Alienware AW2518H 240Hz G-Sync Monitor Review

Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
Status
Not open for further replies.
hummm...
a 60" 4K tv or a 25" monitor for the same price...

WOW...
I just don't understand monitor pricing anymore.
To me... That is such a ripoff, I feel sorry for the people that waist their money.

It's slightly better than the one that's $400 less.
Slightly better isn't worth that much more.
 
i usually say that if you don't like it, it's probably not for you

but serious gamers have better options and casual gamers have better options. who is this for?
 
"who is this for?"
"Casual gamers" or "console peasants" making the pilgrimage to being a member of the "PC gamer master race". Or nVidia/Intel fanboys who will pay any price for MLG level gaming.

It's products like this that perpetuated the stereotype that PC gaming is expensive.

Also nVidia, the way it's meant to be milked.
 
Monitor prices (respective to technical advancement) are ridiculous. Predator x34 is a great example of something that started and stayed expensive. Shows that not enough innovation or competition exists in the space. The 3820x1400 UltraWides should be around 600.00 by now, with the new 4K 144hz HDR Panels hitting around 1200.00. Unfortunately not the case.
 
Gamers looking for a 1080p panel are not looking in the $400-$500 price range. This product literally is for no one when there are 1080p 144hz panels for $200 or less. The specs make zero sense.
 
I built my PC in 2012 to run 1080p at 60Hz on a 27 inch monitor.

I am ready to upgrade to something like 4k at 240Hz on a 42" monitor. But, obviously I'm going to be waiting for a while. I never thought I would have to wait 8 to 10 years before I could get any kind of significant upgrade to my 2012 PC.
 
I think perhaps one thing that is slowing monitor advancement is that most people prefer to watch video movies at 24Hz because they think 30Hz or 60Hz is "too realistic".
 
It's going to take awhile for PC monitors at true 4k, with G-Sync, and >60Hz refresh rates. ASUS will have the PG27UQ coming out in 2018 that is a true 4k monitor at 27 inches with G-Sync and 144Hz refresh rates. It's going to carry a hefty price tag though. Alas, unless a 4k TV sports a DisplayPort connection you are going to be limited to 60Hz at 4k and no G-Sync. There are no 4k TV's that have a DisplayPort connector. The GTX 1080 Ti has HDMI outputs but at only 60Hz at 4k. The monitor in this article for 1080p is a joke.
 

You don't have to wait. It's called 1440p, IPS, 120Hz. Looks awesome.
 

You mean YOU'RE not looking for a premium quality 240Hz monitor. Don't try to speak for everyone- it's foolish and arrogant. By the way, 240 > 144, so what's your point?
 


I've thought about various incremental upgrades for my current PC. I agree that 1440p 120Hz would be an improvement - but, it's not enough. I want a significant improvement. I have avoided small improvements for the last 6 years and I'm not going to get away from that.

42" 4k at 240Hz would be a significant and noticeable upgrade from 27" 60Hz 1080p.
 
Pretty sure Asus has a 24in monitor for half the price with most of the features...i believe its like 5 years old...
 

It's your choice of course, but I have to mention that going from 1080p to 1440p at 27" is significant. We're talking 2 million pixels vs. 3.7 million. It makes a big difference when you almost double the number of pixels. I'm speaking from experience. My last three monitors: 1920x1200; then 2560x1440; then 3440x1440.

You're going to have to continue waiting for several more years (5-10) for a GPU capable of delivering 240 fps @ 4K on most titles. It will have to be four times as powerful as the current champ, the 1080 Ti. Since AMD and Nvidia release new lineups every ~two years, the cards will have to double in power (which they rarely do) for three cycles for this to happen. While the 1080 Ti is twice as fast as the 980 Ti, the increase from gen to gen has historically been more like a 30-50% increase. The process could take nearly a decade.

Feel free to wait, but know that you're dream setup isn't even close to reality. Are you really going to use your 1080p 27" (which is already considered an undesirably low pixel density) for another 5-10 years? How about enjoying life now, rather than waiting for perfection while using outdated tech?
 
They are about to introduce a dual to quad chip GPU in 2018 Infinity fab is for sure going to be the first unless Nvidia has inside info on AMD which they probably do so they have the same tech meaning similar to CPU market dual and quad core GPU's are coming mark my words it is the only way to advance enough to push the tech without making Humongous PCB's. Not to mention the latency drop vs dual chip PCB or dual, tri, and quad cards, the farther apart the second, third and Fourth GPU is from the first creates massive issues and makes it unrealistic and unreliable and the cost is substantial. In reality when they release these multicore GPU's we are talking 2 to 4 times of true performance increase with proper drivers of course.
 
I have this monitor and its great! paired with my 1080Ti it´s a gamers dream to play fast paced shooters or any game for that matter on. Build quality is really good and sturdy ,and i personally love the straight lines the nonplastic stand/feet and the colors are amazing for a 1080p TN panel.
Haters are always going to hate on expensive hardware that they cant afford.
 




Well i was ,and i bought it, specs are great for a 240Hz whats your point? 144Hz its not enough for my 1080Ti so my 144Hz had to go.

 


Just to give a bit of an explanation for this. What this monitor is for is the refresh rate, not the resolution. People who use mouse and keyboards and play fps games will want 144-240hz monitors. Why? Accuracy. When you use a console for fps you don't have very good accuracy. Companies implemented a program into fps games called aim assist for consoles. People who play pc however don't have that. Accuracy is everything in an fps game. Why would you want a monitor instead of a tv? Because monitors have real refresh rate rather than what tv's use as "simulated" refresh rates. "https://wetek.com/blog/view/115/why-fake-refresh-rate-either-blows-your-mind-or-your-nerves" . Tv's also have high ms response rates around 30ms while most monitors now range from 1-3ms. Lower is better. The higher the response rate, the more delay your input on your mouse has on screen. What's the difference between 60 and 144hz? A lot. Because of the higher refresh rate, turning faster creates less of a blur motion on the 144hz, due to this it feels smoother than before. It's like the old question of 30fps or 60fps on consoles. What's the difference between 144-240hz? A slight difference in smoothness. "https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rQY8hSZ9xNE" Having a higher refresh rate with low response rate can give you an advantage in fps games. Should you buy a 144hz monitor over a 60hz for fps games? Definitely. Should you buy a 240hz over a 144? That's up to you. Now this monitor in particular has g-sync. Which is a program within the monitor to sync your gpu with the monitors refresh rate which prevents the screen tearing effect. If you have a nvidia graphics card, you'll want g-sync. If you have amd, you'd want the freesync version of this monitor. Freesync has a similar effect to g-sync but will down the monitors price by $100.

If you read this, I hope you have a better understanding of monitor pricing. I could go more into detail but i'll leave it at that. Most people who want higher refresh rates go with 144hz monitors which still cost around $200-400 depending if you go with free-sync or g-sync, the monitor size and the response rate. Or if they don't feel the need for 240hz but want more resolution they'll go 2k with 144hz which cost around the same price as a 1080p 240hz or more.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom