[HN Gopher] Dell's new UltraSharp monitor is a 6K powerhouse for...
___________________________________________________________________
Dell's new UltraSharp monitor is a 6K powerhouse for pros
Author : zdw
Score : 42 points
Date : 2023-01-03 20:45 UTC (2 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (arstechnica.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (arstechnica.com)
| post_break wrote:
| 60hz just isn't enough for me. Not sure if it's a bandwidth issue
| or panel issue.
| MBCook wrote:
| At 6k it's probably bandwidth. That's (thought) to be the
| reason on the Pro Display XDR for its 60hz limit.
|
| At least without display stream compression.
| fotta wrote:
| > You'll also be able to connect to the U3224KB via Mini
| DisplayPort 2.1
|
| Interesting tidbit. DP 2.0+ allows for much higher resolutions
| without needing DSC. The Pro Display XDR for example uses DP 1.4
| with DSC to drive the 6k resolution.
| ComputerGuru wrote:
| I was hopeful for all of about two seconds until I saw the aspect
| ratio: as I feared, it's a 16:9 display.
|
| At that size, a 16:9 display is just not very functional. It's
| just too wide and not tall enough. You _will_ be constrained by
| the vertical height (since you need to use dpi scaling) and the
| extra width will, by and large, be wasted. Depending on your
| configured DPI, notifications or other activity to the side of
| the screen is effectively outside your active vision, and you 'll
| miss things that happen there.
|
| I'm still holding on to my ZR30w for dear life, and that's only a
| 16:10.
| [deleted]
| rektide wrote:
| I had a similar first reaction. My main monitor is 28" 4k 16:9
| and more vertical sounds nice.
|
| This monitor is 6144x3456, which is 1.6x more pixels in each
| direction (2.56x total pixels), and physically a bit bigger. So
| I feel like I'd get the extra real estate I want. Heck, I might
| be comfortable even adding some more inches to the side, making
| it more widescreen!
|
| However I really don't want a 60Hz monitor. Everything is much
| smoother at even 90Hz. That's my dealbreaker.
| SketchySeaBeast wrote:
| In that case would it be better as a 9:16 screen?
| mixmastamyk wrote:
| Not really. I have this and it is too tall (gotta look up and
| down) and too skinny (bit too wide for one window across, too
| skinny for two tiled). Preferred my old 1600x1200 4:3 in
| portrait mode, though I won't go back to < 200dpi.
| BoorishBears wrote:
| I completely disagree with this.
|
| My XDR is too _tall_ if anything, definitely not too short. I
| can 't have the entire thing aligned with my eyes: I end up
| either having to look down a little, or up.
|
| > You will be constrained by the vertical height (since you
| need to use dpi scaling)
|
| I run the XDR at a very comfortable scaled resolution of
| 3008x1692 and text looks absolutely flawless. Compare that to
| your 30" 2560 x 1600 native screen and you can see it's hardly
| a difference.
| user_7832 wrote:
| I wish there were good squarish displays. The best/closest one
| is the Huawei Mateview at 3:2 (3k*2k resolution IIRC), or the
| Microsoft studio computer (4.5k*3k, also 3:2). But the mateview
| is 500EUR+, while decent 4K monitors are available for
| significantly less. I wish 3:2 and 16:10 took off properly -
| MacBooks have been doing the latter for forever, yet no one
| copies that good part :(
|
| (PS I had a comment earlier here on HN on diying a monitor, let
| me know if anyone wants more info.)
| TacticalCoder wrote:
| Your mileage may vary. I'm using a 38" screen (21:9) daily
| since four years and I wouldn't want it any other way. Except
| maybe a single 49" monitor (which does 32:9 I think).
| zokier wrote:
| Its <3% less tall than your ZR30w (40.39cm vs 39.23cm) and has
| 8% more vertical desktop at 2x scaling (3456/2=1728 vs 1600).
|
| Does the extra 2 inches of width really bother you that much?
| ComputerGuru wrote:
| Yes. Like I lamented above, the ZR30w is already borderline.
