OLED gaming monitors are much cheaper than they used to be, but IPS has not suddenly become obsolete. The right choice depends on whether you value OLED’s contrast and motion enough to accept the extra cost and ownership compromises.
RESEARCHED: Quest Novum has not tested these monitors. This comparison uses current UK pricing, manufacturer specifications and independent monitor testing.
Commercial disclosure: Retailer links in this article are non-affiliate. Quest Novum receives no commission from purchases through them.
The OLED-versus-IPS argument used to be easy.
IPS was the sensible choice. OLED was the expensive one.
That distinction is starting to break down.
Dell currently charges £209 for its 27-inch 1440p 180Hz Alienware AW2725DM IPS monitor and £369 for its 240Hz QD-OLED AW2726DM. AOC’s 280Hz Q27G4ZD QD-OLED is also available for £349.97 from Laptops Direct.
The OLED premium is still real.
It is just small enough now that somebody spending £200-plus on a gaming monitor should ask what the extra money actually buys.
The answer is not simply “better”.
It depends on what you do with the screen.
If you are still deciding how much to spend, whether 1440p is the right resolution or which panel route makes sense overall, our broader 1440p gaming monitor buying guide covers that first decision. This article stays focused on the narrower question: when does OLED actually deserve the premium over IPS?
The short answer
If this is mainly a gaming monitor, particularly for fast games, darker games, cinematic single-player titles or anything where black levels matter, OLED is becoming much easier to justify.
If the display also spends long days as a work monitor, sits in a bright room or needs to deliver maximum value below roughly £250, IPS remains the easier purchase.
And if you already own a good 1440p IPS monitor, replacing it with another slightly faster IPS panel probably does not make much sense unless your current display has a specific weakness.
OLED is the upgrade that changes more of the experience.
It just comes with compromises of its own.
What does the extra OLED money actually buy?
The biggest difference is not refresh rate.
It is how the picture is produced.
OLED pixels emit their own light, which means individual pixels can go dark without relying on an LCD backlight. Independent testing of Dell’s AW2726DM found deep blacks in dark-room use with no haloing around bright objects.
A conventional IPS panel can still produce a good image, but native contrast is much more limited.
RTINGS found the AW2725DM’s low contrast and poor local dimming made its HDR performance a particular weakness.
That does not make every IPS monitor bad.
It explains why an IPS screen with an HDR logo should not be assumed to deliver OLED-like contrast.
OLED has a real motion advantage
High refresh rate and pixel response are different things.
An LCD panel takes time to transition pixels between states. OLED can do that dramatically faster.
RTINGS found the 240Hz AW2726DM had near-instantaneous response behaviour and excellent motion handling. Its testing of the 180Hz AW2725DM still found decent gaming performance, but with more blur when VRR was enabled.
That is why a 240Hz OLED can feel like a more meaningful gaming upgrade than the refresh-rate numbers alone suggest.
For someone playing competitive shooters and capable of pushing high frame rates, that matters.
For someone playing slower single-player or strategy games well below 240fps, it matters less.
Do not buy performance you are not going to use.
IPS is still better at being boring
“Boring” is a compliment here.
IPS remains very easy to live with as a mixed-use display.
RTINGS found the AW2725DM bright enough for most normally lit rooms and reported sharp text, while Dell includes a small USB hub on the monitor.
The AW2726DM is more gaming-focused. RTINGS found its brightness limited in stronger ambient light, noted visible text fringing and identified burn-in as an ownership risk. Dell also omits a USB hub from this model.
Those are model-specific findings, but they illustrate the wider choice.
If you spend eight hours working on static text and two hours gaming, perfect blacks in a dark game may not be the thing that should decide your purchase.
Desktop behaviour matters too.
QD-OLED can behave differently in a bright room
OLED’s black levels are one of its biggest attractions, but the room still matters.
RTINGS found the AW2726DM produced deep blacks in dark conditions, while its QD-OLED black levels became raised and more purple under brighter ambient light. It also found brightness insufficient to overcome intense glare.
That does not make QD-OLED unusable in daylight.
It does make “perfect blacks everywhere” too simple.
If you mainly play at night or can control the lighting around your desk, OLED plays directly to its strengths.
If your monitor faces a bright window all afternoon, IPS may be easier to live with.
OLED does not automatically mean brilliant HDR
OLED has an enormous advantage in black level because light can be controlled per pixel.
Peak brightness is a different question.
The AW2726DM illustrates this well. RTINGS found excellent HDR picture quality overall but limited brightness, meaning it does not create the most vivid possible HDR highlights.
There are brighter OLED monitors. There are weaker ones. Mini LED LCD monitors can also create strong HDR by combining high brightness with local dimming.
VESA’s DisplayHDR standards explicitly distinguish different luminance, black-level and dimming requirements, including separate True Black tiers.
If HDR is a major reason for upgrading, check independent testing for the specific monitor.
Do not buy “HDR” as a word.
Mini LED proves this is not a two-panel world
There is a useful alternative for somebody who wants stronger HDR but does not want OLED.
