
Dell Wasn't Joking About That 28-Inch Sub-$1000 4K Monitor; It's Only $699 - pugz
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jasonevangelho/2014/01/07/dell-wasnt-joking-about-that-28-inch-sub-1000-4k-monitor-its-only-699/
======
bhauer
Excellent. Again, a big thank you to Seiki for dropping a bomb on the display
industry, whether or not Dell acknowledges it.

3840x2160 at 28 inches is quite fantastic. A step closer to 10,000+ horizontal
pixels in a single ~50 inch display, which I consider an ideal for desktop
computing.

The burning question for me right now is who will sell me a GPU with three
DisplayPorts to drive three of these? The top-end nVidia cards provide only a
single DisplayPort [1]. I don't particularly care about 3D performance at this
resolution—at least not yet—I just want three 3840x2160 capable ports from a
single PCI Express slot. Ideally with a GTX 650 style short-length form-factor
[2]. Again, 3D is of secondary concern to me, and the GTX 650 can already
power 1x 3840x2160 (via HDMI 1.4) and 2x 2560x1600 (via DVI) without breaking
a sweat—some of my colleagues and I are doing that presently. A 3x DisplayPort
card for predominantly 2D productivity work is not unreasonable.

[1] [http://www.geforce.com/hardware/desktop-gpus/geforce-
gtx-780...](http://www.geforce.com/hardware/desktop-gpus/geforce-
gtx-780-ti/specifications)

[2] [http://www.geforce.com/hardware/desktop-gpus/geforce-
gtx-650...](http://www.geforce.com/hardware/desktop-gpus/geforce-
gtx-650ti/product-images)

~~~
bryanlarsen
If you're happy with the HDMI port driving your 4K monitor (which means you're
running at 30Hz), it seems that a GTX 660 or better will work. (AMD cards have
similar port layouts)

DP: 4K @ 60Hz

HDMI: 4K @ 30Hz

2xDVI: use dual-link DVI->HDMI adapters (which are expensive, granted)

If your monitor supports being driven by 2 HDMI cables, you can use 2 of the
HDMI ports to drive one of the monitors at 60Hz.

Of course, I haven't actually tried this.

~~~
bhauer
I am presently happy with 30 Hz—very happy in fact because the resolution is
so spectacular. However, if I owned three of these Dell monitors, I would
definitely want them to all function at 60 Hz. And I don't believe the dual-
link DVI ports on the nVidia cards will do greater than 2560x1600.

I think the only way to drive three of these Dells at 60 Hz would be a 3x
DisplayPort GPU. nVidia and AMD, are you listening? With an affinity for a
wide spectrum of GPU options, especially at nVidia, why is this not a thing?

~~~
bryanlarsen
It's probably worth testing if you can borrow a dual-link DVI->HDMI adapter,
but I would be surprised if it didn't work. Those adapters don't actually do a
full conversion; they work by telling the video card to send HDMI signals out
of the DVI pins. It's obviously physically possible, 4K@30Hz requires less
bandwidth than 2560x1600 @60Hz.

nVidia is supposed to release its next generation of cards (AKA Maxwell) in
the spring. They will likely support HDMI 2.0, which will support 4K@60hz. I'm
really surprised that the new AMD cards that came out this fall don't support
HDMI 2.0.

------
mortenjorck
Something to keep in mind is that this is effectively a Windows monitor, not a
Mac one.

The reason for this is PPI: Most Apple displays are in the 100-110 PPI range,
with Retina Display Macs doubling that to 220 PPI.

At 28", a 3840 x 2160 panel has a PPI of 157, which sits right between Retina
and non-Retina densities. This means that on a Mac, you’ll have to use it one
of two ways: Either at 1x, where the higher PPI means everything will be much
smaller than it is on a normal monitor, or at 2x, where the lower PPI means
everything will be much bigger than normal.

Windows doesn’t have anything nearly as neat and simple as OS X’s 2x mode, but
it’s had a rougher 150 PPI mode for years, which will probably look just about
right on this screen.

The best 4K monitor for Macs will be a 24”, which will have a PPI of 184, just
about right for something sitting a bit further back from the viewer than a
220 PPI Retina Macbook Pro display.

