Dell Alienware AW3225QF 32" Review: Curved 4K 240Hz QD-OLED

[Mark Fuller]

Between all the various monitors I simply cannot understand these newer generation monitors, especially when you consider the costs ....

They don't do so much for me either, but I suppose that if you are a serious streaming gamer it might make the difference in Las Vegas with a $10,000 first prize.

 

[Disiw]

Artifacts aren’t solely compression related - “read harder”. Once again, I’d rather trust actual sources than your eagle eyes…

There is zero artifacts with DSC, hence why it is lossless compression.

He knows nothing about this subject. He don't even understand the simple difference between lossy and loseless compression.

He did not knew about UHBR either. He is grasping at straws.

 

[Skjorn]

There is zero artifacts with DSC, hence why it is lossless compression.

He knows nothing about this subject. He don't even understand the simple difference between lossy and loseless compression.

He did not knew about UHBR either. He is grasping at straws.

Vesa themselves say they're barely visible. You keep jumping to conclusions about what I know.
Lossless doesn't equal Zero. It's less lossy, that's exactly what lossless means. It doesn't mean uncompressed or pure or true or native or anything along those lines. Lossless does not mean Zero artifacts. It's actually more like very very small artifacts.

Not grasping at anything. TS has an article right now that says our eyes aren't same.
Wonder why Gigabyte put a DP 2.1 port on their brand new 4K 240Hz OLED and others didn't? I suppose they wanted to send an uncompressed data stream instead of a lossless one.
Can't believe you're still on this, why are yall defending these corporations for cheaping out on the hardware then charging you $1k like they didn't.
You don't even know what lossless means, you're gasping for air underwater. You keep saying lossless like it has the same meaning as uncompressed.
DSC should be used in budget monitors, not $1k+ screens that instead includes a royalty charging HDMI port that's faster than the cost saving DSC port. Nvidia was garbage for not putting DP 2.1 on the 40 series and using HDMI 2.1 instead. I suppose those choices could factor in for what the screen makers decide to use but at least gigabyte is smart enough to look forward a bit towards future hardware.
Those DSC screens will be outdated before Thanksgiving this year while all 3 major GPU players will be putting DP 2.1 on their hardware.
Feels bad for anyone with a DP 1.4 4090, paid all that cash to be stuck in the past.

 

[Squid Surprise]

Vesa themselves say they're barely visible. You keep jumping to conclusions about what I know.
Lossless doesn't equal Zero. It's less lossy, that's exactly what lossless means. It doesn't mean uncompressed or pure or true or native or anything along those lines. Lossless does not mean Zero artifacts. It's actually more like very very small artifacts.

Not grasping at anything. TS has an article right now that says our eyes aren't same.
Wonder why Gigabyte put a DP 2.1 port on their brand new 4K 240Hz OLED and others didn't? I suppose they wanted to send an uncompressed data stream instead of a lossless one.
Can't believe you're still on this, why are yall defending these corporations for cheaping out on the hardware then charging you $1k like they didn't.
You don't even know what lossless means, you're gasping for air underwater. You keep saying lossless like it has the same meaning as uncompressed.
DSC should be used in budget monitors, not $1k+ screens that instead includes a royalty charging HDMI port that's faster than the cost saving DSC port. Nvidia was garbage for not putting DP 2.1 on the 40 series and using HDMI 2.1 instead. I suppose those choices could factor in for what the screen makers decide to use but at least gigabyte is smart enough to look forward a bit towards future hardware.
Those DSC screens will be outdated before Thanksgiving this year while all 3 major GPU players will be putting DP 2.1 on their hardware.
Feels bad for anyone with a DP 1.4 4090, paid all that cash to be stuck in the past.

The Gigabyte monitor will still use DSC for 4k 240Hz... My guess is they're adding it simply to be the only ones who have it - and fool people like you into thinking it's a better monitor...

Give it a rest already - DSC is LOSSLESS - not "less lossy"... READ the links posted earlier and learn about something for once instead of just insisting that compression = bad and you have the eyes of a bald eagle.

 

[Skjorn]

The Gigabyte monitor will still use DSC for 4k 240Hz... My guess is they're adding it simply to be the only ones who have it - and fool people like you into thinking it's a better monitor...

Give it a rest already - DSC is LOSSLESS - not "less lossy"... READ the links posted earlier and learn about something for once instead of just insisting that compression = bad and you have the eyes of a bald eagle.

Says right in gigabyte website it will be uncompressed 4k 240Hz but now I know for a fact you just made that up about it using DSC to fit your argument.. my guess is you just guessed it's using it for absolutely no reason... they mention it being uncompressed like 4 times here's just one "This new ultra-fast display standard provides a top-tier 80Gbps bandwidth without any display stream compression, ensuring a seamless experience with uninterrupted high-data flow." lolol holy sh..hahaha

Lossless is by definition less lossy.. it's really in the name.. the loss is lessened..lossless isn't uncompressed. Two different words.

 

[Disiw]

Says right in gigabyte website it will be uncompressed 4k 240Hz but now I know for a fact you just made that up about it using DSC to fit your argument.. my guess is you just guessed it's using it for absolutely no reason... they mention it being uncompressed like 4 times here's just one "This new ultra-fast display standard provides a top-tier 80Gbps bandwidth without any display stream compression, ensuring a seamless experience with uninterrupted high-data flow." lolol holy sh..hahaha

Lossless is by definition less lossy.. it's really in the name.. the loss is lessened..lossless isn't uncompressed. Two different words.

Lossless = Nothing is lost. Just stop the BS. You are using Gigabyte marketing talk as proof. Hahhaa. Useless.

Besides, Gigabyte also sells pretty much the same monitor with DP 1.4 for cheaper. Which will sell better for sure. Because no one will be able to spot any difference. Same panel. Same specs.

Gigabyte FO32U2 = DP 1.4 + DSC.

How do I know? Because I have actual experience with high-end monitors and tested and tried pretty much all of them in the last 10 years.

 

[Skjorn]

Lossless = Nothing is lost. Just stop the BS. You are using Gigabyte marketing talk as proof. Hahhaa. Useless.

Besides, Gigabyte also sells pretty much the same monitor with DP 1.4 for cheaper. Which will sell better for sure. Because no one will be able to spot any difference. Same panel. Same specs.

Gigabyte FO32U2 = DP 1.4 + DSC.

How do I know? Because I have actual experience with high-end monitors and tested and tried pretty much all of them in the last 10 years.

It's less lossy. Not loss free. It has mathematically lost information in compression. .. To the average normie human it is PERCIEVED as no difference.
Less does not mean none. It's basic English in the terminology really. It's not lossfree.

 

[Squid Surprise]

It's less lossy. Not loss free. It has mathematically lost information in compression. .. To the average normie human it is PERCIEVED as no difference.
Less does not mean none. It's basic English in the terminology really. It's not lossfree.

I don’t think you understand the English language as thoroughly as you think you do…

The suffix “less” when used does not mean the WORD “less”.

Examples:
Worthless = having NO worth
Powerless = having NO power
Tactless = having NO tact
And…. Lossless = having NO loss

You’re welcome

 

[Skjorn]

I don’t think you understand the English language as thoroughly as you think you do…

The suffix “less” when used does not mean the WORD “less”.

Examples:
Worthless = having NO worth
Powerless = having NO power
Tactless = having NO tact
And…. Lossless = having NO loss

You’re welcome

It's not magic. You lose something. If you want to perfectly reconstruct whatever has been compressed then you're sacrificing time spent on that. It's not free. It might be pretty fast but it's not free. There's a tradeoff there. You lose either time or data.
Lossless is not uncompressed. They are not the same. I don't think you understand it isn't free. Everything has a cost.

 

[Disiw]

Lossless compression will not diminish the quality. No details are lost, hence the name.

 

[Squid Surprise]

It's not magic. You lose something. If you want to perfectly reconstruct whatever has been compressed then you're sacrificing time spent on that. It's not free. It might be pretty fast but it's not free. There's a tradeoff there. You lose either time or data.
Lossless is not uncompressed. They are not the same. I don't think you understand it isn't free. Everything has a cost.