The AOC Q27G3XMN is a 1440p 180Hz VA monitor with a 336-zone Mini LED backlight and DisplayHDR 1000 certification. Currys currently lists it at £279.
RTINGS found strong dark-room picture quality, high HDR brightness and good local dimming, although it also found black smearing and distracting VRR flicker with changing frame rates.
At £279 it is not the obvious value default it once was, because ordinary IPS can now sit substantially below it and entry OLED is not dramatically further away. It remains a more specialised choice for buyers who specifically want strong HDR brightness and local dimming without moving to OLED.
It is not secretly an OLED replacement.
It is proof that buyers who care about HDR should look beyond a simplistic IPS-versus-OLED label.
The backlight matters too.
Burn-in is real, but the warranty position is much better
OLED burn-in should neither be ignored nor treated as inevitable.
Static content displayed for long periods can cause permanent image retention. Dell uses pixel-shift behaviour specifically to reduce image-retention risk on its Alienware OLED monitors.
Manufacturers are also offering clearer protection.
Dell states that QD-OLED panel warranties are limited to a maximum of three years and include burn-in. MSI specifies a three-year warranty including panel burn-in for its MAG 271QPX QD-OLED E2.
That changes the ownership calculation.
It does not make burn-in impossible, and a warranty does not remove the inconvenience of a panel problem.
But for a gaming-first buyer using varied content, the risk is easier to accept when meaningful manufacturer protection exists.
If your monitor is going to display the same static work interface every day for years, IPS still removes that particular concern.
Connectivity can erase some of the bargain
Cheap OLED monitors often save money somewhere.
With the AW2726DM, Dell has cut connectivity.
DisplayPort 1.4 reaches 1440p at 240Hz, but HDMI is limited to 120Hz at 1440p and there is no USB hub.
Compare that with MSI’s MAG 271QPX QD-OLED E2. MSI specifies 1440p at 240Hz over DisplayPort, HDMI 2.1 and USB-C, although USB-C charging is limited to 15W. The same model carries a three-year warranty including burn-in.
That does not automatically make the MSI a better purchase. Price still matters.
It shows why comparing OLED monitors only by panel type and refresh rate is a mistake.
A slightly more expensive monitor with the ports you need can be better value than a cheaper one that immediately creates another problem.
What about competitive gaming?
OLED has a strong case here.
If you play fast competitive games and can feed the monitor enough frames, combining 240Hz or higher refresh rates with extremely fast OLED response behaviour is compelling. RTINGS’ AW2726DM testing supports that motion advantage.
But 180Hz IPS is not suddenly poor.
The AW2725DM still provides low input lag and decent motion handling, and the numerical difference between 180Hz and 240Hz is much smaller than the move away from 60Hz.
If your competitive gaming is serious enough that every improvement matters, OLED deserves the money.
If competitive shooters are only one part of what you play, do not convince yourself that 180Hz has become obsolete.
When OLED is worth the extra money
OLED makes the strongest case when:
- gaming is the monitor’s main job;
- you care strongly about black levels and dark-scene image quality;
- fast motion matters;
- you can control the room lighting reasonably well;
- you want 240Hz or more anyway;
- you are comfortable with OLED care features and burn-in risk;
- the price gap to the IPS monitor you would otherwise buy is modest enough to matter.
Current UK pricing makes that last point particularly interesting. Dell’s AW2725DM is £209, while current 1440p OLED examples include AOC’s 280Hz Q27G4ZD at £349.97 and Dell’s 240Hz AW2726DM at £369.
For a gaming-first PC, OLED is now close enough in price that the premium can be defensible rather than indulgent.
When IPS is still the smarter buy
Keep the money and buy IPS when:
- your total budget is below roughly £250;
- the monitor also does long hours of desktop or office work;
- text clarity matters a lot;
- the room is bright;
- you do not care much about deep-black HDR;
- you want to avoid thinking about burn-in;
- 144Hz to 180Hz already covers the games you play.
There is nothing second-rate about that decision.
A roughly £200 IPS monitor and a £350 to £370 OLED are solving slightly different problems.
If the things OLED improves are not the things you care about, spending more is just spending more.
The Quest Novum verdict
OLED is worth the extra money for more 1440p PC gamers than it used to be because the price gap has narrowed sharply.
At around £350 to £370, current 240Hz-plus OLED options can deliver a real improvement in motion, black levels and gaming image quality over conventional IPS.
That does not make IPS obsolete.
For mixed gaming and work, bright rooms, static desktop use or budgets around £200, we would still buy a good IPS monitor without feeling as though we had settled for something inferior.
The decision comes down to one question:
Is this screen primarily a gaming display, or is it the screen you happen to game on?
If gaming comes first, OLED increasingly earns the premium.
If the monitor has to do everything, IPS is still extremely difficult to beat.
VERDICT: OLED increasingly earns its premium for gaming-first 1440p PCs, particularly where black levels and fast motion matter; IPS remains the smarter all-round buy for mixed work and gaming, bright rooms and tighter budgets.
