13 ms·

Dell UltraSharp 52 Thunderbolt Hub Monitor

289 points by cebert 9mo ago

piinbinary 9mo ago
I have a 34" ultrawide and it is huge. I can't imagine a 52" - the edges would be so far away that it must be hard to read text without physically moving left/right
- __mharrison__ 9mo ago
  I have a 42" 4k TV that I use as a monitor (in gaming mode). Not sure I would want anything shorter than that. (Of course, I have an eye issue, so the side-to-side is even more pronounced for me.
- rahimnathwani 9mo ago
  I used to use a 40" 4k TV. Now I use a 38" ultrawide, which is roughly the same width (in pixels and in inches) but doesn't require my head to move up/down as much. I could imagine using a 52" ultrawide if it were placed further away from me (i.e. deeper desk). The extra pixels would make it effectively a retina display.
- Marsymars 9mo ago
  52" at that aspect ratio isn't just wide, it's also >50% taller than a 34" ultrawide. It's akin to a 55" TV - basically the same width, but only 70% of the height.
- simooooo 9mo ago
  I have a 57” ultra wide and it absolutely requires you to look around
- reppap 9mo ago
  I think you would have to sit further back, almost tv watching distance.
  - gofreddygo 9mo ago
    And that would strain your eyes or force a bigger font. At that point, you'd be wondering, like me, on why I spent $$ to buy a bigger screen in the first place. I got an open box lenovo 24 inch QHD monitor for years and it just works solid across windows, mac and various docking stations. I could imagine upgrading to a 27 or 30 inch but beyond that is just too much IMO. Maybe taller, more square could be of more use than wider.
- bityard 9mo ago
  Do you... usually read content in a full-screen window on that thing? I only have a 27" monitor and sit about 2.5 feet away from it and I move my head _slightly_ to focus on different windows. But that's the reason I have a larger monitor, so I can have a bunch of normal-sized windows open at once.
  - hanspeter 9mo ago
    Their point may be about viewing distance. If the edges of the screen are further from your eyes than the center, the content and text doesn't appear at the same size. If you wear glasses, the edges might even fall out of focus unless you physically move closer.
  - piinbinary 9mo ago
    I like having three columns of code open in my editor, but the left edge of the leftmost column (since code is left-justified) gets pretty far away from my face. Or I need stronger glasses, one of the two.
  - KaiserPro 9mo ago
    I think it depends on vision. I have a single 27" 4k monitor with vscode set to about 80% zoom. But I'm getting older, so I might have to make it a big bigger soon.
- saltcured 9mo ago
  Since well before the pandemic, I've have dual 28" 4K screens on my desk. When ordering them, I liked the fact that they had the same pixel pitch as my 14" 2K laptop screen. One monitor was like a borderless 2x2 grid of those laptop screens. I found myself repositioning things so that one is in front of the keyboard as a primary screen and the other is further off to the side as a secondary dumping ground. I found myself neglecting the second display most of the time so it was just a blank background. Eventually, I noticed I wasn't even using the entire primary screen. I favored a sector of it and pushed some windows off to the edges. Ironically, with work from home, I've started roaming around the house with the laptop instead of staying at my desk. So I'm mostly back to working in a 14" screen with virtual desktops, like I was 20 years ago. I am glad that laptops are starting to have 16:10 again after the long drought of HDTV-derived screens.
ardit33 9mo ago
I have a 39" (almost 40") LG ultrawide, and it is the perfect size. Can't see how a larger monitor would fit a normal desk... BUT.... this is perfect for folks that want to use one monitor for both work, and as/for entertainment /just normal tv watching in a living room.
stalfosknight 9mo ago
Abysmally low pixel density. :(
- BlaDeKke 9mo ago
  No scaling required? Great!
  - tonyedgecombe 9mo ago
    Spot the Linux user ;)
    - silon42 9mo ago
      Yes, me too... also don't need GPU card, CPU integrated will do fine (at 120Hz). (I have 32" 1440p ... 1600p would be better, but that's it).
    - adrian_b 9mo ago
      More accurately, you have spotted not a Linux user in general, but a user of certain Linux distributions, which in my opinion have inadequate display configuration settings. I am also using only Linux on all my desktops and laptops, and I have never used any display with a resolution less than 4k, for at least the last 12 or 13 years. Despite of that, I have never encountered any problems with "scaling", because in Linux I have never used any kind of "scaling" (unlike in Windows, which has a font "scaling"). In the kind of Linux that I have been using, I only set an appropriate dots-per-inch value for the monitor, which means that there is no "scaling", which would reduce graphic quality, but all programs render the fonts and other graphic elements at an appropriate size and using in the right way the display resolution. I configure dots-per-inch values that do not match the actual dpi values of the monitors, but values that ensure that the on-screen size is slightly larger than the on-paper size, because I stay at a greater distance from the monitor than I would keep a paper or a book in my hand (i.e. I set higher dpi values than the real ones, so that any rendering program will believe that the screen is smaller than in reality, so it will render e.g. a 12 point font at a slightly bigger size than 12 points and e.g. an A4 page will be bigger on screen than an A4 sheet of paper; for instance I use 216 dpi for a 27 inch 4k Dell UltraSharp monitor).
throw0101d 9mo ago
The pixels per inch (ppi) density is 129. Some other specs: refresh rate, 120Hz; brightness, 400 cd/m².
- tshaddox 9mo ago
  That's decent pixel density considering the size of the monitor. A 32" 4K monitor has slightly higher PPI at around 138.
  - jmarcher 9mo ago
    I have a 40in 5k (32in 4k, but wider). IMHO, 138ppi is the bare minimum, but it really depends on a person's eyesight and preferences. I would love a large-ish ultra-wide with > 160ppi. One day, maybe, that being said, by that time those things will exist and be reasonably priced, my eyes might not be able to appreciate the difference.
    - leptons 9mo ago
      I'm using three 4k 32" screens arranged vertically, for 6480 x 3840 desktop size. The only real monitor upgrade I'm willing to entertain is a ~50" 8k curved screen (basically a curved TV-sized screen), which has not been made yet AFAIK. I'm not into "ultrawide", for me it has to be "ultrawide" and "ultratall". I want all that screen real estate in high PPI. I tried test-driving a 50" 4k TV for a week and the flatness of it was not what I wanted, it has to be a curved screen for workstation use.
      - jmarcher 9mo ago
        100% I used to have a 43-inch 4K "monitor" (16:9). The lack of curvature meant that at the sides of the screen, there was noticeable color shifting due to variations in viewing angle. That's with an IPS panel. Your dream is probably a ~50in 8K TV (with RGB pattern if you are on macOS), but curved. I don't know if that will ever exist. Personally, I found that with a bigger 16:9, I would not use the top and bottom of the screen. When I "downgraded" to a 40in ultra-wide, there was not much difference in the space I was using.
__sp__ 9mo ago
[flagged]
2OEH8eoCRo0 9mo ago
Nice. I have the predecessor 40" U4025QW and it's outstanding.
- bhhaskin 9mo ago
  I second the U4025QW. It's fantastic and the built in KVM is great.
fadedsignal 9mo ago
[flagged]
dkobia 9mo ago
At 52" I now believe that there is a limit to the size of a monitor. This might have crossed it.
bigstrat2003 9mo ago
The smaller sizes would be nice if they had a 16:10 option. 16:9 just isn't a very nice aspect ratio imo, the extra height on 16:10 is much better.
- mixmastamyk 9mo ago
  To whoever needs to hear it, I will never buy another 16:9 monitor. Vastly prefer the 3:2 on my Framework and also liked an old 4:3 I had. Also great in portrait.
  - joombaga 9mo ago
    Yep. I have a MacBook air 13 and a Framework, and miss the extra vertical space when I'm on the MacBook.
- Flockster 9mo ago
  Yes, I will never buy 16:9 again. On laptops 16:10 is already quite often and sometimes even 3:2 (Framework, Surfacebook). For my desktop I am looking forward to getting a 3:2 monitor like the Benq RD280U https://www.benq.com/en-us/monitor/programming/rd280u.html https://www.benq.com/en-us/monitor/programming/rd280u.html
lejalv 9mo ago
This has pixels the size of my hand, and it fully covers my field of view. Not my cup of tea. What I do recommend (having bought one) is the Kuycon G32p, 32 inches @ 6K. Incredible quality and unbelievable value for money (https://clickclack.io/products/in-stock-kuycon-g32p-6k-32-inch-ips-black-monitor?variant=42711717281828 https://clickclack.io/products/in-stock-kuycon-g32p-6k-32-in...).
- samdixon 9mo ago
  this looks like a rip off of another monitor that I can't quite put my finger on...
  - smilebot 9mo ago
    And no extra charge to have an adjustable stand! How do they make money?
    - jdc0589 9mo ago
      its probably a charity, no money there.
    - DustinEchoes 9mo ago
      No need to recoup R&D costs.
    - joshstrange 9mo ago
      By having fewer pixels, lower quality screens? Crazy what you can do when you cut corners. This screen reminds of when I did tech support in high school and I helped a guy who bragged about his computer monitor, it was a TV running at 720p (if not lower) and a massive screen. The windows start bar was hilariously large (as were all UI elements), I had to just smile and nod until I got out of there. Sure, your screen may be bigger but it's blurry and everything is scaled way too large.
      - semi-extrinsic 9mo ago
sulam 9mo ago
I have a smaller version of this and it's pretty good as a display. I'm somewhat disappointed with it as a hub/KVM. It's better than having to swap cables, but just barely. It can't handle any high bandwidth USB devices I've tried (Focusrite Scarlett 2i2, a DSLR via capture card DSLR and a Logitech webcam). The downstream USB strangely isn't even sending down a keyboard and mouse to a PC, I ended up having to get separate dedicated KVM for those. It worked fine with a Thunderbolt to my Macs, but that's not surprising. I'm not sure how it would work with two Macs (one would have to be HDMI or DisplayPort and use that downstream USB port). I could try that but it's not my use case.
- ninkendo 9mo ago
