[HN Gopher] Dell UltraSharp 52 Thunderbolt Hub Monitor
___________________________________________________________________
Dell UltraSharp 52 Thunderbolt Hub Monitor
Author : cebert
Score : 267 points
Date : 2026-01-16 17:14 UTC (1 days ago)
(HTM) web link (www.dell.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.dell.com)
| piinbinary wrote:
| I have a 34" ultrawide and it is huge. I can't imagine a 52" -
| the edges would be so far away that it must be hard to read text
| without physically moving left/right
| __mharrison__ wrote:
| I have a 42" 4k TV that I use as a monitor (in gaming mode).
| Not sure I would want anything shorter than that. (Of course, I
| have an eye issue, so the side-to-side is even more pronounced
| for me.
| rahimnathwani wrote:
| I used to use a 40" 4k TV.
|
| Now I use a 38" ultrawide, which is roughly the same width (in
| pixels and in inches) but doesn't require my head to move
| up/down as much.
|
| I could imagine using a 52" ultrawide if it were placed further
| away from me (i.e. deeper desk). The extra pixels would make it
| effectively a retina display.
| Marsymars wrote:
| 52" at that aspect ratio isn't just wide, it's also >50% taller
| than a 34" ultrawide.
|
| It's akin to a 55" TV - basically the same width, but only 70%
| of the height.
| simooooo wrote:
| I have a 57" ultra wide and it absolutely requires you to look
| around
| reppap wrote:
| I think you would have to sit further back, almost tv watching
| distance.
| gofreddygo wrote:
| And that would strain your eyes or force a bigger font. At
| that point, you'd be wondering, like me, on why I spent $$ to
| buy a bigger screen in the first place.
|
| I got an open box lenovo 24 inch QHD monitor for years and it
| just works solid across windows, mac and various docking
| stations. I could imagine upgrading to a 27 or 30 inch but
| beyond that is just too much IMO.
|
| Maybe taller, more square could be of more use than wider.
| bityard wrote:
| Do you... usually read content in a full-screen window on that
| thing?
|
| I only have a 27" monitor and sit about 2.5 feet away from it
| and I move my head _slightly_ to focus on different windows.
| But that's the reason I have a larger monitor, so I can have a
| bunch of normal-sized windows open at once.
| hanspeter wrote:
| Their point may be about viewing distance.
|
| If the edges of the screen are further from your eyes than
| the center, the content and text doesn't appear at the same
| size. If you wear glasses, the edges might even fall out of
| focus unless you physically move closer.
| piinbinary wrote:
| I like having three columns of code open in my editor, but
| the left edge of the leftmost column (since code is left-
| justified) gets pretty far away from my face. Or I need
| stronger glasses, one of the two.
| KaiserPro wrote:
| I think it depends on vision. I have a single 27" 4k monitor
| with vscode set to about 80% zoom.
|
| But I'm getting older, so I might have to make it a big
| bigger soon.
| saltcured wrote:
| Since well before the pandemic, I've have dual 28" 4K screens
| on my desk. When ordering them, I liked the fact that they had
| the same pixel pitch as my 14" 2K laptop screen. One monitor
| was like a borderless 2x2 grid of those laptop screens.
|
| I found myself repositioning things so that one is in front of
| the keyboard as a primary screen and the other is further off
| to the side as a secondary dumping ground. I found myself
| neglecting the second display most of the time so it was just a
| blank background. Eventually, I noticed I wasn't even using the
| entire primary screen. I favored a sector of it and pushed some
| windows off to the edges.
|
| Ironically, with work from home, I've started roaming around
| the house with the laptop instead of staying at my desk. So I'm
| mostly back to working in a 14" screen with virtual desktops,
| like I was 20 years ago. I am glad that laptops are starting to
| have 16:10 again after the long drought of HDTV-derived
| screens.
| ardit33 wrote:
| I have a 39" (almost 40") LG ultrawide, and it is the perfect
| size. Can't see how a larger monitor would fit a normal desk...
|
| BUT.... this is perfect for folks that want to use one monitor
| for both work, and as/for entertainment /just normal tv watching
| in a living room.
| stalfosknight wrote:
| Abysmally low pixel density. :(
| BlaDeKke wrote:
| No scaling required? Great!
| tonyedgecombe wrote:
| Spot the Linux user ;)
| silon42 wrote:
| Yes, me too... also don't need GPU card, CPU integrated
| will do fine (at 120Hz). (I have 32" 1440p ... 1600p would
| be better, but that's it).
| adrian_b wrote:
| More accurately, you have spotted not a Linux user in
| general, but a user of certain Linux distributions, which
| in my opinion have inadequate display configuration
| settings.
|
| I am also using only Linux on all my desktops and laptops,
| and I have never used any display with a resolution less
| than 4k, for at least the last 12 or 13 years.
|
| Despite of that, I have never encountered any problems with
| "scaling", because in Linux I have never used any kind of
| "scaling" (unlike in Windows, which has a font "scaling").
|
| In the kind of Linux that I have been using, I only set an
| appropriate dots-per-inch value for the monitor, which
| means that there is no "scaling", which would reduce
| graphic quality, but all programs render the fonts and
| other graphic elements at an appropriate size and using in
| the right way the display resolution.
|
| I configure dots-per-inch values that do not match the
| actual dpi values of the monitors, but values that ensure
| that the on-screen size is slightly larger than the on-
| paper size, because I stay at a greater distance from the
| monitor than I would keep a paper or a book in my hand
| (i.e. I set higher dpi values than the real ones, so that
| any rendering program will believe that the screen is
| smaller than in reality, so it will render e.g. a 12 point
| font at a slightly bigger size than 12 points and e.g. an
| A4 page will be bigger on screen than an A4 sheet of paper;
| for instance I use 216 dpi for a 27 inch 4k Dell UltraSharp
| monitor).
| redeeman wrote:
| plasma 6 for example has really good fractional scaling,
| i'd argue it works nicer than windows, where some old apps
| do not get rendered in higher resolution, some apps do not
| properly take advantage of it.
| RichardCA wrote:
| Emacs user. And the fonts I use have to work with anti-
| aliasing turned off.
|
| Right now I'm using a Dell/Alienware AW3225DM and it's
| perfect for my needs (work + occasional gaming, and most of
| my gaming is retro). Best Buy was discounting these during
| the Xmas season.
|
| I do not want anything higher than 2560x1440 because it
| makes my fonts look tiny, or I have to turn anti-aliasing
| on. Neither option is OK with me.
| adrian_b wrote:
| Any fonts look much better on a monitor with a higher
| resolution and the size of the fonts must not vary with
| the resolution of the monitor. A 4k monitor always
| provides more legible text than an 2560x1440 monitor.
|
| The size of the fonts used by your documents is specified
| in typographic points, e.g. 12 points or 14 points. This
| corresponds to a fixed size on the screen, regardless of
| the screen resolution. The increased resolution only
| makes the letters more beautiful, not smaller.
|
| If your fonts become smaller on a monitor with a higher
| resolution, then you are holding it in the wrong way,
| i.e. your operating system is badly configured and it
| does not know the correct dots-per-inch value for your
| monitor, so it uses a DPI value that corresponds to the
| obsolete VGA monitors.
|
| A decent operating system should configure automatically
| the right DPI, because the monitor provides this value to
| the GPU when it is initialized.
|
| Despite this, for some weird reason many operating
| systems do not use the DPI value read from the monitor to
| configure automatically the graphics interface, so it
| must still be configured manually by the user. Even worse
| is that the corresponding setting is frequently well
| hidden, so it is difficult to discover.
|
| In any case, these endless discussions about fonts being
| to small on high-resolution monitors have been caused
| only by some incompetent morons who for inexplicable
| reasons have been in charge of the display settings of
| the popular operating systems. The user may have reasons
| to override the true DPI value of the monitor, but by
| default the OS should have always used the value provided
| by the monitor EDID, and then you would have never seen
| any change in font sizes when substituting monitors with
| different resolutions (except when even more incompetent
| Web designers specify some sizes in pixels instead of
| length units; allowing pixels besides length units for
| the sizes of graphic elements has been a huge mistake,
| but when this was done several decades ago, most
| computers did not have GPUs yet, so there were concerns
| about the rasterization speed in software).
