As an entertainment-focused consumer, 1000$ is still rather steep to spend on a computer monitor. The wait for Korean 4K panels begins... anything under 500 and I will instantly buy it.
Agreed, i manufacturers are trying to milk customers to the bones as its still new and no real competition nor demand, once those korean 4K panels start crawling into the market, 28" will be for 300-400$ instead of 4K$
Those panels are indeed made by Samsung and LG. They are the b-stock, that's rejected by Apple (and other customers). They have minor backlight bleed or maybe a couple of dead pixels. Not noticeable to most people in everyday non-professional use-cases.
Maybe I asked that the wrong way. Are these new 4k monitors using LG or Samsung panels?
Of course the Qnix / X-Star / Catleap / whatever else "Korean" monitors are using panels from Korean manufacturers. If these Dell 4k monitors are Sharp IGZO or something else like that, will we really see cost-cut "Korean" alternatives?
In other words, I'm questioning the premise of the availability of such alternatives to be coming on the market. Of course, if Dell's selling something there may be similar product as somewhat lower prices, but 1/2 or 1/3 the price? Not necessarily, I would think.
Isn't blacklight bleed a property of a "monitor" and not "panel" itself? afaiu backlight assembly is separate from panel..so it's up to monitor manufacturer, rather than panel manufacturer to make sure there's no backlight bleed.
They also effectively lack support and warranties, and that explains the extra cost when buying domestic. If you wonder why support sucks it is because people are so damn cheap...
4K panels are already cheap enough to make that Seiki can profitably sell a 39" 4K TV for $500. And as volume goes up, cost will go down, as it has with virtually every other new technology in the past.
This is pretty dang brand new tech, the price won't drop THAT fast. 1440p panels on ebay are still no less than $420 generally, how on earth do you expect brand new 4K panels that are decent and can actually drive 60hz to sell for the same?
As another note (edit :( Please!) I could say $400 is too expensive to spend on a computer monitor for a mainstream consumer... so anything under $300 for those 1440p panels and I'd buy it, but that doesn't make it viable or sensible.
Agreed. Investing in a good monitor is pretty sensible. The upgrade cycle is also considerably longer than most components. They offer good value even at seemingly high prices.
Is there ever going to be an upgrade cycle from a good quality 4k monitor? No where terribly obvious to go to improve it. VR and stuff at some stage I guess but that'll be tangential.
Once resolution is taken care of (4K), I think the next logical step should be 10-bit color panels, higher refresh rates 120 Hz and faster response times. So, yeah, pretty sure there will still be an upgrade cycle.
For 10bit color we just need to hope they don't start dropping it completely as the displays drop to lower price points; AFAIK all of the 4k computer monitors on the market now have it. 120hz 4k (or higher resolution 60hz) displays need to wait for a new version of video cable standards to launch and double bandwidth again.
search ebay for QNIQ q2710.... there are quite a few ~300 and a couple sub 300, and they overclock to 100hz+ .. i own 2 and love them lol. whoever is saying ~420 is full of crap :-p
I picked up a Qnix almost 2 years ago, and it's been a great monitor. I know there is an element of risk buying the eBay monitors, but in my case the gamble paid off. Your mileage may vary.
No, sir. 27 inch Korean 1440p panels were selling for 269$ on black friday and still selling for 299$ as I speak (search for x-star 2560x1440). They have been around this price point for a long while now... I bought mine for $289 in April this year.
Either ways, point being, the manufacturers still don't have economies of scale with these 4K panels. As soon as they start making them in bulk, i fully expect the price to dip drastically. Just like it did with 1080p monitors back in the day. 1000$ is one step in the right direction. It's WAY more appealing than the ridiculous $3000+ options on the market otherwise. Kudos to Dell for that.
