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

120hz to 144hz is hugely apparent on an OLED. Those of you who can't tell these differences on a LCD can attribute some of that to the pixel response blur disguising the increase.

My C1 120hz to this AW 144hz was obvious. 120hz to 175hz is a significant jump in perceivable smoothness and clarity.

Exactly this. OLED pixels are so fast there is basically no blurring between frames to hide how low FPS 120 is. One big reason why I passed on the 42C2.

175 Hz on this OLED wrecks 120 Hz OLED.
 
120hz to 144hz is hugely apparent on an OLED. Those of you who can't tell these differences on a LCD can attribute some of that to the pixel response blur disguising the increase.

My C1 120hz to this AW 144hz was obvious. 120hz to 175hz is a significant jump in perceivable smoothness and clarity.

Problem is hitting those kind of frame rates though. I have a 3080 Ti and 6900 XT and neither GPU is really capable of pushing 3440x1440 at 175fps in the latest games, at least not at ultra details or even high. But if next gen GPU's are as powerful as they are rumored to be then that will all change.
 
Problem is hitting those kind of frame rates though. I have a 3080 Ti and 6900 XT and neither GPU is really capable of pushing 3440x1440 at 175fps in the latest games, at least not at ultra details or even high. But if next gen GPU's are as powerful as they are rumored to be then that will all change.
So far at least in MW19 and Vanguard with DLSS, some reduced settings can hit those and more with a 3080/5900x combo.

comparison vs x34 predator (2015) and AW
 
So far at least in MW19 and Vanguard with DLSS, some reduced settings can hit those and more with a 3080/5900x combo.

comparison vs x34 predator (2015) and AW


COD games have always ran pretty well, but not everything runs that good. In fact in some AAA games you will be looking at sub 100fps in normal 1440p resolution, not even ultrawide. Of course if we consider this the worst case scenario for current gen GPUs, and next gen GPUs end up being twice as fast, then that sweet 175fps will easily be attainable in just about every game.

1648496835811.png
1648496861278.png
 
I can’t argue against this because I’ve only experienced OLED up to 120Hz, but that still has been more than sufficient for me. I will need to try 120Hz+ OLED myself to see if what is being claimed by some is true or hyperbole.

Once there are 38” Ultrawide QD-OLED displays then I’ll give it a shot. But I can’t justify downgrading in size back to 34”. Guessing it’ll be another year or two which will be nice to have the tech a bit more mature as well.
I imagine you'd see some difference, but nothing earth shattering. Each doubling in FPS is less noticeable than the previous, but still generally noticeable. I have a 144Hz monitor (the 38" Alienware) and a 240Hz laptop, neither OLED, and you still do notice the difference. The laptop is smoother when you have something that can push that FPS like desktop usage or a simple game like Hearthstone.

It is the kind of thing I view similar to higher resolutions: It is nice, and I'll take it when I can get it, but I'm not going to get super worked up over it. It is an incremental upgrade, but that doesn't mean it isn't visible.
 
It isn't just text smart guy. Any pixel art game with clean stretching where you expect pixels to have edges that don't fringe is going to look like butt, but enjoy your overpriced ass log.

Lol, and if I have 0 interest in playing a pixel art game or doing text work?

I am buying this monitor for 3D gaming...

Have fun with your low contrast and pixel response times I guess... I'm moving into the future.

120hz to 144hz is hugely apparent on an OLED. Those of you who can't tell these differences on a LCD can attribute some of that to the pixel response blur disguising the increase.

My C1 120hz to this AW 144hz was obvious. 120hz to 175hz is a significant jump in perceivable smoothness and clarity.

Yeah, problem is even with the latest GPUs I don't expect to get much more than around 100fps in most modern games that I play.
 
I moved from a 144hz TN w/ GSYNC to the LG CX (120hz GSYNC), and the LG CX actually feels about the same in terms of response times, but the picture quality is far superior. I can imagine moving to the QD-OLED monitor would be stupid impressive, but I'm still concerned that Ultrawide support isn't where it should be.
 
This reviewer states the display uses PWM. Not sure what to make of it. Also clearly displays both fans.

 
PWM in displays traditionally means it goes from zero brightness to set brightness at set intervals irrespective of what's displayed on the screen (Hz) to control screen brightness. OLED (including this one) doesn't drop to zero brightness or (off) state like LCD's do that use PWM. It's not used to control screen brightness. It's more of a slight "dimming" pre refresh cycle. I've experienced no eye strain with mine as I would typically experience with LCD PWM.

So I would not say this display uses PWM. Maybe we need a new term for OLED dimming in sync with refresh rate. I'd also like to know what criteria TÜV Rheinland uses to certify displays like this as "flicker free". I cannot find anything published with a cursory look. I don't care enough to do a deep dive. :eek:
 
Last edited:
Yeah I agree the traditional labeling of PWM for a backlit display doesn't apply here. Need a new term like OLED cyclic dimming or something.
 
I went from 60hz to 120hz to 144hz to 165hz to 240hz. Could tell the difference between all of them just with the mouse on the desktop. 120 to 144 is pretty subtle, but the jump to 240 was massive. I wonder how the 175hz 0.1ms will compare to my 240hz Neo G9 at the moment. Not sure whether the extra refresh rate or response time is more important, but I've never seen blur on it, just a small amount of overshoot from time to time
 
I went from 60hz to 120hz to 144hz to 165hz to 240hz. Could tell the difference between all of them just with the mouse on the desktop. 120 to 144 is pretty subtle, but the jump to 240 was massive. I wonder how the 175hz 0.1ms will compare to my 240hz Neo G9 at the moment. Not sure whether the extra refresh rate or response time is more important, but I've never seen blur on it, just a small amount of overshoot from time to time
Dropping from 240 LCD to 175 OLED is definitely noticeable but not as much as you'd think, although I'm coming from a G7 which has broken frame-dropping VRR so YMMV. Blur from sample and hold is still the major limiting factor in motion clarity here, so what you mostly lose out on is input responsiveness and smoothness. Next-gen OLED monitors with 240+ Hz refresh rates are going to be absolutely incredible. Honestly if they rereleased this panel in 6 months but with some updates under the hood to up the refresh rate I'd buy it again. These things have so much headroom for refresh rate compliance it's nuts.
 
So folks here can see the difference between 120 vs 144hz? Wow, must be demigod’s.

Normal human beings can’t tell the difference though in a blind test.
But good to know that there are still demigods among us like Hercules. 😉
 
  • Like
Reactions: zurv
like this
So folks here can see the difference between 120 vs 144hz? Wow, must be demigod’s.

Normal human beings can’t tell the difference though in a blind test.
But good to know that there are still demigods among us like Hercules. 😉
To be fair, those blind testers usually don't have years of near daily use to fall back on.
 
Dropping from 240 LCD to 175 OLED is definitely noticeable but not as much as you'd think, although I'm coming from a G7 which has broken frame-dropping VRR so YMMV. Blur from sample and hold is still the major limiting factor in motion clarity here, so what you mostly lose out on is input responsiveness and smoothness. Next-gen OLED monitors with 240+ Hz refresh rates are going to be absolutely incredible. Honestly if they rereleased this panel in 6 months but with some updates under the hood to up the refresh rate I'd buy it again. These things have so much headroom for refresh rate compliance it's nuts.
Ah I see, so essentially it'l look better but feel worse.

I actually find it easier to tell with a cursor than in game. In game I'd struggle betwen 144 and 165, but would easily be able to tell the rest
 
Ah I see, so essentially it'l look better but feel worse.

I actually find it easier to tell with a cursor than in game. In game I'd struggle betwen 144 and 165, but would easily be able to tell the rest
I find it hard to tell any other difference between 120 vs 240 Hz other than "it's smoother and feels more responsive". 60 -> 120 Hz is a far bigger jump.

But every game I play struggles to hit 4K 120 fps in the first place even with tech like DLSS so for me extra refresh rate ends up being nothing more than added headroom. 3440x1440 at 175 Hz would probably be a similar barrier that my 2080 Ti would struggle to hit as I don't play any multiplayer shooters where actually reaching those very high refresh rates is doable.
 
So folks here can see the difference between 120 vs 144hz? Wow, must be demigod’s.

Normal human beings can’t tell the difference though in a blind test.
But good to know that there are still demigods among us like Hercules. 😉

Regular people can't tell their asshole from their elbow. Some of us have 10K+ hours in competitive first person shooters and can easily tell.
 
I mean, I have been playing PC games since the late 90s and mostly shooters.

I can't tell a difference between 120 and 144Hz and I also can't tell the difference at 144Hz between G-sync on vs off. I don't see tearing in either and both look smooth.
 
Everyone has different eyes. It's the same thing as people having varying ranges of sense of smell, palate, hearing, being able to see ghosts etc..
 
I mean, I have been playing PC games since the late 90s and mostly shooters.

I can't tell a difference between 120 and 144Hz and I also can't tell the difference at 144Hz between G-sync on vs off. I don't see tearing in either and both look smooth.
You are blessed good sir. Those more sensitive to it are cursed and therefore spend more to attain/retain higher FPS/Hz lol
 
The Alienware (top) is clearly flickering. I thought it was supposed to be flicker free?
https://www.certipedia.com/quality_marks/1111246519?locale=en
This is the third or so clip of it I've seen where flicker is visible.
https://www.dxomark.com/flicker-the-display-affliction/

That recording was done with a Note 20 ultra at the "Super Slow" mode which I believe is 960 FPS capture. So take that what you will as for daily use do not perceive it so maybe I'm not sensitive to it or the frequency it does it is thankfully high? I dunno
 
I mean, I have been playing PC games since the late 90s and mostly shooters.

I can't tell a difference between 120 and 144Hz and I also can't tell the difference at 144Hz between G-sync on vs off. I don't see tearing in either and both look smooth.
I hate to be the one to break this to you but your eyes have TEH AIDZ!
 
