• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Dell Ultrasharp 4K monitor

Just need 3 Titans to drive that now lol

Single GPU gaming on 4K is probably a good 5 years away even on a $1000 GPU budget.
 
Thank goodness for this. After seeing the results on another website's review using the Asus 4K panel I decided to wait on picking up the PQ321 for HW-E and 20nm cards. They were getting some really crap frames even with 3 Titans in Battlefield 3.

Would much rather have a Dell than an Asus considering the price point. Also Anandtech's review of the PQ321 found some poor colour reproduction. Unacceptable for a $3.5K monitor.
 
AdamK47 said:
What does this monitor do that the Asus does not? Where are you seeing the specs on this monitor?
Click to expand...
Given the gamut they're clearly using a different backlighting system than the Asus. The Asus is an edge lit sRGB monitor, whereas this is some yet to be determined lighting system (probably backlit) capable of driving a wide gamut. It's likely some of the controllers are different too, but again we don't know enough.

At first glance the only thing identical to the Asus is the panel itself. Everything else has potentially been changed.
 
This display should be more expensive than Asus' forthcoming 39" panel w/displayport. I'll probably wait for that one.
 
Wag said:
This display should be more expensive than Asus' forthcoming 39" panel w/displayport. I'll probably wait for that one.
Click to expand...

It definitely will be. The 31-32" 4K monitors are using the IGZO panel from Sharp which costs quite a bit. The larger 4K screens are using different panels which are a lot more affordable. I think the 39" Asus 4K will be sub $2K, possibly around $1K.
 
AdamK47 said:
What does this monitor do that the Asus does not? Where are you seeing the specs on this monitor?
Click to expand...

Assuming the specs stay the same, I'd imagine this one would be better calibrated and have a better warranty.

Thats just an assumption of course.
 
Last edited:
Dell screens really aren't that expensive. They're expensive at release BUT they tend to auto adjust to the market very quickly. In fact, the high end U3014 is selling for under 1,000$ USD now. It debuted at 1500$+.

I expect the same with this 4k screen. It will be expensive, initially, but it will drop in price rapidly over the course of 6 months - electronics tend to get cheaper to produce over time, and the price will reflect that.
 
After seeing Dell's U3014 monitor I'm not trusting of Dell's quality these days. My thought is to give these 4K monitors a couple of years to mature and let everyone else get their versions out as well before jumping up to these new LCDs. It will also give AMD and nVidia time to boost GPU performance to run them. By then many of the kinks should be worked out.
 
It's a little big for me.

Hopefully though we start seeing these PPIs coming to smaller screens. Same pixel density on a 24" screen would be around 2800x1620.. I'd love something like that... though I predict people will get more caught up in something being "4k" than on a particular PPI.
 
Now a 4k display would be sweet for my future first desktop build. Render out some fine images, and be able to actually make the extra render time worthwhile.
 
Is this 30Hz like the Asus or 60Hz?

Also, 5 years for single card playability is ludicrous, 2 generations and we'll be there for all but the most demanding games.
 
120hz makes a big difference in smoothness in games or just in general use (and in the future in video), and is part of the UHD spec. There's plenty of 1080p monitors out now with 120hz, so why would I pay a huge premium for a brand new 4K monitor that does not support it? It just seems extremely counter intuitive.
 
CakeMonster said:
120hz makes a big difference in smoothness in games or just in general use (and in the future in video), and is part of the UHD spec. There's plenty of 1080p monitors out now with 120hz, so why would I pay a huge premium for a brand new 4K monitor that does not support it? It just seems extremely counter intuitive.
Click to expand...

60hz to 120hz is minimal. My Korean B panels can clock to 120hz pretty easily, but I was unable to tell the difference between 60 and 120. With 1 panel at 60 and the other at 120, then it was noticeable. But not enough to justify any kind of price premium.

In this case, the extreme pixel density provides much more image quality value.

Besides, better games to run at 60fps is expensive enough at 4K, good luck getting to 120. 😛
 
Bateluer said:
Is this 30Hz like the Asus or 60Hz?