No one is arguing that there isn't compression and that no data is lost. The argument is that no IMPORTANT data is lost - and the visual results of DSC and non-DSC are EXACTLY the same.

If you check the specs of DP 2.1, you'll notice that DSC is right there... wonder why? Also, the higher the res/frequency, the LESS you will notice any difference with DSC.

Here's an example for you. You take a look at a really cool rainbow - as a human, you can see from the red band to the blue/purple band. Of course, there's more colours there: InfraRed and UltraViolet... If I "compress" the data and leave out the IR and UV... would you notice the difference?

Hopefully, your answer is "no" (unless you're a Dark Elf or Vampire)...

 

[Skjorn]

No one is arguing that there isn't compression and that no data is lost. The argument is that no IMPORTANT data is lost - and the visual results of DSC and non-DSC are EXACTLY the same.

If you check the specs of DP 2.1, you'll notice that DSC is right there... wonder why? Also, the higher the res/frequency, the LESS you will notice any difference with DSC.

Here's an example for you. You take a look at a really cool rainbow - as a human, you can see from the red band to the blue/purple band. Of course, there's more colours there: InfraRed and UltraViolet... If I "compress" the data and leave out the IR and UV... would you notice the difference?

Hopefully, your answer is "no" (unless you're a Dark Elf or Vampire)...

Didn't know monitors displayed invisible bands of light that took up data bits so we can just compress it out instead. Lol wtf. Nice comparison. We compress on the visible spectrum lol. Not the invisible.
You went from "lossless means zero loss" to "nothing important is lost" so which is it? Truly perfectly recreated or is there actually some loss in a lossless codec but it just isn't important to AVERAGE humans so we're gonna make up that it's perfectly recreated on the fly with zero penalty.
Explain to me how the more compression the less you'll notice. Because that's the opposite how on the fly compression has worked since forever. By that logic DP1.4a with DSC has literally no limits. 420K at 69KHz all possible with DP1.4a and DSC!! Normies can't tell!!!

Lossless compression will not diminish the quality. No details are lost, hence the name.

Totally subjective. Small sample groups. Details and compression are like antonyms.
Never said it doesn't do a good job but it's not perfect or magic and it's unnecessary at 4K 240Hz when we have dp 2.1 which main difference of bandwidth from 1.4a is all in encoding and not a physical difference in ports. It's really just laziness to not have DP 2.1

 

[Squid Surprise]

Didn't know monitors displayed invisible bands of light that took up data bits so we can just compress it out instead. Lol wtf. Nice comparison. We compress on the visible spectrum lol. Not the invisible.
You went from "lossless means zero loss" to "nothing important is lost" so which is it? Truly perfectly recreated or is there actually some loss in a lossless codec but it just isn't important to AVERAGE humans so we're gonna make up that it's perfectly recreated on the fly with zero penalty.
Explain to me how the more compression the less you'll notice. Because that's the opposite how on the fly compression has worked since forever. By that logic DP1.4a with DSC has literally no limits. 420K at 69KHz all possible with DP1.4a and DSC!! Normies can't tell!!!

Totally subjective. Small sample groups. Details and compression are like antonyms.
Never said it doesn't do a good job but it's not perfect or magic and it's unnecessary at 4K 240Hz when we have dp 2.1 which main difference of bandwidth from 1.4a is all in encoding and not a physical difference in ports. It's really just laziness to not have DP 2.1

OK... you really just refuse to understand this... DP 1.4a, with DSC, is able to give you 4k @ 240hz with NO diminished quality.

Of course there are limits - it can't give you 4k @ 480hz... or 720hz...

This really shouldn't be hard for you. There is no reason for any monitor to have DP 2.1 unless it supports a higher res/frequency. Since the monitor we are talking about doesn't (nor does any other OLED/WOLED/QD-OLED monitor), they don't need it.

I'm sure that when monitors support 8k@240hz, there will be a higher standard (DP2.1 can't do that either) and we can argue about it again