Adaptive Sync would be a very good thing for this type of monitor. Not for gaming, but for keep refreshes smooth. Even driving a desktop at 60Hz with this resolution can be hard on GPUs. So having the refresh rate be variable is great USP.
I'll take the bait. Not only that, but it's a bit small for 8k. I think 40 -43" is the sweet spot for 4k, so 8k would need to be even larger than that. Why pay for resolution that you can't see? Finally a nice little g-sync module wouldn't make a huge difference in the BOM and it's especially useful here as you can't hope for a stable 60FPS in any game...
I bought a 28" 4K for my workplace because I sit at it all day and I consider it too small. I have to use Win7 (work) so the scaling isn't wonderful. It works and is better than some 2 screen hack certainly, but yeah 32" 8K is just not what I consider reasonable. I would be curious to see how awesome you can render fonts on that, though.
You consider the screen to small or the displayed elements? I have a 4K laptop that I use all day and realized that even if my vision is close to perfect using it at native resolution is quitre tiring. So I'm resigned to using it at 1080p, attached to another 2 1080p screens when it'son the desk.
4K or 8K are definitely beautiful for media content, not so much for office productivity. Yeah, you might say more stuff fits in one screen which is true. But people forget about the size of the resulting elements. Having a big spreadsheet at 100% scaling on an 8K screen might just be the thing that make your eyes take an indefinite leave of absence...
Microsoft will figure out DPI scaling eventually: look to OS X for an example of how computers can take advantage of higher DPI displays without any real drawbacks to the user. For all that people scoff at Apple's "retina display" marketing, they bloody well nailed DPI scaling, and as a primarily Windows user, I'm rather annoyed that Microsoft hasn't.
Yes, we have two 27" 5k iMacs in the house. The displays are awesome. The DCI-P3 color gamut is great with Photoshop, even though it doesn't quite match up with Adobe RGB, its close enough.
Fonts render very well. These are high dpi monitors. I can't see any irregularities close-up.
I really don't care about image scaling in windows, hence why I'll never own one of these displays. Now if I can get one of these on a 60" monitor I'll use it for productivity. Right now I'm perfectly happy with a single 30" monitor that runs 2650x1600. A resolution like 8K on a 60" curved monitor designed so that you sit about 4 feet from it would be damn near perfect!
Apple did get it right, but that's because they control all the hardware and do perfect doubling or tripling of resolution so that they can scale exactly. On Windows you have a huge mismatch of resolutions to screen sizes.
But Microsoft could learn a lesson from Apple and do supersampling of GUI elements for scaling then downscaling so it works on most monitor DPIs. Right now it seems microsoft does a dumb bilinear scaling approach or none at all on older apps.
Windows display scaling at 1.25x and 1.5x have both been excellent in my experience so far with my 24in 4k panel. It's like I bought a 2560x1440 panel for desktop use, and a 4k panel for entertainment viewing, all for about the same price as 1440 panels cost not even two years ago.
Don't get me started on the Linux desktop experience though.
I'm not sure what your point is. That would still be 200 DPI, so you'd still need to be running in a high DPI scaling mode. Over the next few years as it drops from an ultra-halo/proof of concept spec to something approaching mass market I'm sure we'll see a much larger number of sizes available. I doubt 40" class will ever be more than ultra niche; and probably only happen if/when 8k TV does because it's even more excessively huge in the eyes of most consumers. 27/30 already triggers a lot of "too big" reactions, and as someone who owns a 30" 2560x1600 screen and who plays games with HUDs around the edge I don't want anything much larger because HUD data is already shifting towards my peripheral vision and out of easy/immediate notice. With 16:9 I'll probably be getting a 31.5/32" screen; but only because a large difference in vertical height would annoy me more than shifting the huds an inch farther to the side.
At the moment the target audience is probably photo pros/video R&D types for whom the 30" class size means its more or less a drop in replacement of the 2.5/4k monitor on their desk now.
so instead of fixing games / windows UI, you'd restrict yourself to a 30" screen? completely wrong attitude... i have a 43", so i know the pain of having HUDs & windows start/systray/window close buttons in really painful places.... - the easiest remedy for games insisting to place the HUD/contols in corners : play in borderless windowed mode with a black windows blackground & hidden taskbar. - for windows : use keyboard shortcuts...
If/when it stops being a regular problem on many of the games I play the pretend its only a 25/30" screen kludge you're suggesting might be a tolerable workaround for an occasional straggler. When it's most of the games I play it's a bit ridiculous; since I could save my money and just have a native smaller screen anyway and not have big gaps between the game and whatever I have running on my side screens. It's not like the bigger screen is a game changer in web browsers, and 40" is enough taller I'm not convinced it'd be a reasonable experience for general desktop use without sitting enough farther back that I'd give up most of the nominal increase in vertical field of view anyway. Having huds sitting on the edge of my peripheral vision is worst in games, having the OS taskbar on one end of it and my browser tab bar on the other isn't exactly a winning setup either.
As someone who's have had 3 of em on their way to my house if I could afford the 15k asking price, and then play games on em, we exist and we're not afraid to spend big money when we have it.
I care about the density because I read a lot on my computers, the colours because good colours make games better. The refresh rate, response time and probably end-to-end latency is meh, but one can live with that until the faster GSYNC/FreeSync stuff (both interface and panel) shows up.
Who is "we"? Don't lump me into that. I'm happy with 100 dpi on desktop usage. Been using it for years, I like it. I'm also perfectly content with 1080 resolutions on phones under 5.5 inches.
Just because you can't see the difference, doesn't mean others can't. For me there's a tremendously noticeable difference in smoothness of text rendering and detail visible in full-size photographs going from a 24" 4K display to a 27" 5K.