~~~
rsync
Can someone explain why this isn't just a continuous dial ?

That is, why are there discreet "steps" in monitor scaling for these elements
that you are talking about ? I would think that if I have 157 PPI or 220 PPI
or 400 PPI that I would just adjust the dial to fit the element size I want.

What's up ?

~~~
wmf
App developers cannot write code that correctly renders at an arbitrary
multiplier. It's been tried and it never works. Having 1x mode and 2x mode
does work, which is why Apple uses that approach.

~~~
ajross
Considering that every 3D game qualifies as an app that renders correctly
under arbitrary multipliers, that argument seems a little suspect.

The real answer is that there is an industry of designers accustomed to doing
per-pixel tuning of their art assets and this work is worthless if the assets
are going to be scaled anyway. Selecting integer multipliers (so far: "2")
allows those assets to continue to render as designed on retina displays.

Surely there are aesthetic reasons to prefer this in many cases, but it's not
nearly as cut and dry a point as some people tend to think. Most recent Linux
desktop themes are using vector assets, for example, with quite good results.

Whether the Mac/iOS world is a community of pixel-exact perfectionist artistes
or a bunch of dinosaurs who refuse to use modern tools is a flame war for a
different thread.

~~~
mortenjorck

      The real answer is that there is an industry of designers 
      accustomed to doing per-pixel tuning of their art assets and 
      this work is worthless if the assets are going to be scaled 
      anyway.
    

That's an effect, but not the cause – the roots of the raster-based paradigm
of modern GUIs are far more technical. I would point to the tradeoffs between
speed and memory limitations in early GUI systems: If you look at the original
Macintosh UI, you'll see a system more constrained by rendering speeds than by
RAM, and thus a high emphasis on bitmaps versus vector rendering.

Look at this Folklore.org story on the origin of the roundrect in System 1:
[http://www.folklore.org/StoryView.py?story=Round_Rects_Are_E...](http://www.folklore.org/StoryView.py?story=Round_Rects_Are_Everywhere.txt)
It was only through a combination of Jobs' perfectionism and Atkinson's
ingenuity that such a simple thing as rounded rectangles could be accomplished
on the original Macintosh; can you imagine how long it would have taken to
render a Finder window full of vector icons?

~~~
gcr
And yet Linux machines have been drawing SVG icons and SVG widgets for years.
This limitation doesn't exist any more.

Look at Display Postscript, which was created by NeXT in the late 80s and
carries through to much of Apple's Quartz rendering system today. Why are we
still limiting ourselves to pixel graphics?

