• 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.

Jumping into 4K world. Dell P2715Q, no brainer at 520 bucks.

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Not sure what the point is really.

Almost sounds like another poster on the forums that I won't name that sounded proud that he was still using dial up after 2000.

There's a small difference here, "HD" and HDMI were both large steps backwards compared to previous technology. It's only now that we have finally matched (and in some cases surpassed) CRT's in resolution, color, and refresh rates. And yet HDMI is not capable of handling these things.

It's just an interesting observation...and there's no point really. I wouldn't say I'm proud of the fact either, I've simply never made enough money to warrant purchases like HDTV's. If and when I ever do, it seems like HDMI will no longer be a thing. DP and Super MHL / USB3 are superior.
 
I think you got that math backwards, .16 PPI would be a huge pixel. 6.25 square inches. :biggrin:

I meant a .16 pixel pitch. Mine is .213 and it is pushing it as a 1440p @ 25 inches. 28" 4K is listed as .16, so this would likely be .15.

I know NASA just discovered some odd space objects in the outer rim of our galaxy, so now we have proof here on earth as well advanced beings are living here with us 😀
 
What planet are you from and what type of life form are you to be able to read .16 ppi without eyestrain?

If anything I have damaged vision from 6 years of industrial laser use.
I'm just as astounded how blind the rest of you seem to be. 120-130 PPI is like totally standard text size (i.e. readable by most). I'm comparing my ~19.5" viewable at 1920x1440 and 2048x1536 (from 24-28" away) to a variety of printed items (receipts, instruction manuals, product packaging, books). Some of the printed stuff is extra large, but the average seems to be about 120PPI in size.

140-160PPI isn't crazy at all, I've got a 15.6" 1080 laptop at 100% and also a "4k" P2715Q at 100% scaling to compare with. Interestingly the laptop on my lap also sits about 24-28" away (had the 27" same distance). I'll admit, the 160PPI is a tad small, but not to the point of straining. I think the 140PPI of the laptop is a good spot. I'm sure once you hit 180-200 PPI (22-24" "4k") 125% scaling would be useful.
 
If anything I have damaged vision from 6 years of industrial laser use.
I'm just as astounded how blind the rest of you seem to be. 120-130 PPI is like totally standard text size (i.e. readable by most). I'm comparing my ~19.5" viewable at 1920x1440 and 2048x1536 (from 24-28" away) to a variety of printed items (receipts, instruction manuals, product packaging, books). Some of the printed stuff is extra large, but the average seems to be about 120PPI in size.

140-160PPI isn't crazy at all, I've got a 15.6" 1080 laptop at 100% and also a "4k" P2715Q at 100% scaling to compare with. Interestingly the laptop on my lap also sits about 24-28" away (had the 27" same distance). I'll admit, the 160PPI is a tad small, but not to the point of straining. I think the 140PPI of the laptop is a good spot. I'm sure once you hit 180-200 PPI (22-24" "4k") 125% scaling would be useful.

Part of the issue for me is, I think, that I am in a transition phase from a .268 pp from a 1080p screen @ 23". I can certainly read the text at regular scaling on this monitor just fine (117)...but it is indeed small and is requiring some transition time to get used to. It is amazing how crisp it is, but it is still smaller than I am used to. For close to 8 years I've either been at 22" or 23" 1080p.
 
Part of the issue for me is, I think, that I am in a transition phase from a .268 pp from a 1080p screen @ 23". I can certainly read the text at regular scaling on this monitor just fine (117)...but it is indeed small and is requiring some transition time to get used to. It is amazing how crisp it is, but it is still smaller than I am used to. For close to 8 years I've either been at 22" or 23" 1080p.

I've had this CRT since I had Win98 SE, it was very apparent that LCDs were a huge step back. Each year promises of better screens, yet the opposite was true. It was a race to the bottom and there was not one option remotely close to matching the old CRT. Only in the last few years has there been any actual progress on monitors.

Guess I can understand those who have grown up with crap LCD's aren't used to a fairly decent one, same way I grew up with a good CRT and not used to crap LCDs. I've been waiting and wishing and wanting a new monitor for a few years now, for a while I thought OLED was going to be a thing, but it's been at least half a decade now...

It's clear 4:3 will never be a thing again, and I have to accept that everything is going super wide...so if I had to upgrade now I'd probably want to go 21:9 3440x1440 (but not at 34") instead of a 16:9 3840x2160.

My "ideal" version right now would be something around 27". That would maintain roughly the same vertical height of my current screen as well as the same vertical resolution I most commonly use. I'd want a very uniform screen/back-light, since IPS glow seems to be an issue maybe a VA panel. I'd be willing to loose a bit of technical color accuracy in order to have the colors accurately displayed across the whole surface. If I could get a selectable refresh rate (why the hell do we still have "24Hz" content?) from 72Hz to say 90Hz at the top. Needs low input lag and an error free almost zero motion blur. Also, if possible, a 1:1 pixel mapping/output so I can run other aspect ratios without stretching (just black bars). Ideally with a simple menu control to move the image within the black bars (push it up/down or left/right depending on aspect ratio). And since this is a wishlist, have it work properly with both versions of adaptive sync with a bottom rage of say 30Hz. Since we always need some unrealistic goal, put the retail price under $750.
 
I've had this CRT since I had Win98 SE, it was very apparent that LCDs were a huge step back. Each year promises of better screens, yet the opposite was true. It was a race to the bottom and there was not one option remotely close to matching the old CRT. Only in the last few years has there been any actual progress on monitors.

Guess I can understand those who have grown up with crap LCD's aren't used to a fairly decent one, same way I grew up with a good CRT and not used to crap LCDs. I've been waiting and wishing and wanting a new monitor for a few years now, for a while I thought OLED was going to be a thing, but it's been at least half a decade now...

It's clear 4:3 will never be a thing again, and I have to accept that everything is going super wide...so if I had to upgrade now I'd probably want to go 21:9 3440x1440 (but not at 34") instead of a 16:9 3840x2160.

My "ideal" version right now would be something around 27". That would maintain roughly the same vertical height of my current screen as well as the same vertical resolution I most commonly use. I'd want a very uniform screen/back-light, since IPS glow seems to be an issue maybe a VA panel. I'd be willing to loose a bit of technical color accuracy in order to have the colors accurately displayed across the whole surface. If I could get a selectable refresh rate (why the hell do we still have "24Hz" content?) from 72Hz to say 90Hz at the top. Needs low input lag and an error free almost zero motion blur. Also, if possible, a 1:1 pixel mapping/output so I can run other aspect ratios without stretching (just black bars). Ideally with a simple menu control to move the image within the black bars (push it up/down or left/right depending on aspect ratio). And since this is a wishlist, have it work properly with both versions of adaptive sync with a bottom rage of say 30Hz. Since we always need some unrealistic goal, put the retail price under $750.

I don't have the patience to wait years and years for some perfect monitor. I love my CRT but the era is dead, and I've moved on. I'd rather have the best possible hardware for the task, then just sit there and wish the hardware is there. When OLED is out and more mainstream in the next 3-4 years, I'll get it for sure. I'll get OLED the second there is an OLED 65 inch freesync monitor at 4K resolution. But I know that's not coming out for a while, so I'm going to just buy what I can now.

I'm hoping by holiday season I'll see my monitor in stock on Amazon.
 
I don't have the patience to wait years and years for some perfect monitor. I love my CRT but the era is dead, and I've moved on. I'd rather have the best possible hardware for the task, then just sit there and wish the hardware is there. *snip*

That's the thing, I've not been waiting for the perfect monitor...just one good enough to call equivalent to my CRT. And it so happens that the best possible hardware for the task has remained this CRT. Though I think LCD is now closing in.

At this point my CRT is still capable of high resolutions, good color, and high refresh rates...so there's no reason not to wait a little longer. If it dies prematurely, well then I have a dilemma to solve. Since my imaginary monitor doesn't exist I would have to choose one that does. There's a few options now I could tolerate.
 
I think that's pushing it.

OP, you using scaling on it?

I am using the default scaling windows 10 applied.

I ordered an R9 Nano for one of the desktops (Node 304 mini itx build) That one is gonna have 3 27's on it.
 
Last edited:
I just order the rest of the dell P2715Q's they dropped down to 507 bucks with free expedited shipping.

