Dell 27" 5K Monitor (5120x2880)

Joined
Sep 14, 2008
Messages
1,622
I will very likely be getting one of these for my work machine and do 3840x2400 + 5120x2880 + 3840x2160.

Currently I am 3840x2400 + 3840x2160 + 2560x1600.
 

Baasha

Limp Gawd
Joined
Feb 23, 2014
Messages
152
It sounds like this monitor will also be an MST panel like the UP2414Q. Hmm.. that's disappointing if true.

I bet these panels are going to show up in new line of "iMacs." lol...
 

Vega

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Oct 12, 2004
Messages
6,685
LL
 

prolific71

n00b
Joined
Jul 23, 2014
Messages
42
It sounds like this monitor will also be an MST panel like the UP2414Q. Hmm.. that's disappointing if true.

I bet these panels are going to show up in new line of "iMacs." lol...

Yeah, most likely a MST panel. Most 4k+ panels seem to be MST. I've got a 4k Dell and can occasionally see the left / right stream as there is a distinct line running down the middle of the monitor.
 

63jax

Limp Gawd
Joined
Nov 5, 2010
Messages
231
i just hope Microsoft fixes the font scaling, otherwise it's all gonna be a blurry mess...:/
 

Vega

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Oct 12, 2004
Messages
6,685
i just hope Microsoft fixes the font scaling, otherwise it's all gonna be a blurry mess...:/

Windows 8.1 if properly set up isn't too bad at scaling. It's the old archaic programs like Photoshop that don't play right with scaling. If you leave it up to the OS for individual programs, that's another story. Besides, Win 9 is less than a year away and will surely have more robust scaling features.
 

prolific71

n00b
Joined
Jul 23, 2014
Messages
42
Besides, Win 9 is less than a year away and will surely have more robust scaling features.

The tech preview for Win9 is supposed to be out within a couple of weeks. It supports upto 8k and they re-did the icons and other UI elements, so it should look pretty good on 4k monitors. Hopefully they have a sliding scale for dpi rather than the large 25% jumps that 8.1 has.
 
Joined
Jan 19, 2007
Messages
575
Would be even better if each app could have it's own DPI setting. But then again, this probably would never happen.
 

Vega

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Oct 12, 2004
Messages
6,685
The tech preview for Win9 is supposed to be out within a couple of weeks. It supports upto 8k and they re-did the icons and other UI elements, so it should look pretty good on 4k monitors. Hopefully they have a sliding scale for dpi rather than the large 25% jumps that 8.1 has.

Ya tech previews usually come out a good 6-9 months before the release date don't they? I would expect Win 9 around spring/summer.
 

Vega

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Oct 12, 2004
Messages
6,685
Dell showing off this new monitor. Really excited to see what 5K looks like behind edge to edge glass. Will be beautiful!


DSC05732.JPG



DSC05733.JPG
 

Mr.Pixel

Limp Gawd
Joined
Oct 30, 2010
Messages
138
Ewwww, glass (=fail for black levels and reflections), this monitor has officially changed from a e-peen extender for rich people into a joke.

Not as much of a problem since it has a real anti-reflective coating, not anti-glare. The OP video shows some reflection, but looks to be far less than usual even with direct sunlight on the background. They should have compared it to another glossy model without an AR coating.
 
Joined
Apr 14, 2011
Messages
652
Dell showing off this new monitor. Really excited to see what 5K looks like behind edge to edge glass. Will be beautiful!


DSC05732.JPG



DSC05733.JPG


looks fantastic.

Id be in day 1 if they would at least go 30":mad:

Though I would love 3 in portrait surround but I can't imagine any current GPU's could push that.
 

Quartz-1

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
May 20, 2011
Messages
4,257
I like my high-DPI monitor because the text and graphics are so much easier on my eyes.
 

dpoverlord

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Nov 18, 2004
Messages
1,820
I have 4 dell 30" 1600p monitors... I love them, I could not imagine 4k let alone 5k on anything less than 30" If you want 4k why would you go any less. I understand people want to save money but I feel 27" is too small for even 1440p.

Of course I am biased since I am using 4 30" monitors in portrait mode. But I actually wanted to switch to the ASUS ROG monitor. However, I find gaming on these dells fine, for some people of course they wouldn't its all preference. On the same end though, 4k / 5k on such a small screen... come on.

Regardless, there has to be a market for it, but my wishlist would be for a curved monitor like the 21:9 (but a higher vertical resolution than 1440 but in the setup I have.



http://imgur.com/a/j4rt4

I have to admit my wish list would be for a thinner bezel than the ASUS. Asus cheated in a way as they put it at 6mm but its actually larger, then when you take the large base there is no real way to put them into portrait mode...
 
