New Dell UltraSharp Monitors | Hacker News Reader

New Dell UltraSharp Monitors

en.community.dell.com

193 pointssusi22172 comments

The U2414H is 1920x1080, that's only 91 DPI. Wtf?

The UP3214Q is 3840x2160, but it's huge, 31.5", so it's only ~140 DPI.

Neither of these are mind-blowing, especially the U2414H. I suppose it is nice to see >100 DPI on a really large monitor, given how stagnated/shitty external monitors have been for so long.

But, still, doesn't quite seem "front page of HN" exciting?

> But, still, doesn't quite seem "front page of HN" exciting?

It's exciting because there is movement at the top end of the general monitor market (ignoring specialist stuff like medical imaging), for the first time in almost a decade. Dell moving into this new segment is particularly important because they make excellent monitors as a rule.

Movement is terribly slow though. I remember keeping an eye on anything greater than 1920x1200 (16:10) since I got my monitor at this resolution 8 years ago. The best thing has been 2560x1600 that are still priced higher [1] than the price I paid for this one 8 years ago (~$800).

To put it another way, after 8 years, you still can't buy a 24" monitor at a resolution above 1920x1200. And when I saw this link, I thought the drought was finally over -- only to realize that it's still not.

So yeah, this news didn't really excite me.

It seems that display technology advances much more slowly than that of any other component, especially on pixel density of larger (20+ inch) displays.

[1] http://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductList.aspx?Submit=ENE&N=...

The point, as you have indirectly struck on, is that everything has stagnated. Movement anywhere is important, because it creates the possibility that improvements will move inwards from the largest and smallest monitor sizes to the mid-to-large-sized monitors where developers do most of their work.

According to Intel's roadmap they'll arrive in the next 2 years:

http://media.bestofmicro.com/M/F/333879/original/Intel-Roadm...

Check out the ASUS PB278Q. $549.00 on Amazon right now, 27", 2560x1440, 16:9 ratio. I upgraded from a HP LP2475w (24", 1920x1200) and it is a night and day difference.

I now have two of the ASUS monitors (one at home and one at work) and could not be happier. I run them on a $6 Monoprice Mini DisplayPort->DisplayPort off a Retina MBP.

Unless you need 16:10 for some reason, the ASUS are the best deal around right now.

I picked myself up an Auria EQ276W earlier this year and couldn't be happier. It is a 27" 2560x1440 IPS (16:9), same as the Asus, but it can be found for $399. I did replaced the stock stand with an HP branded Ergotron LX stand ($80) as the stock stand only had tilt control, though.

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/auria-eq276w-review-ips,...

I got an Auria, and I think I got a dud based on what my friends say. :( I can see colors shifting on the screen even when clicking different "inbox" tabs inside of Gmail. The text isn't very sharp, it's fuzzy. At first I thought it was because of the AD coating...but now not sure. I'm going to go talk to the place I bought it from, hoping they'll exchange it or something (even though it's been a few months since I purchased).

" The best thing has been 2560x1600 that are still priced higher [1] than the price I paid for this one 8 years ago (~$800)."

The Crossover 30Q5 with 2560x1600 is <700 USD.

http://www.amazon.com/Crossover-30Q5-Pro-Black-Resolution/dp...

Monoprice is advertising a 30" for about 680.

I'm sorely tempted.

Thought I have a newer monitor (see below), I'm still using a really good Dell 24" (2408) that I bought many, many years ago. I've gone through several computers since, but this monitor's been awesome.

Money spent on good external monitors is well spent, and it actually amazes me more isn't happing on this front on desktop monitors.

I also have a 2408 and I'm not looking forward to replacing it when it goes. 1200 vertical pixels is strangely rare these days.

I agree with spending on monitors - they are your primary interface with the computer, so may as well get a good one.

that's just another confirmation that PC is dead. nobody is buying desktops, only portables. Businesses still have desks but they mostly care about the bottom line.

It's exciting because there is movement at the top end of the general monitor market, for the first time in almost a decade.

I'm profoundly saddened by the situation. I have been waiting nearly 15 years for DPI to improve. I cut my LCD teeth on the old 110dpi SGI 1600SW monitors. Since then DPI went down and is only now starting to come back up.

But now my near-field eyesight is going and I'll have to start wearing reading-glasses in order to make use of these long overdue improvements. 2 steps forward, 1.5 steps back...

Also, front page is a low bar...

Yup, 4k is great but 4k at 31.5"... who cares?

Give me 4k at 23", then I'll care.

Seriously. If we can have 220+ ppi displays in laptops, and 260+ ppi displays in tablets, why are there no desktop displays which are even 180 or 200 ppi. If the resolution is going to be 3840×2160, I would rather see that in a 20 or 22″ diagonal. Those would be much better for a 2-display setup.

The 24″ 1080p display is some kind of sad joke: we had better pixel density on a comparably sized monitor with the Apple Cinema HD Display in March of 2002! (1920×1200, 23″)

Edit: sure a retina desktop display is going to be very expensive, so maybe there’s not a mainstream market there yet, and margins would have to be high. But it’s disappointing that you can’t find them yet at any price. I’m hoping Apple makes some moves in higher resolution desktop displays sometime in 2014, considering they now have machines designed for pumping so many pixels.