| RichardCA wrote:
| I used to work in my mom and dad's print shop when I was
| a kid. 6 picas in an inch, 12 points in a pica, and by
| the time you go home your hands smell like hypo. That
| should give you an idea of how old I am.
|
| For a kid I was passably good at setting up headlines for
| paste-up, but I never had to be the one who used an
| X-Acto Knife.
|
| I'll die on the hill where 2K is better than 4K if your
| livelihood depends on having to stare at a screen at a
| distance of 60cm for upwards of 10 hours a day, longer
| sometimes.
|
| I also think you missed my point about about the anti-
| aliasing. For various reasons I still use Windows and
| some of my favorite monospace fonts only exist in the the
| .FON format. I can emulate the X-Windows experience of
| using the misc-fixed-medium family and it works just fine
| for my needs.
|
| I've tried most of the fonts here, but none of them
| really do it for me: https://www.nerdfonts.com/font-
| downloads
|
| But if you want to keep going on with the pedantry, have
| at it. Were you around in the Usenet days?
| adrian_b wrote:
| I agree that on monitors with insufficient resolution
| ancient bitmap fonts can be sharper, because they are
| free of artifacts caused by mismatch between the shape of
| the letters and the pixel grid.
|
| Your problem is precisely that you use monitors with a
| too low resolution. On monitors with a high enough
| resolution, you approach the quality of printed paper and
| you can use monospace fonts that are more beautiful than
| any bitmap fonts, without being able to perceive the
| pixels.
|
| The only problem is that big monitors also need a bigger
| resolution and the combination of big size with big
| resolution can be expensive.
|
| While for a size of 27" or 32" the 4k monitors can be
| quite cheap, I believe that at such sizes a 5k resolution
| is the minimum for good text rendering, and 5k monitors
| remain expensive.
| quotemstr wrote:
| In the limit, as pixel density increases, regular,
| unhinted floating-point-x text looks just like it would
| on a printed page. How can you get better than that? With
| enough resolution, you free yourself from all the hacks
| we've devised to make text on a computer halfway
| tolerable. Shouldn't doing so be the goal?
|
| If you want that blocky-font retro look, you can use
| vector art to make squares.
| Marsymars wrote:
| Eh, it's about the same as a 4K display at 33".
| masklinn wrote:
| Which is a poor pixel density.
| LtdJorge wrote:
| If compared to a smartphone, maybe.
| masklinn wrote:
| Compared to a smartphone it's not just poor it's complete
| dreck. Smarphones are in the 400s.
| swiftcoder wrote:
| Do you hold your 32" monitor the same distance from your
| face as you hold your smartphone?
| LtdJorge wrote:
| Exactly, that's the point
| masklinn wrote:
| That's not a point it's nonsense thought termination.
|
| There's a gulf between 130 dpi and 460 dpi, and in that
| gulf there are densities which stop being poor at monitor
| viewing distances.
|
| That smartphone densities are excessive for that purpose
| does not make middling standard densities good.
| LtdJorge wrote:
| I have an LG OLED C3 as a monitor, 42". I may be able to
| distinguish separate pixels if looking at a '.' or
| something like that (a stuck pixel happened for a few
| weeks, which I could notice on a white background).
|
| But the density is definitely enough for text for the
| distance required for such a screen size. At least when
| using grayscale AA, because OLED subpixel...
| masklinn wrote:
| I fail to see how that is relevant as I neither
| introduced nor advocated for smartphone pixel density?
| swiftcoder wrote:
| Then what was the intent of your comment? There's no
| point to making a 400dpi 32" display (even if that were
| remotely physically possible).
| masklinn wrote:
| > Then what was the intent of your comment?
|
| Pointing out to the other guy that their reply made no
| sense?
|
| > There's no point to making a 400dpi 32" display
|
| Thank you captain obvious.
|
| You do know that there are densities between 130 and 400+
| though, right?
| adrian_b wrote:
| No, it is a poor pixel density when compared with a
| printed book, which should be the standard for judging
| any kind of display used for text.
|
| At the sizes of 27" or 32", which are comfortable for
| working with a computer, 5k is the minimum resolution
| that is not too bad when compared with a book or with the
| acuity of typical human vision.
|
| For a bigger monitor, a 4k resolution is perfectly fine
| for watching movies or for playing games, but it is not
| acceptable for working with text.
| bsimpson wrote:
| 4k@27" is borderline too coarse. 5k@27" is preferred.
| plorkyeran wrote:
| 4k at 33" is awful too. 5k text is visibly better than 4k at
| 27".
| Marsymars wrote:
| I mean, sure, but you're basically saying "anything other
| than the absolute top-end displays are absolutely awful".
| 133 PPI is going to be higher pixel density than >99% of
| desktop monitors that people are actually using.
|
| e.g. The Steam hardware survey only goes down to 0.23%
| usage, and doesn't have any >4K resolution listed.
| plorkyeran wrote:
| It's a $3000 monitor, so yeah, other top end monitors are
| what I'm going to compare it to.
| throw0101d wrote:
| The pixels per inch (ppi) density is 129.
|
| Some other specs: refresh rate, 120Hz; brightness, 400 cd/m2.
| tshaddox wrote:
| That's decent pixel density considering the size of the
| monitor. A 32" 4K monitor has slightly higher PPI at around
| 138.
| jmarcher wrote:
| I have a 40in 5k (32in 4k, but wider). IMHO, 138ppi is the
| bare minimum, but it really depends on a person's eyesight
| and preferences.
|
| I would love a large-ish ultra-wide with > 160ppi. One day,
| maybe, that being said, by that time those things will exist
| and be reasonably priced, my eyes might not be able to
| appreciate the difference.
| leptons wrote:
| I'm using three 4k 32" screens arranged vertically, for
| 6480 x 3840 desktop size.
|
| The only real monitor upgrade I'm willing to entertain is a
| ~50" 8k curved screen (basically a curved TV-sized screen),
| which has not been made yet AFAIK. I'm not into
| "ultrawide", for me it has to be "ultrawide" and
| "ultratall". I want all that screen real estate in high
| PPI.
|
| I tried test-driving a 50" 4k TV for a week and the
| flatness of it was not what I wanted, it has to be a curved
| screen for workstation use.
| jmarcher wrote:
| 100% I used to have a 43-inch 4K "monitor" (16:9). The
| lack of curvature meant that at the sides of the screen,
| there was noticeable color shifting due to variations in
| viewing angle. That's with an IPS panel.
|
| Your dream is probably a ~50in 8K TV (with RGB pattern if
| you are on macOS), but curved. I don't know if that will
| ever exist.
|
| Personally, I found that with a bigger 16:9, I would not
| use the top and bottom of the screen. When I "downgraded"
| to a 40in ultra-wide, there was not much difference in
| the space I was using.
| leptons wrote:
| I use all of the screen, top, bottom, everything. I need
| the space. An ultra-wide just will not do for me, or I
| would have bought one already.
| tonyedgecombe wrote:
| It's a fraction of what most Apple customers are used to.
| Hamuko wrote:
| I'm an Apple customer and I'm used to 109 PPI. I imagine
| it's not that rare for Apple customers to buy monitors not
| made by Apple.
| Octoth0rpe wrote:
| In terms of pixel count it's between Apple's 5k and 6k
| monitors, and its pricing is between the two. It's also far
| lower pixel density. So, not really.
| switchbak wrote:
| The freakin stand alone is $1300 CAD.
|
| What planet are those people on? That's Gucci bag
| territory. They can take their res and shove it, that's
| almost NINE GRAND (granted, Canadian pesos) for a freakin
| display! Who is this for, just Pixar employees?
| kevin_thibedeau wrote:
| It's a halo status symbol for price insensitive people.
| Lamborghini makes compromised overpriced vehicles but
| they have a market.
| 15155 wrote:
| And how much do you think the Humanscale mount costs that
| you would otherwise use? The Pro Display XDR is too heavy
| for a $30 Amazon Basics mounting arm or anything
| similarly cheap.
