First Impressions of the Dell UP3218K "8K" Monitor

Baasha

Baasha

Limp Gawd
Joined
Feb 23, 2014
Messages
249
Just got my Dell 8K monitor on Friday evening and set it up.

I've had this panel for just over a day so take my comments with a grain of salt.

The 8K image is stupendous - it is so crisp and clear that I have never seen anything so sharp and beautiful. Gaming on it is absolutely fantastic - the main rig crushes most games and goes well beyond 60fps so it's buttery smooth and great to look at. It is a glossy screen and bezel is nice and thin. The buttons are on the bottom - the fit and finish is superb.

This is a great monitor for content-creation - which I will be doing quite a bit of, as well as gaming. For gaming purposes, if you're considering this monitor and plan to use it at 8K 60Hz (doh!), two Titan Xp will NOT cut it - getting even 30fps in newer games will be challenging. 8K is 33.2MP which is 16x 1080P or 4x 4K.

Some things I noticed: there is some backlight-bleed on the lower left of the monitor - irritating when there is a complete black background but unnoticeable otherwise. This panel is pixel-perfect - ran through the LCD screen tests and not a single dead/stuck pixel so I'm stoked.

Some snips:

ErFmjcN.jpg


@ 100% DPI scaling:

EpxfkL8.jpg


@ 300% DPI scaling (recommended):

USwA3VQ.jpg


dat monitor real estate tho:

JsxoDLg.jpg
 
Looks drool-worthy.

What has been your experience with MST? It needs two DP 1.2 cables, correct? Any artifacts/flickering etc.?
 
Also, can you post a photo of a fullscreen white image? How is the color/brightness uniformity across the panel?
 
tchalikias said:
Looks drool-worthy.

What has been your experience with MST? It needs two DP 1.2 cables, correct? Any artifacts/flickering etc.?
Click to expand...

Well I believe even the U3011 was MST (1600P) back in 2011 when I had 3 of them. I've had MST for a while since I was running 3x 30" monitors and then 3x 4K in 2014, and then 5K until now - the 8K. All are MST panels. They're great but obviously, SST would be better.

This 8K monitor actually uses 2x DP 1.4 cables - unfortunately, it doesn't have DSC so it still requires two cables otherwise it could potentially do 8K @ 60Hz w/ one cable.

No artifacts/flickering - it's pixel perfect. There is some back-light bleed - expected of IPS monitors.
 
How is the scaling? do websites look really blurry and upscaled? I always hear that anything above 110 PPI is a pain but I have not found that to be the case with 157 PPI on 27" 4K. Higher PPI = sharper image and less chance of seeing dots, like as if you were reading printed paper instead of a screen. 7680 x 4320 @ 32" is 275 PPI. Very close to the DPI of printed paper (300 DPI)
 
Last edited:
Any issues with DP flaking out and either MST not working, or only half of the panel being driven (one side goes black)? My Asus PQ321Q was just awful in that regard.
 
When Dell 4K comes out, turns out Dell never make a 4K. They merge 2 x 1920 x 2160 monitor into 1 monitor, so millions of angry customer scream at dell as only HALF of the screen loads up and all kinds of angry thread in dell's website.

Now, is Dell doing the same thing here?

=====================


Baasha: What is the video card(s) and cables you are running to display the above?
 
Last edited:
Happy Hopping said:
When Dell 4K comes out, turns out Dell never make a 4K. They merge 2 x 1920 x 2160 monitor into 1 monitor, so millions of angry customer scream at dell as only HALF of the screen loads up and all kinds of angry thread in dell's website.

Now, is Dell doing the same thing here?

=====================


Baasha: What is the video card(s) and cables you are running to display the above?
Click to expand...

Your first question was asked by someone 2 posts up from yours... Watch the Linus video a few mins in and he talks about that issue and demonstrating its not present, then talks about cables and video cards required. It's a short video, just watch what Pendragon posted.
 
what a shocker. As that "incident" is very famous. And shocking. In the end, a 30+" is way too small for 8K. I'm using 4K on 40", and it's just right. 8K should be 46".
 
Here is why I think this 8k business is utter nonsense.

After almost 3 1/2 years of having 4k I still do not have mass-media 4k available to me. It's too expensive and requires too much bandwidth. These are of course the TV / Cable / Media Steaming services words and not mine.

There is some 4k content out there but it's still very much at a "novelty" level.

But ,,,, 8K?
 
Samson4EiT said:
Your first question was asked by someone 2 posts up from yours... Watch the Linus video a few mins in and he talks about that issue and demonstrating its not present, then talks about cables and video cards required. It's a short video, just watch what Pendragon posted.
Click to expand...