  Yeah… Not sure of your model (I have the U4025QW), but mine is so close to perfect as a KVM between a Mac and 2 PC’s, if only the KVM had one more USB output port. It takes 3 video inputs, but only 1 dedicated USB output. But oh, one of the video inputs is really Thunderbolt, so you get USB over the same cable and it works… but only if your machine supports this (for many laptops this is fine.) But that’s 2 machines max in the KVM, while the monitor has 3 selectable inputs… It would have been nicer if they could’ve added one more USB output, so you could have KVM match the display input for 3 machines with a single toggle. (I have a Mac, a work desktop, and a gaming desktop, and I can toggle between the Mac (thunderbolt) and one of the PC’s, and the kvm input will follow the display’s. But I have to pick which PC I want to plug the downstream USB cable into… so I bought a little $15 USB A/B switch to help. So Mac keyboard always works, but when switching between gaming PC (hdmi) and work PC (DP) I just have to remember to toggle the A/B switch along with it to make the keyboard go to the right host.)
apetrov 9mo ago
Interestingly it has Thunderbolt 4 (40Gb), 6K typically saturates 30-31Gb, which leaves less 10Gb/s which isn't a lot especially assuming 2.5Gb network. Looks like a perfect case for TB5 and given its price.
gouthamve 9mo ago
I just setup mine today, and I am not sure I recommend it. I went from a 40" to a 52", and I'm just moving my head waaay too much and my shoulders hurt. It is curved, but very little imo, it's almost like it's flat. I'm going to try it for a week before making the call on whether to return it. I feel like this needs a workflow where you do work in the middle and use the fringes for other applications that you rarely look at. Otherwise you're moving your head waaay too much and squinting a bunch.
- cosmic_cheese 9mo ago
  Based on personal experience, I think the upper bound for comfortably useful size at normal sitting distances is probably about 32", and even then I think there'd be better returns on adding vertical pixels to a ~27" monitor. A modern equivalent to the old 16:10 30" 2560x1600 monitors (ideally 2x scaling 5120x3200) would be great for example, but one could also imagine a 4:3 or 5:4 monitor with the same width (~23.5") as current 16:9 27" monitors.
  - kccqzy 9mo ago
    Same! My employer offered a choice of 32-inch and 40-inch monitors. I “upgraded” from 32 to 40 but I regretted it. I just don’t make use of the extra horizontal space effectively.
  - peppersghost93 9mo ago
    I'm still rocking a couple of 30 inch dell 2560x1600 monitors. They're about the perfect size and not dealing with scaling in Linux is nice. I'd pay a ton of money for a modern equivalent.
  - kcrwfrd_ 9mo ago
    I run a 42” 4k at 1:1 pixel ratio and I agree. It’s a little too big, but it does nice double duty for gaming and watching tv. 5120x3200 in 30” would be awesome.
- switchbak 9mo ago
  That was my issue with multiple monitors years ago - I'd be cranking my neck over too often (looking at logs, etc). I vastly prefer an ultrawide where I can put logs / monitors on the side flexibly. I have a 34 inch now, and feel like I could use more space - but it's nice to know there's an upper bound. Do you feel like there's still room to go beyond 40, or is that the sweet spot?
esafak 9mo ago
I never got into the ultra wide thing. Where the 8K monitors at?? We've been stuck on 4K for ten years!
- hhh 9mo ago
  they’ve been around for a few years, as well as 5K and 6K
  - masklinn 9mo ago
    Sadly they're not super common which makes them expensive, and I don't think I've seen any that wasn't 16:9. The world has decided to go with refresh rates rather than resolution.
    - jorvi 9mo ago
      Which is the right choice because our eyes cannot resolve that kind of DPI at that distance. Past 2880p on most desk monitor viewing distances or past 1080p on most TV viewing distances, you hit steeply diminishing returns. Please, please let's use our processing power and signal bandwidth for color and refresh rate, not resolution. This is also why I think every console game should have a 720p handheld 'performance' and 1080p living room 'performance' mode. We don't need 1080p on handhelds or 2160p in the living room. Unless you're using relatively enormous screens for either purpose.
      - Kon5ole 9mo ago
        >Which is the right choice No damn it, it's not! Everyone I know can immediately see a clear difference between 120 ppi and 200 ppi, but I've yet to encounter anyone who can reliably tell 120hz from 200hz. We have monitors that render lego-sized pixels at 500+ hz now, it's enough. Gamers have been gaslit to believe they have the reflexes of spider-man and are a lost cause, but their preferences have been listened to by monitor makers for 30 years. Enough already! Millions of office workers are working all day reading text on screens optimized for playing games at low resolutions. It's just sad. Steve Jobs showed a decade ago that 4x resolution could be sold at great profit for normal prices. Text on screens can be as crisp as on paper. Sadly it only became the standard on phones, not on productivity desktop monitors. It so easily could be, and it should be.
phaser 9mo ago
Maybe this is the living room dumb-TV that I was waiting for
- nerdsniper 9mo ago
  It has pretty poor HDR performance compared to similarly priced TVs. https://www.rtings.com/monitor/reviews/dell/u3225qe https://www.rtings.com/monitor/reviews/dell/u3225qe
api 9mo ago
Still would love a true AMOLED monitor that's decently large. Doesn't need to be this big. One with perfect contrast ratio.
ajross 9mo ago
Looks nice enough. But seems pretty steep. The 42" TV I bought five years ago for $260 does basically the same thing. Slightly more vertical space (albeit at a lower DPI) and somewhat less horizontal. But it still supports four 80-column text windows without a sweat. Late stage FAANGery is watching 20-somethings try to find ridiculous junk to spend money on.
- Hikikomori 9mo ago
  My old crt can show letters and numbers.
LegitShady 9mo ago
dont believe them - this only has 1 thunderbolt port, not 52
MarlonPro 9mo ago
Expansive and expensive at the same time!
_zoltan_ 9mo ago
another meh display from dell. if you truly want a great display for productivity, I can't recommend the Samsung 57 enough. 240hz, 2x4k in one panel. it's great.
mrandish 9mo ago
I've found ideal monitor size and resolution depends greatly on viewing distance and relative position. I use a 38" ultra-wide and it's almost too wide - but I have it 'floating' on an adjustable monitor arm so it's only about 24" from my eyes and a bit higher than most monitor stands would allow. The monitor arm is key because once I put a full ergo split keyboard at a comfortable arm-rest distance, a normal monitor stand sitting on the desk would force the monitor to be too far back. For the full breadth of a 52" monitor to be comfortably viewable for detail work, I'd have to be farther back enough that the difference between 4K and 6K wouldn't be meaningful. It's kind of like how 8k resolution can provide meaningful value in a head-mounted display two inches from your eyeballs, but 8k on a 65" living room TV seven feet away from your couch viewing position is pointless because even those with 20/10 vision can't resolve the additional detail at that distance. For detail work I find my best ergo seating position is up close with my legs tucked well-under the desk and my stomach almost touching the edge of the curved desk inset. This allows my forearms to be supported comfortably on the desk. I also have my desk surface a little lower than most and my Aeron chair a little higher, putting the top of my legs almost touching the underside of the desktop.
swframe2 9mo ago
I use 2 32" 4K which cost about $800 for both monitors. The small gap between the monitors is annoying but I can't really justify paying $2k more. Also there is a samsung dual 4k that is about the same price as the dell. Moving my head to see everything doesn't bother me. I also have a setup with 3 32" 4k which I find a little too wide but in that setup 1 monitor connects to different computer.
t1234s 9mo ago
Is 130PPI useable at a 1:1 pixel ratio or would this monitor need to be run at a 2:1 ratio
NoSalt 9mo ago
> "Unlock unparalleled productivity" LOL
bluedino 9mo ago
I wonder if this would work for me. I sit 36" from 43" 4K TV, I run it scaled at 125% I think I'm already at the edge of how big of a monitor I could use without spinning my head all around. But the curvedness of it might make up for it.
bhouston 9mo ago
Very large monitors are amazing. I’ve been rocking a single OLED 48” monitor for my MacBook Air M3. It is killer and I can not go back to smaller screen sizes. I just wish it was 6K or 8K instead of my current 4K. And if I do upgrade it will be to a 52/55”.
- ChrisMarshallNY 9mo ago
  I use a 49-inch LG ultrawide. 5120 X 1440, at 60Hz. Had it for a number of years. I think it was about $1,100, when I got it. It seemed too big, at first, and I split it, but got used to it at full width. I don't really care that much about pixel density or super-high framerate. I'm old, and don't really game. For software development, it's great.
- toephu2 9mo ago
  How far are you sitting from that monitor then? I'm only like 2 feet from my monitor so it doesn't make sense to go any bigger than 30"
- quotemstr 9mo ago
  Yes, but there's got to be some point at which it makes more sense to switch to a VR headset.
owenversteeg 9mo ago
$2900 seems pretty reasonable to me considering the size. Works out to $416/sqft, which is much cheaper than Bay Area real estate. I never understood the draw of these huge monitors until I had to do CAD for work and now I understand. Giant monitor + SpaceMouse is a gamechanger. My current monitor is 36” and I could easily use more width.
burnt-resistor 9mo ago
So I use a 49" Dell U4919DW (5120 x 1440 @ 60Hz) with an Anker 777 powered Thunderbolt hub to support a MBP, but also use it directly with a lab Windows box. I can't see spending $3k on a monitor because this one was $1100 + $157.29 tax and shipping in 2022. I threw on a 4 port USB-C hub that clamps on the front bezel, so it has reachable ports. I guess this almost replaces the Anker, but lacks Ethernet.
flyinglizard 9mo ago
I have the 40" (5K) and it's perfect. Replaced a 27-32-27 setup (the 27"s being portraits, the 32" landscape). For my coding and office work, absolutely no reason to go wider. Highly recommended. Note the 40", and probably this one too. support MST which makes the display appear as two monitors to the OS and is great in terms of window management without going too fancy with custom software.
- joshstrange 9mo ago
  Interesting, I'm on 3x27" 2K monitor (same setup as you, portrait, landscape, portrait) and while it works very well for me, I'd like to replace it with just 1 screen (or 3x 4-5K monitors but that is less interesting to me). I already have custom window management software that I use so it wouldn't be hard to switch to sub-dividing 1 monitor to get a similar experience (I think). Maybe I should look into the 40" 5K monitors, thanks!