------
jmillikin
Note: according to the article the monitor is actually UHDTV (3840x2160), not
4K (4096x2160). Content encoded at 4K will need to be either cropped or scaled
down, similar to 1080p content shown on a 1240x1024 monitor.

~~~
jsmthrowaway
That's not correct. The resolution you are referring to is the native running
resolution of 4K projectors in cinemas established by DCI. If you were being
legal about it, which your comment is a little bit, "actual" 4K is 4096x2560.

A "proper" 4K film shown at DCI resolution is cropped by removing lines due to
the combination of aspect ratio between film and projector. The trend in film
photography, however, is towards the DCI standard; the RED EPIC shoots at DCI
4K while its predecessor, RED ONE, shoots more lines (I cannot recall off the
top of my head, but it is definitely larger than DCI because it didn't fit in
my Media Composer DCI workspace the first time I worked with it; I'm really
reaching in long-term memory so I might be wrong about this).

All of that, however, is in the cinema world. Since NHK demonstrated 4K TV a
couple years ago, everybody in the consumer electronics world has understood
4K to mean 4x 1080p, arranged 2x2, and that is what ITU standardized in
recommendation 2020. That's intentional.

It's much easier to evolve 1080p equipment to 4K TV than cinema 4K; it's
multiplicative and most of the same equipment can be overhauled. Other
resolutions affect aspect ratio, and lenses are a significant portion of the
expense of a television camera. You're going to have a hard time selling a
standard that makes everybody buy lenses again. Don't forget that everybody
just did to go HD. (The last lens I shot on in news was $20,000 by itself,
which is part of the reason the average photog will get _really_ mad at you if
you grab it, as people who don't want to be videotaped are wont to do.)

If a consumer is buying 4K equipment, its resolution is 3840x2160. This will
also be the resolution at which 4K content targeting consumers should be
encoded, so I'm not sure what cropping you are referring to. If a DP is buying
4K equipment, its resolution is higher. This isn't marketing droids winning,
it's completely different industries having a different history of
resolutions: DCI 4K builds upon DCI 2K as 4K builds upon 2K builds upon 1080p;
cinema has always fought for 16:10 while consumer electronics stubbornly fight
for 16:9, as well.

Wikipedia doesn't help this situation by blurring the history of the two,
leading to comments such as this one. Cinema 4K and consumer 4K are not in
competition with each other, and there was never a chance of 4K content coming
out of the camera at 4096x2560 and making it to a consumer display. They're
for different purposes. It's also worth noting that ATSC v3 is still in early
stages and is not finalized, which will dictate the broadcast of OTA 4K TV
content and pull the industry accordingly.

I am aware some 4K monitors have been released to market at cinema resolution.
Those are targeted toward film editors and as monitors for shoot work. There's
also some other crazy markets; an engineer I worked with in television
installed a bunch of early 4K monitors, the ~$20k ones, in an air traffic
control tower. They like the resolution because screens get busy, he said. I
don't know if that's true, I merely remember the story.

~~~
randallsquared
"The last lens I shot on in news was $20,000 by itself, which is part of the
reason the average photog will get really mad at you if you grab it, as people
who don't want to be videotaped are wont to do."

Grabbing the lens is effective at dissuasion? Good to know.

~~~
gnu8
Just lick your thumb and put it right on the glass.

------
Jongseong
Such high resolution displays may sound like overkill for many people, but
improved resolution is a big deal to those who care about screen
typography—specifically, in layman's terms, about how fonts look on screen.

When displaying letters in small sizes, the pixel grid becomes increasingly
coarse and the result often becomes ugly and less readable. To prevent this,
"hinting" instructions need to be built into the fonts to help the type
rendering, by fitting the horizontal and vertical strokes to the pixel grid,
aligning heights, and so forth.

System fonts provided with Windows are professionally hinted, as are many
professional webfonts. On the type rendering environments on Windows, hinting
makes a huge difference.

The problem is, TrueType hinting—indispensable for TrueType fonts on
Windows—is a complex, tedious process that only a very few specialists are
able to do. I heard a few years ago that there was only one person who had the
expertise to perform TrueType hinting on hangul (Korean alphabet) fonts.

The result is that many if not most fonts are either unhinted or more or less
automatically hinted (which is recognizably below the quality of manually
hinted fonts) as many typeface designers find the prospect of TrueType hinting
daunting. Manually hinted fonts are more expensive.

If screen resolution improved so that unhinted fonts would still look good
enough, that would vastly increase the choice of fonts that we can use for the
screen. It would also free typeface designers of having to devote a
significant chunk of font development on hinting.

These types of issues are even more important for some other writing systems.
Chinese characters, for example, can be very dense with dozens of strokes
packed into a single glyph, and would be illegible at a modest size on the
screen if the resolution was not high enough.

Apple's approach to type rendering is less dependent on hinting, and it is not
a coincidence that Apple has been leading the pack on high resolution displays
as a way around the problems of rasterization.

Further reading:
[http://www.rastertragedy.com/](http://www.rastertragedy.com/)

~~~
talmand
For every designer out there that really cares about typography in their
designs that has high end monitors that are expertly calibrated, most of your
audience probably doesn't.

Also check your work on a normal monitor.

~~~
AJ007
If your audience is on a smartphone or tablet released within the past two
years, they probably are.

