4K - 28" Dell P2815Q

maverick786us said:
But then i don't have too many choices. I can't see any 30 inch 2560 X 1600 display that would cost less than 1000$. So this is the only alternative. There will be hardly any difference between 30 incha nd 28.3, but extra resolution will always be an added advantage, not only in gaming, but overall.

1) More clarity because of pixel density
2) Less scrolling
3) Less Anti Alias
Click to expand...

I got the Dell U3014 30" monitor 2 weeks ago for $850 brand new. But I returned it couple days ago and wait for the 28" 4k one. There are 30" monitors that are below $1000, check the Monoprice 30"
 
Sufu said:
For the record, my 4920k with dual eVGA 780 GTX SC does not struggle with games. I can run BF4 and Bioshock Infinite on High/Ultra settings just fine. BF4 runs 50-60fps most of the time with sli and Bioshock infinite on high runs 30-50fps on a single card. I can play with higher settings if I SLI. Basically the biggest limitation is VRAM. Max setting on either games uses over 3gb.

Playing at 4k is awesome. Economical? No. But Economical is not [H].
Click to expand...

That is really good to read. I'm running triple u3011's and would love to make the jump to higher resolution.
 
This monitor is going to make me go back to SLI/CF. I was just starting to enjoy the benefits of a single card and everything just working and being super smooth. The bigger question for me though is 120Hz 1080 or 4K @ 60 hz. Decisions decisions....
 
So it's not ULtrasharp? hM... the color won't be accurate i guess and no 1.08 billion color. Prob just 16M color and IPS panel.
 
maverick786us said:
. So this is the only alternative. There will be hardly any difference between 30 incha nd 28.3, but extra resolution will always be an added advantage, not only in gaming, but overall.
Click to expand...

Wrong 27" 1080p is only few mm higher that 24" 1200p
For similar height as 30" 1600p you would need 32" in 16:9
 
I have a Dell U2711 now. For me it's going to be a toss-up between this one and a Dell U3415W (depending upon cost). I want the 4k resolution the 2815Q offers, but I want the bigger screen the U3415W offers.
 
With this immense resolution and large screen size how does aspect ratio really matter? You get more vertical pixels than on the highest res 16:10 at the moment anyway. And for gaming you usually just lose horizontal FOV on 16:10 anyway.
 
Firepc said:
With this immense resolution and large screen size how does aspect ratio really matter? You get more vertical pixels than on the highest res 16:10 at the moment anyway. And for gaming you usually just lose horizontal FOV on 16:10 anyway.
Click to expand...

I don't think they do matter- at least not to me. I regularly have to contort into using machines with varying FOVs, though, so it's not so painful going from 1200p to 1080p to 1600p to 900p. You make the tool work for you, after all, and 4k represents one hell of a tool!
 
At $699, I'm quite curious to see how it stacks up. Apparently January 23 is the release date, so hopefully we can see some quality reviews toward the end of the month.

Dell claims similar performance to their other 4K Ultrasharp-branded monitors, but it's hard to believe they'll keep a 28-inch 4K monitor in their lineup at a lower price point than their 24-inch 4K monitor if they have equivalent performance.
 
I don't get their pricing structure either.

Dell's 4K monitors:

31.5" IGZO - $3500
24" - $1300
28" - $700?

Not sure why the huge discrepancies.
 
AgentQ said:
Dell claims similar performance to their other 4K Ultrasharp-branded monitors, but it's hard to believe they'll keep a 28-inch 4K monitor in their lineup at a lower price point than their 24-inch 4K monitor if they have equivalent performance.
Click to expand...

It doesn't just say similar performance. That article says 'same' performance as the 32 and 24. "offers the same remarkable Ultra HD screen performance as the Dell UltraSharp 32 and Dell UltraSharp 24 Ultra HD Monitors."

Weird on this pricing its the same performance. Maybe their are just less features on it? A loss of a connector or the frame or mounting is cheaper quality. hmmm
 
Hmm, I might have to get this after all because it has portrait mode. There's no way I'll run a 4K display as my main since I do a bit of gaming, but this will do great as a second monitor, which I use primarily for viewing photos in portrait.

