oh man... if this thing was 16:10 and at 32-40" in size... i'd be one broke dude (given real end user reviews come in with no major B.S. flaws / faults.
![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
Dell UP3017Q - 4K 120HZ Oled 30"
- Thread starter tehidiot
- Start date
oh man... if this thing was 16:10 and at 32-40" in size... i'd be one broke dude (given real end user reviews come in with no major B.S. flaws / faults.
I agree on the size. For some reason monitor makers think 30" is the high end dream size. This is not 2005. Get with the program, with 4k and beyond we can get similar pixel density of 1440p/1600p displays at the 40-43" size. They need to increase the size accordingly.
I thought the widescreen format was a bit of a gimmick, but I saw a 34" and liked it, but I think I'd still want a much bigger version of that if at all. Like a 40-50" 3440x1440p display.
l88bastard
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Oct 25, 2009
- Messages
- 3,718
fuck.....this just altered my spending habbits for the next four months lol
It is certainly possible, although it would be very(happily!) surprising, that they are planning to require DP1.3 support for the display to reach 120hz. Certainly, such future proofing in a display from a manufacturer would be shocking, but on the other hand it is a $5,000 professional-market display not a consumer one.
I have a 32" 4K monitor on my desk and it's honestly a little too big. So, I completely agree that the sweet spot for high-end monitors is 27-30". Bigger than that and most desk setups just... don't have space. I have no idea how people get far enough away from 40" displays to use them at a desk without weird setups that don't put the display even on the desk, and even if you do something like that it honestly makes it awkward with multiple monitors.
I don't want to be turning my head to see all the content that is on my display, a display should fill your field of vision just barely to the edge of your peripheral vision, but no more.
Last edited:
I don't think so. 30" is about the right size for a 5K display. At 196 PPI that's very close to the ideal 200 PPI for a "high DPI" display.
30" is a bad size for 4K as it's only 147 PPI, so things are too small at 1x scale, and too big at 2x scale.
Non-integer scaling is only supported on Windows, and honestly not supported that well unless you don't need to run any legacy applications.
Ideally 4K displays would be either 22" or 44" in size depending on whether you want a high DPI display, or a standard DPI display with a lot of workspace.
There's no way that you would get 120Hz at 5K over a single connection though, and no-one seems to have figured out that you could have a display which is 5K60 native, but then does 1440p at 120Hz+ with exact pixel doubling instead of filtered scaling. That would look just as good as - if not better than - a native 1440p display when gaming.
Dell said that it was admittedly the limit of their testing equipment. Which probably does mean it's infinite in reality.
There's always one in every thread.
40"? Maybe if you sit 5-6 feet away. Get a TV then. And why stay at 110ppi? As you said, this is not 2005. Unless you're content with that.
I'll take a 4K 30" OLED with zero backlight bleed and 147ppi sitting 2.5 feet away at my desk.
Technically, black should be infinite, so it'll depend on how high the emmisive light can go to make the brightest white. The CR is likely a lot higher than 400,000:1 though.
You don't just slap on physical connectors for an interface to work. All the electronics behind it need to work. It costs a lot to devleop, actually.
Impossible. Not turning your head means the screen needs to be <10", but to fill your FOV it would be closer to 50".
Because Windows scaling still sucks and many people still prefer 100DPI. I think text looks best when it's a razor-sharp 1 pixel thick. Scaled text is blurry and impossible to completely focus on.
Armenius
Extremely [H]
- Joined
- Jan 28, 2014
- Messages
- 42,114
40" would definitely be optimal for me at 4k. That would be 49" in 21:9 format (5040x2160). I first saw 21:9 in-person at a Best Buy and was not impressed, but it was only a 29" at 2560x1080 resolution, which is the same height as a 24" 16:9. When I was able to demo a 34" at 3440x1440 I absolutely fell in love with it.
At 2-2.5' away a 40" 16:9 will completely fill your vision, making it practically optimal for gaming in my opinion. You'll have to move your eyes to change focus, sure, but you still won't have to turn your head. I like 110 PPI because scaling is still not perfect across all applications, and for my eyesight 110 PPI is perfect for desktop use and productivity. If all I did on my PC was game then I would love to have a 150-200 PPI display.