Once you go dual 4K you never go back.
 
That's the thing, I've not been waiting for the perfect monitor...just one good enough to call equivalent to my CRT. And it so happens that the best possible hardware for the task has remained this CRT. Though I think LCD is now closing in.

At this point my CRT is still capable of high resolutions, good color, and high refresh rates...so there's no reason not to wait a little longer. If it dies prematurely, well then I have a dilemma to solve. Since my imaginary monitor doesn't exist I would have to choose one that does. There's a few options now I could tolerate.


I LOVED my old Viewsonic aperture grill CRT and kept it until it (literally) caught on fire, sending me kicking and screaming into the world of "flat" panels. 🙂

I don't think I'd get another one though. It also weighed over fifty pounds.
 
Last edited:
I am in no hurry. I would not upgrade till a single gpu can handle 4k gaming at 60 fps. the deals on 4k monitors would be laughable compare to now when that happens 🙂
 
Ugg, small 4K for the loss. You need something in the 36-42 inch range to be useful without scaling fonts...
 
Unfortunately, all of the G-Sync versions are 27-28". If I go 4K, my plan would be to simply run 200% scaling on the desktop.

I can't wait for Gsync to fail. I really hope people stop purchasing Gsync. If Nvidia is forced to adopt the open standard we're so much better off.
Mostly because then I can get whatever GPU I want and a big screen monitor instead of being locked into AMD only right now.
 
I can't wait for Gsync to fail. I really hope people stop purchasing Gsync. If Nvidia is forced to adopt the open standard we're so much better off.
Mostly because then I can get whatever GPU I want and a big screen monitor instead of being locked into AMD only right now.

I agree that we would be better off if Nvidia adopted the open standard. But they haven't, so my hands are tied.
 
I really hope Intel adopts the "freesync" standard next generation with all their IGPs. If they do, I think Nvidia will have to follow suit. Even if Nvidia insists on keeping the gsync name and "qualifying" freesync monitors I'd be fine with that.

In that way, they would essentially be "premium freesync". Even if you had an AMD card, you could shop "gsync qualified" displays and be sure they worked. If you wanted to get a non qualified display on a Nvidia card you would do so "at your own risk" without official support...but Nvidia wouldn't be allowed to break these or limit them in some way or make them incompatible. They must follow the standard. They could differentiate by only "qualifying" wide range adaptive sync models, and/or a minimum level of color calibration or whatever.
 
I really hope Intel adopts the "freesync" standard next generation with all their IGPs. If they do, I think Nvidia will have to follow suit. Even if Nvidia insists on keeping the gsync name and "qualifying" freesync monitors I'd be fine with that.

In that way, they would essentially be "premium freesync". Even if you had an AMD card, you could shop "gsync qualified" displays and be sure they worked. If you wanted to get a non qualified display on a Nvidia card you would do so "at your own risk" without official support...but Nvidia wouldn't be allowed to break these or limit them in some way or make them incompatible. They must follow the standard. They could differentiate by only "qualifying" wide range adaptive sync models, and/or a minimum level of color calibration or whatever.


http://www.extremetech.com/gaming/212642-intel-will-support-freesync-standard-with-future-gpus


With their agreements ending in 2016, there doesn't seem to be much Nvidia can do to hold onto Intel.
 
I really hope Intel adopts the "freesync" standard next generation with all their IGPs. If they do, I think Nvidia will have to follow suit. Even if Nvidia insists on keeping the gsync name and "qualifying" freesync monitors I'd be fine with that.

In that way, they would essentially be "premium freesync". Even if you had an AMD card, you could shop "gsync qualified" displays and be sure they worked. If you wanted to get a non qualified display on a Nvidia card you would do so "at your own risk" without official support...but Nvidia wouldn't be allowed to break these or limit them in some way or make them incompatible. They must follow the standard. They could differentiate by only "qualifying" wide range adaptive sync models, and/or a minimum level of color calibration or whatever.
I couldn't care less if amd can use gsync panels. There are tons of freesync panels with more and more coming out. It's just a wave compared to gsync.

I'd rather be able to use nvidia gpus with freesync.
 
Back
Top