All I need to drive this is a single DisplayPort, correct?
 
Vega said:
I don't get their pricing structure either.

Dell's 4K monitors:

31.5" IGZO - $3500
24" - $1300
28" - $700?

Not sure why the huge discrepancies.
Click to expand...

because UP3214Q is IGZO IPS-type panel tech from Sharp, the UP2414Q is IPS-type as well (not sure what panel in that), but the P2815Q is a TN Film based model

the P2815Q will also be lacking any of the advanced features of their UltraSharp models like hardware calibration too
 
Drags said:
because UP3214Q is IGZO IPS-type panel tech from Sharp, the UP2414Q is IPS-type as well (not sure what panel in that), but the P2815Q is a TN Film based model

the P2815Q will also be lacking any of the advanced features of their UltraSharp models like hardware calibration too
Click to expand...

Is 4K TN LCD, which probably is the same TN quality as the upcoming ASUS 2K with GSync at $800, be different quality-wise from their more expensive panels that's IPS? Response times, color, etc.?

The reason I ask because $700 is actually a good deal, and may get a lot of people to own 4K monitors especially if they don't care about the difference between TN and IPS, or if the difference is minuscule or negligible.
 
Last edited:
Expect the usual overall differences between TN film and IPS I would. So more restrictive viewing angles being the main draw back. Should be more responsive for gaming, probably have a slightly better contrast ratio too.

The main thing which makes the U models more expensive is the higher end features like hardware calibration, uniformity correction (although mostly useless), wide gamut, 10-bit support, factory calibration.
 
Drags said:
Expect the usual overall differences between TN film and IPS I would. So more restrictive viewing angles being the main draw back. Should be more responsive for gaming, probably have a slightly better contrast ratio too.

The main thing which makes the U models more expensive is the higher end features like hardware calibration, uniformity correction (although mostly useless), wide gamut, 10-bit support, factory calibration.
Click to expand...

That would make sense.

If the most common gamers are using single monitors instead of Eyefinity/Nvidia Surround, and I mean normal non-[H]/enthusiast gamers, then this would be a good solution for them. That and an especially affordable one.

As for Eyefinity/Nvidia Surround users, probably best to spend the extra money then for the higher end Ultrasharp displays if better viewing angles are a must, correct?

I don't use Eyefinity on my current computer so viewing angles isn't too much of a concern for me. If I had $700 lying around, I'd get this 4K monitor myself. It'd be a nice upgrade from the current 22-inch Acer I have that's 1680x1050 resolution. That or go with one of the 1440p Korean LCD monitors for $400-ish.
 
It would be nice if you could do 1080p120 on this as an option where you want it.
 
Dell would scream at us it is IPS if it really was not TN. If they don't mention panel used it only mean it is something ridiculously bad like TN ...

Forber.com said:
UPDATE: I now have confirmation of the P2815Q’s full specs, and have listed them below. Unfortunately, it tops out at 30Hz 3840 x 2160 and 60Hz for 1920 x 1080.
Click to expand...
so it is both TN and 30Hz? :confused:

if all that is true then for this price it is better to buy two 2560x1440@100Hz korean monitors instead of this Dell :rolleyes:
 
Color Depth: 1.073 billion colors
Click to expand...

10-bit. Well maybe 8-bit + FRC. But either way, yea! Maybe NVIDIA and AMD will finally cave and bring 10-bit to consumer cards now that it is available in consumer displays.

Unfortunately, it tops out at 30Hz 3840 x 2160 and 60Hz for 1920 x 1080. This should prove a deal breaker for gamers, but the monitor still has a solid feature set for the asking price.
Click to expand...

Total fail. They have no merit to call this a 4K monitor if it can't do at least 4K 60 Hz 8-bit 4:4:4.
 
TN and 1 billion colors?
TN and response time 5ms?

Alright, they are both plausible but I thought they didn't make TN panels greater than 1080p for nerd morale reasons.
 
all non overdriven TNs are rated 5ms

and with 4K they can claim whatever color count they want because you won't see dithering anyway. Doesn't make any sense? And bazillion:1 contrast ratio does make sense?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top