It's easier to fabricate a smaller panel.

Edit: And by easier I of course mean both less expensive, and more flexible in process.

In the medical monitor world there are higher pixel density displays at a a much higher price: the 5-10MP (21-30") displays from Barco and NEC cost between $12,000 and $20,000, and slightly more for 510(k) approved models. Some of them are grayscale only (mammography), but increasingly we're seeing good IPS displays with 30bit color for pathology.

It's not that the technology doesn't exist, but the device yields for these parts are so low that only people who absolutely need the pixel density (life or death decisions) are actually able to afford them.

Would you drop $20,000 on a monitor?

I don't buy this line of argument. I'll accept that the flawless yield goes down, but a few dead pixels amongst millions isn't the end of the world, especially if they're very small pixels. We have pretty perfect small panels (the Nexus 7 has the same resolution as the 24" on my desk).

If the yield y is high enough on those small panels to make them as cheap as they are, and on the slightly bigger panels that go into laptops, why would the yield on a display n times larger be lower than y^n? Because they would need to be lower than that IMO to justify 5 figure prices.

I think the TV industry has made 1080p panels so cheap from mass manufacturing that they've created a big price / performance gap, and manufacturers have believed that consumers don't want the higher quality enough to pay the premium considering this competition.

It doesn't help that most of the software ecosystem hasn't been ready for scaling.

Fabrication of any kind of semiconductor is full of fixed costs. Not only are the yield rates low, but your cost per panel increases dramatically since you have fewer units to spread over all your tooling and fab buildout.

It's also risky as hell - making a high-DPI LCD panel isn't like making a rocking chair in your garage, there is an enormous startup cost.

It takes a large measure of guaranteed demand for anyone to drop that kind of cash. The only people who have been able to move the needle on this sort of tech and fab are Apple, Google, Samsung, et al. They're the only ones who can go up to a OEM and say "I want you to build this brand new part, to these specs, and I can guarantee you millions of units".

Short of that the risk is insanity, and the OEMs themselves are unable to create a market for these new parts themselves. If they came up with an innovative, new LCD panel, they'd still have to wait for someone else to throw it in a shipping product before real demand materializes. I think there's a rational reason why the big, vertically integrated companies are the ones driving new panels.

Woah, wat? Who's dropping $20,000 for a monitor in pathology? Are these Leica branded to go with their new Aperio scanners? I work with some of the researchers who helped aperio develop get their first studies. let me tell you, they aren't using $20k monitors.

Heh, you caught me. Barco is trying to market these fancy monitors for pathology as the slide scanner wave rises. Really these are rebranded versions of the displays they sell for mammography/radiology applications.

There are a few deployments of these things, but mostly the smaller (cheaper) displays[1]. I think Ventana (formerly Bioimagene) also used to ship Barco displays with their Virtuoso package[2]

Nobody says that the display vendors have been successful with this marketing so far; the people I've worked with are also not buying these things. 17-19" Dell 2MP will do...

[1] http://www.barco.com/en/News/Press-releases/barco-delivers-c...

[2] http://www.barco.com/en/News/Post/2013/6/4/barco-and-ventana...

Actually, I'm not sure the pixel density is higher on those... here is a 4096x2160 diagnostic monitor:

http://www.eizo.com/global/press/releases/htmls/RadiForceRX8...

and it is 36.4" diagonal.

NEC has 21.5" 5MP (2048 x 2560) displays[1], and Barco[2] and EIZO have 30" 10MP (4096 x 2560) displays. These come out to 154 and 161 PPI respectively; you're right that it's not the 180-200ppi target listed, but it's still higher than anything consumer grade.

[1] http://www.necdisplay.com/p/medical-diagnostic-displays/md21...

[2] http://www.barco.com/en/Products-Solutions/Displays-monitors...

It only makes sense the closer the viewer distance the higher the PPI. I view my cell phone normally at less than 8" away. My laptop at maybe 14" away. My desktop at 30"+ away. For people with less than great vision even 1080P at 24" is pushing things. The places you see larger PPI monitors are in medical situations etc. where people need to be able to get much closer to the screen than normal use to examine high quality images.

The news is this: First computer monitor capable of 60Hz 4K arrives. Previous 4K monitors have been 24Hz. That opens up a number of important markets including 4K playback of video and 4K gaming.

Sure this isn't a retina display. That would be a different market.

First?

https://www.asus.com/Monitors_Projectors/PQ321Q/

You haven't seen the ASUS monitor? [https://www.asus.com/Monitors_Projectors/PQ321Q/#specificati...] ? Its available now ($3,500 list (http://www.amazon.com/ASUS-PQ321Q-31-5-Inch-4K-Monitor/dp/B0...) and with 8mS pixels it can (in theory) do 120Hz displays. I don't know if there are 4K video cards doing 120Hz displays but the monitor should be able to display it if they could.

