Final verdict on Alienware 17 R4 displays?

Thinking of getting a 17 R4 soon and I can't decide on which display to get. From what I read it seems as if the 1080P FHD may be the best one to get overall with a gtx 1070.

I heard too many bad things about QHD to do with banding, light bleeding, lower contrast and colour gamut to put that on the table. Not sure if some of these has bee fixed or not.

For UHD sounds really good, but sucks up too many fps, which means on a 1070 you may not get as much mileage out of it in future graphics intense games. In order to get more fps you would have to downscale to 1080P anyway, so what would be the point. Presumably some older games can't be played at some of these resolutions? Also seems as if downscaling is not a perfected art, so may not look great.

I don't know how true the above is though so I would appreciate any comments on the virtues or dislikes of the above display types to help me choose. Worth noting that I've only ever played at 1080P, so I don't really know it these higher resolutions make up for their negatives. Thanks.

 

Hey,

I have the 4K 17r3 (not r4). The point i was going to make is I have the Amplifier with a gtx 1080. On games as new as Starwars Battlefront you should be able to play 4K on High with some Ultra settings with that setup. The visual difference of 1080 to 4K is very noticeable. It looks smoother and more beautiful i.e. less pixelation (not smoother fps)

A couple of notes.

- There is a substantial hit on performance running the above system on the internal screen. My results would be similar to an internal laptop 1070. On Firestrike I get 13,100 - 13,200 and according to the database on 3D Mark it is the same as an internal 1070. In fact there are many internal 1070s with scores above my laptop
- The 6700hq is not powerful enough to keep up with the 1080. 3DMark will report that the CPU can't keep up with the GPU

So for your specific situation.
1) Don't rule out the 4k option even with an internal 1070. Many games will be very playable at 4k. Especially if you turn off anti aliasiang which does not matter on a 17inch 4k screen.
2) Try to get the 7820K
3) Try to get the internal 1080 (Not currently available on Kaby Lake)

 

I agree with everything he just said with the addition of one thing:

If it's purely for games the 120Hz 4ms 400 nits G-Sync QHD panel is second to none. It's absolutely brilliant, bright, fast and smooth. You will not get that with the 4K display (or any other display in the market at the moment for that matter). The lines watermark is only noticeable if your eyes are an inch for the screen, it can be calibrated for any colour inaccuracies (mine and many others didn't have any though) and there hasn't been any reports on light bleed on this panel in a long time!

Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk

 

yeah, despite the truth in that this screen had some serious problems at the end of the year and going into 2017, my 120Hz 4ms 400 nits G-Sync QHD is over the top perfect; I literally would not replace this with the 4K, let alone the 1080p if I was offered cash to use it, end of story.

 

Well, I'm 40+ and can see the striping problem from about 0,5 m so maybe its time for that checkup at you local optician

Colors and contrast aren't really that much to cheer for but brightness is good and of course "response time". But I doubt that someone doing professional photo work could be able to calibrate this screen into something useful, but for gaming on the built in screen, its probably great (I would never game on anything this small myself though).

 

Yeah I think I lucked out and got a decent panel to be honest. Really hard to see and I'm only 33

Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk

 

btw all these issues is why i went with the Amplifier. The Alienware 17r3 4K screen is insanely good. Unfortunately I only have the 6700HQ. I would love to get the 7820HK in the newer machine, but i just can't do it hearing all the issues about the 17r4. I'm going to wait for the 17r5

 

You must have since it is a problem confirmed by the manufacturer and I have seen it on two different AW 17s with QHD

 

all 1440p 120Hz AUO panel used in AW17R4 suffer the same stripping/banding/watermark problem. there's no better or worse panel. it's purely subjective how well a person can notice it. im 33, perfect vision, and i can notice it at about 20cm from the screen if i look for it. the closer u get, the more apparent it becomes and it can be quite annoying, making the display looking less sharp than it is supposed to be. the key word here is, IF you look for it. other than that, i agree with everything else everyone said here, it's a brilliant panel after you calibrated the display.

 

I see you keep saying that over and over and over and over and over and over and over again. My vision is X-Ray, no lines, no banding, PERFECT...and you're cursed.