I suspect that most of the difference was in the quality of the monitor or your software settings. There is only 20% difference in resolution between the two.
Plenty of "professionals" with sensitive eyes fell for it when they looked at the multiple screens I have at home and assumed the 1440p is 4K and vice versa. Indeed, the 1400p is a gorgeous high quality panel while the 4K one is a "meh"-type panel just with a whole lot of pixels.
But you know, if it makes people feel better to say "we, the professionals..." don't take that away from them.
"I think 40 -43" is the sweet spot for 4k, so 8k would need to be even larger than that." ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Not Really
At 3ft from monitor, a 27" 1080p display is a bit cramped for me but 32" is perfect @ 1080p
Any resolution above 1080P is simply a personal preference in screen size
Going by your logic, I would have to say 32" is perfect for 1080, 64" would be perfect for 4K and 128" is perfect for 8K monitors
For close up work, 128" would be a bit too much
If 40-43" is your preference for 4K at a distance of 3ft, then 40-43" is also your preference @ 8K
Screen size is a personal preference at close range
Anything bigger than your preferred monitor size is usually called a TV
I have a 40" 4k TV mounted on my recording studio desk. Using it at about 30" from eyeballs, mostly at full-res, it is wonderful for DAW work, but I could see an 8k monitor at this size making it easier to read small text and providing sharper scaling.
I must add that the TV I'm using (Samsung UN40KU6290) cost me about 1/12 the retail price of the reviewed 8k monitor. I'll be just fine here at 4k for quite some time.
It's actually high enough that you can pixel double, getting a crazy smooth 4K desktop. I agree that 32" is on the low side of acceptable for 4K native viewing, and as such I wonder if going 8K would even be noticeable.
It is only 280 pixels / inch so you definitely can see the difference compared to normal 4K. The higher pixel debsity, the better. The text is sharper, so no blurry like in HD and 2K. I have 27" 2K Dell ultrasharp and the text definitely is too blurry. 4K or 8K would Remedy that a Little bit!
yeah, my 43" 4K screen absolutely rocks! no need for 4k below that (except on a VR-Headset or a >13" Tablet). so my interest in 8K begins at about 84" or bigger or VR...
It is designed to be a high-end professional monitor Reads:-not meant for gaming!!! And there are really not gamers out there who can afford this nor a gpu powerful enough to drive 8k
Of course you can see it, unless you're blind. Please lets not get into this "If you can't see the pixels you can't tell any difference" nonsense. It's asinine.
this monitor has 280 PPI bro.. I know for a fact i can see a big difference between a iphone 6 at ~270 ppi and a LG phone at 400 ppi. Enough with the "The human eye can't see the difference" argument. They just told you that 16K is needed for VR to emulate what the human eye is capable of. 16K in a VR headset is something like 1500 ppi
I'm with you up to a point. That point is when you assume that the VR situation is somehow comparable to the normal monitor situation. Don't forget that the VR headset is strapped to your head while the screen is 1m away. Quite a difference.
I'm sorta right there with you, but you can SEE the difference for sure, like FOR SURE.
I think you mean to say, "Why pay for resolution that you can't USE?"
I'm rocking the 43" 4k display at the moment, but it's absolutely too big for some people. Personally the ~40" range is the max size I'll probably ever embrace until we have VR desktops inside the dual 8k screens for each eye.
Higher pixel density is really an upgrade for most people, it looks much prettier. Sharp fonts do a lot to ease my eye strain. Not to mention the benefit to those working with photos and printing.
For someone like me, I hope they release a 43" 8k display. Then I can have all the same real estate with the addition of high DPI mode at 200% scaling.
That'd be pretty stupid because nothing can drive that resolution anywhere near 60fps.
I'm excited to more up to 4K gaming once 144Hz 4K becomes feasible. And by feasible I mean 4K 144Hz HDR high quality screen for $800 and graphics cards to drive it for $500.
You can pixel double to 1080p and get full frame rate, but have 4k for actual pro work (which is what this monitor is meant for).
4k gaming is 80% about epenis, 20% about marginal improvement over SSAA. The kind of person buying a monitor with DCI P3 isn't interested in dickwaving anyway.
> 4k gaming is 80% about epenis, 20% about marginal improvement over SSAA. The kind of person buying a monitor with DCI P3 isn't interested in dickwaving anyway.
I insist on at least AdobeRGB on my monitors cause it makes my games and code prettier (by prettier, I mean better contrast between colours, which makes reading easier). Less so for pictures (cause most are sRGB), but eventually I'll get a better camera that does more than sRGB...
its for a niche market for which the frequency should not be a issue. Even if one had $5k to drop on this for daily computing, gaming, etc they would likely go with a different screen
At a high DPI like this on a large panel, yields become an issue. Unless of course you want to use one of the faulty panels that either don't work or have tons of dead pixels.
Wow, that power consumption is crazy! I could feed two laptops running a full load for the power that screen alone requires. I hope we figure out how to make these things more efficient because newer flat panels are actually overtaking the power needed to drive old CRT screens.
A quick google search shows a TomsHardware article from 2010 which has 19" CRTs in the region of 100W @ 50% brightness and only slightly below that (91 - 99W) @ 10% brightness. Seems like 87W (which is likely less when calibrated to 140cd/m²) for a 32" 8k display is perfectly fine compared to CRTs.
That's pretty much what I'm getting at since a 14-15 inch monitor from 2000-ish would be quite a bit lower than 100W. Since flat panel displays were initally sold as lower power consumption alternatives, it seems like we're taking huge strides backwards.
A 21" CRT from the same time would be around or a bit above 100W. And a current 22" LCD is a lot lower than 100W. At similar market segments the power draws are roughly comparable with the I'm rich screens slotting in around 100W and more affordable/mass market ones falling to lower power levels.
Wait, why are you comparing extremly dissimilar products? I hate car comparisons, but you wouldn't compare a Smart to a truck, right? Flat panel monitors were positioned as smaller alternatives to CRTs that did not have the issue of flickering images on steady backgrounds (much easier on the eyes for productivity work like spreadsheets and word documents). They offered lower power consumption when comparing apples to apples (similar sizes, similar performance). I don't get why you insist on comparing 15" tech from 2000 to 32" tech from 2017.
Just because things are dissimilar doesn't mean there's no value in comparing them. Sure, it can get outlandish, but I don't think what I'm pointing out with respect to bloated power consumption for modern displays, including this one, is unreasonable. The bottom line is that we're increasing net power consumption of electronic devices as our technology improves which might have long term negative implications. It's just something to keep in mind as we move forward and it doesn't mean Dell's latest screen isn't impressive in its own right.
Keep in mind our PCs overall are using far less power than just a few years ago - I can run a high end PC on a 450W fanless PSU now where a similar PC from just a couple years back would have needed 600-700W. So some steps forward, some back.
And for a comparison that is closer to fair, a 32" CRT TV from 2005(Sony KD-32FS100 is the one I found a manual for) was specced for 185 watts of power(and weighed 163 pounds).
Display power consumption does go up with size, because it takes electricity to generate light and a bigger display generates more light. Making matters worse, higher resolution LCDs block more of their backlight because each pixel has a small amount of opaque components, and more pixels means more opaque parts in your screen, so you need more power in the backlight to get the same brightness.
Incidentally, flat panel displays took less electricity than CRTs because they used fluorescent bulbs to generate light instead of a particle cannon. Newer flat panels use LEDs instead of fluorescent bulbs, making them more efficient than older displays. But you still need a lot of power to make a larger screen glow. OLED should be far more efficient than LCD, but is irrelevant to most market segments currently.
It's the same as their 32" 4k panel (70 typical, 93 energy star). Much larger display sizes having eaten the per area power savings vs CRTs has been an issue for the better part of a decade; with power levels at any given resolution/brightness/size/etc combo steadily shrinking with newer bigger and better ones slotting in on top keeping the halo device power levels more or less constant.
Truly niche. To make good use of it, an image from a medium format camera costing 30K to 50K will do it justice. For videos, a timelapse created from the same camera.
If I will have to be dream of a monitor, I'd be dreaming of those ASUS god monitors which has HDR, adaptive refresh rate, 144 Hz max refresh, Quantum Dots, and in 4K. Can't wait enough
"Using some undocumented tricks, a pair of tests in our new set of gaming benchmarks for CPU reviews can render at 8K or even 16K without needing a monitor, so you might see some numbers in due course showing where we stand with GPU power on this technology."
Or you can use DSR (or forced SSAA) with a UHD screen and 2x factor (SUHD equivalent) or 4x (16k equivalent). Doesn't test the MST portion of the video pipeline, but everything up the the final filtering stage prior to readout is the same as a native SUHD or 16k output.
Lets hope this monitor actually makes its way to production. The similarly high-spec and pricey UP3017Q lingered in 'coming soon' limbo for a year before eventually being quietly cancelled.
This is good. I picked up a 4K display last year, and I went big with a 40" TV that has decent input lag and 60Hz support. But it turns out to be one of those things where 4K at 40" is an odd resolution node. Text is just a bit too small, but the screen realestate is just about perfect without display scaling. The thing is that the issue is one of the clarity of the text, not exactly the size of it. Running display scaling on my itty bittly laptop to have text the same physical size as on the big display (but much higher pixel density) yields very crisp readable text. So the real solution is either higher resolution with display scaling, or else 4k at a slightly larger display (I think 46" would be just about perfect in my setup).
But it is fantastic that we are finally getting to a point where pixels are nearly indistinguishable! I mean, it really sucks for old apps that dont work right with display scaling, but modern applications, movies, games, etc all look much more lifelike with these new displays. Certainly a step forward.
Based on my calculations, we are at, or very near the eye max resolution with this monitor.
I made my calculations based on a 32" monitor (I saw after the Dell is 31.5"), a viewing distance equal to screen width (27,89") and pixels no bigger than 0,3 arc minute: One would need a resolution of 10 626 x 6 283 pixels to better the eye resolution.
"Raja Koduri, SVP of AMD’s Radeon Technology Group, has stated that VR needs 16K per-eye at 144 Hz to emulate the human experience" -- I'm not sure I've ever heard that quantified before. What's that, ~200 megapixels total? I'm thinking we're a fair time away from GPUs and cables that can deliver that.
So this is essentially a 3x3 grid of Dell XPS 11s, just borderless and with better color reproduction. I mean, I think 2560x1440 is overkill on 13" laptops, let alone 11". This is insane. Although probably useful for some, still insane. I imagine display resolutions like this will kill anti-aliasing for most, if not all games. When GPUs can run them, of course, which will probably be some time around 2025.
the whole point of "overkill" resolutions is exactly the same as it is on phones for monitors:
You can't ever see pixel structures or individual pixels / sub pixels.
And that, as we know from phones, is cool.
Just not nearly as cool as it would have been if Dell released the 4K OLED monitor that would've blown this one out of the water.
LCD can get 32k resolution and it would still look like crap compared to any OLED monitor. It's just too bad making big OLED monitors can't be done in a cost effective way, unless you're LG.
I'm another one of the few on 100% scaling on win7 @110ppi (4k on 40inch). So this is not for me, but delighted that a key vendor is offering 8K. I do hope someone will release 8K somewhere between 55 to 88 inch (160 to 100ppi) as this allows seeing pixels when I really need to, as well as being able to hand-eye manipulate small detail within large scenaria without too much concentration/caret slowdown (99.9% at 1.7mm, 95% at 0.85mm).
My dream monitor would be the same size I have today (30 inch) with exactly twice the resolution (2560x1600 -> 5120x3200). I would keep things the same size, but have a 200% scaling on to make everything sharper while avoiding uneven pixel upsampling (I work with web design). 16:10 ftw.
For last 6 years I'm using 30" Dell, 2560 x 1600 and 2 "wings" on both sides also Dell, 1200 x 1600 placed vertical, very well matched by size. Quite happy with the setup but looking for bigger screen 32" - 40" with higher resolution in the near future, also with 3 monitors, one main one and 2 smaller "wings" on the sides. Perfect setup for what I'm doing.
The resolution game is pretty over. The 50" 4K is perfectly ok for me, no objections in 2 years. See its pixels only from less then ~50cm but use it at 1 meter, it is absurd to sit closer.
If take 8K then it must be 1) larger - 60" or 70" 2) not much pricier since the difference with 4K will be barely noticeable, if any at all.
The 8K has almost zero appeal to anyone besides huge screens in the halls and auditoriums where you can stay in the vicinity of it. Then even 16K will be needed.
We’ve updated our terms. By continuing to use the site and/or by logging into your account, you agree to the Site’s updated Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
94 Comments
Back to Article
jabber - Friday, March 24, 2017 - link
Cue muppets moaning ..."Meh...only 60Hz!"nathanddrews - Friday, March 24, 2017 - link
The refresh rate isn't what's bothersome, it's the lack of HDR support. Gotta start somewhere though.schizoide - Friday, March 24, 2017 - link
Would like to see adaptive sync too.dstarr3 - Friday, March 24, 2017 - link
What for? Nobody who's buying this will be concerned at all about refresh rate.QinX - Friday, March 24, 2017 - link
Adaptive Sync would be a very good thing for this type of monitor.Not for gaming, but for keep refreshes smooth. Even driving a desktop at 60Hz with this resolution can be hard on GPUs. So having the refresh rate be variable is great USP.
SodaAnt - Friday, March 24, 2017 - link
Can adaptive sync work with the two input streams? Having the two streams adaptive sync at different times would be a huge issue.lmcd - Friday, March 24, 2017 - link
I didn't think about this until your comment SodaAnt. Gotta bring back ROFL for this one.Ej24 - Sunday, March 26, 2017 - link
Whaat? Just driving the desktop requires zero gpu power. My old gt730 will run a 4k monitor without raising the clock above idle.drajitshnew - Monday, March 27, 2017 - link
Agreedxchaotic - Friday, March 24, 2017 - link
I'll take the bait. Not only that, but it's a bit small for 8k. I think 40 -43" is the sweet spot for 4k, so 8k would need to be even larger than that. Why pay for resolution that you can't see?Finally a nice little g-sync module wouldn't make a huge difference in the BOM and it's especially useful here as you can't hope for a stable 60FPS in any game...
Endda - Friday, March 24, 2017 - link
I was just thinking, people already ragged on me for buying a 27" 4K monitor, a 32" 8K monitor seems to be even worse in that regards.hansmuff - Friday, March 24, 2017 - link
I bought a 28" 4K for my workplace because I sit at it all day and I consider it too small. I have to use Win7 (work) so the scaling isn't wonderful. It works and is better than some 2 screen hack certainly, but yeah 32" 8K is just not what I consider reasonable. I would be curious to see how awesome you can render fonts on that, though.close - Friday, March 24, 2017 - link
You consider the screen to small or the displayed elements? I have a 4K laptop that I use all day and realized that even if my vision is close to perfect using it at native resolution is quitre tiring. So I'm resigned to using it at 1080p, attached to another 2 1080p screens when it'son the desk.4K or 8K are definitely beautiful for media content, not so much for office productivity. Yeah, you might say more stuff fits in one screen which is true. But people forget about the size of the resulting elements. Having a big spreadsheet at 100% scaling on an 8K screen might just be the thing that make your eyes take an indefinite leave of absence...
Guspaz - Friday, March 24, 2017 - link
Microsoft will figure out DPI scaling eventually: look to OS X for an example of how computers can take advantage of higher DPI displays without any real drawbacks to the user. For all that people scoff at Apple's "retina display" marketing, they bloody well nailed DPI scaling, and as a primarily Windows user, I'm rather annoyed that Microsoft hasn't.Meteor2 - Friday, March 24, 2017 - link
I was just about to say this. The displays on big 5K iMacs are beautiful and very useable. No eye strain at all.melgross - Friday, March 24, 2017 - link
Yes, we have two 27" 5k iMacs in the house. The displays are awesome. The DCI-P3 color gamut is great with Photoshop, even though it doesn't quite match up with Adobe RGB, its close enough.Fonts render very well. These are high dpi monitors. I can't see any irregularities close-up.
niva - Friday, March 24, 2017 - link
I really don't care about image scaling in windows, hence why I'll never own one of these displays. Now if I can get one of these on a 60" monitor I'll use it for productivity. Right now I'm perfectly happy with a single 30" monitor that runs 2650x1600. A resolution like 8K on a 60" curved monitor designed so that you sit about 4 feet from it would be damn near perfect!CSMR - Friday, March 24, 2017 - link
Microsoft already figured out display scaling many years ago with Windows 7.Guspaz - Friday, March 24, 2017 - link
It doesn't work very well, so I'd argue otherwise.melgross - Friday, March 24, 2017 - link
No, they didn't.hechacker1 - Friday, March 24, 2017 - link
Apple did get it right, but that's because they control all the hardware and do perfect doubling or tripling of resolution so that they can scale exactly. On Windows you have a huge mismatch of resolutions to screen sizes.But Microsoft could learn a lesson from Apple and do supersampling of GUI elements for scaling then downscaling so it works on most monitor DPIs. Right now it seems microsoft does a dumb bilinear scaling approach or none at all on older apps.
