No, the brightness wouldn't be measured at that level, but your eyes still perceive it that way.
 
TsbitPrik said:
I have the 32EP950. Brightness (except in VERY bright highlights) is generally on par with my old PG27UQ. The 32EP950 can hit around 700 nits in certain situations (i.e. small 5% blocks of light on screen), even though the VESA HDR rating is much lower.

Remember, OLED VESA HDR specs are COMPLETELY different than non-OLED. Generally speaking, a 500-600 nit OLED will appear to your eyes (usually) as an FALD 1000 nit IPS panel. This is due to the massive contrast advantage that OLED has, so the difference between dark/bright is that much more pronounced to your eyes. No, the brightness wouldn't be measured at that level, but your eyes still perceive it that way.
Click to expand...
Without the retina scarring and early onset cataracts.
 
TsbitPrik said:
I have the 32EP950. Brightness (except in VERY bright highlights) is generally on par with my old PG27UQ. The 32EP950 can hit around 700 nits in certain situations (i.e. small 5% blocks of light on screen), even though the VESA HDR rating is much lower.

Remember, OLED VESA HDR specs are COMPLETELY different than non-OLED. Generally speaking, a 500-600 nit OLED will appear to your eyes (usually) as an FALD 1000 nit IPS panel. This is due to the massive contrast advantage that OLED has, so the difference between dark/bright is that much more pronounced to your eyes. No, the brightness wouldn't be measured at that level, but your eyes still perceive it that way.
Click to expand...
The 32EP950 hits 700 nits? Says who? HDTVTest measured 551 nits on a 10% window. Maybe with a window the size of a gnat it can hit 700... but who cares about that? It's only rated for 250 nits on full screen white, which is the same as the AW3423DW... and the biggest downfall of OLED.

Of course a 500-600 nit OLED would generally appear the same brightness as an FALD 1000 nit LCD panel most of the time. Generally speaking, most content isn't over 500-600 nits except for highlights and brief flashes.

The only time where OLED really flops is for full screen/large % window brightness. The first time I tried The Division 2 in HDR on my PG35VQ, I spawned in an underground bunker, and walking out into the sunlight was so bright it made me squint. You'll never get that effect on an OLED that's gimped by ABL and only has a peak full screen brightness of 250 nits or less.

Assuming the AW3423DW doesn't sell out immediately, I'm still on the fence about buying it. The peak brightness is still a concern for me, but even more so I'm just sick of 21:9.
 
CaptainClueless said:
The 32EP950 hits 700 nits? Says who? HDTVTest measured 551 nits on a 10% window. Maybe with a window the size of a gnat it can hit 700... but who cares about that? It's only rated for 250 nits on full screen white, which is the same as the AW3423DW... and the biggest downfall of OLED.

Of course a 500-600 nit OLED would generally appear the same brightness as an FALD 1000 nit LCD panel most of the time. Generally speaking, most content isn't over 500-600 nits except for highlights and brief flashes.

The only time where OLED really flops is for full screen/large % window brightness. The first time I tried The Division 2 in HDR on my PG35VQ, I spawned in an underground bunker, and walking out into the sunlight was so bright it made me squint. You'll never get that effect on an OLED that's gimped by ABL and only has a peak full screen brightness of 250 nits or less.

Assuming the AW3423DW doesn't sell out immediately, I'm still on the fence about buying it. The peak brightness is still a concern for me, but even more so I'm just sick of 21:9.
Click to expand...
You want your monitor to make you have to squint? This is what I don't understand about brightness-whores in the context of monitors/displays for desktop use. Everyone is losing their minds over the 250 nit spec, "oh the monitor is ruined, the miniLED LCDs are going to look so much better with HDR content" and I'm sitting here wondering why the fuck you want to intentionally simulate what it's like to look at the sun in real life.

Full screen brightness shouldn't matter for a desktop monitor. Does anyone here play only during the day and with their monitor facing a window? No, I would bet the vast majority of us, not just here on H but the entire target audience for this monitor, are in our offices, bedrooms, mancaves etc. with full control over our lighting.

I calibrate my screens to 150 nits and in a dark room even at that low of a brightness I cringe every time I open Excel or an all-white website I don't have a dark user style/theme for.

Highlights are what matter for a proper HDR experience and this screen, in conjunction with its perfect blacks and per pixel brightness control, is going to produce the best in the industry.

IMO, the only true downside to this monitor is its aspect ratio, and the image quality this thing is going to produce will far, far outweigh any other potential qualms one might have with it.

Death to LCD, all-OLED household here I come.
 
Odellus said:
You want your monitor to make you have to squint? This is what I don't understand about brightness-whores in the context of monitors/displays for desktop use. Everyone is losing their minds over the 250 nit spec, "oh the monitor is ruined, the miniLED LCDs are going to look so much better with HDR content" and I'm sitting here wondering why the fuck you want to intentionally simulate what it's like to look at the sun in real life.

Full screen brightness shouldn't matter for a desktop monitor. Does anyone here play only during the day and with their monitor facing a window? No, I would bet the vast majority of us, not just here on H but the entire target audience for this monitor, are in our offices, bedrooms, mancaves etc. with full control over our lighting.

I calibrate my screens to 150 nits and in a dark room even at that low of a brightness I cringe every time I open Excel or an all-white website I don't have a dark user style/theme for.

Highlights are what matter for a proper HDR experience and this screen, in conjunction with its perfect blacks and per pixel brightness control, is going to produce the best in the industry.

IMO, the only true downside to this monitor is its aspect ratio, and the image quality this thing is going to produce will far, far outweigh any other potential qualms one might have with it.

Death to LCD, all-OLED household here I come.
Click to expand...
When the screen flashes full white, yes I would like my monitor to make me squint.

I calibrate to 120 nits for SDR content. Not sure what that has to do with anything, but you brought it up.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top