 

Not doubting you but can you confirm a couple of things so we can logged this? I have seen 5 Alienware R4s with QHD and all suffered with stripings. I have replaced mine twice and still the same. The manufacture has confirmed that it is apparent.

What is your specs? When did you bought it and what location?

 

I'd like to second SYHAP... I've looked very very closely and attentively for any telltale signs of banding and there just aren't any despite the manufacturer's acknowledgement of the issue. It's pretty much perfect including zero bleeding etc... my unit arrived on feb 14, shipped straight from China

 

my 120Hz 4ms 400 nits G-Sync QHD is also perfect, this is not a problem with every single panel..

 

Yes sir, I will indeed: (I would like to make clear that I mean not to insinuate that I am a know-it-all with re. to the facts and current condition of this screen issue, I am quite aware of the disaster created by AW re. this subject from 11/2016 - onward and my understanding is that hopes are elevated under the presumption that a correction to this problem will be announced by AW sometime in March. HOWEVER, this daily, repetitive, echo chamber of declarations masquerading as FACTS is 100% HYPE; the problem is not as widespread as is claimed, it is actually quite disparate in who is actually affected, and claims like, "I have seen two crappy screens myself with the announcement by AW means they are all $hit...", etc. should be dismissed immediately out of hand as nonsense and more likely driven by their own personal problems and more in-line with the hand they were dealt in life, how quickly they believe the World is going to end, etc., than anything factual with assessing this situation overall.

At any rate, I too would like to be enlightened on this subject as well and despite the fact that my display is truly stunning (for a TN) in every regard, RGB, etc.) and my frame of reference includes having contact with several hundred, Dell XPS's ranging from 1080p to 4K over the last several years. I am in the process now of experimenting with a range of ICC profiles and I have yet to find one that has improved upon the stock with some manual refinement...BELIEVE IT OR NOT...I can't believe it either.

FINALLY, my vision is medically considered as excellent and one of my glaring flaws is having ZERO patience for nonsense banding, branding ink screens, cutesy bs, etc....I want nothing other than what is perfectly possible considering the restrictions of TN technology and capability.

My AW-17 R4 specs include: i7 6820HK, GTX 1080, 32GB RAM, 512GB SSD / 1TB HDD that has been fully "IUNLOCKED" to the max via his LHz-brethren and the screen itself can be confirmed as follows:

Monitor Name: AU optronics (AUO1096);
Manuf: B173QTN [DELL P/N: WJGD4];
S/N: 1893869284;
Date of Man: 2016; and,
Dell Date of Assembly is 12/06/16. *this specific unit was shipped to Arizona.

 

Just to add, before getting a 17r4 I read a lot about this banding/watermark issue, how bad the TN panel was etc etc.

But, I had to have the 1080gtx and a did read a few comments that the screen wasn't too bad.


Bought one and from my point of view what a storm in a teacup all the complaining has been about. The screen is nice and bright, I have no issues with colours, no banding/watermarks (so far, only got it a week ago) and gaming on it is a total joy. Don't be put off by the bad comments if you're thinking of getting one. Remember if someone has a problem they'll shout it from the rooftops, whereas those with no issue will quietly go about their day enjoying their laptop.

 

Thank you! @iunlock @Mobius 1 @DeeX, can you log this!! We were aware that the one and only 17.3 QHD display was suffered from the watermark by design. Now its starting to look like a defect if there are many out there that aren't affected. Did AUO updated the display already that we didn't know about?

 

I have a 17r4 on the way
7820hk
Gtx1070
4K
What to expect if I turn down resolution 2k or 1080p ?
Think I might cancel my order.
So confused I want the best screen for gaming I want smooth FPS and everyday use.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

The 1080p panel providing its the lg Phillips version, and not the auo or chimei version.

It's got great vibrance, dosent look pixelated and is very bright ips screen. Also screen overclocks nicely.

Also with 1080p you can still downsample or use nvidia dsr to improve image sharpness.

If you could get the sharp 4K panel with 1080 - ok - but as of yet only offered with 1070 and not future proof for monies spent.

Qhd - very bright but horrid washed out colours and banding issue - if you really want qhd then get it off the outlet - there's loads to chose from - which says it all.

 

I don't know guys the Alienware QHD looks like it has worse viewing angles and a bit washed out compared to the IPS displays on youtube so I'm leaning more to them at the moment. Also I don't think it is a great situation having to roll the dice to see whether you get a good one or not.

 

When do you ever play games whilst looking at the screen from the side?

All a bit silly really, the QHD is fantastic for gaming and second to none of the other options, FACT!

Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk

 

I'm interested why you think it is the best option out there. Have you compared it to any of the other Alienware options?

Also a warning sign for me is what configs end up in the Dell outlet store (i.e. ones returned etc.), and the majority are ones have QHD or UHD displays. UHD more than QHD for some reason. Not sure how reliable that is as an indicator, but I think can be quite telling. Very few FHD ones, but maybe not as many people buy those ones now.

 

Exactly. Buying an FHD with a 1080 is silly given it can comfortably handle QHD/4K. That's why there are less. For gamers G-Sync, 120Hz and 4ms ours perfect. I wouldn't even look at another screen.

Yes I've seen the 4K IPS on my XPS15 and it's great for work, but that's what it's for...work...

Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk

 

Why don't you rate 4K for gaming over QHD on the R4? Also why do you say QHD is you want it for gaming, is it not great when not gaming? Just trying to understand.

 

4K can clearly be defended in general via its higher resolution of course, however, refresh rate, graphics hardware support, and features such as G-Sync should not be ignored in an effort to merely commit to the highest resolution available either. Basically in this specific case, the QHD, although with far higher refresh rates, internal video hardware capable to support such refresh rates, and inherent G-Sync feature, although outstanding in their own right, must be accompanied with TN technology in lieu of the 4K's better quality IPS.

The bottom line is despite going with the TN, Pete and I believe this sacrifice is worthwhile as it pertains to gaming since the slow refresh rate and having to drop the settings to support the 4K overhead is a greater evil in comparison. Finally, it can be additionally argued that in addition to that in the aforementioned, we are talking about a 17" screen that some believe 4K is overkill in addition to having the inherent challenge to support this resolution along with the slow refresh rate to boot.

 

Let me also add that the QHD when applied to conventional usage of this PC is very good in terms clarity and brightness as well. I have not seen the effect of having to down-sample the 4K to meet the standard fonts of programs, etc., but the QHD adapts rather well. So all in, and if gaming is another prominent feature of your PC usage, I standby my point. If gaming is not, and You Tube and video-oriented / images are your primary concern, then 4K IPS has to qualify as a preferable option for you.

 

Both screens are excellent. I do rate 4K for gaming, it's just that this QHD is better (by a long way) it's no contest, it's not a fair fight, the QHD has far superior technology to make it better (G-Sync, 120Hz/FPS and 4ms response time). The QHD screen is excellent in general but where it's better than any others is when gaming.

Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk

 

Just received my laptop and screen backlight bleed is horrible. Alienware has such a ****ty quality control. I have 4k screen on 17 R4

 

Before purchasing my R4 I came here to read the experiences with the screen etc. We have been using Alienware for a long time, and both me and my wife were considering which one to get.
For us 4K on a laptop was a no-go based on what was stated on this forum, and we opted for the QHD with Gsync.

Send it back for a refund, or get a QHD. Sending it back to repair will be most likely another 2 to 4 weeks wait.

 

cool let us know how it is when you get it

Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk

 

Just to add, been playing rocket league recently. It looked and ran great on my old 1080p laptop, but playing it on the QHD screen at 120hz it looks amazing! I must be missing something or just not experienced the same problems others have had with this screen.

 

The QHD is the best, i had a desktop rig before the new 17 r4 which had an Asus 4K 28" 60FPS monitor, colors were incredible, but as far as gaming goes it wasn't as smooth. I think the only time 4K will become more mainstream is when they release a 4K monitor with 120fps + G-Sync that doesn't cost the earth to buy, and that's providing you can get enough GPU power to throw 120+fps @ 4k !