lmcd - Friday, March 24, 2017 - link
Windows display scaling at 1.25x and 1.5x have both been excellent in my experience so far with my 24in 4k panel. It's like I bought a 2560x1440 panel for desktop use, and a 4k panel for entertainment viewing, all for about the same price as 1440 panels cost not even two years ago.Don't get me started on the Linux desktop experience though.
drajitshnew - Monday, March 27, 2017 - link
Resolution suits 16 yrs old, price suits 60 yrsSharpEars - Friday, March 24, 2017 - link
You are exactly right - having 8k in a 30+" format is just plain stupid. They should have made it at least 42" diagonal.DanNeely - Friday, March 24, 2017 - link
I'm not sure what your point is. That would still be 200 DPI, so you'd still need to be running in a high DPI scaling mode. Over the next few years as it drops from an ultra-halo/proof of concept spec to something approaching mass market I'm sure we'll see a much larger number of sizes available. I doubt 40" class will ever be more than ultra niche; and probably only happen if/when 8k TV does because it's even more excessively huge in the eyes of most consumers. 27/30 already triggers a lot of "too big" reactions, and as someone who owns a 30" 2560x1600 screen and who plays games with HUDs around the edge I don't want anything much larger because HUD data is already shifting towards my peripheral vision and out of easy/immediate notice. With 16:9 I'll probably be getting a 31.5/32" screen; but only because a large difference in vertical height would annoy me more than shifting the huds an inch farther to the side.At the moment the target audience is probably photo pros/video R&D types for whom the 30" class size means its more or less a drop in replacement of the 2.5/4k monitor on their desk now.
bernstein - Friday, March 24, 2017 - link
so instead of fixing games / windows UI, you'd restrict yourself to a 30" screen?completely wrong attitude... i have a 43", so i know the pain of having HUDs & windows start/systray/window close buttons in really painful places....
- the easiest remedy for games insisting to place the HUD/contols in corners : play in borderless windowed mode with a black windows blackground & hidden taskbar.
- for windows : use keyboard shortcuts...
DanNeely - Friday, March 24, 2017 - link
If/when it stops being a regular problem on many of the games I play the pretend its only a 25/30" screen kludge you're suggesting might be a tolerable workaround for an occasional straggler. When it's most of the games I play it's a bit ridiculous; since I could save my money and just have a native smaller screen anyway and not have big gaps between the game and whatever I have running on my side screens. It's not like the bigger screen is a game changer in web browsers, and 40" is enough taller I'm not convinced it'd be a reasonable experience for general desktop use without sitting enough farther back that I'd give up most of the nominal increase in vertical field of view anyway. Having huds sitting on the edge of my peripheral vision is worst in games, having the OS taskbar on one end of it and my browser tab bar on the other isn't exactly a winning setup either.melgross - Friday, March 24, 2017 - link
Who cares about games? Gamers aren't buying $5,000 monitors. Those of us who do photo, video, publishing and CAD want $5,000 displays.ZeDestructor - Saturday, April 1, 2017 - link
As someone who's have had 3 of em on their way to my house if I could afford the 15k asking price, and then play games on em, we exist and we're not afraid to spend big money when we have it.I care about the density because I read a lot on my computers, the colours because good colours make games better. The refresh rate, response time and probably end-to-end latency is meh, but one can live with that until the faster GSYNC/FreeSync stuff (both interface and panel) shows up.
melgross - Friday, March 24, 2017 - link
Actually, that's wrong. What we want is a high dpi monitor, not a monitor that's bigger with more pixels.niva - Tuesday, March 28, 2017 - link
Who is "we"? Don't lump me into that. I'm happy with 100 dpi on desktop usage. Been using it for years, I like it. I'm also perfectly content with 1080 resolutions on phones under 5.5 inches.8K sounds great, on a 60" screen.
Spunjji - Friday, March 24, 2017 - link
Just because you can't see the difference, doesn't mean others can't. For me there's a tremendously noticeable difference in smoothness of text rendering and detail visible in full-size photographs going from a 24" 4K display to a 27" 5K.BedfordTim - Friday, March 24, 2017 - link
I suspect that most of the difference was in the quality of the monitor or your software settings. There is only 20% difference in resolution between the two.melgross - Friday, March 24, 2017 - link
That's a big, and visible difference.Guspaz - Friday, March 24, 2017 - link
You're talking about an ~18% increase in pixel density, the difference is small, no matter how much you notice it...saratoga4 - Friday, March 24, 2017 - link
> 24" 4K display184 DPI
>27" 5K.
217.57 PPI
>tremendously noticeable difference in smoothness of text rendering and detail visible in full-size photographs
Tremendous placebo.
close - Monday, March 27, 2017 - link
Plenty of "professionals" with sensitive eyes fell for it when they looked at the multiple screens I have at home and assumed the 1440p is 4K and vice versa. Indeed, the 1400p is a gorgeous high quality panel while the 4K one is a "meh"-type panel just with a whole lot of pixels.But you know, if it makes people feel better to say "we, the professionals..." don't take that away from them.
