For PC hardware enthusiasts, the good news has been awfully slim pickings of late. What with the ongoing RAMpocalypse, new GPU generations apparently delayed indefinitely and the seeming inevitability of ever more expensive computer chips, it’s nearly all gloom and doom.
Nearly, that is, but not quite. The glimmer of hope in the barren wasteland that used to be affordable PC gaming? That’ll be monitors. They keep getting cheaper and better at the same time, a bit like computer chips used to. In fact, in the last few months I’ve reviewed the most affordable examples yet of two cutting-edge display technologies, mini-LED and OLED.
Both can now be had for under $350 in 27-inch 1440p format. Representing mini-LED is the remarkable KTC M27T6S, a monitor so good it actually shifted my view on mini-LED technology in general.
Stepping up for OLED is the Alienware AW2726DM. Alienware has form when it comes to bringing OLED display technology in at a lower price than the competition and the AW2726DM makes what many gamers see as the ultimate display technology more accessible than ever before.
We’re not quite at price parity, of course. The mini-LED KTC monitor comes in around $290 to the Alienware OLED’s $350. But they’re close enough for cross shopping to be pretty plausible. So the question is, should you make budget mini-LED or budget OLED your PC gaming panel of choice?
What are OLED and mini-LED?
Matte mini-LED on the left, glossy OLED on the right… (Image credit: Future)
First up, it’s worth understanding just how dramatically different these two display technologies are despite the fact that they both exist for essentially the same reason. The name of the game for both mini-LED and OLED, after all, is improved lighting control.
What you might call traditional PC monitors in the flat-panel era have typically used LCD technology with a big, dumb monolithic backlight. OK, you could vary the brightness of that backlight. But that isn’t much help if you want to display both bright and dark image elements at the same time.
Mini-LED is actually still an LCD-based display tech. But it attempts to fix the lighting issue courtesy of an array of individually addressable backlight zones allowing different brightness levels across the screen. Current mini-LED monitors usually have in the order of 1,000 to 2,000 such zones, enabling much better lighting control.
Of course, the ultimate in lighting control would be on a literally per-pixel basis, with each pixel acting as its own light source. And that’s exactly what OLED panels deliver. Indeed, it’s worth noting just how much more precise OLED is than mini-LED in that regard.
While the KTC M27T6S’s 1,152 mini-LED dimming zones might sound like a lot, the fundamental resolution of the backlight is extremely low, something in the order of 40 by 25 zones. With a native image resolution of 2,560 by 1,440, the result is over 3,000 pixels in each zone. But with OLED, each of a 1440p panel’s 3.7 million pixels has individual lighting control. That’s a huge difference.
The KTC mini-LED on the left, Alienware’s budget OLED on the right. (Image credit: Future)
OLED panel tech comes with other fringe benefits, too. They have much faster pixel response, not far off two orders of magnitude faster. LCD panels generally come in at about 1 ms claimed response, while OLED is typically rated at 0.03 ms. OLED also has better viewing angles.
Not everything goes OLEDs way, however. Full-screen brightness is a notable weakness and it just so happens that’s something mini-LED does very well. Even the very latest OLED monitors top out under 350 nits full-screen, while some mini-LED monitors can exceed 1,000 nits.
OLED also comes with the worry of burn-in. The evidence is building that OLED burn-in is something that the vast majority of users won’t have to worry about for many years. But it is a real problem and something you don’t have to think about at all with mini-LED.
What’s better for gaming, budget mini-LED or budget OLED?
Mini-LED on the left is clearly punchier for brighter game scenes… (Image credit: Future)
On paper, the Alienware AW2726DM looks like the faster, more responsive monitor. It’s got a slight edge when it comes to refresh, hitting 240 Hz to the KTC M27T6S’s 200 Hz, or 210 Hz if you want to use the slightly silly “overclocking” feature.
The Alienware’s Samsung-supplied QD-OLED panel also offers massively faster 0.03 ms claimed pixel response. The KTC’s IPS panel is only good for 1 ms, and even that’s only for the less demanding MPRT metric as opposed to the Alienware’s grey-to-grey rating.
In practice, the subjective gap isn’t nearly as big as the objective specifications. Yes, the Alienware is faster. But the difference isn’t nearly as dramatic as 1 ms versus 0.03 ms would have you expect. That says a lot about how far IPS panel tech has come and the fact that the KTC has sourced a pretty nippy example of the IPS panel breed.
Put it this way. If the KTC M27T6S was superior in most other ways, you wouldn’t take the Alienware AW2726DM just for its speed. It is faster, but that speed isn’t a killer blow. A possible exception here is esports, where refresh is king in terms of latency. But then if competitive online shooters are your absolute priority, you don’t want either of these monitors. You’re better off with the fastest 1080p panel you can find for this kind of money, and it’s probably going to be a TN.
But OLED does contrast and HDR better. (Image credit: Future)
Instead, where the Alienware really delivers is HDR visuals, albeit with some caveats. The Alienware AW2726DM is actually only rated at 400 nits for peak HDR brightness, where the KTC will hit 1,000 nits. But the way we dumb humans perceive brightness isn’t as simple as comparing specs.
Contrast matters just as much for perceived brightness as outright brightness. And the Alienware absolutely nails contrast. It can do a single pixel hitting 400 nits right next to another putting out basically zero nits. That means it’s far, far better at achieving precision lighting across the whole image and a subjective sense of contrast. Small, bright details actually look brighter because they are surrounded by greater contrast.
In other words, OLED black levels are actually, well, black. The go-to test that really emphasises the difference here is a starfield panning across the display. The Alienware’s OLED panel has no problem perfectly lighting individual stars as they scan across the sky.
