UP3214Q - it has arrived!

Discussion in 'Displays' started by Psychor, Nov 30, 2013.

  1. Psychor

    Psychor Limp Gawd

    Messages:
    388
    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2007
  2. Ashratt

    Ashratt Limp Gawd

    Messages:
    128
    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2013
    did you try 200% resolution scale in Bf4 :p?
     
  3. Psychor

    Psychor Limp Gawd

    Messages:
    388
    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2007
    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.
     
  4. GoldenTiger

    GoldenTiger [H]ard as it Gets

    Messages:
    18,449
    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2004
    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.
     
  5. Psychor

    Psychor Limp Gawd

    Messages:
    388
    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2007
    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.
     
  6. Murzilka

    Murzilka Gawd

    Messages:
    552
    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2011
    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.
     
  7. Sancus

    Sancus Gawd

    Messages:
    816
    Joined:
    Jun 1, 2013
    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.
     
  8. King Icewind

    King Icewind [H]ardness Supreme

    Messages:
    5,441
    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2008
    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.
     
  9. GoldenTiger

    GoldenTiger [H]ard as it Gets

    Messages:
    18,449
    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2004
    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.
     
  10. l88bastard

    l88bastard 2[H]4U

    Messages:
    2,481
    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2009
    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.
     
  11. lowdownshame

    lowdownshame n00b

    Messages:
    8
    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2013

    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: Dec 19, 2013
  12. jbltecnicspro

    jbltecnicspro [H]ardness Supreme

    Messages:
    5,270
    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2006
    I clicked the "customize" link and saw the price... Not for the faint of heart. :D
     
  13. King Icewind

    King Icewind [H]ardness Supreme

    Messages:
    5,441
    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2008
    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.
     
  14. dk again

    dk again n00b

    Messages:
    39
    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2006
    Wow nice monitor.
     
  15. WorldExclusive

    WorldExclusive [H]ardForum Junkie

    Messages:
    10,860
    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2009
  16. GoldenTiger

    GoldenTiger [H]ard as it Gets

    Messages:
    18,449
    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2004
    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.
     
  17. King Icewind

    King Icewind [H]ardness Supreme

    Messages:
    5,441
    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2008
    What are you talking about dude? Why am I feeding you again?
     
  18. GoldenTiger

    GoldenTiger [H]ard as it Gets

    Messages:
    18,449
    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2004
    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.
     
  19. houkouonchi

    houkouonchi RIP

    Messages:
    1,622
    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2008
    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.
     
  20. houkouonchi

    houkouonchi RIP

    Messages:
    1,622
    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2008
    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.
     
  21. rinaldo00

    rinaldo00 [H]ard|Gawd

    Messages:
    1,419
    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2005
    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.
     
  22. GoldenTiger

    GoldenTiger [H]ard as it Gets

    Messages:
    18,449
    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2004
    Ohhh, well, in that case I apologize for the misunderstanding on my part.
     
  23. rinaldo00

    rinaldo00 [H]ard|Gawd

    Messages:
    1,419
    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2005
    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?
     
  24. Sancus

    Sancus Gawd

    Messages:
    816
    Joined:
    Jun 1, 2013
    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.
     
  25. rinaldo00

    rinaldo00 [H]ard|Gawd

    Messages:
    1,419
    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2005
    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.
     
  26. rinaldo00

    rinaldo00 [H]ard|Gawd

    Messages:
    1,419
    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2005
  27. rinaldo00

    rinaldo00 [H]ard|Gawd

    Messages:
    1,419
    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2005
    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).
     
  28. Sancus

    Sancus Gawd

    Messages:
    816
    Joined:
    Jun 1, 2013
    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.
     
  29. rinaldo00

    rinaldo00 [H]ard|Gawd

    Messages:
    1,419
    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2005
    20/30 vision, 3840x2160 resolution, NO SCALING, and you can read text easily? How cloose do you sit?
     
  30. Sancus

    Sancus Gawd

    Messages:
    816
    Joined:
    Jun 1, 2013
    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
     
  31. houkouonchi

    houkouonchi RIP

    Messages:
    1,622
    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2008
    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.
     
  32. houkouonchi

    houkouonchi RIP

    Messages:
    1,622
    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2008
    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.
     
  33. You mean you had a 22" inch 4k display in 2006? How's that even possible? How much did it cost?
     
  34. cnt

    cnt n00b

    Messages:
    8
    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2013
    IBM T220 has a resolution of 3840x2400 in the early 2000.
     
  35. bloodz0r

    bloodz0r n00b

    Messages:
    21
    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2008
    random question. can radiologist benefit from 4k display vs. 2k display reading chest x-ray.
     
  36. houkouonchi

    houkouonchi RIP

    Messages:
    1,622
    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2008
    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.
     
  37. Sancus

    Sancus Gawd

    Messages:
    816
    Joined:
    Jun 1, 2013
    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.
     
  38. IdiotInCharge

    IdiotInCharge [H]ardForum Junkie

    Messages:
    9,669
    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2003
    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.
     
  39. Psychor

    Psychor Limp Gawd

    Messages:
    388
    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2007
    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.

    [​IMG]

    I have to give props to Dell - well done!
     
  40. houkouonchi

    houkouonchi RIP

    Messages:
    1,622
    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2008
    Wow that is nice. Is it a 24 inch or one of the 3k+ 32 inch ones?