Dell’s Ultrasharp 30” 4K OLED Now on Sale for $3500

Megalith

24-bit/48kHz
Staff member
Joined
Aug 20, 2006
Messages
13,000
Dell’s fabled OLED monitor is finally being released—and for real, this time. While the display was reportedly canceled due to color drift, the UP3017Q is now available to order at $3500. That’s a significant discount from its original price of $4999.

One of the biggest bits of news to come out of CES 2016, over a year ago, was Dell announcing a new beacon in OLED monitors: a 3840x2160 panel measuring 30-inch diagonal using an OLED display was set to come to market. When we reported on it back at CES, they stated a $4999 price point for March 31st. What happened over the next 12 months was interesting: some journalists doing ‘hands-on’ reviews at tech shows, but nothing coming to retail, followed by plenty of CES 2017 news that the display had been shelved due to image quality issues. Well roll around another quarter, and it seems that Dell is ready to sell it, and shipping for this $3499 beast is only 1-2 weeks away.
 
Sexy but after getting addicted to Gsync, doesn't blow my skirt up (plus it's about 2k out of my price range)

Either way - I've heard that 4k 144Hz Gsync should be hitting later this year from Acer/Asus, will be very interested as long as they don't have any backlight bleed problems many were dealing with.
 
I stumbled across this last night on Dell's website and was very surprised to see that it will actually ship now. Not 120hz of course... but an actual product in customer hands is a big step. My X34 looks lovely, but it pales in comparison with my OLED TV and I want those beautiful inky blacks and contrast on all of my displays.
 
Sexy but after getting addicted to Gsync, doesn't blow my skirt up (plus it's about 2k out of my price range)

Either way - I've heard that 4k 144Hz Gsync should be hitting later this year from Acer/Asus, will be very interested as long as they don't have any backlight bleed problems many were dealing with.
I wonder how would you presume to feed 4K 144Hz? We can't even have 60 fps sustained. And with the state SLI is in currently all the money in the world can't get you 120+fps @4k.
 
I stumbled across this last night on Dell's website and was very surprised to see that it will actually ship now. Not 120hz of course... but an actual product in customer hands is a big step. My X34 looks lovely, but it pales in comparison with my OLED TV and I want those beautiful inky blacks and contrast on all of my displays.

That's the way I feel, once you go Oled you can't go back....I just got the Samsung Galaxy Tab S3 tablet with oled and HDR and talk about a beautiful screen....just wish the price for this screen was like you said a couple of grand cheaper!
 
That's the way I feel, once you go Oled you can't go back....I just got the Samsung Galaxy Tab S3 tablet with oled and HDR and talk about a beautiful screen....just wish the price for this screen was like you said a couple of grand cheaper!
I switched my pc to a 55 b6 and omg its the best upgrade I ever did.
 
I wonder how would you presume to feed 4K 144Hz? We can't even have 60 fps sustained. And with the state SLI is in currently all the money in the world can't get you 120+fps @4k.

I'd be happy getting 4k @ 60fps solid... the high end bleeding edge gaming monitors shown an CES were being fed by two display port cables, a monitor like that would last several years easily, and if we are just getting to 4k 30/60fps reliably with the 1080ti, it's not a stretch of the imagination to see us hitting those sorts of numbers in the next 3 to 5 years.

Even if you aren't shooting for 144Hz in games, i'd still want that smooth as butter feeling in windows/movies/etc.
 
  • Like
Reactions: M76
like this
I'd be happy getting 4k @ 60fps solid... the high end bleeding edge gaming monitors shown an CES were being fed by two display port cables, a monitor like that would last several years easily, and if we are just getting to 4k 30/60fps reliably with the 1080ti, it's not a stretch of the imagination to see us hitting those sorts of numbers in the next 3 to 5 years.

Even if you aren't shooting for 144Hz in games, i'd still want that smooth as butter feeling in windows/movies/etc.

One of the things that turn me off to high-res, 120Hz+ monitors is that to get the same eye candy at a decent framerate requires cutting-edge graphics.

Look at Mass Effect Andromeda benchmarks. Using a single 1080ti, you're only getting a 40 fps @ 4k / Ultra. You might get 60 FPS with sli... but everyone knows that sli scaling is still horrible and inconsistant with the support and how much it helps.
 
Last edited:
I am currently running the UP3214Q's or the UP3216's depending office or the house. I like both of these setups, I can't wait to try this out.
 
Can't go back down to something like a 30" after being on a 43" for almost a year now. I think 43/44 inches is a perfect sweet spot.
 
I switched my pc to a 55 b6 and omg its the best upgrade I ever did.

I got a LG 65EF9500 OLED a year ago now and its been Great, I know there a chance of burn in but I have none and I have over 1500 hours on it now, I am wondering what type of cleaning Dell is using, with icons and task bar stuff being static?
 
