Early next year, sub 1000$ 28" Dell P2815Q 4K Monitor

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Atreidin

Senior member
Mar 31, 2011
464
27
86
While I agree about this generation of GPUs not being capable of 4K (even my SLI Titans can't run it well), these monitors can be ran at 1080P. It may not be ideal for 28'' or larger, but if 4K isn't running well then 1080P can be used instead.

Unfortunately the monitor will probably screw it up with crappy scaling. In an ideal world it would have a perfect 1 to 4 pixel mapping, but usually monitors suck at that and apply some bad smoothing algorithm anyway. Maybe with users wanting this feature more now, someone will actually make a monitor with sane scaling when it detects "compatible" resolutions.
 

Owls

Senior member
Feb 22, 2006
735
0
76
I'm sorry but unless this monitor comes with HDMI 2.0 so it can do 60Hz this monitor won't be good for gaming at all.
 

essential

Senior member
Aug 28, 2004
403
2
91
This may be a stupid question, but since I don't game at all I'm going to ask it anyway. Will integrated graphics (AMD 6000 and higher / Intel HD 3000 and higher) be able to push these monitors adequately for normal function (non-gaming) or is a discrete graphics card going to be required when going 4k no matter what?
 

RussianSensation

Elite Member
Sep 5, 2003
19,458
765
126
My prediction is that in 2 years, 4k will rapidly become the norm in the living room. I could be wrong, but judging on past HDTV standards I could see this being the case. Besides which, profit margins on existing 1080p HDTVs is slim to none and panel manufacturers are eager to push the next big time. 4k will be it, but it will take a couple of years to hit prime time in terms of pricing.

Your paragraph is contradictory. You say that 1080P TVs have low margins and you imply that 4K will allow the TV manufacturers to compensate for sagging profitability by raising prices and thus return to higher levels of profitability by having an incentive to push more expensive 4K TVs onto consumers. But if prices of 4K TVs are much higher, then their market adoption is going to be very slow because most consumers do not want to pay $3000+ for 60 inch 4K TVs. They will also quickly realize when viewing the TVs in the store and conversations with friends who follow tech that 4K TVs do not provide any tangible image quality increase in the living room unless you sit 5.5 feet away from a TV with 84" size or larger.

"With video on a TV, the difference between 4K/UHD and 1080p/HD resolution is really hard to see. Many of the words in those reviews were written on a laptop in my lab at a theatrically close seating distance, comparing a 65-inch 1080p and a 65-inch 4K TV. Despite all the extra pixels I knew made up the 4K TV's screen, most of the time I didn't see any difference at all, especially with HD TV shows and Blu-rays. The differences in detail I did see were limited to the very best 4K demo material. Larger TVs or closer seating distances make that difference more visible, as do computer graphics, animation, and games, but even then it's not drastic." ~ Source

Since I am not a researcher in this space, I'd rather rely on companies that specialize in predicting market trends. Your estimate of 4K being adopted widely in the living room within 2 years is far off any other estimates by professionals.

Study 1
"A new study by ABI Research, claims that ​Asia-Pacific, and China in particular, is expected to lead Ultra HD TV unit shipments, though North America will be the leader when it comes to 4K adoption and will be the first market to pass 5% adoption in 2017 and 10% at the end of 2018." ~ Nov 8, 2013 Article

Study 2
A more optimistic study by Consumer Electronics at Futuresource Consulting concludes that wide adoption won't happen until 2017:

“And although 4K—the next step in ultra-high definition video—still has a two to three year incubation period ahead, it is making its presence known and is on track to become a significant technology segment. Global 4K TV shipments will grow from just 62,000 units last year, to 780,000 in 2013 and 22 million units in 2017. The arrival of native 4K content and increased consumer awareness will help boost sales from 2015 onwards.” - See more at: http://www.tvtechnology.com/article...-rebound-on-k-in-/220403#sthash.JAoxLtat.dpuf

Even then, they are talking about wide adoption as a % of sales in 2017, not as a fraction of all TVs being 4K in the world.