 

Got them delivered yesterday (rather I picked them up at the depot) and the screens are awesome! Since I work in Broadcasting I can get hold of a calibration tool, so I would go ahead next week and try tweaking it a bit if needed. But out of the box no biggie, will just enjoy it this weekend and then will check the more serious stuff. Temps are between core 1-2 degs difference, so within variation. Will test it more next week. OC is not that big of a deal to me, for that I use the Main Desktop rig at home for. Just got this one for gaming when I am out for business trips. One can argue it is big and heavy, but then again... I am so big... Who cares?! I don't, and I need the exercise anyways. ;-)

 

I looked at a youtube video of colours and contrast comparison between QHD and 4K (UHD) and the QHD didn't look as good, especially the contrast. It just worries me a bit that everyone is saying you have to calibrate the QHD to look good. Does this indicate an inherent visual weakness of QHD compared to UHD?

 

Okay after some research I'm edging towards the FHD (1080P) display. My reasoning is the following.

FHD 1080P (1920 x 1080, IPS Anti-Glare 300-nits Display):

I know what I'm getting since this is the only display size I'ved used on a 17" laptop before. The colours and contrast are great. Most formats like games, videos, youtube etc. look great at this resolution because it is a standard format that has been around for a while now that companies have adapted to, so no downscaling or upscaling required (which may effect viewing quality). Another positive is I would only need to get a 1070 GTX as a 1080 GTX would be quite frankly an overkill for a 17" 1080P display. So both the lower display and GPU would significantly reduce the price.

QHD 1440P (17.3 inch, 2560 x 1440, 120Hz TN+WVA Anti-Glare 400-nits):

Nice fast 120hz display for gaming, but I don't think I will notice the different that much anyway, so not a game changer for me. If I have to choose between increased graphical aesthetics and negligible (I realise this is subjective) game smoothness, then I would choose graphical aesthetics every time. Therefore on this front I would go with an IPS over TN.

The comparison youtube videos I've seen conclude that the IPS looks like the superior screen for pure aesthetics over the TN display, and doesn't need recalibrating to get it right. The TN display viewing angles don't even compare to the IPS, and it's colours/contrast look much worse imo.

Reference comparison vid:

Other factor: People seems to have had some issues with early QHD screens. Seems like hit or miss at the moment.

UHD 4K (3840 x 2160) IPS Anti-Glare 300-nits Display:

Obviously superior to the FHD due to increased pixel density, providing much better aesthetics with the benefit of IPS. However because it isn't a standard yet in games etc. you pay a price for for going UHD. I read quite a few comments by gamers here and elsewhere that say they often downscale to 1080P to play games. Although the downscaling looks good, it isn't perfect (yet), and opinions about its effect on visual quality is quite mixed. So this puts me off a bit, but not entirely.

Then we have video upscaling. Since most videos or video channels or low cost subscriptions (youtube, netflix etc.) are available in 1080P or lower then essentially those videos will get upscaled to your 4K display, and that process is not perfect either. Although I not seen much comment about this, I have a 1080P TV that I watch standard broadcasting formats on (i.e. lower res) and although the upscaling is not terrible it sometimes isn't pretty either.

UHD requires more graphics processing power from the GPU than say a FHD display of the same size. So regardless of what GPU you have you'll get less FPS with to a FHD display. With a Nvidia 1080 GTX you still get very good FPS with UHD, but what about future games? Will I get to a point where I wished I had bought the FHD because I could have eke out significantly more FPS (as much as 20 FPS more) for that killer future game I wanted to play.

Other factor: Also it seems as though the Alienware UHD may have some backlight bleed problem, but may have been sorted out now?

Conclusion

I don't really have one. I don't video edit, but do game, browse web and watch videos on the laptop and have a online video subscription. The 1440P looks like it would have been the best choice overall, but only if it came with an IPS display, which it doesn't. So that leaves me in 1080P or 4K IPS territory. Between the two it seems that on paper that the 1080P is still the way to go because it ticks all the boxes, but only because it is a 5-6 years old format that pretty much all production companies use. No doubt 4K will eventually become the standard, but that seems like it is a long way off. By then I probably would have bought another laptop.

I would go with the 4K, but because it isn't the standard yet, you will likely get different results depending on what exactly you are doing on the laptop. Also it sucks up more GPU power.