The ASUS does not do 120Hz. It does not even do 60Hz unless you use two DisplayPort cables and drive the left half of the screen as Monitor 1 and the right half as Monitor 2.

Hmm, actually TomsHardware had it running at 60hz with two HDMI cables, but the article points out the challenge is the display card. The spec on the ASUS glass is 8 mS pixels, you can only change a by refreshing the screen, if you are changing them every 8 mS you are refreshing the screen every 8 mS which is half of 16 mS or 120Hz. Typical 60Hz displays have 12mS pixel change times.

Now I'll certainly concede that running 30bits of color per pixel to a 3840 x 2160 screen at 120hz will require 3.7GBs of bandwidth but each display port can provide 2.16GBs [2] for a total of 4.32GBs across both panels.

It will be interesting once the "4K generation" of graphics card hits the street to see what this monitor can do.

[1] "Asus’ $3500 PQ321Q is one of the only 4K screens capable of 60 Hz. But in order to achieve that refresh rate, you’re forced to run either one DisplayPort or two HDMI cables between your PC and the monitor." -- http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/pq321q-4k-gaming,3620.ht...

[2] "The DisplayPort connector can have 1, 2, or 4 differential data pairs (lanes) in a Main Link, each with a raw bit rate of 1.62, 2.7, or 5.4 Gbit/s per lane with self-clock running at 162, 270, or 540 MHz. Data is 8b/10b encoded where each 8 bits of information is encoded with a 10 bit symbol. So the effective data rates after decoding are 1.296, 2.16, and 4.32 Gbit/s per lane (or 80% of the total)." -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DisplayPort

I was excited by the 3840x2160 resolution until I saw that it was 32". That same rez at 27" would definitely be worthy and replace my current setup.

Most desktop OSes (except OS X) don't scale well. At super-high DPIs, everything will look tiny. This is why it doesn't make sense to get a high-DPI display -- especially if you care about your eyes.

OS X's scaling model is retarded. Window's DPI scaling has worked since at least vista, at least well enough for my purposes.

What don't you like about OS X's Hi-DPI scaling? It works pretty sensibly for me -- I actually prefer to run my rMBP at ¼ native, because the text is astonishingly sharp.

That's the genius of Apple's Retina - they jumped straight from 1x to 2x with nothing in between. Even multiples are much easier to work with and give a better user experience.

Even the way they (we?) handle non integer scale factors is clever -- pixel doubling and then downscaling, rather than upscaling directly.

HiDPI scaling is only useful if you're working on a retina 2x screen. On a larger, 27", everything is just small. It's be nice to have big monitors with lots of working space, but have icons, fonts, etc, scale to be a useful size, independent of the actual DPI.

OS X sucks at scaling. I still can't change global font sizes, so I have to rely on individual programs (and hope the devs did a decent job implementing font scaling in their app). Sure, I can scale the size of the dock, but that seems to be about it.

I remember in Windows, being able to adjust font/icon sizes, so I'm not quite sure I ever understand when people say OS X is awesome for scaling well and Windows sucks. Maybe most are just referring to the doubling of everything for OS X retina displays?

Enlightenment for Linux has built-in scaling that blows OS X out of the water. I also used Windows 8.1 on my MBPr and it is making HUGE progress in terms of HiDPI support.

I think the Cinema Display looks good at 109 ppi. 140 would be great.

Using Apples definition of Retina 140dpi is Retina quality when viewing from approximately 60cm. That is about how far I sit from my screen, 140 would definitely be great.

> But, still, doesn't quite seem "front page of HN" exciting?

I guess because they managed to pack into 24 inches what Google put on the Nexus 5 phone. The marvels of technology...

"It's only 140 DPI".

Do you know how long it took to get there?

http://www.codinghorror.com/blog/2007/06/where-are-the-high-...

Erm, I pretty sure the old 17" crt Dell monitor at home was able to deliver SXGA (1280x1024) -- and even if we assume a generous 16" of picture, that's over 100dpi.

edit: It would claim to do 1600x1200 as well, IIRC -- but that wasn't really usable.

It's not about a high DPI, it's about maintaining the same DPI with the scale of the monitor. A 32" 1080 monitor would be just as useless to me as a 23" 4k. But if you scale the monitor large while adding real estate it's amazing. I bought a 27" 2560x1440 and replaces my three monitor setup with one.

Thank you to all the early adopters which will make this $500 in a few years so I can buy one.

I bought a Dell 30" for $2.6k NZD in 2006. In 2013 the same Dell 30" costs $2,239 NZD right now on their store.

The monitor still works, and still looks great. It must be the best tech purchase I ever made. I actually bought a second one earlier this year.

Yeah I am on a $600 27 inch U2713HM I got when it came out a year ago.

Took me a long time to accept the steep price but it has been worth it for my eyes.

$2600 nzd = $2200 usd, now that much I couldn't afford/justify.

I think the old Dell 30 inch has a harsh anti-glare coat that makes it sparkle? They finally solved that with the U2713HM which has a much lighter coat.