  - flyinglizard 9mo ago
    Losing the bezel is great, and the Dell 4025qw that I have has also an IPS Black panel which is a vast improvement over what I had before - Dell U27-something (4K IPS), 3219Q (4K IPS). And it's 120hz. I really enjoy it.
- randerson 9mo ago
  Likewise. I've had the 40" version for about a year. Higher DPI than the 52". It replaced 2 x 27" monitors and I'm glad I made the switch. I generally have 2 apps running side-by-side just like before, but with the ability to go full wide-screen for movies or gaming. This monitor really does everything. It's crisp enough to read text on all day, unlike many gaming monitors. But the 120Hz is decent for gaming whereas most 5K+ monitors are only 60hz.
JakeStone 9mo ago
I've got big monitors, that I hook up to my work laptop and my own laptop. I make it work with a kvm hub. It's really sweet, for my use. I keep a browser, an IDE, and a terminal pretty much side by side on the bottom one. I keep slack, email, and a clock on the top monitor. I also place pullout tabs from my IDEs on the top one. Thing is, no matter the cost range, I generally have to replace the KVM hub about once a year. I've just come to accept that as a part replacement cost. <shrug> This thing has its own KVM hub internally. Maybe I'm just rough on my KVM, but if someone puts significant wear and tear on this monitor, I'd imagine that part would wear out, which seems like a potential money sink if you have to keep calling the warranty folks. For me, it's too much of a risk, but YMMV.
- bdavbdav 9mo ago
  If it’s at all representative, I had to replace 2 of the dell ultra sharp super ultra wides due to failing USB C hub / PD parts. I gave up at that point.
  - jval43 9mo ago
    My 49 inch Dell ultrawide is failing too. One USB port is already dead, and the other ports have just now started to develop intermittent issues as well.
  - GardenLetter27 9mo ago
    On the other hand, I've had one for 5 years and it's still going strong. Will definitely buy again.
zenethian 9mo ago
I really want more monitors that are taller and have 3:2 aspect ratio.
- rsync 9mo ago
  Eizo makes a square 1920x1920 monitor: https://www.eizo.com/products/flexscan/ev2730q/ https://www.eizo.com/products/flexscan/ev2730q/ ... available on Amazon last time I checked ... they also make a square 2048x2048 monitor for ATC: https://www.eizoglobal.com/products/atc/sq2826/ https://www.eizoglobal.com/products/atc/sq2826/ ... although I think it costs $5k or so ...
- zuhsetaqi 9mo ago
  I use the BenQ RD280U. It’s as wide as a 27” 16:9 and as tall as an 32” 16:9. I really like the aspect ratio and I’m using two of them.
nerdsniper 9mo ago
RTings has a very in-depth review[0] on this product line, ranking it tied for #6 for "best office monitor". 0: https://www.rtings.com/monitor/reviews/dell/u3225qe https://www.rtings.com/monitor/reviews/dell/u3225qe
- drob518 9mo ago
  That’s the 32 inch, not the 52 inch.
  - nerdsniper 9mo ago
    Yes, thank you for pointing this out - I should have said it explicitly. It's why I said "product line" rather than "product". I thought the 32" vs 52" distinction would be clear for anyone who clicked through. I also didn't realize that at the Dell store webpage, clicking the "32 inch" option actually slightly changed the product line - from U##26 to U##25 (as the 52" option is the only model associated with 2026), and generally I only consider UltraSharp's of different sizes to be "approximately equivalent in quality" if they share the same model year - and nothing yet shares the 2026 model year with this 52" option.
- zipy124 9mo ago
  Their best office monitor is actually another Ultrasharp....
  - nerdsniper 9mo ago
    Interesting! If you sort their monitor reviews[0] page by "Office Rating" the top monitor is the ASUS ProArt Display PA27JCV with a score of 9.0 But their "The 5 Best Work Monitors of 2026"[1] lists a Dell Ultrasharp in the #1 rank and the Asus ProArt does not appear in the recommendations at all. The info cards imply that the recommendation rankings might result from a weighted blend of "Office Rating", "Text Clarity" and "SDR Brightness". However, the ProArt outscores the Ultrasharp in both "Office Rating" and "SDR Brightness" while exactly matching the Ultrasharp's score in "Text Clarity". So the "The 5 Best Work Monitors of 2026" appears to be a somewhat subjective list, rather than purely a result of objective measurements. 0: https://www.rtings.com/monitor/reviews https://www.rtings.com/monitor/reviews 1: https://www.rtings.com/monitor/reviews/best/by-usage/business-office https://www.rtings.com/monitor/reviews/best/by-usage/busines...
bilsbie 9mo ago
Would the latest Mac minis work with this?
- wmf 9mo ago
  Yes.
deleted 9mo ago
[deleted]
nennes 9mo ago
Size and pixel density concerns aside, one downside of larger monitors is the power draw. This burns 64W, which adds £3 to your monthly electricity bill if used for 8hrs every weekday. It's not a terrible amount, but I can run 3 micro pc servers 24/7 for that cost.
- quotemstr 9mo ago
  Imagine living in a so-called "civilization" in which your productivity is limited not by time or tools but by how much it costs to buy photons to shoot into your eyeballs.
elevation 9mo ago
I run a pair of the 43" model listed on the page (U4323QE). Coming from a desk full of 24" 1080P screens which I used with no scaling, the selling point for me was that the DPI was similar (~114, no scaling needed) while the total real estate was larger. This 6K panel seems like it would scratch a similar itch.
- r0b05 9mo ago
  Is the PPI not too small with the 43"? I have a 4k 27" which has nice PPI and I was considering this 43" as a replacement but the pixels looked quite prominent in youtube reviews.
  - elevation 9mo ago
    The PPI is small, but this is what I wanted because it better supports native resolutions with no scaling on legacy apps I run. To preserve the PPI you're used to, you'd want 8K resolution as you approach 50".
madmod 9mo ago
I have 3 27" 5k monitors in portrait and a 32" 4k horizontal above those. It is all mounted with vesa cheeseplates to manfrotto magic arms on t slot aluminum attached to a C stand with manfrotto super clamps. I also have two genelec studio monitors which sound amazing. All of that cost less than this one monitor.
- novaleaf 9mo ago
  what's the make/model for the monitors? my setup is getting long in the tooth.
  - madmod 9mo ago
    Two PA27JCV and one LG ultrasharp (it was cheap because it was broken and I repaired it) and the 4k monitor is a samsung which I cant recommend. (Open box was cheap though)
- byproxy 9mo ago
  What Genelecs are you using??
  - EnPissant 9mo ago
    Not OP, but I have 2 8020D + a subwoofer. If I had to do it all over again I would have 2 8030C and no subwoofer.
    - ziofill 9mo ago
      I sport two klipsch towers on either side of my desk and a small tube amp ^^'
    - someguyiguess 9mo ago
      Why? Just out of curiosity. Is it that you don’t need that much low end for the media you’re usually playing through your monitors or do the 8030Cs have enough low end to eliminate the need for a separate woofer? I’ve been debating getting genelecs for a few years now but the price jump from something like JBLs or Yamahas is so huge that I can’t justify it. At least not on my current budget.
shell0x 9mo ago
1. I don't think I'll ever buy Dell again. My current monitor is a Dell S3221QS 32" screen and it has vertical lines and starts flickering on both the Macbook M1 and the Mac Studio with the M4 Max chip after some time, which is a known issue[0][1]. It also defaults to YPbPr colors rather than RGB/SRGB, so the colors look off. I'm using HDMI to HDMI connectivity currently. Part of it is also my fault as I thought a monitor would work with any computer. 2. That aside, what are you all using for window management on these large screens? I'm currently using Rectangle on Mac, but I was wondering if there's a better way. [0] https://www.reddit.com/r/Dell/comments/1221mz2/dell_s3221qs_monitor_flickers_when_connected_to_a/ https://www.reddit.com/r/Dell/comments/1221mz2/dell_s3221qs_... [1] https://www.reddit.com/r/Dell/comments/n8ei34/dell_s3221qs_flickering_issue_with_m1_macbook/ https://www.reddit.com/r/Dell/comments/n8ei34/dell_s3221qs_f...
- user68858788 9mo ago
  Spectacle for Mac and power toys for windows. I’ve been using a single large monitor for a while and it’s been great with window managers. The biggest downside is when playing games full-screen.
- AceJohnny2 9mo ago
  Counter-anecdata: I have 2 Dell U2720Q (Ultrasharp 27") bought in 2021 and they've been great. That said, I've always stuck for Dell's upper-range Ultrasharp (U prefix in models) monitors, being slightly wary of their cheaper series which the S in your S3221QS implies.
  - antod 9mo ago
    I have a 13yr old 27" Ultrasharp still going well. +1 to only buy Ultrasharp if buying from Dell. The others can be junk.
    - brailsafe 9mo ago
      I'm using 2x Dell U3011s, one I purchased around ~2013 probably and the other I got used recently for $100. My only issue with them is that they have PWM coil whine that only goes away if I crank the brightness to ~90%, which seems to produce an immense amount of heat and probably power consumption. I'd love to find a viable alternative solution for this, because these are my favorite monitors for now. The model appears to have been released 16 years ago. I haven't yet found a monitor that makes sense to replace them with either.
lowbloodsugar 9mo ago
Could almost get 2x Apple Studio Displays for that $. Then you got 10240x2880. The Dell is only 2" taller and yet 320 less vertical pixels.
kgwxd 9mo ago
is there something special about it to make the front page?
BoingBoomTschak 9mo ago
Too bad it's not using IPS Black 2 (https://www.lgdisplay.com/eng/product/monitor-display/ips-black-2-0 https://www.lgdisplay.com/eng/product/monitor-display/ips-bl...) like the U3225QE/U2725QE or iiyama's new ProGraphics.
quotemstr 9mo ago
I can recommend the 45-inch LG Ultragear too. Nice OLED. 5120x2160 resolution. Perfect curvature for me, coming from a G9. Just don't be an idiot like I was. I connected my monitor to my dock with both DisplayPort and some random USB-C cable. Worked fine initially. One day, cleaning my office, I swapped out that USB-C cable with a higher-quality one. Took me a bit to realize that the consequent Wayland post-resume resolution flakiness came from a race condition enumerating the real-DP and USB-C-alt-mode "separate" monitors that my machine thought I now had. It's not often that downgrading a USB cable fixes a problem.
breakds 9mo ago
Exactly what I had via sunshine and moonlight in my Vision Pro ...
para_parolu 9mo ago
I have dell with similar resolution and 32 inches. It is a decent matrix to work with code. But increasing diagonal without increasing resolution just makes it expensive tv and not something where you read text
