The Alienware AW2721D is a high-end 27-inch 1440p monitor, giving us our first look at the combination of a 240Hz refresh rate and IPS technology at this resolution. Alienware are touting "true 1ms GTG response time" - we'll see about that.
Alienware AW2721D 27" Gaming Monitor Review
- Thread starter Scorpus
- Start date
$825 for a non-professional monitor makes me happy that my standards for monitor performance are so low.
IMO, your shrine to consumerism makes for a distracting backdrop for the product photos.
IMO, your shrine to consumerism makes for a distracting backdrop for the product photos.
QuantumPhysics
Posts: 6,306 +7,258
I have the 34" Alienware monitor of last generation and now I've got my eyes on the 38". I was hoping they'd have "4K" by now, but they still are max 1440p.
The price began at $1800 and it's shaved off around $400 - $500 thus far. Another year it'll be $1000.
The price began at $1800 and it's shaved off around $400 - $500 thus far. Another year it'll be $1000.
Stark
Posts: 192 +174
Yep way too much for a gaming monitor.
Chill man not every tech review site needs to adhere to same code of conduct, Linus tech tip's forum will suit your taste well, being the hardcore tech focused discussions it has.
Also, as a tech review site if they do display the products on back shelves it's two birds with one stone lol.
Last edited:
Avro Arrow
Posts: 3,721 +4,821
Ah Alienware! The fancy and overpriced Dell brand!
Just having the Alienware logo on it increases the price by hundreds of dollars before the actual performance of the item (be it a screen or a PC) is taken into consideration. Hell, my 55" Haier 4K TV cost me LESS than $500CAD. There's no way that I'm going to spend over $800USD for a 27" screen that's far too small for most people to be able to tell 1440p from 1080p which means that you're already paying extra for something that has no impact on your experience. I believe that the sweet spot for 1440p is between 40" and 50" with 35" being the absolute minimum for 1080p to start showing any signs of pixelization on a native resolution monitor (unlike a TV).
This is like spending more on a wristwatch because it says "FOSSIL" on it when Fossil doesn't actually make watches. Their watches are probably made by some nameless Chinese OEM and the movements are made by god-knows-who. It's a bad look when they don't tell you who made the movement because if it were good, they would tell you. At least we know this is really an LG.
I have an Invicta Grand Diver model #3049 that I wear to work. I like knowing that Invicta actually made it and I also like knowing that Invicta tells you that the movement is a Seiko N35HA. When it comes to watches, anything by Seiko means a top-quality. Even before using the NH35A, when Invicta was using the inferior (to Seiko anyway) Miyota 8926 movement, they were still transparent about it. I admire companies that are honest and forthcoming from the get-go. Alienware does not fit that description (neither does Dell for that matter) even if they're forthcoming about the monitor really being an LG this time.
As for it's appearance, it's huge (57mm diameter) and it looks like a cross between a Rolex Sea-Dweller and an Omega Planet Ocean (aka just beautiful).
So, I could have paid $245CAD for a FOSSIL FB-01 42mm skeleton (no date though) with a movement made by god-knows-who that's only water resistant to 100m:
or less than $200CAD for my Invicta Grand Diver #3049 47mm rear skeleton and date with a Seiko NH35A movement that's water resistant to 300m:
It doesn't take a genius to see what the better offer is.
So Alienware, Acer and Dell screens are like Fossil. No matter what the price point is, they had to pay someone to make it with their name on it which is an added expense that you pay for instead of every dollar going towards its quality and performance. Just like I always take a hard pass on fashion-brand watches, I always take a hard pass on fashion-brand displays. I'd just take the LG if I really wanted that.
Just having the Alienware logo on it increases the price by hundreds of dollars before the actual performance of the item (be it a screen or a PC) is taken into consideration. Hell, my 55" Haier 4K TV cost me LESS than $500CAD. There's no way that I'm going to spend over $800USD for a 27" screen that's far too small for most people to be able to tell 1440p from 1080p which means that you're already paying extra for something that has no impact on your experience. I believe that the sweet spot for 1440p is between 40" and 50" with 35" being the absolute minimum for 1080p to start showing any signs of pixelization on a native resolution monitor (unlike a TV).
This is like spending more on a wristwatch because it says "FOSSIL" on it when Fossil doesn't actually make watches. Their watches are probably made by some nameless Chinese OEM and the movements are made by god-knows-who. It's a bad look when they don't tell you who made the movement because if it were good, they would tell you. At least we know this is really an LG.
I have an Invicta Grand Diver model #3049 that I wear to work. I like knowing that Invicta actually made it and I also like knowing that Invicta tells you that the movement is a Seiko N35HA. When it comes to watches, anything by Seiko means a top-quality. Even before using the NH35A, when Invicta was using the inferior (to Seiko anyway) Miyota 8926 movement, they were still transparent about it. I admire companies that are honest and forthcoming from the get-go. Alienware does not fit that description (neither does Dell for that matter) even if they're forthcoming about the monitor really being an LG this time.
As for it's appearance, it's huge (57mm diameter) and it looks like a cross between a Rolex Sea-Dweller and an Omega Planet Ocean (aka just beautiful).
So, I could have paid $245CAD for a FOSSIL FB-01 42mm skeleton (no date though) with a movement made by god-knows-who that's only water resistant to 100m:
or less than $200CAD for my Invicta Grand Diver #3049 47mm rear skeleton and date with a Seiko NH35A movement that's water resistant to 300m:
It doesn't take a genius to see what the better offer is.
So Alienware, Acer and Dell screens are like Fossil. No matter what the price point is, they had to pay someone to make it with their name on it which is an added expense that you pay for instead of every dollar going towards its quality and performance. Just like I always take a hard pass on fashion-brand watches, I always take a hard pass on fashion-brand displays. I'd just take the LG if I really wanted that.
Last edited:
Reehahs
Posts: 1,297 +970
I am surprised that the main competitor (Samsung Odyssey G7) isn't included consistently in all of the charts for comparison.
27" monitors have been the standard for 1440p resolution for over a decade now, so pretty much everyone can tell the difference. The only people I run into who prefer 1080p at 27" have vision problems and want everything on the screen to be larger as everyone else much prefers the extra work or gaming space of 1440p. Maybe you sit farther from your monitor than most people?
bandit8623
Posts: 505 +283
Thank you! That's exactly what I want as well. I settled for a non hdmi 2.1 32" monitor with "fake" hdr just because I needed something. But I would be willing to pay this price range for a 120hz 32" HDMI 2.1 monitor with HDR1000. Not sure why there isn't really anything that fits that bill.
VitalyT
Posts: 6,833 +8,119
Since there is no product that I want, I have been using DELL's U3219Q for the last 1+ year, and I like it. It is only 60Hz, but HDR looks decent, and it is proper 32".
Similar threads
