News Alienware AW2725QF 27-inch gaming monitor delivers 4K at 180Hz or 1080p at 360Hz for $600

[Admin]

The Alienware AW2725QF gives you a 4K/180Hz and a 1080p/360Hz display rolled into one monitor.

Alienware AW2725QF 27-inch gaming monitor delivers 4K at 180Hz or 1080p at 360Hz for $600 : Read more

 

[helper800]

I think these new monitors that can do two native resolutions at different refresh rates are really cool. There are a lot of games that are old and can run at high fps 4k and when your PC cannot push those fps anymore at 4k you can drop down to 1080p, which is 1/4th the resolution, so you can get better performance. The difference with these monitors versus older monitors is that now you can drop resolution and double your refresh rate where as before you were stuck at whatever the max refresh rate was at the higher resolution.

 

[cyrusfox]

Price isn't terrible, actually not too bad for the refresh rate you get and the feature set.

I think these new monitors that can do two native resolutions at different refresh rates are really cool. There are a lot of games that are old and can run at high fps 4k and when your PC cannot push those fps anymore at 4k you can drop down to 1080p, which is 1/4th the resolution, so you can get better performance. The difference with these monitors versus older monitors is that now you can drop resolution and double your refresh rate where as before you were stuck at whatever the max refresh rate was at the higher resolution.

Also love the concept, but I find 4k @ 27" is much too pixel dense, I need 32" to justify that resolution. I made the mistake 6 years ago buying 2 4k 27" LG IPS screens, I couldn't cope with 4k resolution, and scaling would invariably break some weird app, so I normally only ran them at 1440p to make them usable, for me, 4k pixel on 27" density was not fun to work with. Great that these have g-sync as well as high refresh rates on these higher resolutions. I personally wouldn't bother with anything above 1440p on a 27" monitor, Except for Media or photo work.

If only the lower resolution was 1440p and the upper was 5120x2880(1440p and 5 K), that would be much more preferred and I'd be interested in that dual native configuration. Hope someone has one of those cooking up (I'd be fine with 240Hz 1440P and 120Hz 5K).

 

[TheHerald]

I think these new monitors that can do two native resolutions at different refresh rates are really cool. There are a lot of games that are old and can run at high fps 4k and when your PC cannot push those fps anymore at 4k you can drop down to 1080p, which is 1/4th the resolution, so you can get better performance. The difference with these monitors versus older monitors is that now you can drop resolution and double your refresh rate where as before you were stuck at whatever the max refresh rate was at the higher resolution.

The refresh increase is nice sure but dropping down the resolution for performance reasons is a bad idea nowadays since dlss and even fsr do it much better. Pretty sure dlss balanced on 4k looks a lot better than 1080p native on this monitor.

 

[helper800]

The refresh increase is nice sure but dropping down the resolution for performance reasons is a bad idea nowadays since dlss and even fsr do it much better. Pretty sure dlss balanced on 4k looks a lot better than 1080p native on this monitor.

IMO native always looks better than FRS/DLSS. I'd rather have a true 1080p than a hyper scaled 480p/720p/1080p to 4k image.

Also love the concept, but I find 4k @ 27" is much too pixel dense, I need 32" to justify that resolution. I made the mistake 6 years ago buying 2 4k 27" LG IPS screens, I couldn't cope with 4k resolution, and scaling would invariably break some weird app, so I normally only ran them at 1440p to make them usable, for me, 4k pixel on 27" density was not fun to work with. Great that these have g-sync as well as high refresh rates on these higher resolutions. I personally wouldn't bother with anything above 1440p on a 27" monitor, Except for Media or photo work.

If only the lower resolution was 1440p and the upper was 5120x2880(1440p and 5 K), that would be much more preferred and I'd be interested in that dual native configuration. Hope someone has one of those cooking up (I'd be fine with 240Hz 1440P and 120Hz 5K).

I do not understand what you mean by "too much pixel density." I have used scaling on my 4k monitors and have found no issues with apps. I have only ever found issue with too little pixel density rather than the oposite.

 

[UnforcedERROR]

Also love the concept, but I find 4k @ 27" is much too pixel dense, I need 32" to justify that resolution. I made the mistake 6 years ago buying 2 4k 27" LG IPS screens, I couldn't cope with 4k resolution...

I find this so strange. Pixel density being high is far less of an issue than it being too low, the biggest thing is you get less of a benefit from it when you have a smaller screen. This is especially true for productivity applications, though I would say that for gaming (or media) it's a different story since you don't always want to push high resolutions at smaller scales, since the density benefits you less and the performance impact is more pronounced.

The refresh increase is nice sure but dropping down the resolution for performance reasons is a bad idea nowadays since dlss and even fsr do it much better. Pretty sure dlss balanced on 4k looks a lot better than 1080p native on this monitor.

I completely disagree here. You have some noticeable tradeoffs using DLSS or FSR in regards to image quality, so anything that appears to be native will always look better. In the past dropping resolution below native for performance reasons looked terrible, because LCDs simply don't look good below their native output. This alleviates that somewhat, and also gives you the option of going for full performance if needed. This is attractive to someone like me for a myriad reasons: I like higher density for work-related reasons, I like high refresh for casual or single-player games, and I like extra-high refresh for when I want to play a competitive shooter. I do all of these things, so having a jack of all trades is really a win. That said, I really wish it wasn't an edge-lit design, so I'm sticking with my 27" 1440 mini-LED for now, but in the future this is the kind of product I'll replace that with.

 

[helper800]

I find this so strange. Pixel density being high is far less of an issue than it being too low, the biggest thing is you get less of a benefit from it when you have a smaller screen. This is especially true for productivity applications, though I would say that for gaming (or media) it's a different story since you don't always want to push high resolutions at smaller scales, since the density benefits you less and the performance impact is more pronounced.


