Final verdict on Alienware 17 R4 displays?

This is what i get to chose between:

FHD IPS @ 300 nit with GTX 1070 for roughly 1,900 Euro (2,300 USD)
FHD IPS @ 300 nit with GTX 1080 for roughly 2,200 Euro (2,650 USD)
QHD TN @ 400 nit with GTX 1080 for roughly 2,350 Euro (2,850 USD)
UHD TN @ 400 nit with GTX 1080 for roughly 2,500 Euro (3,000 USD)

 

Thats what im leaning towards, im just not 100% convinced yet, because loads of people seem to swear to QHD - "I'm never going back after i tried 120hz", "IPS is overrated", "UDH is stupid on a laptop", "QHD has beautiful colours" etc.

 

Not sure I would go this far, but 4k on such a small screen is going to be a pain if your not using Windows scaling and from my experience Windows scaling is not all that great. QHD with scaling off is still legible haha. Again, to each their own. I don't suppose there is any way you can go to a store and look at the different models set up somewhere?

 

I actually started at 150% scaling on UHD but I'm now at 100% and reading things fine, though I don't expect others to have the same experience.

The screen real estate is so much nicer than my old 1920x1200 17 notebook. Whenever I go back to it, I get annoyed at how large everything is on the screen, hogging space.

The pixel density is excellent for 17 in. (around 260 ppi, practically at the point where you can't distinguish individual pixels). I think screens should be above 200 ppi this day and age (ideally 300+).

The main thing is, is 120hz important to you? It wasn't for me because the games I play don't often have fast moving camera pans.... I barely notice the difference of 120hz on games like DOTA compared to CSGO.

 

Nope, no physical stores here with Alienware R4 I think i might be have to order three different R4's and return the two of them. Just seems like a lot of hassle. Been scouring the net for articles relating to "is 60hz ok for single player gaming", but there is nothing conclusive.........

Also, the only games i can be benchmarking will be Total War warhammer 2 which hits around 50 fps in 1080p on ultra, and witcher 3 which only stays above 60 fps on ultra settings if run on 1080p - 1440p and the R4 with GTX1080 dips below the golden 60fps marker.

I'm going mad. All things point towards 60hz IPS being the right thing for me, but i just cant get the "fluidity" people are talking about on 120hz out of my head.

And i somehow dont think me watching those 2 games will make me any more sure in my choice.

 

Remember you have to hit those 100+ frame rates and have plenty of fast action to see that fluidity. Which again, is why it's popular for shooters and not so much on other games.

 

The 17 R4 QHD i had seemed to be scaling rather well, or maybe it wasn't scaling at all and just found the 100% natural. I have a +qhd lenovo yoga 900 that scales like a monkey on crack.

The thing is i havn't ever played on a 120hz monitor, except the Alienware QHD i had briefly. But that Alienware was only running games at or below 60fps. So the games i can play in 1440p with 120 fps will be dota, which i play maybe 3-5 times a year, or Civilization 5........

 

Thank you! Thats the kind of decisive info i need to not go as crazy as i feel right now.

But playing witcher 3 on high instead of ultra to get 100-120 fps???? vs ultra?

vs ultra on a IPS, rather than 100-120 fps on high on a TN?

 

If you have never used 120hz you probably won't know what your missing...so if color is more of a concern then 60hz could be just fine for you.

Not sure I agree....my first 120hz panel was with my 780m and at the time was playing Final Fantasy 14 online and it wasn't pushing 100+ FPS and I could still see the difference quite easily , maybe it was just a better quality screen, i don't know but there was a pretty big difference coming from the 60hz panel up to the 120hz panel even at under 100fps.

 

Just comes down to user and he's gonna have to see them side by side.

60 fps on 120hz is hardly different than 60hz for me, if at all. But I can't even see the difference in cursor that people talk about, the cursor fluidity looks exactly the same to me on higher hz screens.

The only time I see a difference is when I'm playing CSGO and spinning my camera around/quickly shifting.

 

100+ hz is a god send but i think it doesnt matter much in non shooter games and competitive online games. The ****ty thing is that in laptops it also drains far more power on battery which also makes your battery last less long overall. The newest alienwares can have run times for 8 hours and more easily with optimus enabled on battery. But the gsync QHD versions barely half of that.

 

does anybody know if the UHD screen can be overclocked to 75hz.

 

Read the whole thread, even the mudslinging hehe.

