Tuesday, May 19th 2020

Alienware Announces AW2521H 360Hz Gaming Monitor

The new Alienware AW2521H is a 24.5-inch extreme refresh-rate gaming monitor by Dell. If you can live with its Full HD (1920 x 1080 pixels) resolution, you can take advantage of its 360 Hz refresh-rate. The best part? This display uses an IPS panel (not TN-film), and supports NVIDIA G-Sync, letting it edge past the ASUS ROG Swift displays with 360 Hz. Dell did not provide an availability date, except mentioning that it will release later this year in the "Dark Side of the Moon" color scheme.
Source: TFT Central
Add your own comment

18 Comments on Alienware Announces AW2521H 360Hz Gaming Monitor

#1
mtcn77
Technically, this is more a showcase of the scaler-tech. Also, IPS ghosting is always positive trace. It is never a negative image.
Posted on Reply
#2
Chrispy_
Marketing stunt for the gullible.

I've had a couple of previous 144Hz monitors, I've used a 240Hz monitor, and I'm currently using a 144Hz ULMB monitor.

Even at 'just' 144Hz, the problem isn't the refresh rate, it's the sample-and-hold blur; The only valid counter for that is ULMB and the necessary pixel response time required - something even TN panels routinely fail to deliver on with 'average' G2G response times of just 5-6ms, but some transitions up to 8ms. That means that you just see the previous frame in parts of the current frame and perfectly mimicking the sample-and-hold blur that ULMB is trying to counter.

At 200Hz, 240Hz, 360Hz, the exact same pixel response times will dominate the experience regardless of the refresh rate. Honestly, for high-refresh screens to work they need to have both ULMB and also worst-case pixel-response times faster than the refresh interval. If not 100%, at least for 90% of the desired transition.

TN is good enough for 120Hz, maybe 144Hz on the better models with aggressive overdrive tuning.
VA is good for 100Hz if, and only if, you get an AUO panel. Samsung panels may have higher contrast levels but the dark transitions are so bad that you cannot ignore them even if you try.
IPS is good for 100Hz, maybe 120Hz if you get one that manages overdrive well enough to keep all of the transitions under 10ms.

360Hz? It's OLED for real, or it's marketing BS with no hope of ever actually coming close to the expectations.
Posted on Reply
#3
phanbuey
Chrispy_
Marketing stunt for the gullible.

I've had a couple of previous 144Hz monitors, I've used a 240Hz monitor, and I'm currently using a 144Hz ULMB monitor.

Even at 'just' 144Hz, the problem isn't the refresh rate, it's the sample-and-hold blur; The only valid counter for that is ULMB and the necessary pixel response time required - something even TN panels routinely fail to deliver on with 'average' G2G response times of just 5-6ms, but some transitions up to 8ms. That means that you just see the previous frame in parts of the current frame and perfectly mimicking the sample-and-hold blur that ULMB is trying to counter.

At 200Hz, 240Hz, 360Hz, the exact same pixel response times will dominate the experience regardless of the refresh rate. Honestly, for high-refresh screens to work they need to have both ULMB and also worst-case pixel-response times faster than the refresh interval. If not 100%, at least for 90% of the desired transition.

TN is good enough for 120Hz, maybe 144Hz on the better models with aggressive overdrive tuning.
VA is good for 100Hz if, and only if, you get an AUO panel. Samsung panels may have higher contrast levels but the dark transitions are so bad that you cannot ignore them even if you try.
IPS is good for 100Hz, maybe 120Hz if you get one that manages overdrive well enough to keep all of the transitions under 10ms.

360Hz? It's OLED for real, or it's marketing BS with no hope of ever actually coming close to the expectations.
this is great -- I wish we could sticky this post somewhere for more ppl to see it. It's like the processor MHz wars back in the day where it completely stopped mattering.
Posted on Reply
#4
5150Joker
Chrispy_
Marketing stunt for the gullible.

I've had a couple of previous 144Hz monitors, I've used a 240Hz monitor, and I'm currently using a 144Hz ULMB monitor.

Even at 'just' 144Hz, the problem isn't the refresh rate, it's the sample-and-hold blur; The only valid counter for that is ULMB and the necessary pixel response time required - something even TN panels routinely fail to deliver on with 'average' G2G response times of just 5-6ms, but some transitions up to 8ms. That means that you just see the previous frame in parts of the current frame and perfectly mimicking the sample-and-hold blur that ULMB is trying to counter.

