17 ms·
Dell Previews 27-inch ‘5K’ UltraSharp Monitor: 5120x2880
- shurcooL 12y agoThis is the same size/resolution as what a 27" Retina Thunderbolt Display would be.
- erik 12y agoMy thoughts exactly. I could see Apple using a similar panel for the next 27" iMac and Thunderbold Display, while using a 4k panel for the smaller iMac.
- seanmcdirmid 12y agoAt $2500 a pop now, I doubt they would use this for another couple of years. Perhaps better to go with a UHD display now and deal with the the non-whole number multiple.
- leoc 12y agoI imagine they'll at least have to support other people's 5K monitors on the Mac Pro, and maybe sell one themselves as a high-end display option. (I assume that 5K will appeal to professionals working on 4K video.)
- seanmcdirmid 12y agoRight. They can already support UHD, so I think a UHD iMac is imminent. However, I see us quickly moving to QUHD after a bit of time in UHD.
- fredsted 12y agoThis is very likely - Apple has been using the same panel as Dell for their 27" 1440p Thunderbolt/Cinema displays.
- chrisblackwell 12y agoWhile I would love this to be the case, I think Apple is going to jump on the 4k bandwagon. All evidence suggest that Apple is gearing up for 4K, not desktop retina. (look at wallpaper sizing, and their 4k advertising push on the MacPro).
- pilif 12y agoAssuming the signal is transmitted uncompressed, this would be 5120x2880x32 bits per frame, so 5120x2880x32x60 bits per seconds at 60fps. That's 28GBit/s - more than what a single TB2 port can handle and probably also more than what a lower-to-mid range GPU is able to produce. I hope the solution to this will neither be reducing FPS nor adding compression, so it looks like we need a new display connection standard. Please tell me that I got my math wrong as I really, really, really want a display at this resolution for my day-to-day work.
- jychang 12y agoA lot of 4K screens aren't at 60fps, they're at 48fps. I wouldn't be surprised if this screen is lower than 60fps.
- nwh 12y agoI looked at 4K TVs recently, and if you look through the advertising they're all 4K at 30hz (ie, totally worthless for viewing anything on) due to the limitations of HDMI 1.4.
- matthewmacleod 12y ago4K at 60hz (ie, totally worthless for viewing anything on) What's wrong with that? Sounds lovely!
- 12y ago
- shmerl 12y agoWhy not 5120x3200? 16:9 trend is really annoying.
- zuck9 12y agoWhy a non-standard ratio like 8:5?
- shmerl 12y agoWhat's a "standard"? 16:10 is as much a standard as anything else. The only reason 16:9 is used is because TV screens use it, so mass production reduces cost for monitors as well. It doesn't mean that 16:9 is better or a standard more than 16:10.
- kevhsu 12y ago16:10 is a standard ratio. 1680x1050, 1280x800, 1920x1200...
- zuck9 12y agoLooks like I got my math wrong. I just noticed that 8:5 is the same as 16:10 =p
- PaulRobinson 12y agoThe history of why 16:9 came about kind of explains why it's not going anywhere any time in the next 40-50 years. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/16:9 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/16:9
- shmerl 12y agoInferior proportion for monitors if you ask me (comparatively to 16:10). Useful space simply cut to reuse TV format. 16:10 is also closer to the golden ratio.
- runeks 12y agoBecause video content is usually 16:9, and producing different panels for TVs and PC monitors would mean both would become more expensive.
- mjsweet 12y agoSo according to https://www.sven.de/dpi/ https://www.sven.de/dpi/ it will be 217.57 PPI.. similar to the Mac Book Pro retina 15 which is 220 PPI. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retina_Display http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retina_Display for the list.