I'm in the same spot as the OP with this decision. For me colour is important as I do a lot of image work in Adobe tools, but of course want the fast screen refresh rates for hardcore FPS gaming. I'm leaning towards the 4K and accepting the fact that most games I'll be playing at QHD or even FHD - even with the GTX 1080 I'm sure I will have to downscale with newer games (my life does not depend on Witcher 3 tho hah). I have an old M14xR2 and its IPS display is great for colour and no issues with viewing angles.

Are there any compelling tests done out there that anyone has links to? I've seen a few youtube vids but they aren't convincing. Viewing angle is not a problem if it looks great for the primary user, but colour wash-out could be an issue.

I have very keen eyes, but for me 60 FPS on a 60Hz monitor is A-OK for gaming... or am I missing something? Having never experienced a 100+ hz monitor am I just someone that needs to see the light and convert?

Cheers,
Dev.

 

I would say so. I was skeptical about the difference between 60vs120 FPS, but damn, it really does make a huge difference for me (I'm quite a keen FPS gamer though). It's literally butter smooth, everything feels more reactive and responsive including input control. I'll never go back now

Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk

 

If you care about color the QHD is definitely not going to cut it... no amount of calibration is going to make it tolerable for professional use.

120+ hz is going to be noticeable if you play a lot of FPS games however.

I guess you could also compromise. Go QHD and have an external for color work. Or get UHD and have an external with 144hz.

In general... UHD if you are media focused... QHD if you are gaming focused.

 

Well I think I've found a solution. Gonna go 120hz but also step back to FHD for the colour. I couldn't get the customisation I wanted with AW, but think I'll try a cheaper ASUS that still packs a punch with the 1070 for 1080p gaming on a fast IPS screen. I'm not ditching AW, just don't feel comfortable dropping 3k$+ on something I know won't tick both of my important boxes. Looks like I'll game at 1080p a little while longer, and wait to see what Dell has in store that might tempt me to drop the bigger bucks.

I'd love a UHD screen but will have to make do with the one I use at work!

Partly already mentioned in this post in the reply to Pete, but my compromise is likely to go with an ASUS ROG Strix GL702VS and game @ 1080p on a 120hz screen while saving a chunk of change and still have the benefit of the IPS display for my colour demands. Only thing that's a pain is that it's almost impossible to find a review of the specific model to see if it's any better/worse than where I'd be with AW with regards to aRGB colour! Kinda frustrating though - really want to get my hands on an AW17, but it seems half of my boxes to tick are on one side of their line up, and the other half way over in the opposite direction of the offering.

First world problems I guess

 

I am glad to see that I am not the only one that wore myself out trying to make a panel decision. I ordered the AW 17 R4 with i7-7820 HK/gtx 1080 and ended up going with the 60 hz UHD IPS 4K panel that includes G-sync. I went back and forth between that and the QHD 120 hz TN panel so many times. I was going crazy because i could not find a review on the G-Sync enabled UHD 4k panel because I guess it is too new.
I am a gamer, however, I am more of a casual gamer, and I kind of wanted to go "all in" since I was making my first ever long awaited AW purchase.
It may sound stupid to some, but part of my decision revolved around showing this beast off. The viewing angles and sharpness of the 4k UHD panel sounds like the "prettiest" screen to look at. I know that a lot of hard core FPS gamers that read this will be shaking their heads, but trying to convince the wife that the 3k+ you just spent on a laptop is justified would be much easier to do if the screen was the most vibrant it could be, and not washed out looking from odd angles. I do play FPS games, but I am by no means "competitive", and losing those split second reaction time one on one battles will just look that much better...lol.

This was definitely my hardest decision to make, but after reading post on how easy it is to swap out the panel if I just can't handle the refresh rate/ response time, or the ability to add an external 120hz+ panel for FPS gaming, made the decision a little easier.

I just got the UPS update that my new AW 17R4 will be delivered by end of day today, and I know that as soon as i fire it up and I see that alien logo glow, and that 4k UHD panel light up, I will have the biggest **** eating grin on my face, and won't be able to refrain from showing it off to anyone that stops by!

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

 

A couple of things people don't mention.

I've had alot of laptops lately. I had the QHD screen on the Clevo 17". Its also the same screen as on the Aorus X7. AUO makes the screen and changes the model name similar to how a Mattress manufacturers change the model names depending what store its in.
Its been over a year and many laptops since I had the 775DM3-G but I remember the screen well. The same banding and washed out "cool" temperarure to the color.
The Aorus X7 thread on this forum is littered with this same discussion.

FYI, I'm buying a Alienware 17 R4 with the QHD screen. I'll be doing the same thing I did with the last version of that screen... Running F.lux program to bring the temperature down below 6500k and adding some digital vibrance in Nvidia control panel.

 

hah I actually shared the same sentiment... I didn't want others looking at my screen and wondering... this thing cost 2k?

