Alienware AW2725QF 27-inch gaming monitor delivers 4K at 180Hz or 1080p at 360Hz for $600

News
By
published

You don’t have to own the world to get the best of both worlds.

Alienware AW2725QF
(Image credit: Alienware)

Alienware just released a 27-inch 4K display that gives gamers the best of both worlds and has the potential to land on our best gaming monitors list. The AW2725QF has two modes: a native 4K mode with 3840x2160 resolution and a 180Hz panel, and a native FHD mode (1920x1080 resolution) with a 360Hz refresh rate. This allows you to enjoy immersive games with smooth animations, and with a push of a button, you can also gain the upper hand in competitive games with the competitive 360Hz refresh rate.

The Alienware monitor can achieve this kind of refresh rate by combining four pixels into one in the FHD/360Hz mode. But aside from its sharp resolution and ultra-high refresh rate, the AW2725QF also covers 95% of DCI-P3 with a Delta E<2 accuracy straight out of the box for nearly lifelike colors. It also has Dolby Vision and is VESA DisplayHDR 600 certified, making it the ultimate display for both entertainment and creative work.

This display is also Nvidia G-Sync compatible and is certified with VESA AdaptiveSync. This guarantees that you won’t experience tears and stutters while gaming, and its 0.5ms gray-to-gray response time means you’ll have minimal ghosting and blurring that could throw off your aim.

Swipe to scroll horizontally
Panel TypeIn-Plane Switching (IPS)
Maximum Resolution3840x2160 up to 180Hz / 1920x1080 up to 360Hz
Viewing Angle178 degrees (vertical and horizontal)
Pixels per Inch163
Contrast Ratio1000:1
Backlight TechnologyLED Edgelight System
Brightness400 cd/m3 (typical) | 600 cd/m3 (HDR peak)
HDRVESA DisplayHDR 600 | Dolby Vision
Reponse Time0.5ms (gray-to-gray)
Color Gamut95% DCI-P3
Low Blue LightComfortView Plus
Video PortsVideo Ports
USB Power Delivery15W
Variable Refresh RateNvidia G-Sync compatible | VESA AdaptiveSync

With its dual HDMI 2.1 ports and single DisplayPort 1.4 connector, this dual-resolution gaming monitor can be used with your preferred gaming platform. It also has a single USB-B 3.2 Gen1 upstream port that gives you three USB-A ports and one USB-C port on the display, making it convenient to attach your peripherals.

But despite all these features, Alienware is doing one thing right: the monitor is just $599.99 — a great deal for those looking for a display that will give them everything they need in the professional and gaming worlds.

Jowi Morales
Jowi Morales
Contributing Writer

Jowi Morales is a tech enthusiast with years of experience working in the industry. He’s been writing with several tech publications since 2021, where he’s been interested in tech hardware and consumer electronics.

See more Gaming Monitors News
13 Comments Comment from the forums
  • helper800
    I think these new monitors that can do two native resolutions at different refresh rates are really cool. There are a lot of games that are old and can run at high fps 4k and when your PC cannot push those fps anymore at 4k you can drop down to 1080p, which is 1/4th the resolution, so you can get better performance. The difference with these monitors versus older monitors is that now you can drop resolution and double your refresh rate where as before you were stuck at whatever the max refresh rate was at the higher resolution.
    Reply
  • cyrusfox
    Price isn't terrible, actually not too bad for the refresh rate you get and the feature set.
    helper800 said:
    I think these new monitors that can do two native resolutions at different refresh rates are really cool. There are a lot of games that are old and can run at high fps 4k and when your PC cannot push those fps anymore at 4k you can drop down to 1080p, which is 1/4th the resolution, so you can get better performance. The difference with these monitors versus older monitors is that now you can drop resolution and double your refresh rate where as before you were stuck at whatever the max refresh rate was at the higher resolution.
    Also love the concept, but I find 4k @ 27" is much too pixel dense, I need 32" to justify that resolution. I made the mistake 6 years ago buying 2 4k 27" LG IPS screens, I couldn't cope with 4k resolution, and scaling would invariably break some weird app, so I normally only ran them at 1440p to make them usable, for me, 4k pixel on 27" density was not fun to work with. Great that these have g-sync as well as high refresh rates on these higher resolutions. I personally wouldn't bother with anything above 1440p on a 27" monitor, Except for Media or photo work.