At 200Hz, 240Hz, 360Hz, the exact same pixel response times will dominate the experience regardless of the refresh rate. Honestly, for high-refresh screens to work they need to have both ULMB and also worst-case pixel-response times faster than the refresh interval. If not 100%, at least for 90% of the desired transition.

TN is good enough for 120Hz, maybe 144Hz on the better models with aggressive overdrive tuning.
VA is good for 100Hz if, and only if, you get an AUO panel. Samsung panels may have higher contrast levels but the dark transitions are so bad that you cannot ignore them even if you try.
IPS is good for 100Hz, maybe 120Hz if you get one that manages overdrive well enough to keep all of the transitions under 10ms.

360Hz? It's OLED for real, or it's marketing BS with no hope of ever actually coming close to the expectations.
You're so wrong it's not even funny. Go read up on Blurbusters before spouting bs.
Posted on Reply
#5
Chrispy_
5150Joker
You're so wrong it's not even funny. Go read up on Blurbusters before spouting bs.
I've been following blurbusters since before it was called that, and have been impresssed in recent years by RTINGS too.

If you don't agree with my post perhaps offering a counter argument would be better than baseless accusations.
Posted on Reply
#6
Elysium
Where's the 4K 144hz product to compete with Asus' Strix and Acer's Predator? Who needs a 360hz 1080p monitor? What waste of a product.
Posted on Reply
#7
petr.valkoun
Chrispy_
Marketing stunt for the gullible.

I've had a couple of previous 144Hz monitors, I've used a 240Hz monitor, and I'm currently using a 144Hz ULMB monitor.

Even at 'just' 144Hz, the problem isn't the refresh rate, it's the sample-and-hold blur; The only valid counter for that is ULMB and the necessary pixel response time required - something even TN panels routinely fail to deliver on with 'average' G2G response times of just 5-6ms, but some transitions up to 8ms. That means that you just see the previous frame in parts of the current frame and perfectly mimicking the sample-and-hold blur that ULMB is trying to counter.

At 200Hz, 240Hz, 360Hz, the exact same pixel response times will dominate the experience regardless of the refresh rate. Honestly, for high-refresh screens to work they need to have both ULMB and also worst-case pixel-response times faster than the refresh interval. If not 100%, at least for 90% of the desired transition.

TN is good enough for 120Hz, maybe 144Hz on the better models with aggressive overdrive tuning.
VA is good for 100Hz if, and only if, you get an AUO panel. Samsung panels may have higher contrast levels but the dark transitions are so bad that you cannot ignore them even if you try.
IPS is good for 100Hz, maybe 120Hz if you get one that manages overdrive well enough to keep all of the transitions under 10ms.

360Hz? It's OLED for real, or it's marketing BS with no hope of ever actually coming close to the expectations.
What? AW2521HF has raise/fall time of 3.3ms, total time 6.4ms. 1/0.006 = 166Hz, but cosidering the raise/fall time of 3.3ms, its 303Hz. But! Even if the actual respose is lower than the frequency, it still make sense to stop the pixel change in the middle and start the new image over. Still faster and the over all input lag will be lower. www.rtings.com/monitor/reviews/dell/alienware-aw2521hf
Posted on Reply
#8
mtcn77
petr.valkoun
Even if the actual respose is lower than the frequency, it still make sense to stop the pixel change in the middle and start the new image over.
It doesn't matter when the trace trail is positive ghosting, you cannot tell a difference.
Posted on Reply
#9
INSTG8R
Vanguard Beta Tester
Chrispy_
VA is good for 100Hz if, and only if, you get an AUO panel. Samsung panels may have higher contrast levels but the dark transitions are so bad that you cannot ignore them even if you try.
As a QLED HDR Samsung owner I actually miss my ASUS MG279Q IPS I thought the wonky 35-90 Freesync range on a 144hz panel was a hindrance but realistically Im playing most games in that range anyway and my VA panel has the worst backlight bleed it would probably make an average IPS look great in comparison. the ASUS just had the tiniest bit you had to be at the right angle t8 even notice it. The Samsung literally has 3 patches like marquee lights at the top and bottom with the top being the worst.
Posted on Reply
#10
petr.valkoun
mtcn77
It doesn't matter when the trace trail is positive ghosting, you cannot tell a difference.
I do not understand. I cannot tell a difference, when the new picture is rendered sooner rather than later? That does not make much sense, does it? the sooner the new picture is rendered, the sooner I can see it.
Posted on Reply
#11
mtcn77
petr.valkoun
I do not understand. I cannot tell a difference, when the new picture is rendered sooner rather than later? That does not make much sense, does it? the sooner the new picture is rendered, the sooner I can see it.
There is no downside to it rendering faster, unlike tn inverting the image.