While I understand people want cheap panels. But the question is will they last long? I have a Dell 2405FPW 24" Screen, got it basically when it came out. Its one of the first decently priced 1920x1200 res screens on the market. I got this back in 2004... and I still use it on my PC today. I think I paid $700 for it, was $100 cheaper than what dell was selling it for at the time. 8 more months and I will of had this monitor for 10 years.
With that being said if its a $1000 and works for as many years as mine has, I'd be thrilled to get a monitor like that
Agreed. I'm still rocking my 2405FPW (although it's been relegated to the secondary in a dual setup). I've secretly been hoping for it to die so I can jump on a 27'' IPS. I wouldn't hesitate to drop another $800 - $1,000 on another Dell (4K) display.
I paid about the same ($747) for my Dell 2407FPW 24" in 2006, and it lasted me a good 7 years, though the backlight had gotten very dim near the end. I heard a capacitor pop, and it died, but I was able to sell it on Ebay for $70 iirc, since somebody new how to repair it.
I'm using an el cheapo HP 25" 1080p refurb monitor now, but can't wait for a 28" 4K to hit a nice $500 - $700 pricepoint, as I decided to skip the 1440p generation because of 1.5X scaling issues.
I've got a 2408 Dell, which I have to run at zero brightness to avoid having to wear sunglasses in the office. It actually died already - it stopped working for a few months after a move, but just as I was about to recycle it, it decided to work again.
Divide the cost of a 4K display by 5 (pessimist!) or 10 (realist) and $130 per year for a 4K display ain't bad!
I'm going to guess that the 28" model is aimed at gamers, and will come with some promotion of Nvidia Maximus and whatever AMD have planned on the 4k front.
It's great to see pricing on 4K monitors come down so quickly. While $1399 is still out of most consumers' price ranges, it's a lot better than the $3499 that the IGZO-based 32" monitors were commanding. And this Dell monitor, with its color-calibrated IPS panel, doesn't seem like it will sacrifice much quality to hit that lower price point.
The upcoming 39" monitors based on 4K VA panels should drive down prices even further. Seiki sells TVs that use these panels, with holiday sale prices as low as $500. The Seiki TVs only support 30Hz, but that is a limitation of the display controller, not the panel itself. Once monitor vendors start pairing these panels with proper DisplayPort inputs, they should provide an excellent, low-cost choice for users wanting to upgrade to 4K. Both Asus and Planar have announced 39" 4K monitors.
Meh, I'm more concerned with moving to 120hz at 1080p than I am 4K. I don't think it's a big enough improvement for consumer level electronics. Professional uses sure, it makes sense. But for consumers, there's not even any movies in that resolution, much less tv shows. Most graphics cards can't run video games at that resolution.
Idk, I think display maker's are just trying to push sales. Come talk to me when you've got 240hz 192,000x108x000 3D holographic display for $300.
For comparison there are still a LOT of people running SD, 640x480 TV's out there. It's neat to pursue the technology but I feel like many people still haven't even caught up to 1080p. Hell, cable companies still think it's ok to charge extra for HD, as if it's something rare and special. These companies are trying to grow their industry by increasing their profit margins, when what they should be doing is reducing cost at the same SLIM profit margins to increase market penetration. Let the economy catch up to 120hz 1080p before you go trying to push a new standard on everyone.
P.S. I think getting hollywood to stop making movies smaller and smaller is a NECESSARY first step. (smaller meaning anything in a wider aspect ratio than 16:9.) 2.44:1, really hollywood?! REALLY!?
A lot of hyperbole in that comment, but I hear what you're saying.
I've had the same FW900 for about 10 years. I paid through the nose (at the time) for it, but it has served me well and hopefully continues to. I have to recalibrate it every couple years, but the image is still beautiful. I've seen a few standout LCDs, but they're all stuck at 60Hz or ghost too much when driven higher. As it stands I've got a display that can offer me exceptional color and contrast, zero lag, zero motion blur at 2560x1600@75Hz, 1920x1200@96Hz, or any other resolution at 120Hz+. Not a single LCD can provide all that right now. God willing, this monitor will last until we get native 4K 120Hz displays and the G-Sync dust settles. I don't want to upgrade until then. Those seem to be the biggest upcoming advances for displays.