Also, 5 years for single card playability is ludicrous, 2 generations and we'll be there for all but the most demanding games.
Click to expand...

30hz is only over HDMI, it does 60 over displayport. The current HDMI standard will not do 60hz.
 
Bateluer said:
60hz to 120hz is minimal. My Korean B panels can clock to 120hz pretty easily, but I was unable to tell the difference between 60 and 120. With 1 panel at 60 and the other at 120, then it was noticeable. But not enough to justify any kind of price premium.

In this case, the extreme pixel density provides much more image quality value.

Besides, better games to run at 60fps is expensive enough at 4K, good luck getting to 120. 😛
Click to expand...

It's worth noting that at 120hz you need very good pixel response time to help you visibly see the difference, a lot of these Korean panels that "overclock" to 120hz look rubbish because the pixel response times (these are IPS?) is pretty bad.

120hz on an LED TN panel with a 1-2ms pixel response time brings back that old CRT responsiveness feel that LCDs have missed for a long time, and it's well worth the premium for gamers.

Unfortunately getting large panels like 4K running at 120hz just isn't feasible, it terms of data per second it's getting into the realm of pushing the boundries on our technology, we don't have any cable formats to do 4k@120hz to my knowledge, the data processing inside the monitor itself would be extremely expensive (features like scaling that cost more performance as refresh rate and pixel count goes up), and lastly the actual GPU to power 4k@120hz would simply be ridiculous.

4k@120hz would require 8x more GPU power than 1080p@60hz, so you're talking about rigs where you take 4x dual GPU cards to really get that kind of performance, ignoring crossfire/SLI overheads and scaling issues etc, it's just not going to happen. Maybe 3-4 Generations from now we can do it reasonably, but all these technical barriers make it extremely unattractive for manufacturers.

Don't get me wrong I have 120hz TN and love it, and have a 60hz IPS @ 2560x1600 and love that, but at this stage you pick one or the other, high res or fast refresh rate, I mix and match to get the best of both worlds.
 
PrincessFrosty said:
It's worth noting that at 120hz you need very good pixel response time to help you visibly see the difference, a lot of these Korean panels that "overclock" to 120hz look rubbish because the pixel response times (these are IPS?) is pretty bad.

120hz on an LED TN panel with a 1-2ms pixel response time brings back that old CRT responsiveness feel that LCDs have missed for a long time, and it's well worth the premium for gamers.

Unfortunately getting large panels like 4K running at 120hz just isn't feasible, it terms of data per second it's getting into the realm of pushing the boundries on our technology, we don't have any cable formats to do 4k@120hz to my knowledge, the data processing inside the monitor itself would be extremely expensive (features like scaling that cost more performance as refresh rate and pixel count goes up), and lastly the actual GPU to power 4k@120hz would simply be ridiculous.

4k@120hz would require 8x more GPU power than 1080p@60hz, so you're talking about rigs where you take 4x dual GPU cards to really get that kind of performance, ignoring crossfire/SLI overheads and scaling issues etc, it's just not going to happen. Maybe 3-4 Generations from now we can do it reasonably, but all these technical barriers make it extremely unattractive for manufacturers.

Don't get me wrong I have 120hz TN and love it, and have a 60hz IPS @ 2560x1600 and love that, but at this stage you pick one or the other, high res or fast refresh rate, I mix and match to get the best of both worlds.
Click to expand...

OLED Panels should be the best of both worlds. Resolution and response time.
 
Im a Dell employee...........so I get at least 17% off all Dell products 😀

If this has a display port I will more than likely get one.
 
I remember a thread where people discussed this being a few years down the road. Hell, it happened in a few months! Prices will come down very fast. I think we can all pretty much thank apple for this by getting everyone hooked on "retina" displays really.
I expect prices to fall very fast. Regarding gaming being better in a few years for this res, as the cards get stronger the games get more demanding, so it won't be until many users expect performance at this res that GPUs are commonly able to handle modern games at that res.
No reason we can't play every game that's like 2 years old or so though. Even modern games with settings turned down should run fine, but it will all have to mature and become more mainstream and perform better for me to be happy with a setup like this.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top