With 4K TVs in the consumer space being far away from reaching mainstream segment, that leaves 4K on the PC. Even though 1440p/1600P monitors were available for a long time now, their adoption on Steam is minuscule (0.98% and 0.16%). Since the adoption of 4K HDTVs is expected to be very slow, the economies of scale won't be there to accelerate the drop in prices of 4K PC monitors quickly enough for larger sizes, while 4K on smaller-sized monitors such as 21-24" is pretty questionable until Windows scaling improves.

Then we get to the GPU side. Right now GTX780Ti SLI and R9 290X CF get their butts kicked in games like Crysis 3 and Metro LL at 4K. Playing at Medium settings, 40 fps or lower in an FPS, or dropping down to 1080p on a 4K monitor isn't logical since in that case a 1440p/1600p monitor at VH/Ultra settings would provide superior performance and IQ.

Games like Witcher 3 made specifically for the PC and next gen consoles should be even more demanding than Crysis 3. For all intents and purposes, 4K for the mainsteam the way it's intended is a pipe dream until about Volta. Maxwell GTX880 SLI might be able to handle it but not many people have $1.2K+ to drop on GPUs and $1K on a 4K monitor. I am going against your prediction and be more conservative in predicting that it'll be a while before 4K is "mainstream" on the PC too - probably around mid-2017.
 
Last edited:

OVerLoRDI

Diamond Member
Jan 22, 2006
5,490
4
81
Sweet!!!

I'll definitely be all over this. I can get some killer discounts on Dell equipment, so this will be high on my list :)

60hz is a bit meh, but I doubt we will see 4k at anything above that for quite some time.
 

bystander36

Diamond Member
Apr 1, 2013
5,154
132
106
I'm sorry but unless this monitor comes with HDMI 2.0 so it can do 60Hz this monitor won't be good for gaming at all.

Since it is being called a monitor, it likely will be 60hz. There are a few different ways this is done now on existing 4k 60hz monitors. DP can be used, but some of these monitors are actually 2 monitors in one. They utilize 2D surround or Eyefinity to realize the 4K resolution, which two connections to the monitor.
 

ShintaiDK

Lifer
Apr 22, 2012
20,378
145
106
I'm sorry but unless this monitor comes with HDMI 2.0 so it can do 60Hz this monitor won't be good for gaming at all.

Just use DisplayPort.

Optimal resolution:
3840 x 2160 at 60 Hz (DP1.2)
3840 x 2160 at 30 Hz HDMI
 

Piotrsama

Senior member
Feb 7, 2010
357
0
76
Don't you fell that maybe 28" is a bit small for such a high resolution? (just wondering, never used a 4K)
 

Slomo4shO

Senior member
Nov 17, 2008
586
0
71
Here is hoping I can replace my 3 1080P displays with 3 4k displays by the end of next year or early 2015 :)
 

birthdaymonkey

Golden Member
Oct 4, 2010
1,176
3
81
This sounds cool, but we really need a better connector solution than the one DP is currently providing by simulating two smaller daisy-chained displays. Until this happens, 4k at 60Hz isn't really ready for prime time.

DP is buggy enough at current HD resolutions (e.g. the abundance of non-compliant cables and sleep problems). I'm sure DP 1.2 MST will be a nightmare. Just read any reviews of the Asus 4K panel to see how immature this technology is (supported differently by AMD/nvidia, etc.).
 
Jul 26, 2006
143
2
81
"With video on a TV, the difference between 4K/UHD and 1080p/HD resolution is really hard to see. Many of the words in those reviews were written on a laptop in my lab at a theatrically close seating distance, comparing a 65-inch 1080p and a 65-inch 4K TV. Despite all the extra pixels I knew made up the 4K TV's screen, most of the time I didn't see any difference at all, especially with HD TV shows and Blu-rays. The differences in detail I did see were limited to the very best 4K demo material. Larger TVs or closer seating distances make that difference more visible, as do computer graphics, animation, and games, but even then it's not drastic." ~ Source

I have a 4k 37" seiki, and I can tell you its very easy to see the difference (both in test videos, games, programming, and browsing). The 30hz is the only reason its not being used as my main monitor.


Games like Witcher 3 made specifically for the PC and next gen consoles should be even more demanding than Crysis 3. For all intents and purposes, 4K for the mainsteam the way it's intended is a pipe dream until about Volta. Maxwell GTX880 SLI might be able to handle it but not many people have $1.2K+ to drop on GPUs and $1K on a 4K monitor. I am going against your prediction and be more conservative in predicting that it'll be a while before 4K is "mainstream" on the PC too - probably around mid-2017.

Yes many new games wont be playable on high settings and/or with AA. But you need a lot less AA at that resolution. You can also crank the settings down. On top of that, there are many older games that can easily substain 60hz at 4k at relatively high settings. And of course, as a last case scenario you can go to 1080p temporary for a specific game.
 

ViRGE

Elite Member, Moderator Emeritus
Oct 9, 1999
31,516
167
106
I dont know. Its either what the 32" uses or what the 24" uses. I guess the most likely points to the lowest of the two.
Actually it'll be neither. It's not a U series monitor, which means it's likely not even going to be IPS/IGZO. A non-U monitor will generally be TN, or maybe VA.
 
Last edited:

Enigmoid

Platinum Member
Sep 27, 2012
2,907
31
91
Your paragraph is contradictory. You say that 1080P TVs have low margins and you imply that 4K will allow the TV manufacturers to compensate for sagging profitability by raising prices and thus return to higher levels of profitability by having an incentive to push more expensive 4K TVs onto consumers. But if prices of 4K TVs are much higher, then their market adoption is going to be very slow because most consumers do not want to pay $3000+ for 60 inch 4K TVs. They will also quickly realize when viewing the TVs in the store and conversations with friends who follow tech that 4K TVs do not provide any tangible image quality increase in the living room unless you sit 5.5 feet away from a TV with 84" size or larger.

"With video on a TV, the difference between 4K/UHD and 1080p/HD resolution is really hard to see. Many of the words in those reviews were written on a laptop in my lab at a theatrically close seating distance, comparing a 65-inch 1080p and a 65-inch 4K TV. Despite all the extra pixels I knew made up the 4K TV's screen, most of the time I didn't see any difference at all, especially with HD TV shows and Blu-rays. The differences in detail I did see were limited to the very best 4K demo material. Larger TVs or closer seating distances make that difference more visible, as do computer graphics, animation, and games, but even then it's not drastic." ~ Source

Might be due to the fact that 1080p content is being viewed on the 4K display..... :D

The guy pretty much says that you only see a difference with good quality 4K content. Which is exactly what you would expect. Pixel scaling is going to be perfect and the view-able pixel density using 1080p blu-ray content is going to be identical due to the 4:1 pixel scaling. Dots of colour are exactly the same size so no difference is seen.

Obviously you need pretty good quality content to fully use a 4K display and in my opinion 4K will only become popular when 4K content becomes popular, which given the significantly higher bandwidth costs may take some time.
 

blackened23

Diamond Member
Jul 26, 2011
8,548
2
0
The 32" is an IGZO panel while the others are not correct?

The 28" model is likely going to be AMVA. Just to be clear: IZGO is more or less similar to IPS and has all of the same shortcomings (poor contrast ratio) while VA panels have traditionally had poor viewing angles but outstanding contrast ratios and better motion fluidity.

AMVA improves over VA by supporting higher than 1080p (up to 4k), fixes the viewing angles as to make it similar to IPS in terms of viewing angles, and has significantly better contrast ratios than IPS or IZGO.

Being that the 28 inch model is a P series, i'd expect it to be an AMVA 4k panel - and i'd much rather have an AMVA over an IPS or IZGO for the improved contrast ratios (and like I said, AMVA is more or less similar to IPS by other metrics such as viewing angles)
 

paul878

Senior member
Jul 31, 2010
874
1
0
I hope Dell work out there Q/C problems before they release these monitor, currently there are just too many complains about their monitors.
 

paperwastage

Golden Member
May 25, 2010
1,848
2
76
This may be a stupid question, but since I don't game at all I'm going to ask it anyway. Will integrated graphics (AMD 6000 and higher / Intel HD 3000 and higher) be able to push these monitors adequately for normal function (non-gaming) or is a discrete graphics card going to be required when going 4k no matter what?