Forgeties79 9mo ago
I had a Dell thunderbolt hub monitor (not sure if that was the exact name for it but functionally the same thing) in idk 2018? 1440p. Loved it. It played so well with my 2016 MBpro too. Even had HDD’s running through it. It worked fantastically from top to bottom. For 2 years. Obviously this is not the same product and it has been a long time. But man I hadn’t thought about that in years and now I’m all bitter about it again ha
teleforce 9mo ago
It's a shame that this 6K tunderbolt hub monitor does not support the latest thunderbolt 5 standard. Otherwise you can connect and daisy chain two of these 6K displays together.
compounding_it 9mo ago
I’ve been using a single 24 inch 1080p benq usb c monitor after realizing 4k 27 inch scaling is just terrible and 5k 27 inch is just too pricey. It’s a budget monitor but it’s surprising what 140$ can get you these days cause the quality of the panel is really good. It supports daisy chaining so I can add another monitor to my m1 air (which I can’t otherwise I think). If it was 4k 24 inch I’d buy two as I find that size kinda perfect. Personally I’ve found that a single monitor is enough 90% of the time while coding. It’s when I need to do something nitty gritty that I need a second monitor. That being said working with only a laptop is painful and extremely uncomfortable for the posture. I don’t think I can get anything real done without a monitor keyboard and mouse. Going down to an 11 inch iPad sounds impossible.
- swader999 9mo ago
  I always plug in a keyboard and raise the laptop up 3-5 textbooks high. Can't work at a desk and just a laptop, too old for that.
- nja 9mo ago
  For some reason nobody makes 2K 24"s anymore -- that was my sweet spot. But now to get the pixel density you have to go way bigger :/ dreading the day the old monitors I have cease working. I like the 24" size but 1080 is just so annoying. I was using 2048x1156 20" monitors back in 2010 and they had better density!
  - compounding_it 9mo ago
    we have become used to retina displays these days so 1080p 24 inch looks 'pixelated'. I sit about 18 inches from the monitor and it looks okay. I find this distance and size most comfortable for me. The 27 inch 4k was too big for my setup and the scaled 2560x1440 is something I would not recommend (was warned about it but didn't listen :P).
- tra3 9mo ago
  I didn't know you could do multimonitor setup with m1 air. Can you share what your setup is?
hk1337 9mo ago
I had the UltraSharp 40” similar to this, I loved it until I went to readjust it, apparently tilted it wrong, and the screen blanked. :(
akulbe 9mo ago
Am I the only one who thinks 120Hz is still low for a display of that size? My 38" LG goes up to 144Hz. I would have figured something larger would be at least that much.
slashtom 9mo ago
I purchased this as soon as it was announced, I was surprised they had it ready to ship on the day of the CES announcement. I do enjoy it, with Fancyzones, I can set up Unreal Engine Editor, Rider, discord/teams and a small corner window for searching and/or youtube watching on the side. At first I thought the pixel count was going to be too low but from my position it 'feels' retina at 125% windows scaling. Yes you can do the same with multiple monitors but I don't get the fatigue of turning my physical head, it's the perfect size to sit in middle and use your eyes to adjust/focus if that makes sense.. 120hz and fast motion helps a lot. DCS World looks amazing on this, it feels like it's your full fov when playing games. Granted this isn't an OLED panel, I wouldn't play anything competitive on here but EU V and/or RTS games are very nice at 6k/52. This replaced my dual 4K 120hz monitors. Recommend if you're not gaming.
diebillionaires 9mo ago
I got both of my 4k dell 27" monitors for like $450 each and it's amazing. I would never pay this much. I'd just buy a 48" OLED. But that was too big. This is just silly and overpriced.
cranium 9mo ago
Looks slick! In the >50" category, I've recently upgraded from the Samsung Odyssey G9 49" (with res 2x1440p) to a Samsung Odyssey G9 57" (2x4K). With a tiling window manager and workspaces it's really a pleasure to use, and contrarily to some beliefs, I do more focused work that way because I don't have to switch workspace to find the information I'm looking for – less risk of distraction.
9021007 9mo ago
Any display that is <200ppi is garbage and manufacturers should be ashamed of themselves for pricing them above $800.
paranoidrobot 9mo ago
My desk has 2x 27" and 1x 43" Dell monitors. Unfortunately the new work MacBook only supports two external displays so one of those 27 sits idle. What used to be nice is now a case of constantly shuffling windows, not made easy by MacOSs janky window handling. I've been looking for a second 43" to replace the 27"s but the high price and sub-par quality of the 43 is making me wait. I am also finding it difficult to find monitor arms that will carry such large and heavy screens. The 43 is already at the limit of the one reasonably priced arm I found and a definite struggle to mount.
hinkley 9mo ago
Dell has a shitty habit of down-rating monitor model numbers over time. The very expensive monitor your internet buddy waxed poetic about six months ago is now half the price and also half the monitor. It's not worth the trouble.
sabalaba 9mo ago
Is HN the last refuge of real internet discourse? While some of the replies are very Reddit m-coded, it still feels like real humans. I wonder how long this will last before the agents take over.
casperb 9mo ago
The scroll hijacking on this page is horrendous. I could almost not close the page anymore on iOS because of everything going on.
whatever1 9mo ago
I was hoping that 8k tvs at ~50inches would become widely available. They were high enough density and tall enough for coding applications, but as first versions they had some rough edges (text rendering not great by default). Instead they just disappeared from the market :( I think Aliexpress has no brand panels, but at $600 it is a non trivial gamble.
GardenLetter27 9mo ago
I love the Dell Ultrasharp series, interesting they went with Thunderbolt though I had issues with it not working when trying to use another dock with my Thinkpad. I'd rather buy the USB-C one so I know it will work with the Steam Deck, etc. EDIT: Oh, only one port is Thunderbolt.
arnejenssen 9mo ago
Sure it would be cool, but I don't think not having 6k is my limiting factor (I have an ok 4k 42" monitor)
littlecranky67 9mo ago
Do product companies visit their own websites? You have to click on three (!) overlays/popups if you visit the website - cookie notice, another popup telling me that I am not from the US and can visit their european website, and an AI alert overlay telling me about their new AI features. Only after clicking away all three I can actually see the product content. Madness.
alchemist1e9 9mo ago
4200R is very gentle curvature. Wouldn’t it have been better to curve more aggressively, like at least 2000R for such a large screen if the purpose is a desk monitor?
pipeline_peak 9mo ago
I don’t understand the point of these ultra wide monitors. On windows 11, you can only have 3 verticals columns with a monitor this wide. If I had 3 regular width monitors, I could have 6 columns overall. I’d also imagine it looks awkward when you have one window in full screen, but I’ve never used one in person.
steveBK123 9mo ago
I refuse to buy a dell monitor again because I found their quality low and their warranty process onerous. Took hours of my time to get a replacement sent and it had I failed in a different way soon after. For a cheap throwaway monitor maybe. For anything premium no way.
- dnkejtskkfkg 9mo ago
  Even though apple, asus and samsung have some top-notch models, premium monitors is actually where dell excels. At least the different models I’ve bought through the last decades. Cheap crap hardware are not welcome in my home.
wraptile 9mo ago
This size just doesn't make sense due to overwhelming evidence that ergonomic viewing angles matter.
sigy 9mo ago
I ordered this within 30 minutes of learning about it. I've been waiting for something like this. Here's why: - My eyes are getting older, and I need a better visual connection to my work. - We spend much of our lives in front of these devices. Optimizing this just makes sense. - It is more than just a monitor with some features. It's a well-rounded kit with good software support. - I previously used multiple 4K monitors and external KVMs. The built-in KVM and management software that works with the display makes multi-system use as easy as it could possibly be. - The resolution has _more than_ overcome the issues I had with font rendering on lower resolutions while trying to have more visual workspace. - The thunderbolt hub has vastly reduced multi-system USB/wiring/speed clutter and confusion. Yes, it was expensive. Yes, I'm very happy with it. Within this week, it has drastically improved my sense of comfort and utility, and I got rid of all the other monitors. Ok, for the gripes: - The curvature is a bit minor compared to what I'm used to. Given the spatial density I want, the optimal distance is less than 30" from the display, and with my aging eyes at this distance, looking from center to edge changes my focal depth by more than a small amount. That said, the off-axis views are quite good. Essentially, looking at this display from a longer distance wastes much of the effective ocular resolution. - The software is great, but if you want something more tactile, reaching to the sole multi-purpose menu stick is not that great. It wouldn't have hurt for them to provide a USB-connected desktop switch. I hope they still do. This monitor runs its own "OS" of sorts, and can be extended with new functionality should they choose to. - Finding the improved dynamic range took a bit of learning. The way it works feels better (less of a special case) for me, but I had to go adjust the settings to tap into higher resolution per color plane. If anybody has any specific questions, I'll be happy to answer them.
wesleyd 9mo ago
The radius is too big. This monitor is R4200, 4.2m. I have a Samsung odyssey something 49” monitor and it is glorious. It is R1000, and since my head is about a meter from the screen, it works: even the edges are usable. I used to use two 27” 1440p monitors, which together are about the same size as the Samsung 49”, and also the same resolution, but the edges were further enough away from my head that they were annoying to use. Not to mention the bezels in the middle. While this dell wouldn’t have the bezels, the edges would still be too far away. The only drawback of my giant R1000 monitor is that I can’t easily use my laptop’s camera. So I don’t; I use an iPad for video conferencing, it sits happily below this monitor. My only regret is not getting the 57” 2x4k variant!

289 points by cebert 9mo ago

I have a 34" ultrawide and it is huge. I can't imagine a 52" - the edges would be so far away that it must be hard to read text without physically moving left/right

__mharrison__ 9mo ago
I have a 42" 4k TV that I use as a monitor (in gaming mode). Not sure I would want anything shorter than that. (Of course, I have an eye issue, so the side-to-side is even more pronounced for me.
rahimnathwani 9mo ago
I used to use a 40" 4k TV. Now I use a 38" ultrawide, which is roughly the same width (in pixels and in inches) but doesn't require my head to move up/down as much. I could imagine using a 52" ultrawide if it were placed further away from me (i.e. deeper desk). The extra pixels would make it effectively a retina display.
Marsymars 9mo ago
52" at that aspect ratio isn't just wide, it's also >50% taller than a 34" ultrawide. It's akin to a 55" TV - basically the same width, but only 70% of the height.
simooooo 9mo ago
I have a 57” ultra wide and it absolutely requires you to look around
reppap 9mo ago
I think you would have to sit further back, almost tv watching distance.
- gofreddygo 9mo ago
  And that would strain your eyes or force a bigger font. At that point, you'd be wondering, like me, on why I spent $$ to buy a bigger screen in the first place. I got an open box lenovo 24 inch QHD monitor for years and it just works solid across windows, mac and various docking stations. I could imagine upgrading to a 27 or 30 inch but beyond that is just too much IMO. Maybe taller, more square could be of more use than wider.
bityard 9mo ago
Do you... usually read content in a full-screen window on that thing? I only have a 27" monitor and sit about 2.5 feet away from it and I move my head _slightly_ to focus on different windows. But that's the reason I have a larger monitor, so I can have a bunch of normal-sized windows open at once.
- hanspeter 9mo ago
  Their point may be about viewing distance. If the edges of the screen are further from your eyes than the center, the content and text doesn't appear at the same size. If you wear glasses, the edges might even fall out of focus unless you physically move closer.
- piinbinary 9mo ago
  I like having three columns of code open in my editor, but the left edge of the leftmost column (since code is left-justified) gets pretty far away from my face. Or I need stronger glasses, one of the two.
- KaiserPro 9mo ago
  I think it depends on vision. I have a single 27" 4k monitor with vscode set to about 80% zoom. But I'm getting older, so I might have to make it a big bigger soon.
saltcured 9mo ago
Since well before the pandemic, I've have dual 28" 4K screens on my desk. When ordering them, I liked the fact that they had the same pixel pitch as my 14" 2K laptop screen. One monitor was like a borderless 2x2 grid of those laptop screens. I found myself repositioning things so that one is in front of the keyboard as a primary screen and the other is further off to the side as a secondary dumping ground. I found myself neglecting the second display most of the time so it was just a blank background. Eventually, I noticed I wasn't even using the entire primary screen. I favored a sector of it and pushed some windows off to the edges. Ironically, with work from home, I've started roaming around the house with the laptop instead of staying at my desk. So I'm mostly back to working in a 14" screen with virtual desktops, like I was 20 years ago. I am glad that laptops are starting to have 16:10 again after the long drought of HDTV-derived screens.

ardit33 9mo ago

I have a 39" (almost 40") LG ultrawide, and it is the perfect size. Can't see how a larger monitor would fit a normal desk... BUT.... this is perfect for folks that want to use one monitor for both work, and as/for entertainment /just normal tv watching in a living room.

stalfosknight 9mo ago

Abysmally low pixel density. :(

BlaDeKke 9mo ago
No scaling required? Great!
- tonyedgecombe 9mo ago
  Spot the Linux user ;)
  - silon42 9mo ago
    Yes, me too... also don't need GPU card, CPU integrated will do fine (at 120Hz). (I have 32" 1440p ... 1600p would be better, but that's it).
  - adrian_b 9mo ago
    More accurately, you have spotted not a Linux user in general, but a user of certain Linux distributions, which in my opinion have inadequate display configuration settings. I am also using only Linux on all my desktops and laptops, and I have never used any display with a resolution less than 4k, for at least the last 12 or 13 years. Despite of that, I have never encountered any problems with "scaling", because in Linux I have never used any kind of "scaling" (unlike in Windows, which has a font "scaling"). In the kind of Linux that I have been using, I only set an appropriate dots-per-inch value for the monitor, which means that there is no "scaling", which would reduce graphic quality, but all programs render the fonts and other graphic elements at an appropriate size and using in the right way the display resolution. I configure dots-per-inch values that do not match the actual dpi values of the monitors, but values that ensure that the on-screen size is slightly larger than the on-paper size, because I stay at a greater distance from the monitor than I would keep a paper or a book in my hand (i.e. I set higher dpi values than the real ones, so that any rendering program will believe that the screen is smaller than in reality, so it will render e.g. a 12 point font at a slightly bigger size than 12 points and e.g. an A4 page will be bigger on screen than an A4 sheet of paper; for instance I use 216 dpi for a 27 inch 4k Dell UltraSharp monitor).

throw0101d 9mo ago

The pixels per inch (ppi) density is 129. Some other specs: refresh rate, 120Hz; brightness, 400 cd/m².

tshaddox 9mo ago
That's decent pixel density considering the size of the monitor. A 32" 4K monitor has slightly higher PPI at around 138.
- jmarcher 9mo ago
  I have a 40in 5k (32in 4k, but wider). IMHO, 138ppi is the bare minimum, but it really depends on a person's eyesight and preferences. I would love a large-ish ultra-wide with > 160ppi. One day, maybe, that being said, by that time those things will exist and be reasonably priced, my eyes might not be able to appreciate the difference.
  - leptons 9mo ago
    I'm using three 4k 32" screens arranged vertically, for 6480 x 3840 desktop size. The only real monitor upgrade I'm willing to entertain is a ~50" 8k curved screen (basically a curved TV-sized screen), which has not been made yet AFAIK. I'm not into "ultrawide", for me it has to be "ultrawide" and "ultratall". I want all that screen real estate in high PPI. I tried test-driving a 50" 4k TV for a week and the flatness of it was not what I wanted, it has to be a curved screen for workstation use.
    - jmarcher 9mo ago
      100% I used to have a 43-inch 4K "monitor" (16:9). The lack of curvature meant that at the sides of the screen, there was noticeable color shifting due to variations in viewing angle. That's with an IPS panel. Your dream is probably a ~50in 8K TV (with RGB pattern if you are on macOS), but curved. I don't know if that will ever exist. Personally, I found that with a bigger 16:9, I would not use the top and bottom of the screen. When I "downgraded" to a 40in ultra-wide, there was not much difference in the space I was using.

__sp__ 9mo ago

[flagged]

2OEH8eoCRo0 9mo ago

Nice. I have the predecessor 40" U4025QW and it's outstanding.

bhhaskin 9mo ago
I second the U4025QW. It's fantastic and the built in KVM is great.

fadedsignal 9mo ago

[flagged]

dkobia 9mo ago

At 52" I now believe that there is a limit to the size of a monitor. This might have crossed it.

bigstrat2003 9mo ago

The smaller sizes would be nice if they had a 16:10 option. 16:9 just isn't a very nice aspect ratio imo, the extra height on 16:10 is much better.

mixmastamyk 9mo ago
To whoever needs to hear it, I will never buy another 16:9 monitor. Vastly prefer the 3:2 on my Framework and also liked an old 4:3 I had. Also great in portrait.
- joombaga 9mo ago
  Yep. I have a MacBook air 13 and a Framework, and miss the extra vertical space when I'm on the MacBook.
Flockster 9mo ago
Yes, I will never buy 16:9 again. On laptops 16:10 is already quite often and sometimes even 3:2 (Framework, Surfacebook). For my desktop I am looking forward to getting a 3:2 monitor like the Benq RD280U https://www.benq.com/en-us/monitor/programming/rd280u.html https://www.benq.com/en-us/monitor/programming/rd280u.html

lejalv 9mo ago

This has pixels the size of my hand, and it fully covers my field of view. Not my cup of tea. What I do recommend (having bought one) is the Kuycon G32p, 32 inches @ 6K. Incredible quality and unbelievable value for money (https://clickclack.io/products/in-stock-kuycon-g32p-6k-32-inch-ips-black-monitor?variant=42711717281828 https://clickclack.io/products/in-stock-kuycon-g32p-6k-32-in...).

samdixon 9mo ago
this looks like a rip off of another monitor that I can't quite put my finger on...
- smilebot 9mo ago
  And no extra charge to have an adjustable stand! How do they make money?
  - jdc0589 9mo ago
    its probably a charity, no money there.
  - DustinEchoes 9mo ago
    No need to recoup R&D costs.
  - joshstrange 9mo ago
    By having fewer pixels, lower quality screens? Crazy what you can do when you cut corners. This screen reminds of when I did tech support in high school and I helped a guy who bragged about his computer monitor, it was a TV running at 720p (if not lower) and a massive screen. The windows start bar was hilariously large (as were all UI elements), I had to just smile and nod until I got out of there. Sure, your screen may be bigger but it's blurry and everything is scaled way too large.
    - semi-extrinsic 9mo ago

sulam 9mo ago

I have a smaller version of this and it's pretty good as a display. I'm somewhat disappointed with it as a hub/KVM. It's better than having to swap cables, but just barely. It can't handle any high bandwidth USB devices I've tried (Focusrite Scarlett 2i2, a DSLR via capture card DSLR and a Logitech webcam). The downstream USB strangely isn't even sending down a keyboard and mouse to a PC, I ended up having to get separate dedicated KVM for those. It worked fine with a Thunderbolt to my Macs, but that's not surprising. I'm not sure how it would work with two Macs (one would have to be HDMI or DisplayPort and use that downstream USB port). I could try that but it's not my use case.

ninkendo 9mo ago
Yeah… Not sure of your model (I have the U4025QW), but mine is so close to perfect as a KVM between a Mac and 2 PC’s, if only the KVM had one more USB output port. It takes 3 video inputs, but only 1 dedicated USB output. But oh, one of the video inputs is really Thunderbolt, so you get USB over the same cable and it works… but only if your machine supports this (for many laptops this is fine.) But that’s 2 machines max in the KVM, while the monitor has 3 selectable inputs… It would have been nicer if they could’ve added one more USB output, so you could have KVM match the display input for 3 machines with a single toggle. (I have a Mac, a work desktop, and a gaming desktop, and I can toggle between the Mac (thunderbolt) and one of the PC’s, and the kvm input will follow the display’s. But I have to pick which PC I want to plug the downstream USB cable into… so I bought a little $15 USB A/B switch to help. So Mac keyboard always works, but when switching between gaming PC (hdmi) and work PC (DP) I just have to remember to toggle the A/B switch along with it to make the keyboard go to the right host.)

apetrov 9mo ago

Interestingly it has Thunderbolt 4 (40Gb), 6K typically saturates 30-31Gb, which leaves less 10Gb/s which isn't a lot especially assuming 2.5Gb network. Looks like a perfect case for TB5 and given its price.

gouthamve 9mo ago

I just setup mine today, and I am not sure I recommend it. I went from a 40" to a 52", and I'm just moving my head waaay too much and my shoulders hurt. It is curved, but very little imo, it's almost like it's flat. I'm going to try it for a week before making the call on whether to return it. I feel like this needs a workflow where you do work in the middle and use the fringes for other applications that you rarely look at. Otherwise you're moving your head waaay too much and squinting a bunch.

cosmic_cheese 9mo ago
Based on personal experience, I think the upper bound for comfortably useful size at normal sitting distances is probably about 32", and even then I think there'd be better returns on adding vertical pixels to a ~27" monitor. A modern equivalent to the old 16:10 30" 2560x1600 monitors (ideally 2x scaling 5120x3200) would be great for example, but one could also imagine a 4:3 or 5:4 monitor with the same width (~23.5") as current 16:9 27" monitors.
- kccqzy 9mo ago
  Same! My employer offered a choice of 32-inch and 40-inch monitors. I “upgraded” from 32 to 40 but I regretted it. I just don’t make use of the extra horizontal space effectively.
- peppersghost93 9mo ago
  I'm still rocking a couple of 30 inch dell 2560x1600 monitors. They're about the perfect size and not dealing with scaling in Linux is nice. I'd pay a ton of money for a modern equivalent.
- kcrwfrd_ 9mo ago
  I run a 42” 4k at 1:1 pixel ratio and I agree. It’s a little too big, but it does nice double duty for gaming and watching tv. 5120x3200 in 30” would be awesome.
switchbak 9mo ago
That was my issue with multiple monitors years ago - I'd be cranking my neck over too often (looking at logs, etc). I vastly prefer an ultrawide where I can put logs / monitors on the side flexibly. I have a 34 inch now, and feel like I could use more space - but it's nice to know there's an upper bound. Do you feel like there's still room to go beyond 40, or is that the sweet spot?

esafak 9mo ago

I never got into the ultra wide thing. Where the 8K monitors at?? We've been stuck on 4K for ten years!

hhh 9mo ago
they’ve been around for a few years, as well as 5K and 6K
- masklinn 9mo ago
  Sadly they're not super common which makes them expensive, and I don't think I've seen any that wasn't 16:9. The world has decided to go with refresh rates rather than resolution.
  - jorvi 9mo ago
    Which is the right choice because our eyes cannot resolve that kind of DPI at that distance. Past 2880p on most desk monitor viewing distances or past 1080p on most TV viewing distances, you hit steeply diminishing returns. Please, please let's use our processing power and signal bandwidth for color and refresh rate, not resolution. This is also why I think every console game should have a 720p handheld 'performance' and 1080p living room 'performance' mode. We don't need 1080p on handhelds or 2160p in the living room. Unless you're using relatively enormous screens for either purpose.
    - Kon5ole 9mo ago
      >Which is the right choice No damn it, it's not! Everyone I know can immediately see a clear difference between 120 ppi and 200 ppi, but I've yet to encounter anyone who can reliably tell 120hz from 200hz. We have monitors that render lego-sized pixels at 500+ hz now, it's enough. Gamers have been gaslit to believe they have the reflexes of spider-man and are a lost cause, but their preferences have been listened to by monitor makers for 30 years. Enough already! Millions of office workers are working all day reading text on screens optimized for playing games at low resolutions. It's just sad. Steve Jobs showed a decade ago that 4x resolution could be sold at great profit for normal prices. Text on screens can be as crisp as on paper. Sadly it only became the standard on phones, not on productivity desktop monitors. It so easily could be, and it should be.

phaser 9mo ago

Maybe this is the living room dumb-TV that I was waiting for

nerdsniper 9mo ago
It has pretty poor HDR performance compared to similarly priced TVs. https://www.rtings.com/monitor/reviews/dell/u3225qe https://www.rtings.com/monitor/reviews/dell/u3225qe

api 9mo ago

Still would love a true AMOLED monitor that's decently large. Doesn't need to be this big. One with perfect contrast ratio.

ajross 9mo ago

Looks nice enough. But seems pretty steep. The 42" TV I bought five years ago for $260 does basically the same thing. Slightly more vertical space (albeit at a lower DPI) and somewhat less horizontal. But it still supports four 80-column text windows without a sweat. Late stage FAANGery is watching 20-somethings try to find ridiculous junk to spend money on.

Hikikomori 9mo ago
My old crt can show letters and numbers.

LegitShady 9mo ago

dont believe them - this only has 1 thunderbolt port, not 52

MarlonPro 9mo ago

Expansive and expensive at the same time!

_zoltan_ 9mo ago

another meh display from dell. if you truly want a great display for productivity, I can't recommend the Samsung 57 enough. 240hz, 2x4k in one panel. it's great.

mrandish 9mo ago

I've found ideal monitor size and resolution depends greatly on viewing distance and relative position. I use a 38" ultra-wide and it's almost too wide - but I have it 'floating' on an adjustable monitor arm so it's only about 24" from my eyes and a bit higher than most monitor stands would allow. The monitor arm is key because once I put a full ergo split keyboard at a comfortable arm-rest distance, a normal monitor stand sitting on the desk would force the monitor to be too far back. For the full breadth of a 52" monitor to be comfortably viewable for detail work, I'd have to be farther back enough that the difference between 4K and 6K wouldn't be meaningful. It's kind of like how 8k resolution can provide meaningful value in a head-mounted display two inches from your eyeballs, but 8k on a 65" living room TV seven feet away from your couch viewing position is pointless because even those with 20/10 vision can't resolve the additional detail at that distance. For detail work I find my best ergo seating position is up close with my legs tucked well-under the desk and my stomach almost touching the edge of the curved desk inset. This allows my forearms to be supported comfortably on the desk. I also have my desk surface a little lower than most and my Aeron chair a little higher, putting the top of my legs almost touching the underside of the desktop.

swframe2 9mo ago

I use 2 32" 4K which cost about $800 for both monitors. The small gap between the monitors is annoying but I can't really justify paying $2k more. Also there is a samsung dual 4k that is about the same price as the dell. Moving my head to see everything doesn't bother me. I also have a setup with 3 32" 4k which I find a little too wide but in that setup 1 monitor connects to different computer.

t1234s 9mo ago

Is 130PPI useable at a 1:1 pixel ratio or would this monitor need to be run at a 2:1 ratio

NoSalt 9mo ago

> "Unlock unparalleled productivity" LOL

bluedino 9mo ago

I wonder if this would work for me. I sit 36" from 43" 4K TV, I run it scaled at 125% I think I'm already at the edge of how big of a monitor I could use without spinning my head all around. But the curvedness of it might make up for it.

bhouston 9mo ago

Very large monitors are amazing. I’ve been rocking a single OLED 48” monitor for my MacBook Air M3. It is killer and I can not go back to smaller screen sizes. I just wish it was 6K or 8K instead of my current 4K. And if I do upgrade it will be to a 52/55”.

ChrisMarshallNY 9mo ago
I use a 49-inch LG ultrawide. 5120 X 1440, at 60Hz. Had it for a number of years. I think it was about $1,100, when I got it. It seemed too big, at first, and I split it, but got used to it at full width. I don't really care that much about pixel density or super-high framerate. I'm old, and don't really game. For software development, it's great.
toephu2 9mo ago
How far are you sitting from that monitor then? I'm only like 2 feet from my monitor so it doesn't make sense to go any bigger than 30"
quotemstr 9mo ago
Yes, but there's got to be some point at which it makes more sense to switch to a VR headset.

owenversteeg 9mo ago

$2900 seems pretty reasonable to me considering the size. Works out to $416/sqft, which is much cheaper than Bay Area real estate. I never understood the draw of these huge monitors until I had to do CAD for work and now I understand. Giant monitor + SpaceMouse is a gamechanger. My current monitor is 36” and I could easily use more width.

burnt-resistor 9mo ago

So I use a 49" Dell U4919DW (5120 x 1440 @ 60Hz) with an Anker 777 powered Thunderbolt hub to support a MBP, but also use it directly with a lab Windows box. I can't see spending $3k on a monitor because this one was $1100 + $157.29 tax and shipping in 2022. I threw on a 4 port USB-C hub that clamps on the front bezel, so it has reachable ports. I guess this almost replaces the Anker, but lacks Ethernet.

flyinglizard 9mo ago

I have the 40" (5K) and it's perfect. Replaced a 27-32-27 setup (the 27"s being portraits, the 32" landscape). For my coding and office work, absolutely no reason to go wider. Highly recommended. Note the 40", and probably this one too. support MST which makes the display appear as two monitors to the OS and is great in terms of window management without going too fancy with custom software.

joshstrange 9mo ago
Interesting, I'm on 3x27" 2K monitor (same setup as you, portrait, landscape, portrait) and while it works very well for me, I'd like to replace it with just 1 screen (or 3x 4-5K monitors but that is less interesting to me). I already have custom window management software that I use so it wouldn't be hard to switch to sub-dividing 1 monitor to get a similar experience (I think). Maybe I should look into the 40" 5K monitors, thanks!
- flyinglizard 9mo ago
  Losing the bezel is great, and the Dell 4025qw that I have has also an IPS Black panel which is a vast improvement over what I had before - Dell U27-something (4K IPS), 3219Q (4K IPS). And it's 120hz. I really enjoy it.
randerson 9mo ago
Likewise. I've had the 40" version for about a year. Higher DPI than the 52". It replaced 2 x 27" monitors and I'm glad I made the switch. I generally have 2 apps running side-by-side just like before, but with the ability to go full wide-screen for movies or gaming. This monitor really does everything. It's crisp enough to read text on all day, unlike many gaming monitors. But the 120Hz is decent for gaming whereas most 5K+ monitors are only 60hz.