Bullwinkle J Moose - Friday, March 24, 2017 - link
"I think 40 -43" is the sweet spot for 4k, so 8k would need to be even larger than that."-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Not Really
At 3ft from monitor, a 27" 1080p display is a bit cramped for me but 32" is perfect @ 1080p
Any resolution above 1080P is simply a personal preference in screen size
Going by your logic, I would have to say 32" is perfect for 1080, 64" would be perfect for 4K and 128" is perfect for 8K monitors
For close up work, 128" would be a bit too much
If 40-43" is your preference for 4K at a distance of 3ft, then 40-43" is also your preference @ 8K
Screen size is a personal preference at close range
Anything bigger than your preferred monitor size is usually called a TV
DPUser - Friday, March 24, 2017 - link
I have a 40" 4k TV mounted on my recording studio desk. Using it at about 30" from eyeballs, mostly at full-res, it is wonderful for DAW work, but I could see an 8k monitor at this size making it easier to read small text and providing sharper scaling.I must add that the TV I'm using (Samsung UN40KU6290) cost me about 1/12 the retail price of the reviewed 8k monitor. I'll be just fine here at 4k for quite some time.
DPUser - Friday, March 24, 2017 - link
Edit... make that 1/17 the retail price of the reviewed monitor!sor - Friday, March 24, 2017 - link
It's actually high enough that you can pixel double, getting a crazy smooth 4K desktop. I agree that 32" is on the low side of acceptable for 4K native viewing, and as such I wonder if going 8K would even be noticeable.haukionkannel - Friday, March 24, 2017 - link
It is only 280 pixels / inch so you definitely can see the difference compared to normal 4K.The higher pixel debsity, the better. The text is sharper, so no blurry like in HD and 2K. I have 27" 2K Dell ultrasharp and the text definitely is too blurry. 4K or 8K would Remedy that a Little bit!
bernstein - Friday, March 24, 2017 - link
yeah, my 43" 4K screen absolutely rocks! no need for 4k below that (except on a VR-Headset or a >13" Tablet). so my interest in 8K begins at about 84" or bigger or VR...Lord-Bryan - Friday, March 24, 2017 - link
It is designed to be a high-end professional monitorReads:-not meant for gaming!!!
And there are really not gamers out there who can afford this nor a gpu powerful enough to drive 8k
Lord-Bryan - Friday, March 24, 2017 - link
You can't even hope for any frame at 8kprisonerX - Friday, March 24, 2017 - link
"Why pay for resolution that you can't see?"Of course you can see it, unless you're blind. Please lets not get into this "If you can't see the pixels you can't tell any difference" nonsense. It's asinine.
ImSpartacus - Sunday, March 26, 2017 - link
You're supposed to pixel-double to run like a native 4K monitor (which is nearly perfect for 32").It's just like those 24" 4K monitors that pixel-double to appear like a native 1080p monitor (which is perfect for 24").
Morawka - Sunday, March 26, 2017 - link
this monitor has 280 PPI bro.. I know for a fact i can see a big difference between a iphone 6 at ~270 ppi and a LG phone at 400 ppi. Enough with the "The human eye can't see the difference" argument. They just told you that 16K is needed for VR to emulate what the human eye is capable of. 16K in a VR headset is something like 1500 ppiclose - Monday, March 27, 2017 - link
I'm with you up to a point. That point is when you assume that the VR situation is somehow comparable to the normal monitor situation. Don't forget that the VR headset is strapped to your head while the screen is 1m away. Quite a difference.javishd - Monday, March 27, 2017 - link
I'm sorta right there with you, but you can SEE the difference for sure, like FOR SURE.I think you mean to say, "Why pay for resolution that you can't USE?"
I'm rocking the 43" 4k display at the moment, but it's absolutely too big for some people. Personally the ~40" range is the max size I'll probably ever embrace until we have VR desktops inside the dual 8k screens for each eye.
Higher pixel density is really an upgrade for most people, it looks much prettier. Sharp fonts do a lot to ease my eye strain. Not to mention the benefit to those working with photos and printing.
For someone like me, I hope they release a 43" 8k display. Then I can have all the same real estate with the addition of high DPI mode at 200% scaling.
damianrobertjones - Friday, March 31, 2017 - link
Having a 40" screen, on my desk, in front of me, would look really, really funny.hansmuff - Friday, March 24, 2017 - link
That'd be pretty stupid because nothing can drive that resolution anywhere near 60fps.I'm excited to more up to 4K gaming once 144Hz 4K becomes feasible. And by feasible I mean 4K 144Hz HDR high quality screen for $800 and graphics cards to drive it for $500.
dstarr3 - Friday, March 24, 2017 - link
This is not a gaming monitor. Nobody will be buying this for gaming.saratoga4 - Friday, March 24, 2017 - link
You can pixel double to 1080p and get full frame rate, but have 4k for actual pro work (which is what this monitor is meant for).4k gaming is 80% about epenis, 20% about marginal improvement over SSAA. The kind of person buying a monitor with DCI P3 isn't interested in dickwaving anyway.
willis936 - Friday, March 24, 2017 - link
Well if you play csgo you may very well care if the head is 2 pixels wide or 4.ZeDestructor - Saturday, April 1, 2017 - link
> 4k gaming is 80% about epenis, 20% about marginal improvement over SSAA. The kind of person buying a monitor with DCI P3 isn't interested in dickwaving anyway.I insist on at least AdobeRGB on my monitors cause it makes my games and code prettier (by prettier, I mean better contrast between colours, which makes reading easier). Less so for pictures (cause most are sRGB), but eventually I'll get a better camera that does more than sRGB...
Hxx - Friday, March 24, 2017 - link
its for a niche market for which the frequency should not be a issue. Even if one had $5k to drop on this for daily computing, gaming, etc they would likely go with a different screenzepi - Friday, March 24, 2017 - link
But where is my 5K 10bit colour depth single-stream DP 1.4 display, preferably with freesync or g-sync?It is nice that Dell keeps pushing the boundary, but we'd love to have practical versions of those yesterdays high-end models as well.