The exchange rate between nz and us dollars shifted dramatically in the 2006/2008 timeframe, I suspect in US dollar terms he spent rather less than that, probably closer to $1800 USD.

I've a Dell 2000FP that's still getting 8+ hours of serious use a day, even as it's coming up on its 11th birthday in a few more months. (And still looking pretty great compared to a current gen budget monitor.)

There has been so little movement in mid-quality LCD systems, it's nice to see some change. (Even if the 24" is ... profoundly uninteresting to me at 1080p)

Edit: Not that this changes the original point, just that, as an early adopter, I've been burned a lot less by monitors than by ... everything else.

Hehe, Norwegian here - I bought the same monitor you did, and have made the same thoughts about it.

Why do Dell make such good monitors?

I bought the 24" u2412m earlier this year and it's superb. It doesn't look flashy, but cosmetics are not important. The build quality and color calibration on these things is absolutely incredible.

They use the same panels Apple uses, so it's just a matter of plastics engineering and choice of I/O (giant displayport, hdmi, vga, dvi, ... instead of just thunderbolt).

I think the monoprice monitors use the same 27" panel as well? http://www.monoprice.com/Product?c_id=113&cp_id=11307&cs_id=...

Wow! Monoprice does monitors now? mind blown

Note that the Monoprice (and MicroCenter Auria and Nixeus and Catleap) models are short on features and build / OSD quality and calibration.

The really annoying missing feature on these is audio-passthrough for HDMI and DisplayPort. I'd so much rather have a 3.55mm audio out instead of some crappy 2W built-in speakers.

On my Auria, I missed the USB hub functionality, too.

Thank LG for the latter - their IPS panels are used in pretty much every IPS monitor on the market, and I've never seen one with a single dead pixel, amazing QC...

The panels aren't enough. You need good cases and, this is often overlooked, good electronics driving the panels.

I've learnt this the fun way by buying cheap Korean 30" screens. The cases are poorly designed, the electronics are flaky. I'd pay 2.5x for the Dell monitors, but I know they would keep working for a lot longer.

I can't comment on the 30" Korean screens, but I got a 27" QHD Yamakasi Catleap and it's been wonderful. No quality problems at all. And I had an expensive 1920x1200 HP before.

Yamakasi is one of the Korean screen makers.

I bought 2 Yamakasi 30" screens. The design of the case meant that the DVI plug, when inserted into the socket, would exert sufficient force on the socket to permanently damage it after a few months (which is what happened to me).

On the 2nd Yamakasi, my father and I manually cut a channel for the cable into the plastic to prevent the 2nd screen becoming unusable in the same way as the first.

In the meantime Yamakasi stopped making that model (I guess 6 months is a long time) and I was forced to buy a different brand. Guess what? Same poorly designed case! Plus the electronics are different and, having very cheap components, it has since burnt out some small components, rendering that screen inoperable. I emailed the seller asking if a replacement PCB could be purchased. No answer.

For those keeping score: I have bought 3 Korean 30" screens. Of which 1 is still working after 6 months. And that one only still works because of modifications made to it.

At the time, the other Jacques active on HN (Mattheij) gently remonstrated me for gambling on the huge discount I was getting vs Dells or HPs. I now wish I could take all my smugness back from that point in time and bottle it for sale to Harvard MBA students.

My next purchases will probably be smaller Dells, to be arranged in a portrait configuration.

For comparison I currently have 3 Koran 27" screens (traveling, don't recall the brand.) 1 was broken on arrival and the seller replaced. 1 started having problem 8 months in, sometimes it works sometimes it doesn't. In total I've had one of them for 14 months and 2 for about 12 months.

When you factor in really needing to use monitor arms it probably doesn't make sense. But they look great.

> When you factor in really needing to use monitor arms it probably doesn't make sense. But they look great.

I don't see any reason to use a monitor arm. Sure, the stand doesn't let you adjust the height, but you can just use some books or cardboard boxes to adjust that.

> Yamakasi is one of the Korean screen makers.

I'm aware. I was making a distinction between the 27" and 30" models, because I only have experience with the 27" model.

> The design of the case meant that the DVI plug, when inserted into the socket, would exert sufficient force on the socket to permanently damage it after a few months

And this is why I made that distinction. Here's what my DVI socket looks like: http://i.imgur.com/CHnrmrh.jpg

Absolutely no problems at all with respect to the shape of the case. It seems like the issue you're referring to is specific to the 30" models.

> It seems like the issue you're referring to is specific to the 30" models.

I never said any differently.

You could consider the Monoprice 27" IPS panels. $350 a pop and a much better retailer standing behind them. I don't own any personally, but I know folks who've had them around a year now and no complaints. (Looking to pick a couple up soon.)

Very interesting about the electronics - I'm guessing they used the cheapest stuff they could to minimize the cost for the expensive 10 bit S-IPS panels (which are top of the line compared to the cheaper E-IPS and AH-IPS).

The Dell UltraSharp range just strikes a nice balance between quality and affordability.