| I miss things already. I "upgraded" to a Dell 32" UltraSharp
| then want back to the ZR30w (well after I could return the
| Dell) as it was that much worse.
| cwkoss wrote:
| This article is just an ad
| [deleted]
| nickthegreek wrote:
| Ads normally do not contain these type of nuggets:
|
| >However, the company hasn't provided any color accuracy claims
| for the monitor yet, and that will be critical for many
| creatives.
|
| >But while IPS Black contrast is impressive for IPS, there are
| prosumer monitors delivering even greater contrast levels.
|
| >One potential disadvantage: HDR >When in HDR mode, the
| U3224KB's max brightness increases a tick to 600 nits, as per
| VESA DisplayHDR certification. That's a bit dim for creative
| professionals like video editors, who will likely need
| DisplayHDR 1000 and beyond for effective performance.
|
| >both monitors are still expected to be subject to the flaws of
| LCD panels that OLED monitors avoid, such as the potential for
| blooming around light areas on dark content.
| nazgulnarsil wrote:
| I don't get it, dell already sells an 8k display for much less
| than the apple
| wmf wrote:
| That monitor has wrong DPI.
| fotta wrote:
| I'm very interested in this. I've been looking at the XDR for a
| high-DPI, >27" display but can't bring myself to fork over $5k
| for it. Hopefully this is significantly cheaper.
| sneak wrote:
| I'm excited for this, because the PC world has been too low dpi
| for too long.
|
| I hope more displays incorporate PD and networking.
|
| None of the reviews mention the speed of the network interface on
| this, however. (Fairly safe to assume it's only 10/100/1000 but
| it would be nice to see 2.5G on a $2000+ display designed for
| pros and connecting with thunderbolt.)
| fotta wrote:
| Looks like it has 10Gbps USB so worst case I think you can get
| a 2.5Gbps adapter
| sneak wrote:
| Oh wow, I had no idea that these are only $30 now. Awesome!
| axus wrote:
| I contrast this with the article I read today about a 14 year-old
| Dell monitor: https://www.digitaltrends.com/computing/why-im-
| still-using-1... (also 16:10)
| tannhaeuser wrote:
| Used a 27" monitor years ago, but it's simply too large for
| practical work for me, let alone 32" or more. LG's Apple-
| exclusive UltraFine 23" 4k monitor, OTOH, is a perfect companion
| next to the built-in monitor of a MBP in terms of dot pitch and
| glare.
| symlinkk wrote:
| 32" is just too big. 27" 5K is the sweet spot. As usual Apple is
| the only company to execute on this successfully.
| nickpp wrote:
| As I aged, 32" became my sweet spot replacing 27". Same
| resolution - 4K.
| turtlebits wrote:
| 32" 4k ppi is too low IMO. I'm glad someone is trying to
| compete with the Apple 6k XDR. I'm just afraid this also
| might be out of my price range.
| FpUser wrote:
| I think 31.5" is too small for this resolution. I have for
| example 4K at 32" and pixel density is sort of borderline optimal
| to me at 100% font scaling. For programming I want to have more
| windows and text on single screen, not smaller pixels for which I
| have to increase scaling proportionally. This particular Dell
| display in this case has to have something like 50" which is way
| too big when sitting in front of it.
|
| I can imagine it can be useful for some image / video related
| professional production or for font perfectionists. Other than
| that I do not think it is very practical.
| purerandomness wrote:
| > I want to have more windows and text on single screen
|
| > not smaller pixels for which I have to increase scaling
| proportionally
|
| I'll never understand this argument. You want to place windows
| and text on a single screen so that it's comfortable to read,
| not smaller, and not bigger.
|
| Then, when you have the perfect reading font size for your
| viewing distance, there's no imaginable scenario where you
| would want a _lower_ resolution. If you have a comfortable
| physical font size, the same font size at a higher resolution
| will _always_ be better than at a lower resolution.
|
| Especially if you don't have perfect vision.
| wmf wrote:
| _the same font size at a higher resolution will always be
| better than at a lower resolution_
|
| It could be worse due to fractional scaling. Some people are
| more sensitive to it than others.
| Matthias247 wrote:
| it's actually the perfect resolution for this size - since it
| finally gets you 2x scaling with "previously native" font
| sizes.
|
| we started with around 100dpi when 1920x1200 screens where
| trendy. Font and UI sizes on those were pretty good - but the
| screens lacked real estate (small size) and clarity (low DPI).
|
| 27" 1440p and then 4k screens improved on that, but they were
| never good enough to go for 2x scaling - which will provide
| both more real estate and more clarity. One had to pick either
| unnaturally tiny fonts or fractional scaling which messed up
| some UI sizes.
|
| With 5k 27" and 6k 32" screens the compromises should be gone.
| It's a natural 2x (retina) display, just like Apple had them on
| notebooks for lots of years.
| andix wrote:
| Are you using windows? Because on windows you can scale in 25%
| steps and everything still looks crisp. Linux and macOS don't
| have this feature (more or less only 100%, 200%, and so on).
|
| I really like high DPI monitors for programming, text looks
| just so much better and is easier to read (less tiring for the
| eyes).
| FpUser wrote:
| Yes, Windows. I do not want to scale at all. Scaling reduces
| the amount of text on screen. Completely contrary to what I
| want. And for my imperfect eyes 4K at 31" is totally optimal,
| sharp and easy to read. I would not spend a single penny to
| make something look "Better" when it is already perfect for
| me
| andix wrote:
| Okay, I use my screen at arms length, and I can't read the
| text if it is set to 100%. I'm in my 30s and the eyesight
| is good, but it seems to be already a bit less than in my
| early 20s, maybe that's the issue.
| BoorishBears wrote:
| This isn't true. OSX has handled fractional scaling better
| than Windows since it's been a thing, and my XDR is running
| at 3008 x 1692
| andix wrote:
| As far as I know macOS (like Linux) renders always in 100%
| increments and then scales it down. So if you're running a
| 4K in 125% it needs to render everything in 8K and scale it
| down. Which can require a lot of GPU power.
|
| There are way less scaling issues because of that though.
| Windows only does scaling well since Windows 11, before it
| was a mess, and before windows 10 it was practically
| unusable.
| BoorishBears wrote:
| I've used the "Using a scaled resolution may affect
| performance" branded sizes (which are fractional) just
| fine in the past
|
| But the whole point of the approach is to support
| monitors like this one flawlessly compared to most
| alternatives. 3008 x 1692 (1/2 6k) is perfect for a 32"
| 6k screen
| einpoklum wrote:
| This title sounds like advertising.
|
| Anyway, personal story: For years I worked on a 24" monitor at
| home. Then, at some point, I decided I too want to be a "pro" or
| whatever, and bought me a Dell UltraSharp 27" monitor. It looked
| very impressive when I turned it on... but within a couple of
| weeks, I noticed I was getting this sensation of wanting to turn
| away from the screen, of not wanting to be at my computer. I
| gradually realized that, well, it was the monitor; or rather the
| monitor + the distance: I could just not tolerate my eyes having
| to focus on high-intensity lit items at the angles the monitor
| was showing me. I went back to a 24-incher, and am happy as a
| clam. No multiple monitors for me, either: Dizziness and
| headaches.
|
| I know this might not be everyone's experience, and many people
| have no trouble with large/multiple monitors, but - be warned,
| you might be one of those we do; or, you might develop this
| sensitivity over the years.
| [deleted]
| AdrianB1 wrote:
| I am using 2 monitors for over 20 years (since GeForce 2 MX, my
| first video card with 2 outputs) and I had no problems; at
| first it was 19" CRT, then dual 21", for the past 9 years dual
| 24". I had a colleague (now retired) that was using 6 21"
| monitors on a special stand in a 3x2 arrangement, he loved it.
| Different people have different preferences and tolerances.
| locusofself wrote:
| I converted my 27" 5k iMac into a monitor using a conversion
| board from eBay.
|
| I use a macbook air for personal stuff, and a windows laptop for
| work (Microsoft). So it's great having a 5k monitor for both of
| my laptops!
|
| It looks great, but honestly wasn't really worth the effort and
| risk of damaging everything. I retrospect I'd have sold the iMac
| and bought the Studio Display I think.