Can't go back down to something like a 30" after being on a 43" for almost a year now. I think 43/44 inches is a perfect sweet spot.

43" at what resolution? That seems a tad big for computer use to me but depends on the res because it affects text size.
 
Still, too small for 4k.

Anything over ~110dpi is a waste on the desktop.

43" at what resolution? That seems a tad big for computer use to me but depends on the res because it affects text size.

My 48" is a tad big for 4k. According to my calculations the sweet spot for 4k is somewhere between 42" and 44"
 
One of the things that turn me off to high-res, 120Hz+ monitors is that to get the same eye candy at a decent framerate requires cutting-edge graphics.

Look at Mass Effect Andromeda benchmarks. Using a single 1080ti, you're only getting a 40 fps @ 4k / Ultra. You might get 60 FPS with sli... but everyone knows that sli scaling is still horrible and inconsistant with the support and how much it helps.

my 1070 will hold me for a while at 1440p, just planning far into the future though. Right now a single 1080ti will give suprisingly good performance at 4k in GTA5 and BF1 (the main games I play) I'll probably upgrade to the 1080ti later this year, and make the jump to 4k gaming after that, just need the monitor to go with it. Gsync has spoiled me :)
 
I got a LG 65EF9500 OLED a year ago now and its been Great, I know there a chance of burn in but I have none and I have over 1500 hours on it now, I am wondering what type of cleaning Dell is using, with icons and task bar stuff being static?
Same i see 0 burn in and a tiny bit of ir that goes away very fast. I came form a plasma and it was way way worse then the oled as far as burn in and ir.
 
Ill stick to the 4k 43" i got for $700, good nuff for everything but gaming over 60FPS, which is about the least thing I do on PC now thanks to very very few games worth playing, Dark Souls 3 on a PC is about it and a 1070 cannot drive that over 60 FPS at 1080 anyways.
 
Only thing that is good is that it's 4k. 60hz? pass, no gsync/freesync it needs to be 120hz or 144hz where's the HDR? Are they nuts for $3499, it doesn't even cost that much to make. Even if it's OLED.
Shove it you know where Dell :D
 
Only thing that is good is that it's 4k. 60hz? pass, no gsync/freesync it needs to be 120hz or 144hz where's the HDR? Are they nuts for $3499, it doesn't even cost that much to make. Even if it's OLED.
Shove it you know where Dell :D

Even if OLED isn't a new technology per say, this is more or less a new area of the market. As far as dedicated computer monitors, you have a few outlandishly priced Sony professional OLED monitors for video production.

This display teeters more into the prosumer territory than anything before it and will hopefully spark additional development on this front. If that holds true economies of scale will kick in and bring prices down along with more consumer/enthusiast friendly features. We need to start somewhere.
 
You can find 55 inch LG B6 Oleds for under $2000....and I bet LG made the panel for Dell, so why so expensive?
 
Still, too small for 4k.

Anything over ~110dpi is a waste on the desktop.



My 48" is a tad big for 4k. According to my calculations the sweet spot for 4k is somewhere between 42" and 44"

That'd be about right. My 4k 40" is a tad on the smaller side.
 
I wonder how would you presume to feed 4K 144Hz? We can't even have 60 fps sustained. And with the state SLI is in currently all the money in the world can't get you 120+fps @4k.

I agree. We will continue to struggle to get 60fps with newly released games for years to come. The Titan Xp is barely a 4K 60fps card. With SLI in decay, smaller resolutions are better for high fps gaming.
I think 4K 144Hz is marketing to get gamers to over pay for hardware. Just buy a 1440p monitor for less money and you can achieve over 100fps consistently.

A 43" monitor @ 100fps with Gsync/Freesync for $1000 would be fine for 4K.
If SLI/CF makes a comeback, then we can talk 120-144fps.
 
You can find 55 inch LG B6 Oleds for under $2000....and I bet LG made the panel for Dell, so why so expensive?

Word on the street is Samsung makes the panel but this isn't confirmed as far as I know. We can only assume details on the pricing, but it most likely has to do with pricing segmentation. This is a new product squarely intended to be a high end product in a market that hardly exists at this point. They can charge what they want to hit the intended volume that they want to sell.

They are most likely bundling in a lot of initial R&D costs into the early displays. Even if they source the panel elsewhere, they still need to design the input processing along with many other design considerations.
 
43" at what resolution? That seems a tad big for computer use to me but depends on the res because it affects text size.

4k @ 60hz but I use NVIDIA Fast Sync which is like poor man's Gsync

You can find 55 inch LG B6 Oleds for under $2000....and I bet LG made the panel for Dell, so why so expensive?

One reason I have heard that we get either only XX size for Oled or that smaller OLED cost so much is the way they make and subsequently cut up OLED sheets to make the OLED panels. I don't know if this is 100% true but it sounds plausible.
 
