7 ms·

Dell’s new UltraSharp monitor is a 6K powerhouse for pros

75 points by zdw 4y ago

kbumsik 4y ago
Very interesting. I have been using 4k 27" monitor but this makes me temping to switch to 32". But I don't like that ugly and huge webcam. I would use my own webcam on top of it. > via Mini DisplayPort 2.1 Why Mini Displayport? I haven't heard of Mini DP for years.
- andix 4y ago
  Mini-DP is still used for a lot of professional graphic cards that have a lot of outputs, because you can’t fit 4 or 8 regular sized DPs on a normal PCIe card bezel, especially if it is just half size. (https://www.techpowerup.com/review/nvidia-rtx-a2000/2.html https://www.techpowerup.com/review/nvidia-rtx-a2000/2.html) My older Dell monitors have both (mini and regular DP) and ship with a mini to regular cable. So you can use it in both directions and they don’t have to ship two cables.
raincom 4y ago
In 2001, 17' ViewSonic LCD displays were sold for $999 a piece. Even if this 6K monitor sells for $1800, it is worth the price for the people who need such a set up. In my case, I am happy with my 7 years old 4k P2715Q monitors, which I bought for $480 a piece.
fotta 4y ago
> You’ll also be able to connect to the U3224KB via Mini DisplayPort 2.1 Interesting tidbit. DP 2.0+ allows for much higher resolutions without needing DSC. The Pro Display XDR for example uses DP 1.4 with DSC to drive the 6k resolution.
kylehotchkiss 4y ago
Is it still plastic, does it make that plasticky sound when you twist or bump into it? That’s like the best thing about these expensive apple displays, no plasticky sounds. Why can’t other brands just try to do aluminum enclosures for $50-75 more?
cwkoss 4y ago
This article is just an ad
- nickthegreek 4y ago
  Ads normally do not contain these type of nuggets: >However, the company hasn't provided any color accuracy claims for the monitor yet, and that will be critical for many creatives. >But while IPS Black contrast is impressive for IPS, there are prosumer monitors delivering even greater contrast levels. >One potential disadvantage: HDR >When in HDR mode, the U3224KB's max brightness increases a tick to 600 nits, as per VESA DisplayHDR certification. That’s a bit dim for creative professionals like video editors, who will likely need DisplayHDR 1000 and beyond for effective performance. >both monitors are still expected to be subject to the flaws of LCD panels that OLED monitors avoid, such as the potential for blooming around light areas on dark content.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
ComputerGuru 4y ago
I was hopeful for all of about two seconds until I saw the aspect ratio: as I feared, it's a 16:9 display. At that size, a 16:9 display is just not very functional. It's just too wide and not tall enough. You will be constrained by the vertical height (since you need to use dpi scaling) and the extra width will, by and large, be wasted. Depending on your configured DPI, notifications or other activity to the side of the screen is effectively outside your active vision, and you'll miss things that happen there. I'm still holding on to my ZR30w for dear life, and that's only a 16:10.
- rektide 4y ago
  I had a similar first reaction. My main monitor is 28" 4k 16:9 and more vertical sounds nice. This monitor is 6144×3456, which is 1.6x more pixels in each direction (2.56x total pixels), and physically a bit bigger. So I feel like I'd get the extra real estate I want. Heck, I might be comfortable even adding some more inches to the side, making it more widescreen! However I really don't want a 60Hz monitor. Everything is much smoother at even 90Hz. That's my dealbreaker.
  - ComputerGuru 4y ago
    You might not actually get (that much) more usable real estate - it depends on how well your machine handles fractional dpi scaling. Odds are the virtual pixels will be too small at the same DPI you are using with all those extra hardware pixels but only stuffed into an extra 2" diagonal, so you'll have to increase the dpi configuration. Your current monitor has 157 ppi while this one has 220. I don't know what DPI you're currently running, but 157 is pushing it for 100% DPI, and totally not doable at 220.
    - rektide 4y ago
      I develop at native res on my Macbooks sometime, which are all 254 DPI. They used to run Linux & it was more than fine there too. I have good wall-mount arms for my displays so I have a lot of freedom to position. I find that generally I can scale up or scale down the font in most applications, without crude fractional scaling measures. That the buttons/menu bars are all tiny is fine with me. I do wish we'd stop just fractionally scaling everything. On the web, having absurd DPI is so rarely a problem. But applications & OSes are still stuck in a very crude world where nothing can be adapted/adjusted, everything is all fixed sized, carefully laid out. Both have a lot more they could do to allow users to experience things as they want. But we seem to have been moving towards more blunt approaches- retreating from any kind of semi-sophisticated attempts- for a while now.
