Dell UP3017Q - 4K 120HZ Oled 30"

Why the hell is this [so much] more expensive than a 55" LG OLED 4K TV???

EDIT: Also, who made this panel? LG?
 
kabobi said:
Why the hell is this [so much] more expensive than a 55" LG OLED 4K TV???
Click to expand...

Because anything labeled monitor instead of tv is always priced more expensive.

I want this so bad! I wish lg would do a 48" or 40" oled 4k tv, I'd buy one if they did, it would be cheaper than this dell too.
 
munkle said:
Because anything labeled monitor instead of tv is always priced more expensive.

I want this so bad! I wish lg would do a 48" or 40" oled 4k tv, I'd buy one if they did, it would be cheaper than this dell too.
Click to expand...

True, though I didn't realize the difference would be this significant.

Sadly, I don't think a <55" OLED TV would ever happen. The market for it is too small. Even the 2016 flagship LCD TVs for Samsung/Sony are all >55" now (last year's models had 48 and 40 too)
 
And here I had almost pulled the trigger on a x34.

If Dell has the panel, we should see the other manufacturers versions pop up soon. Figure half the cost in a year or so...

Nice.
 
Holy crap, this is exciting. I can't wait to see their hands-on review. I'd buy one in a heartbeat if it was less than $2,000.
kabobi said:
Why the hell is this [so much] more expensive than a 55" LG OLED 4K TV???

EDIT: Also, who made this panel? LG?
Click to expand...
I would believe it's more expensive primarily because the smaller size leads to a higher density of pixels, which can lead to tighter manufacturing tolerances. PC displays also need their boards designed differently to prioritize the uses and concerns one will have over a television. It's taken so long to see an OLED monitor because of the burn-in issue, as PCs deal with a lot of static images on screen for long periods of time when in use.
 
You know what? I just might have to buy this. Not kidding at all. Especially with what I'm going through with my just-bought BenQ BL3201PH.
 
Armenius said:
I would believe it's more expensive primarily because the smaller size leads to a higher density of pixels, which can lead to tighter manufacturing tolerances.
Click to expand...

It's actually the exact opposite. This is why oled screens have been in phones for many years before we ever saw a tv. Samsung used to make an oled tv but stopped probably because yeilds were poor. LG has a different set up on their tvs than what samsung tried. LG got its oled tech from Kodak and LG uses white oleds with a color filter to produce red/green/blue. The white oleds LG uses have much higher yields than the RGB pixels that Samsung was using. It was just last year that LG announced that it had 65% yeilds on its oled tvs.
 
This must be the first DP 1.3 monitor as well? Since it's 4K@120Hz

Pretty sweet. I think the price will come down fairly quick - remember the first 4K displays started at around $3K and were down to half that in a year.
 
And this is what I have been waiting for. Ever since getting my OLED tv, I just can't force myself to use a "regular monitor" to play things on. It just looks horrible in comparison.
 
Oh boy... if 120 Hz is confirmed (only seen it mentioned once - I'm starting to doubt it), I will be buying this puppy. I'll sell my left testicle to afford it if I have to. This is the dream, boys. Wish it were at least 32", but oh well. I just wonder how long they'll keep that price. Going to be a long 3 months before release...
 
Last edited:
Is it wrong that I want this to have freesync with a range of 30HZ to 120Hz to annoy nvidia people? Am I a bad person?
 
Well, the display wars are now over. All other monitors are inferior to this, I just hope the price comes down fast on the displays that follow. It did for the dell 5k monitor they wanted 2500 dollars for, they dropped that fast because they were asking for the display along as much as the 5k imac.
 
x3sphere said:
This must be the first DP 1.3 monitor as well? Since it's 4K@120Hz.
Click to expand...

Given that it's launching March 31st, I don't see how it could be DP 1.3, there's no supporting GPUs. The Verge had a video that said it was working through the Type C Thunderbolt connector, but I'm not sure if that was just in reference to the power connection since it can charge your laptop. My guess is it has 2xDP 1.2 connectors in the back.

Hopefully the OLED tech is worth the wait. Maybe in a few years a peasant like me could afford one too. :p
 
Need it to be 44" so it can be 100ppi. That is what I am currently looking for in an 4K for my PC. :)

But at $5k yikes way too much for me. I definitely won't want to spend more than $1k-$1.5k on a monitor @ 44" 4k @ 120hz preferred.
 
A fast response time is a given with OLED, but I hope that input lag has been minimized as well. The mention of a 'pixel shifter' to minimize burn-in effects does not look promising in that regard.

I would jump on this right now at $2k, assuming low input lag, but $5k is too much to swallow to get the monitor I have been waiting years for.
 