| switchbak wrote:
| If you're suggesting the only way to mount a display of
| that weight drives you into that price territory, that's
| just ridiculous.
|
| There's huge monitors from other companies that come with
| mounts that handle more weight than that. Granted, it's
| not some art deco CNC monstrosity.
|
| I think the sibling comment nailed it: this is just a
| status symbol.
| Hamuko wrote:
| The Pro Display XDR is 7.48 kg and a $199 Ergotron LX Pro
| is rated up to 10 kg, so that's a fifth of the Apple
| stand's price.
|
| And looking at Amazon.de listings, it's definitely
| possible to buy a cheap arm that's good for 7.5 kg. A
| "suptek Monitor Mount" is good for 10 kg according to the
| listing: https://www.amazon.de/dp/B0833NQ8CR
| throw0101c wrote:
| > _The freakin stand alone is $1300 CAD._
|
| We're not just talking about Apple's stand-alone display,
| but even their laptops are high-ppi. 13" M4 Apple Air:
|
| > _13.6-inch (diagonal) LED-backlit display with IPS
| technology;2 2560-by-1664 native resolution at 224 pixels
| per inch_
|
| * https://www.apple.com/ca/macbook-air/specs/
| 2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote:
| Nice. I have the predecessor 40" U4025QW and it's outstanding.
| bhhaskin wrote:
| I second the U4025QW. It's fantastic and the built in KVM is
| great.
| dkobia wrote:
| At 52" I now believe that there is a limit to the size of a
| monitor. This might have crossed it.
| bigstrat2003 wrote:
| The smaller sizes would be nice if they had a 16:10 option. 16:9
| just isn't a very nice aspect ratio imo, the extra height on
| 16:10 is much better.
| mixmastamyk wrote:
| To whoever needs to hear it, I will never buy another 16:9
| monitor. Vastly prefer the 3:2 on my Framework and also liked
| an old 4:3 I had. Also great in portrait.
| joombaga wrote:
| Yep. I have a MacBook air 13 and a Framework, and miss the
| extra vertical space when I'm on the MacBook.
| Flockster wrote:
| Yes, I will never buy 16:9 again. On laptops 16:10 is already
| quite often and sometimes even 3:2 (Framework, Surfacebook).
|
| For my desktop I am looking forward to getting a 3:2 monitor
| like the Benq RD280U
|
| https://www.benq.com/en-us/monitor/programming/rd280u.html
| lejalv wrote:
| This has pixels the size of my hand, and it fully covers my field
| of view. Not my cup of tea.
|
| What I _do_ recommend (having bought one) is the Kuycon G32p, 32
| inches @ 6K. Incredible quality and unbelievable value for money
| (https://clickclack.io/products/in-stock-
| kuycon-g32p-6k-32-in...).
| samdixon wrote:
| this looks like a rip off of another monitor that I can't quite
| put my finger on...
| smilebot wrote:
| And no extra charge to have an adjustable stand! How do they
| make money?
| jdc0589 wrote:
| its probably a charity, no money there.
| DustinEchoes wrote:
| No need to recoup R&D costs.
| joshstrange wrote:
| By having fewer pixels, lower quality screens? Crazy what
| you can do when you cut corners.
|
| This screen reminds of when I did tech support in high
| school and I helped a guy who bragged about his computer
| monitor, it was a TV running at 720p (if not lower) and a
| massive screen. The windows start bar was hilariously large
| (as were all UI elements), I had to just smile and nod
| until I got out of there.
|
| Sure, your screen may be bigger but it's blurry and
| everything is scaled way too large.
| semi-extrinsic wrote:
| > everything is scaled way too large
|
| The HiDPI/Retina bullshit is just bullshit. I've been
| running a 4K 43" 4:3 display at 100% scaling since 2018.
| It is neither blurry nor scaled too large. It can,
| however, comfortably fit 10 A4 pages simultaneously. Or 4
| terminals + a browser + a PDF reader.
| joshstrange wrote:
| My comment (or at least that quote) was specifically
| about someone using a 30"+ TV at 720p as their computer
| monitor.
| ggm wrote:
| My arithmetic nodule is having a konniption fit. Does not
| compute. If this is 16:9 and you mistook your aspect
| ratio I can breathe again. [?]2:1 says 1.41:1 isn't
| 1.33:1
|
| 10 A4 pages do not fill a 4:3 or 3:4 aspect ratio box.
| They don't fill a 16:9 box either but it's more
| plausible, the wastage is different.
| craftkiller wrote:
| > By having fewer pixels
|
| I thought samdixon was referencing the Apple Pro Display
| XDR? If so, Apple has fewer pixels.
|
| Apple Pro XDR: 6016 x 3384
|
| Kuycon G32P: 6144 x 3456
| usaphp wrote:
| Lg has a similar model: https://www.bestbuy.com/product/lg-
| ultrafineevo-32-6k-nano-i...
| jpalomaki wrote:
| Some people are complaining the matte finish on the LG ruins
| part of the experience.
| trailbits wrote:
| The LG only has 60Hz refresh - this Dell has 120Hz and so
| seems to actually take advantage of the extra thunderbolt
| bandwidth.
| madeofpalk wrote:
| For context - this 51" monitor has 22% less pixels than the 32"
| Apple Pro Display XDR.
| adamnemecek wrote:
| But those are retina pixels right? Like what is the max
| resolution of that display?
| gffrd wrote:
| 6016 x 3384.
|
| Dell monitor is twice the surface area with 3/4 the pixels
| ... or in reverse: Apple display is half the size with 30%
| more pixels.
|
| (edit: corrected dell pixel %)
| zuminator wrote:
| What is going on here? Why is everyone in this thread
| using 'pixels" to mean ppi? It seems unnecessarily
| confusing or even misleading. I mean blatantly a 6K
| monitor has more pixels than a 5K or 4K one, regardless
| of the pixel density.
| gffrd wrote:
| Yeah, nobody's saying a 5k monitor has more pixels than a
| 6k.
|
| I think what people are trying to communicate, but
| struggling to, is that high pixel count on a huge display
| can be deceptive.
|
| I think grandparent was trying to say "comparing a low-
| poi display to a high-ppi display is not a direct
| comparison."
| nixass wrote:
| Retina pixels what? Pixel is a pixel, density _of pixels_
| is what you're looking for
| lemoncucumber wrote:
| "Retina" is Apple's marketing name for high PPI displays.
| nixass wrote:
| Exactly. Retina is not "pixels" though or type of pixel
| wlonkly wrote:
| I think they mean "but those pixels are very small,
| right?"
| PunchyHamster wrote:
| good deal considering it's much smaller and twice the price
| wmf wrote:
| Not really. The Dell is 6144x2560 @ 1x while the Apple is
| effectively 3008x1692. The Dell can fit much more content on
| the screen.
| madeofpalk wrote:
| Yes really. A pixel is a pixel. This dell monitor has
| pixels the size of boulders. Apple Pro Display XDR has 4.6m
| more pixels in a significantly smaller area creating a much
| denser display.
| wmf wrote:
| Denser pixels are worth less because you can't see them;
| in this case 3x-4x less.
| throw20251220 wrote:
| You CAN see then, you CANNOT distinguish them apart
| without a closer look.
| wlonkly wrote:
| It would be a really ineffective monitor if you couldn't
| see the pixels.
| FireBeyond wrote:
| macOS can specify regions of the screen to be 1x. If I'm
| using Capture One or Lightroom, my photos are at normal
| resolution while the UI elements are "retina/2x".
| wmf wrote:
| So you can see more detail but you aren't fitting more
| photos on the screen.
| Tepix wrote:
| You can configure macOS to scale everything more or less,
| just like you want it. Same for Windows and Linux. And
| you keep the crispness of the full pixel resolution for
| text and images.
| kccqzy wrote:
| If you just want 32 inches @ 6K there are cheaper options
| around, such as the ASUS ProArt PA32QCV:
| https://www.asus.com/us/displays-desktops/monitors/proart/pr...
| ASUS is a more well known brand. It doesn't imitate the Apple
| aesthetic.
|
| (It does seem like the resolution differs: 6016x3384 vs
| 6144x3456.)
| selectodude wrote:
| That has a lower resolution though. Not by much but it's a
| weird panel.
| kccqzy wrote:
| Same resolution as Apple's 6K panel.
| bragh wrote:
| In EU, have not seen PA32QCV ever in stock anywhere.
| kccqzy wrote:
| B&H has same-day pickup in New York.
| bragh wrote:
| Amazing, checked just now and seems that these are now in
| stock in many places. When I checked last week, they
| weren't, seems like some stock got released for EU then.
| throw20251220 wrote:
| New York isn't in the EU...
| npunt wrote:
| I recently got this after getting three copies of the LG
| 32U990A, which had serious light banding and uniformity
| issues. Loving the Asus.
| a012 wrote:
| I bought this right after it's available, I like the screen
| but the Asus OSD is barely tolerable and I have to grow my
| patience because of it
| jjtheblunt wrote:
| OSD ?
| psyclobe wrote:
| On screen display
| jjtheblunt wrote:
| thanks (and i should have thought of that...mea culpa)
| akvadrako wrote:
| Can't you avoid the OSD if you control it with DCC?
| M4R5H4LL wrote:
| I have the Apple 6K 32" Pro Display XDR and a Kuycon 5K 27".
| Both are great. Apple was $6,500 and the Chinese version was
| $400 on EBay plus the $100 stand. Kuycon has more types of
| input, and a remote. Frame and display quality are on par for a
| dev.
| tw04 wrote:
| $400 where? The cheapest I've seen the kuycon 5k is $800
| before shipping, and the QA has been hit and miss with users
| having to pay to ship it back.
|
| It's not to say it's a bad option, but it's definitely not
| $400 out the door.
| zipy124 wrote:
| Ebay so likely used.
| M4R5H4LL wrote:
| yes, someone got it from a family member, and had no use
| for it, and sold it to me as is. It was brand new,
| unopened and in original packaging.
| zipy124 wrote:
| They aren't even close in comparison? Like 600 nits
| brightness vs 1000 (1600 peak) for one. Contrast ratios are
| very very different. It only supports HDR600. They are very
| different displays in person. Perhaps at low brightness on
| text they are similar, but outside of that they really aren't
| very similar.
| piskov wrote:
| Developers mostly care about text resolution, so anything
| 220+ is great
| M4R5H4LL wrote:
| yes, I couldn't tell the difference. What matters to me
| is to not see the pixels, and the size of the canvas. I
| am running the XDR at 60% brightness.
| throw453278 wrote:
| Reviews are saying the Asus has an aggressively matte
| display, causing the text to look a little blurry.
| spullara wrote:
| I wish they had an ultra wide with the higher resolution.
| Lammy wrote:
| 16:9 60Hz kinda sucks though :/
|
| Yes I realize the Pro Display XDR has those same specs. 16:10
| or 3:2 120Hz or 144Hz would be ideal to me.
| brailsafe wrote:
| I've got an eye on the CES Samsung Odyssey offerings at 32"
| 6k 165hz. I'd prefer 16:10 and currently run two 16:10 30"
| displays, but nobody making them.
| tortilla wrote:
| I posted about the new Kuycon 28" 3:2 aspect 4.5k monitor I
| discovered recently today:
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46647190
| master_crab wrote:
| Is this a grey box replica of the Mac 32in? Because I'd
| interested if it is.
| swiftcoder wrote:
| > This has pixels the size of my hand
|
| This is 128 ppi, which would be considered "retina" at a
| viewing distance of 70cm (27in).
|
| Are you really sitting 2 feet from a 52" monitor? I'd have to
| cutout a curve in the front of my desk to sit that close
| buckle8017 wrote:
| Curves in the front of desks is a thing.
|
| https://www.upliftdesk.com/curved-corner-standing-desk/
| ramraj07 wrote:
| I literally have this monitor already and these pixels are
| humongous. Even at 3 feet away. Also the viewing angle
| degradation is too much, so much so that it irritates to look
| at the edge of the screen from the center. A very poor
| monitor indeed.
| dwb wrote:
| > This is 128 ppi, which would be considered "retina"
|
| If by "retina" we mean "pleasantly sharp", not by me. I'm
| never buying less than the 218 ppi of my Apple Studio Display
| unless I absolutely have to. I'm totally spoiled.
| dzink wrote:
| Those look like the monitors used on the F1 movie, which is
| strange, considering it was an Apple production and they maybe
| should have used apple monitors for product placement . I guess
| it is a testimony about Kuycon from Apple.
| wtallis wrote:
| You should look at pictures of Apple's Pro Display XDR. The
| Kuycon monitor is an obvious rip-off of that in terms of
| styling, especially the ventilation on the back.
| toephu2 wrote:
| clickclack?? sounds like a shady referral link. will not click.
| raphlinus wrote:
| On the official Kuycon site, it says "Since 2023, Kuycon has
| partnered exclusively with ClickClack.io to bring its
| innovative line of monitors to customers outside of
| China[...]". I'm seriously considering getting one of these.
| jitl wrote:
| i bought mine from there
| m463 wrote:
| > pixels the size of my hand
|
| Sometimes this is refreshing. (display joke there, heh)
|
| this is a big monitor.
|
| Many UIs don't scale particularly well with very high
| resolution. So you get UI elements with super-fine text or
| icons.
|
| Some linux console fonts are almost unreadable with just 4k,
| though recent releases seem to be addressing this.
|
| also old games.
|
| for comparison, I think this is basically the dell 43" monitor
| with pixels on each side (16:9 -> 21:9)
|
| the height of the panel is similar, the width is higher (plus
| curvature)
| Dylan16807 wrote:
| There's an awkward zone where scaling doesn't work well. But
| if you have a screen that can do nice high levels of detail,
| then you can run older UIs at exactly 2x and they will look
| just as good as they ever did. An Apple Pro display is a good
| fit here, offering 218 pixels per inch compared to a
| "traditional" 96.
| malfist wrote:
| You must have really tiny hands considering the pixels are
| smaller that .2mm by .2mm
| seanmcdirmid wrote:
| LG has a 6K 32 inch also, although a few hundred dollars more.
| stein1946 wrote:
| First time I hear about this Kuycon, the pricing seems
| phenomenal and the quality as well. I will probably buy one by
| the end of the week.
|
| It's odd that we don't get to see a lot of high quality OEM
| monitors.
| thatwasunusual wrote:
| > the pricing seems phenomenal
|
| I'm in Norway, and I wonder if I see different prices than
| people from elsewhere in the world? Here it says $1.7K, and I
| can get the LG UltraFine 6K 32" for $2K, with the benefit of
| being bought from a Norwegian retailer (think guarantees and
| shopping security).
|
| To be clear; I have never tried either of these monitors, so
| I can't tell if either is any good. :D
| moepstar wrote:
| Germany, also seeing $1699 on there...
| kombine wrote:
| Is there a significant benefit for programming in going from 4K
| to 6K on a 32" display? I'm currently on 27" 1440p and looking
| for more screen estate for my neovim setup.
| Tepix wrote:
| If you make the fonts smaller, can you no longer read them
| because they are too small? Then you need a bigger monitor,
| not a higher resolution.
|
| If you can no longer read them because they are too
| pixelated, you need a higher screen resolution.
| stephenr wrote:
| On macOS: crisper text.
| kccqzy wrote:
| That's on every operating system.
| stephenr wrote:
| My understanding is that HiDPI mode on Windows requires
| each app to specifically support it, no?
| roblh wrote:
| Is this some kind of OEM Apple display? Or did they just put
| all that effort into machine out those spheres in the back of
| it so it looks like one?
| sulam wrote:
| I have a smaller version of this and it's pretty good as a
| display.
|
| I'm somewhat disappointed with it as a hub/KVM. It's better than
| having to swap cables, but just barely. It can't handle any high
| bandwidth USB devices I've tried (Focusrite Scarlett 2i2, a DSLR
| via capture card DSLR and a Logitech webcam). The downstream USB
| strangely isn't even sending down a keyboard and mouse to a PC, I
| ended up having to get separate dedicated KVM for those. It
| worked fine with a Thunderbolt to my Macs, but that's not
| surprising. I'm not sure how it would work with two Macs (one
| would have to be HDMI or DisplayPort and use that downstream USB
| port). I could try that but it's not my use case.