fotta 4y ago
I'm very interested in this. I've been looking at the XDR for a high-DPI, >27" display but can't bring myself to fork over $5k for it. Hopefully this is significantly cheaper.
sneak 4y ago
I'm excited for this, because the PC world has been too low dpi for too long. I hope more displays incorporate PD and networking. None of the reviews mention the speed of the network interface on this, however. (Fairly safe to assume it's only 10/100/1000 but it would be nice to see 2.5G on a $2000+ display designed for pros and connecting with thunderbolt.)
- fotta 4y ago
  Looks like it has 10Gbps USB so worst case I think you can get a 2.5Gbps adapter
  - sneak 4y ago
    Oh wow, I had no idea that these are only $30 now. Awesome!
axus 4y ago
I contrast this with the article I read today about a 14 year-old Dell monitor: https://www.digitaltrends.com/computing/why-im-still-using-14-year-old-dell-monitor/ https://www.digitaltrends.com/computing/why-im-still-using-1... (also 16:10)
- karmakaze 4y ago
  This looks like the 24" 1920x1200 (16x10) monitor I have. It's still great and have an appreciation for smaller but taller than 16x9 aspect. It's really heavy though. I'm using an LG 43" 4k 16x9 monitor. I don't use all the vertical pixels (especially the ones at the bottom near the desk surface). I find it pretty great since I couldn't find suitable ultrawide monitors that weren't also ultrashort.
einpoklum 4y ago
This title sounds like advertising. Anyway, personal story: For years I worked on a 24" monitor at home. Then, at some point, I decided I too want to be a "pro" or whatever, and bought me a Dell UltraSharp 27" monitor. It looked very impressive when I turned it on... but within a couple of weeks, I noticed I was getting this sensation of wanting to turn away from the screen, of not wanting to be at my computer. I gradually realized that, well, it was the monitor; or rather the monitor + the distance: I could just not tolerate my eyes having to focus on high-intensity lit items at the angles the monitor was showing me. I went back to a 24-incher, and am happy as a clam. No multiple monitors for me, either: Dizziness and headaches. I know this might not be everyone's experience, and many people have no trouble with large/multiple monitors, but - be warned, you might be one of those we do; or, you might develop this sensitivity over the years.
- AdrianB1 4y ago
  I am using 2 monitors for over 20 years (since GeForce 2 MX, my first video card with 2 outputs) and I had no problems; at first it was 19" CRT, then dual 21", for the past 9 years dual 24". I had a colleague (now retired) that was using 6 21" monitors on a special stand in a 3x2 arrangement, he loved it. Different people have different preferences and tolerances.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
xnx 4y ago
Can this really be worth $3,800 with 32" 4K TV's going for ~$200?
- themodelplumber 4y ago
  IPS Black with twice the contrast compared to previous IPS models, 35% deeper blacks, probably a lot of the UltraSharp line's conveniences thrown in...yeah I can see people wanting that. Reliable reviewers say it makes even average Joe stuff like movies and photos look noticeably better. So I want to at least try it. If you are telling us what kind of display you personally don't need, I guess that's another thing...
- zokier 4y ago
  Where did you get that $3800 number? I'd expect it to be priced significantly lower..
  - xnx 4y ago
    My mistake. I was looking at the street price for their current 8K monitor.
- zuminator 4y ago
  Those are not comparable. This has about 2.5x the pixels of a comparably sized 4K TV which means lower yields for manufacturing, plus it doesn't have the same economy of scale of a discounted consumer TV. Also it integrates a stand with USB hub, a webcam, far superior color gamut than your $200 screen and Thunderbolt 4 with PD. But if the extra pixel density and other features aren't useful to you, then no reason not to get the vastly cheaper device.
- yamtaddle 4y ago
  Check the color gamut and black levels on the $200 4K TV. You won't find anything remotely comparable in the three figures, I expect.
- Matthias247 4y ago
  if you want 220dpi, then any TV isn't an option. Even if you just want 160dpi, then current 27" 4k screens are your only option.
inductive_magic 4y ago
I just ditched their 32” 4k for their - cheaper - 42” 4k displays and haven’t looked back since. Finally I get 4K sans dpi scaling. 42” is huge, but perfect for hn type work. IDE, terminal, browser, mail/chats all on one screen, all readable, no compromises. I’m sure there are people who benefit from 6k on 32”, but if you’re coding and you haven’t tried the 42”, you may want to do it.
- FpUser 4y ago
  I did exactly the opposite a while ago. I switched from 40" 4K to 32" 4K. Too much head movement to see the whole screen or inconvenient head angle when looking at the corners / sides. 32" at 4K is perfect for me