Last edited:

Quartz-1

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
May 20, 2011
Messages
4,257
I have 4 dell 30" 1600p monitors... I love them, I could not imagine 4k let alone 5k on anything less than 30" If you want 4k why would you go any less.

Because higher DPI is easier on the eyes.

On a laser printer, print out some text at 75 dpi, 100 dpi, 150 dpi, 300 dpi, and 600 dpi. Which looks best?
 

dpoverlord

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Nov 18, 2004
Messages
1,820
Because higher DPI is easier on the eyes.

On a laser printer, print out some text at 75 dpi, 100 dpi, 150 dpi, 300 dpi, and 600 dpi. Which looks best?

I am not disagreeing, I am stating that 24" is too small, for 5k they should have gone higher. To push a 5k monitor, no GPU right now can realistically push it on its own. Gaming is out of the water, its clear its aimed and enthusiasts and the media industry but its still going to be painful.

Utilizing 1600p surround + 1 accessory 3 titans sometimes are not enough in some programs.
 

Vega

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Oct 12, 2004
Messages
6,685
I am not disagreeing, I am stating that 24" is too small, for 5k they should have gone higher. To push a 5k monitor, no GPU right now can realistically push it on its own. Gaming is out of the water, its clear its aimed and enthusiasts and the media industry but its still going to be painful.

It's a 27" not 24". The PPI actually makes it, for the lack of a better term; a"Retina" Display at normal sitting distances of 18-24 inches. That is something that has never been done before for such a large display.

A 27" with that resolution will look absolutely spectacular. As for the "glass" edge-to-edge, you can clearly see it's an advanced AR type glass. May be a good reason why the display is $2500. The reflection in that bright room off the display is minimal, way less than the reflections off the painting. Yet the image is still vibrant.

This is a day one purchase for me. Will be running it via 4x Titan-X or whatever "big Maxwell" has for us this winter/spring..
 
Last edited:

dpoverlord

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Nov 18, 2004
Messages
1,820
24" was referring to the 4k 24" Dell came out with. I used it as a comparison. I still feel 27" is too small for this type of monitor, The issue with this monitor is that unless you are using something that NEEDS 5k it makes no sense. UI, icons and all the scaling is not there with current apps. Programs and software that do not scale will be really difficult to utilize. Currently at surround 1600p some menus are too small...
 

Vega

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Oct 12, 2004
Messages
6,685
I have the Dell 24" 4K and have zero issues with a properly set up Win 8.1. You can get Chrome scaling properly too. 27" is about the perfect size to become a retina type display at normal sitting distance for 5K.

This monitor is about incredible resolution, not about what crappy apps out there that can't scale. Win 9 is right around the corner with tons of scaling features anyway.
 

kache

Gawd
Joined
Mar 21, 2010
Messages
723
I have the Dell 24" 4K and have zero issues with a properly set up Win 8.1. You can get Chrome scaling properly too. 27" is about the perfect size to become a retina type display at normal sitting distance for 5K.

This monitor is about incredible resolution, not about what crappy apps out there that can't scale. Win 9 is right around the corner with tons of scaling features anyway.

Waste of computing power at that size.
 

Church

Limp Gawd
Joined
Mar 12, 2014
Messages
371
Scaling api-s/facilities are there in win7/8 as well. IF application uses them, all is fine. But to not brake compatibility MS chosen for them to not be enforced/mandatory. It's business decision. I don't see rationale and thus business decision governing developer choices changing in win9, except a bit higher fixed number of not high dpi aware applications by win9 launch time. Even with that, if that number changes from 90% to 70%, that doesn't sound to me like rosy enough future. And there always will be apps that i wish to run, but i am certain that they will never be updated (eg. classic games, with last released updates & patches/support ended already). Just like OS itself, miscellaneous HW is meant for running applications, not vice versa. You buy more powerful cpu/gpu to run some application or game at satisfactory performance. Why monitor should be different, if getting some particular one doesn't let you run them in satisfactory way? I see no point in paying for HW that brings unsatisfactory usage experience of apps/games/whatever i need it for, especially if there will be alternatives where i don't have to suffice overly high dpi/scaling artifacts/non updated apps .. simply by getting bigger monitor to keep DPI sane.
 

wirk

Gawd
Joined
Sep 2, 2014
Messages
811
I am staring now at my 27" monitor @2560x1440 res. What they propose to me with 5K is packing exactly 4x times as much pixels in my current real estate. This makes no sense it is wasting the huge pixel budget which the 5K brings, altogether 5120x2880=14 745 600 pixels. It would be much wiser to spend this budget on a wide field of view curved monitors with equivalent resolution of 4K aiming for substituting multi-monitor setups. This could be done with reducing the number of pixels in vertical direction to 2160 or slightly more and stretching in horizontal direction to preserve the overall bit budget. For example a 23:9 monitor with 5520x2160 or 6072x2376 pixels or 24:9@6240x2340 or even 3:1=27:9@6642x2214.
 