Can't go back down to something like a 30" after being on a 43" for almost a year now. I think 43/44 inches is a perfect sweet spot.

Which 43" are you using? I have thought about trying that 43" from dell but on my desk the 32" is just a bit big at times.
 
Last edited:
I've been enjoying my LG 55" E6P TV as a PC monitor for around 5 months now. ABSL (automatically dims the screen) can be disabled through the service menu. ABL (also dims the screen) might be an issue, but it is nearly non-existent by setting the OLED Light to 100 and Contrast to 50 (the contrast setting on an OLED works differently from LCD, there is no grey tint). An X-Rite ColorMunki calibrates it beautifully regardless of that low contrast setting. There is sometimes some temporary "burn-in," but it is only noticeable on a grey screen and it fades away with moving images or by using Clear Panel Noise. When I first got it I was terribly worried it would be a huge issue but it definitely has not been. From what I've read it should really only be a major concern if there's a bright static image in one place for something crazy like 12+ hours straight causing permanent burn-in. To minimize that chance I do things like auto-hide my taskbar, use a screen saver (remember those?), and use the Screen Shift feature. I game on it, browse the web, do stuff like Photoshop, etc., it's been great! I agree with other posters that around 43" is the sweet spot for a 4K PC monitor. Before landing on this TV I tried several others, including the 43" 4K Samsung JS8500. My solution for this 55" was to move back farther away from it. Overall I've been extremely happy with it and I managed to get mine at only ~$1,600. I would absolutely recommend it for people like us, but not so much for grandma's computer. After being spoiled by this it would be very hard for me to go back to using anything less.
 
From what I've read it should really only be a major concern if there's a bright static image in one place for something crazy like 12+ hours straight causing permanent burn-in.

It's a long time but if you had bright content moving all over the screen, this would be a rather fast degradation.
That makes me question lifetime. I noticed minimal retention using a new OLED tv recently and how the menus are designed to avoid it. The image dimming and movement of UI was telling.
I would be worried to employ OLED for e.g. office or stock/spreadsheet/marathon video editing workstation etc.. Looks like I'll be on LCD for longer.
 
Still, too small for 4k.

Anything over ~110dpi is a waste on the desktop.



My 48" is a tad big for 4k. According to my calculations the sweet spot for 4k is somewhere between 42" and 44"
Unfortunately anything larger than 30-32 is too big for desktop. I've tried a 43" screen and noticed myself that I'm only using the part of the screen that sits where a 28-30" screen would sit in the middle of it. Everything else falls into peripheral vision which I didn't find much use of. And if I'd have sat further away then text again becomes too small even at 43".A 30" screen I can read trough from edge to edge with moving only my eyes. With a 43" I had to move my head not juts left and right but up/down as well.

So sooner or later we have to work out this scaling thing on desktop to be reliable and not FUGLY.
 
Unfortunately anything larger than 30-32 is too big for desktop. I've tried a 43" screen and noticed myself that I'm only using the part of the screen that sits where a 28-30" screen would sit in the middle of it. Everything else falls into peripheral vision which I didn't find much use of. And if I'd have sat further away then text again becomes too small even at 43".A 30" screen I can read trough from edge to edge with moving only my eyes. With a 43" I had to move my head not juts left and right but up/down as well.

So sooner or later we have to work out this scaling thing on desktop to be reliable and not FUGLY.

I hate scaling. Even if it worked perfectly I would want none of it.

I buy more pixels for more real estate, not so I can just waste them by scaling everything up.

I agree, huge screens take some getting used to, but it has felt unnatural at first every single time I have gone with a larger screen, but once I got used to it, I wonder what I ever did without it.

When I went from a generic 17" CRT to my 22" Iiyama Visionmaster Pro 510 in 2001 I thought to myself, OMG, what have I done. I'm never going to get used to this. But then I did, and it was bothersome to use anything smaller.

Then when that Iiyama screen died, I got a 1920x1200 24" Dell 2405fpw in ~2005 (or was it 2004? can't remember now) It felt huge, and unwieldy. Whats worse, my 6800GT couldnt run any games fast enough for my tastes 1920x1200, a huge resolution for the time, so I stopped gaming for almost 5 years.

Then in late 2010 I did it again (I never learn) and bought a 30" 2560x1600 Dell U3011. It felt huge and unnatural and tough to deal with, and guess what, my GTX470 was suddenly not fast enough, which led to a GPU arms race. I got a Radeon 6970, then a second Radeon 6970 and learned that I hated crossfire. I got a Radeon 7970 and accidentally killed it, then got a GTX680 on launch until finally culminating with a Kepler Titan in 2013. Only then was I happy.