Refocusing is a huge strain on the eyes. And we're not talking VR here. I'm just curious- do you actually sit in front of a 40" 16:9 TV while 2-2.5' away? I own a 40" TV, and cannot imagine sitting 2-2.5' away from it for any sort of activity. No way. Maybe there's people who game on their TV while sitting that close, I don't know. I definitely don't know anyone who does that, though, even with a 'small' TV of that size.
Not trying to be confrontational.
On topic- can't wait to see the reviews of this monitor come spring time
Should be really interesting.DP 1.3 supports 4K@120Hz, and from everything I've read, USB-C fully supports DP 1.3 via its alternate mode. So as long as the source (GPU) supports DP 1.3, you should be able to get 4K@120Hz using 'one' cable here- either with a DP->USB-C cable, or with a dongle.
AMD is said to have it's new Polaris GPUs arriving in mid 2016, which will fully support DP1.3 and HDMI 2.0a
Windows' scaling is no worse than anyone else's scaling as long as you stick to integer factors.
It's when you start using non-integer scaling, such as the 1.5x that a 30" 4K panel would require, that you tend to run into problems with legacy applications. (DPI-aware applications support non-integer scaling just fine)
I've been using a 46" display as my primary monitor for a number of years now, and don't have any problems sitting 2.5-3.5ft back.
I definitely prefer sitting further back from a larger screen like that, to sitting 1-2ft from a small display. I'd probably be pulling a 30" display to the front of my desk.
Refocusing is a huge strain on the eyes. And we're not talking VR here. I'm just curious- do you actually sit in front of a 40" 16:9 TV while 2-2.5' away? I own a 40" TV, and cannot imagine sitting 2-2.5' away from it for any sort of activity. No way. Maybe there's people who game on their TV while sitting that close, I don't know. I definitely don't know anyone who does that, though, even with a 'small' TV of that size.
Not trying to be confrontational.
On topic- can't wait to see the reviews of this monitor come spring time
I don't think I'd want a 40" monitor, because I generally sit about 1-2' from my monitor, but for video, I might be able to do 3'. When I visit a relative with an 80 or 85" HD set, I think the best place to sit is about 5-6' away. I don't know if I would feel the same if I was using it has a monitor.
Nitemare3219
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- Apr 2, 2015
- Messages
- 206
1 pixel thick - razor sharp? Are you nuts? 1 pixel would look like 8-bit Mario. You NEED a lot of pixels to make text look razor sharp. Our alphabet is not entirely straight lines. Square pixels cannot reproduce curves without using a lot of them with antialiasing.
I sit about 28"-34" away from my screen depending on how I am leaning, closeness to the desk, etc. I was able to comfortably game on a 55". That is what filled my FOV at that distance. I am now using a 48" and it doesn't fill it, but takes up a large portion. I also owned a 40", and it certainly does not fill your view.
Refocusing is a huge strain on the eyes. And we're not talking VR here. I'm just curious- do you actually sit in front of a 40" 16:9 TV while 2-2.5' away? I own a 40" TV, and cannot imagine sitting 2-2.5' away from it for any sort of activity. No way. Maybe there's people who game on their TV while sitting that close, I don't know. I definitely don't know anyone who does that, though, even with a 'small' TV of that size.
Not trying to be confrontational.
On topic- can't wait to see the reviews of this monitor come spring time
Yes I do, and so do many other people in the "New Samsung 4K here for everyone" thread. It's very doable, and you might be surprised if you ever try it. I was a skeptic... now I don't think I will ever own a regular sized monitor again. It's just incredible what the difference is my friend.
~14000 hours.
Left constantly on, about 2 years. If used 8 hours a day (work related), about 5 years. You'll start to see issues far before then though.
Is this nuts?:
I'm guilty of responding to the nonsense myself, but I really think we should cut out the generalized monitor/pixel discussion from this thread right here. It's going to turn it into complete garbage for people who want to read it for information about this actual monitor.
WHS
Really? I can't imagine anyone paying $1000/year for this thing. Even the targeted professional market.
I know OLED has a short lifespan in general, but I'd like to know your source for the 14000 hours number.