~~~
talmand
Well, if your entire audience happens to be on smartphones and/or tablets in
the two past years and have excellent eyesight, then sure. But those people
still probably have crappy panels on their desktop and/or laptops.

------
0x0
Does this monitor have a built-in scaler, or do you get a small picture if you
run at less than the full native resolution? I saw some earlier articles
complaining about the lack of a scaler on some of the new "4k" monitors, but I
couldn't find anything right now about this one.

~~~
byuu
It's worse than just a tiny picture: my ZR30w cannot display any source
formats not 2560x1600. So I cannot connect it to any game consoles, a Roku
box, etc. Only a PC video card.

But it does result in an astonishingly low latency, at least.

~~~
0x0
So I guess entering any kind of BIOS setup is out of the question then! :O

------
mgraczyk
I remember shopping for large format LCD panels in 2011. I equivocated for a
while between a 30" HP for around $800 and a 30" Dell, and eventually ended up
buying Dell's u3011 for around $1100. I also remember thinking how
unreasonably high the prices were for large LCD panels and hoping that they
wouldn't stay that way forever.

It was a time when my monitor cost more than my computer. I think it's safe to
say that that era has come to an end.

Now I'm just hoping that the price of good desktop speakers comes down
next....

~~~
egeozcan
I'd suggest to drop the traditional speakers altogether and start using
headphones. The industry standard Sennheiser HD650 or Audio Technica M50 will
bring more sound quality for the buck from any loudspeaker I can think of. Of
course, this is just an uneducated suggestion. Maybe you love to share your
music.

~~~
vex
I have HD 485s, but even at the loosest setting I can't wear them for more
than 30 minutes because of the way they feel on the tips of my ears.

~~~
forgotmycreds
I have tritton 720+ and they also hurt my ears after a while. It is because
they put the sliding part to low, so it minimaly adjusts the width. (probably
to maximise the ear/top of head proportion) Or I have sensitive parts near my
ears?

~~~
egeozcan
Tritton 700 series are pretty decent for gaming. However, gaming headsets
aren't designed for long term listening. Maybe you can consider getting
something like Beyerdynamics DT990 Pros as an all-round headphone for daily
use.

------
zurn
So we're finally starting to move past vertical resolution of 90's CRTs. It's
starting to look like the shift to widescreen is working out ok after all!

------
chaz
Lenovo is also launching a 28" 4K monitor this April: "Along with the
resolution, we have a 5ms response time, 72% color gamut, DisplayPort, mDP,
HDMI and MHL connectivity, three USB 3.0 ports and dual 3W speakers. Lenovo is
promoting a true 10-bit color, and streaming capabilities via other digital
devices." [http://www.anandtech.com/show/7635/lenovo-at-
ces-2014-thinkv...](http://www.anandtech.com/show/7635/lenovo-at-
ces-2014-thinkvision-pro2830m-28-inch-4k-professional-display)

------
victorhooi
Hmm, the Forbes article has been updated with specs:

UPDATE: I now have confirmation of the P2815Q’s full specs, and have listed
them below. Unfortunately, it tops out at 30Hz 3840 x 2160 and 60Hz for 1920 x
1080. This should prove a deal breaker for gamers, but the monitor still has a
solid feature set for the asking price.

Panel tech: Anti-glare TN (not IPS which was previously rumored) Connections:
DisplayPort (v 1.21)/Mini-DisplayPort, HDMI 1.4 (MHL 2.0), DispayPort out
(MST), 1 USB upstream, 4 x USB 3.02 downstream (including 1 USB charging port
with BC1.2 compliance devices on back) Color Depth: 1.073 billion colors
Viewing angle: 170 degrees Response time: 5ms Brightness: 300 cd/m2 Power
Consumption: 75W

....

