13 ms·
Dell introduces 28" 4K Ultra HD Monitor for under $1K, shipping early 2014
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]
- jfb 13y agoEven better: the 24" is $1399.
- pyrocat 13y agoCan anyone explain why monitor and TV prices are so vastly different for the same size? Could you not substitute a small flat screen in place of a monitor and save a few hundred?
- hemancuso 13y agomuch different pixel density and production volumes.
- Jackim 13y agoDo you mean in general or for these particular monitors?
- pyrocat 13y agoIn general
- seiji 13y agoBecause http://xkcd.com/732/ http://xkcd.com/732/
- Macha 13y agoFor a 2013 update, that is the resolution of his cell phone.
- Sharlin 13y agoAre they? AFAICS ceteris paribus, monitor prices are not that different from TV prices. It's only when you want a monitor with specs better than can be found in almost any TV (>HD resolution, high-end IPS or PVA panel) that the prices get higher, for obvious reasons. EDIT: Also, not nearly all cheap "HD" TVs actually have real 1080p panels. They accept a HD signal but internally resample it to a lower resolution, leading to an image that's obviously blurry in desktop use. With computer monitors, you know you get pixel-for-pixel the image the video card pushes out.
- sliverstorm 13y agoMonitors and TVs are similar but designed with different use models in mind. I find TV's are bulkier, run hotter, have poor refresh rates, worse viewing angles, and look pretty poor up close. None of this matters when you use it as a TV, of course. They also usually have massive bezels, harsher lighting, and come on fixed stands (no rotation or vertical adjustment, often not even any pivoting up/down). You totally could use a TV as a monitor if you wanted. I personally stick with monitors for my desk, TVs for my wall.
- publicfig 13y agoI'm a bit curious why both the 24" and the 32" are priced over 1k, yet they are able to get the 28" down below that mark. That's not to say that I'm not incredibly excited to see how this ends up! I've been looking for a sub-1.5k 28" monitor with high resolution for a while, and though I love my Apple Thunderbolt Display I use at work, I am hesitant that if I buy one for myself, I'll be buying right before a refresh. I've been feeling that way for a long while though, so who knows
- hemancuso 13y agoI suspect it is because there is much higher expected volume. Not hard to imagine Apple buying a gazillion of these panels.
- encoderer 13y agoWHY WHY WHY is this so CONFUSING? DELL! C'Mon man! The "24" that you mentioned actually seems to also be a 28" screen? "With the same remarkable, pin-point clarity, the Dell UltraSharp 24 Ultra HD Monitor, users can enjoy color consistency and precision from virtually any angle thanks to an ultra-wide viewing angle on a 28.3-inch screen. "
- jfb 13y agoThat is almost certainly a typo.
- encoderer 13y agoEven so, The difference between the high-end and entry-level models is the former are "Dell UltraSharp XX Ultra HD Monitor" and "Dell XX Ultra HD Monitor". It doesn't have to be this way.
- sliverstorm 13y agoWhat way should it be? Dell: Manufacturer (UltraSharp): The high-end moniker XX: Size Ultra HD: The name for that resolution Monitor: What it is Maybe it's because I'm an engineer and not a normal person, but the naming scheme seems quite reasonable. Way better than the utterly indecipherable "Dell 324y5943X" crap you get with some other manufacturers. The resolution name, "Ultra HD", is stupid, but that wasn't Dell's decision to make, and the industry has been naming resolutions like that for twenty years.[0] (VGA, SVGA, XGA, SXGA, etc...) [0]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Vector_Video_Standards2.svg http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Vector_Video_Standards2.sv...
- xutopia 13y agoWhy are they announcing this now? Is it to tell people to hold off for Xmas?
- grecy 13y agoMy guess is either that, or they know Apple is about to release something exceptionally similar with the Mac Pro this month.
- bhauer 13y agoAwesome. I say this is a sign that the incumbent manufacturers are finally adapting to the heat brought on by Korean and Chinese newcomers. "Industry's most affordable Ultra HD monitor" is semantics. The Seiki 39" is still substantially cheaper, now at less than $500 on Amazon. Technically, that is a television, so I suppose "monitor" is a clever use of words by Dell. If Seiki drops an HDMI 2 version of their monitor—excuse me, television—for roughly the same price as the current model, things start to get really interesting. Actually, scratch that, the desktop monitor industry is finally interesting again right now. This is the first time it has been interesting since about 2005. I prefer the higher DPI that Dell is providing, but I prefer the size that Seiki is going after. My ideal is 200+ DPI at about 50" for my desktop. All steps toward that make me happy, so good going Dell!
- seiji 13y ago50" for my desktop. What? Most people I know can't even handle the current 30" monitors. It feels nicer having two 27" monitors from a not-grossly-exceeding-peripheral-vision viewpoint.
- jfb 13y agoDifferent strokes.
- clord 13y agoI like my 30", and wish for more (4 side-by-side windows!). I suspect people who don't like big monitors tend to make their windows fullscreen instead of keeping them content-sized. If you think in windows instead of maximized screens, 50" is superior to 54" split in two. It comes down to the artificial split down the middle which limits where you can stick your windows.