I just want my games to look the best they can... color and contrast is a huge part of visuals. I don't see a point of having all this horsepower only to have a washed out image; games like Witcher 3 look awful on the TN panel.

 

I was playing The Witcher 3 in Ultra video settings on the UHD w/G-sync last night and it looked amazing. I did not notice any tearing or stuttering. Played really smooth! My wife walked by and said "what a beautiful sunset...is that really a game?"...mission accomplished!

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

 

@Chris Blevins I hear ya! Am finally settling on a laptop with a 144hz IPS display w/G-sync. Amazingly it has a 75% AdobeRGB coverage which is pretty nuts for such a fast screen. Sticking in 1080p territory with a 1070 though, so should game nicely for quite some time at that res and refresh.

Enjoy your dream machine!

 

I recently bought an AW17r4 with a QHD panel, and it's now out for repair.

While the image is very nice and sharp, and I can't really complain about colors in normal conditions, everything gets bad in dark scenes, being it videogames, pictures, videos, anything.

One issue is that there are two spots on the screen that constantly show a darker color. It's only visible over dark colors, and especially on flat images. For example in the boot Alienware loading screen.

The other, and more serious issue, is that it's terrible at displaying gradients and change in colors with dark colors. Things like smoke or clouds on a dark background, or light reflections on dark water.
It always shows very distinct bands of colors instead of a smooth progression, and often the colors themselves are totally wrong. As I saw someone else addressing the issue somewhere else, it looks like a posterization effect.
The only way I can make the problem less prominent is by boosting color brightness, to the point that black becomes gray.
No tweaking of color settings solves the problem. If I calibrate everything on a specific picture, it will make different scenes worse, and vice versa.

Now, while the first issue is some hardware fault with no doubt, I'm afraid the second one could be just "the way this panel is".
There is also a chance it's a GPU problem.

In any case, support asked me to leave on the desktop a few files that show the issue, for them to check. We'll see, hopefully by next week, if they manage to solve the problem.

For the record, I live in Japan.

 

FHD screen owner here. Using hwinfo to check the panel, it is a B173HAN01.0.

What panels do you have?

For mine, the colors are good, contrast is good, but the white is a bit stressing, and reading font can get exhausting. Can't tell why, might be the anti-glare foliage.

 

After tons and tons of research, I sold my HP Omen 17 with a Gsync capable UHD IPS screen and bought an AW 17 R4 with a QHD screen and i couldn't be happier (i7 7700HQ - GTX 1070). I calibrated the screen through the Nvidia control panel, reducing its gamma to 0.80 and increasing Digital Vibrance to %70 and the wash-outness of the screen is gone. I couldn't find any color profile to do a better job than this adjustment. I had my doubts since i'm coming from an IPS Screen with UHD res. but after calibrating the screen and seeing that the colors are perfect, i was relieved beyond words. When i'm looking at the screen, i don't feel like i'm on a lesser dpi screen, it just looks the same. i can't believe how good this TN panel is.The screen is a bit grainy, guessing that is the anti-glare foliage but nothing uncomfortable, my UHD panel also had that. 120 Hz is a delight to look at, everything is perfect on 1440p (%100 scaling, %125 is much better but i hate windows scaling and don't intend to use it in any occasion, that was the main reason why i sold the omen in the first place). Blacks are very satisfying, colors pop up nicely (after giving it a %70 vibrance).

This thread helped me in a big way for making the right choice so thank you guys. Now i am sure that this screen trade off for the QHD is a no brainer, even with a GTX 1070.

 

Cool in gonna try that, was it literally just those two adjustments you made in NCP? Thanks

Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk

 

I wouldn't be surprised if he's had a change of mind on that. Digital vibrance is great but gamma at 80 on that panel is a nice change initially but quickly becomes apparent that many things are way too dark.

 

Verdict after having the qhd panel replaced: still bad.

I guess people can notice the issue more or less depending on the kind of things they use their computer for.

For me, loving horror stuff, and doing astrophotography, the way it shows color changes in dark areas is simply unacceptable.

Everything else is fine, but this problem is too big for me, and 120hz is not worth the eye bleeding I get every time something dark is on screen.

 

Yes those were the two things i have only touched. I still use it as it is, calibrated it through the NV Control Panel monitoring the gamma from windows display calibration utility, and in order to lose the white dots on the Gamma Circles on the Windows Calibration Utility, 0.8 seemed perfect. I still use it that way, been playing Fallout 4 for some time and the dark areas are perfectly fine for me. If it is too dark for you, then you might just go along with the %70 vibrance and leave the gamma as it is (maybe after trying 0.9 first).