| ninkendo wrote:
| Yeah... Not sure of your model (I have the U4025QW), but mine
| is so close to perfect as a KVM between a Mac and 2 PC's, if
| only the KVM had one more USB output port.
|
| It takes 3 video inputs, but only 1 dedicated USB output. But
| oh, one of the video inputs is really Thunderbolt, so you get
| USB over the same cable and it works... but only if your
| machine supports this (for many laptops this is fine.)
|
| But that's 2 machines max in the KVM, while the monitor has 3
| selectable inputs...
|
| It would have been nicer if they could've added one more USB
| output, so you could have KVM match the display input for 3
| machines with a single toggle.
|
| (I have a Mac, a work desktop, and a gaming desktop, and I can
| toggle between the Mac (thunderbolt) and _one_ of the PC's, and
| the kvm input will follow the display's. But I have to pick
| which PC I want to plug the downstream USB cable into... so I
| bought a little $15 USB A /B switch to help. So Mac keyboard
| always works, but when switching between gaming PC (hdmi) and
| work PC (DP) I just have to remember to toggle the A/B switch
| along with it to make the keyboard go to the right host.)
| apetrov wrote:
| Interestingly it has Thunderbolt 4 (40Gb), 6K typically saturates
| 30-31Gb, which leaves less 10Gb/s which isn't a lot especially
| assuming 2.5Gb network. Looks like a perfect case for TB5 and
| given its price.
| gouthamve wrote:
| I just setup mine today, and I am not sure I recommend it.
|
| I went from a 40" to a 52", and I'm just moving my head waaay too
| much and my shoulders hurt. It is curved, but very little imo,
| it's almost like it's flat. I'm going to try it for a week before
| making the call on whether to return it.
|
| I feel like this needs a workflow where you do work in the middle
| and use the fringes for other applications that you rarely look
| at. Otherwise you're moving your head waaay too much and
| squinting a bunch.
| cosmic_cheese wrote:
| Based on personal experience, I think the upper bound for
| comfortably useful size at normal sitting distances is probably
| about 32", and even then I think there'd be better returns on
| adding vertical pixels to a ~27" monitor. A modern equivalent
| to the old 16:10 30" 2560x1600 monitors (ideally 2x scaling
| 5120x3200) would be great for example, but one could also
| imagine a 4:3 or 5:4 monitor with the same width (~23.5") as
| current 16:9 27" monitors.
| kccqzy wrote:
| Same! My employer offered a choice of 32-inch and 40-inch
| monitors. I "upgraded" from 32 to 40 but I regretted it. I
| just don't make use of the extra horizontal space
| effectively.
| peppersghost93 wrote:
| I'm still rocking a couple of 30 inch dell 2560x1600
| monitors. They're about the perfect size and not dealing with
| scaling in Linux is nice. I'd pay a ton of money for a modern
| equivalent.
| kcrwfrd_ wrote:
| I run a 42" 4k at 1:1 pixel ratio and I agree. It's a little
| too big, but it does nice double duty for gaming and watching
| tv.
|
| 5120x3200 in 30" would be awesome.
| switchbak wrote:
| That was my issue with multiple monitors years ago - I'd be
| cranking my neck over too often (looking at logs, etc). I
| vastly prefer an ultrawide where I can put logs / monitors on
| the side flexibly.
|
| I have a 34 inch now, and feel like I could use more space -
| but it's nice to know there's an upper bound. Do you feel like
| there's still room to go beyond 40, or is that the sweet spot?
| gouthamve wrote:
| I honestly think 40 is the sweet spot.
| estearum wrote:
| 3x27" high-PPI displays _in portrait orientation_ is the
| winner and no one does it
|
| The center display is always actually centered. The short
| edge of a high-PPI 27" screen is wide enough for actual
| normal width browser or IDE usage, but now you get much more
| vertical real estate on that window.
|
| Not nearly as much neck movement as an ultra wide and since
| the entire array is pretty square, the neck movement is way
| more balanced.
| ProZsolt wrote:
| I went from 34"(3440x1440) which felt a little bit small to
| 38"(3840x1600) and it is nearly perfect. I can have my main
| window in the middle and 2 or 4 smaller windows (logs, chat,
| youtube, etc) on the side.
|
| The only thing I want now is double pixel density.
| Mixtape wrote:
| Seconding this. I have one for my work desk, where
| (surprisingly enough) it made a lot of sense. The DPI isn't as
| big of an issue as people make it out to be if your workflow
| doesn't depend on high density, but the curvature definitely
| could benefit from being a bit tighter. You need a fairly deep
| desk or a keyboard tray if you don't want to be turning your
| head a bunch.
|
| That being said, having this in combination with PowerToys
| FancyZones has been fantastic. At any given time, I'm usually
| running 1-4 main working windows plus Signal, Outlook, and an
| RSS reader. This gives me more than enough real estate to keep
| them all available at a moment's notice. I have roughly 40% of
| the screen real estate dedicated to Signal, Outlook, and my RSS
| client, with the interior 60% being hotkey-mapped to divide in
| different proportions. Compared to my old setup (one ultrawide
| plus two verticals) it's been awesome.
| 2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote:
| I sometimes think that my 40" is too much because the extra
| space just ends up hosting distracting junk like Slack.
|
| I also have a mild take that large screens make screen real
| estate cheap so less thought goes into user interface design.
| There's plenty of room just stick the widget anywhere!
| cosmic_cheese wrote:
| It'd be pretty interesting to compare how much the amount of
| information one can cram onto their ~27" screen has changed
| between 2005 and 2025, with the comparison points between
| between a Mac running OS X 10.6 and a Mac running macOS 26,
| which I think is a particularly salient and apples-to-apples
| comparison since Apple was selling 30" 2560x1600 displays
| back then, which are close cousins to modern 27" 2560x1440
| displays.
|
| My gut feeling is that the difference would be around 30-40%.
| Information density of the UI of OS X 10.6 and contemporary
| software was much higher than today's tabletized "bouncy
| castle" style UI.
| 2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote:
| It would be interesting but I don't think that information
| density necessarily makes a good interface.
|
| As a personal pet peeve example, developers love to cram a
| search bar (or browser tabs) into the top of the window.
| It's more dense but it's also harder to use and drag the
| window.
| cosmic_cheese wrote:
| True. More accurately, it's a combination of high
| density, judicial allocation of whitespace, and layouts
| that have been thought through. The 2000s versions of OS
| X were better in those regards too, though.
| fidotron wrote:
| This is why multiple monitors win: put the distractions on a
| whole other screen.
| maxglute wrote:
| Maybe it's a head turner vs eye mover thing. It's a lot less
| fatiguing moving eyes, which might not be option for glass
| wearers. I sit 2 feet away from my 50 inch OLED and moving eyes
| is much less work than windows management. Otherwise it is very
| workflow dependant, i.e. working on visuals or schematic
| diagrams.
| fridder wrote:
| hmm, good to know. I have an lg 40in 5k2k that I rather like
| but this tempts me
| swiftcoder wrote:
| When I owned a 40" monitor, I had to get a deeper desk and sit
| pretty far from it. Even then, I couldn't game on it, because
| games shove the HUD and minimal into the corners, and they were
| too far to the side to keep an eye on.
|
| Can't picture a 52" being usable as a PC monitor, really.
| bilsbie wrote:
| Let me ask you ..Would it work better with a standing desk? It
| seems like moving around would feel more natural standing up.
| qwertox wrote:
| I have one and while it makes you generally more movable, you
| shouldn't stand all the time; it's just as unhealthy as
| permanent sitting.
| Tempest1981 wrote:
| A chiropractor told me, "your best position is your next
| position".
|
| Meaning to avoid staying in the same position for too long.
| qwertox wrote:
| You'll get used to it. I have 3 24 inch monitors side by side.
| Center one is usually the editor, right one documentation or
| more editors, left one browsers with info.
| rconti wrote:
| Yeah, I'm on a Lenovo 5k2k 40" UW and it's never occurred to me
| to want something wider. Though I will admit I definitely
| noticed the loss of total real estate vs my old 3x 27" setup.
| goshx wrote:
| I've been using a 49" monitor for almost four years. I have the
| center window taking half of the screen, and on the sides I
| have my email, messaging clients and other things I like to
| monitor from time to time.
|
| Kinda like this: [ | | ]
|
| I am on mac and I use an app called Magnet to manage the
| windows. I will only change this setup for a larger monitor.
| alchemist1e9 wrote:
| > it's almost like it's flat
|
| It is almost. 4200R means the circular radius is 4.2 meters for
| the curve. That's too big a radius for using as a desk monitor
| that large imho.
| esafak wrote:
| I never got into the ultra wide thing. Where the 8K monitors at??
| We've been stuck on 4K for ten years!
| hhh wrote:
| they've been around for a few years, as well as 5K and 6K
| masklinn wrote:
| Sadly they're not super common which makes them expensive,
| and I don't think I've seen any that wasn't 16:9. The world
| has decided to go with refresh rates rather than resolution.
| jorvi wrote:
| Which is the right choice because our eyes cannot resolve
| that kind of DPI at that distance.
|
| Past 2880p on most desk monitor viewing distances or past
| 1080p on most TV viewing distances, you hit steeply
| diminishing returns. Please, please let's use our
| processing power and signal bandwidth for color and refresh
| rate, not resolution.
|
| This is also why I think every console game should have a
| 720p handheld 'performance' and 1080p living room
| 'performance' mode. We don't need 1080p on handhelds or
| 2160p in the living room. Unless you're using relatively
| enormous screens for either purpose.
| Kon5ole wrote:
| >Which is the right choice
|
| No damn it, it's not!
|
| Everyone I know can immediately see a clear difference
| between 120 ppi and 200 ppi, but I've yet to encounter
| anyone who can reliably tell 120hz from 200hz. We have
| monitors that render lego-sized pixels at 500+ hz now,
| it's enough.
|
| Gamers have been gaslit to believe they have the reflexes
| of spider-man and are a lost cause, but their preferences
| have been listened to by monitor makers for 30 years.
| Enough already!
|
| Millions of office workers are working all day reading
| text on screens optimized for playing games at low
| resolutions. It's just sad.
|
| Steve Jobs showed a decade ago that 4x resolution could
| be sold at great profit for normal prices. Text on
| screens can be as crisp as on paper.
|
| Sadly it only became the standard on phones, not on
| productivity desktop monitors. It so easily could be, and
| it _should_ be.
| dworks wrote:
| I've recently gone from 60hz to 240hz to 480hz. Refresh
| rate in games is not just about what it looks like. It
| completely changes game mechanics, like movement, recoil
| etc. It is such a big difference between 60hz and 240hz
| that you're not really playing the same game. There are
| things you can do at 240hz that are impossible at 60hz.
| At 480hz, there's also so much more time to react, so you
| really don't need fast reflexes to take advantage of it.
| thfuran wrote:
| So much more time? The difference in frame time between
| 480 hz and 240 is 2 ms.
| dworks wrote:
| Right, that should be imperceptible. The 240hz monitor
| was also 15" while the 480hz monitor is 27". I'm sure
| that contributes as well. My subjective experience is
| that I now just have a lot of more time to react.
| Kon5ole wrote:
| I'm guessing you play FPS competitively and are in your
| 20s, and for you it might be true, I won't argue that.
|
| The issue for me is that even if your experience was true
| for all gamers in the world, that would still be a tiny
| minority compared to all people in the world who use
| monitors to read text, day in and day out.
|
| A low-res monitor cannot show a high-res image, but a
| high-res monitor _can_ show a low-res picture, so both
| sides can get what they want here.
|
| I run 8k/60 but my screen can also do 4k/120. If it could
| also do 1440 at 240hz or 1080 at 480hz wouldn't bother
| me, but that the industry spends all effort on making
| 1080/480 and basically NO effort on 8k does.
|
| The industry should throw everything below say 200ppi on
| the scrap-heap of history where it belongs. It would harm
| nobody and benefit everybody.
| masklinn wrote:
| > Which is the right choice because our eyes cannot
| resolve that kind of DPI at that distance.
|
| If you can't resolve that kind of DPI at that distance
| you need to get an appointment because you require
| glasses. The _low end_ of normal vision stops
| differentiating around 175 dpi at 50cm. The difference is
| very noticeable (and disturbing) on contrasted detailed
| features like text without subpixel rendering (or when
| the subpixel rendering does not match the physical
| structure of the display).
| dnkejtskkfkg wrote:
| But if I, by accident bend forward, I don't want to
| accidentally be able to distinguish individual pixels!
| seiferteric wrote:
| I have a Samsung neo g9 57" which is like 1/2 an 8k monitor (or
| 2 4k monitors side-by-side) which is sweet since I use picture-
| by-picture mode to have my work computer on one side and my
| personal computer on the other side.
| ghshephard wrote:
| I have the SAMSUNG 49" Odyssey Neo G9 G95NA - but despite
| spending literally dozens of hours - I was never able to get
| text to work clearly on it - either Mac or PC - tried both
| the DisplayPort, HDMI - tried all the (many) HDMI cables I
| had at home, and a couple expensive Monoprice cables,
| firmware updates, monitor resets, every setting I could
| figure - no luck. Text is just ... fuzzy in a way that it
| isn't with any other monitor I've ever owned - kind of a deal
| breaker when I spend all day in tmux.
| masklinn wrote:
| Is it an oled display? It's likely that the subpixel
| rendering does not match the physical display, so the
| subcolors are in the wrong location making the text worse
| instead of better (in the case of macs Apple entirely
| removed subpixel rendering some years back so there is no
| solution whatsoever, Apple on standard density always looks
| like shit).
| phaser wrote:
| Maybe this is the living room dumb-TV that I was waiting for
| nerdsniper wrote:
| It has pretty poor HDR performance compared to similarly priced
| TVs.
|
| https://www.rtings.com/monitor/reviews/dell/u3225qe
| api wrote:
| Still would love a true AMOLED monitor that's decently large.
| Doesn't need to be this big. One with perfect contrast ratio.
| ajross wrote:
| Looks nice enough. But seems pretty steep. The 42" TV I bought
| five years ago for $260 does basically the same thing. Slightly
| more vertical space (albeit at a lower DPI) and somewhat less
| horizontal. But it still supports four 80-column text windows
| without a sweat.
|
| Late stage FAANGery is watching 20-somethings try to find
| ridiculous junk to spend money on.
| Hikikomori wrote:
| My old crt can show letters and numbers.
| LegitShady wrote:
| dont believe them - this only has 1 thunderbolt port, not 52
| MarlonPro wrote:
| Expansive and expensive at the same time!
| _zoltan_ wrote:
| another meh display from dell.
|
| if you truly want a great display for productivity, I can't
| recommend the Samsung 57 enough. 240hz, 2x4k in one panel. it's
| great.
| mrandish wrote:
| I've found ideal monitor size and resolution depends greatly on
| viewing distance and relative position. I use a 38" ultra-wide
| and it's _almost_ too wide - but I have it 'floating' on an
| adjustable monitor arm so it's only about 24" from my eyes and a
| bit higher than most monitor stands would allow. The monitor arm
| is key because once I put a full ergo split keyboard at a
| comfortable arm-rest distance, a normal monitor stand sitting on
| the desk would force the monitor to be too far back.
|
| For the full breadth of a 52" monitor to be comfortably viewable
| for detail work, I'd have to be farther back enough that the
| difference between 4K and 6K wouldn't be meaningful. It's kind of
| like how 8k resolution can provide meaningful value in a head-
| mounted display two inches from your eyeballs, but 8k on a 65"
| living room TV seven feet away from your couch viewing position
| is pointless because even those with 20/10 vision can't resolve
| the additional detail at that distance.
|
| For detail work I find my best ergo seating position is up close
| with my legs tucked well-under the desk and my stomach almost
| touching the edge of the curved desk inset. This allows my
| forearms to be supported comfortably on the desk. I also have my
| desk surface a little lower than most and my Aeron chair a little
| higher, putting the top of my legs almost touching the underside
| of the desktop.