The price for a good monitor hasn't changed in 25+ years.
I remember my dad buying a 14" Zenith ZCM-1490 flatscreen CRT in 1987 for around $995. It would do 640x480 easy enough, but could be pushed to 1024x768 with a little bit of timing adjustment on the video card.
Now we both have HP ZR30w monitors that were about $1,050 on sale.
The monitor you want is always going to be around $1,000.
Most propably not... The price is up guality and production volume. When 4K becomes more popular, it means that good guality 1440p monitor will become smaller segment, and that means higher prices. Not we have disty cheap 1080p monitors and expensive 1440p monitors. In the future we have dirty cheap 1080p monitors and expensive 4k monitors. In far future we will have cheap 4k monitors, and expensive 4k and/or 8k monitors...
It would be better to have 10x3" screens then it would to have 1x30" screen. The 10x3" would be more useable because the smaller pieces would make for more arrangement options. 3" screens would probably be hard to sell at first because most people would think a 3" screen would not be usable. Thunderbolt/DP allows for peripheral chaining. You could arrange your monitors like a star if you wanted too or make a boring rectangle or square... Don't be square, make a circle.
We’ve updated our terms. By continuing to use the site and/or by logging into your account, you agree to the Site’s updated Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
51 Comments
Back to Article
dishayu - Wednesday, December 4, 2013 - link
As an entertainment-focused consumer, 1000$ is still rather steep to spend on a computer monitor. The wait for Korean 4K panels begins... anything under 500 and I will instantly buy it.YazX_ - Wednesday, December 4, 2013 - link
Agreed, i manufacturers are trying to milk customers to the bones as its still new and no real competition nor demand, once those korean 4K panels start crawling into the market, 28" will be for 300-400$ instead of 4K$lever_age - Wednesday, December 4, 2013 - link
With respect to cheap "Korean" options... are these panels even made by LG or Samsung?Also, there's a typo in the actual article. Probably mean UP2414Q, not UP2141Q.
dishayu - Wednesday, December 4, 2013 - link
Those panels are indeed made by Samsung and LG. They are the b-stock, that's rejected by Apple (and other customers). They have minor backlight bleed or maybe a couple of dead pixels. Not noticeable to most people in everyday non-professional use-cases.lever_age - Wednesday, December 4, 2013 - link
Maybe I asked that the wrong way. Are these new 4k monitors using LG or Samsung panels?Of course the Qnix / X-Star / Catleap / whatever else "Korean" monitors are using panels from Korean manufacturers. If these Dell 4k monitors are Sharp IGZO or something else like that, will we really see cost-cut "Korean" alternatives?
In other words, I'm questioning the premise of the availability of such alternatives to be coming on the market. Of course, if Dell's selling something there may be similar product as somewhat lower prices, but 1/2 or 1/3 the price? Not necessarily, I would think.
djscrew - Wednesday, December 4, 2013 - link
korean panels are typically sammyMxxCon - Wednesday, December 4, 2013 - link
Isn't blacklight bleed a property of a "monitor" and not "panel" itself?afaiu backlight assembly is separate from panel..so it's up to monitor manufacturer, rather than panel manufacturer to make sure there's no backlight bleed.
djscrew - Wednesday, December 4, 2013 - link
yes, pretty much and especially as far as the korean 1440 panels are concerned, their casing is crap unfortunately.jmunjr - Thursday, December 5, 2013 - link
They also effectively lack support and warranties, and that explains the extra cost when buying domestic. If you wonder why support sucks it is because people are so damn cheap...darwinosx - Wednesday, December 4, 2013 - link
That makes no sense. These are not cheap to make and the price will not drop anytime soon.JDG1980 - Thursday, December 5, 2013 - link
4K panels are already cheap enough to make that Seiki can profitably sell a 39" 4K TV for $500. And as volume goes up, cost will go down, as it has with virtually every other new technology in the past.deiangi - Wednesday, January 22, 2014 - link
Even $450 - http://www.tigerdirect.com/applications/SearchTool...Just that 39" for a monitor is a bit too much.
