Dell 30" 120Hz 4k OLED display...

Irenicus

Member
Jul 10, 2008
94
0
0
http://www.in.techradar.com/reviews...017Q-OLED-4K-monitor/articleshow/50474839.cms

50474840.cms


Apparently it also comes with usb type c with up to 100w of power output, and a response time of .1ms


...

Well, the display wars are over, and for the low price of 5000 dollars. I wonder if it supports freesync?
 

jackstar7

Lifer
Jun 26, 2009
11,679
1,944
126
If that's possible... then an ultrawide with 1440p resolution should be cheaper, right? And 144Hz?

I do not object to curveless or curved. Whatever.

OLED for the masses... please!
 
Last edited:

the unknown

Senior member
Dec 22, 2007
374
4
81
Man that thing is pretty. Can display port 1.3 even handle the bandwidth of 4k 120hz?
 

ElFenix

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Mar 20, 2000
102,414
8,356
126
not even 5k for $5k. pass

Man that thing is pretty. Can display port 1.3 even handle the bandwidth of 4k 120hz?

4k 24 bits 120 hz = about 23.9 Gbit/sec, DP 1.3 effective is 25.9 Gbit/sec, so, yes. you couldn't do 144 hz, though.
 

Railgun

Golden Member
Mar 27, 2010
1,289
2
81
Just for some perspective, here's AT back in 2002 when a 24" 1920x1200 LCD at under $3k was an extremely hot deal: http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=802623

Though it's OLED, comparing something 14 years ago is a bit apples and oranges. The refresh rate is irrelevant. We know a panel can be driven that way and OLED is inherently that fast.

While I'm all about this, a 65" 4K OLED tv with lots more tech is the same price. This should be 2k cheaper at the very least.
 
Last edited:

3DVagabond

Lifer
Aug 10, 2009
11,951
204
106
Though it's OLED, comparing something 14 years ago is a bit apples and oranges. The refresh rate is irrelevant. We know a panel can be driven that way and OLED is inherently that fast.

While I'm all about this, a 65" 4K OLED tv with lots more tech is the same price. This should be 2k cheaper at the very least.

It's simple economy of scale. They are going to make a gazillion TV's. Makes each one a lot cheaper.
 

ShintaiDK

Lifer
Apr 22, 2012
20,378
145
106
Everything is nice until you read the price :p

Maybe for 1000$. Then I would get one.
 

EXCellR8

Diamond Member
Sep 1, 2010
3,979
839
136
True, but 5 grand for a screen that's only 30" is a little ridiculous.
 

Grooveriding

Diamond Member
Dec 25, 2008
9,107
1,260
126
If GPUs were good enough for high FPS 4K gaming I'd be in for one of these barring any QC issues. Maybe we'll get a 1440p model sometime later next year, I'd drop $2-3K on one of those.

4K with 60fps minimums on very high settings is probably going to be doable with the big die 16nm FF cards. So by the time we see those cards, early 2017 ?, this monitor should be half its launch price. I bought one of the first 4K IPS screens from Asus and it was $3000 at the time I got it, it was $1500 about 6 months later, fortunately I returned that screen :D

I think it's worth the high price for true blacks, high refresh rate, low latency and amazing PQ. I really like IPS, but having a plasma TV is a constant reminder of how bad the black levels are with IPS.
 
Last edited:

tential

Diamond Member
May 13, 2008
7,355
642
121
Add 16 inches to that display minimum, drop the price in half at least, and I'm fine with it.

This gives me hope we'll see great OLED monitors come 2018.
 

CakeMonster

Golden Member
Nov 22, 2012
1,384
482
136
Shame about no *sync on it. But I will celebrate the fact that the game is on with OLED and >60 at 4K.