Comments Locked

60 Comments

Back to Article

  • et20 - Sunday, December 1, 2013 - link

    This is excellent news.
    As the marketing images show, it's targetted at professional users so the price will likely be very high.
  • dragonsqrrl - Sunday, December 1, 2013 - link

    A company finally has the balls to buy the panels and bring something like this to market. Dell has a long history of excellent monitors, so I have no doubts about build or image quality. My only concern is price. If Dell can price this at ~$1000 I think that would be a really compelling buy and a huge step in the right direction, but somehow I think that's just a little too optimistic. Current 10-bit 24in 1920x1200 monitors with similar color specs are already priced at ~$1000.

    But regardless, big props to Dell for doing this. This is exactly what I think most people have been wanting to see, smaller (24/27in), higher PPI, high-end desktop monitors.
  • Old_Fogie_Late_Bloomer - Sunday, December 1, 2013 - link

    Dell's own wide-gamut 1920x1200 offering is currently on sale for $380...I had a suspicion that there had to be a reason to price it so low, and this looks like it.
  • dragonsqrrl - Sunday, December 1, 2013 - link

    Not sure what monitor you're referring to. If you're talking about either the U2412M or the U2414H, neither of those use 10-bit panels. The U2413 uses a 10-bit panel, but it's currently $500 after an instant rebate (MSRP $600). Still, that's a really good deal for a wide color gamut 24in monitor, and I actually wasn't even aware of its existence.

    The 10-bit monitors from companies like EIZO and NEC are typically in the $1000+ range. We use the NEC PA241W in my program, and they look amazing. The current gen PA242W goes for ~$1000.
  • genzai - Sunday, December 1, 2013 - link

    Dell has been running a promo for the last few days (ends 12/6 I think) that takes the U2413 down to $379. I just picked one up. Check techbargains for the coupon code.
    g\
  • Old_Fogie_Late_Bloomer - Monday, December 2, 2013 - link

    What genzai said. I have the predecessor (U2410) and it's been a great monitor. The U2413 would be a steal at it's current price, but I just can't see settling for less than 2560x1440 at this point when I do finally buy (a) new screen(s).
  • dragonsqrrl - Monday, December 2, 2013 - link

    Hey that's the same monitor I have. Love it. And thanks for the info about the dell coupons, genzai/old_Fogie.
  • xerosleep - Sunday, December 1, 2013 - link

    32" is perfect for me if it was 4k. 24" is just to small even at 1080p. That is what I'm on now. It's nice but I stuck a 32" in front of me and it felt just awesome. But it was a TV and I wanted a bit higher res and quality. I'd think people doing work or games would rarely choose a 24" over a 32".
  • jeffkibuule - Sunday, December 1, 2013 - link

    24" is more ideal more people with multi-monitor setups, especially people who need a monitor to be portrait instead of landscape. Rotating a 32" monitor into portrait means you'll be actively moving your head up and down to read the entire screen.

    I'm really hoping there is a serious premium on the 32" such that the 24" version is far more affordable, much like how the 27" was pretty expensive for several years compared to a 24" 1080p monitor with a similar DPI.
  • teiglin - Sunday, December 1, 2013 - link

    I definitely agree, I am very happy with 3x24" rather than 2x30"; while I haven't tried 3x30", it seems like it might be just too much (though I guess you could just move the monitors further back and achieve a similar effect).

    Unfortunately this will probably be a seriously premium product--I'd be surprised at under $2k and could easily see it being $5k. Given both that it's an extremely high-quality display (wide viewing angles, high gamut, factory calibration) and that it will be in a class completely its own, it's unreasonable to expect them to price it very aggressively. What is heartening is that the product class exists now, so the panel costs will gradually come down and hopefully within a year or two there will be sub-$1k panels available, even if only cheap Korean knockoffs.