Last edited:

kache

Gawd
Joined
Mar 21, 2010
Messages
723
Not everyone has high-DPI screens for games.
If you've got money to waste just for bragging rights, go buy a Mac Pro.

I am staring now at my 27" monitor @2560x1440 res. What they propose to me with 5K is packing exactly 4x times as much pixels in my current real estate. This makes no sense it is wasting the huge pixel budget which the 5K brings, altogether 5120x2880=14 745 600 pixels. It would be much wiser to spend this budget on a wide field of view curved monitors with equivalent resolution of 4K aiming for substituting multi-monitor setups. This could be done with reducing the number of pixels in vertical direction to 2160 or slightly more and stretching in horizontal direction to preserve the overall bit budget. For example a 23:9 monitor with 5520x2160 or 6072x2376 pixels or 24:9@6240x2340 or even 3:1=27:9@6642x2214.
They should make a 64" version of this, IMHO. Same DPI as 24" 1080p screens, and it would give an incredible amount of workspace to people that now use multiple multimonitor setups. :D
 

young boy

Limp Gawd
Joined
Jan 26, 2007
Messages
419
I think the most exciting feature is the anti-reflective glass screen though.

"feature a glass coating for super-clear images, but has an anti-smudge and anti-reflective coating to it which really helps cut out the glare." Source: http://www.tftcentral.co.uk/news_archive/31.htm#dell_up2715k

A common misconception is that all glossy screens are reflective. Smoothness of a surface isn't to be confused with reflectance. Two related, but nonetheless different, concepts.
 

Quartz-1

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
May 20, 2011
Messages
4,257
If you've got money to waste just for bragging rights, go buy a Mac Pro.

Working on my 28" 4K screen is qualitatively better than working on my 1200p 24" screens. Text looks better. Pictures looks better. I don't have to zoom out on photos. It's all much easier on my eyes.

And now the monitors have come down in price, I might take the opportunity to go fully 4K when I upgrade my GPU.
 

wirk

Gawd
Joined
Sep 2, 2014
Messages
811
Working on my 28" 4K screen is qualitatively better than working on my 1200p 24" screens. Text looks better. Pictures looks better. I don't have to zoom out on photos. It's all much easier on my eyes. And now the monitors have come down in price, I might take the opportunity to go fully 4K when I upgrade my GPU.

This is comparing apples and bananas. Real comparison would be 28"@4K and 28"@1440p.
 
Joined
Jan 19, 2007
Messages
575
I'm loving my 24" 4K screen. I even game on it. Choice is good. I would never complain about having a choice, unlike some of those here.
 

kache

Gawd
Joined
Mar 21, 2010
Messages
723
I'm loving my 24" 4K screen. I even game on it. Choice is good. I would never complain about having a choice, unlike some of those here.
No, we're not complaining about having a choice, we're complaining because the manufacturers only cater to YOUR choice, not to OURS.
I wouldn't be complaining if I could buy a cheap 50" 4k60+ MONITOR (not TV, with tons of input lag).

Instead they only cater to the people obsessed with the "Retina" thing, and we who want to use 4k to replace multiple screens with one huge one are left dry.
 

NCX

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Jan 9, 2010
Messages
6,224
I think the most exciting feature is the anti-reflective glass screen though.

Picture of the only anti-reflective glass (Plasma Deposition Coating on the left) LG uses. Black=grey, I can see why the revealed the monitor in an extremely bright room. Black screen, more pictures can be found here.

http://youtu.be/yFHhGflSgBA?t=46s

This monitor was made to make rich people pay a massive premium to inflate their egos. Can't take 4K+ glass and matte screen seriously since glass ruins dark content and matte coatings decrease the clarity (lol @ grainy 4K TN's, most of which have high input lag).
 
Last edited:

brncao

Limp Gawd
Joined
Jan 4, 2013
Messages
231
*Drools.* However, DisplayPort 1.3 was just recently released. I don't think I'll be buying a video card for a while until DP 1.3 becomes available on video cards.
 