JakeStone 9mo ago

I've got big monitors, that I hook up to my work laptop and my own laptop. I make it work with a kvm hub. It's really sweet, for my use. I keep a browser, an IDE, and a terminal pretty much side by side on the bottom one. I keep slack, email, and a clock on the top monitor. I also place pullout tabs from my IDEs on the top one. Thing is, no matter the cost range, I generally have to replace the KVM hub about once a year. I've just come to accept that as a part replacement cost. <shrug> This thing has its own KVM hub internally. Maybe I'm just rough on my KVM, but if someone puts significant wear and tear on this monitor, I'd imagine that part would wear out, which seems like a potential money sink if you have to keep calling the warranty folks. For me, it's too much of a risk, but YMMV.

bdavbdav 9mo ago
If it’s at all representative, I had to replace 2 of the dell ultra sharp super ultra wides due to failing USB C hub / PD parts. I gave up at that point.
- jval43 9mo ago
  My 49 inch Dell ultrawide is failing too. One USB port is already dead, and the other ports have just now started to develop intermittent issues as well.
- GardenLetter27 9mo ago
  On the other hand, I've had one for 5 years and it's still going strong. Will definitely buy again.

zenethian 9mo ago

I really want more monitors that are taller and have 3:2 aspect ratio.

rsync 9mo ago
Eizo makes a square 1920x1920 monitor: https://www.eizo.com/products/flexscan/ev2730q/ https://www.eizo.com/products/flexscan/ev2730q/ ... available on Amazon last time I checked ... they also make a square 2048x2048 monitor for ATC: https://www.eizoglobal.com/products/atc/sq2826/ https://www.eizoglobal.com/products/atc/sq2826/ ... although I think it costs $5k or so ...
zuhsetaqi 9mo ago
I use the BenQ RD280U. It’s as wide as a 27” 16:9 and as tall as an 32” 16:9. I really like the aspect ratio and I’m using two of them.

nerdsniper 9mo ago

RTings has a very in-depth review[0] on this product line, ranking it tied for #6 for "best office monitor". 0: https://www.rtings.com/monitor/reviews/dell/u3225qe https://www.rtings.com/monitor/reviews/dell/u3225qe

drob518 9mo ago
That’s the 32 inch, not the 52 inch.
- nerdsniper 9mo ago
  Yes, thank you for pointing this out - I should have said it explicitly. It's why I said "product line" rather than "product". I thought the 32" vs 52" distinction would be clear for anyone who clicked through. I also didn't realize that at the Dell store webpage, clicking the "32 inch" option actually slightly changed the product line - from U##26 to U##25 (as the 52" option is the only model associated with 2026), and generally I only consider UltraSharp's of different sizes to be "approximately equivalent in quality" if they share the same model year - and nothing yet shares the 2026 model year with this 52" option.
zipy124 9mo ago
Their best office monitor is actually another Ultrasharp....
- nerdsniper 9mo ago
  Interesting! If you sort their monitor reviews[0] page by "Office Rating" the top monitor is the ASUS ProArt Display PA27JCV with a score of 9.0 But their "The 5 Best Work Monitors of 2026"[1] lists a Dell Ultrasharp in the #1 rank and the Asus ProArt does not appear in the recommendations at all. The info cards imply that the recommendation rankings might result from a weighted blend of "Office Rating", "Text Clarity" and "SDR Brightness". However, the ProArt outscores the Ultrasharp in both "Office Rating" and "SDR Brightness" while exactly matching the Ultrasharp's score in "Text Clarity". So the "The 5 Best Work Monitors of 2026" appears to be a somewhat subjective list, rather than purely a result of objective measurements. 0: https://www.rtings.com/monitor/reviews https://www.rtings.com/monitor/reviews 1: https://www.rtings.com/monitor/reviews/best/by-usage/business-office https://www.rtings.com/monitor/reviews/best/by-usage/busines...

bilsbie 9mo ago

Would the latest Mac minis work with this?

wmf 9mo ago
Yes.

deleted 9mo ago

[deleted]

nennes 9mo ago

Size and pixel density concerns aside, one downside of larger monitors is the power draw. This burns 64W, which adds £3 to your monthly electricity bill if used for 8hrs every weekday. It's not a terrible amount, but I can run 3 micro pc servers 24/7 for that cost.

quotemstr 9mo ago
Imagine living in a so-called "civilization" in which your productivity is limited not by time or tools but by how much it costs to buy photons to shoot into your eyeballs.

elevation 9mo ago

I run a pair of the 43" model listed on the page (U4323QE). Coming from a desk full of 24" 1080P screens which I used with no scaling, the selling point for me was that the DPI was similar (~114, no scaling needed) while the total real estate was larger. This 6K panel seems like it would scratch a similar itch.

r0b05 9mo ago
Is the PPI not too small with the 43"? I have a 4k 27" which has nice PPI and I was considering this 43" as a replacement but the pixels looked quite prominent in youtube reviews.
- elevation 9mo ago
  The PPI is small, but this is what I wanted because it better supports native resolutions with no scaling on legacy apps I run. To preserve the PPI you're used to, you'd want 8K resolution as you approach 50".

madmod 9mo ago

I have 3 27" 5k monitors in portrait and a 32" 4k horizontal above those. It is all mounted with vesa cheeseplates to manfrotto magic arms on t slot aluminum attached to a C stand with manfrotto super clamps. I also have two genelec studio monitors which sound amazing. All of that cost less than this one monitor.

novaleaf 9mo ago
what's the make/model for the monitors? my setup is getting long in the tooth.
- madmod 9mo ago
  Two PA27JCV and one LG ultrasharp (it was cheap because it was broken and I repaired it) and the 4k monitor is a samsung which I cant recommend. (Open box was cheap though)
byproxy 9mo ago
What Genelecs are you using??
- EnPissant 9mo ago
  Not OP, but I have 2 8020D + a subwoofer. If I had to do it all over again I would have 2 8030C and no subwoofer.
  - ziofill 9mo ago
    I sport two klipsch towers on either side of my desk and a small tube amp ^^'
  - someguyiguess 9mo ago
    Why? Just out of curiosity. Is it that you don’t need that much low end for the media you’re usually playing through your monitors or do the 8030Cs have enough low end to eliminate the need for a separate woofer? I’ve been debating getting genelecs for a few years now but the price jump from something like JBLs or Yamahas is so huge that I can’t justify it. At least not on my current budget.

shell0x 9mo ago

1. I don't think I'll ever buy Dell again. My current monitor is a Dell S3221QS 32" screen and it has vertical lines and starts flickering on both the Macbook M1 and the Mac Studio with the M4 Max chip after some time, which is a known issue[0][1]. It also defaults to YPbPr colors rather than RGB/SRGB, so the colors look off. I'm using HDMI to HDMI connectivity currently. Part of it is also my fault as I thought a monitor would work with any computer. 2. That aside, what are you all using for window management on these large screens? I'm currently using Rectangle on Mac, but I was wondering if there's a better way. [0] https://www.reddit.com/r/Dell/comments/1221mz2/dell_s3221qs_monitor_flickers_when_connected_to_a/ https://www.reddit.com/r/Dell/comments/1221mz2/dell_s3221qs_... [1] https://www.reddit.com/r/Dell/comments/n8ei34/dell_s3221qs_flickering_issue_with_m1_macbook/ https://www.reddit.com/r/Dell/comments/n8ei34/dell_s3221qs_f...

user68858788 9mo ago
Spectacle for Mac and power toys for windows. I’ve been using a single large monitor for a while and it’s been great with window managers. The biggest downside is when playing games full-screen.
AceJohnny2 9mo ago
Counter-anecdata: I have 2 Dell U2720Q (Ultrasharp 27") bought in 2021 and they've been great. That said, I've always stuck for Dell's upper-range Ultrasharp (U prefix in models) monitors, being slightly wary of their cheaper series which the S in your S3221QS implies.
- antod 9mo ago
  I have a 13yr old 27" Ultrasharp still going well. +1 to only buy Ultrasharp if buying from Dell. The others can be junk.
  - brailsafe 9mo ago
    I'm using 2x Dell U3011s, one I purchased around ~2013 probably and the other I got used recently for $100. My only issue with them is that they have PWM coil whine that only goes away if I crank the brightness to ~90%, which seems to produce an immense amount of heat and probably power consumption. I'd love to find a viable alternative solution for this, because these are my favorite monitors for now. The model appears to have been released 16 years ago. I haven't yet found a monitor that makes sense to replace them with either.

lowbloodsugar 9mo ago

Could almost get 2x Apple Studio Displays for that $. Then you got 10240x2880. The Dell is only 2" taller and yet 320 less vertical pixels.

kgwxd 9mo ago

is there something special about it to make the front page?

BoingBoomTschak 9mo ago

Too bad it's not using IPS Black 2 (https://www.lgdisplay.com/eng/product/monitor-display/ips-black-2-0 https://www.lgdisplay.com/eng/product/monitor-display/ips-bl...) like the U3225QE/U2725QE or iiyama's new ProGraphics.

quotemstr 9mo ago

I can recommend the 45-inch LG Ultragear too. Nice OLED. 5120x2160 resolution. Perfect curvature for me, coming from a G9. Just don't be an idiot like I was. I connected my monitor to my dock with both DisplayPort and some random USB-C cable. Worked fine initially. One day, cleaning my office, I swapped out that USB-C cable with a higher-quality one. Took me a bit to realize that the consequent Wayland post-resume resolution flakiness came from a race condition enumerating the real-DP and USB-C-alt-mode "separate" monitors that my machine thought I now had. It's not often that downgrading a USB cable fixes a problem.

breakds 9mo ago

Exactly what I had via sunshine and moonlight in my Vision Pro ...

para_parolu 9mo ago

I have dell with similar resolution and 32 inches. It is a decent matrix to work with code. But increasing diagonal without increasing resolution just makes it expensive tv and not something where you read text

Forgeties79 9mo ago

I had a Dell thunderbolt hub monitor (not sure if that was the exact name for it but functionally the same thing) in idk 2018? 1440p. Loved it. It played so well with my 2016 MBpro too. Even had HDD’s running through it. It worked fantastically from top to bottom. For 2 years. Obviously this is not the same product and it has been a long time. But man I hadn’t thought about that in years and now I’m all bitter about it again ha

teleforce 9mo ago

It's a shame that this 6K tunderbolt hub monitor does not support the latest thunderbolt 5 standard. Otherwise you can connect and daisy chain two of these 6K displays together.

compounding_it 9mo ago

I’ve been using a single 24 inch 1080p benq usb c monitor after realizing 4k 27 inch scaling is just terrible and 5k 27 inch is just too pricey. It’s a budget monitor but it’s surprising what 140$ can get you these days cause the quality of the panel is really good. It supports daisy chaining so I can add another monitor to my m1 air (which I can’t otherwise I think). If it was 4k 24 inch I’d buy two as I find that size kinda perfect. Personally I’ve found that a single monitor is enough 90% of the time while coding. It’s when I need to do something nitty gritty that I need a second monitor. That being said working with only a laptop is painful and extremely uncomfortable for the posture. I don’t think I can get anything real done without a monitor keyboard and mouse. Going down to an 11 inch iPad sounds impossible.

swader999 9mo ago
I always plug in a keyboard and raise the laptop up 3-5 textbooks high. Can't work at a desk and just a laptop, too old for that.
nja 9mo ago
For some reason nobody makes 2K 24"s anymore -- that was my sweet spot. But now to get the pixel density you have to go way bigger :/ dreading the day the old monitors I have cease working. I like the 24" size but 1080 is just so annoying. I was using 2048x1156 20" monitors back in 2010 and they had better density!
- compounding_it 9mo ago
  we have become used to retina displays these days so 1080p 24 inch looks 'pixelated'. I sit about 18 inches from the monitor and it looks okay. I find this distance and size most comfortable for me. The 27 inch 4k was too big for my setup and the scaled 2560x1440 is something I would not recommend (was warned about it but didn't listen :P).
tra3 9mo ago
I didn't know you could do multimonitor setup with m1 air. Can you share what your setup is?

hk1337 9mo ago

I had the UltraSharp 40” similar to this, I loved it until I went to readjust it, apparently tilted it wrong, and the screen blanked. :(

akulbe 9mo ago

Am I the only one who thinks 120Hz is still low for a display of that size? My 38" LG goes up to 144Hz. I would have figured something larger would be at least that much.

slashtom 9mo ago

I purchased this as soon as it was announced, I was surprised they had it ready to ship on the day of the CES announcement. I do enjoy it, with Fancyzones, I can set up Unreal Engine Editor, Rider, discord/teams and a small corner window for searching and/or youtube watching on the side. At first I thought the pixel count was going to be too low but from my position it 'feels' retina at 125% windows scaling. Yes you can do the same with multiple monitors but I don't get the fatigue of turning my physical head, it's the perfect size to sit in middle and use your eyes to adjust/focus if that makes sense.. 120hz and fast motion helps a lot. DCS World looks amazing on this, it feels like it's your full fov when playing games. Granted this isn't an OLED panel, I wouldn't play anything competitive on here but EU V and/or RTS games are very nice at 6k/52. This replaced my dual 4K 120hz monitors. Recommend if you're not gaming.

diebillionaires 9mo ago

I got both of my 4k dell 27" monitors for like $450 each and it's amazing. I would never pay this much. I'd just buy a 48" OLED. But that was too big. This is just silly and overpriced.

cranium 9mo ago

Looks slick! In the >50" category, I've recently upgraded from the Samsung Odyssey G9 49" (with res 2x1440p) to a Samsung Odyssey G9 57" (2x4K). With a tiling window manager and workspaces it's really a pleasure to use, and contrarily to some beliefs, I do more focused work that way because I don't have to switch workspace to find the information I'm looking for – less risk of distraction.

9021007 9mo ago

Any display that is <200ppi is garbage and manufacturers should be ashamed of themselves for pricing them above $800.

paranoidrobot 9mo ago

My desk has 2x 27" and 1x 43" Dell monitors. Unfortunately the new work MacBook only supports two external displays so one of those 27 sits idle. What used to be nice is now a case of constantly shuffling windows, not made easy by MacOSs janky window handling. I've been looking for a second 43" to replace the 27"s but the high price and sub-par quality of the 43 is making me wait. I am also finding it difficult to find monitor arms that will carry such large and heavy screens. The 43 is already at the limit of the one reasonably priced arm I found and a definite struggle to mount.

hinkley 9mo ago

Dell has a shitty habit of down-rating monitor model numbers over time. The very expensive monitor your internet buddy waxed poetic about six months ago is now half the price and also half the monitor. It's not worth the trouble.

sabalaba 9mo ago

Is HN the last refuge of real internet discourse? While some of the replies are very Reddit m-coded, it still feels like real humans. I wonder how long this will last before the agents take over.

casperb 9mo ago

The scroll hijacking on this page is horrendous. I could almost not close the page anymore on iOS because of everything going on.

whatever1 9mo ago

I was hoping that 8k tvs at ~50inches would become widely available. They were high enough density and tall enough for coding applications, but as first versions they had some rough edges (text rendering not great by default). Instead they just disappeared from the market :( I think Aliexpress has no brand panels, but at $600 it is a non trivial gamble.

GardenLetter27 9mo ago

I love the Dell Ultrasharp series, interesting they went with Thunderbolt though I had issues with it not working when trying to use another dock with my Thinkpad. I'd rather buy the USB-C one so I know it will work with the Steam Deck, etc. EDIT: Oh, only one port is Thunderbolt.

arnejenssen 9mo ago

Sure it would be cool, but I don't think not having 6k is my limiting factor (I have an ok 4k 42" monitor)

littlecranky67 9mo ago

Do product companies visit their own websites? You have to click on three (!) overlays/popups if you visit the website - cookie notice, another popup telling me that I am not from the US and can visit their european website, and an AI alert overlay telling me about their new AI features. Only after clicking away all three I can actually see the product content. Madness.

alchemist1e9 9mo ago

4200R is very gentle curvature. Wouldn’t it have been better to curve more aggressively, like at least 2000R for such a large screen if the purpose is a desk monitor?

pipeline_peak 9mo ago

I don’t understand the point of these ultra wide monitors. On windows 11, you can only have 3 verticals columns with a monitor this wide. If I had 3 regular width monitors, I could have 6 columns overall. I’d also imagine it looks awkward when you have one window in full screen, but I’ve never used one in person.

steveBK123 9mo ago

I refuse to buy a dell monitor again because I found their quality low and their warranty process onerous. Took hours of my time to get a replacement sent and it had I failed in a different way soon after. For a cheap throwaway monitor maybe. For anything premium no way.

dnkejtskkfkg 9mo ago
Even though apple, asus and samsung have some top-notch models, premium monitors is actually where dell excels. At least the different models I’ve bought through the last decades. Cheap crap hardware are not welcome in my home.

wraptile 9mo ago

This size just doesn't make sense due to overwhelming evidence that ergonomic viewing angles matter.

sigy 9mo ago

I ordered this within 30 minutes of learning about it. I've been waiting for something like this. Here's why: - My eyes are getting older, and I need a better visual connection to my work. - We spend much of our lives in front of these devices. Optimizing this just makes sense. - It is more than just a monitor with some features. It's a well-rounded kit with good software support. - I previously used multiple 4K monitors and external KVMs. The built-in KVM and management software that works with the display makes multi-system use as easy as it could possibly be. - The resolution has _more than_ overcome the issues I had with font rendering on lower resolutions while trying to have more visual workspace. - The thunderbolt hub has vastly reduced multi-system USB/wiring/speed clutter and confusion. Yes, it was expensive. Yes, I'm very happy with it. Within this week, it has drastically improved my sense of comfort and utility, and I got rid of all the other monitors. Ok, for the gripes: - The curvature is a bit minor compared to what I'm used to. Given the spatial density I want, the optimal distance is less than 30" from the display, and with my aging eyes at this distance, looking from center to edge changes my focal depth by more than a small amount. That said, the off-axis views are quite good. Essentially, looking at this display from a longer distance wastes much of the effective ocular resolution. - The software is great, but if you want something more tactile, reaching to the sole multi-purpose menu stick is not that great. It wouldn't have hurt for them to provide a USB-connected desktop switch. I hope they still do. This monitor runs its own "OS" of sorts, and can be extended with new functionality should they choose to. - Finding the improved dynamic range took a bit of learning. The way it works feels better (less of a special case) for me, but I had to go adjust the settings to tap into higher resolution per color plane. If anybody has any specific questions, I'll be happy to answer them.

wesleyd 9mo ago

The radius is too big. This monitor is R4200, 4.2m. I have a Samsung odyssey something 49” monitor and it is glorious. It is R1000, and since my head is about a meter from the screen, it works: even the edges are usable. I used to use two 27” 1440p monitors, which together are about the same size as the Samsung 49”, and also the same resolution, but the edges were further enough away from my head that they were annoying to use. Not to mention the bezels in the middle. While this dell wouldn’t have the bezels, the edges would still be too far away. The only drawback of my giant R1000 monitor is that I can’t easily use my laptop’s camera. So I don’t; I use an iPad for video conferencing, it sits happily below this monitor. My only regret is not getting the 57” 2x4k variant!