- nikanj 4y ago
  I’ve got the 49” ultrawide that clocks in at 5120x1440. Massive real estate but 100% UI scale so no weird issues - aside from the occasional software that pulls the resolution instead of the DPI and then insists on a 200% UI zoom
- ak217 4y ago
  I use the LG 43" 4K with a portrait mode 27" as a sidecar, and can highly recommend this size. My only complaint is that it's not 8K.
- CobaltFire 4y ago
  I just picked up one of their 32" 4K's and LOVE it at native scaling. I specifically got their G3223Q (144Hz) and it's awesome. Color calibrated it to match my MBP and it's an excellent match (with less contrast).
  - sumoboy 4y ago
    I just pickup a U3223QE last week and can't complain. I already have two viewsonic 27" 4k monitors which were side by side, now stacked next to the new monitor which I'm liking this configuration. If this 6k monitor was available now I would be taking the 4k back and buying two of them. Samsung just announced a 57" 8k monitor which looks pretty awesome, $$$.
post_break 4y ago
60hz just isn't enough for me. Not sure if it's a bandwidth issue or panel issue.
- MBCook 4y ago
  At 6k it’s probably bandwidth. That’s (thought) to be the reason on the Pro Display XDR for its 60hz limit. At least without display stream compression.
- Gigachad 4y ago
  4K 120hz is what I would be looking for in a monitor these days. 6k is nice but not as beneficial as faster refresh rates.
  - SAI_Peregrinus 4y ago
    Also (for some uses) nice to have a wide-gamut monitor. Getting wide gamut, high refresh rate, and high resolution tends to make for some very expensive monitors though.
nazgulnarsil 4y ago
I don't get it, dell already sells an 8k display for much less than the apple
- wmf 4y ago
  That monitor has wrong DPI.
tannhaeuser 4y ago
Used a 27" monitor years ago, but it's simply too large for practical work for me, let alone 32" or more. LG's Apple-exclusive UltraFine 23" 4k monitor, OTOH, is a perfect companion next to the built-in monitor of a MBP in terms of dot pitch and glare.
symlinkk 4y ago
32” is just too big. 27” 5K is the sweet spot. As usual Apple is the only company to execute on this successfully.
- nickpp 4y ago
  As I aged, 32" became my sweet spot replacing 27". Same resolution - 4K.
  - turtlebits 4y ago
    32” 4k ppi is too low IMO. I’m glad someone is trying to compete with the Apple 6k XDR. I’m just afraid this also might be out of my price range.
    - nickpp 4y ago
      I am very excited about higher PPIs as well.
- _ph_ 4y ago
  While I love my 27" iMac, with its 1440 vertical points (2880 pixels) I always found it a regression vs. my 30" 2560x1600 pixel screen it replaced. That is from the real estate side, picture quality was of course much better. This is why I never understood that Apple stuck so long to the 27" format for their "large" screen, not counting the very expensive 32" screen.
FpUser 4y ago
I think 31.5" is too small for this resolution. I have for example 4K at 32" and pixel density is sort of borderline optimal to me at 100% font scaling. For programming I want to have more windows and text on single screen, not smaller pixels for which I have to increase scaling proportionally. This particular Dell display in this case has to have something like 50" which is way too big when sitting in front of it. I can imagine it can be useful for some image / video related professional production or for font perfectionists. Other than that I do not think it is very practical.
- andix 4y ago
  Are you using windows? Because on windows you can scale in 25% steps and everything still looks crisp. Linux and macOS don’t have this feature (more or less only 100%, 200%, and so on). I really like high DPI monitors for programming, text looks just so much better and is easier to read (less tiring for the eyes).
  - FpUser 4y ago
    Yes, Windows. I do not want to scale at all. Scaling reduces the amount of text on screen. Completely contrary to what I want. And for my imperfect eyes 4K at 31" is totally optimal, sharp and easy to read. I would not spend a single penny to make something look "Better" when it is already perfect for me
    - andix 4y ago
      Okay, I use my screen at arms length, and I can’t read the text if it is set to 100%. I’m in my 30s and the eyesight is good, but it seems to be already a bit less than in my early 20s, maybe that’s the issue.
      - FpUser 4y ago
        I had perfect vision until about 50. I am 61 now and have to use reading glasses (luckily weak ones) when reading / programming. With reading glasses everything is crystal sharp
locusofself 4y ago
I converted my 27" 5k iMac into a monitor using a conversion board from eBay. I use a macbook air for personal stuff, and a windows laptop for work (Microsoft). So it's great having a 5k monitor for both of my laptops! It looks great, but honestly wasn't really worth the effort and risk of damaging everything. I retrospect I'd have sold the iMac and bought the Studio Display I think.