Other manufacturers have spent the best part of the last decade chasing the budget end of the market by cutting corners (e.g. TN panels, poor quality control) and adding gimmicks (e.g. glossy or non-black bezels, flashy lights, ugly asymmetric stands)

Dell have stood pretty firm, with the UltraSharp range at least, with high quality IPS panels, decent quality control and simple, timeless designs. Combine that with the economies of scale they are able to achieve bundling monitors with computer systems, and the established support network they have in place, and it's been a winning combination.

I've always thought the dell ultrasharp monitors were very good quality, but the latest batch this summer has changed that.

10 out of 14 monitors in 3 batches so far appear to have what looks like dirty water spots between the lcd and the backlight. Some but some are bigger than sunflower seeds and quite obvious, with up to six of these scattered across the displays.

Beware the dell premium panel Guarantee, its very particularly about what it actually covers, which is just pixels stuck on, not all panel defects, let alone the time spent on replacement monitors that can be worse than that original ones.

I have an old 2408, the thing is still amazing. I'd definitely get another Dell monitor. (I even use them with my mac book pro)

My almost-10-year-old 24" Dell monitor is 1920x1200. Why is the new one lower resolution?

Because http://xkcd.com/732/

Reading the alt-text of that one is particularly depressing.

I want 60fps movies damnit.

At least vertically you can achieve 2160 x 1920 with two of them.

But 27" 2560 x 1440 monitors exist now.

Because 16:10 monitors have been phased out for 16:9.

The 2nd monitor is mentioned because of the new mini bezel. They still have 1920x1200 resolution monitors but they aren't new nor do they have the mini bezel. I'm running three of them.

As am I. I really hope they don't phase them out. The current 16x10 24" ultrasharp (U2412M) is a great monitor at less than $300.

This is Full HD!!! Your monitor is not even HD! (or at least it does not have sticker)

An important caveat: will the new monitors be VESA-mountable?

I have a pair of Viewsonic VX2370Smh-LED with almost identical specs:

  * 1920x1080 at 23" = ~96ppi
  * Nearly 'frameless' 11mm bezel
  * 178/178 deg. viewing angle
  * _Full_ sRGB support
  * Samsung PLS panel (Samsung's IPS)
  * Matte screen
  * Multiple input types

But, to make it 'frameless' the controls are placed in the non-removable stand! Notice that Dell has left out any mention of mounting, as did the creative Viewsonic copywriters.

After discovering this I hacked the Viewsonic and turned the stand into a discreet VESA mount -- giving me an incredibly nice HD panel considering the price (~$150 each).

But, there are almost no VESA-mountable quality panels for that price. Viewsonic _doubles_ the price to almost $300 for the nearly-identical VP2365-LED with VESA mounts.

Both monitors are VESA 100 compatible. It's on the spec page for the 32 and in the user guide/elsewhere on the web for the 24.

The 24 is technically not frameless, it just has a very thin top (and perhaps side) bezel.

Wow you're quite right, Google has already indexed the manual, if anyone else is looking for more details:

ftp://ftp.dell.com/Manuals/all-products/esuprt_display_projector/esuprt_Display/dell-u2414h_User's%20Guide_en-us.pdf

Too bad the panel is not a bit nicer...

Yeah, Dells have VESA mounts.

Also, I'm pretty sure the VX2370 uses LG's AH-IPS panel, I've considered them myself, but decided against them because of the non-removable stand...

Looks like you're right, according to tftcentral.co.uk, it is LG AH-IPS. I didn't know the "SuperClear IPS" refers to firmware, not hardware [1], the 27" VP-series ViewSonics use Samsung panels.

[1] http://www.tftcentral.co.uk/reviews/viewsonic_vp2770-led.htm

Looks like it'll still be fairly expensive (~$4K+) if the exchange rate conversion is to be believed[1]. FWIW, I have an ASUS 4K monitor I purchased recently, and it feels like a world apart. It's not quite retina, but the extra real estate makes all the difference. I've used multiple 27" displays side-by-side before and the effect isn't nearly as useful even though the screen area is greater.

[1] https://www.google.com/search?q=HK%2441%2C899+to+usd&ie=utf-...

What's better with retina? And are you saying multiple 27" are worse or better than 4K?

I'm saying two things:

- A 4K monitor has less DPI than a "retina" monitor, so you still see the pixels, thus it's not like someone took a 27" cinema display and doubled the pixels.

- Two 27" displays feel 'worse' to me: While it seems like dual 27" displays would be able to display more, I can't use them both horizontally because my head has to pan too much. And if I switch them to portrait, it's hard to fit two editing windows side-by-side in 1400 pixels comfortably.

So I like the 4K better than the 27" (or dual 27") setup I used before.

You could put one in landscape (code), and one in portrait (browser, email, etc). that solves some of the width issues, though it might offend one's aesthetic sensibilities. I got over that very quickly when I decided to try it.

Don't you mean portrait for code and landscape for browsing? That's how I thought people with mixed setup were using it.