    If only the lower resolution was 1440p and the upper was 5120x2880(1440p and 5 K), that would be much more preferred and I'd be interested in that dual native configuration. Hope someone has one of those cooking up (I'd be fine with 240Hz 1440P and 120Hz 5K).
    Reply
  • TheHerald
    helper800 said:
    I think these new monitors that can do two native resolutions at different refresh rates are really cool. There are a lot of games that are old and can run at high fps 4k and when your PC cannot push those fps anymore at 4k you can drop down to 1080p, which is 1/4th the resolution, so you can get better performance. The difference with these monitors versus older monitors is that now you can drop resolution and double your refresh rate where as before you were stuck at whatever the max refresh rate was at the higher resolution.
    The refresh increase is nice sure but dropping down the resolution for performance reasons is a bad idea nowadays since dlss and even fsr do it much better. Pretty sure dlss balanced on 4k looks a lot better than 1080p native on this monitor.
    Reply
  • helper800
    TheHerald said:
    The refresh increase is nice sure but dropping down the resolution for performance reasons is a bad idea nowadays since dlss and even fsr do it much better. Pretty sure dlss balanced on 4k looks a lot better than 1080p native on this monitor.
    IMO native always looks better than FRS/DLSS. I'd rather have a true 1080p than a hyper scaled 480p/720p/1080p to 4k image.
    cyrusfox said:
    Also love the concept, but I find 4k @ 27" is much too pixel dense, I need 32" to justify that resolution. I made the mistake 6 years ago buying 2 4k 27" LG IPS screens, I couldn't cope with 4k resolution, and scaling would invariably break some weird app, so I normally only ran them at 1440p to make them usable, for me, 4k pixel on 27" density was not fun to work with. Great that these have g-sync as well as high refresh rates on these higher resolutions. I personally wouldn't bother with anything above 1440p on a 27" monitor, Except for Media or photo work.

    If only the lower resolution was 1440p and the upper was 5120x2880(1440p and 5 K), that would be much more preferred and I'd be interested in that dual native configuration. Hope someone has one of those cooking up (I'd be fine with 240Hz 1440P and 120Hz 5K).
    I do not understand what you mean by "too much pixel density." I have used scaling on my 4k monitors and have found no issues with apps. I have only ever found issue with too little pixel density rather than the oposite.
    Reply
  • UnforcedERROR
    cyrusfox said:
    Also love the concept, but I find 4k @ 27" is much too pixel dense, I need 32" to justify that resolution. I made the mistake 6 years ago buying 2 4k 27" LG IPS screens, I couldn't cope with 4k resolution...
    I find this so strange. Pixel density being high is far less of an issue than it being too low, the biggest thing is you get less of a benefit from it when you have a smaller screen. This is especially true for productivity applications, though I would say that for gaming (or media) it's a different story since you don't always want to push high resolutions at smaller scales, since the density benefits you less and the performance impact is more pronounced.

    TheHerald said:
    The refresh increase is nice sure but dropping down the resolution for performance reasons is a bad idea nowadays since dlss and even fsr do it much better. Pretty sure dlss balanced on 4k looks a lot better than 1080p native on this monitor.
    I completely disagree here. You have some noticeable tradeoffs using DLSS or FSR in regards to image quality, so anything that appears to be native will always look better. In the past dropping resolution below native for performance reasons looked terrible, because LCDs simply don't look good below their native output. This alleviates that somewhat, and also gives you the option of going for full performance if needed. This is attractive to someone like me for a myriad reasons: I like higher density for work-related reasons, I like high refresh for casual or single-player games, and I like extra-high refresh for when I want to play a competitive shooter. I do all of these things, so having a jack of all trades is really a win. That said, I really wish it wasn't an edge-lit design, so I'm sticking with my 27" 1440 mini-LED for now, but in the future this is the kind of product I'll replace that with.
    Reply
  • helper800
    UnforcedERROR said:
    I find this so strange. Pixel density being high is far less of an issue than it being too low, the biggest thing is you get less of a benefit from it when you have a smaller screen. This is especially true for productivity applications, though I would say that for gaming (or media) it's a different story since you don't always want to push high resolutions at smaller scales, since the density benefits you less and the performance impact is more pronounced.