I completely disagree here. You have some noticeable tradeoffs using DLSS or FSR in regards to image quality, so anything that appears to be native will always look better. In the past dropping resolution below native for performance reasons looked terrible, because LCDs simply don't look good below their native output. This alleviates that somewhat, and also gives you the option of going for full performance if needed. This is attractive to someone like me for a myriad reasons: I like higher density for work-related reasons, I like high refresh for casual or single-player games, and I like extra-high refresh for when I want to play a competitive shooter. I do all of these things, so having a jack of all trades is really a win. That said, I really wish it wasn't an edge-lit design, so I'm sticking with my 27" 1440 mini-LED for now, but in the future this is the kind of product I'll replace that with.

They have a WOLED that does 240hz 4k and 480hz 1080p. You can make a 1440p 240hz setting for it in control panel as well. Here is the monitor and here is a nice review by Rtings.

 

[cyrusfox]

I do not understand what you mean by "too much pixel density." I have used scaling on my 4k monitors and have found no issues with apps. I have only ever found issue with too little pixel density rather than the oposite.

What I mean by "too much pixel density" is that on a 4K display, specifically around 27 inches, applications can appear excessively small and become difficult to use when the display is set to 100% scaling. While Windows scaling does effectively adjust the size of the user interface for the majority of applications, it's the remaining few that don't scale properly that present issues. These issues can range from minor annoyances to significant usability problems, such as buttons that become unclickable because the scaling isn't applied correctly within the application.

From my experience, a 27-inch monitor with a 1440p resolution offers an optimal balance, and I now prefer to purchase 1440p panels to avoid the complications associated with 4K scaling. There's an informative video that discusses this topic from an Apple perspective, highlighting the optimal pixels-per-inch (PPI) setting. Despite any criticisms one might have about Apple, their "walled garden" approach does have its advantages, particularly in enforcing a consistent user interface experience that works seamlessly. Apple deserves recognition for being ahead of the curve in this aspect.

If Windows scaling worked flawlessly across all applications, my argument would be irrelevant. However, that has not been my experience, neither back in 2018(when I purchased my first 4k monitor) nor at present.

 

[UnforcedERROR]

They have a WOLED that does 240hz 4k and 480hz 1080p. You can make a 1440p 240hz setting for it in control panel as well. Here is the monitor and here is a nice review by Rtings.

Yeah, my hangup there is that it's OLED. OLEDs and burn-in really freak me out, even if it's an illogical fear. I know I play some games that could cause an issue. Still, the 240/480 implementation is really palatable to me, so if I end up with some free cash later I may take a risk. That said, I also appreciate Mini-LED for the brightness since my office space has a lot of light.

 

[helper800]

Yeah, my hangup there is that it's OLED. OLEDs and burn-in really freak me out, even if it's an illogical fear. I know I play some games that could cause an issue. Still, the 240/480 implementation is really palatable to me, so if I end up with some free cash later I may take a risk. That said, I also appreciate Mini-LED for the brightness since my office space has a lot of light.

Buy a third party warranty for 3-5 years for that LG and make sure it covers burn in and dont worry about it. I got a LG 55 inch CX back in early 2021 and have zero issues with it and use it all day. It came with a 5 year extended warranty from Sam's Club and it includes burn-in.

 

[TheHerald]

IMO native always looks better than FRS/DLSS. I'd rather have a true 1080p than a hyper scaled 480p/720p/1080p to 4k image.

It's not really an opinion, 4k with dlss balanced (1080p internal res) is way better than 1080p native. The difference is so insane in favor of the dlss that it's not really down to preference. I have the 32" lg oled that does the 480hz / 1080p and 240hz / 4k and I've tried it.

 

[helper800]

It's not really an opinion, 4k with dlss balanced (1080p internal res) is way better than 1080p native. The difference is so insane in favor of the dlss that it's not really down to preference. I have the 32" lg oled that does the 480hz / 1080p and 240hz / 4k and I've tried it.

So you are telling me you will never swap it to native 1080p for 480hz over upresed 1080p to 4k? 1080p 480hz is half the pixel pushing than 4k 240 is my point. Its easier to push and doesn't look blurry from upressing.

 

[TheHerald]

So you are telling me you will never swap it to native 1080p for 480hz over upresed 1080p to 4k? 1080p 480hz is half the pixel pushing than 4k 240 is my point. Its easier to push and doesn't look blurry from upressing.

I never turn it to 1080p regardless cause it looks awful to be fair. It looks way blurrier than upressing, i mean that's the whole point of technologies like DLSS. If 4k DLSS balanced (so 1080p internal res) looked blurier than native 1080p then dlss would ever have existed in the first place. If you have 4k display it's easy to test it yourself, try native 1080p vs DLSS balanced at 4k, the DLSS will look waaaaaaay better.

 

[UnforcedERROR]

I never turn it to 1080p regardless cause it looks awful to be fair. It looks way blurrier than upressing, i mean that's the whole point of technologies like DLSS. If 4k DLSS balanced (so 1080p internal res) looked blurier than native 1080p then dlss would ever have existed in the first place. If you have 4k display it's easy to test it yourself, try native 1080p vs DLSS balanced at 4k, the DLSS will look waaaaaaay better.

You're missing the point of the monitor. That 480hz at 1080p isn't about image quality, it's about refresh. If your only concern is image quality there'd be no reason to buy a dual-mode monitor regardless. People buying this are going to use 1080p precisely for competitive FPS and nothing more. They aren't worried about it looking better at 4K, they'll use that in Single Player or FPS-limited titles.