Not here, web pages are virtually always a lot taller than wide. Putting them on a portrait monitor means much less scrolling.

Fair point but you also miss out on features because of responsive design. For example the sidebar on Facebook disappears when I browse it on a monitor in portrait mode.

I always imagined using dual 27" screens like that too. However, I have found that I prefer to stack a tall-ish browser window and terminal on the portrait monitor and keep 2+ panes of code on the landscape monitor.

I think you read that wrong. At the current exchange rate to the US Dollar, it's $5,404.

The ASUS PQ321Q (great product name, guys!) is offered at B&H Photo for $3,262 [1]. I'm a big fan of Dell's Ultrasharp line and have bought several over the past decade, but ASUS is winning this battle. That $2200 is almost the price of the low-end MacPro you're going to want to buy in order to drive this beast.

[1] http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=&sku=98636...

As an aside, if you're in NYC for any reason, go visit B&H in person. It's amazing.

While I hope that this will be the first 4K monitor to do 4K 60p over DisplayPort using SST I highly doubt this is the case. I was hoping the same for the Panasonic's 4K 65" LCD but no such luck.

Still waiting for the first 4K display to support 10-bit 4K 60p over DisplayPort SST and have HDMI 2.0 ports. Will have to wait until CES 2014 for more HDMI 2.0 displays.

Is the 'dirty' anti glare coating still there? The UltraSharp monitors haven't compared well against my Apple Cinema Display. I love all the inputs and stand of the UltraSharp but ultimately it boils down to how good it is for work and the coating is horrible.

The coating is in fact great. I use U3014 at work and love the that there is no glare on the screen compared to that on my MBP.

If I am going to edit photos or watch videos/movies, I wouldn't like it. But for coding it's good.

I run a U3011 primary display next to one of the cheap 2560x1440 27" displays that were being sold out of China a year or so ago for ~$350/free shipping. After calibration, the cheap Chinese display blows the image quality of the U3011 away, and the Vaseline-like antiglare treatment on the U3011 is mostly to blame.

As nice as their monitors are, I won't buy another Dell display until they ditch that ridiculous coating. The way you fix monitor glare is by not working with a bright light at your back, not by fucking up the screen.

> The way you fix monitor glare is by not working with a bright light at your back, not by fucking up the screen.

Some people live in places where they have these things called windows...

Then put the frosted glaze on the window, not on the monitor.

I like my apple screens because I can get them clean easily. I never could for plastic screens.

Really? I tried an Apple Cinema Display for a week when I did a short stint at one company and I was really annoyed by how reflective it was. Also was dumb that I couldn't set the brightness on Linux without finding a random third party program, but I guess that's what you expect with that level of integration (it would have been nice if I had a Mac, of course).

No, it's not. The '11 models were the last to use the "heavy" anti-glare coating.

With the new resolutions being pumped out on laptops, (2,880 x 1,620 for 15" Thinkpad W series) it was inevitable desktop monitors would have to catch up.

A friend of mine had a retina-quality screen on his laptop in 2003. I think it was a ThinkPad with a 2048 x 1536 screen. Of course, at the time there wasn't a concept of resolution-independent scaling, so it didn't look as nice as today's retina displays.

specs: http://www.thinkwiki.org/wiki/Category:R50p

could laptop graphics cards handle that type of resolution back then?

1600x1200 was commonplace as early as 2001 (in a Dell Inspiron 8000, I believe).

I feel obliged to mention that I have an i8k and it's still working beautifully.

Back then almost all UI rendering was software based. The graphics card just needed a large enough frame buffer.

The lack of fancy compositing and animation effects gave these high resolutions devices comparable performance to their standard resolution counterparts.

It was a lot easier back when all you cared about was the 2D performance of basic shapes (lines, circles, fills), and the animation for moving a window was just an outline.

Back when there were CRTs, people were regularly running 2048x1536 on Windows 98 era hardware.

edit for context: bsimpson's comment originally said "I think it was a Thinkpad with a 1080p monitor"

Minor niggles:

1. 1080p would have been rare in 2003, considering 16:10 was the usual widescreen format at the time[0].

2. In order for a 1080p to be "retina" (by Apple's standards, not true retina[1]), at the typical 20" viewing distance of a laptop, it would have to be only a 9" screen. I don't think they ever made a 9" Thinkpad, but I could be wrong.

More comparative info on the Retina Display wiki page[2].

[0]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Widescreen#Transition_to_widesc...

[1]: http://www.displaymate.com/iPhone_4_ShootOut.htm#Retina

[2]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retina_Display#Retina_Display_m...

I looked it up, and it was 2048 x 1536, which is retina at 20", according to isthisretina.com.

Ah nice, that must have cost a pretty penny to get that screen. I still wonder if that's not quite retina though. For better or for worse, Apple coined the phrase, and I'd tend to peg off of that to make 220ppi @ 20" the lower bound for retina-quality. Maybe 200ppi. 170ppi @ 20" is quite a step down from that.

That's 4:3, not even close to the 16:9 aspect ratio that 1080p implies... and you edited your post to take that out. Okay then!