Well I upgraded from a really good IPS monitor that had virtually no obvious backlight bleed (IPS glow yes of course though as expected) and it was calibrated on a hardware LUT level so perfect colours/gamma etc. As far as I am concerned this Alienware looks superior in almost all areas compared to the LG. I'm at 144Hz but that feels instant thanks to Gsync and being OLED (instant latency response). With an LCD you need at bare minimum 120-144Hz, more for gaming really with VRR too but to also account for the LCD latency response that doesn't exist to any noticeable level on OLED. And the motion smoothing is so nice on OLED too when watching movies or playing games vs LCD.

The only thing my LG did better was silent operation (though no Gsync....) and having a hardware LUT but the latter is a niche thing really and only generally found on more pro orientated IPS monitors now from LG/Eizo etc.

I will never look back at LCD again after this. OLED or nothing.


Yeah it was £847 here after coupon addition. With a further £100 cashback from credit card promotional Dell offers.
Why would you only run 144hz in battle Royale games?
 
Problem is hitting those kind of frame rates though. I have a 3080 Ti and 6900 XT and neither GPU is really capable of pushing 3440x1440 at 175fps in the latest games, at least not at ultra details or even high. But if next gen GPU's are as powerful as they are rumored to be then that will all change.
In all honesty, who plays competitive fps with high settings? HDR is useless too
 
MW19 isn't exactly the pinnacle of "Competitive" but goddamn is it glorious for FPS HDR gaming. Haven't had any perceptible issue in performance either but the game definitely looks much better, clearer even with DLSS on.

Waiting on TFT, HU, Rings, or Prad to run input lag test in native resolution/Max Hz for SDR and HDR content to see the numbers.
 
I mean, I have been playing PC games since the late 90s and mostly shooters.

I can't tell a difference between 120 and 144Hz and I also can't tell the difference at 144Hz between G-sync on vs off. I don't see tearing in either and both look smooth.
Meanwhile I can tell the difference between no Gsync/Vsync, Gsync but half disabled due to NVCP 'Vsync' being off (subtle tearing along the bottom of the display), and full proper Gsync.

Kindof a curse sometimes tbh.
 
Yes the AR coating has a red hue to it, but so does the 65" LG OLED TV and that is also perfectly fine.
The red hue could be inherent in the panel because the subpixel is bigger than the blue and green. Looking at pictures and videos close up of the screen on a white background there is definitely a red hue. I hope further iterations of QD-OLED panel tech improve on this. Linus even said he could pick the QD-OLED out from a blind test because of the red hue.
 
This AR coating is my biggest worry about it to be honest. From every video you can clearly see that any kind of ambient light, bright or not, turns blacks to grey. Mine's currently onboard for delivery (seems like what they were saying about the stands coming in on the 26th was true) and if this is the case it'll be promptly up for sale
 
This AR coating is my biggest worry about it to be honest. From every video you can clearly see that any kind of ambient light, bright or not, turns blacks to grey. Mine's currently onboard for delivery (seems like what they were saying about the stands coming in on the 26th was true) and if this is the case it'll be promptly up for sale
I have two 60W equivalent LED bulbs above and behind me and with them on blacks do not look grey in the slightest. I took a picture of the screen off and it looks grey there, but not IRL. Most of what you're seeing in these amateur pictures is the auto mode on cameras boosting the exposure specifically because the blacks are so black.

If you like having lots of sunlight or have a massive amount of artificial lighting (200W+ direct or like 500+ indirect) then yeah it might look a little grey, but it's still lightyears better than any LCD.
 
I turned on my bright led overhead lights and the blacks are still really black.
3613765D-3442-4E0A-97D3-FAFFE355D00E.jpeg


01252187-0C18-4E6A-AE16-E9772312508C.jpeg
 
I mean, I have been playing PC games since the late 90s and mostly shooters.

I can't tell a difference between 120 and 144Hz and I also can't tell the difference at 144Hz between G-sync on vs off. I don't see tearing in either and both look smooth.
I can, and have demonstrated being able to tell the difference between 90, 120, 144 and higher Hz. It's one of those things you can really tell when moving a notepad or other text-filled window from left to right. Can you read the text while you move it? How fast can you move the window from left to right before the text becomes too blurry to read?

If you had an actual piece of paper with some text on it, and whipped it past your head, but managed to follow it with your eyes, you'd be able to read it. as long as your eyes can follow the motion, you should be able to read the text.

So when you move a window from left-to-right on a screen and CAN'T read the text, you are demonstrating that you, yourself, can INDEED see the difference between low and high refresh rates.

In other words, if there is any point at which you can move a window around at 144Hz and can't read anything, your eyes are sensitive enough to see higher refresh rates, even if you can't consciously notice.
 
The red hue could be inherent in the panel because the subpixel is bigger than the blue and green. Looking at pictures and videos close up of the screen on a white background there is definitely a red hue. I hope further iterations of QD-OLED panel tech improve on this. Linus even said he could pick the QD-OLED out from a blind test because of the red hue.
Shining a light on it, it seems like the panel itself is more grey than anything. Coating itself seems to be shifting color to red a bit as light penetrates it.
 
Back
Top