havoti97 - Friday, December 6, 2013 - link
That's what they would like you to believe. We've had these high resolutions in 10" tablets for a while now (Nexus 10).Solandri - Friday, December 6, 2013 - link
Costco has a 55" UHD TV on sale for $1500 right now (down from $2000). They *are* cheap to make and the price *will* drop soon.http://www.costco.com/Hisense-55%22-Class-4K-Smart...
pixelstuff - Wednesday, December 4, 2013 - link
I wonder how this will compare to the 20" Panasonic Toughpad 4k Tablet.Drumsticks - Wednesday, December 4, 2013 - link
This is pretty dang brand new tech, the price won't drop THAT fast. 1440p panels on ebay are still no less than $420 generally, how on earth do you expect brand new 4K panels that are decent and can actually drive 60hz to sell for the same?Drumsticks - Wednesday, December 4, 2013 - link
As another note (edit :( Please!) I could say $400 is too expensive to spend on a computer monitor for a mainstream consumer... so anything under $300 for those 1440p panels and I'd buy it, but that doesn't make it viable or sensible.piroroadkill - Wednesday, December 4, 2013 - link
Uh, $400 too much? Not really, I guess some of us our computers quite a lot, and want to have the thing we stare at all the time look decent.Drumsticks - Wednesday, December 4, 2013 - link
I'm exaggerating. But expecting <$500 4K monitors to be readily available soon when 27" 1440p panels are still in the $420+ range is even sillier.SodaAnt - Wednesday, December 4, 2013 - link
Well I've seen korean 1440P 27" panels for $250 before, so a $500 4K one doesn't seem out of the question.dishayu - Wednesday, December 4, 2013 - link
Exactly my thought.hbsource - Wednesday, December 4, 2013 - link
Agreed. Investing in a good monitor is pretty sensible. The upgrade cycle is also considerably longer than most components. They offer good value even at seemingly high prices.Qwertilot - Wednesday, December 4, 2013 - link
Is there ever going to be an upgrade cycle from a good quality 4k monitor? No where terribly obvious to go to improve it. VR and stuff at some stage I guess but that'll be tangential.dishayu - Wednesday, December 4, 2013 - link
Once resolution is taken care of (4K), I think the next logical step should be 10-bit color panels, higher refresh rates 120 Hz and faster response times. So, yeah, pretty sure there will still be an upgrade cycle.DanNeely - Wednesday, December 4, 2013 - link
For 10bit color we just need to hope they don't start dropping it completely as the displays drop to lower price points; AFAIK all of the 4k computer monitors on the market now have it. 120hz 4k (or higher resolution 60hz) displays need to wait for a new version of video cable standards to launch and double bandwidth again.althaz - Thursday, December 5, 2013 - link
OLED monitors with infinite contrast ratio, decreased thickness and vastly superior colour ranges? That's what I want!This will do for the next 5-10 years while I wait though.
stoggy - Thursday, December 19, 2013 - link
0.0" bezel !!!theMillen - Monday, December 16, 2013 - link
search ebay for QNIQ q2710.... there are quite a few ~300 and a couple sub 300, and they overclock to 100hz+ .. i own 2 and love them lol. whoever is saying ~420 is full of crap :-pjasonelmore - Tuesday, December 17, 2013 - link
yea i've heard good things about QNIQ or whatever the name is. I heard its one of the only 1440p monitors capable of 120 FPS gaming.Scannall - Thursday, December 19, 2013 - link
I picked up a Qnix almost 2 years ago, and it's been a great monitor. I know there is an element of risk buying the eBay monitors, but in my case the gamble paid off. Your mileage may vary.dishayu - Wednesday, December 4, 2013 - link
No, sir. 27 inch Korean 1440p panels were selling for 269$ on black friday and still selling for 299$ as I speak (search for x-star 2560x1440). They have been around this price point for a long while now... I bought mine for $289 in April this year.Either ways, point being, the manufacturers still don't have economies of scale with these 4K panels. As soon as they start making them in bulk, i fully expect the price to dip drastically. Just like it did with 1080p monitors back in the day. 1000$ is one step in the right direction. It's WAY more appealing than the ridiculous $3000+ options on the market otherwise. Kudos to Dell for that.