It wasn't my laptop, so I didn't know the details. I just remembered it being around 2000px. My original reply was meant to be a "hey, so I did some research and edited the post." Sorry for any confusion.

No worries! I just put some context in my reply so that it made sense, not as a comment on your edits.

Note that this is still not even close to the pixel density on the Thinkpad you described. The 32" Dell monitor has 140DPI, 2880x1620 has 220DPI, which is a huge difference (compare today's high resolution desktop displays with a MBP's Retina display).

For my personal use, I prefer my laptop to have a higher dpi due to the distances involved. My current 15" thinkpad 1080p display is already straining my eyesight when I use it as a 2nd monitor on my desk, but is very nice when working directly on the laptop. So I'm still excited about this.

2,880 x 1,620 for 15" Thinkpad W series

I wanted to get some info on this, and found this:

http://shop.lenovo.com/us/notebooks/thinkpad/w-series/w540/

but also http://blog.laptopmag.com/lenovo-thinkpad-w540

edit: Oh shit. Looks like they're stuff a numpad on the thing.

http://www.pcper.com/news/General-Tech/Lenovo-Announces-Thin...

WTF.

I'm super worried, as I am full on addicted to ThinkPad keyboard/hardware. I used an external usb thinkpad keyboard with a work provided macbook pro, and using same usb thinkpad keyboard plugged into my actual thinkpad to type this reply. I can't live with out my trackpoint (little red dot/nipple for you non-TPers out there). I'm really worried about the direction Lenovo is heading, but so far they have been atleast semi-cautious with the T/W series thinkpads.

I've thought about doing the same. I have a trackpoint USB keyboard for my home PC, which is nice because it matches the keyboard on my laptop.

I figure that worst case if I end up with a new laptop without the trackpoint I'd just grab another Thinkpad USB keyboard and plop it over the top.

Back when "laptop" meant "can carry short distances in a shoulder bag" I work mainly on home-built desktop machines. That meant I got the screen rez I liked, the keyboard I liked, the graphics card, etc.

I keep hoping for the day when portable components are such that I can just use the CPU in my phone (or some other) with the screen and keyboard of my choice.

As it is one has to make a list of what things you can or cannot live without and see what compromises you need to accept in a laptop.

No mention of refresh rates which is somewhat of a make it break it for me, at least we are moving in the correct way though.

Yeah, I looked into it[0]:

Optimal resolution:

3840 x 2160 at 60 Hz (DP1.2*)

3840 x 2160 at 30Hz HDMI

Hmm, I think I'll stick with my $270 144hz 1080p 24" for a few more years.

[0] http://accessories.ap.dell.com/sna/productdetail.aspx?c=hk&c... (tech specs tab)

Another thing that's missing is whether the backlight is based on PWM(meaning flashing at some frequency) and what's it's PWM frequency, Because it causes some people headaches.

Funny how this landed the same day as ESR's rant about Dell UltraSharp resolution modes (different model) through various connectors.

http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=5089

At least the 3214 notes that HDMI can't drive it to full capacity. Guess the lesson is "use DisplayPort".

Not just Dell. I have two ASUS PB278Q (27", 2560x1440) and they have the same problem. It so threw me when I got the first one that I ended up having to overnight a Mini Displayport->Displayport cable from Amazon Prime to drive it. They work fine on Displayport.

Seems any high-res monitor is doing that these days--I do wish the manufacturers would be more upfront about it, but is it really worth it to threaten "15K social media followers...give Dell a public black eye about it" when the solution is a $6 cable?

That's a problem with the HDMI standard, not with the monitor specifically. The cheaper random manufacturer monitors do things like run the electronics out of spec to get away with things like higher resolution support or 120hz on IPS. Yes, just use DisplayPort, it's just better.

Anyone else notice that the bezels shown in the single-monitor view and the dual-portrait view look different?

I want that dual-portrait view (it's what I have at work but without wide-angle IPS, and given standard bezels, it's a bit limiting).

IPS + ultrathin bezel (at least one side) would make it nearly immersive.

The article is about two different models.

I think that's a picture of two U2414H monitors, which they're touting as having thin bezels, and not two UP3214Q 4K monitors.

it's two different monitors.

I'm pretty sure the single monitor picture is of the 32" monitor, the pic with 2 monitors has two 24" ones

edit: lmao, 3 other people said exactly this in the time it took me to type out the comment...

That's because those are two different displays - the large one with the uniform bezel is the 32" 4K display but the ones in dual configuration are just some new 24" Full HD (that is, 1080p not 1200p) IPS displays.

I'm really tired of IPS glow, I hope they come up with a new technology soon that doesn't have that problem.

MVA was decent but they seem to have retired that technology.

The pictures are showing different displays. The first one is a 31.5" diagonal 3840×2160 pixel display (140 ppi). The second is showing two 24" diagonal 1920×1080 pixel displays (92 ppi).

Interesting that the 24 inch is now 1920x1080 rather than 1920x1200 I guess I will be skipping the 24 inch.