Not so sure this is 120 Hz native. Doing more research.
 
Finally. Hopefully OLED for PC pans out well. Let's say 2016: rich early adopters, 2017: 2nd gen, normal early adopters, 2018: 3rd gen, mainstream. Yeah, right. :)

But why only 400,000 contrast?
 
Surprised that so-called "tech" people view and take pictures of something groundbreaking as this monitor without taking a simple photo from underneath the back to check for connectivity options. Connectivity options make or break a monitor like this.

So far we can assume a few things:

1. It pretty much has to run at 4K 120 Hz for a price of $5000. If it's a 4K at 60 Hz display, it's value drops incredibly and the only ones who would buy it are for professional applications.

2. We can assume since it has a Thunderport 3 connection, it will not have dual Displayport 1.2 input that would allow 120 Hz at 4K from a modern "external" GPU.

3. We can assume since it has a Thunderport 3 connection, it won't have a single Displayport 1.3 input that would allow 120 Hz at 4K from a future "external" GPU.

4. Basically, the only source devices that are out now or are known to be coming out in 2016 that use Thunderbolt 3 are Laptops. I highly doubt the 2016 new release "external" GPU's from AMD and NVIDIA will have Thunderbolt 3 outputs.

5. If the Display is Thunderbolt 3 only input, current high end GPU's like Fury's and Titan-X's would have zero way to connect to the display.

My new Dell XPS 15 has a Thunderbolt 3 output, but driving a 4K Display at 120 Hz off of a laptop would be quite pointless outside of office/professional applications. You simply wouldn't have enough GPU power to do anything more strenuous such as heavy 3D rendering or games.

The only even remotely viable option I could find would be an external "Thunderbolt 3 Chassis":

2677158



Supposedly you connect the chassis to your PC via a thunderbolt 3 cable plugged into a PCI-E card. In the chassis, you plug in your GPU, such as a Titan-X. Then you plug your Chassis into the monitor via Thunderbolt 3. I still don't know how the GPU output would get routed back down through PCI-E to the Thunderbolt Chassis and out Thunderbolt 3 to the display. Not to mention this also may be a "laptop" only route.

Those wild and impractical designs rarely come to fruition. I have a feeling this may be a "Laptop" connection only display. :mad:
 
oh shit man.. oh.. i must have.. but.. so much.. but logic won't work... i have a very bad feeling i'm getting this.

(it is almost the same price as the sharp pnk321 i got a few years back.. first 4k with 60hz)

so much for looking at the acer xb34 :)

oled is so nice. I got the LG 65" and 55" 4K LGs this year (living room and bedroom)
 
Last edited:
Wow this thing looks awesome!

If any one of you guys wins Powerball can you buy me one of these?
 
Not that tempting unless you must do everything on 1 display imo.

For media and gaming, larger is almost always better. Web surfing/ email and word processing dont require a OLED/120hz/wide gamut etc, i think.

ofc, if tv never get real 120hz input then its a different story.
 
Even with a 120Hz input, if it doesn't have gaming-oriented features like Adaptive-Sync or G-Sync, and black frame insertion options, it doesn't seem like it would be worth the premium price.
 
zone74 said:
Even with a 120Hz input, if it doesn't have gaming-oriented features like Adaptive-Sync or G-Sync, and black frame insertion options, it doesn't seem like it would be worth the premium price.
Click to expand...

Totally depends on how much you value true black levels. Personally, I would rather have true blacks in most RPGs, strategy games, etc than gsync. For fpses I would rather have gsync.

Fortunately, you're totally allowed to have multiple monitors on your desk ;)
 
Personally I can't go back to a non G-sync (or FreeSync) display for gaming. I think chances are high we'll see some gaming monitors based on OLED panels in another year or two, probably at a much more reasonable price.

That said, if this display did have G-sync and is for sure 120Hz I'd be extremely tempeted.
 
SO can we assume to see you mr.vega with another crazy multi-monitor setup soon? haha

Loving this monitor specs so far, Maybe in a year or two it drop, mainly Im just super excited for the response time.
 
Sancus said:
Totally depends on how much you value true black levels. Personally, I would rather have true blacks in most RPGs, strategy games, etc than gsync. For fpses I would rather have gsync.

Fortunately, you're totally allowed to have multiple monitors on your desk ;)
Click to expand...

And I play RPGs primarily, so for me, Dell dropped a bombshell with this announcement. :cool:

Unfortunately, it's outta my price range! Regardless, this is good news on the tech front, period.
 
just wait a little longer for the Korean vendors to offer A- grade version for half the price.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top