- seiji 13y agoThe artificial split limit is a benefit for me. Helps self organize things. Watch a movie on the left screen, web browse on the right screen. Keynote in the left screen, reference materials in the right screen, etc.
- grecy 13y agoNow I'll be shocked if Apple don't release something similar with the Mac Pro this month.
- johnbpetersen 13y agoThe Thunderbolt display is desperately in need of a refresh. How do you think a new Thunderbolt will match up with this Dell UltraHD monitor?
- jfb 13y agoI think it's likely that the new Thunderbolt display will be the exact same 23.8" panel, but with updated Thunderbolt expansion hardware (USB 3.0, &c.)
- alexgaribay 13y agoA theory is that Apple is being a large consumer of this display panel. This leads to more of these display panels being produced which leads to a lower price. It seems odd that the other sizes (24 and 32) are much more expensive than this 28.
- quaint- 13y agoI'm more interested in the 24" model, although the press release goes a long way to convince me it's actually 28.3" display despite the name. edit: the tech specs page convince me the name is not ridiculously misleading. Seriously interested of this one.
- jfb 13y agoIt's a typo.
- nsxwolf 13y agoWhat part is a typo, though? The 24 or the 28.3?
- jfb 13y agoDisplay Diagonally Viewable Size: 60.47 cm 23.8" (23.8-inch wide viewable image size) From http://dcse.dell.com/us/en/gen/peripherals/dell-up2414q/pd.aspx?refid=dell-up2414q&s=gen http://dcse.dell.com/us/en/gen/peripherals/dell-up2414q/pd.a...
- matthewmacleod 13y agoThe display is actually 23.8", not 28.3" - so 24" is more or less correct.
- scotth 13y agoWill a Macbook Pro Retina 13" be able to drive this?
- alexgaribay 13y agoAccording to Apple's website, the latest version of the rMBP will be able to drive a 3840 x 2160 display at 30Hz via HDMI.
- estel 13y agoYes, easily.
- mbell 13y agoSort of... It'll drive it @ 30Hz via HDMI as is today. The hardware also supports 60Hz via DisplayPort 1.2 through the thunderbolt ports and I've heard it works in windows but I don't believe Mavericks has driver support yet.
- easymovet 13y agoI'm underwhelmed, the Lenovo yoga 2 has almost as many pixels and cost less.
- nsxwolf 13y agoIt's a 13 inch screen. How are these even comparable? Is it that you're holding out for an 8K desktop monitor?
- easymovet 13y agothe resolution is almost 1:1 comparable. Obviously the I sit much closer to a laptop than i do my 57" HDPC
- alexgaribay 13y agoIt's much cheaper to produce smaller displays than larger ones. There's a higher chance for defects as display size goes up.
- quaint- 13y agoIt should be offset to an extent by the larger cell (or pixel) size. The only reason it's "not", is that manufacturers have invested huge sums of money on production lines incapable of producing larger products while at the same time complaining that their ancient subpar desktop offerings don't sell well.
- zokier 13y agoAre you really knowledgeable about the internals of LCD manufacturing processes to make such sweeping claims, or are you just asserting your general corporations are evil narrative?
- redial 13y agoThis looks awesome. But I'm wondering, how long until we get an iMac using this panel? I guess the thunderbolt display will get it first, but anyway, exciting news.
- FireBeyond 13y agoI’ve been holding out. Seems silly to buy a Cinema Display right now for my rMBP. USB2 ports, TB1, no Retina, oh, and a Magsafe 1->2 adapter...
- crazygringo 13y agoDoes anyone know, are there any Macs that can drive this in Retina mode? Does OSX on Mac desktops support retina mode for arbitrary monitors, or does OSX tie Retina mode exclusively to Macbook Pro Retina screens?
- cmelbye 13y agoI believe it supports it for arbitrary monitors. I was able to do it on my rMBP, at least. You may have to use a third party utility like SwitchResX.
- RKearney 13y agoMy 27" iMac can run in 1280x720 "HiDPI Mode", which is just the native resolution of 2560x1440 cut in half (quarters?). It's a native feature in OS X, although it has to be enabled manually before it shows up.
- jfb 13y agosudo defaults write \ /Library/Preferences/com.apple.windowserver.plist \ DisplayResolutionEnabled -bool true ... and then reboot. I run my main screen (a 27" iMac) at native and my secondary (a 27" Thunderbolt display) at ¼ res HiDPI. It's a good compromise.
- FootballMuse 13y agoThis doesn't work in Mavericks (on external monitors), and as far as I know, there is no other method that works.
- jfb 13y agoIt's working for me right now. Hmm. I wonder if there's some other default I've poked?
- FootballMuse 13y ago
- maqr 13y agoI'd just be happy to see a 2560x1600 monitor at 120hz or greater. I think we're going to have to max out resolution (to 'retina' or whatever levels where most people can't distinguish additional pixels) before we start seeing monitors commonly supporting greater than 60hz.
- ffrryuu 13y agoThe cheap korean monitors can almost do it, but you run into ATI's DVI cap.
- akandiah 13y agoI'm confused. Under $1000 for the 28"? It goes on to say that the 24" is available for $1399...