I still love the laptops screen, wouldn't change it for any other AW screen option.

 

Just got a well specced 17r4 for a great deal but the laptop was listed as 120hz yet there has been no way to get it that high. Tried checking the list of modes and 60hz is the top and I also checked nvidia control panel. The model # is JYWWF which having googled is only listed as 120hz 2 times while the rest of the listings don't mention it. Seems odd to me that the 1440p has a non 120hz option but I believe I read parts of EU got a 60hz ips variant yet I haven't heard of anyone receiving it and I'm US.

I tried manually overclocking and the panel can't handle more then 73hz. Did I really get a 1440p IPS variant?

Any help?

 

I bought a 17r4 also. And I can only choose to have 1440p at 60hz. I really want 120hz, this was a scratch dent from outlet

1R3J8 MOD,LCD,17.3QHD,AG,AUO,AW17R4

I click and it shows this:
2JVM6
1
LIQUID CRYSTAL DISPLAY, 17.3QHD, AG, AU OPTRONICS CORP
5TMH8
1
INFORMATION, SWSI, LIQUID CRYSTAL DISPLAY, 17.3, NON-TCH

 

I have been using the Nvidia Control Panel at 52% brightness, 57% contrast, which gave it more oomph and made photos more closely match my Lenovo IPS screen. To crush the blacks for more pizzazz, I am trying it at 72% contrast. I did try the gamma and vibrance, but didn't think they were accurate - I might try it again though to see if it gets rid of the dark banding in games, which like another poster said, I have seen. (I think crushing the blacks might work though too, and just force anything that's almost black to just display as black... wish there were a quick way to swap those settings per game, not sure if there is a way to change those settings at will/when playing any or certain games, using Photoshop, etc.).

I'd also like to point out - the upgrade from QHD to UHD was about $150 in the store, if I remember correctly. Yet from what I've seen, the panel can be bought online for less than $130! Granted the warranty won't be on the screen bought from a third party, maybe there will be more dead pixels, but then one would have BOTH screens. I still think about buying the UHD screen and trying it, but to be honest, I did a test on an external cheap TN 60Hz screen, and compared to this QHD, I could notice the mouse movement in Windows. On the 60 Hz, it looked blurry and jumping from place to place, whereas at 120Hz, the pointer looks like a separate layer on top of your screen, more like a physical object that's moving, due to the smoothness and sharpness as it moves. It basically makes cursor pointing feel more accurate too since the cursor visually moves sooner as you move the mouse.

I still don't doubt the UHD is on another level... I just think I'd be as doubtful of whether it was the right one if I'd ordered it vs this one!

Plus, I might just get a Cintiq-style graphics tablet if I want a precise (and useful, with the touch/stylus) compact IPS screen (or some other portable one). Heck, I've even considered, some of those portable monitors are pretty thin - if I could just find a 17 or 18" one and not the usual 15" max, I could put some foam tape on the back for protection and strap it to my lid!

 

Is anyone still following this thread who has the UHD AUO screen, and has also run their own colorimeter on it? I wonder why brightness you get when testing. When my Spyder5 Pro does the first part of the test, I cannot get it higher than 179 nits at max brightness. Panel looks very dim, too. Pretty sure it is a dud.

The last 4k screen I put in, ChiMei Innolux, was exceptionally bright. I am pretty sure this one is broken because it seems too dim to use even in a dark room, but perhaps the Spyder calibration isn't giving the max brightness when it tests? For example, I just tested it on my QHD panel which is supposed to max out at 400 nits (and does seem very bright), but it's saying that is only 279 nits. Perhaps it's because it uses off-white to test? I don't have access to the Innolux screen unfortunately to see what it says for that one.

Anyway, just making sure the AUO panels aren't that dim. From feedback on them, it certainly doesn't seem they should be (and it seems that I have a problematic panel). I can't even make out shadow detail, that's how dark it is.

 

I didn't realise this thread still had life in it. I'm the OP.

I've had my system in the sig for about a year and a half now, and I know the R5s are out now, but it is still relevant for displays. So for anyone who is still interested this is my verdict.

So I was going to buy a new R4, but decided to go to Dell Outlet so I could get more out of my money (approx £2000). Basically if I spent that on a brand new system I would have had to compromise on what I wanted and paid extra for an SSD afterwards, so the cost would have shot up.

Initially I had a pretty bad experience with dell outlets. Their IT infrastructure is absolutely abysmal which doesn't stock check before green lighting a purchase. This led me to paying for a AW 17 R4 (money actually taken out of my account) for a system that did not exist or was already sold. This took them over a month for them to sort out.