A5 - Friday, March 24, 2017 - link
I imagine the new wave of HDR monitors will get you your wish in the next year or so.But it'll be $1000.
SharpEars - Friday, March 24, 2017 - link
... and HDR support along with the various color spaces at 100% and a high enough brightness (matte and not sparkly).A5 - Friday, March 24, 2017 - link
Should be affordable by the time my 1440p monitor dies. And maybe Windows programs will have competent HiDPI support by then, too...I assume by then there will be bigger, better DisplayPort standards to make it single-cable, too.
TristanSDX - Friday, March 24, 2017 - link
Price is artifically pumped. Production costs are below 1000$, or even less. 300-400 DPI is none technical challenge.r3loaded - Friday, March 24, 2017 - link
At a high DPI like this on a large panel, yields become an issue. Unless of course you want to use one of the faulty panels that either don't work or have tons of dead pixels.Spunjji - Friday, March 24, 2017 - link
Said with the confidence of someone who has no idea what manufacturing tolerances and panel failure rates are like for a panel of that size.BedfordTim - Friday, March 24, 2017 - link
Nothing costs anywhere near its manufacturing cost.Think about packaging, shipping, duty, R&D, marketing, distribution costs etc.
BrokenCrayons - Friday, March 24, 2017 - link
Wow, that power consumption is crazy! I could feed two laptops running a full load for the power that screen alone requires. I hope we figure out how to make these things more efficient because newer flat panels are actually overtaking the power needed to drive old CRT screens.Death666Angel - Friday, March 24, 2017 - link
A quick google search shows a TomsHardware article from 2010 which has 19" CRTs in the region of 100W @ 50% brightness and only slightly below that (91 - 99W) @ 10% brightness.Seems like 87W (which is likely less when calibrated to 140cd/m²) for a 32" 8k display is perfectly fine compared to CRTs.
BrokenCrayons - Friday, March 24, 2017 - link
That's pretty much what I'm getting at since a 14-15 inch monitor from 2000-ish would be quite a bit lower than 100W. Since flat panel displays were initally sold as lower power consumption alternatives, it seems like we're taking huge strides backwards.DanNeely - Friday, March 24, 2017 - link
A 21" CRT from the same time would be around or a bit above 100W. And a current 22" LCD is a lot lower than 100W. At similar market segments the power draws are roughly comparable with the I'm rich screens slotting in around 100W and more affordable/mass market ones falling to lower power levels.Death666Angel - Friday, March 24, 2017 - link
Wait, why are you comparing extremly dissimilar products? I hate car comparisons, but you wouldn't compare a Smart to a truck, right? Flat panel monitors were positioned as smaller alternatives to CRTs that did not have the issue of flickering images on steady backgrounds (much easier on the eyes for productivity work like spreadsheets and word documents). They offered lower power consumption when comparing apples to apples (similar sizes, similar performance). I don't get why you insist on comparing 15" tech from 2000 to 32" tech from 2017.BrokenCrayons - Friday, March 24, 2017 - link
Just because things are dissimilar doesn't mean there's no value in comparing them. Sure, it can get outlandish, but I don't think what I'm pointing out with respect to bloated power consumption for modern displays, including this one, is unreasonable. The bottom line is that we're increasing net power consumption of electronic devices as our technology improves which might have long term negative implications. It's just something to keep in mind as we move forward and it doesn't mean Dell's latest screen isn't impressive in its own right.Icehawk - Sunday, March 26, 2017 - link
Keep in mind our PCs overall are using far less power than just a few years ago - I can run a high end PC on a 450W fanless PSU now where a similar PC from just a couple years back would have needed 600-700W. So some steps forward, some back.willis936 - Friday, March 24, 2017 - link
You heard it here first: comparisons for context are dumb.LordOfTheBoired - Sunday, March 26, 2017 - link
And for a comparison that is closer to fair, a 32" CRT TV from 2005(Sony KD-32FS100 is the one I found a manual for) was specced for 185 watts of power(and weighed 163 pounds).Display power consumption does go up with size, because it takes electricity to generate light and a bigger display generates more light. Making matters worse, higher resolution LCDs block more of their backlight because each pixel has a small amount of opaque components, and more pixels means more opaque parts in your screen, so you need more power in the backlight to get the same brightness.
Incidentally, flat panel displays took less electricity than CRTs because they used fluorescent bulbs to generate light instead of a particle cannon. Newer flat panels use LEDs instead of fluorescent bulbs, making them more efficient than older displays. But you still need a lot of power to make a larger screen glow.
OLED should be far more efficient than LCD, but is irrelevant to most market segments currently.
DanNeely - Friday, March 24, 2017 - link
It's the same as their 32" 4k panel (70 typical, 93 energy star). Much larger display sizes having eaten the per area power savings vs CRTs has been an issue for the better part of a decade; with power levels at any given resolution/brightness/size/etc combo steadily shrinking with newer bigger and better ones slotting in on top keeping the halo device power levels more or less constant.accessories.us.dell.com/sna/productdetail.aspx?c=us&cs=04&l=en&sku=210-AFLN
zodiacfml - Friday, March 24, 2017 - link
Truly niche. To make good use of it, an image from a medium format camera costing 30K to 50K will do it justice. For videos, a timelapse created from the same camera.If I will have to be dream of a monitor, I'd be dreaming of those ASUS god monitors which has HDR, adaptive refresh rate, 144 Hz max refresh, Quantum Dots, and in 4K. Can't wait enough
edzieba - Friday, March 24, 2017 - link
"Using some undocumented tricks, a pair of tests in our new set of gaming benchmarks for CPU reviews can render at 8K or even 16K without needing a monitor, so you might see some numbers in due course showing where we stand with GPU power on this technology."Or you can use DSR (or forced SSAA) with a UHD screen and 2x factor (SUHD equivalent) or 4x (16k equivalent). Doesn't test the MST portion of the video pipeline, but everything up the the final filtering stage prior to readout is the same as a native SUHD or 16k output.