    I do wonder if 4k adoption will really take off in the mainstream, though. Content is still sparse at best, and even when it exists people will have no way to get it onto their TVs--internet pipes may be getting fatter but ISPs are also getting more aggressive about bandwidth caps, which leaves a new generation of optical discs I guess. Regardless, I don't see these things in the next few years, which means it's all early adopter prices. /sadface
  • scottrichardson - Monday, December 2, 2013 - link

    Why do you predict it to be so expensive? There's laptops with screens ALMOST 4K at much cheaper prices. Yes, yes I know that laptop screens != desktop accurate displays, but they are certainly not that far off. Also, at that size, we're not talking about the retina bursting resolution of some tablets, phones and laptops. Technically that should make them a little easier to manufacture, no?
  • scottrichardson - Tuesday, December 3, 2013 - link

    ... and I guess I was on the mark a little.... prices announced and the Dell 4K displays range from < $1,000 up to $3,500. Incredible breakthrough!
  • DanNeely - Monday, December 2, 2013 - link

    I'll probably be buying a 32" 4k monitor when the monitor + dual GPU package drops to the $2500-3000 range because it's the only upgrade I'm likely to see at that size for a while; but at that size I'd really rather have a 5/6k monitor instead so I could use 2:1 scaling on the desktop.
  • sleepeeg3 - Sunday, December 1, 2013 - link

    If the viewing angles are truly 178°/178° then it is an IPS display. The last 10-bit display by NEC had issues with input lag. However, it would be stupid to buy this for a gaming monitor as you would have to needlessly drive those extra pixels for no apparent gain.
  • Visual - Monday, December 2, 2013 - link

    Oh, If a multiboxer gets this and tiles 9 720p instances of a game on it, I'm sure they will disagree with your "no apparent gain" claim ;-)
  • Edkiefer - Sunday, December 1, 2013 - link

    I just wish there were more 2556x1440 Dell monitors in the 24-30" range .
    This would be nice but I bet with its target market it will be around 1500-2000$ range .
  • SodaAnt - Sunday, December 1, 2013 - link

    So merely 12 years after the IBM T220 was released do we finally get even close to comparable PPI on a monitor.
  • zogus - Sunday, December 1, 2013 - link

    Well, yes, but the T220 retailed for something like $30,000, required a huge custom video card, and still limped along with a refresh rate of only 41Hz. This Dell monitor, if it is for real, is going to be actually affordable and usable with ordinary computers.
  • damianrobertjones - Sunday, December 1, 2013 - link

    " From my perspective (and a few others), 32” is just too large for a desktop monitor" - There are millions than will disagree with you and I'm thankful that people have different opinions or do like something before Apple states that it's cool
  • darwinosx - Sunday, December 1, 2013 - link

    Oh grow up...
  • Crisium - Sunday, December 1, 2013 - link

    I think 27" is the sweet spot, so it's nice to see monitors on both sides of that target. It means we will see 27" in time.

    2160 available between 24-31.5" gives a lot of flexibility. You have a big desk and sit faraway, get a 31.5". You have a small desk, sit close, or simply value PPI over anything else, get a 24". And get the 27" for the balanced approach. Assuming we get 27", in time.

    Also, what's with everyone falling for marketing? 32-inch displays are like fairy dust. Do you actually think they exist? Please, call them 31.5". Lest we call 21.5" displays 22" all of a sudden. They advertise 31.5" TVs as 32" too the masses. We are enthusiasts, lets act like it and be accurate in our discussions.
  • r3loaded - Sunday, December 1, 2013 - link

    24 inches would be perfect. You can simply scale everything to 200% and it'll look perfectly right. Plus I won't have the awkward situation where a 13-inch rMBP has a higher resolution than my 22-inch desktop monitor.
  • Mr Majestyk - Sunday, December 1, 2013 - link

    I'm not sure I'd feel the need to get a 24" monitor with this resolution. I'd much prefer 2560 x 1600 in a 24" monitor, but for 27" definitely want 4K for sure. We are seeing 13.3" laptops with 2880 x 1800 and 3200 x 1800 and it'd be nice to see these resolutions filter into the 21-27" monitor size as well.

    I can't see this 24" 4K monitor coming in under $1500 at this stage, however. I'll be in no rush to upgrade even though for my photo work 4K would be perfect, I'm not paying more than $1K for 27" monitors and also I'll wait until GPU's can do 4K hardware acceleration etc
  • peterfares - Sunday, December 1, 2013 - link

    The reason UHD is nice for 24" is because you can run it at 200% scaling. Older DPI-unaware programs won't look bad because they're being scaled by a factor of 2 in each direction. A 2560x1600 24" monitor would need 150% scaling or so, making older programs look bad because they're being scaled by 1.5.
  • darckhart - Sunday, December 1, 2013 - link

    I believe the spec listed on the dell leak says it's going to be an AH-IPS panel. can't find the link at the moment.
  • Geekzilla - Sunday, December 1, 2013 - link

    I'm disappointed that this is 16:9. 16:10 is superior for productivity.
  • Sancus - Sunday, December 1, 2013 - link

    32" is a good size for a 4k desktop monitor because applications are still easily readable at normal viewing distance without scaling tricks. Given that OS-level scaling is still a complete disaster on Windows, this is a pretty big barrier to adoption for super high dpi monitors on platforms other than OSX.
  • peterfares - Sunday, December 1, 2013 - link

    LOL when was the last time you used Windows scaling? XP? Windows supports scaling fine. Many third party programs don't, but Windows does. And a UHD 24" would run at 200% so programs that don't support scaling can just be stretched to 200% and not look like crap.
  • Sancus - Sunday, December 1, 2013 - link

    Last time I used it was in Windows 8.1, where it's still completely broken with many apps. "Many third party programs" such as Skype don't scale at all regardless of your settings.
  • madmilk - Monday, December 2, 2013 - link

    It's still pretty broken as of 8.1 in desktop mode, especially with multiple monitors of different PPI. Even built-in programs function extremely poorly there, with strange rescaling and mismatched sizes on things like wallpapers and the desktop toolbar. Scaling options are also extremely limited with multiple monitors, since for some reason Microsoft decided to provide only one global setting for scaling, which is then multiplied by a preset factor for each monitor derived from its PPI. Might be nice in theory, but using the equivalent of 1440x900 on a 15.4" rMBP screen is a huge waste of pixels. I can't turn down the global scaling factor, since then everything on my regular 96PPI desktop screen becomes smaller and therefore blurry.
  • YoshoMasaki - Monday, December 2, 2013 - link

    I am on 8.1 with 2 monitors and per-display DPI scaling is working as noted in this blog post: http://blogs.windows.com/windows/b/extremewindows/... Is there something I'm missing here?
  • Penti - Monday, December 2, 2013 - link

    Depends on which monitor/res you use as your primary display, the results that is. It's one global setting that will be rescaled not scale independently on the second monitor. If you use 150% on the primary and 200% (or 100%) on the secondary, then the secondary is actually just DWM/bitmap scaling of the 150%. It will not look as good as it should. If you would run the 96 dpi screen as primary then the 100% would be scaled to 200%, thus effectively not utilize the built in scaling.
  • BradMacPro - Sunday, December 1, 2013 - link

    Has everybody forgotten that most systems and video cards don't support 4K resolution. A $1700 workstation PCIe card does and the future Mac Pro will support it. And for the matter, I have a Apple 30" and would gladly upgrade to a 32" UHD 4K display except currently it's $3000 for a display and $1700 for a video card. I can juggle the space which also includes a NEC 24" display to even support a 37" UHD display.
  • Sancus - Sunday, December 1, 2013 - link

    All modern video cards support 4k resolution, including everything from at least the past two generations of AMD and Nvidia.
  • dragonsqrrl - Sunday, December 1, 2013 - link