That's a bit disappointing that it only does 30Hz at the full resolution (3840
x 2160)...

~~~
bhauer
Yuck. That negates the excitement I felt about this monitor this morning.

We already have a 30 Hz option (the Seiki). Let's see some forward momentum
please, Dell.

------
timr
Am I the only person for whom that many pixels in a 28" display sounds like
overkill?

Maybe I'm just getting old, but the resolution on a cinema display is more
than sufficient to make things unreasonably small. And getting _closer_ to my
desktop screen isn't really appealing either (again, maybe I'm getting old,
but to see the pixels on my current screen I have to get my nose almost right
up to the display, which I'm never going to do).

Retina displays on mobile devices are more understandable because you tend to
be closer to them, or because it's useful to render _really_ tiny text on a
small screen, sometimes. But on a desktop display? Seems like the display
version of clock-speed fetish.

~~~
jbri
> again, maybe I'm getting old, but to see the pixels on my current screen I
> have to get my nose almost right up to the display, which I'm never going to
> do

The point of going to higher and higher resolutions is that eventually, you
don't see the pixels. Pixels are an implementation detail, what you're really
wanting to see is the image they represent.

~~~
timr
Gee, thanks. All these years, and I've been looking at the pixels and not
noticing the image! You've changed my life!

 _ahem..._

Condescending explanations aside, you know that there's a limit to the human
eye's ability to resolve detail, right? We can resolve up to about 150ppi at
2ft. The Apple Cinema Display is at 109ppi. There's room for improvement, but
not 60% more...

~~~
photojosh
Yes, but when you're actually working on a hi-PPI display, you can then lean
in to view more detail, rather than zooming in. Much like we inspect things in
the real world.

As a photographer, this means a great deal. I can verify the sharpness of an
image (a key component in deciding whether to keep it or chuck it) at a
glance. Saves a lot of time.

~~~
timr
Yeah, maybe...but there's still a practical limit. In order to see the pixels
on a thunderbolt display (again, 109ppi) I have to get my face about 7 inches
away from the screen.

Closer than about 5 inches, and I lose the ability to focus because the screen
is too close -- so there's a band of about 2 inches where I can gain from a
higher pixel density than 109ppi, without losing due to eyestrain. And in any
case, I'm not going to spend much time in that zone. It's hard to work with
your nose in the screen.

YMMV, but I think I'm fairly typical. Most people dramatically overestimate
the precision of their eyes.

~~~
rayiner
You can see image degradation from pixelation long before you can make out
individual pixels. I can't really make out individual pixels on my MBA (130
ppi) at one foot, but looking at a MBP Retina at the same distance looks
dramatically better. On the MBA, the fuzziness from the heavy anti-aliasing
used to hide the pixelation is quite apparent, but on the MBP Retina pixels
look like sharp-edged solid shapes.

------
nkerkin
The article has been updated. No 60hz 4k is a deal breaker

"UPDATE: I now have confirmation of the P2815Q’s full specs, and have listed
them below. Unfortunately, it tops out at 30Hz 3840 x 2160 and 60Hz for 1920 x
1080. This should prove a deal breaker for gamers, but the monitor still has a
solid feature set for the asking price.

Panel tech: Anti-glare TN (not IPS which was previously rumored)

Connections: DisplayPort (v 1.21)/Mini-DisplayPort, HDMI 1.4 (MHL 2.0),
DispayPort out (MST), 1 USB upstream, 4 x USB 3.02 downstream (including 1 USB
charging port with BC1.2 compliance devices on back)

Color Depth: 1.073 billion colors

Viewing angle: 170 degrees

Response time: 5ms

Brightness: 300 cd/m2

Power Consumption: 75W"

------
k-mcgrady
I was just about to purchase a Dell 27" monitor (1080p) as a second screen for
my laptop. Glad I didn't as prices of UHD monitors seem to have become
reasonable REALLY fast. I know nothing about displays. Can someone explain to
me the difference between this monitor and (for example) the Sharp 4K display
that is an option with the new Mac Pro and costs several thousand $?

NB: I will be programming, working in Logic Pro, and watching YouTube. No
photo or video editing.

~~~
kayoone
Buying a 27" with 1080p resolution is a bad choice imo, my 7 year old Dell 24"
has a higher resolution than that (1920x1200). For 27" you need to go for
2560x1440 resolution or you will just waste space. 4K is even better obviously
:)

In terms of differences to the Sharp Display i guess there arent many from a
consumer point of view, but id wait for reviews and see if it has any weak
points.