I'm interested if anyone has any comments on anything I written, especially if they think they I have overstated a positive or negative point above, or if they have a different opinion. It all helps to provide a clearer picture to people like me who are trying to choose. The more information the better for making a realistic and informed decision

 

I could take the entire day to refute a great majority of your relatively blind assessment as they are essentially a basket of premises severely affected by false presumptions. Granted, this topic always has some subjectivity and personal preference associated with it in all cases, throw-in Alienware's problem of going with a mediocre OEM for the 3k that resulted in some bad product WITH EXTREMELY LOUD AND REPETiTIVE VOICES.

The bottom line is the comparison between the 1080 and the 3k is night and day above and beyond personal preference and subjectivity, as it relates to refresh rate, resolution, excellent G-sync compatibility unique to this specific case, all of which resulting in not only far superior support for gaming, but the IPS vs. TN comparisons are stunningly negligible.

...finally, it's a shame that you wrote all of that after missing many of these answers by just 1-page; ...that is, the last page.

 

Okay that sounded a bit testy. If you read what I wrote I did say for my requirements. The comments previously are from personal experience as are those with contrary opinions. I did factor in what I read in the rest of the thread. But there are some facts that I have included and not just opinion. It really wasn't slamming one display over another to invoke the rage of QHD or UHD owners. Fact is as you said some bad QHD products are out there, that's fine but I don't really fancy playing Russian roulette with a £2000 laptop. However that is not the reason why I ruled out QHD TN for my personal needs, quite frankly I find it graphically less appealing than the IPS display for reasons explained. I'm pretty sure you didn't actually read what I wrote.

 

Spot on what I was thinking

Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk

 

I'm afraid you have made the wrong decision sir, each to their own I guess, maybe there isn't a wrong decision. Anyhow, enjoy the R4!

Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk

 

Lighten up Francis and clearly, you have no limits to what "sounds like" and "seems like" and I think...", etc., none of which grounded in any facts, to essentially support these declarations of yours. You watched a You Tube video illustrating a 15" screen ? ...Look, you asked, I commented from a perspective of actually typing on one right this second, playing games, and pushing this thing to a point of having a strong evidence-pool supporting my statement that this screen beats the heck out of any of the few hundred 1080 screens, many of which by Dell, that I have used / had access to. Finally, in terms of pure weight, there has been this myth perpetrated via the sheer arm-waving by a few that the 3K is universally flawed, ...or engaging in Russian Roulette as you stated; that is a massive overstatement. I think this Russian Roulette-adage should probably apply evenly to all of the hardware in the R4...now we're even including the SSD as you can see in the aforementioned..., than predominately singling out the 3K. The bottom line is those that are looking to buy something of this caliber while scaring the hell out of them to downgrade to a year 2010 1080p to avoid supposed Russian Roulette is a total disservice...

At any rate, the real question here then is what are you waiting for? 1080p it is; go with God...

 

Just sounds like you are trying to justify your purchase, whereas I haven't purchased yet and am quite neutral about it. You not really adding anything to what I asked in a construct way.

 

"Sounds like..." seems to be a real issue for you in never being able to pinpoint an answer...must drive you nuts.

My entire premise is trying to dilute what has evolved into an inaccurate standard that the QHD is a universally flawed product. As I reassess our dialogue, I have resolved that a great majority of people that are looking for the truth will have likely dismissed your post in its entirety at the part where you veer off the reservation in your arm waving about some You Tube video that discusses an entirely different screen on an entirely different PC...

...at any rate, there is always the risk in this environment that one can run into others that are battling a degree of psychosis and upon recognizing that this may be the case, ought to consider peeling off from the conversation...my apologies since it rarely takes me this long to figure that out.

 

You "seem" to be in denial. Every review I've read or seen on youtube related to the displays for the R4 say pretty the same thing about QHD. Compared to IPS the colour, contrast, and viewing angles aren't as good. Not my opinion, I don't own it, but why would they lie from testing it themselves.

Also if you look on the front page of this very sub-forum:

Swapped Ugly QHD To An Awesome UHD Display Alienware R4 Tutorial

http://forum.notebookreview.com/thr...ome-uhd-display-alienware-r4-tutorial.800153/

You are trying to make it "sound" as if this display has had no problems and is the best screen for the R4, when others do not agree with your obviously rose-tinted and biased assessment.