djscrew - Wednesday, December 4, 2013 - link
got my Qnix 1440p (matte unless you're retarded) for 330 shipped, square trade warranty includeddeathman20 - Wednesday, December 4, 2013 - link
While I understand people want cheap panels. But the question is will they last long?I have a Dell 2405FPW 24" Screen, got it basically when it came out. Its one of the first decently priced 1920x1200 res screens on the market. I got this back in 2004... and I still use it on my PC today. I think I paid $700 for it, was $100 cheaper than what dell was selling it for at the time. 8 more months and I will of had this monitor for 10 years.
With that being said if its a $1000 and works for as many years as mine has, I'd be thrilled to get a monitor like that
Sm0kes - Wednesday, December 4, 2013 - link
Agreed. I'm still rocking my 2405FPW (although it's been relegated to the secondary in a dual setup). I've secretly been hoping for it to die so I can jump on a 27'' IPS. I wouldn't hesitate to drop another $800 - $1,000 on another Dell (4K) display.zcat - Wednesday, December 4, 2013 - link
I paid about the same ($747) for my Dell 2407FPW 24" in 2006, and it lasted me a good 7 years, though the backlight had gotten very dim near the end. I heard a capacitor pop, and it died, but I was able to sell it on Ebay for $70 iirc, since somebody new how to repair it.I'm using an el cheapo HP 25" 1080p refurb monitor now, but can't wait for a 28" 4K to hit a nice $500 - $700 pricepoint, as I decided to skip the 1440p generation because of 1.5X scaling issues.
odaiwai - Thursday, December 5, 2013 - link
I've got a 2408 Dell, which I have to run at zero brightness to avoid having to wear sunglasses in the office. It actually died already - it stopped working for a few months after a move, but just as I was about to recycle it, it decided to work again.Divide the cost of a 4K display by 5 (pessimist!) or 10 (realist) and $130 per year for a 4K display ain't bad!
deiangi - Wednesday, January 22, 2014 - link
Go ahead - $450 :) http://www.tigerdirect.com/applications/SearchTool...silenceisgolden - Wednesday, December 4, 2013 - link
Anyone have a buy link yet? I'm not sure Dell has the proper definition of "available now".jeffkibuule - Wednesday, December 4, 2013 - link
Only the 32" is available now , the 24" is on the 16th and the 28" is next year.silenceisgolden - Wednesday, December 4, 2013 - link
'Available in Americas' for 24"?colonelclaw - Wednesday, December 4, 2013 - link
I'm going to guess that the 28" model is aimed at gamers, and will come with some promotion of Nvidia Maximus and whatever AMD have planned on the 4k front.JDG1980 - Wednesday, December 4, 2013 - link
It's great to see pricing on 4K monitors come down so quickly. While $1399 is still out of most consumers' price ranges, it's a lot better than the $3499 that the IGZO-based 32" monitors were commanding. And this Dell monitor, with its color-calibrated IPS panel, doesn't seem like it will sacrifice much quality to hit that lower price point.The upcoming 39" monitors based on 4K VA panels should drive down prices even further. Seiki sells TVs that use these panels, with holiday sale prices as low as $500. The Seiki TVs only support 30Hz, but that is a limitation of the display controller, not the panel itself. Once monitor vendors start pairing these panels with proper DisplayPort inputs, they should provide an excellent, low-cost choice for users wanting to upgrade to 4K. Both Asus and Planar have announced 39" 4K monitors.