Mini-LED monitors always involve some kind of compromise with that kind of image. The KTC M27T6S actually does the starfield test better than any other mini-LED monitor I’ve seen, which is pretty remarkable when you consider it’s a budget model. KTC has done a really nice job on the M27T6S’s backlight algorithm, that’s for sure. But it’s still nowhere near as good as OLED.
Fireworks are a bit of a nightmare for mini-LED. (Image credit: Future)
It simply runs out of pop when you try to light up a large proportion of the panel.
If all that seems a little abstract, what this all translates into is a much more natural and immersive game world using an OLED panel. There’s no backlight bleed, no glowing at the edges of the screen, just what feels like a window into a stunning game world.
The Alienware’s glossy panel coating actually heightens that sense, it’s so clear and crisp. KTC has gone for a fairly coarse matte anti-glare coating and it both slightly softens the image and further compromises perceived black levels and contrast. In darker game scenes, the Alienware QD-OLED therefore absolutely hammers the KTC mini-LED.
However, ramp up the brightness and the tables are somewhat turned. There are some desert scenes in Cyberpunk 2077 that really show what mini-LED can do with HDR enabled. The KTC M27T6S absolutely pops, it renders the afternoon so bright that it almost hurts your eyes.
Running the two monitors side-by-side, the Alienware OLED looks awfully dull by comparison, it simply runs out of pop when you try to light up a large proportion of the panel. Meanwhile, the KTC never looks anything but retina-searingly bright.
The thing is, however, the QD-OLED panel’s deficiencies are much less obvious in isolation than they are when you’ve got the super-bright mini-LED monitor sitting right next to it. Your eyes adjust to the light levels, to at least some degree cancelling out the objective brightness advantage of the KTC. On the other hand, you never stop seeing the washed out black tones, the lack of contrast, the glow at the edges of the panel, with an IPS panel, even one with a mini-LED backlight.
What’s better for daily computing?
One shortcoming of QD-OLED specifically (on the right, again) is overly warm colour temperature. (Image credit: Future)
First, let’s square away something that is often overstated. Just as OLED’s speed isn’t quite as massive an advantage in the real world as you might expect, the mini-LED KTC M27T6S’s font rendering is not, in truth, dramatically better than the QD-OLED Alienware AW2726DM.
Yes, that QD-OLED panel has a suboptimal triangular subpixel structure, as opposed to conventional RGB-stripe. And yes the KTC’s fonts are clearer, but only marginally. The bottom line is that neither monitor has particularly good pixel density and even the KTC doesn’t render terribly nice fonts. If that’s what you care about, you need something like a 27-inch 4K panel or even a 5K model.
With low ambient light levels, the far superior contrast and black levels of OLED are very obvious.FutureThe differences are still apparent in normal conditions.Future
For daily computing, both monitors are likewise plenty fast enough. So, it’s more the static image quality where the differences lie. As ever, the QD-OLED Alienware has much better black levels and contrast, the mini-LED KTC can run brighter.
There are caveats to all that, however. For starters, there’s the question of how bright you actually want a monitor, day-to-day. Arguably, the KTC is too bright for daily comfort in SDR content when set to full reheat.
But what if you do tend to prefer a really punchy looking monitor? Does the QD-OLED Alienware fall short? The simple answer is yes, but it can be mitigated. In SDR mode, the Alienware only hits 200 nits. However, if you switch to HDR mode and then max out the SDR content brightness in the Windows Display Settings menu, you can get pretty good results.
IPS is known for good viewing angles, but it’s still not a patch on OLED. (Image credit: Future)
It works best if you prefer to run apps and view websites in dark mode. As with pretty much all OLEDs, the more of the screen you light up in HDR mode, the lower the peak brightness you can achieve. With both monitors running Windows in dark mode, HDR enabled and SDR brightness maxed out, the brightness gap is substantially closed and the Alienware feels really very punchy. And at the same time, it retains its contrast and black level advantage.
The exception to that involves the characteristic purple tint of QD-OLED panels in bright ambient light. This can be problematic during the day, if you, for instance, situate the Alienware right near a big window that lets in lots of natural light. In that scenario, the QD-OLED will also look a little overly warm in terms of colour temperature, while the KTC’s IPS panel looks more neutral.
So, what’s the best budget panel technology overall?
This is going to sound like a massive cop out, but much of this comes down to personal preference. No question, there are some objective pros and cons. The Alienware and its QD-OLED panel is definitely faster, it has better black levels and contrast, plus superior viewing angles.
The mini-LED KTC, on the other hand, is clearly the brighter of the two and renders fonts more precisely thanks to its RGB-stripe subpixel structure. But what you, personally, make of those pros and cons will be another matter.
The fact that it’s not an absolute slam dunk for one or other of the two options is in itself telling. But if you absolutely twisted my arm for a verdict, it would go something like this. It all comes down to brightness.
It’s a close contest, and it’s not a perfect monitor, but the QD-OLED Alienware AW2726DM takes it. (Image credit: Future)
If I am allowed to switch on HDR mode it’s a much clearer win for cheap OLED tech.
The QD-OLED option is better in almost every other way, so the question is what you make of its outright brightness. In standard SDR mode, I’d say the brightness of the Alienware AW2726DM is problematic. If I had to use it in that mode all the time, I’d still take it over the KTC M27T6S because of the far superior contrast, black levels, speed and viewing angles. But it would be a close run thing.
On the other hand, if I am allowed to switch on HDR mode, ramp up the SDR brightness in Windows and view basically all my apps in dark mode, then it’s a much clearer win for the Alienware and thus for cheap OLED tech. But there would be times in games when it looked just a little bit dull and I’d know, deep down, the KTC and its sizzling mini-LED backlight would have given a more vibrant experience in that moment. As ever, you pays your money and you takes your choice. Good luck!
