Skip to content

Alienware AW3225QF 32" vs Huawei MateView SE 27 QHD

Side-by-side comparison of viewing distance, PPI, and specifications

Alienware AW3225QF 32"

31.6" · 3840×2160 · QD-OLED
Optimal Viewing Distance 63cm
Open in calculator →

Huawei MateView SE 27 QHD

27" · 2560×1440 · IPS
Optimal Viewing Distance 80cm
Open in calculator →
Specification Alienware AW3225QF 32" 2024 Huawei MateView SE 27 QHD 2024
Screen Size 31.6" (Better) 27"
Resolution 3840×2160 (Better) 2560×1440
Pixel Density (PPI) 139 (Better) 109
Optimal Viewing Distance 63cm (Better) 80cm
Panel Type QD-OLED IPS
Viewing Angle 178° 178°
Aspect Ratio 16:9 16:9
Refresh Rate 240 Hz (Better) 100 Hz
Variable Refresh Rate (VRR) G-SYNC Compatible None
Response Time 0.0 ms GTG (Better) 5 ms GTG
HDR Certification DisplayHDR True Black 400 None
SDR Brightness 260 nits 300 nits (Better)
HDR Peak Brightness 1000 nits (Better) 600 nits
Contrast Ratio 1:1,000,000 (Better) 1:1,000
Ports 2x HDMI · 1x DP · USB-C · USB Hub 1x HDMI · 1x DP
Color Gamut sRGB 100% · DCI-P3 98% · Adobe RGB 97% (Better) sRGB 100% · DCI-P3 95%
Year 2024 2024

Summary

The Alienware AW3225QF 32" has higher pixel density (139 PPI), making it sharper at close range.

The Alienware AW3225QF 32" allows sitting closer (63cm) while maintaining retina quality.

The Alienware AW3225QF 32" offers a larger 31.6" display for more immersive viewing.

Frequently Asked Questions

Which has better PPI: Alienware AW3225QF 32" or Huawei MateView SE 27 QHD?
The Alienware AW3225QF 32" has 139 PPI compared to 109 PPI for the Huawei MateView SE 27 QHD.
Which has a closer optimal viewing distance?
The Alienware AW3225QF 32" requires 63cm vs 80cm for the Huawei MateView SE 27 QHD to reach retina quality.

Methodology & Sources

Formula: Retina distance (cm) = 3438 / PPI. Displayed values are rounded for readability.

Sources: Official manufacturer spec sheets and product pages. Specs are normalized before comparisons.

Comparison winners are calculated metric by metric (higher is better for most specs; lower is better for distance/response time).

Last updated:

Related Comparisons