You do realize that you spent more time with your sentence or two than just answering his question. I love ...... LOVE when people spell correct or point out that someone in the other tread, 4 from the bottom on the 12th page already answered this. LOVE IT ................ oh, I forgot this one, "there is a video at this link that 3 minutes and 12 seconds in answers your question." lmao /smdh
 
SixFootDuo said:
Here is why I think this 8k business is utter nonsense.

After almost 3 1/2 years of having 4k I still do not have mass-media 4k available to me. It's too expensive and requires too much bandwidth. These are of course the TV / Cable / Media Steaming services words and not mine.

There is some 4k content out there but it's still very much at a "novelty" level.

But ,,,, 8K?
Click to expand...

that's true. I am still hoping for star trek: the next generation to release 4K, so I refrain myself from buying the blu-ray ver.
 
I agree there is little live 4K content, but I am very happy with the 4K that is available and it makes it worth owning the hardware. You have Netflix streaming 4K, Amazon Prime 4K, and you can subscribe to a 4K blu-ray delivery service that is gaining more and more movies each month. Add to that gaming in 4K on a PC or PS4 pro and you have great experiences. 8K of course is for a very small subset of power users and forget about any content for 4 years.
 
So the sissy in the Youtube review said that games just crash. Is that true, or is it just his garbage SLI setup (SLI never works)?

I find it very hard to believe that games basically DON'T WORK at 8k. There's no reason they shouldn't work.
 
bigbluefe said:
So the sissy in the Youtube review said that games just crash. Is that true, or is it just his garbage SLI setup (SLI never works)?

I find it very hard to believe that games basically DON'T WORK at 8k. There's no reason they shouldn't work.
Click to expand...
Every game I have tried so far works. Of course you are looking at 12-15 fps in newer demanding games with a 1080 Ti and that of course is with no AA and usually even some settings reduced. I have plenty of screenshots but everywhere I try to upload them to it says the files too large...
 
knew what and how is he wrong? this isn't a gaming monitor if that's what youre upset aboot. there isn't anything that can drive new games at 8k yet.
 
5k? Damn! I would have to make 3 to 4 times as much that and even then I would really be iffy buying this. I guess I just became cheap after I got married. ROFL
 
pendragon1 said:
knew what and how is he wrong? this isn't a gaming monitor if that's what youre upset aboot. there isn't anything that can drive new games at 8k yet.
Click to expand...

He said every game crashes, and they obviously don't. He was wrong.
 
Finally grabbed one of these from Dell outlet ($2699 shipped :p )


lIxS7FK.jpg



and..... Holy shit its like looking through a window. The 8k is insane and the blacks look fantastic (thanks to the glossy screen)


but fuck me there are so many other issues with running 8k at the moment

-Some Windows programs either don't scale or don't work properly (spotify is choppy, steam wont scale, etc..)

-Most games won't run at all, some wont even launch

-Games that will run get 10-30fps and feel choppy(SLI 1080's)

-Had to buy a new high DPI mouse as my logitech wouldn't cut it, even then mouse movement feels odd as the DPI needs to be super high.



While I absolutely adore this monitor its probably going back as this DELL is simply ahead of its time :(


Someone please make this same monitor in a high gloss 5k version !
 
Martha Stewart said:
Finally grabbed one of these from Dell outlet ($2699 shipped :p )
While I absolutely adore this monitor its probably going back as this DELL is simply ahead of its time :(
Click to expand...

To be fair, when the Dell 3007WFP came out in 2006 (at the then-extreme [and still impressive, 11 years later] resolution of 2560x1600), it was quite ahead of its time, the only real competition being the Apple Cinema monitors (later on, Gateway and Samsung had lesser responses).

The higher-end Dell monitors almost always tend to be quite nice -- I didn't regret getting a Dell 3007 WFP-HC in 2008 (used first a 4850x2, and later a 4870x2 on it), and I don't think I'll regret my incoming Dell Alienware monitor, either.
 
I wish they made this monitor 43" instead of 31.5".

Actually, I wish they had reduced the vertical res to 3440, so that it would be 7680x3440, and thus 21:9 instead of 16:9, and made it 50" diag (45.6"x20.4'') which would be the same height as a 43" 4K but 8.6" wider.
 
HA5 said:
I wish they made this monitor 43" instead of 31.5".

Actually, I wish they had reduced the vertical res to 3440, so that it would be 7680x3440, and thus 21:9 instead of 16:9, and made it 50" diag (45.6"x20.4'') which would be the same height as a 43" 4K but 8.6" wider.
Click to expand...

Agreed here, 31.5" is just too small for such a high resolution. I prefer my 38" ultrawide which is 3840x1600 over the 1440p equivalents.
 
HA5 said:
Actually, I wish they had reduced the vertical res to 3440, so that it would be 7680x3440, and thus 21:9 instead of 16:9, and made it 50" diag (45.6"x20.4'') which would be the same height as a 43" 4K but 8.6" wider.
Click to expand...

I'd rather have 7680x3440, but, more likely it would be 7680x3200. That would be a little closer to true 21:9 and double the horz & vert res of 3840x1600, like the Acer XR382CQK, LG 38UC99-W, and ViewSonic VP3881. So, 4 of those in one. At 50" diag it would be 46.2''x19.2'' and 166.4 dpi. ...I'm just dreaming.
 
The Dell UltraSharp 32 8K Monitor - UP3218K Troubleshooting Guide mentions that you can use a single cable to get 7680 x 4320 @ 30Hz.

I have a few questions about that:
1) Can it support 5K over a single cable? What is the max refresh rate at 5K with a single cable?
2) Can it support 4K over a single cable? What is the max refresh rate at 4K with a single cable?
3) Can it support 4K and 5K at higher refresh rates with two cables?

The Troubleshooting Guide mentions that you can change the monitor setting from DP 1.4 to DP 1.2.
3) Can tiling be used with DP 1.2 sources? For example, the Dell UP2715K supported Tiling for 5K using two DisplayPort 1.2 connections. Current Thunderbolt 3 computers only support DisplayPort 1.2.
 
The most useful thing I could think of to do with 8k resolution today is a nice CRT shader, ironically. It's the only application that both takes advantage of the resolution and could possibly run at full speed given today's hardware.

8k is about the resolution you need to properly simulate the look of old arcade monitors.
 
l88bastard said:
View attachment 89440
Click to expand...

To actually simulate the way CRTs look, you need at least 8 pixels per original game pixel and then some extra pixels on top of that to simulate the gaps between pixels (scanlines). What makes arcade games look good on arcade monitors is the intricate shadow mask patterns and gaps between pixels. Look at how much resolution you'd need to be able to reproduce that effect.

This is why old games look like shit on LCDs. The gaps between pixels let the viewer use his imagination to fill them in, making them seem more detailed than they actually are.

Ironically, in terms of both variable refresh and high resolutions, old ass games designed for CRT monitors benefit from the technologies more than contemporary video games.

CRT_resolutions.jpg


 
Even with that 8way pixel twister jibber jabber your still not going to fully reproduce the arcade effect, unless you add ULMB strobing into the equation.

DemolitionManHighFive.gif
 
Last edited:
I just got one of these and I am trying to drive it with a reasonably priced video card. (I don't play games or do other GPU-intensive stuff, just text and basic 2d stuff like web browsing.) Currently I have three 5k monitors (Dell UP2715K) and I am hoping to replace one or more with the UP3218K. To drive the 5k monitors I have used Nvidia cards with four DisplayPort outputs; originally the NVS 510, then Quadro K1200, M2000, and most recently Quadro P600. Any of these cards drive dual 5k monitors without problems (using two DisplayPort cables per monitor), and the P600 has DisplayPort 1.4 so it seems like it should handle 8k over two cables.

However, I haven't been able to make it work. The UP3218K comes up in 4k resolution by default. In Nvidia Control Panel 7860x4320 is shown as an option, but attempting to set it to that just blanks the screen for a moment and then goes back to 4k. It doesn't matter whether I choose the refresh rate as 48Hz or 24Hz (I understand that 60Hz is not possible without also reducing the colour depth). Just to be sure I tried turning down the colour depth and HDR settings too, but still no joy.

Nvidia's specifications for the Quadro P600 list the maximum supported resolution as 5k (5120x2880). The max res quoted by Nvidia isn't always definitive; the NVS 510 and K1200 cards are quoted as having a max res of 4k, for example, but manage 5k fine. However, in this case Nvidia do support 5k in the Quadro P5000 and P6000 cards and I suspect they have crippled the drivers in the lower-level Pascal series cards to disable 8k support. Needless to say, a Quadro P5000 card would cost about as much as I paid for the monitor itself.

So it looks as though I will have to move from Quadro cards to consumer/gaming ones, such as the GeForce GTX 1080. I wouldn't really use all of the beefy GPU power on that card, unless I suddenly decided to play games (in which case it wouldn't be enough for 8k resolution).

Any success stories of driving this monitor with less powerful cards? I think I would prefer to stay with Nvidia, but would consider a Radeon card if much cheaper.
 
Happy Hopping said:
that's true. I am still hoping for star trek: the next generation to release 4K, so I refrain myself from buying the blu-ray ver.
Click to expand...
Sorry to necro a comment from over a year ago. I doubt you will ever see a true 4k or even HD version of ST:TNG, ST:V, or DS9 since they were all shot on video tape in standard definition, 4:3 ratio. ST:TOS was shot on film so making a HD or even a 4K version is completely possible. Enterprise was shot in HD (not sure if 720p or 1080p; probably 720p) so the HD version is available on Blu-ray. This is true of many TV programs from the '70s through the late '90s, before HD was a "thing." Earlier programming was done largely on film which can be converted (telecine I think is the correct term) to HD, 4k and possibly beyond. Anything shot in SD on video tape is pretty much stuck at SD. While yes, SD can be upscaled to HD or higher you'll never get the sharpness or crispness of film or true HD or 4k content.

Take your middle ST series' on DVD and be happy. :)
 
RedWagnum said:
Sorry to necro a comment from over a year ago. I doubt you will ever see a true 4k or even HD version of ST:TNG, ST:V, or DS9 since they were all shot on video tape in standard definition, 4:3 ratio. ST:TOS was shot on film so making a HD or even a 4K version is completely possible. Enterprise was shot in HD (not sure if 720p or 1080p; probably 720p) so the HD version is available on Blu-ray. This is true of many TV programs from the '70s through the late '90s, before HD was a "thing." Earlier programming was done largely on film which can be converted (telecine I think is the correct term) to HD, 4k and possibly beyond. Anything shot in SD on video tape is pretty much stuck at SD. While yes, SD can be upscaled to HD or higher you'll never get the sharpness or crispness of film or true HD or 4k content.

Take your middle ST series' on DVD and be happy. :)
Click to expand...

What the fuck are you talking about?

The Next Generation was shot on 35mm film, and the budget for each episode was $1.3 million, among the largest for a one-hour television drama.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_Trek:_The_Next_Generation

Why do you think the original TNG Blurays are 1080p? They couldn't have been 1080p if they had been shot on video tape.
 
Oh and DS9 was shot on 35mm too.

They'd have to redo the special effects, but they already did it for TNG.
 
I have been waiting for a few years for ST:TNG on 4K, clearly they are not doing it. So I save the $ for DS9 and voyager, as I have them on DVD, and there is no chance for them to go to blu-ray. So I imagine I would buy ST"TNG in blu-ray this Xmas
 
bigbluefe said:
To actually simulate the way CRTs look, you need at least 8 pixels per original game pixel and then some extra pixels on top of that to simulate the gaps between pixels (scanlines). What makes arcade games look good on arcade monitors is the intricate shadow mask patterns and gaps between pixels. Look at how much resolution you'd need to be able to reproduce that effect.

This is why old games look like shit on LCDs. The gaps between pixels let the viewer use his imagination to fill them in, making them seem more detailed than they actually are.

Ironically, in terms of both variable refresh and high resolutions, old ass games designed for CRT monitors benefit from the technologies more than contemporary video games.

View attachment 89524
Click to expand...

I don't agree with this. I have a studio-grade CRT monitor at home to use with old consoles etc. and the reason why low res games look great on it is that it is less sharp than LCDs. LCDs are pixel perfect, pixels on CRT as seen in your example pic also soften the edges of different colors and overall just make the end result look smoother. That combined with great color reproduction is what makes the look to me.

Maybe having a lot of pixes plus a shader to simulate the look would work.
 
kasakka said:
I don't agree with this. I have a studio-grade CRT monitor at home to use with old consoles etc. and the reason why low res games look great on it is that it is less sharp than LCDs. LCDs are pixel perfect, pixels on CRT as seen in your example pic also soften the edges of different colors and overall just make the end result look smoother. That combined with great color reproduction is what makes the look to me.

Maybe having a lot of pixes plus a shader to simulate the look would work.
Click to expand...

This isn't necessarily true. It really depends on the CRT. PVMs and arcade monitors in good condition are incredibly sharp. Just as sharp as LCDs, really. I think you're confusing sharpness and geometry uniformity. Geometry is basically always going to be crap on a CRT, but they can be amazingly sharp. I've seen LCDs with a soft blurry image, and I've seen razor sharp CRTs.

It's the gaps, really. Gaps between colors in low resolution graphics make them seem higher resolution than they are because the mind is filling in the blanks.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top