    You don't need a Quadro or Firepro. Any GTX600 series or later card supports 4K output through displayport, the same goes for HD7000 series or later. Even Intel's integrated graphics has supported 4K output since the HD4000.
  • TinHat - Monday, December 2, 2013 - link

    Just cause they can show 4k resolutions doesn't mean they can handle it very well. Only the newer graphic cards have 4k enabled hardware. Bet even PacMan looks slow on software driven cards at 60Hz. Lol
  • dragonsqrrl - Monday, December 2, 2013 - link

    The first sentence makes it almost sound like you know what you're talking about, even though it has nothing to do with the comment I responded to. It's true that simply because a card supports 4K output doesn't necessarily mean it can run games well at that resolution. In fact you could say the same about any card ever made with respect to the max resolution it supports. Of course this exercise in trivia is completely irrelevant within the context of the comment from BradMacPro, which simply claimed that you needed a Pro workstation card in order to "support" 4K resolutions.

    But then your next two sentences made me realize that none of that is what you actually meant. In fact I'm not even sure what the hell you're talking about. "software driven cards"? Are you suggesting that previous gen cards didn't support hardware acceleration at 4K resolutions? And that only "newer" 700 series cards support that feature? I think you might have some sort of profound misconception about how this all works, and all I can do is reassure you that this isn't the case. Any card from the last two generations supports 4K output in hardware.
  • abrowne1993 - Sunday, December 1, 2013 - link

    So why is it called a "leak" if it's coming from Dell?
  • IanCutress - Monday, December 2, 2013 - link

    It didn't come via PR, and can only be found through their Belize website - not any others. So someone must have hit go on a page that should still be hidden until an announcement.
  • RussianSensation - Monday, December 2, 2013 - link

    I've been running a 37 inch 1080P monitor for games and it's been very good, but I'd like to upgrade to a 32-37 inch 4K at some point. $3,500 asking price is just too steep. The Asus and Dell monitors are also ugly and cheaply built for such a high asking price. If you are going to ask that much, it better look sexy such as the Samsung LEDs or flagship Panasonic Plasmas.

    4K on a 24 inch monitor hardly makes sense as even 2560x1440 is already sufficient. In that case, you are simply wasting GPU horsepower. You need a bigger monitor to really take advantage of the extra details 4K offers.
  • dragonsqrrl - Monday, December 2, 2013 - link

    "The Asus and Dell monitors are also ugly and cheaply built for such a high asking price. If you are going to ask that much, it better look sexy such as the Samsung LEDs or flagship Panasonic Plasmas."

    ... I think you should wait a little while. It doesn't sound like this type of monitor is targeted at you.
  • darkfalz - Monday, December 2, 2013 - link

    Wouldn't buy a monitor without G-Sync after that was announced. It's a game changer.
  • Lonyo - Monday, December 2, 2013 - link

    You won't really need GSync on a 4k monitor, unless you're using tri-SLI cards.
  • DesktopMan - Monday, December 2, 2013 - link

    You'd need GSync even more on a 4K monitor, because you'd have more problems hitting high frame rates. Especially with slower cards.
  • qwertybirdy - Monday, December 2, 2013 - link

    Correct.
  • dragonsqrrl - Monday, December 2, 2013 - link

    ...what?
  • flyingpants1 - Saturday, December 7, 2013 - link

    You mean a 4k 120hz G-Sync IPS display with Lightboost, right?
  • MatthiasP - Monday, December 2, 2013 - link

    A desktop monitor with 180 PPI, my dreams have come true! Now to wait a year or two until they are down to a reasonable price.
  • rmm - Monday, December 2, 2013 - link

    or just buy a 39' 600 USD 4kLCD TV only runs at 30Hz but fine for work, I run one off my T440s laptop at work with a DP to HDMI adapter

    when they support 60Hz for that price I'll just buy another one
  • DParadoxx - Monday, December 2, 2013 - link

    32" is too large? What is wrong with you? I can't wait for something larger than my 30s.
  • rwei - Monday, December 2, 2013 - link

    First reaction: buyer's remorse over buying the Dell 2713HM (1440p, 27")
    Second reaction: my existing machine can barely drive that for something like PS Lightroom, forget games - 4K would put it to its knees

    Seems like it's going to be a while before 4K becomes workable for the mainstream.
  • Drumsticks - Monday, December 2, 2013 - link

    Dell has the twenty four inch priced at ONLY $1399 according to engadget. This is pretty nice for 4k! Also, the 32 inch comes in at $3499.

    http://www.engadget.com/2013/12/02/dell-ultrasharp...
  • colonelclaw - Monday, December 2, 2013 - link

    From Dell's product page http://dcse.dell.com/us/en/gen/peripherals/dell-up...

    Optimal resolution:
    3840 x 21601 at 60 Hz (DP1.2*)

    60Hz, nice! The forthcoming 28" sounds terrific
  • haukionkannel - Monday, December 2, 2013 - link

    Indeed! 24" version is very good for those poor bastards (like me) who has to read a lot of text from monitor. 4K will make the text so much sharper, so it will be much easier to read it! I find it out when i first get a change to compare normal and retina iPad. The retina version was much better for reading the text! Pity that ppi will be just 185..... but we have to wait for 8k until it gets better... For the while 186 ppi will do just fine.
    And yeas 4K is in most cases bad idea for gaming, but upscaled 1080p is just ok, and full 4k is must when workinng with these monitors.
    I allso find out the 28" version most interesting. Hopefully by them we have real 60Hz without any "two screen" operationt with drivers.
  • ExarKun333 - Monday, December 2, 2013 - link

    Still wondering why the author says a 32inch monitor is 'too big for a desktop monitor'. That is totally wrong. For those of us who need multiple monitors to review/display documents and/or specs, this would be GREAT. A 32-36'' 4k monitor would be a great to replace most 3x24 or 3x22 setups folks are using today.
  • rmm - Tuesday, December 3, 2013 - link

    I still dont understand why anyone would buy one of these for these prices when you can get a 39' 4k LCD TV for 600 bucks, I dont see the market, the LCD also has local dimming, supports 120Hz at 1080p and great color. Who is going to spend like 4 times the money for a smaller screen?

    How can these manufacturers justify these 3-4k prices for a computer monitor?
  • cjl - Thursday, December 5, 2013 - link

    In part, because any 4k LCD that you can get for $600 is definitely not going to have "great color".
  • purerice - Friday, December 6, 2013 - link

    Where is this magical $600 4k that you speak of?
    Generally PC monitors are designed to have better refresh rates, color accuracy, and overall higher quality than televisions. If the hue of a 39" TV varies by 10-20 degrees from corner to corner we may not notice but if the hue of a 24-32" monitor varies by 10-20 degrees the entire production could be off.
    Some time in 2015...
    "Hey, is it just me or does Shrek 6 look a little pink?"
    "Oh he is but don't worry, the artists saved money by using $600 4k TVs instead of $3500 4k screens."
  • CalaverasGrande - Monday, December 23, 2013 - link

    I hate to rain on the parade, but this thing is an eyesore.
    The old triangle base Dell monitors are actually a kind of decent industrial design in comparison. This is just ugly. I would expect an UHD monitor that cost quite a bit more than lower res monitors in the same size to look the part. This looks like a cheap no-name.
    I'm not just talking about the base either. The silver/black thing is very early 2000's.
    It literally reminds me of several things we tossed in our year end ewaste pile today!

    I was wishing the Dell would slam dunk a great companion for the new Mac Pro, but I guess I'll be getting an Asus, LG or Samsung.
  • derekk - Saturday, January 18, 2014 - link

    Anyone looked at the TCL LE50UHDE5691 50-Inch 4K TV for $699.99 on Amazon?
    Or the Seiki SE39UY04 39-Inch for $499?

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now