The second system I purchased worked for about 1hr before dying and failing to boot. Sure it was a Dell Outlet system but you would think they would have tested first. Thank goodness the Dell engineers where I live are actually very good and sorted out the problem after a first visit with a mother board change. Saying that there isn't much else you can do since CPU + GPU are soldered onto the board.

Anyway onto the verdict. In the end I got the best spec'd system at the time with a QHD TN 120Hz display. I went with the QHD display because there wasn't enough R4 config variation in Outlet for the other displays. I was going to go for the FHD or UHD but options were very limited for it.

Full display details:

17.3 inch QHD (2560 x 1440) 120Hz, Matt TN AG 400-nits w/ NVIDIA G -SYNC, Enabled with Tobii Eye- tracking. The display is decent good looking screen.

I came from a Alienware M17x R3: FHD (1920x1080) 60HZ, Glossy Liquid Crystal display, 17.3FHD, WLED, LVDS, AG, Z, LEGEND previously.

Overall my old M17x R3 (5+ years old) display looked better. I think the main visual difference is between going from a glossy display to a matt display. The glossy screen just makes the colours pop out more, while colours on the Matt screen are duller and more muted. No changes in the colour and contrast calibration is ever going to change this. Visually glossy is much better. Sure it is nice not to have screen glare with matt, but it isn't worth the trade off for my usage.

There wasn't a IPS option where I live for the QHD even for brand new R4s, so I can't comment on this. But from what I know of IPS it would have been a much better choice than the TN display I got.

Following on from my post on page 4:

http://forum.notebookreview.com/threads/final-verdict-on-alienware-17-r4-displays.801965/page-4

As I thought I honestly can't see the difference between 60Hz and 120Hz in games or otherwise. So this feature is totally worthless to me. Since the 120Hz means you have to have G-SYNC, I would have preferred having Optimus for power saving with a lower Hz screen, as long as it didn't throttle inappropriately.

I've haven't experienced any QHD display issues. So by the time I bought it Dell had either sorted out these odd banding issues or I got lucky. Also I've seen no issues with upscaling or downscaling resolutions presumably because 2560x1440 is a good mid level res to do both from.

Summary

Currently I'm happy with the Matt QHD TN display. However ideally I would have preferred a Glossy QHD IPS. I think the combination of matt with TN leads to relatively more muted colours, less contrast clarity, and an overall darker screen that cannot be corrected by calibration/brightness without over exposing. It lacks pop appeal even at 400nits. I would say my original analysis was pretty spot for my preferences.

On a side note, it is nice having a Nvidia GPU after my old m17X R3 AMD one. The AMD was very good, but because of the way how Dell implemented AMD GPU drivers on my previous laptop it meant upgrading the driver was an absolute nightmare causing crashes and BoDs on installation. I would literally spend 1hr trying to upgrade it. In the end I just stayed on an old driver. The old threads are strewn with these stories. Hopefully Dell have sorted these problems out, as AMD is still (one of) the best cost effective to power ratio GPUs for laptops.

 

I do feel the 120Hz is very noticeable in Windows, having gone back and forth 5 or 6 times now trying to find a viable UHD replacement for my QHD (all have had issues so far). I think perhaps it depends on the mouse input people are using - although even with the trackpad, it feels smoother (but especially using an L-Trac trackball or my Logitech gaming mouse).

Also, I think if you get the chance to do a good calibration, perhaps borrowing an xRite or colorMunki (but not Spyder), you will be surprised. Mine had a greenish tint, then too red when using online profiles for that display (or when using Spyder5Pro - which I guess a lot of these online places use, but the Spyder software isn't that great at making a calibration), but when I did my own (with x-Rite), wow, it looks very good. Lack of color range of course, but other than that, looks more neutral where expected.

 

message posted twice due to connection drop, sorry

 

I happened to just receive my sixth attempt at a panel update! Finally got one that works, no dead pixels, full brightness and color gamut, beautiful! Created a thread with link to the seller in case it helps anyone:
http://forum.notebookreview.com/threads/psa-found-a-reliable-panel-seller-on-aliexpress.825851/

 

I've been searching for an objective, substance based comparison between the different screens available for the AW17. This thread and this comment in particular were the most helpful by far.

I am looking to purchase a Maxwell Gen AW17, and I am hoping there is a glossy FHD IPS G-Sync display available. Don't know whether a compatible panel exists yet, haven't found an answer.

 

I owned one of the very first 120Hz QHD panels,and can honestly say i had ZERO issues for around 8 months before i sold it.
Maybe lucky, maybe not. Panel was perfect.