Hrel - Wednesday, December 4, 2013 - link
Meh, I'm more concerned with moving to 120hz at 1080p than I am 4K. I don't think it's a big enough improvement for consumer level electronics. Professional uses sure, it makes sense. But for consumers, there's not even any movies in that resolution, much less tv shows. Most graphics cards can't run video games at that resolution.Idk, I think display maker's are just trying to push sales. Come talk to me when you've got 240hz 192,000x108x000 3D holographic display for $300.
Hrel - Wednesday, December 4, 2013 - link
For comparison there are still a LOT of people running SD, 640x480 TV's out there. It's neat to pursue the technology but I feel like many people still haven't even caught up to 1080p. Hell, cable companies still think it's ok to charge extra for HD, as if it's something rare and special. These companies are trying to grow their industry by increasing their profit margins, when what they should be doing is reducing cost at the same SLIM profit margins to increase market penetration. Let the economy catch up to 120hz 1080p before you go trying to push a new standard on everyone.P.S. I think getting hollywood to stop making movies smaller and smaller is a NECESSARY first step. (smaller meaning anything in a wider aspect ratio than 16:9.) 2.44:1, really hollywood?! REALLY!?
nathanddrews - Wednesday, December 4, 2013 - link
A lot of hyperbole in that comment, but I hear what you're saying.I've had the same FW900 for about 10 years. I paid through the nose (at the time) for it, but it has served me well and hopefully continues to. I have to recalibrate it every couple years, but the image is still beautiful. I've seen a few standout LCDs, but they're all stuck at 60Hz or ghost too much when driven higher. As it stands I've got a display that can offer me exceptional color and contrast, zero lag, zero motion blur at 2560x1600@75Hz, 1920x1200@96Hz, or any other resolution at 120Hz+. Not a single LCD can provide all that right now. God willing, this monitor will last until we get native 4K 120Hz displays and the G-Sync dust settles. I don't want to upgrade until then. Those seem to be the biggest upcoming advances for displays.
Eidigean - Wednesday, December 4, 2013 - link
The price for a good monitor hasn't changed in 25+ years.I remember my dad buying a 14" Zenith ZCM-1490 flatscreen CRT in 1987 for around $995. It would do 640x480 easy enough, but could be pushed to 1024x768 with a little bit of timing adjustment on the video card.
Now we both have HP ZR30w monitors that were about $1,050 on sale.
The monitor you want is always going to be around $1,000.
http://articles.chicagotribune.com/1987-05-13/busi...
surt - Wednesday, December 4, 2013 - link
Not buying another monitor unless it's either 120 hz or gsync.djscrew - Wednesday, December 4, 2013 - link
My only immediate question is will this push primary branded 1440p monitors down to a reasonable $300 price range? because I be po' yohaukionkannel - Thursday, December 5, 2013 - link
Most propably not... The price is up guality and production volume. When 4K becomes more popular, it means that good guality 1440p monitor will become smaller segment, and that means higher prices. Not we have disty cheap 1080p monitors and expensive 1440p monitors. In the future we have dirty cheap 1080p monitors and expensive 4k monitors.In far future we will have cheap 4k monitors, and expensive 4k and/or 8k monitors...
thedovahkiin909 - Sunday, December 8, 2013 - link
I would slap my meat on that monitor, and rub it ALL over that thing.stoggy - Thursday, December 19, 2013 - link
0.0" Bezel !!! Say NO to gaps!It would be better to have 10x3" screens then it would to have 1x30" screen. The 10x3" would be more useable because the smaller pieces would make for more arrangement options. 3" screens would probably be hard to sell at first because most people would think a 3" screen would not be usable. Thunderbolt/DP allows for peripheral chaining. You could arrange your monitors like a star if you wanted too or make a boring rectangle or square... Don't be square, make a circle.