Dell Announce New Alienware 27″ 1440p 360Hz and 32″ 4K 240Hz QD-OLED Gaming Monitors

[Jefa35]

Don't really understand the hype for this 360Hz OLED. New eTN 540Hz will be better motion clarity wise (even without BFI), will have less input lag (due to higher Hz), better visibility thanks to the higher brightness and LCD "greyish colors", and lastly better format (25" 1080p > 27" 1440p for comp games).

Brightness on OLED remains mediocre and insufficient, not even mentioning the risk of burn in, especially when playing FPS with the same HUD displayed for hours.

Of course for any other activities such as AAA solo games, movies etc OLED will be better, but such Hertz (360+) clearly aims toward competitive FPS games and for this usage there is just no reason to consider anything else than upcoming LCDs 540Hz.

"semi-competitive" games like battlefield, cod etc look great on oled and benefit a lot from high refresh rate

Even racing games look great on high refresh rate and on oled

I was gonna go for PG248QP but then I remembered I play these games as well. Now I'm gonna wait. Hopefully it's below AUD$2.5k

Even for games such CoD or BF PG248QP is way better. Visibility is a huge problem on current OLEDs, 230nits brightness max at best for the Asus is hilarious.

lastly better format (25" 1080p > 27" 1440p for comp games).

This is totally subjective. I would go for 27" 1440p over the other wherever possible

25" 1080p is objectively better to focus on a FPS game as well as performance wise (Higher fps, lower GPU usage meaning lower latency). But preferring 27" 1440p for comfort is understandable yes.

[tong]

Don't really understand the hype for this 360Hz OLED. New eTN 540Hz will be better motion clarity wise (even without BFI), will have less input lag (due to higher Hz), better visibility thanks to the higher brightness and LCD "greyish colors", and lastly better format (25" 1080p > 27" 1440p for comp games).

Brightness on OLED remains mediocre and insufficient, not even mentioning the risk of burn in, especially when playing FPS with the same HUD displayed for hours.

Of course for any other activities such as AAA solo games, movies etc OLED will be better, but such Hertz (360+) clearly aims toward competitive FPS games and for this usage there is just no reason to consider anything else than upcoming LCDs 540Hz.

Turns out not everyone wants pure performance if it means garbage picture quality. Your last paragraph answers your own question.

When you play a competitive game all you want regarding the picture is great visibility, and OLED is mediocre in that aspect. If you are interested in a 360Hz display it means you plan to play and invest time into competitive games. Fur such usage OLED cannot be considered because of its visibility and risk of burn in (really high on a FPS game with the same HUD displayed for hours). So I don't really see for who OLED 360Hz are meant for.

Black equalizer, Color Vibrance and motion blur reduction tech such as DyAc+ are more important for competitive gamers than brightness. OLED's instant response time means there will be no ghosting even at 1000hz, so there's more potential over LCD.
High Refresh doesnt benefit only competitive games, but every game due to the benefits of motion clarity.

The 360Hz OLED is meant for people who want: True Black Levels; No Ghosting; Superior HDR implementation; Color accuracy; No backlight bleed; Good viewing angles;

In short, all the performance with none of the compromises. If this new 360hz OLED also has some kind of blur reduction mode like ULBM2, then every other LCD panel will become obsolete.

[Depo]

Coming from someone who used the XL2566K extensively for competitive games not just CS2 or Valorant but BF2042 and COD I'd like to add my thoughts.

I struggled to still see enemies especially at long distances so they're no better for visibility than an OLED, not sure where you got that from and tbh I would imagine you would spot enemies far easier. Not to mention saturation levels made the monitor one dimensional. I also had a Samsung G7 and I performed the same if not better due to the increased resolution, screen size (27") which made spottinh and tracking objects/persons way easier. I often played against my mate who has the G7 when i had the BenQ and he was always spotting me before I spotted him at those longer ranges.

Regards motion clarity have to hand that down the XL2566K but is it a game changer? Not In my opion, I believe visbility ranks higher than motion clarity.
The black equaliser does help but I'm assuming if you calibrated an OLED correctly you can get close to that.

Response/input delay is very close overall.. your talking ms and tbh you ain't going to notice otherwise all pros would be switching to the highest possible refresh but that's not the case many still use the XL2456K.

[Jefa35]

Don't really understand the hype for this 360Hz OLED. New eTN 540Hz will be better motion clarity wise (even without BFI), will have less input lag (due to higher Hz), better visibility thanks to the higher brightness and LCD "greyish colors", and lastly better format (25" 1080p > 27" 1440p for comp games).

Brightness on OLED remains mediocre and insufficient, not even mentioning the risk of burn in, especially when playing FPS with the same HUD displayed for hours.

Of course for any other activities such as AAA solo games, movies etc OLED will be better, but such Hertz (360+) clearly aims toward competitive FPS games and for this usage there is just no reason to consider anything else than upcoming LCDs 540Hz.

Turns out not everyone wants pure performance if it means garbage picture quality. Your last paragraph answers your own question.

When you play a competitive game all you want regarding the picture is great visibility, and OLED is mediocre in that aspect. If you are interested in a 360Hz display it means you plan to play and invest time into competitive games. Fur such usage OLED cannot be considered because of its visibility and risk of burn in (really high on a FPS game with the same HUD displayed for hours). So I don't really see for who OLED 360Hz are meant for.

Black equalizer, Color Vibrance and motion blur reduction tech such as DyAc+ are more important for competitive gamers than brightness. OLED's instant response time means there will be no ghosting even at 1000hz, so there's more potential over LCD.
High Refresh doesnt benefit only competitive games, but every game due to the benefits of motion clarity.

The 360Hz OLED is meant for people who want: True Black Levels; No Ghosting; Superior HDR implementation; Color accuracy; No backlight bleed; Good viewing angles;

In short, all the performance with none of the compromises. If this new 360hz OLED also has some kind of blur reduction mode like ULBM2, then every other LCD panel will become obsolete.

Brightness is equally important if not more than all the aspects you mentioned regarding in game visibility. It is just not something we usually care about since all LCDs are able to reach 300/400+nits easily at peak SDR brightness. OLED monitors raise this problem since they can only reach 200-230nits of brightness for the best ones.

It doesn't matter if OLEDs manage to beat LCDs motion clarity wise (which is unlikely to happen unless we see BFI coming for OLED or OLED reach LCD Hertz wise) if they are not able to provide a sufficient enough brightness for competitive games. A brightness below 230 nits makes the overall image dimmer, colors don't pop enough, and combined to the darker blacks/grey of OLED, visibility is just mediocre and insufficient for competitive games where you want the fastest reaction time possible by distinguishing any detail/ennemy as soon as possible.

I agree that higher Hertz is always better, but the only advantage of playing solo AAA games on a 360Hz OLED over a 240Hz is the reduced input lag, which is minimal with such high hertz. Unlike LCDs, OLED response times remain the same whatever the Hz you are playing at. So as I said before, the only point of very high Hertz OLED is for competitive games, where framerate can actually match this frequency, but OLED remains a bad choice for such usage due its brightness.

[Jefa35]

Coming from someone who used the XL2566K extensively for competitive games not just CS2 or Valorant but BF2042 and COD I'd like to add my thoughts.

I struggled to still see enemies especially at long distances so they're no better for visibility than an OLED, not sure where you got that from and tbh I would imagine you would spot enemies far easier. Not to mention saturation levels made the monitor one dimensional. I also had a Samsung G7 and I performed the same if not better due to the increased resolution, screen size (27") which made spottinh and tracking objects/persons way easier. I often played against my mate who has the G7 when i had the BenQ and he was always spotting me before I spotted him at those longer ranges.

Regards motion clarity have to hand that down the XL2566K but is it a game changer? Not In my opion, I believe visbility ranks higher than motion clarity.
The black equaliser does help but I'm assuming if you calibrated an OLED correctly you can get close to that.

Response/input delay is very close overall.. your talking ms and tbh you ain't going to notice otherwise all pros would be switching to the highest possible refresh but that's not the case many still use the XL2456K.

Not sure which OLED you talking about, and you mainly talking about the advantage of 1440p over 1080p here, which can be important on games with long distance like Battle Royal I agree. I am talking about brightness here, having a great brightness is important to clearly distinguish and be reactive to every single details displayed in the screen. You could tinker with gamma and stuff to make colors greyish on OLED yes, but it won't compensate its lack of brightness.
And currently a 540Hz eTN with ULMB clearly destroys 240Hz OLED motion clarity wise.

[yehaw]

having a great brightness is important to clearly distinguish and be reactive to every single details displayed in the screen.

No it's not. I've gotten top 500 in OW1 and very high ranks in a few other games playing on 0% brightness back when I played competitive games

You're posting a lot of nonsense about OLED in this thread.

[Jefa35]

having a great brightness is important to clearly distinguish and be reactive to every single details displayed in the screen.

No it's not. I've gotten top 500 in OW1 and very high ranks in a few other games playing on 0% brightness back when I played competitive games

You're posting a lot of nonsense about OLED in this thread.

I never said it is impossible to play well with a low brightness. But such a low brightness (0% on a LCD means around 55nits) is ridiculous and definitely put you at a disadvantage visibility wise, while also having high chance of causing eye strain.

[yehaw]

having a great brightness is important to clearly distinguish and be reactive to every single details displayed in the screen.

No it's not. I've gotten top 500 in OW1 and very high ranks in a few other games playing on 0% brightness back when I played competitive games

You're posting a lot of nonsense about OLED in this thread.

I never said it is impossible to play well with a low brightness. But such a low brightness (0% on a LCD means around 55nits) is ridiculous and definitely put you at a disadvantage visibility wise, while also having high chance of causing eye strain.

Really depends on what the min nit brightness is on a panel, as some panels are brighter than others at min brightness. And eye strain is totally dependent on the person, some get eye strain at high brightness, others at low. But saying you need a 200 nit panel to play good is a lie. Maybe for you that's the case, but not everyone is the same. On my old Omen panel, I would leave it at 0%, other panels are different. I hover at 0-25% brightness across every panel I've ever used. Anything higher and my eyes just burn out quicker. And not to mention that tons of monitor suffer from blooming at higher brightness. Maybe if I was playing on the sun I would need a 200+ nit panel at 100% brightness.

[Jefa35]

having a great brightness is important to clearly distinguish and be reactive to every single details displayed in the screen.

No it's not. I've gotten top 500 in OW1 and very high ranks in a few other games playing on 0% brightness back when I played competitive games

You're posting a lot of nonsense about OLED in this thread.

I never said it is impossible to play well with a low brightness. But such a low brightness (0% on a LCD means around 55nits) is ridiculous and definitely put you at a disadvantage visibility wise, while also having high chance of causing eye strain.

Really depends on what the min nit brightness is on a panel, as some panels are brighter than others at min brightness. And eye strain is totally dependent on the person, some get eye strain at high brightness, others at low. But saying you need a 200 nit panel to play good is a lie. Maybe for you that's the case, but not everyone is the same. On my old Omen panel, I would leave it at 0%, other panels are different. I hover at 0-25% brightness across every panel I've ever used. Anything higher and my eyes just burn out quicker. And not to mention that tons of monitor suffer from blooming at higher brightness. Maybe if I was playing on the sun I would need a 200+ nit panel at 100% brightness.

Was talking in average approximately, a LCD display at minimum brightness is around 50nits, which is ridiculously low. If brightness is too low, you will have to focus more in order to distinguish every details displayed, while if it is too high (especially if you are in a darker environment) it could hurt as well. Both case could lead to eye strain so it is important to find a good in between.
Everyone have personal preference and play in a different environment, but a brightness below 200 nits is definitely on the extreme low side. A brightness with such low nits makes the overall image dimmer, colors don't pop enough, which make visibility mediocre and insufficient for competitive games where you want the fastest reaction time possible by distinguishing any detail/enemy as soon as possible.
If you cannot stand a brightness >100nits it is either a bad habit you have or I'd suggest you get an appointment with your doctor.

[yehaw]

If you cannot stand a brightness >100nits it is either a bad habit you have or I'd suggest you get an appointment with your doctor.

I suggest you stop trying to pass off your experience and preference as factual info for everyone else.