~~~
josephlord
I agree; provided that your eyesight is good. I have 24" 1080P screen and
higher resolution would definitely be better but without my glasses 27" might
even be preferable.

And this is assuming the distance to the monitor is a little over an arm's
length, if the monitor is further away you would want bigger for a given
resolution.

------
granttimmerman
I have a 39in 4k monitor that I bought for $500. The only problem is that 4k
monitors through HDMI can only run at 30Hz, which is extremely noticeable.
There might be a way to run at 60Hz but I haven't got it to work yet. Here's
the monitor: [http://www.amazon.com/Seiki-Digital-SE39UY04-39-Inch-
Ultra/d...](http://www.amazon.com/Seiki-Digital-SE39UY04-39-Inch-
Ultra/dp/B00DOPGO2G)

~~~
gojomo
Curious: what's the 30Hz effect? Flickering on a static desktop? Or just less-
smooth animation?

~~~
cloudwalking
Jittery animation.

------
shimon_e
It shouldn't be long before some Korean/Chinese factory starts selling these
for half price on ebay.

~~~
seanmcdirmid
If I could buy one of these for even 6000 RMB in China I would get it in a
heartbeat. Alas, it will take a long time for that to happen.

~~~
jychang
That's $1000 USD... Can't you just get the Dell version imported?

~~~
seanmcdirmid
Try getting it through customs without paying ~$1000 customs duty.

If it can't fit in my carry on, it is very difficult to just ship to China.

~~~
1stop
Fly into Guangzhou (or train in from Hongkong).

Flying I've never had my bag even run through a scanner (8-9 times flying in)
- unless they are doing it between plane and baggage collect, in which case
they are really fast!.

Train, you run your bags through scanners, but no one seems to care (I've
bought HEAPS of electronics in from Hong Kong ($2-4k worth at different
times).

Beijing and Shanghai - I would say you are right, they seem to be a bit more
uptight there.

~~~
rahimnathwani
In Beijing, they scan bags right before you get out to meet your loved ones.
They appear to select people at random, and from my observation you have
5%-10% chance of being selected.

I'm not sure what they're looking for, though, as I've never seen them open a
bag after it went through the scanner.

I was quizzed about my road bike (which was obvious as it was packed
separately) but after I explained it was old, and 'just a normal bicycle' and
not 'for competitions', they let me through without a fuss.

~~~
seanmcdirmid
They are scanning all bags in Beijing these days, at least when coming out of
T2 customs. I'm more worried about transporting it as,baggage in the first
place. I'm just not a good yellow cow.

~~~
rahimnathwani
Add oil!

You're right, though. Definitely not worth the risk to check it in.

------
brianbreslin
Any idea how new of a macbook you would need to power this? I'm guessing my
2012 13" air can't run it right?

~~~
cbhl
Even a brand-new Macbook would be unable to power this display. All currently
sold Macbooks can only power displays up to 2560 by 1600; the Macbook Air can
power one external display at this resolution, and the Macbook Pro can power
two. (Edit: The iMac can also only power one additional display at the same
resolution.)

If you want to use a Mac with a 4K display, consider getting a Mac Pro, which
can power up to three of them.

~~~
ggreer
The MacBook Air from 2012 or later can drive two 2560x1600 displays at 60fps:
[https://twitter.com/Antagonist/status/252936243606859777/pho...](https://twitter.com/Antagonist/status/252936243606859777/photo/1)
(It only has one Thunderbolt port, but Thunderbolt displays can be chained.)

While the integrated graphics on the 2013 models can drive 4k displays at
60fps, only Thunderbolt 2 has the necessary bandwidth. The latest rMBPs have
Thunderbolt 2, so they should be fine once OS X's drivers are updated.
Everything else is stuck at 30fps.

------
BadassFractal
I can't believe we might finally start seeing some movement in the resolution
world outside of the Macbook realm. Think this will ever make it to laptops?
Dell announces the year 2025 Ubuntu Programmer Edition ;)

On an unrelated note, I have a last-gen Intel Haswell CPU with the HD4600.
There's no way I can power this, can I?

~~~
chx
It already made it to laptops: [http://www.slashgear.com/toshiba-
tecra-w50-and-satellite-p50...](http://www.slashgear.com/toshiba-
tecra-w50-and-satellite-p50t-get-4k-display-updates-07311928/) Toshiba Tecra
W50 and Satellite P50t get 4K display updates

~~~
pugz
Saying it's already made its way to laptops is a bit of a stretch - the
article you linked to said they'll be available mid-2014. This Dell monitor is
available in a couple of weeks.

------
kayoone
I wonder whats the better option for replacing my 2x 24inch Dells (total
resolution 3840x1200)

1) Get one 40 inch 4k monitor to have one giant display with about the same
DPI but more screen real estate and no bezels

2) Get two 28 inch 4K displays for super high DPI but less screen real restate
and bezels.

~~~
mseidl
Keep in mind, when the resolution the same, your screen real estate is the
same with different sized monitors. If you have a window on a 4k screen taking
up 25% of your screen, it'll take up 25% of the screen on a 28 or 40" monitor.
But it's physical measurement would be larger on the 40" screen. But you still
can't fit more things on the 40". Go for the dual 28" monitors, then you
really get 2x the screen real estate, and have the benefit of dual monitors.

~~~
kayoone
How big a window is on a certain resolution depends on the DPI scaling. Screen
real estate would be roughly the same, but everything would be much more crisp
with higher DPI.

So with 2x 4K 28inch screen the screen real estate would be about the same to
my current setup but everything would be sharp. Whereas with a single 4K
40inch screen i would get double the vertical space than my current setup and
roughly the same DPI on a single monitor. It like 4 of my current Dells melted
together into one giant monitor.

------
PhasmaFelis
If this gives me (personally) a significantly better viewing experience at
normal distance than the 1680x1050 I have now, I won't just buy it, I'll eat
it.

~~~
EpicEng
Of course, you'll have to buy another one then.

~~~
PhasmaFelis
I'll eat that one, too.

------
abstein2
Hopefully it will have a DisplayPort out like the U2713H or a Cinema Display.

The fact that the U2713HM doesn't have one makes high-res dual displays a pain
for PC laptops.

~~~
noinsight
You mean mini DisplayPort?

Because the U2713HM has a DisplayPort.

I actually have the U2713HM and in my experience DisplayPort is a pain in the
behind. I don't know if it's the monitor or the connection in general but
whichever it is, it seems to suck.

If I move my desktop an inch it will drop the signal completely, I'm not
exaggerating one bit. It seems like if I even shake the cable a bit I lose the
connection and when it does that it doesn't reconnect at all anymore, at least
on Linux, without replugging the cable. Because it's a _desktop_ I have to
crawl under the desktop to replug the connection.

At first I was using it on Intel graphics (i7 2600k) and sometimes I didn't
get video at all on boot, dmesg had messages about "DisplayPort link training
failed" or whatever. I had to reboot to get signal or replug both monitors in
specific order and play with xrandr. I also started experiencing massive GPU
hangs on Intel, don't know if it's related, but eventually I gave up and
bought a passively cooled ATI. I have the same exact problems with that. I
even bought a second DisplayPort cable, thinking that might be the problem.
Nope. I even keep getting the similar "link training failed" messages with
ATI.

The connection seems to work fine if you get it working once and treat the
cable like it's cursed and avoid touching anything ever.

Don't know if it's the monitor or the connection in general though. What I do
know is that the monitor also _buzzes_ when there's lots of text on the screen
(i.e. just open Wikipedia in a browser) which drives me insane at night if
it's silent. Googling seems to indicate it's a problem with this model. Some
"premium" display huh?

If the future of display connectors is DisplayPort I will cry myself to sleep
at night.

~~~
nwp90
I've got two U2713HM. One at work, connected to a Mac Mini (HD4000) via
displayport. The other at home using HDMI (so not up to full native res). The
only problems have been caused by the Mac Mini (and have happened no matter
what the connection being used was). We're also using it to connect a few
other large monitors to various Macs.

I don't think your problem is anything to do with displayport. In fact, I'd
recommend using it to anyone connecting a large non-Apple monitor to anything
with a miniDP or DP connector to drive it. Shame that miniDP to DP cables are
so hard to get hold of (down here in NZ, at least).

Edit: I'm running Linux, most of the others are on OS X. As I said, only
problems have been the Mac Mini's fault (happens with all connectors and
OSes).

------
ckeck
Keep in mind that this appears to be a Dell "Professional" series monitor and
not one of their UltraSharp lineups. So something somewhere has been
sacrificed in order not to be included in the US class, and it shows in the
price.

I also believe this specific monitor only does 30Hz refresh at 4K, so...that's
a big part of it.

------
rartichoke
Unless it can do at least 60hz at 4k then no one should buy this. 30hz is
ridiculously bad, even for desktop usage.

~~~
FireBeyond
Just about all of these screens, with the exception of the first gen Seiki,
can do 60Hz just fine. It's the computer, and interface, that struggle.

~~~
rartichoke
Not at 4k resolution. They all advertise themselves as 120hz, but that's only
at 1080p. Show me a 4k monitor that is using display port 1.20 that is not at
a ridiculous price.

A computer isn't going to struggle with that resolution for non-gaming usage.
A $150 graphics card can easily handle 2x 2560x1440 monitors for desktop usage
without breaking a sweat.

You're going to end up having to spend a lot more to run a single 4k monitor
too because your graphics card absolutely must have display port 1.20 or hdmi
2.0 (which isn't even out AFAIK).

------
curiousAl
I assume that it being an Ultrasharp means it will be an IPS. If so, pretty
sweet. And it might help drive down prices for the Korean 27s (1440p) monitors
on eBay, which are much easier on the eyes (especially with text) than other
panels.

~~~
chx
It's not Ultrasharp, where did you see that?

~~~
curiousAl
You're correct. I mixed up the first sentence with the next.

But it seems to be an IPS, of some sort:

"The P2815Q packs an IPS LED display will have a full 3840 x 2160 4K
resolution. It launches globally on January 23. Dell hasn’t yet discussed
things like refresh rate or range of inputs (I’m sure DisplayPort is a given),
but they do promise the same “screen performance” as the new UltraSharp 32 and
UltraSharp 24 Ultra HD monitors. That’s certainly encouraging since their
UltraSharp line is normally a cut above when it comes to professional
displays."

------
rdl
I'd have a hard time deciding on this for $699 (maybe $500 with discounts), or
the direct successor to my U2410 standard monitor, the 24" UP 2414Q. $1399
list, and probably $1k or so with discounts).

------
qwerta
I have my displays for nearly a decade, because I refused to downgrade to new
HD displays. Finally something is happening.

------
pugz
Can't wait to see their pricing in Australia. If it's under $1k, I'd like a
handful!

~~~
chris_wot
You're kidding. They'll inflate the price by 20%, just like everyone else
does. Hi Apple and Adobe!

~~~
corin_
I know nothing about Australia, but $699 plus 20% is $838.80, which is $940 in
AUD, which is under $1k.

~~~
chris_wot
Really? 1 USD is currently 1.12 AUD. How did you get that conversion?

~~~
maaku
940.00 AUD / 838.80 USD ~= 1.12

What's the problem?

~~~
corin_
(Thanks for saving me from questioning my sanity)

~~~
chris_wot
I'm an idiot.

------
be5invis
Shut up and take my money!

------
ck2
Darn it, just bought their 27 inch 2560x1440 for $600 a year ago.

------
GigabyteCoin
Who ever thought they were joking?

~~~
ColinDabritz
I think the "wasn't joking" is in reference to the "less than $1000". I think
many people assumed the usual marketing phrasing here indicated that the
display would likely run $999 or similar. $699 is dramatically less, which is
surprising to me.

------
jordan_litko
my gut reaction: god damnit.