75 points by zdw 4y ago

Very interesting. I have been using 4k 27" monitor but this makes me temping to switch to 32". But I don't like that ugly and huge webcam. I would use my own webcam on top of it. > via Mini DisplayPort 2.1 Why Mini Displayport? I haven't heard of Mini DP for years.

andix 4y ago
Mini-DP is still used for a lot of professional graphic cards that have a lot of outputs, because you can’t fit 4 or 8 regular sized DPs on a normal PCIe card bezel, especially if it is just half size. (https://www.techpowerup.com/review/nvidia-rtx-a2000/2.html https://www.techpowerup.com/review/nvidia-rtx-a2000/2.html) My older Dell monitors have both (mini and regular DP) and ship with a mini to regular cable. So you can use it in both directions and they don’t have to ship two cables.

raincom 4y ago

In 2001, 17' ViewSonic LCD displays were sold for $999 a piece. Even if this 6K monitor sells for $1800, it is worth the price for the people who need such a set up. In my case, I am happy with my 7 years old 4k P2715Q monitors, which I bought for $480 a piece.

fotta 4y ago

> You’ll also be able to connect to the U3224KB via Mini DisplayPort 2.1 Interesting tidbit. DP 2.0+ allows for much higher resolutions without needing DSC. The Pro Display XDR for example uses DP 1.4 with DSC to drive the 6k resolution.

kylehotchkiss 4y ago

Is it still plastic, does it make that plasticky sound when you twist or bump into it? That’s like the best thing about these expensive apple displays, no plasticky sounds. Why can’t other brands just try to do aluminum enclosures for $50-75 more?

cwkoss 4y ago

This article is just an ad

nickthegreek 4y ago
Ads normally do not contain these type of nuggets: >However, the company hasn't provided any color accuracy claims for the monitor yet, and that will be critical for many creatives. >But while IPS Black contrast is impressive for IPS, there are prosumer monitors delivering even greater contrast levels. >One potential disadvantage: HDR >When in HDR mode, the U3224KB's max brightness increases a tick to 600 nits, as per VESA DisplayHDR certification. That’s a bit dim for creative professionals like video editors, who will likely need DisplayHDR 1000 and beyond for effective performance. >both monitors are still expected to be subject to the flaws of LCD panels that OLED monitors avoid, such as the potential for blooming around light areas on dark content.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

ComputerGuru 4y ago

I was hopeful for all of about two seconds until I saw the aspect ratio: as I feared, it's a 16:9 display. At that size, a 16:9 display is just not very functional. It's just too wide and not tall enough. You will be constrained by the vertical height (since you need to use dpi scaling) and the extra width will, by and large, be wasted. Depending on your configured DPI, notifications or other activity to the side of the screen is effectively outside your active vision, and you'll miss things that happen there. I'm still holding on to my ZR30w for dear life, and that's only a 16:10.

rektide 4y ago
I had a similar first reaction. My main monitor is 28" 4k 16:9 and more vertical sounds nice. This monitor is 6144×3456, which is 1.6x more pixels in each direction (2.56x total pixels), and physically a bit bigger. So I feel like I'd get the extra real estate I want. Heck, I might be comfortable even adding some more inches to the side, making it more widescreen! However I really don't want a 60Hz monitor. Everything is much smoother at even 90Hz. That's my dealbreaker.
- ComputerGuru 4y ago
  You might not actually get (that much) more usable real estate - it depends on how well your machine handles fractional dpi scaling. Odds are the virtual pixels will be too small at the same DPI you are using with all those extra hardware pixels but only stuffed into an extra 2" diagonal, so you'll have to increase the dpi configuration. Your current monitor has 157 ppi while this one has 220. I don't know what DPI you're currently running, but 157 is pushing it for 100% DPI, and totally not doable at 220.
  - rektide 4y ago
    I develop at native res on my Macbooks sometime, which are all 254 DPI. They used to run Linux & it was more than fine there too. I have good wall-mount arms for my displays so I have a lot of freedom to position. I find that generally I can scale up or scale down the font in most applications, without crude fractional scaling measures. That the buttons/menu bars are all tiny is fine with me. I do wish we'd stop just fractionally scaling everything. On the web, having absurd DPI is so rarely a problem. But applications & OSes are still stuck in a very crude world where nothing can be adapted/adjusted, everything is all fixed sized, carefully laid out. Both have a lot more they could do to allow users to experience things as they want. But we seem to have been moving towards more blunt approaches- retreating from any kind of semi-sophisticated attempts- for a while now.

fotta 4y ago

I'm very interested in this. I've been looking at the XDR for a high-DPI, >27" display but can't bring myself to fork over $5k for it. Hopefully this is significantly cheaper.

sneak 4y ago

I'm excited for this, because the PC world has been too low dpi for too long. I hope more displays incorporate PD and networking. None of the reviews mention the speed of the network interface on this, however. (Fairly safe to assume it's only 10/100/1000 but it would be nice to see 2.5G on a $2000+ display designed for pros and connecting with thunderbolt.)

fotta 4y ago
Looks like it has 10Gbps USB so worst case I think you can get a 2.5Gbps adapter
- sneak 4y ago
  Oh wow, I had no idea that these are only $30 now. Awesome!

axus 4y ago

I contrast this with the article I read today about a 14 year-old Dell monitor: https://www.digitaltrends.com/computing/why-im-still-using-14-year-old-dell-monitor/ https://www.digitaltrends.com/computing/why-im-still-using-1... (also 16:10)

karmakaze 4y ago
This looks like the 24" 1920x1200 (16x10) monitor I have. It's still great and have an appreciation for smaller but taller than 16x9 aspect. It's really heavy though. I'm using an LG 43" 4k 16x9 monitor. I don't use all the vertical pixels (especially the ones at the bottom near the desk surface). I find it pretty great since I couldn't find suitable ultrawide monitors that weren't also ultrashort.