Wow. It's about time - I've had a 30 inch UltraSharp since 2007 (at which time it cost $2000, and that was with 25% off), and it is the best computer-related purchase I've ever made. You'll get _so much stuff done_ on this amount of monitor real estate. It's a shame that things haven't been happening on this front in a while.

Probably won't upgrade right now, but this is warmly recommended to people who need to have many windows on-screen at once. It's better than a 2-monitor solution for most situations.

I wonder if the resolution is meant to be scaled like a retina screen (i.e. 1920x1080). I haven't used a high dpi monitor on Windows. Can anyone that has a high dpi monitor comment on this?

The elephant in the room here is that there's no good way to use this monitor. If you run in 1x mode everything is probably too small but if you run in 2x mode you have less resolution than an old and much cheaper 30" monitor.

You mean, there's no good way to use this monitor with Windows, right?

Every sane OS nowadays can be run at high resolutions. Apparently, this even applies to Windows 8, but I can't vouch for that.

So you run it in Windows 8.1 and let it pick the scaling per app. High-DPI aware apps will get the full resolution and wil will 2x scale older apps (assuming you set the scaling to 200%). See the link in my other comment.

My point is that setting scaling to 200% is a waste of money. It needs to be something like 160% which is not handled well AFAIK.

I've been using 140% dpi on a vista laptop since 2007, and it's worked just fine for everything.

1x is only too small if you're concerned with things other than visual creative work. I would love if my Photoshop menus could scale down to leave more room for the content I'm creating.

This is where OS X's hi-dpi support is so great; the UI elements in e.g. Aperture are rendered at 2x, so they are beautifully sharp, and the image is rendered at 1x.

I'd like it if I could set the UI elements to 1x actually. More space for the image while having familiar interfaces still usable.

I have an Asus PQ321Q, and use it at 1x. It's fine. It replaced two 30" monitors I had before and is so much better now that I no longer need to pan my head and the middle (where the bezels used to be) is actually useful.

So next step would be two Asus PQ321Q?

If you use a high DPI monitor you want Windows 8.1. It can scale the display independently per monitor, and they did a bunch of other work in that area.

http://blogs.windows.com/windows/b/extremewindows/archive/20...

Those look amazing! tho the price of the 4k isn't that great and the resolution on the 24' is lower than the current U2412/13m models. Just FYI , there is a batch of Dell P/U (and probably other series) that is revision A00 that have yellow tint, beware of that ! so far there are 7 revisions but Dell are shiping A00 manufactured in january - july 2013

Still a lot far from true bezel less future, not a complaint, just an observation.

http://rikacomet.blogspot.in/2013/01/the-next-screen-evoluti...

Does anyone know how much it costs to produce desktop-sized displays compared to phone-sized? I'm wondering why Dell would still make the 24" UltraSharp just 1920x1080.

They are dependent on the panel manufacturers. Quite many (if not all) of the new 32" 4K seem to be using the panel from Sharp. It could be that nobody is making high res 24" panels right now.

BTW, the price it quoted me for the 32-inch screen is HK$41,899. According to Wolphram|Alpha, that works out to in $5403.92 USD.

I have two 21" older UltraSharp monitors and I just want to say: They are amazing.

Does anyone have the ($600!) 39-inch Seiki 4K display? If so, do you like it?

i want to know this as well!

I have 2.

Beautiful picture but it's 28hz @ 4k. This causes a "lag" between the mouse and cursor that is completely unbearable for me (not a gamer, I'm talking just web browsing / email / coding), and I've pretty much stopped hooking them up. Try adjusting your display settings to sub-30hz to see what it feels like.

To be fair that is a limitation of HDMI 1.4. You'd have the same problem if you bought the ASUS PQ321Q and connected it with HDMI.

Personally, I'd never buy an HDMI anything...DisplayPort is the current standard and the future of displays.

I have had the 50 inch version for about six weeks. For programming and office work, I love it. It's basically the same as having 4 24" 1080p monitors put together- just without the bezels. I was worried that the 30hz refresh rate would really bother me, but it's not really noticeable. I'm not sure I'd want to play games on it though.

How much did that set you back? And how far away from it do you sit?

The problem with that display is that it's only 30hz. Any movement on the screen looks terrible.

Do you need massive computer power in order to run these?

Not particularly. A Macbook Pro should be able to drive one, an air couldn't though.

Which pro model are you thinking of? To my knowledge none can. Including the latest. The only 4K that can be output is via HDMI (in the late 2013 models) and that too at 30Hz. So only for TV.

The product page says that all Macbook Pro(retina)(late 2013) models have the same output which is:

Support for 1080p resolution at up to 60Hz | Support for 3840-by-2160 resolution at 30Hz | Support for 4096-by-2160 resolution at 24Hz

Gaming yes, daily computing tasks shouldn't be so hard.

Where is my $500 25600 x 16000 30" monitor :)?

UP3214Q : 41,899 $HK = 5404.01 $US

Smells like cat piss.

Probably smells like piss.

Yes, yes, but does it smell like cat piss?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com