| kbumsik wrote:
| Very interesting. I have been using 4k 27" monitor but this makes
| me temping to switch to 32".
|
| But I don't like that ugly and huge webcam. I would use my own
| webcam on top of it.
|
| > via Mini DisplayPort 2.1
|
| Why Mini Displayport? I haven't heard of Mini DP for years.
| andix wrote:
| Mini-DP is still used for a lot of professional graphic cards
| that have a lot of outputs, because you can't fit 4 or 8
| regular sized DPs on a normal PCIe card bezel, especially if it
| is just half size. (https://www.techpowerup.com/review/nvidia-
| rtx-a2000/2.html)
|
| My older Dell monitors have both (mini and regular DP) and ship
| with a mini to regular cable. So you can use it in both
| directions and they don't have to ship two cables.
| xnx wrote:
| Can this really be worth $3,800 with 32" 4K TV's going for ~$200?
| Matthias247 wrote:
| if you want 220dpi, then any TV isn't an option. Even if you
| just want 160dpi, then current 27" 4k screens are your only
| option.
| themodelplumber wrote:
| IPS Black with twice the contrast compared to previous IPS
| models, 35% deeper blacks, probably a lot of the UltraSharp
| line's conveniences thrown in...yeah I can see people wanting
| that.
|
| Reliable reviewers say it makes even average Joe stuff like
| movies and photos look noticeably better. So I want to at least
| try it.
|
| If you are telling us what kind of display you personally don't
| need, I guess that's another thing...
| zokier wrote:
| Where did you get that $3800 number? I'd expect it to be priced
| significantly lower..
| defnotahuman wrote:
| Yes, because TV prices are heavily subsidized by ad systems
| installed directly on the OS and not reflective of the true
| cost of manufacturing. Good monitors still do not have this
| problem.
| FpUser wrote:
| I have couple of big TVs for people to watch movies, play
| games. All hooked up to PC and disconnected from any
| networks. They're essentially dumb monitors. No ads at all.
| symlinkk wrote:
| I don't think they're making $3600 off of showing me ads
| arcturus17 wrote:
| Joke's on them, all I do is code all day, I barely even
| shower and I don't buy anything except licenses for
| JetBrains products and productivity apps.
| nickpp wrote:
| Maybe they're also monitoring what you are watching making
| you part of the greatest Nielsen ratings group of all
| times?! Content producers and advertisers would pay a lot
| for that.
| zuminator wrote:
| Those are not comparable. This has about 2.5x the pixels of a
| comparably sized 4K TV which means lower yields for
| manufacturing, plus it doesn't have the same economy of scale
| of a discounted consumer TV. Also it integrates a stand with
| USB hub, a webcam, far superior color gamut than your $200
| screen and Thunderbolt 4 with PD.
|
| But if the extra pixel density and other features aren't useful
| to you, then no reason not to get the vastly cheaper device.
| yamtaddle wrote:
| Check the color gamut and black levels on the $200 4K TV. You
| won't find anything remotely comparable in the three figures, I
| expect.
| andix wrote:
| Interesting thought. Most tvs have a vesa mount, so you can put
| it on a monitor stand. Are there some major drawbacks I might
| overlook?
| agys wrote:
| I just sent back to the store a 42" Samsung LCD TV for two
| reasons:
|
| 1) It didn't go into sleep and I always had to fiddle with
| the remote to bring back the desktop image after a wake up
| (select source, etc).
|
| 2) The color (LED lighting?) wasn't uniform near the frame
| even if it was a higher end model.
|
| But the 120 Hz frame rate was interesting and the text
| extremely sharp. I kept it around 1 meter from my eyes and I
| liked the extra space. I connected it to an older MacBook Pro
| through an eGPU.
| eYrKEC2 wrote:
| I've used a 43-inch 4k monitor for 4 years. First a Samsung
| and now a TCL. I love it. Some people worry about frame
| latency for high performance gaming, but that's not me. It
| handles my level of PC gaming just fine, in addition to being
| my programming workhorse.
