Alienware's 55-inch OLED gaming monitor launches in September priced at $4,000

Shawn Knight

Posts: 12,515   +122
Staff member

Dell at CES early this year showcased a prototype Alienware display that any gamer would be proud to own. Specs and general information on the 55-inch Alienware AW5520QF OLED gaming monitor were held close to the chest but now we’ve got some new details to run with.

Dell and Alienware ahead of the 11th annual Gamescom trade show revealed that the 120Hz, 4K (3,840 x 2,160 resolution) monitor will have a 0.5ms gray-to-gray response time and 98.5 percent DCI-P3 color coverage. The OLED monster will also support AMD Radeon FreeSync technology for smooth image playback and comes equipped with the AlienFX lighting system.

Connectivity includes a DisplayPort 1.2 connection, three HDMI 2.0 ports, four USB ports, SPDIF audio out and a headphone jack.

The Alienware 55-inch gaming monitor is scheduled to ship on September 30 priced at a steep $3,999.99. Before dropping that kind of money, it’d be advisable to see what else is out there. If you can sacrifice a feature or two, you may be able to save a ton of money on a comparable set.

Gamescom 2019 runs from August 20 through August 24 in Cologne, Germany.

Permalink to story.

 

Squid Surprise

Posts: 3,342   +2,221
Without HDMI 2.1 and DisplayPort 2.0, it's a pass. Next one, please! And offering it with the ancient DP 1.2 in this price segment is really taking the piss. Those damn aliens.
As it’s “only” a 4K monitor, HDMI 2.1 isn’t really necessary... but not supporting at least Display Port 1.4 is inexcusable at this price point...
 

ShagnWagn

Posts: 1,297   +1,081
Ditto on already spoken. Really they should have left the speakers out, as I think should be for all "gaming" monitors (gamers typically use nice headphones or dedicated speakers higher quality). Anyone with this kind of dough most likely has a high end dedicated speaker system, if not a full home theater setup.

Kudos to them for trying to raise the bar anyway.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TempleOrion

brucek

Posts: 495   +573
TechSpot Elite
I'm curious why they picked 55 inches. This seems both very large for a "monitor" and also a size that is already served by the big names in OLED TVs.

I'd imagine there might be more of an opening in ranges like 23 inch to 32 inch, where as far as I know there are not a lot of good OLED choices and are more typical for monitor sizes.
 
I'm curious why they picked 55 inches. This seems both very large for a "monitor" and also a size that is already served by the big names in OLED TVs.

I'd imagine there might be more of an opening in ranges like 23 inch to 32 inch, where as far as I know there are not a lot of good OLED choices and are more typical for monitor sizes.
I believe the profitability on oled screens smaller than 55" is too small. That's what I've always heard.
 

Bill A

Posts: 13   +2
Without HDMI 2.1 and DisplayPort 2.0, it's a pass. Next one, please! And offering it with the ancient DP 1.2 in this price segment is really taking the piss. Those damn aliens.
As it’s “only” a 4K monitor, HDMI 2.1 isn’t really necessary... but not supporting at least Display Port 1.4 is inexcusable at this price point...

HDMI 2.1 is necessary for 4k 120Hz.


For that price it needs HDMI 2.1, DisplayPort 2.0, and Dolby Vision support.


If anything just buy LG OLED65C9 for about 2 grand. (NEWEGG)
 
  • Like
Reactions: OptimumSlinky

Squid Surprise

Posts: 3,342   +2,221
HDMI 2.1 is necessary for 4k 120Hz.


For that price it needs HDMI 2.1, DisplayPort 2.0, and Dolby Vision support.


If anything just buy LG OLED65C9 for about 2 grand. (NEWEGG)
Actually, it isn’t... https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/HDMI

Check the chart near the bottom....Just requires 4:2:0 subsampling....and I’d assume that this monitor wouldn’t see any extra quality by having HDMI 2.1...

But I agree it SHOULD come with HDMI 2.1 anyways...
 

Bill A

Posts: 13   +2
With subsampling but the signal is downgraded to achieve 120Hz. In other words the color resolution is decreased in order to increase the refresh rate.

You still need HDMI 2.1 for true 4k 120Hz especially at that price.
 

Markoni35

Posts: 750   +263
That's just stupid. Instead of having a monitor the size of the wall, which has to be far away from me, and in 4K resolution (otherwise I can see the pixels), I can use a lower-resolution monitor, that is closer to me, which yields exactly the same picture size in my eye.

But with several major differences:
1. Smaller monitor (with lower resolution) is much cheaper. Even though the picture quality is identical.
2. Since it has a lower resolution, I can play games at higher FPS, because lower resolution means faster rendering.
3. It needs less space.

Hence, I get all the goodies for a lot less money. 55" is good for a TV, for movies and videos (preferably in good company), but as a gaming "monitor" it just makes no sense.
 

Squid Surprise

Posts: 3,342   +2,221
With subsampling but the signal is downgraded to achieve 120Hz. In other words the color resolution is decreased in order to increase the refresh rate.

You still need HDMI 2.1 for true 4k 120Hz especially at that price.
My guess is the monitor doesn’t give true 4K 120hz....
 

Duke Sparrow

Posts: 11   +6
So is burn-in a solved issue on OLED then? The prospect of burn-in on current OLED sets is a huge issue and really makes them unsuitable for long gaming sessions if you have any kind of static HUD elements on the screen. I can't imagine that they would be selling a $4000 monitor advertised specifically for gaming if burn-in is still persistent on OLED displays... or would they?
 

Squid Surprise

Posts: 3,342   +2,221
So is burn-in a solved issue on OLED then? The prospect of burn-in on current OLED sets is a huge issue and really makes them unsuitable for long gaming sessions if you have any kind of static HUD elements on the screen. I can't imagine that they would be selling a $4000 monitor advertised specifically for gaming if burn-in is still persistent on OLED displays... or would they?
Since it's still an issue for 65" $6,000 TVs, I'd assume it's still an issue for this as well... just not a BIG one anymore...
 

OptimumSlinky

Posts: 239   +420
This thing is bizarre. At 55" why in the world would you buy this over the 55" LG C9 OLED for $1,600? (https://www.amazon.com/dp/B07PTN79PG/ref=twister_B07NHY685S?_encoding=UTF8&psc=1)
 
I could definitely see myself wanting a 55" or 60" monitor even at $4K ...IF it was 32:9 and curved and worked well as a business monitor as well. In fact I could see a lot of my clients in the financial industry wanting just such a monitor. No need for a messy dual 32" system when you could have a much cleaner single monitor. I'd never consider buying anything that didn't have HDMI 2.1 even if it didn't need it at this point.
 

Squid Surprise

Posts: 3,342   +2,221
For LEDs, sure. But LG's 55" B9 OLED TV has a 100% response time of 1.6ms (source: https://www.rtings.com/tv/reviews/lg/b9-oled#comparison_2446) which is virtually instantaneous and certainly faster than most eLiTe pRo GaMeR monitors.
To enable this, you have tons of stutter.... which a true gaming monitor (and hopefully this monitor as well) wouldn't have. Read the actual link you provided and you'll see this... And the input lag is still far greater than a true gaming monitor - even at 1440P at 120hz, it's 7ms... and that's its best result.

The basic rule generally is: for viewing content, you want a TV or a "pro" monitor.

To play games, you want a gaming monitor...
 
Techspot is the only one who wrote an honest review of this monitor, and talked about the TVs out there which are straight up better.

However you aren't sacrificing a feature or two with the LG C9. It is better than the Alienware in every way.