(for intel HD graphics)

http://software.intel.com/en-us/articles/quick-reference-guide-to-intel-processor-graphics/

4th generation Intel® Core™ processor family (Intel® Iris™ Pro Graphics 5200 / Intel® Iris™ Graphics 5100, Intel® HD Graphics 5000 / 4600 / 4400 / 4200)
DisplayPort* 1.2 / eDP*
H-Processors: 3840 x 2160@60Hz
(Ultra-HD)
U-Processors: 3200 x 2000
@60 Hz, 3840x2160@30Hz
Y-Processors: 2560 x 1600
@ 60 Hz
HDMI* 4096 x 2304, 3840x2160 @ 24Hz / 24bpp
DVI 1920 x 1200 @ 60Hz
looks like you NEED a 4th gen Intel Core H-series processor (BGA only) with displayport 1.2 for max res @ 60hz. (3rd gen only goes up to 2560x1600)

the motherboard / gpu output must also support the outputs (eg, some of the current 4th gen laptops have cpus that support HDMI 1.4 with resolutions >1080p, but the laptop manufacturer limits it to 1080p
 
Last edited:

24601

Golden Member
Jun 10, 2007
1,683
39
86
This sounds cool, but we really need a better connector solution than the one DP is currently providing by simulating two smaller daisy-chained displays. Until this happens, 4k at 60Hz isn't really ready for prime time.

DP is buggy enough at current HD resolutions (e.g. the abundance of non-compliant cables and sleep problems). I'm sure DP 1.2 MST will be a nightmare. Just read any reviews of the Asus 4K panel to see how immature this technology is (supported differently by AMD/nvidia, etc.).

This

Plus the lack of connection standard bandwidth for 120hz+ makes this not really an upgrade for me.

The choices are still QNIX 1440p@120hz or G-Sync 1080p@144hz for gaming purposes.

Hopefully we get 4k@120hz displays with 2 DP1.2 ports on them or something. Idk.
 
Last edited:

DestruyaUR

Senior member
Jan 23, 2002
869
0
0
Yup, and some people were calling the focus on 4k in reviews/etc worthless, because the displays are not affordable and won't be for YEARS

Even if the displays get down to $500 in cost, if you need twin $600+ GPUs to adequately feed them for games, it's still not a bargain. It's like buying a sports car without an engine or tires - it still might be pretty to look at, but it's not going anywhere.

It's for this reason that Sony, despite their success with the PS4, gets very tight-lipped when people ask about "4K support" for the PS4. They just shrug, smile, and say "anything's possible" while knowing that it probably won't be until the PS5 that 4K gaming is viable for the living room, let alone for PCs without 2/3/4-way SLIed top-end cards.
 
Last edited:

Lonyo

Lifer
Aug 10, 2002
21,938
6
81
Even if the displays get down to $500 in cost, if you need twin $600+ GPUs to adequately feed them for games, it's still not a bargain. It's like buying a sports car without an engine or tires - it still might be pretty to look at, but it's not going anywhere.

Except 4k is perfectly 4x1080p in overall pixels. Which means you can just run 1080p and should have 4:1 pixel mapping meaning nothing gets messed up. And so you can run games at a lower res if your GPU can't handle it, but also have the benefits of 4k for whatever else, or run 4k in games that it works for.
 

ShintaiDK

Lifer
Apr 22, 2012
20,378
145
106
Just a note, Dell changed the press release. The 28" is no longer an Ultrasharp.
 

ViRGE

Elite Member, Moderator Emeritus
Oct 9, 1999
31,516
167
106
Just a note, Dell changed the press release. The 28" is no longer an Ultrasharp.
There's an "I told you so" in there, but I'm a better person than that (I think).:p ;)

Anyhow, this is consistent with the model number now. I suspect blackened23's AMVA theory is going to prove to be correct.