| inductive_magic wrote:
| I just ditched their 32" 4k for their - cheaper - 42" 4k displays
| and haven't looked back since. Finally I get 4K sans dpi scaling.
| 42" is huge, but perfect for hn type work. IDE, terminal,
| browser, mail/chats all on one screen, all readable, no
| compromises.
|
| I'm sure there are people who benefit from 6k on 32", but if
| you're coding and you haven't tried the 42", you may want to do
| it.
| nikanj wrote:
| I've got the 49" ultrawide that clocks in at 5120x1440. Massive
| real estate but 100% UI scale so no weird issues - aside from
| the occasional software that pulls the resolution instead of
| the DPI and then insists on a 200% UI zoom
| xpil wrote:
| I've been using their 42 inch monitor for a couple of years
| now. Before that, I worked on a curved 50 inch Samsung TV but
| it was a bit too large. 42 inches is a sweet spot for me.
|
| 2-monitor setups suck. If I had to go multi, I'd always go with
| an odd number of monitors (so, 3 or 5) to avoid assymetry. With
| 2 monitors, your secondary monitor is going to be placed either
| to the left or to the right of your primary, thus creating
| assymetrical workload on your neck muscles, affecting your
| health long term.
|
| The only exception from this rule is a layout where your
| primary screen sits in front of you, and your secondary is
| placed beside it but _rotated 90 degrees_ (to vertical
| position) and used mostly for placing various toolbars to
| declutter the main one. I tried this setup once and it worked
| ok ish for me. It looks weird but is quite practical once you
| get used to it.
| ak217 wrote:
| I use the LG 43" 4K with a portrait mode 27" as a sidecar, and
| can highly recommend this size. My only complaint is that it's
| not 8K.
| proee wrote:
| Can you share the model of the 42" monitor you're using?
| defnotahuman wrote:
| It's probably the U4320Q, which I use and love as well.
| nordsieck wrote:
| I'm not the person you're replying to, but I've been using a
| 43" TV for 6 months, and it's been great.
|
| I got this one: https://www.amazon.com/dp/B09RRVKN12/
|
| I'm running 1 monitor with MacOS and Rectangle. The vertical
| height is amazing, and there's enough horizontal space for 3
| double wide terminals.
| andix wrote:
| I just switched to the 32" and I like it a lot. I think the
| sharpness of texts and icons are much better on the 150%
| scaling I use it on, mich easier on the eye. Would prefer more
| sharpness though.
|
| Isn't 42" a bit big for a desk monitor? I prefer having a
| second monitor (currently a 25"), is there still enough space
| on the desk for a second monitor?
| nordsieck wrote:
| I run a single 43" monitor. I vastly prefer it over 2
| monitors due to running a tiling window manager. I'm sure
| there are good ones for Linux and Windows, but on MacOS
| Rectangle is where it's at.
|
| But if you really need to have multiple monitors, you'll need
| a pretty big desk to make it work.
| CobaltFire wrote:
| I just picked up one of their 32" 4K's and LOVE it at native
| scaling.
|
| I specifically got their G3223Q (144Hz) and it's awesome. Color
| calibrated it to match my MBP and it's an excellent match (with
| less contrast).
| sumoboy wrote:
| I just pickup a U3223QE last week and can't complain. I
| already have two viewsonic 27" 4k monitors which were side by
| side, now stacked next to the new monitor which I'm liking
| this configuration. If this 6k monitor was available now I
| would be taking the 4k back and buying two of them.
|
| Samsung just announced a 57" 8k monitor which looks pretty
| awesome, $$$.
| FpUser wrote:
| I did exactly the opposite a while ago. I switched from 40" 4K
| to 32" 4K. Too much head movement to see the whole screen or
| inconvenient head angle when looking at the corners / sides.
| 32" at 4K is perfect for me
| raincom wrote:
| In 2001, 17' ViewSonic LCD displays were sold for $999 a piece.
| Even if this 6K monitor sells for $1800, it is worth the price
| for the people who need such a set up. In my case, I am happy
| with my 7 years old 4k P2715Q monitors, which I bought for $480 a
| piece.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2023-01-03 23:02 UTC)