It will be seamless eventhough it gets rastered faster, successfully overcoming the problem of introducing breaks into the motion picture.
Posted on Reply
#12
petr.valkoun
mtcn77
There is no downside to it rendering faster, unlike tn inverting the image.

It will be seamless eventhough it gets rastered faster, successfully overcoming the problem of introducing breaks into the motion picture.
so we agreed that for IPS, it make sense to have higher refresh rate, or not?
Posted on Reply
#13
mtcn77
petr.valkoun
so we agreed that for IPS, it make sense to have higher refresh rate, or not?
More sense than tn, you mistook my tn distaste.
Posted on Reply
#14
petr.valkoun
mtcn77
More sense than tn, you mistook my tn distaste.
ah ok, sorry. TN is garbage, agreed
Posted on Reply
#15
mtcn77
petr.valkoun
ah ok, sorry. TN is garbage, agreed
It is hard to go for quality these days.

PS: though, I will not overlook the great strides taken down that path, as well.
Posted on Reply
#16
Chrispy_
INSTG8R
As a QLED HDR Samsung owner I actually miss my ASUS MG279Q IPS I thought the wonky 35-90 Freesync range on a 144hz panel was a hindrance but realistically Im playing most games in that range anyway and my VA panel has the worst backlight bleed it would probably make an average IPS look great in comparison. the ASUS just had the tiniest bit you had to be at the right angle t8 even notice it. The Samsung literally has 3 patches like marquee lights at the top and bottom with the top being the worst.
Curved VA?

I find that flat VA panels tend to have decent uniformity and minimal bleed, but curved panels (VA, IPS, TN) all suffer with backlight bleed and uniformity more.

My current panel is another curved one and there is more bleed than I'd like but it's unnoticeable unless looking at an all-black screen so I typically notice it during POST and then never again. I like the curve though so it's a compromise I've learned to deal with.
Posted on Reply
#17
INSTG8R
Vanguard Beta Tester
Chrispy_
Curved VA?

I find that flat VA panels tend to have decent uniformity and minimal bleed, but curved panels (VA, IPS, TN) all suffer with backlight bleed and uniformity more.

My current panel is another curved one and there is more bleed than I'd like but it's unnoticeable unless looking at an all-black screen so I typically notice it during POST and then never again. I like the curve though so it's a compromise I've learned to deal with.
Yes it’s curved and yes it’s only on black screens I suspect it’s-the local dimming zones for HDR because sometimes a black loading screen is absolutely black Yeah as for the curve i accept it but I think it belongs in 32” it does very little on a 27”
Posted on Reply
#18
Chrispy_
petr.valkoun
What? AW2521HF has raise/fall time of 3.3ms, total time 6.4ms. 1/0.006 = 166Hz, but cosidering the raise/fall time of 3.3ms, its 303Hz. But! Even if the actual respose is lower than the frequency, it still make sense to stop the pixel change in the middle and start the new image over. Still faster and the over all input lag will be lower. www.rtings.com/monitor/reviews/dell/alienware-aw2521hf
Okay, that is game changing. Obviously my comment was before I'd spotted that review. The fastest IPS on the market until now has been barely good enough for 125fps at average pixel response and 165Hz was really pushing the credibility of those claims given that some of the transitions were still in the 12ms+ range (so smearing all the way down to about 75Hz).

Whatever panel and overdrive circuit Dell are using is impressive, and even worse-case 3.9ms it's still fast enough for 240Hz provided you use fixed refresh rate.

With Freesync/G-Sync enabled, the overdrive circuit isn't coping and 15.7ms transitions are par for the course with IPS.

Holy sh*tballs though, that is an impressive panel at 360Hz!
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment