Alienware Announces 240 Hz Gaming Monitors: AW2518H (G-Sync $699) and AW2518HF (FreeSync $499)

[Bacon1]

As for the specifications: both of these displays operate at 240 Hz, native, not overclocked. To achieve this rate, its panel is 24.5-inch, 1080p, and TN. The structure itself has a thin bezel on the top, left, and right side, although the bottom has a bit more thickness for the Alienware typeface logo and buttons. Despite being otherwise identical, the G-Sync model (AW2518H) has an MSRP of $699.99, while the FreeSync model (AW2518HF) is $200 cheaper at $499.99.

Both models launch on June 13th.

https://www.pcper.com/news/Displays...-Monitors-AW2518H-G-Sync-and-AW2518HF-FreeSyn

$200 GSync tax

 

[imaheadcase]

Not really impressive considering others are coming out in July with already better features. Also, stop calling in a gsync tax, its not a tax since most people already have nvidia cards.

 

[wege12]

Also, stop calling in a gsync tax, its not a tax since most people already have nvidia cards.

How does that make any sense? Freesync and Gsync are essentially the same technology by two different companies. One is more expensive to implement with no real tangible advantage to justify the extra $200. This is why people refer to it as a "Gsync tax".

 

[imaheadcase]

How does that make any sense? Freesync and Gsync are essentially the same technology by two different companies. One is more expensive to implement with no real tangible advantage to justify the extra $200. This is why people refer to it as a "Gsync tax".

It clearly has a advantage for every test done. Its also not a tax because you already have a videocard for it. Saying its a tax is like saying paying more for a better car is a tax even though both have 4 wheels.

 

[Yakk]

No gsync tax...

"gsync privilege fee" sounds way better than "gsync tax".

Marketing people!

Honestly...

 

[mnewsham]

It clearly has a advantage for every test done

If it's so clear and obvious, post some relevant sources to the claim.

Also, better, and $200 better, are different things, if it's 0.5% better in all aspects, I wouldn't personally feel that justifies a $200 increase.

 

[Malogeek]

It clearly has a advantage for every test done. Its also not a tax because you already have a videocard for it. Saying its a tax is like saying paying more for a better car is a tax even though both have 4 wheels.

If it's so much better then Nvidia wouldn't have a problem supporting AdaptiveSync in addition to G-sync. If they did then I highly doubt most would pay the $200 extra and monitor makers wouldn't bother having G-sync models, therefore they don't because they want to milk their market domination and the consumers.

G-Sync is a better technology with a wider operating range but in reality the type of gamers that have G-sync monitors won't be hitting those low fps numbers anyway.

 

[Bacon1]

It clearly has a advantage for every test done.

Source?

Its also not a tax because you already have a videocard for it. Saying its a tax is like saying paying more for a better car is a tax even though both have 4 wheels.

This makes no sense at all. The monitors have the exact same features yet the GSync one costs $200 more. Hence its a Nvidia based "tax".

 

[Malogeek]

This makes no sense at all. The monitors have the exact same features yet the GSync one costs $200 more. Hence its a Nvidia based "tax".

G-Sync and AdaptiveSync are not identical, the former being the superior. The problem is that it's not really $200 superior. Overall they achieve the same result however G-sync doesn't have a minimum fps limit where it functions, whereas AdaptiveSync does. However, with LFC that's not as much of an issue but the monitor must support it, requiring max refresh rate being 2.5x the minimum.

 

[Bacon1]

whereas AdaptiveSync does.

Adaptive Sync itself can go all the way down to like 5-10 hz or something silly.

Its panels that can't handle it. But yes most panels will support LFC which is part of Freesync and not Adaptive Sync itself.

In regards to this set of monitors however, they are using the same panel and will have the same features (including LFC) so its just a $200 "tax".

 

[crisium]

I want 240hz QHD. If 3840x2160x144hz is possible (we are getting these before the year is out) then 2560x1440x240hz is possible since it used the same bandwidth.

I want to do in game cap of 238fps Freesync. That way I can get pretty close to the motion clarity of 144hz backlight strobing but without the strobe crosstalk and screen tearing.

ASUS 240hz G Sync:
http://www.tftcentral.co.uk/reviews/asus_rog_swift_pg258q.htm#pursuit

Looks pretty clear.

AOC really messed up in their Freesync display with their panel though:
http://www.tftcentral.co.uk/reviews/aoc_agon_ag251fz.htm#pursuit

Same panel. WTF, AOC? Hopefully Dell does it right.

But I'd prefer 27-inch QHD 240hz please.

And wow that G-Sync tax. +40% cost. Though the G Sync version also has AlienFX, where it has a LED strip to change color for you in game, which no competitive gamer would ever turn on for distraction reasons. And it says touch enabled? How does that help you track and flick?

Make no mistake: the only market for this monitor is competitive FPS gaming. Useless extra features, though perhaps these are half of the tax.

http://www.dell.com/en-us/shop/alie...18h/apd/210-amsr/monitors-monitor-accessories
http://www.dell.com/en-us/shop/productdetails/alienware-25-gaming-monitor-aw2518hf/aw2518hfsap

 

[wilds]

The Gsync tax is usually $100 - $150 right?

I bet Dell/Alienware is tacking on an extra $50 because the vast majority of Alienware customers have Nvidia GPU's in their products.

 

[Flapdrol1337]

The Gsync tax is usually $100 - $150 right?

I'd say 150-200, FPGA's are expensive and nvidia never bothered with an asic, maybe with the upcoming hdr screens?