UltraHD Monitors

Has anyone had a chance to check out the new UltraHD monitors from Dell? I'm looking specifically at the P series P2415Q and the P2715Q. At $450 and $525 they seem like killer deals. There's also the Ultrasharp UP2414Q, which will buy you aRGB and better controls for another $300.

I remember only a few years ago people were raving about the Catleap monitors you can get ebay for $400 or so. These were the cheap second rate 27" 1440p IPS monitors you'd buy from some enterprising person in Korea. These weren't the best and returns and warranty were essentially nonexistent, but at half the price of a comparable Dell or Apple they seemed like a steal.

Now for not much more you can get double the number of pixels, better build, better set of connectors, a 3 year warranty with zero dead pixel policy, and factory pre-calibration. Notebook screens have been getting ridiculously good recently and it's good to see monitors finally catching up. The future of HiDPI displays is looking better all the time.

 

Well the pixel count is increasing but that's the easy part. Remember a few years back when camera companies were in a race to see who could pack the most pixels into a sensor? The total quantity went up, but the quality went out the window. It didn't take consumers long to realize this. Now the same battle is occurring again with monitors. But this time, it is Apple that is leading the way.

 

4K Displays are still too immature of a technology, because the ecosystem of supporting technologies isn't there yet to support them.

Windows doesn't handle DPI scaling very well at the moment, so using a display as a desktop productivity display is non-ideal. This is especially true when you're dealing with small displays like 24" or 27". And mobile GPUs aren't up to the task of driving a 4K display for gaming, so using a 4K display for gaming will have considerable drawbacks. Even the highest-end single GPU (nVidia 980M) will have trouble driving a single 4K display at native resolution for gaming.

The other issue is that the pixel density of 4K displays isn't a tremendous leap over 1440p. You really can't tell the difference sitting at desktop monitor distances from your display (1.5' to 3' distance) between 4K and 1440p, unless you specifically look for it. 4K will only really show benefits of higher pixel density for desktop displays at 32" screen sizes and above.

I'd say that if you're dead-set on 4K displays, wait a few months for us to know more about how Windows 10 will handle DPI scaling, before you invest in 4K. If you're dead-set on buying a display right now, I'd say that 1440p is a smarter buy than 4K.

 

Those were previously my sentiments. On the other hand

Well yes, and no. Yes, its still early and the graphics manufactures are the weak link right now especially in the gaming arena. And no, its not too soon, if you have a 4K camera and want to see your creative talent in its full glory.

Content creators and a few early enthusiast can certainly take advantage of a 4K monitor right now. And even more so now that the price of many has dropped tremendously. The Dell P2715Q for example is on sale right now for 524.99! At that price, I would be tempted to go ahead and bite the bullet.

 

Don't forget that OSX has pretty good DPI scaling already, and the P2415Q pretty much matches the DPI of the rMBPs. And at half price of a Thunderbolt Display (and twice the pixels) it seems like a steal for OSX users if you don't care about Apple shinyness.

As these are Dell's Professional line, I'd think quality would be quite good too.

 

I was thinking of getting a 4k display in October and thanks for pointing the P2415Q out.. It's quite cheap for a 4k display and is someting which matches what I want.. Now, I will have to get a 980M SLI or 1080M SLI and then get this monitor

 

I think 4K has a place, but a limited one.
I would love it as a programmer so I can fit more console windows and text on screen.

Of course more pixel density means a smaller image and making it harder to see so if I went 4K I would most likely be using a 32" HDTV or something.

For now just using multi monitors works for me but code often goes down past the screen its not like having side by side windows helps unless I am comparing files.

For entertainment and gaming I feel 4K really does not have a place yet. Even with 4K content being around if the bitrate is murdered to keep it so slower computers can play it and file sizes down the quality may not be any better than an equal size 1080p file.

 

The only real world use I have found with 4k on windows is running a 39" screen and using it strictly for blue prints. Anything else is too difficult for me to read and I would be happier with a multiple monitor setup. I think I would have to go to a 50" screen before I would like 4k for a PC, with current scaling on Windows(7). But, I don't code.

 

I'm actually kind of interested in the 34" 21:9 monitors (3440 x 1440). Those look pretty sweet.

But I think that even that monitor technology is still too immature. The next monitor I buy will need to have:
* 21:9 Widescreen (3440 x 1440) or 4K resolution
* IPS Panel
* G-Sync or Adaptive Sync technology (to eliminate screen tearing during gaming).

Right now, there isn't a monitor out there that satisfies all 3 criteria.

 

Yep, but that's the second generation (or third?). And the time I will be interested in upgraded my laptop. Right now, there's just too much flux in the industry. If you're using your machine for professional applications you've got to go with what's standardized. And speaking of standardized, beware non standard aspect ratios. They will be here today, but gone tomorrow.

 

I actually ended up get a LG 34UM95 (34" 3440 x 1440) 21:9 aspect ratio monitor. It's pretty fantastic. Everyone who has used one has said how much they love it, how it completely changes the way they use their computer, and how they think it brings so much more to the table than a 4K monitor at 16:9 aspect ratio.

(Image below not mine). Source: http://i.minus.com/ibzlU2dAFfqTxm.jpg