LurkerLito
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Dec 5, 2007
- Messages
- 2,704
I think that 14k hour spec is way too low especially given the price. I'd definitely pass on it if that is true. I still have LCD monitors from 2004 that still work fine that are only slightly dimmer than it was when it was new that costed $700 or so at the time. If oled can't even meet the old LCD technology in terms of life expectancy I am pretty much out unless the monitors themselves are dirt cheap like $400 or so. Since manufacturers often inflate their MTBF hours, I'd guess that 14k hour figure is more like 7k for when you can expect the first crop of issues to start happening.
Nitemare3219
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- Apr 2, 2015
- Messages
- 206
Is this nuts?:
I think all the text on my 500 PPI phone looks great, but on a 150 PPI screen 125-150% scaling just seems blurry. That also has a tendency of adding colors to what should be black text, which is really annoying!
Blurriness only occurs when poor scaling happens. Text scaling in Windows, more specifically browsers, does not have this issue from my experience. Separate applications are another story. Sharpness is all relative to viewing distance. On my 4K screen from really far away, sure, your image looks fine. But up closer, it's pixelated. On my screen it's also 2 pixels thick in some areas of the letters, which makes it look better than truly being 1 pixel thick.
Not ready for what exactly? Please elaborate.
That's over double the 14k hour number mentioned earlier for this monitor, hopefully the actual number for the monitor is closer to the tvs.
Nitemare3219
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- Apr 2, 2015
- Messages
- 206
The only potential negative is that monitor panels are brand new. Hopefully they're using the same processes as today's fantastic OLEDs.
Lifespan will also probably largely depend on the OLED light levels you use (think cell brightness of plasmas). The harder you push the panel, the less life you'll get. I have a lot of faith in OLED these days, so I'm not worried about it. Any change in brightness over time due to lifespan will be negligible, and happen over time anyway. Even if it only hits 80% brightness after 10 years of use, that's still good in my books. Probably won't be using it then primarily anyway.
Yeah, based on a completely unrealistic usage scenarios.
Some simple math helps. If the actual screen is on for 8 hours a day (which is a lot more realistic), you'll get close to 5 years' worth of usage at 14k hours. More than likely, it'll be more since 14k hours sounds incorrect. Plus, it will come with the motion detection sensor, further reducing degradation.
By spring of 2021, professionals who buy this monitor now will be ready to pick up a newer, cheaper, and technologically better model. There is nothing wrong with a 14-28k hour lifespan.
Like others have mentioned, that's only at 24/7 usage, and by using what may be an arbitrary lifetime estimation. Unless using in a work environment with 24/7 ops, this is unrealistic for most consumers who aren't robots and actually need things like breaks and sleep.
Furthermore, this is [H]ardForum, where many of us get off on bleeding edge not run-of-the-mill. By the time this is "ready" for the average consumer, my interest will have moved on to whatever is upcoming. Who wants to have what everyone else does? I can buy a shitty 24" TN gaming monitor and a SFF prebuilt if ever I wanted what is considered "ready"/mature for most users.
Many people are looking for the same thing over and over, or "just enough". For others like me who want to see how far the rabbit hole goes, there are products like this to test our savings accounts and girlfriends...
wildpig1234
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- Dec 25, 2011
- Messages
- 330
I just wish there is a service menu I can access to see what the total # hours is on my lcds. This is actually useful. I have one Dell 3008WFP, 2 Samsung 305T, 4 HP LP3065. All were bought used on ebay. Would be nice to see what's the usage are on these monitors as they are still nice size and resolution that most people don't mind having on their desk even though they are like 8-9 yrs old....
My point is that for a mid or low tier monitor the usefulness and attractiveness might be only a few yrs but for higher end monitors (such as 30 in lcd) their technologically useful lifespan might be higher than just 5 yrs...
My point is that for a mid or low tier monitor the usefulness and attractiveness might be only a few yrs but for higher end monitors (such as 30 in lcd) their technologically useful lifespan might be higher than just 5 yrs...
Michaelius
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Sep 8, 2003
- Messages
- 4,684
It probably is much less than most people expect
4-5 hours per day comes to 2k hours per year
And for most working people it's probably closer to 2-3 hours per day
4-5 hours per day comes to 2k hours per year
And for most working people it's probably closer to 2-3 hours per day
l88bastard
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Oct 25, 2009
- Messages
- 3,718
I dunno man, have you ever seen the legit leaderboards for COD games? They never, eat, sleep, take breaks or anything....JUST COD lol
I am interested to see where this display goes with blur reduction! They had me at HELLO lol.
Last edited: