This isn't really aimed at HP in particular because I do see this with other manufacturers, but why oh why do they still insist on EXTERNAL power supplies? These are not slim machines and if Dell can have internal power supplies on their P series monitors and still maintaining relative slimness. why can't others?
Couldn't agree more. External PSUs on monitors are not only a pain for cable routing (both with that annoying brick and the thin, cheap and flimsy DC cable) but often a sign of OEMs cheaping out with cheap, off-the-shelf power bricks that are often poor quality. I've never seen a monitor's internal PSU fail, but I've seen plenty of external ones do. And given how much more heat there is inside a monitor, that can't be coincidence.
I actually see external power supplies as a plus. You can easily replace the bricks whereas swapping out an internal PSU is going to be a pain in the butt, and that's if you can even find the parts. You don't have the part availability problem with external bricks either, just read the voltage levels and amps off the sticker and substitute it with something compatible.
VA vs IPS for me isn't the issue. I don't like the resolution and would agree that 3840x1600 would be better. Even nicer would be 5120x1600 to replace dual 27" 2560x1600.
Its a business monitor, designed to replace two 22" 16x10" monitors on office desks. Small pixels and windows scaling are a no no in the business world.
Absolutely agree with just a minor correction: this is the size of two 24" 16x10 monitors (not 22"). Which incidentally is the setup I'm using right now at work. This pixel density is perfect to avoid headaches with scaling.
And if I ballpark the equivalent curvature from my two slightly angled screens, I come close to 1800R, so this looks just perfect.
Depends on the business, but if anybody in accounting came to me asking for one of these I assure you it would be approved in a heartbeat. But with no VESA mount I doubt any of them would want it.
This is not “ultra wide 4k”. This is crap resolution for a display this big. It would had been acceptable back in 2009. In 2019 I want at least 160 PPI, and at least 120 Hz refresh rate. Willing to pay up to $2k for an IPS display like that. Don’t care about ultrawide, don’t care about curved, don’t care about accurate colors, don’t care about crappy gaming TN panels.
This is not for the gaming crowd. This is more for industrial and finance where you need a lot of monitor desktop space but not taking over too much desk space and have a high tight pixel density. You are looking at a massive amount of data for extended periods, often in a glance.
No. "4k" is a misnomer for the consumer UHD display resolution standard, which is 3840*2160 pixels, which would be more correctly called 2160p as it is a direct "descendant" of the FHD 1080p 1920*1080 standard. Display resolution "classes" (as in "4k ultrawide" or "1440p ultrawide") across various aspect ratios are generally determined by the number of _vertical_ pixels, despite the 4k label being based on the horizontal pixel count. (The reason for this is the DCI resolution naming scheme being misappropriated for consumer TVs when UHD TVs were introduced. For reference, DCI 4k is 4096*2160, which has never been used for TVs (or even monitors outside of professional reference monitors).) If this was not the case, you could have "2k ultrawide" at 1920*540 - which would be _grossly_ misleading as the resolution would be entirely useless for anything a normal FHD display could do. The reason for the vertical pixel count being the determinant is that it is what is kept constant when aspect ratios change (also stems from film and TV, but more applicable): DCI 4k Full Frame is 1.96:1, DCI 4k Flat is 1.85:1 at 3996*2160. Same goes for the older DCI 2k resolutions. CinemaScope (2.39:1) does crop the vertical axis, but is not a DCI standard but rather a derivative.
So, if one insists on using the bastardized version of DCI nomenclature for PC displays, you also have to follow the logic behind the system, maintaining the vertical resolution. The issue here is of course that the DCI standards never accounted for 21:9 (2.33:1) or 32:9 (3.56:1) aspect ratios - yet another reason why adoption of this nomenclature doesn't make sense for computer displays. Which is why one should stick with easily comparable numbers, in which case vertical resolution is the easiest/most convenient shorthand as that is the axis that stays the most constant, and is a good indicator of the usable desktop area of the monitor. That way, vertical resolution+aspect ratio tells you everything you need to know, and there is a defined "minimum" resolution at the de facto default 16:9 aspect ratio, with any wider standard always being _higher_ resolution than this, alleviating any risk of getting a lower resolution than you wanted.
1. It's ultrawide. The display is physically very wide. 2. '4k' refers to horizontal (normally) pixels. So, yeah. I guess it isn't actually '4k', like almost every '4k' display out there.
Can you actually read the article for a change? You do know who this is aimed at? It's a perfectly fine resolution for businesses. The pixel density is good enough text to be clear and the programs they may well be running (some very likely still based on IE6 or the like) will drop in jsut fine.
Hell, depending on the response time, even I could see myself getting one for gaming. And I'm NOT THE INTENDED MARKET. You spec whores need to stop clogging up genuine discussion.
The silly arguments over what is and what isn't "4K" (it doesn't matter) just distract from the actual issue brought up by the OP, which is that this display has an unacceptably low resolution and pixel density.
Moar competition in this space (dual 24-inch replacement)! So now there is this HP, Lenovo ThinkVision P44 and Samsung's C43J89 / CHG90 in the 3840x1200 resolution and ~43-44" size.
Biggest selling point not mentioned in this review: no bezel interrupting your screen real estate. I see these monitors being a good fit for CAD and spreadsheet work, even if they are still a bit pricey compared to individual monitors - which is understandable given the relative sizes of the screens.
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
20 Comments
Back to Article
quiksilvr - Wednesday, September 18, 2019 - link
This isn't really aimed at HP in particular because I do see this with other manufacturers, but why oh why do they still insist on EXTERNAL power supplies? These are not slim machines and if Dell can have internal power supplies on their P series monitors and still maintaining relative slimness. why can't others?Valantar - Wednesday, September 18, 2019 - link
Couldn't agree more. External PSUs on monitors are not only a pain for cable routing (both with that annoying brick and the thin, cheap and flimsy DC cable) but often a sign of OEMs cheaping out with cheap, off-the-shelf power bricks that are often poor quality. I've never seen a monitor's internal PSU fail, but I've seen plenty of external ones do. And given how much more heat there is inside a monitor, that can't be coincidence.Morawka - Wednesday, September 18, 2019 - link
I actually see external power supplies as a plus. You can easily replace the bricks whereas swapping out an internal PSU is going to be a pain in the butt, and that's if you can even find the parts. You don't have the part availability problem with external bricks either, just read the voltage levels and amps off the sticker and substitute it with something compatible.goatfajitas - Wednesday, September 18, 2019 - link
A VA monitoir at 3840 × 1200? No thanks. For the same price you can get an IPS 3840 × 1600https://www.amazon.com/dp/B073FHWTPL/ref=psdc_1292...
https://www.amazon.com/LG-38UC99-W-38-21-Standard/...
schujj07 - Wednesday, September 18, 2019 - link
VA vs IPS for me isn't the issue. I don't like the resolution and would agree that 3840x1600 would be better. Even nicer would be 5120x1600 to replace dual 27" 2560x1600.danielfranklin - Wednesday, September 18, 2019 - link
Its a business monitor, designed to replace two 22" 16x10" monitors on office desks.Small pixels and windows scaling are a no no in the business world.
Tams80 - Wednesday, September 18, 2019 - link
If they'd actually read the article they would know that.JanW1 - Thursday, September 19, 2019 - link
Absolutely agree with just a minor correction: this is the size of two 24" 16x10 monitors (not 22"). Which incidentally is the setup I'm using right now at work. This pixel density is perfect to avoid headaches with scaling.And if I ballpark the equivalent curvature from my two slightly angled screens, I come close to 1800R, so this looks just perfect.
goatfajitas - Thursday, September 19, 2019 - link
Businesses aren't generally spending $1000 to replace 2 $150 monitors. No matter how you slice it, this thing is just ridiculously priced.Lakados - Monday, September 23, 2019 - link
Depends on the business, but if anybody in accounting came to me asking for one of these I assure you it would be approved in a heartbeat. But with no VESA mount I doubt any of them would want it.p1esk - Wednesday, September 18, 2019 - link
This is not “ultra wide 4k”. This is crap resolution for a display this big. It would had been acceptable back in 2009. In 2019 I want at least 160 PPI, and at least 120 Hz refresh rate. Willing to pay up to $2k for an IPS display like that. Don’t care about ultrawide, don’t care about curved, don’t care about accurate colors, don’t care about crappy gaming TN panels.crimsonson - Wednesday, September 18, 2019 - link
This is not for the gaming crowd. This is more for industrial and finance where you need a lot of monitor desktop space but not taking over too much desk space and have a high tight pixel density. You are looking at a massive amount of data for extended periods, often in a glance.Valantar - Wednesday, September 18, 2019 - link
It's still not "ultrawide 4k" though. That would be 5040*2160 or 7680*2160. This is ultrawide 1200p.saratoga4 - Wednesday, September 18, 2019 - link
3840x1600 is 32:10 4k. Most people would consider 32:10 to be "ultrawide". Thus, it is ultrawide 4k.5040*XXX pixels is 5k, not 4k. 7680*XXX is almost 8k.
Valantar - Thursday, September 19, 2019 - link
No. "4k" is a misnomer for the consumer UHD display resolution standard, which is 3840*2160 pixels, which would be more correctly called 2160p as it is a direct "descendant" of the FHD 1080p 1920*1080 standard. Display resolution "classes" (as in "4k ultrawide" or "1440p ultrawide") across various aspect ratios are generally determined by the number of _vertical_ pixels, despite the 4k label being based on the horizontal pixel count. (The reason for this is the DCI resolution naming scheme being misappropriated for consumer TVs when UHD TVs were introduced. For reference, DCI 4k is 4096*2160, which has never been used for TVs (or even monitors outside of professional reference monitors).) If this was not the case, you could have "2k ultrawide" at 1920*540 - which would be _grossly_ misleading as the resolution would be entirely useless for anything a normal FHD display could do. The reason for the vertical pixel count being the determinant is that it is what is kept constant when aspect ratios change (also stems from film and TV, but more applicable): DCI 4k Full Frame is 1.96:1, DCI 4k Flat is 1.85:1 at 3996*2160. Same goes for the older DCI 2k resolutions. CinemaScope (2.39:1) does crop the vertical axis, but is not a DCI standard but rather a derivative.So, if one insists on using the bastardized version of DCI nomenclature for PC displays, you also have to follow the logic behind the system, maintaining the vertical resolution. The issue here is of course that the DCI standards never accounted for 21:9 (2.33:1) or 32:9 (3.56:1) aspect ratios - yet another reason why adoption of this nomenclature doesn't make sense for computer displays. Which is why one should stick with easily comparable numbers, in which case vertical resolution is the easiest/most convenient shorthand as that is the axis that stays the most constant, and is a good indicator of the usable desktop area of the monitor. That way, vertical resolution+aspect ratio tells you everything you need to know, and there is a defined "minimum" resolution at the de facto default 16:9 aspect ratio, with any wider standard always being _higher_ resolution than this, alleviating any risk of getting a lower resolution than you wanted.
Tams80 - Wednesday, September 18, 2019 - link
1. It's ultrawide. The display is physically very wide.2. '4k' refers to horizontal (normally) pixels. So, yeah. I guess it isn't actually '4k', like almost every '4k' display out there.
Valantar - Thursday, September 19, 2019 - link
Yes, it is ultrawide. No, it is not 4k. See my comment above.Tams80 - Wednesday, September 18, 2019 - link
Can you actually read the article for a change? You do know who this is aimed at?It's a perfectly fine resolution for businesses. The pixel density is good enough text to be clear and the programs they may well be running (some very likely still based on IE6 or the like) will drop in jsut fine.
Hell, depending on the response time, even I could see myself getting one for gaming. And I'm NOT THE INTENDED MARKET. You spec whores need to stop clogging up genuine discussion.
Adam-James - Sunday, September 22, 2019 - link
The silly arguments over what is and what isn't "4K" (it doesn't matter) just distract from the actual issue brought up by the OP, which is that this display has an unacceptably low resolution and pixel density.jtd871 - Friday, September 20, 2019 - link
Moar competition in this space (dual 24-inch replacement)! So now there is this HP, Lenovo ThinkVision P44 and Samsung's C43J89 / CHG90 in the 3840x1200 resolution and ~43-44" size.Biggest selling point not mentioned in this review: no bezel interrupting your screen real estate. I see these monitors being a good fit for CAD and spreadsheet work, even if they are still a bit pricey compared to individual monitors - which is understandable given the relative sizes of the screens.