    I completely disagree here. You have some noticeable tradeoffs using DLSS or FSR in regards to image quality, so anything that appears to be native will always look better. In the past dropping resolution below native for performance reasons looked terrible, because LCDs simply don't look good below their native output. This alleviates that somewhat, and also gives you the option of going for full performance if needed. This is attractive to someone like me for a myriad reasons: I like higher density for work-related reasons, I like high refresh for casual or single-player games, and I like extra-high refresh for when I want to play a competitive shooter. I do all of these things, so having a jack of all trades is really a win. That said, I really wish it wasn't an edge-lit design, so I'm sticking with my 27" 1440 mini-LED for now, but in the future this is the kind of product I'll replace that with.
    They have a WOLED that does 240hz 4k and 480hz 1080p. You can make a 1440p 240hz setting for it in control panel as well. Here is the monitor and here is a nice review by Rtings.
    Reply
  • cyrusfox
    helper800 said:
    I do not understand what you mean by "too much pixel density." I have used scaling on my 4k monitors and have found no issues with apps. I have only ever found issue with too little pixel density rather than the oposite.
    What I mean by "too much pixel density" is that on a 4K display, specifically around 27 inches, applications can appear excessively small and become difficult to use when the display is set to 100% scaling. While Windows scaling does effectively adjust the size of the user interface for the majority of applications, it's the remaining few that don't scale properly that present issues. These issues can range from minor annoyances to significant usability problems, such as buttons that become unclickable because the scaling isn't applied correctly within the application.

    From my experience, a 27-inch monitor with a 1440p resolution offers an optimal balance, and I now prefer to purchase 1440p panels to avoid the complications associated with 4K scaling. There's an informative video that discusses this topic from an Apple perspective, highlighting the optimal pixels-per-inch (PPI) setting. Despite any criticisms one might have about Apple, their "walled garden" approach does have its advantages, particularly in enforcing a consistent user interface experience that works seamlessly. Apple deserves recognition for being ahead of the curve in this aspect.

    If Windows scaling worked flawlessly across all applications, my argument would be irrelevant. However, that has not been my experience, neither back in 2018(when I purchased my first 4k monitor) nor at present.
    Reply
  • UnforcedERROR
    helper800 said:
    They have a WOLED that does 240hz 4k and 480hz 1080p. You can make a 1440p 240hz setting for it in control panel as well. Here is the monitor and here is a nice review by Rtings.
    Yeah, my hangup there is that it's OLED. OLEDs and burn-in really freak me out, even if it's an illogical fear. I know I play some games that could cause an issue. Still, the 240/480 implementation is really palatable to me, so if I end up with some free cash later I may take a risk. That said, I also appreciate Mini-LED for the brightness since my office space has a lot of light.
    Reply
  • helper800
    UnforcedERROR said:
    Yeah, my hangup there is that it's OLED. OLEDs and burn-in really freak me out, even if it's an illogical fear. I know I play some games that could cause an issue. Still, the 240/480 implementation is really palatable to me, so if I end up with some free cash later I may take a risk. That said, I also appreciate Mini-LED for the brightness since my office space has a lot of light.
    Buy a third party warranty for 3-5 years for that LG and make sure it covers burn in and dont worry about it. I got a LG 55 inch CX back in early 2021 and have zero issues with it and use it all day. It came with a 5 year extended warranty from Sam's Club and it includes burn-in.
    Reply
  • TheHerald
    helper800 said:
    IMO native always looks better than FRS/DLSS. I'd rather have a true 1080p than a hyper scaled 480p/720p/1080p to 4k image.
    It's not really an opinion, 4k with dlss balanced (1080p internal res) is way better than 1080p native. The difference is so insane in favor of the dlss that it's not really down to preference. I have the 32" lg oled that does the 480hz / 1080p and 240hz / 4k and I've tried it.
    Reply