Lets hope this monitor actually makes its way to production. The similarly high-spec and pricey UP3017Q lingered in 'coming soon' limbo for a year before eventually being quietly cancelled.
CaedenV - Friday, March 24, 2017 - link
This is good.I picked up a 4K display last year, and I went big with a 40" TV that has decent input lag and 60Hz support. But it turns out to be one of those things where 4K at 40" is an odd resolution node. Text is just a bit too small, but the screen realestate is just about perfect without display scaling.
The thing is that the issue is one of the clarity of the text, not exactly the size of it. Running display scaling on my itty bittly laptop to have text the same physical size as on the big display (but much higher pixel density) yields very crisp readable text. So the real solution is either higher resolution with display scaling, or else 4k at a slightly larger display (I think 46" would be just about perfect in my setup).
But it is fantastic that we are finally getting to a point where pixels are nearly indistinguishable! I mean, it really sucks for old apps that dont work right with display scaling, but modern applications, movies, games, etc all look much more lifelike with these new displays. Certainly a step forward.
Silma - Friday, March 24, 2017 - link
Based on my calculations, we are at, or very near the eye max resolution with this monitor.I made my calculations based on a 32" monitor (I saw after the Dell is 31.5"), a viewing distance equal to screen width (27,89") and pixels no bigger than 0,3 arc minute:
One would need a resolution of 10 626 x 6 283 pixels to better the eye resolution.
Meteor2 - Friday, March 24, 2017 - link
"Raja Koduri, SVP of AMD’s Radeon Technology Group, has stated that VR needs 16K per-eye at 144 Hz to emulate the human experience" -- I'm not sure I've ever heard that quantified before. What's that, ~200 megapixels total? I'm thinking we're a fair time away from GPUs and cables that can deliver that.tojumikie - Friday, March 24, 2017 - link
I guess I'm the only one here that views his 4k monitor on 100%?I love that I can put 8 pages on 1 screen in MS word at 100%
tojumikie - Friday, March 24, 2017 - link
It's a Samsung 28 inchwillis936 - Friday, March 24, 2017 - link
Do you use telescopic glasses?tojumikie - Friday, March 24, 2017 - link
hahahtojumikie - Friday, March 24, 2017 - link
I'm only 21 though so maybe that has something to do with it. Looks fine to me. It's really just like looking at a 14" laptop at 100%. Same text sizeValantar - Friday, March 24, 2017 - link
So this is essentially a 3x3 grid of Dell XPS 11s, just borderless and with better color reproduction. I mean, I think 2560x1440 is overkill on 13" laptops, let alone 11". This is insane. Although probably useful for some, still insane. I imagine display resolutions like this will kill anti-aliasing for most, if not all games. When GPUs can run them, of course, which will probably be some time around 2025.Kamus - Friday, March 24, 2017 - link
the whole point of "overkill" resolutions is exactly the same as it is on phones for monitors:You can't ever see pixel structures or individual pixels / sub pixels.
And that, as we know from phones, is cool.
Just not nearly as cool as it would have been if Dell released the 4K OLED monitor that would've blown this one out of the water.
LCD can get 32k resolution and it would still look like crap compared to any OLED monitor. It's just too bad making big OLED monitors can't be done in a cost effective way, unless you're LG.
smartthanyou - Friday, March 24, 2017 - link
Hmmm, well the price per pixels isn't that bad. :)Kamus - Friday, March 24, 2017 - link
This is so underwhelming...Last year they promised a 4k OLED that would've blown this out of the water.
This is just "moar pixels" that look just like every other LCD out there.
timbotim - Friday, March 24, 2017 - link
I'm another one of the few on 100% scaling on win7 @110ppi (4k on 40inch). So this is not for me, but delighted that a key vendor is offering 8K. I do hope someone will release 8K somewhere between 55 to 88 inch (160 to 100ppi) as this allows seeing pixels when I really need to, as well as being able to hand-eye manipulate small detail within large scenaria without too much concentration/caret slowdown (99.9% at 1.7mm, 95% at 0.85mm).dgingeri - Friday, March 24, 2017 - link
I think I'll stick with my U3415W for a while longer.JS - Saturday, March 25, 2017 - link
My dream monitor would be the same size I have today (30 inch) with exactly twice the resolution (2560x1600 -> 5120x3200). I would keep things the same size, but have a 200% scaling on to make everything sharper while avoiding uneven pixel upsampling (I work with web design). 16:10 ftw.Maciek - Sunday, March 26, 2017 - link
For last 6 years I'm using 30" Dell, 2560 x 1600 and 2 "wings" on both sides also Dell, 1200 x 1600 placed vertical, very well matched by size. Quite happy with the setup but looking for bigger screen 32" - 40" with higher resolution in the near future, also with 3 monitors, one main one and 2 smaller "wings" on the sides. Perfect setup for what I'm doing.SanX - Monday, March 27, 2017 - link
The resolution game is pretty over. The 50" 4K is perfectly ok for me, no objections in 2 years. See its pixels only from less then ~50cm but use it at 1 meter, it is absurd to sit closer.If take 8K then it must be
1) larger - 60" or 70"
2) not much pricier since the difference with 4K will be barely noticeable, if any at all.
The 8K has almost zero appeal to anyone besides huge screens in the halls and auditoriums where you can stay in the vicinity of it. Then even 16K will be needed.