- cpks 12y agoI'd gladly buy one, or even four, if they just worked. Unfortunately, high-res multimonitor setups are horrendously unstable, require specialized graphics cards (which usually sound like rocket jets), and have a mess of incompatible standards. I'd probably need to spend a week or two figuring out what graphics cards I need, upgrading my motherboard to have enough slots to take them, figuring out if there's a way to make it talk to my laptop, etc. Getting four 1080p displays working was enough work. Basically, not a project I have time for. Anytime that hardware becomes a project, it reaches 5% of the market. Most of the market are people who just want to get work done. That means word processors, IDEs, spreadsheets, PPT, etc. USB is fine even for multi-monitor 5k for normal work if you update the screen incrementally and downsample/compress video. Video games aren't necessary. 200 watt graphics cards aren't desired. Stability and ease-of-use are critical. The trick would be making it Just Work. That means driver support (Linux, Vista, XP, MacOS, etc.). That means testing across a range of hardware and software. That means using a standard cable (USB or similar, not a pair of DisplayPort 1.3 with dual-link cables and a graphics card capable of virtual...). It also means performance testing for the stupid stuff (not issues of 60hz vs 10hz refresh, or 3d gaming, or even video -- just that there aren't funny issues where you wait 1 second for a screen refresh, or the system locks up for 30 seconds thinking).
- Sambdala 12y agoDo you (or anyone else) have any idea if this is getting better, and how quickly, if so? I'm of the same mind that I'm incredibly willing to shell out a bunch of money on super high resolution displays (and even more powerful video cards to drive them) just as soon as I'm sure I'm not going to be on the painful part of the adoption curve.
- seanmcdirmid 12y agoDisplay port works well enough for UHD, I'm not sure about this resolution, but it should be ok. Even a lowly Intel integrated GPU might be able to drive this for non gaming applications. Visual studio and X code already support 2X, I think Office and iWork do also. No displays, past present or future, can run over USB, sorry.
- 12y ago
- rwallace 12y agoLooks good except for the stand height, which would actually be a dealbreaker for me - a high stand is fine for the living room floor, but there's no point putting a great monitor on your desk that you can't look at without tilting your head back and giving yourself chronic neck strain. Are there any similar monitors with lower stands?
- Gracana 12y agoLooks like Dell's typical adjustable stand, which allows you to slide the monitor almost all the way down to the desk. If not that, then surely it has a VESA mount that you could use with your own stand.
- rwallace 12y agoAh, Dell monitor stands are height adjustable these days? Good. Looks worth going for, then.
- timdiggerm 12y agohttp://images.anandtech.com/doci/8496/MaxPNG%20%287%29.png http://images.anandtech.com/doci/8496/MaxPNG%20%287%29.png Sure looks height adjustable to me
- JohnBooty 12y agoI have a 2011 30" Dell Ultrasharp and a 2014 27" Dell Ultrasharp and they both have excellent height adjustable stands. I don't know if they reserve the nice stands for their Ultrasharps or what.
- antirez 12y agoJust to put this in historical context: 14745600 pixels are enough to display 230 CGA (320x200) screenshots simultaneously.
- mpg33 12y agoIs it just me or are displays starting to have their own "moores law" in how fast the resolutions/technology is increasing. I wouldn't know were to predict what the max resolution of a commercially available display will be in 2-3 years. It's seems like it took a decade for 1080p to become "standard" and now I can buy decent 4K TV for the price a 1080p TV was just 5-6 years ago.
- osmala 12y agoI'd pass this one. Resolution is nice. However its surface area doesn't do justice for that number of pixels. I'm having 30" 2560x1600 monitor, and any upgrade from that needs have both bigger physical size AND more pixels. Improving one without the other isn't good enough. Yes more pixels give nicer fonts and better image quality, but bigger area is needed to actually use it effectively. When considering down sides of showing it as two separate displays on Linux I'd say "These are not the monitors you are looking for."
- bausson 12y agoWhat do we do for a commercial stunt. We had 720p for 720x1280 We had 1080p fir 1080x1920 And now "5K" for 5120x2880? Is the screen supposed to be used in a "portrait" setting? It's fine if you work in IT, you see what it does, but for most people those commercial designations are getting confused.