Vega

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Oct 12, 2004
Messages
6,685
They should make a 64" version of this, IMHO. Same DPI as 24" 1080p screens, and it would give an incredible amount of workspace to people that now use multiple multimonitor setups. :D

5K at 64"? Got 50 grand lying around?

If you think 24" 1080p PPI is ok, you absolutely miss the point of this display. I want a display that has such fine PPI at normal sitting distances, I cannot see any pixels or need any AA. Like opening up a 27" high quality gloss printed magazine. This display provides exactly that..

If you don't want the ultimate in clarity with your monitor, there are plenty of other monitors to buy. Options are good..
 

Quartz-1

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
May 20, 2011
Messages
4,257
Instead they only cater to the people obsessed with the "Retina" thing, and we who want to use 4k to replace multiple screens with one huge one are left dry.

Then persuade them you are a valid market.
 

kache

Gawd
Joined
Mar 21, 2010
Messages
723
5K at 64"? Got 50 grand lying around?
No need, if Seiki could sell a 50" 4k for <$400, someone can make and sell a 64" 5k for less than $600 if they keep it essential.

If you think 24" 1080p PPI is ok, you absolutely miss the point of this display. I want a display that has such fine PPI at normal sitting distances, I cannot see any pixels or need any AA. Like opening up a 27" high quality gloss printed magazine. This display provides exactly that..
I don't miss the point, I just consider it futile to waste a huge amount of computing power for that, when the alternative is having an incredible amount of work space that allows the user to replace multiple monitor setups. ;)

If you don't want the ultimate in clarity with your monitor, there are plenty of other monitors to buy. Options are good..
Please, do tell which are my options. Because from what I can see my only option is the Panasonic TX-50AX800T, and that's a 1500&#8364;+ TELEVISION (with all the input lag issues connected).

Then persuade them you are a valid market.
You'd think the ridiculous amounts of 39" and 50" 4k Seiki sold would be persuasion enough...
 
Last edited:

NCX

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Jan 9, 2010
Messages
6,224
I'm interested in making a few monitors funded by Kickstarter, one of them being a glossy, PWM and lag free 32-42" 4K monitor with a matte frame, Displayport, 2x HDMI and no speakers.
 
Last edited:

kache

Gawd
Joined
Mar 21, 2010
Messages
723
I'm interested in making a few monitors funded by Kickstarter, one of them being a glossy, PWM and lag free 32-42" 4K monitor with a matte frame, Displayport, 2x HDMI and no speakers.
Seems awesome, although I'd prefer something easier to read, like a 48" (24"x2) or 54"(27"x2). Once the board is ready, though, sourcing the cheap 50"/55" panels shouldn't be an issue. :D

Please let us know when you start the kickstarter, I'll gladly contribute. ;)
 
Last edited:
Joined
Jan 19, 2007
Messages
575
No, we're not complaining about having a choice, we're complaining because the manufacturers only cater to YOUR choice, not to OURS.
I wouldn't be complaining if I could buy a cheap 50" 4k60+ MONITOR (not TV, with tons of input lag).

Instead they only cater to the people obsessed with the "Retina" thing, and we who want to use 4k to replace multiple screens with one huge one are left dry.

Huh - but I've read blogs about developers using Seikis for that exact reason! They put up with the 30 hz because it was worth their productivity boost.

Also, nobody asked me to choose between "retina" monitors and TVs. Dell and others just up and did it, taking a gamble with all the costs they put into R&D. If they do well, it's because other people CHOSE to buy them. Not forced into it, like you are implying.

Many people have waited years (hell, even a decade) to get away from 96 DPI screens. A lot of them blame the "Full HD" marketing fad. Seems like this decade will have people blaming the "retina" fad as well... But in the meantime, people here have purchased 4K TVs for full-time PC use. So we know it is possible.

People that want large monitors that can't fit on a typical office desk will have to wait their turn, just like us who waited for something bigger than 1920x1200 had to for over a decade. Don't worry, it will happen eventually. Be patient.
 

Vega

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Oct 12, 2004
Messages
6,685
A lot of people also don't consider, just having a larger screen means you simply have to sit back further from it. 27" is a nice 18-24 inch eyes to screen distance, and with 5K clarity it is going to look amazing! People also said the Dell 24" 4K that I have was overkill, but I thoroughly enjoy the incredible clarity. 3" bump with a significant DPI bump, this 5K will be much better.
 
Top