- antonpug 13y agoI foresee a 4K Thunderbolt Display coming our way within the next couple months. I have been wanting to get a new display for a while, so I am holding out for that. If not, I might consider a Dell. It's not unibody and it's not as thin as the newer Thunderbolt displays are going to be though.
- Pxtl 13y agoWonder how well various OSes will handle resolution jumps. The embarassing failure to scale GUI objects was acceptable in the technically-limited '90s, but in 2013 it seems ridiculous to have everything pixel-sized.
- notatoad 13y agoAll the big ones (Mac, ios, win8, winphone, Ubuntu, android) support pixel doubling. And they're all a long way from dynamic scaling.
- girvo 13y agoUbuntu does???? I've been keeping an eye on HiDPI support for it for ages, did I miss the release?
- jfb 13y agoThe problem isn't with the OSes -- it's the legacy software. There's just too much of it written against fixed DPI targets. Apple's pixel doubling (HiDPI) is a hack to get some of the benefit of high density screens without going to full resolution independence. It works really well, in my experience.
- veritas20 13y agoYour eyes can't tell the difference b/t 1080p and 4k on a 28" screen
- quaint- 13y agoWhen you say "your", you mean "my", don't you? Also, you seem confused by these TV-related terms and only think of videos and games here; you'd have to be half-way blind not to see the difference between 75 and 150 PPI density with typical font sizes (computer fonts are usually a tad bigger than what's necessary just because of the lousy displays we have).
- GalacticDomin8r 13y agohttp://reviews.cnet.com/8301-33199_7-57566079-221/why-ultra-hd-4k-tvs-are-still-stupid/ http://reviews.cnet.com/8301-33199_7-57566079-221/why-ultra-... Comment sections like this are why HN is called an echo chamber.
- gknoy 13y agoThe original comment missed the point of the chart in the article you link: the increased pixel density is useless __at TV viewing distances__. When you go down to about 2 feet from the screen, 4k is pretty apparent on a 30 inch screen. A clearer chart is at [1], and the Carlton Bale's original article even has a handy calculator that lets you verify this [2]. 1: http://s3.carltonbale.com/resolution_chart.html http://s3.carltonbale.com/resolution_chart.html 2: http://carltonbale.com/does-4k-resolution-matter/ http://carltonbale.com/does-4k-resolution-matter/
- GalacticDomin8r 13y agoHow close are you to your monitor(s) at the exact moment you read this? I'm not at 2 feet with a smaller dual display, and I'd imagine I'd sit further away with gigantic 30+ monitor(s). I know I do when I use a 27. Others at $work mostly sit at least as far away. In this area of improved vision, what does it gain you? Did all the old hackers not amount to what they could have been because they perceived some less pixels than there could have been? I don't think a serious argument can be made on this this front until standards reach at least 16k.
- salient 13y agoThat's what I thought a 4k monitor would cost, and I was actually very surprised Asus priced theirs at like $3,000 earlier this year. Hopefully Dell didn't cut a lot of corners, though.
- kudu 13y agoFor $1k, you can get /three/ X-Star DP2710s, which are 27" 1440p PLS monitors. A much better deal in my opinion. (http://www.ebay.com/itm/Matte-FREE-EXPRESS-X-STAR-DP2710LED-27-2560x1440-Samsung-PLS-Panel-Monitor-/330932578190 http://www.ebay.com/itm/Matte-FREE-EXPRESS-X-STAR-DP2710LED-...)
- acqq 13y agoUnfortunately they aren't 3840 x 2400 (which would be 16:10) that is more convenient for coding or anything that isn't full-screen TV viewing. But still... yay for finally reaching retina-like resolutions on the desktop! It was about the time.
- RichMorin 13y agoI'd be interested in hearing about ways to drive this from an older (MacPro3,1) Mac Pro.
- prewett 13y agoSo if I understand the tech specs correctly, this 24" monitor is 185 DPI. (24" diagonally, sqrt(3840^2 * 2160^2) = 4406 pixels, 4406px/24" = 185 DPI) By comparison, the MacBook Pro 15" retina has 220 DPI, so it's a respectable monitor. Although for "Ultra HD" I was kind of hoping for something "ultra impressive"...
- WesleyJohnson 13y agoAny hope of getting full resolution at 30hz on a late 2011 MBPro? I'm using a 30" Cinema Display right now, but it's pretty banged up as I got it from an as-is liquidation auction. Would love to replace it with something newer, lighter and that doesn't raise the ambient temperature of my office by several degrees.
- anovikov 13y agoBeing spoiled by apple retina, 32'' 4k does not sould 'ultra sharp' for me. 24'' maybe, so i'll buy one. Can't wait until 8k monitors come about! These can be both truly ultra sharp, with invisible pixels, and sizeable.
- Mankhool 13y agoThe 32" version is $3539 in Canada. http://accessories.dell.com/sna/products/Gaming_Accessories/productdetail.aspx?c=ca&l=en&cs=cadhs1&sku=210-ACBL&baynote_bnrank=0&baynote_irrank=0&~ck=baynoteSearch http://accessories.dell.com/sna/products/Gaming_Accessories/...