Jake Tech Lab

Alienware AW3225QF vs Samsung Odyssey Neo G8

Alienware AW3225QF comes out ahead of Samsung Odyssey Neo G8 on 3 of the 6 things that decide this, going by what each maker publishes. The one that matters for you may be one the leader loses.

Alienware AW3225QFWinner
Alienware AW3225QF
7.1
Good
3 of 6 rounds
vs
Samsung Odyssey Neo G8
Samsung Odyssey Neo G8
6.4
Fair
1 of 6 rounds

The verdict

Alienware AW3225QF takes it, 3–1 on rounds.

On the published figures, Alienware AW3225QF takes 3 of 6 rounds. Treat that as a starting point and check the current figures on both pages, because prices and plans move.

Choose Alienware AW3225QF if…

  • • You want Alienware AW3225QF's edge on what it costs and how fast its pixels respond

Choose Samsung Odyssey Neo G8 if…

  • • You want Samsung Odyssey Neo G8's edge on how bright it gets

Round by round

  1. Round 1What it costsAlienware AW3225QF wins
    Alienware AW3225QF8/10

    $749.99

    dell price (estimated value $999.99)

    Source: dell.com ↗

    Samsung Odyssey Neo G85/10

    $1,299.99

    samsung.com list price (out of stock; $400 instant credit shown -> $899.99)

    • $1,299.99, against $749.99

    Source: samsung.com ↗

    Alienware AW3225QF wins this round on what the company itself publishes.

  2. Round 2How bright it getsSamsung Odyssey Neo G8 wins
    Alienware AW3225QF5/10

    1000 nits

    brightness (tech specs; peak)

    • 1000 nits, against 2,000 nits (peak)

    Source: dell.com ↗

    Samsung Odyssey Neo G88/10

    1,000 nits (peak)

    peak brightness (typical), Samsung spec table; the page banner says 2,000 nits

    • hdr peak, marketing text (spec table: peak 1000 cd/m2 typ)

    Source: samsung.com ↗

    Samsung Odyssey Neo G8 wins this round on what the company itself publishes.

  3. Round 3How fast its pixels respondAlienware AW3225QF wins
    Alienware AW3225QF8/10

    0.03 ms (GtG)

    response time (gtg)

    Source: dell.com ↗

    Samsung Odyssey Neo G85/10

    1 ms (GtG)

    response time, gtg

    • 1 ms (GtG), against 0.03 ms (GtG)

    Source: samsung.com ↗

    Alienware AW3225QF wins this round on what the company itself publishes.

  4. Round 4How much color it showsAlienware AW3225QF wins
    Alienware AW3225QF8/10

    99% DCI-P3

    color gamut

    Source: dell.com ↗

    Samsung Odyssey Neo G85/10

    95% DCI-P3

    dci coverage (typ)

    • 95% DCI-P3, against 99% DCI-P3

    Source: samsung.com ↗

    Alienware AW3225QF wins this round on what the company itself publishes.

  5. Round 5How deep its blacks goTie
    Alienware AW3225QF7/10

    1,000,000:1

    dynamic contrast ratio

    Source: dell.com ↗

    Samsung Odyssey Neo G87/10

    1,000,000:1

    static contrast ratio

    Source: samsung.com ↗

    Nothing to separate them here.

  6. Round 6How fast it refreshesTie
    Alienware AW3225QF7/10

    240 Hz

    standard refresh rate

    Source: dell.com ↗

    Samsung Odyssey Neo G87/10

    240 Hz

    max refresh rate

    Source: samsung.com ↗

    Nothing to separate them here.

Alienware AW3225QFAlienware AW3225QF
Samsung Odyssey Neo G8Samsung Odyssey Neo G8

Side by side

Overall score
7.1
Best
6.4
Price
See price
See price
How fast it refreshes
7.0
6.8
What it costs
8.0
6.3
How deep its blacks go
6.0
6.8
How sharp the picture is
7.0
—
How fast its pixels respond
7.3
5.0
Head-to-head findings
How fast it refreshes
240 Hz
240 Hz
What it costs
$749.99
$1,299.99
How deep its blacks go
1,000,000:1
1,000,000:1
How sharp the picture is
3840 x 2160
—
How fast its pixels respond
0.03 ms (GtG)
1 ms (GtG)
How bright it gets
1000 nits
1,000 nits (peak)
How long the warranty lasts
—
—
Which HDR badge it carries
DisplayHDR True Black 400
—
Record
Head-to-head record
2–0–1
1–3
Head-to-heads won
100 %
25 %
Rounds won
28 %
33 %
Pros
    • hdr peak, marketing text (spec table: peak 1000 cd/m2 typ)
    Cons
    • 1,000,000:1, against 1500000:1 (Typ.)
    • 1000 nits, against 2,000 nits (peak)
    • $1,299.99, against $999
    • DP 1.4, against DP 2.1
    • 1,000,000:1, against 1.5M:1 (Typ.)
    • 240 Hz, against 480 Hz FHD / 240 Hz 4K
    Add a third option to this comparison →

    More monitors match-ups