 

I think you just need to try them both and come to your own conclusion. I'm happy with mine.

 

I'll tell you what; let's start over on all of this and go back to what I originally suggested that you ought to do in the first place...

...instead of falling for my mind-trick in engaging in one of these relentless he said/she said, back and forth, worthless endeavors and assuming the debilitating pitfalls notoriously generated by opportunity costs such as these, pull that trigger on that R4-FHD and be done with it. Especially since one of your primary uses for this will be gaming as you had mentioned. You'll be happy, I will certainly, sure as hell be happy, and you would've pulled off a miracle in making the entirety of this Earth happy...

...now that is a very noble accomplishment indeed.

 

Sorry . . .replied to wrong post

 

I have seen the Alienware QHD next to a Clevo FHD 60hz IPS, and the QHD looks great, but as expected colour is a bit more vibrat on the IPS, but only a little bit!

I will exclusively be using my 17 R4 for gaming. I have other devices suited better for all other tasks, so close to 0 browsing or video watching. 90% of my game time is spent on strategy games like Total War and Civilization. Every now and then I will play single player games like Witcher, Diablo, Assassins creed, WoW (Yes, single player wow, quest/story-mode – no raiding). On very rare occasions I might play dota, but never online FPS-games.

Is it silly to get the QHD TN panel for my kind of use?

Does anyone know if there other aspects with the IPS I haven’t thought about, that make one or the other panel type more compelling for my needs?

 

I think the only thing I would consider at this point is what GPU do you plan on going with. If your getting a GTX1080 then absolutely go for the QHD as it has the raw power to run it beautifully. The 120hz buttery smothness of that panel more then makes up for any color short falls IMO. It isn't ideal for content creation but for gaming it really excels. In all honesty I would go with the 120hz QHD even with the 1070 but probably not if your considering the 1060 or lower. The 1070 may run out of steam faster with the QHD resolution but it shouldn't be a huge issue right away anyways. After using a 120hz display I simply can't go back.

 

if you don't play FPS games extensively I'd get UHD over QHD.

The color difference is too drastic to me, and a lot of games these days have resolution scaling (so you can go 4k and scale down to 80 or 90% with practically no fidelity loss since the screen size is only 17 in.)

You'd have to see both in person to really decide... but I personally need color accuracy for work and multimedia. And another perhaps trivial thing... it's more comfortable showing the UHD screen to others (to show something you are working on, etc.) due to no color shifting and in general not looking washed out.

 

400$ difference from basic FHD is nuts...

 

The R4 with QHD i tried out was running stock GTX 1080 and I ran Total War: Warhammer 2 on 1080p ultra + AA 2x and it was around 50 fps. I also ran Witcher 3 on ultra, and setting it to 1440p it started dipping below 60 fps. Witcher ran smooth on 1080p, dont remember fps, but it never dipped below 60.

FYI the QHD scales perfect from 1080p - PERFECT!, amazingly perfect, cant stress it enough. I had it running next to a Clevo FHD IPS, and they looked just as sharp running exact same game at 1080p. Also tried running 1080p 25 GB MKV movies on both screens, and i saw no kind of sharpness reduction - Again, just as sharp as on the FHD IPS running right next to it.

Only difference was that colours were a bit more vibrant on IPS, but QHD was not calibrated, and the IPS colours were only a bit more vibrant, not alot.

So if Dell can deliver such a amazing TN panel, i could only imagine what they could pull off with their UHD IPS @ 400 nit.

I dont expect to game with a resolution over 1080p, because 1440p you have to start lowering settings down from ultra on AAA games, and i dont really play fast paced FPS games

Even though 4k gaming is not going to happen on a GTX 1080, it's the 400 nits that is catching my eye. But is it worth 350 Euro (420 USD) to go from FHD 300 nits to UHD 400 nits with a GTX 1080?

I have the money to splash, but it just seems like the FHD GTX 1070 is really good value for money, and a good deal can make anyone happy. The 700 Euro (850 USD) difference from gtx 1070 FHD to gtx 1080 UHD, seems like alot considering the gtx 1080 is only about 16% faster than the gtx 1070.