Then I did it again summer of 2015. I got my current 48" 4K Samsung JS9000. fGuess what? At first it felt huge and unwieldy, and my games ran too slow, resulting in dual 980ti's (turns out I hate SLI too) and now a Pascal Titan which has been mostly OK, but I really do want a little more power. The size I've gotten used to, however. Working on smaller screens now feels limiting. I will admit that 48" is just a tad bit too large on the desktop. I wish it were slightly smaller, in the 42-44" range, so I get my 100-110 DPI sweet spot unscaled.


I am very happy with my setup:

finished_new_desktop.jpg
 
Dat 0.1 ms response time, good gawd...
And of course dat OLED color.
And dat price... yyyeeeaaahhh
Now can I please get all this with 144+ Hz refresh
 
I've been watching Star Trek: TNG Remastered and I'm reminded of how much I envied the perfect blacks of their screens for so long. It's amazing to realize we now have that with OLED technology!
 
Yes! (looks at price again) Wait, no, the opposite of that. NO!

I've been eyeballing the Wasabi Mango 40" 4K monitors for $600ish.... that seems too much. $3500 for a monitor is just insulting. Unless I win the lotto then I'll take 4.
 
I hate scaling. Even if it worked perfectly I would want none of it.

I buy more pixels for more real estate, not so I can just waste them by scaling everything up.

I agree, huge screens take some getting used to, but it has felt unnatural at first every single time I have gone with a larger screen, but once I got used to it, I wonder what I ever did without it.

When I went from a generic 17" CRT to my 22" Iiyama Visionmaster Pro 510 in 2001 I thought to myself, OMG, what have I done. I'm never going to get used to this. But then I did, and it was bothersome to use anything smaller.

Then when that Iiyama screen died, I got a 1920x1200 24" Dell 2405fpw in ~2005 (or was it 2004? can't remember now) It felt huge, and unwieldy. Whats worse, my 6800GT couldnt run any games fast enough for my tastes 1920x1200, a huge resolution for the time, so I stopped gaming for almost 5 years.

Then in late 2010 I did it again (I never learn) and bought a 30" 2560x1600 Dell U3011. It felt huge and unnatural and tough to deal with, and guess what, my GTX470 was suddenly not fast enough, which led to a GPU arms race. I got a Radeon 6970, then a second Radeon 6970 and learned that I hated crossfire. I got a Radeon 7970 and accidentally killed it, then got a GTX680 on launch until finally culminating with a Kepler Titan in 2013. Only then was I happy.

Then I did it again summer of 2015. I got my current 48" 4K Samsung JS9000. fGuess what? At first it felt huge and unwieldy, and my games ran too slow, resulting in dual 980ti's (turns out I hate SLI too) and now a Pascal Titan which has been mostly OK, but I really do want a little more power. The size I've gotten used to, however. Working on smaller screens now feels limiting. I will admit that 48" is just a tad bit too large on the desktop. I wish it were slightly smaller, in the 42-44" range, so I get my 100-110 DPI sweet spot unscaled.


I am very happy with my setup:

View attachment 21825
Is that thing also curved? That's a sin in itself. When I first saw a curved screen it immediately felt very odd. Then I realized it's because it's distorting things. Anything you view on it was recorded with a flat projection if you know what I mean. If you project a picture recorded with a flat sensor to a screen that is curved that picture will be distorted. So curved screens would require curved pictures feeded to them to get rid of the distortion they cause.

Anyway I never felt I needed much getting used to any of my monitors although I'm used to smaller steps. In 2004 I didn't even know 1920 lcds existed. I got my first lcd screen in 2006 which was a measly 19" with 1440x900. And even that cost a fortune about 6 weeks salary at the time. Even the fact that it was widescreen was new, we were used to 5:4 and 4:3 screens at the time.
Then 23" FHD in 2010 then 28" 4K in 2014 and 27 QHD in 2015.
 
Is that thing also curved? That's a sin in itself. When I first saw a curved screen it immediately felt very odd. Then I realized it's because it's distorting things. Anything you view on it was recorded with a flat projection if you know what I mean. If you project a picture recorded with a flat sensor to a screen that is curved that picture will be distorted. So curved screens would require curved pictures feeded to them to get rid of the distortion they cause.

Anyway I never felt I needed much getting used to any of my monitors although I'm used to smaller steps. In 2004 I didn't even know 1920 lcds existed. I got my first lcd screen in 2006 which was a measly 19" with 1440x900. And even that cost a fortune about 6 weeks salary at the time. Even the fact that it was widescreen was new, we were used to 5:4 and 4:3 screens at the time.
Then 23" FHD in 2010 then 28" 4K in 2014 and 27 QHD in 2015.


It is curved, but it is VERY slight. I I've never noticed any distortion.the slight curve seems to help with viewing angle problems on the sides when sitting close tot he screen like I do.
 
Back
Top