UP3214Q - it has arrived!

Psychor

Limp Gawd
Joined
Dec 22, 2007
Messages
388
did you try 200% resolution scale in Bf4 :p?
No, I'd rather not watch my system melt down. lol. Once the 780 TI Classifieds or K|ngP|n cards are released I'll have to try it though. Going to swap out my current SLI config for those.
 

GoldenTiger

Fully [H]
Joined
Dec 2, 2004
Messages
19,564
did you try 200% resolution scale in Bf4 :p?
Bwahahahahahaha. Yeah, that'd melt anything :p. I'm looking forward to 4k+maxwell next year, waiting for hdmi 2.0 stuff to hit. Can't wait! Grats on the new display by the way op, if it's anything like going from 1680 to 2560 back in the day, you'll loveeeeeee it.
 

Psychor

Limp Gawd
Joined
Dec 22, 2007
Messages
388
I recommend staying away from this display or any other 4K display - at least for now. I went through 3 displays before I said screw it.

http://en.community.dell.com/support-forums/peripherals/f/3529/t/19535104.aspx

However, I will say that physically speaking the UP3214Q is quite nice and the OSD is simply excellent. Dell also provides a nice tool called Dell Display Manager, which while buggy for me while in MST mode, was awesome, when it worked correctly, for controlling various features of the display from within Windows.
 

Murzilka

Gawd
Joined
Dec 11, 2011
Messages
790
Yeah it's the first wave of 4k monitors. Better wait a year or two and then buy an improved model. There are no graphics cards today that can drive those monitors at above 40fps in heaviest game titles. In one or two years there will be cards that will be capable of that. (hopefully). On top of that, and most importantly there are no 16:10 4K displays now. All that 16:9 crap sucks and is not worth considering.
 

Sancus

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jun 1, 2013
Messages
1,031
No idea why you would want a 16:10 monitor...

For desktop real estate, 2160 vertical pixels is A LOT(I actually have a 4K monitor). 3840x2400 would, of course, be 10% more real estate, but that's really all it is, a small incremental improvement. And it comes with even higher gpu requirements in games, which is a direct loss of framerate while also losing field of view, not gaining! 16:10 is horrible for games, and a minor improvement in real estate.
 

King Icewind

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Jan 17, 2008
Messages
5,442
It hardly matters with a 32" screen and that high of resolution. And it's a trade off, you may gain more FOV in games, but you also lose viewing space vertically when looking at documents, webpages, etc.
 

GoldenTiger

Fully [H]
Joined
Dec 2, 2004
Messages
19,564
It hardly matters with a 32" screen and that high of resolution. And it's a trade off, you may gain more FOV in games, but you also lose viewing space vertically when looking at documents, webpages, etc.
Wrong, you actually gain lots of vertical viewing space. Text is based on lines and pixels per line. For 2d applications you will have more vertical viewing room on a 4k panel as the resolution is much higher vertically compared to a paltry 1200 vertical on a typical 16 x 10 display.
 

l88bastard

2[H]4U
Joined
Oct 25, 2009
Messages
2,733
Wrong, you actually gain lots of vertical viewing space. Text is based on lines and pixels per line. For 2d applications you will have more vertical viewing room on a 4k panel as the resolution is much higher vertically compared to a paltry 1200 vertical on a typical 16 x 10 display.
Exactly this^^^^^^^^

I don't understand why cavemen are so hung up on aspect ratio, because the actual amount of vertical pixels and physical vertical height of the screen are the determining factor for ease of reading documents. A 28" or greater 16:9 4k screen provides plenty of vertical space and pixels to read documents comfortably. A 24" 4k is really too small of a physical screen to read documents unless your sitting three inches from the scree....but a 24" is primarily used for graphics and video applications

I am dying to get my hands on a 28" Dell or 39" Asus 4k monitor because those will make my work productivity soooooo much better. I have done almost every multimonitor setup on the face of the planet and I HATE THEM. I JUST WANT ONE JUMBO 4k display and have been throwing cash and credit cards at my paltry Eizo FG2421 in the hopes that one will come in the mail.
 
Joined
Jun 10, 2013
Messages
8
I recommend staying away from this display or any other 4K display - at least for now. I went through 3 displays before I said screw it.

http://en.community.dell.com/support-forums/peripherals/f/3529/t/19535104.aspx

However, I will say that physically speaking the UP3214Q is quite nice and the OSD is simply excellent. Dell also provides a nice tool called Dell Display Manager, which while buggy for me while in MST mode, was awesome, when it worked correctly, for controlling various features of the display from within Windows.

I'm extremely disappointed after reading that thread. I've been itching for the longest to take the big leap from my aging dell 2407wfp to 4K but I'm a bit hesitant now. I really hope this is just an initial fluke.
 
Last edited:

King Icewind

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Jan 17, 2008
Messages
5,442
Wrong, you actually gain lots of vertical viewing space. Text is based on lines and pixels per line. For 2d applications you will have more vertical viewing room on a 4k panel as the resolution is much higher vertically compared to a paltry 1200 vertical on a typical 16 x 10 display.
You completely misunderstood what I said. Please reread it. I said nothing about a 1920x1200. I was talking about 16:10 compared to 16:9 on a 4k ppanel. You essentially agreed with me by calling me wrong lol.
 

GoldenTiger

Fully [H]
Joined
Dec 2, 2004
Messages
19,564
You completely misunderstood what I said. Please reread it. I said nothing about a 1920x1200. I was talking about 16:10 compared to 16:9 on a 4k ppanel. You essentially agreed with me by calling me wrong lol.
Wrong again, nothing you said was an indication of 4k panel discussion, just aspect ratios. Feel free to continue backpedaling for some weird reason if you want though.
 

King Icewind

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Jan 17, 2008
Messages
5,442
No idea why you would want a 16:10 monitor...

For desktop real estate, 2160 vertical pixels is A LOT(I actually have a 4K monitor). 3840x2400 would, of course, be 10% more real estate, but that's really all it is, a small incremental improvement. And it comes with even higher gpu requirements in games, which is a direct loss of framerate while also losing field of view, not gaining! 16:10 is horrible for games, and a minor improvement in real estate.
It hardly matters with a 32" screen and that high of resolution. And it's a trade off, you may gain more FOV in games, but you also lose viewing space vertically when looking at documents, webpages, etc.
Wrong again, nothing you said was an indication of 4k panel discussion, just aspect ratios. Feel free to continue backpedaling for some weird reason if you want though.
What are you talking about dude? Why am I feeding you again?
 

GoldenTiger

Fully [H]
Joined
Dec 2, 2004
Messages
19,564
What are you talking about dude? Why am I feeding you again?
You are rantng about how 4k presents a lower amount of desktop information because you claim it restricts your vertical field of view when working on documents, which is completely wrong and shows no understanding of display technology whatsoever. Quoting some other random guy's post that wasn't in context to yours doesn't do anything for your argument, and you then quote yourself making the incorrect argument in the first place...... Why? You make little sense to the rest of us.
 
Joined
Sep 14, 2008
Messages
1,622
A 24" 4k is really too small of a physical screen to read documents unless your sitting three inches from the scree....but a 24" is primarily used for graphics and video applications
Wow. Than I must be amazing to read 10 point fonts at X set at 75 DPI (significantly smaller fonts than windows) from 3 feet away of an even smaller (22 inch) 4k display.
 
Joined
Sep 14, 2008
Messages
1,622
I recommend staying away from this display or any other 4K display - at least for now. I went through 3 displays before I said screw it.

http://en.community.dell.com/support-forums/peripherals/f/3529/t/19535104.aspx

However, I will say that physically speaking the UP3214Q is quite nice and the OSD is simply excellent. Dell also provides a nice tool called Dell Display Manager, which while buggy for me while in MST mode, was awesome, when it worked correctly, for controlling various features of the display from within Windows.
That is horrible man. All of my 22 inch 4k displays weren't that bad in the number of defects in them. I would be pissed getting that for $3500 and some of the ones I bougtht were old and used for 4 years before I got them back in 2006-2008.
 

rinaldo00

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Mar 9, 2005
Messages
1,449
You are rantng about how 4k presents a lower amount of desktop information because you claim it restricts your vertical field of view when working on documents, which is completely wrong and shows no understanding of display technology whatsoever. Quoting some other random guy's post that wasn't in context to yours doesn't do anything for your argument, and you then quote yourself making the incorrect argument in the first place...... Why? You make little sense to the rest of us.
He was talking about the difference between 16:9 and 16:10 on a 4K monitor. He posted that other guy's quote because that is the post he was directly responding to.
 

GoldenTiger

Fully [H]
Joined
Dec 2, 2004
Messages
19,564
He was talking about the difference between 16:9 and 16:10 on a 4K monitor. He posted that other guy's quote because that is the post he was directly responding to.
Ohhh, well, in that case I apologize for the misunderstanding on my part.
 

rinaldo00

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Mar 9, 2005
Messages
1,449
I am dying to get my hands on a 28" Dell or 39" Asus 4k monitor because those will make my work productivity soooooo much better. I have done almost every multimonitor setup on the face of the planet and I HATE THEM. I JUST WANT ONE JUMBO 4k display and have been throwing cash and credit cards at my paltry Eizo FG2421 in the hopes that one will come in the mail.
But when you increase resolution you need to increase DPI so you can read text so are you really getting much more stuff on screen?
 

Sancus

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jun 1, 2013
Messages
1,031
But when you increase resolution you need to increase DPI so you can read text so are you really getting much more stuff on screen?
Only if you feel restricted to keeping text the same size as on a ~95 dpi monitor. If you have 20/20 vision, you shouldn't feel any need for this, because text is easy to read with 20/20 vision at half the size it is on regular monitors, if not even smaller.

Many people sit way too far away from their monitors, though, which is a different (but related) problem.
 

rinaldo00

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Mar 9, 2005
Messages
1,449
Only if you feel restricted to keeping text the same size as on a ~95 dpi monitor. If you have 20/20 vision, you shouldn't feel any need for this, because text is easy to read with 20/20 vision at half the size it is on regular monitors, if not even smaller.

Many people sit way too far away from their monitors, though, which is a different (but related) problem.
Well, I have had a 30" monitor for years, I sit about 2 feet away, and there is no way I can read text without increasing the font size or zooming in on my browser. Maybe I need new glasses, I am near sighted.
 

rinaldo00

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Mar 9, 2005
Messages
1,449
Well, I have had a 30" monitor for years, I sit about 2 feet away, and there is no way I can read text without increasing the font size or zooming in on my browser. Maybe I need new glasses, I am near sighted.
Here is a quote from a review of the Asus 4K monitor so it isn't just me
http://hothardware.com/Reviews/ASUS-PQ321-Ultra-HD-4K-315inch-Monitor-Review/?page=6
At 4K, text starts to become hard to read. Most people will find text too densely packed, and depending on the font a particular website uses, you may need to increase the font size to 125 percent or even 150 percent (shown above from left to right is 100 percent, 125 percent, and 150 percent, though the effect won't be the same when viewed on a non-4K monitor. You can, however, get a sense of scale).
 

Sancus

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jun 1, 2013
Messages
1,031
It's a common complaint. I run my Asus PQ321 without scaling though and have no issues, and my vision is 20/30 when I'm normally sitting at my computer, and you'll find people on this forum who manage at even higher dpis without trouble.

24" without scaling correction would definitely be too small for me, and I think I would want 125% at 28", but in general, I have way way more desktop real estate on my 32" 3840x2160 than on any monitor I've previously seen or owned, including 27/30" types.
 

rinaldo00

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Mar 9, 2005
Messages
1,449
It's a common complaint. I run my Asus PQ321 without scaling though and have no issues, and my vision is 20/30 when I'm normally sitting at my computer, and you'll find people on this forum who manage at even higher dpis without trouble.

24" without scaling correction would definitely be too small for me, and I think I would want 125% at 28", but in general, I have way way more desktop real estate on my 32" 3840x2160 than on any monitor I've previously seen or owned, including 27/30" types.
20/30 vision, 3840x2160 resolution, NO SCALING, and you can read text easily? How cloose do you sit?
 

Sancus

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jun 1, 2013
Messages
1,031
20/30 vision, 3840x2160 resolution, NO SCALING, and you can read text easily? How cloose do you sit?
20-26 inches depending on head and seat position... towards the closer end when I'm really intent on working/reading text, and further away when gaming. I took out a measuring tape and actually measured (eye level to top of screen).

Also, I just noticed that I actually have negative zoom set in this forum so text on this forum is actually two zoom steps smaller than the default... oops. So yes, no problems reading standard sized text at 140dpi for me with 20/30 vision. :p
 
Joined
Sep 14, 2008
Messages
1,622
Only if you feel restricted to keeping text the same size as on a ~95 dpi monitor. If you have 20/20 vision, you shouldn't feel any need for this, because text is easy to read with 20/20 vision at half the size it is on regular monitors, if not even smaller.

Many people sit way too far away from their monitors, though, which is a different (but related) problem.
Agreed. I wouldn't be upping font sizes from as small as what is renderable with any kind of quality until we have 24 inch 8k displays.
 
Joined
Sep 14, 2008
Messages
1,622
20-26 inches depending on head and seat position... towards the closer end when I'm really intent on working/reading text, and further away when gaming. I took out a measuring tape and actually measured (eye level to top of screen).

Also, I just noticed that I actually have negative zoom set in this forum so text on this forum is actually two zoom steps smaller than the default... oops. So yes, no problems reading standard sized text at 140dpi for me with 20/30 vision. :p
I had lasik (going to get a touch-up soon) but I have about 1 diopter of astigmatism even after lasik which nets me about 20/30 vision without glasses ( usually wear glasses to correct the astigmatism until I get a touch-up).

Anyway at 20/30 I can still work with 75 DPI X (smaller fonts than 96 DPI windows) and 10 point fonts at 3840x2400 but that is on a 22 inch monitor from about 2-2.25 feet away. and because I am 20/30-ish with the astigmatism it isn't super clear and can sometimes be a little hard to make out but with correction I have absolutely 0 problems up to 3 feet away.


I wonder if the issue is really that people can't read it and its really a problem (I really don't think my vision is THAT fr superior than a lot of people) or is it people are just accustomed to larger text?

The reason I wonder is pretty much everyone in my family (sister and father) use 4k displays. My dad was starting to have issues with his 22 inch 4k due to even with reading glasses the focal point is getting smaller and smaller and finally switched to 4k 39 inch seiki's recently (He is 55 years old) but we have all been using high resolution displays for a lot of years.

In 1997 iish (when I was 12) I was running 1600x1200 on a 17 inch CRT. By the time I was 15 (2000) I was doing 2560x1920 on a 22 inch CRT (@54 Hz until later graphics cards bumped the ramdac from 350 -> 400 Mhz which then I was able to do 63 Hz).

In 2006 got my first LCD which was the 30 inch dell 3007WFP. The clarity/size improvement was apprecaited. Until then all LCD's were so much lower resolution than my CRT that I could just not switch. Very shotly after (a few months) I got my first 22 inch 4k display and have pretty much been using 1440p/1600p or 4k displays since then.
 
D

Deleted member 222712

Guest
I had lasik (going to get a touch-up soon) but I have about 1 diopter of astigmatism even after lasik which nets me about 20/30 vision without glasses ( usually wear glasses to correct the astigmatism until I get a touch-up).

Anyway at 20/30 I can still work with 75 DPI X (smaller fonts than 96 DPI windows) and 10 point fonts at 3840x2400 but that is on a 22 inch monitor from about 2-2.25 feet away. and because I am 20/30-ish with the astigmatism it isn't super clear and can sometimes be a little hard to make out but with correction I have absolutely 0 problems up to 3 feet away.


I wonder if the issue is really that people can't read it and its really a problem (I really don't think my vision is THAT fr superior than a lot of people) or is it people are just accustomed to larger text?

The reason I wonder is pretty much everyone in my family (sister and father) use 4k displays. My dad was starting to have issues with his 22 inch 4k due to even with reading glasses the focal point is getting smaller and smaller and finally switched to 4k 39 inch seiki's recently (He is 55 years old) but we have all been using high resolution displays for a lot of years.

In 1997 iish (when I was 12) I was running 1600x1200 on a 17 inch CRT. By the time I was 15 (2000) I was doing 2560x1920 on a 22 inch CRT (@54 Hz until later graphics cards bumped the ramdac from 350 -> 400 Mhz which then I was able to do 63 Hz).

In 2006 got my first LCD which was the 30 inch dell 3007WFP. The clarity/size improvement was apprecaited. Until then all LCD's were so much lower resolution than my CRT that I could just not switch. Very shotly after (a few months) I got my first 22 inch 4k display and have pretty much been using 1440p/1600p or 4k displays since then.
You mean you had a 22" inch 4k display in 2006? How's that even possible? How much did it cost?
 

bloodz0r

n00b
Joined
Jan 2, 2008
Messages
21
random question. can radiologist benefit from 4k display vs. 2k display reading chest x-ray.
 
Joined
Sep 14, 2008
Messages
1,622
IBM T220 has a resolution of 3840x2400 in the early 2000.
The first few I had were the Cheaper/easier to get single-link DVI only (via 4 links) Viewsonic VP 2290b variant but later I got the T221 that will run off 2x dual link DVI for the full refresh rate.

The vp2290b's all ran me around $1000 or a bit less. I got the T221 9503-DGP from Japan for about $400 shipped.
 

Sancus

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jun 1, 2013
Messages
1,031
Those were/are pretty cool monitors but the refresh rates are lower and (from what I've heard anyway, I don't own one) the tiling is not as rock solid indistinguishable(when operating correctly) from a non-tiled display as this year's 4k releases. Unsurprisingly, I mean, they came out many years ago. It's pretty unfortunate that they didn't push forward with that technology, but 4K is a lot harder sell for the (even pro-) consumer market with GPUs that old too, I suppose.
 

IdiotInCharge

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jun 13, 2003
Messages
14,489
I recommend staying away from this display or any other 4K display - at least for now. I went through 3 displays before I said screw it.
We've been seeing reviews of the Sharp panel for months- after the first one we knew what to expect.

Not sure about the 24"- that really is too small- but the 28" is IPS and might actually be decent.
 

Psychor

Limp Gawd
Joined
Dec 22, 2007
Messages
388
As some may know I went through three new Dell 4K (UP3214Q) displays. The number of pixel defects just didn’t sit well with me considering the cost of the display. I also had a stand issue with one of the three displays. Eventually I had a full refund issued.

This week a Dell VP contacted me directly to let me know that they would be sending me a brand new Dell 4K display, which I was told was specifically inspected for defects, for me to keep at no charge.

I picked it up today. Normally they're not double boxed. This one looks like it was send directly from China to Dell at Texas and then to me.



I have to give props to Dell - well done!
 
Top