einpoklum 4y ago

This title sounds like advertising. Anyway, personal story: For years I worked on a 24" monitor at home. Then, at some point, I decided I too want to be a "pro" or whatever, and bought me a Dell UltraSharp 27" monitor. It looked very impressive when I turned it on... but within a couple of weeks, I noticed I was getting this sensation of wanting to turn away from the screen, of not wanting to be at my computer. I gradually realized that, well, it was the monitor; or rather the monitor + the distance: I could just not tolerate my eyes having to focus on high-intensity lit items at the angles the monitor was showing me. I went back to a 24-incher, and am happy as a clam. No multiple monitors for me, either: Dizziness and headaches. I know this might not be everyone's experience, and many people have no trouble with large/multiple monitors, but - be warned, you might be one of those we do; or, you might develop this sensitivity over the years.

AdrianB1 4y ago
I am using 2 monitors for over 20 years (since GeForce 2 MX, my first video card with 2 outputs) and I had no problems; at first it was 19" CRT, then dual 21", for the past 9 years dual 24". I had a colleague (now retired) that was using 6 21" monitors on a special stand in a 3x2 arrangement, he loved it. Different people have different preferences and tolerances.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

xnx 4y ago

Can this really be worth $3,800 with 32" 4K TV's going for ~$200?

themodelplumber 4y ago
IPS Black with twice the contrast compared to previous IPS models, 35% deeper blacks, probably a lot of the UltraSharp line's conveniences thrown in...yeah I can see people wanting that. Reliable reviewers say it makes even average Joe stuff like movies and photos look noticeably better. So I want to at least try it. If you are telling us what kind of display you personally don't need, I guess that's another thing...
zokier 4y ago
Where did you get that $3800 number? I'd expect it to be priced significantly lower..
- xnx 4y ago
  My mistake. I was looking at the street price for their current 8K monitor.
zuminator 4y ago
Those are not comparable. This has about 2.5x the pixels of a comparably sized 4K TV which means lower yields for manufacturing, plus it doesn't have the same economy of scale of a discounted consumer TV. Also it integrates a stand with USB hub, a webcam, far superior color gamut than your $200 screen and Thunderbolt 4 with PD. But if the extra pixel density and other features aren't useful to you, then no reason not to get the vastly cheaper device.
yamtaddle 4y ago
Check the color gamut and black levels on the $200 4K TV. You won't find anything remotely comparable in the three figures, I expect.
Matthias247 4y ago
if you want 220dpi, then any TV isn't an option. Even if you just want 160dpi, then current 27" 4k screens are your only option.

inductive_magic 4y ago

I just ditched their 32” 4k for their - cheaper - 42” 4k displays and haven’t looked back since. Finally I get 4K sans dpi scaling. 42” is huge, but perfect for hn type work. IDE, terminal, browser, mail/chats all on one screen, all readable, no compromises. I’m sure there are people who benefit from 6k on 32”, but if you’re coding and you haven’t tried the 42”, you may want to do it.

FpUser 4y ago
I did exactly the opposite a while ago. I switched from 40" 4K to 32" 4K. Too much head movement to see the whole screen or inconvenient head angle when looking at the corners / sides. 32" at 4K is perfect for me
nikanj 4y ago
I’ve got the 49” ultrawide that clocks in at 5120x1440. Massive real estate but 100% UI scale so no weird issues - aside from the occasional software that pulls the resolution instead of the DPI and then insists on a 200% UI zoom
ak217 4y ago
I use the LG 43" 4K with a portrait mode 27" as a sidecar, and can highly recommend this size. My only complaint is that it's not 8K.
CobaltFire 4y ago
I just picked up one of their 32" 4K's and LOVE it at native scaling. I specifically got their G3223Q (144Hz) and it's awesome. Color calibrated it to match my MBP and it's an excellent match (with less contrast).
- sumoboy 4y ago
  I just pickup a U3223QE last week and can't complain. I already have two viewsonic 27" 4k monitors which were side by side, now stacked next to the new monitor which I'm liking this configuration. If this 6k monitor was available now I would be taking the 4k back and buying two of them. Samsung just announced a 57" 8k monitor which looks pretty awesome, $$$.

post_break 4y ago

60hz just isn't enough for me. Not sure if it's a bandwidth issue or panel issue.

MBCook 4y ago
At 6k it’s probably bandwidth. That’s (thought) to be the reason on the Pro Display XDR for its 60hz limit. At least without display stream compression.
Gigachad 4y ago
4K 120hz is what I would be looking for in a monitor these days. 6k is nice but not as beneficial as faster refresh rates.
- SAI_Peregrinus 4y ago
  Also (for some uses) nice to have a wide-gamut monitor. Getting wide gamut, high refresh rate, and high resolution tends to make for some very expensive monitors though.

nazgulnarsil 4y ago

I don't get it, dell already sells an 8k display for much less than the apple

wmf 4y ago
That monitor has wrong DPI.

tannhaeuser 4y ago

Used a 27" monitor years ago, but it's simply too large for practical work for me, let alone 32" or more. LG's Apple-exclusive UltraFine 23" 4k monitor, OTOH, is a perfect companion next to the built-in monitor of a MBP in terms of dot pitch and glare.

symlinkk 4y ago

32” is just too big. 27” 5K is the sweet spot. As usual Apple is the only company to execute on this successfully.

nickpp 4y ago
As I aged, 32" became my sweet spot replacing 27". Same resolution - 4K.
- turtlebits 4y ago
  32” 4k ppi is too low IMO. I’m glad someone is trying to compete with the Apple 6k XDR. I’m just afraid this also might be out of my price range.
  - nickpp 4y ago
    I am very excited about higher PPIs as well.
_ph_ 4y ago
While I love my 27" iMac, with its 1440 vertical points (2880 pixels) I always found it a regression vs. my 30" 2560x1600 pixel screen it replaced. That is from the real estate side, picture quality was of course much better. This is why I never understood that Apple stuck so long to the 27" format for their "large" screen, not counting the very expensive 32" screen.

FpUser 4y ago

I think 31.5" is too small for this resolution. I have for example 4K at 32" and pixel density is sort of borderline optimal to me at 100% font scaling. For programming I want to have more windows and text on single screen, not smaller pixels for which I have to increase scaling proportionally. This particular Dell display in this case has to have something like 50" which is way too big when sitting in front of it. I can imagine it can be useful for some image / video related professional production or for font perfectionists. Other than that I do not think it is very practical.

andix 4y ago
Are you using windows? Because on windows you can scale in 25% steps and everything still looks crisp. Linux and macOS don’t have this feature (more or less only 100%, 200%, and so on). I really like high DPI monitors for programming, text looks just so much better and is easier to read (less tiring for the eyes).
- FpUser 4y ago
  Yes, Windows. I do not want to scale at all. Scaling reduces the amount of text on screen. Completely contrary to what I want. And for my imperfect eyes 4K at 31" is totally optimal, sharp and easy to read. I would not spend a single penny to make something look "Better" when it is already perfect for me
  - andix 4y ago
    Okay, I use my screen at arms length, and I can’t read the text if it is set to 100%. I’m in my 30s and the eyesight is good, but it seems to be already a bit less than in my early 20s, maybe that’s the issue.
    - FpUser 4y ago
      I had perfect vision until about 50. I am 61 now and have to use reading glasses (luckily weak ones) when reading / programming. With reading glasses everything is crystal sharp

locusofself 4y ago

I converted my 27" 5k iMac into a monitor using a conversion board from eBay. I use a macbook air for personal stuff, and a windows laptop for work (Microsoft). So it's great having a 5k monitor for both of my laptops! It looks great, but honestly wasn't really worth the effort and risk of damaging everything. I retrospect I'd have sold the iMac and bought the Studio Display I think.