At $1299, Alienware new QD-OLED 34-inch monitor is available for preorder. soon

The moment it showed up on CES everyone started assuming it would cost around 5,000$. And nobody would actually blame dell if this was the case(assuming you have a head on them sholders), because even though they slap the childish 'gaming' tag on it, it straight up destorys normal oleds by a long shot and not to mention the crappy ips/va panels. 1.3k for this is not a bargain, its criminal. Anyone who doesn't see that this is worth the money obviously has no idea what they're looking at.

 

I'm not certain that this 1300USD price tag has been officially confirmed. If true, however, that would be a very good news. That would mean it's not a paper product, but it's really meant to sell.

 

Wonder if they have a 38" version (3840x1600) like the AW3821. That over a 34" any day.

 

it's what I was going to ask about C1,how is it as a pc monitor

 

Damn you got me hyped man, any word on price and availability? Because I'm afraid since it's such a new panel maybe they have issues with making sufficient units.

 

I have a B8, as you may guess it doesn't have the latest and greatest the C1 has. Yet, after 2 years of using it as a pc monitor, working from home and doing over 8000 hours on it, there's no sign of burn-in. I am aware most of the time of what's on it and for how long, but there were times where even I was surprised it didn't burn. It sure as hell ain't as easy as people make it out to be.

//P,S one thing I did notice however, yellow throughout the whole screen is not as yellow as it used to be, leans more towards green. It doesn't fail the "simpsons test", but if i compare it to my two 4k lg ips monitors, their yellow looks much more saturated now. I guess all those hours of the tv working non-stop wears the pixels out too much.

 

What I'd look at is the warranty--which at three years is not bad for a $1200 OLED monitor--but I'd still like it to be a bit better. It would depend on what clauses, if any, are written into the warranty about the screen. ("Three-year warranty on all parts and labor, excluding the screen, which is warrantied for one year from purchase date" would kill my interest quickly...) I'm still enjoying the heck out of my $850 Philips 43" 4k WCG Quantum Dot, Display HDR-1k Certified. 60Hz but gorgeous--a real HDR eye-popper. https://www.amazon.com/dp/B07D5S3QC...7-b0e4-be320caaa749&tag=wwwphilipsusa-20&th=1 Includes a 4yr Philips Advance Replacement warranty which I have not needed, glad to say. (I shouldn't pimp this monitor every time I do a monitor post, but I like this monitor so much I can't help myself.)

Looks like Philips isn't selling it any more through Amazon, though. What a crappy situation this hardware shortage has made of everything!

 

I wish there were 2 models, 1 for hardcore competitive games and 1 for more casual / non-competitive experiences.

Competitive, hardcore games need something similar to:
2560×1440, 27", 240Hz+(preferably 360 or 480Hz, obviously QD OLED's not there yet)

Non-competitive games need something similar to:
3840×2160, 32", 165Hz+ (preferably 240Hz or so)

This monitor's 3440x1440 res is a bit too high for stable, high FPS in most modern shooter/BR games (e.g. Apex Legends, Warzone) even with low settings (probably mostly due to shitty game engines & shitty dev coding - this definitely applies to Respawn).

3440x1440 res is fine for non-competitive games though I'd want 4K for non-competitive games... so this is a weird res for today's CPUs and GPUs where it doesn't quite fit competitive gaming nor high-end 4K quality, non-competitive gaming.

Yes, I do have a high-end, OC'd system (12900k + 3090 + DDR5).

I'm definitely buying the monitor anyway.

 

More info:

 

Human vision field is 220°:135° ~= 1.63 ~= 16:10. Monitor with 16:9 aspect ratio fits field of vision close to perfect, which is very good for immersion and rendering efficiency.
32" 3840x2160, 16:9 monitor have 138 pixels per inch - higher quality when surface of monitors are at the same distance.
34" 3440x1400, 21:9 monitor have 109 pixels per inch.

Problem with 21:9 aspect ratio:
- If you try to see whole monitor, then you will end up with 31% of empty space on top and bottom.
- If you try to cover full field of vision with it, then GPU will waste 25% of resources rendering things outside of human vision.

Problem with media: Most popular content, is 16:9. This means goodbye to 1:1 pixel sharp video quality in full screen, i.e. 4K will be downgraded. 16:9 content will have black bars on sides, so, basically you have 2488x1400 monitor and 1080p quality will be downgraded too, due to the up-scaling/resizing. In this case, upgrade from 3840x2160 (16:9) should be 5040x2160 (21:9) .

 

Officialy on their twitter

 

I used an OLED TV for 4 years with 12+ hours a day use as a desktop monitor, with zero burn-in - not the desktop icons, not the taskbar. You have to treat them right (the same way you do an OLED phone), but it's not really an issue you will come across if you do.

 

Do you hide the taskbar?

 

Excuse the paraphrase, but if someone thinks this monitor is good, has not seen the specification table for it (https://www.displayspecifications.com/en/model/ba9029df).

It uses HDMI 2.0...five years after HDMI 2.1 was released.

That, is criminal.

And, it's not even DCI 4K UHD...I mean, cmon guys.

As for the actual picture quality, I can probably put money on the fact it will be a truly excellent picture, that TrueBlack 400 rating it gets is rare and normally for mid-to-high-range OLED panels. No question on the picture quality at all, but HDMI 2.0 ?

I'm out.

 

Honest question, does the HDMI 2.0 prevent the display from displaying its resolution and refreshrate? Are there sacrifices, such as bit rates lowered?

I ask because if HDMI 2.0 can do everything this monitor claims to be able to do, then i am unsure the issue?

If it does sacrfice something though, how noticable is it?

 

No, I used a black desktop background and set the taskbar to auto color, so it ended up being a dark grey.

 

Well, it's more about the chipset on board being 5 years behind - that is a great concern for 1,300 bones. Taking the standard as-read, it means you are dropping from 4-4-4 to 4-2-0 for anything above 60 frames per second, and you tap-out at 120 frames per second. Versus 2.1 which hits 240 frames per second with 4-4-4 via DSC.

So for movies, not an issue, for a 'gaming monitor' it is criminal, because so what if your movies are at 4-4-4?, if the whole purpose of the monitor is to game away and this cannot do what it is meant to do without gimping the picture quality from that luscious 10-bit True Black picture down to a muddy 8-bit.

You want something for movies, get an OLED/QLED television for slitghly more, but a bigger picture, but if you want a gaming monitor - your money is better spent elsewhere my fellow guru.

 

HDMI 2.0 doesn't have enough bandwidth to do all of the advertised features at once. For example, HDMI 2.0 at 1440p can't do 120Hz refresh and 4:4:4 subpixel rendering at the same time, so if you up your refresh past 60, you will drop to 8-bit 4:2:0 render mode, which is fine for gaming, but causes text to be hard to read (it gives it a rainbow sheen and shimmer). If you want to use it as a good desktop monitor, you will need to tweak your settings to enable 4:4:4@60Hz when using it for that, and flick the switch to turn on HDR and 4:2:0@120Hz when you want to game to unlock the higher frame rate. Sadly, Windows won't do this for you, at least not presently.

 

Is the monitor screen Matte, glossy, or semi-gloss? Matte meaning like most monitors or semigloss/glossy like most LG OLED TV's.

 

Not just OLED, it is Quantum Dot OLED using 3 layers of blue light with Green and red filters. It's a more advanced OLED tech that also reduces power consumption.