| swframe2 wrote:
| I use 2 32" 4K which cost about $800 for both monitors. The small
| gap between the monitors is annoying but I can't really justify
| paying $2k more. Also there is a samsung dual 4k that is about
| the same price as the dell.
|
| Moving my head to see everything doesn't bother me. I also have a
| setup with 3 32" 4k which I find a little too wide but in that
| setup 1 monitor connects to different computer.
| t1234s wrote:
| Is 130PPI useable at a 1:1 pixel ratio or would this monitor need
| to be run at a 2:1 ratio
| NoSalt wrote:
| > _" Unlock unparalleled productivity"_
|
| LOL
| bluedino wrote:
| I wonder if this would work for me. I sit 36" from 43" 4K TV, I
| run it scaled at 125%
|
| I think I'm already at the edge of how big of a monitor I could
| use without spinning my head all around. But the curvedness of it
| might make up for it.
| bhouston wrote:
| Very large monitors are amazing. I've been rocking a single OLED
| 48" monitor for my MacBook Air M3. It is killer and I can not go
| back to smaller screen sizes. I just wish it was 6K or 8K instead
| of my current 4K. And if I do upgrade it will be to a 52/55".
| ChrisMarshallNY wrote:
| I use a 49-inch LG ultrawide. 5120 X 1440, at 60Hz. Had it for
| a number of years. I think it was about $1,100, when I got it.
|
| It seemed too big, at first, and I split it, but got used to it
| at full width.
|
| I don't really care that much about pixel density or super-high
| framerate. I'm old, and don't really game. For software
| development, it's great.
| toephu2 wrote:
| How far are you sitting from that monitor then?
|
| I'm only like 2 feet from my monitor so it doesn't make sense
| to go any bigger than 30"
| quotemstr wrote:
| Yes, but there's got to be some point at which it makes more
| sense to switch to a VR headset.
| owenversteeg wrote:
| $2900 seems pretty reasonable to me considering the size. Works
| out to $416/sqft, which is much cheaper than Bay Area real
| estate.
|
| I never understood the draw of these huge monitors until I had to
| do CAD for work and now I understand. Giant monitor + SpaceMouse
| is a gamechanger. My current monitor is 36" and I could easily
| use more width.
| burnt-resistor wrote:
| So I use a 49" Dell U4919DW (5120 x 1440 @ 60Hz) with an Anker
| 777 powered Thunderbolt hub to support a MBP, but also use it
| directly with a lab Windows box. I can't see spending $3k on a
| monitor because this one was $1100 + $157.29 tax and shipping in
| 2022. I threw on a 4 port USB-C hub that clamps on the front
| bezel, so it has reachable ports.
|
| I guess this almost replaces the Anker, but lacks Ethernet.
| flyinglizard wrote:
| I have the 40" (5K) and it's perfect. Replaced a 27-32-27 setup
| (the 27"s being portraits, the 32" landscape). For my coding and
| office work, absolutely no reason to go wider. Highly
| recommended.
|
| Note the 40", and probably this one too. support MST which makes
| the display appear as two monitors to the OS and is great in
| terms of window management without going too fancy with custom
| software.
| joshstrange wrote:
| Interesting, I'm on 3x27" 2K monitor (same setup as you,
| portrait, landscape, portrait) and while it works very well for
| me, I'd like to replace it with just 1 screen (or 3x 4-5K
| monitors but that is less interesting to me). I already have
| custom window management software that I use so it wouldn't be
| hard to switch to sub-dividing 1 monitor to get a similar
| experience (I think).
|
| Maybe I should look into the 40" 5K monitors, thanks!
| flyinglizard wrote:
| Losing the bezel is great, and the Dell 4025qw that I have
| has also an IPS Black panel which is a vast improvement over
| what I had before - Dell U27-something (4K IPS), 3219Q (4K
| IPS). And it's 120hz. I really enjoy it.
| randerson wrote:
| Likewise. I've had the 40" version for about a year. Higher DPI
| than the 52". It replaced 2 x 27" monitors and I'm glad I made
| the switch. I generally have 2 apps running side-by-side just
| like before, but with the ability to go full wide-screen for
| movies or gaming.
|
| This monitor really does everything. It's crisp enough to read
| text on all day, unlike many gaming monitors. But the 120Hz is
| decent for gaming whereas most 5K+ monitors are only 60hz.
| JakeStone wrote:
| I've got big monitors, that I hook up to my work laptop and my
| own laptop. I make it work with a kvm hub. It's really sweet, for
| my use.
|
| I keep a browser, an IDE, and a terminal pretty much side by side
| on the bottom one. I keep slack, email, and a clock on the top
| monitor. I also place pullout tabs from my IDEs on the top one.
|
| Thing is, no matter the cost range, I generally have to replace
| the KVM hub about once a year. I've just come to accept that as a
| part replacement cost. <shrug> This thing has its own KVM hub
| internally. Maybe I'm just rough on my KVM, but if someone puts
| significant wear and tear on this monitor, I'd imagine that part
| would wear out, which seems like a potential money sink if you
| have to keep calling the warranty folks.
|
| For me, it's too much of a risk, but YMMV.
| bdavbdav wrote:
| If it's at all representative, I had to replace 2 of the dell
| ultra sharp super ultra wides due to failing USB C hub / PD
| parts. I gave up at that point.
| jval43 wrote:
| My 49 inch Dell ultrawide is failing too. One USB port is
| already dead, and the other ports have just now started to
| develop intermittent issues as well.
| GardenLetter27 wrote:
| On the other hand, I've had one for 5 years and it's still
| going strong.
|
| Will definitely buy again.
| zenethian wrote:
| I really want more monitors that are taller and have 3:2 aspect
| ratio.
| rsync wrote:
| Eizo makes a square 1920x1920 monitor:
|
| https://www.eizo.com/products/flexscan/ev2730q/
|
| ... available on Amazon last time I checked ... they also make
| a square 2048x2048 monitor for ATC:
|
| https://www.eizoglobal.com/products/atc/sq2826/
|
| ... although I think it costs $5k or so ...
| zuhsetaqi wrote:
| I use the BenQ RD280U. It's as wide as a 27" 16:9 and as tall
| as an 32" 16:9. I really like the aspect ratio and I'm using
| two of them.
| nerdsniper wrote:
| RTings has a very in-depth review[0] on this product line,
| ranking it tied for #6 for "best office monitor".
|
| 0: https://www.rtings.com/monitor/reviews/dell/u3225qe
| drob518 wrote:
| That's the 32 inch, not the 52 inch.
| nerdsniper wrote:
| Yes, thank you for pointing this out - I should have said it
| explicitly. It's why I said "product line" rather than
| "product". I thought the 32" vs 52" distinction would be
| clear for anyone who clicked through.
|
| I also didn't realize that at the Dell store webpage,
| clicking the "32 inch" option actually slightly changed the
| product line - from U##26 to U##25 (as the 52" option is the
| only model associated with 2026), and generally I only
| consider UltraSharp's of different sizes to be "approximately
| equivalent in quality" if they share the same model year -
| and nothing yet shares the 2026 model year with this 52"
| option.
| zipy124 wrote:
| Their best office monitor is actually another Ultrasharp....
| nerdsniper wrote:
| Interesting! If you sort their monitor reviews[0] page by
| "Office Rating" the top monitor is the ASUS ProArt Display
| PA27JCV with a score of 9.0
|
| But their "The 5 Best Work Monitors of 2026"[1] lists a Dell
| Ultrasharp in the #1 rank and the Asus ProArt does not appear
| in the recommendations at all. The info cards imply that the
| recommendation rankings might result from a weighted blend of
| "Office Rating", "Text Clarity" and "SDR Brightness".
| However, the ProArt outscores the Ultrasharp in both "Office
| Rating" and "SDR Brightness" while exactly matching the
| Ultrasharp's score in "Text Clarity".
|
| So the "The 5 Best Work Monitors of 2026" appears to be a
| somewhat subjective list, rather than purely a result of
| objective measurements.
|
| 0: https://www.rtings.com/monitor/reviews
|
| 1: https://www.rtings.com/monitor/reviews/best/by-
| usage/busines...
| bilsbie wrote:
| Would the latest Mac minis work with this?
| wmf wrote:
| Yes.
| nennes wrote:
| Size and pixel density concerns aside, one downside of larger
| monitors is the power draw. This burns 64W, which adds PS3 to
| your monthly electricity bill if used for 8hrs every weekday.
| It's not a terrible amount, but I can run 3 micro pc servers 24/7
| for that cost.
| quotemstr wrote:
| Imagine living in a so-called "civilization" in which your
| productivity is limited not by time or tools but by how much it
| costs to buy photons to shoot into your eyeballs.
| elevation wrote:
| I run a pair of the 43" model listed on the page (U4323QE).
| Coming from a desk full of 24" 1080P screens which I used with no
| scaling, the selling point for me was that the DPI was similar
| (~114, no scaling needed) while the total real estate was larger.
|
| This 6K panel seems like it would scratch a similar itch.
| r0b05 wrote:
| Is the PPI not too small with the 43"?
|
| I have a 4k 27" which has nice PPI and I was considering this
| 43" as a replacement but the pixels looked quite prominent in
| youtube reviews.
| madmod wrote:
| I have 3 27" 5k monitors in portrait and a 32" 4k horizontal
| above those. It is all mounted with vesa cheeseplates to
| manfrotto magic arms on t slot aluminum attached to a C stand
| with manfrotto super clamps. I also have two genelec studio
| monitors which sound amazing.
|
| All of that cost less than this one monitor.
| novaleaf wrote:
| what's the make/model for the monitors? my setup is getting
| long in the tooth.
| madmod wrote:
| Two PA27JCV and one LG ultrasharp (it was cheap because it
| was broken and I repaired it) and the 4k monitor is a samsung
| which I cant recommend. (Open box was cheap though)
| byproxy wrote:
| What Genelecs are you using??
| EnPissant wrote:
| Not OP, but I have 2 8020D + a subwoofer.
|
| If I had to do it all over again I would have 2 8030C and no
| subwoofer.
| ziofill wrote:
| I sport two klipsch towers on either side of my desk and a
| small tube amp ^^'
| someguyiguess wrote:
| Why? Just out of curiosity. Is it that you don't need that
| much low end for the media you're usually playing through
| your monitors or do the 8030Cs have enough low end to
| eliminate the need for a separate woofer?
|
| I've been debating getting genelecs for a few years now but
| the price jump from something like JBLs or Yamahas is so
| huge that I can't justify it. At least not on my current
| budget.
| brandonmenc wrote:
| I have the smallest of both: 8010As and a 7040A sub.
|
| I'm sending almost nothing to the sub, and I'm guessing
| the 8030s would provide most of what I'm using the 7040
| for without the inconvenience.
|
| I'm in a small room and going for accuracy, so don't need
| much bass.
| EnPissant wrote:
| I currently have the 8020D + 7040A. It's pretty much
| perfect sound with room correction applied, but the 7040A
| is kind of big and ugly. I'd be willing to give up some
| low-end to simplify the setup. Also the sub performs the
| crossover, so it's a lot of cords: 2 cords for DAC ->
| Sub, and 2 cords for sub -> L/R. And these cords have to
| be really long for when I raise my desk because the sub
| has to go on the floor.
| ngcazz wrote:
| Also have 2 8020D's but I skimped on the subwoofer.
| Probably a bad idea, since they deemphasize the lows so
| much, but surprisingly I can crank up them up on my mixer's
| EQ to make up for it without losing clarity.
| madmod wrote:
| They are the tiny 8010s. I don't produce much with this setup
| so accurate near field monitoring was all that I needed. I
| love how crystal clear the high end is with these. I bought
| them used and they were pretty beat up. I take them traveling
| so as an anti theft measure I painted them neon green and
| covered them in stickers to make them look cheap. They are
| mounted on magic arms to the aluminum extrusion. I also have
| some random Klipsch subwoofer. I send them a balanced output
| from a yamaha mixer at 192khz.
| byproxy wrote:
| Oh, nice! Yea, was wondering what Genelecs, combined with
| your other gear, could be less than the price of this
| monitor. Makes sense that it's the smaller ones!
| maest wrote:
| All the brand naming makes this read like something from
| American Psycho.
| cheschire wrote:
| Or Fight Club
| nemosaltat wrote:
| "We're consumers. We are by-products of a lifestyle
| obsession. Murder, crime, poverty, these things don't
| concern me. What concerns me are celebrity magazines,
| television with 500 channels, some guy's name on my
| underwear."
| otterley wrote:
| In case you don't get the reference:
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cISYzA36-ZY
| nine_k wrote:
| The brand names are there, I assume, to show that it's not
| some cheapskate setup jerry-rigged from salvaged parts.
| Because even then it's still less expensive that the giant
| Dell monitor.
|
| I frankly don't understand the point of such monitors. If
| they are placed reasonably near, they don't fit human FOV
| well, and the periphery is seen distorted. If they are far
| enough away, the pixel pitch goes well past the angular
| resolution of the eye.
| ffsm8 wrote:
| I got the 49" version of the dell Alienware display
| (basically this one size down with different branding and
| stand)... . From my perspective you're looking at it
| incorrectly, the point isn't to be able to look at
| everything at the same time, it's to be able to quickly
| glance from the one side to another.
|
| Let's say I have an ide open, I will likely not look at the
| directory structure often, but I want an easy way to switch
| files - fantastic for having it available just by glancing
| over
|
| Now you run tests, start the application etc. It also
| doesn't need to be in your view, all the time - but isn't
| it convenient to be able to just _look_ where you know it
| 's?
|
| It's suboptimal for competitive gaming however, exactly for
| the reason you said. Scenic gaming on the other hand is
| improved by it, because the larger screen is more innersive
| ryanjshaw wrote:
| I used to be happy with virtual desktops. Then I switched
| to macOS. What a mess it is: from the irritating virtual
| desktop animations that delay you, to the annoying
| keyboard shortcuts that don't work in full screen mode,
| I've decided to just move on to multiple monitors or
| maybe one big display.
| wlonkly wrote:
| And it used to be better -- you could use TotalSpaces
| which would make Spaces two-dimensional and let you turn
| off the animation. But they took that from us!
|
| There is a way of using Stage Manager as though it was
| Spaces, with minimal animations, but it takes a lot of
| getting used to and it's still not great.
| swiftcoder wrote:
| If your plan is to physically move your head to look at
| the peripheral anyway, then this is much cheaper to
| achieve by putting a second monitor alongside your
| primary monitor (I keep an older 2560x1440 in portrait
| alongside my main 4k display)
|
| Scenic gaming seems pretty niche outside of dedicated
| flight/driving sim setups? And regular gaming often kind
| of sucks on ultrawides - way too few games have decent
| options to pull the HUD into the center region of the
| display
| bboygravity wrote:
| It's really not that complicated: do you prefer to work at
| a tiny desk or a huge desk?
|
| Same with monitors.
|
| Either you stack huge piles of papers and work through the
| piles (with everything in the way all the time) or you
| spread them out in front of you.
| pluralmonad wrote:
| It does read exactly like Bateman in my head, but didn't pin
| it down until you helped. Still, that Dell monitor is pretty
| crazy itself.
| quicklime wrote:
| Paul Allen has this Dell monitor
| Swoerd wrote:
| Let's see Paul Allen's monitor
| gizajob wrote:
| https://www.geekwire.com/2024/auction-of-paul-allen-
| items-in...
| A4ET8a8uTh0_v2 wrote:
| Thank you. I did need a good chuckle to start the day
| right.
| madmod wrote:
| Force of habit. The film industry values brand recognition of
| gear highly because reliability is important. There are a lot
| of cheaper equivalent parts which could be assumed which
| wouldnt accurately illustrate my point. I spent around $450
| just on the hardware to mount the monitors and it is still
| cheaper than this dell monitor.
| lm28469 wrote:
| Gear fetishism is a serious disease, and the symptoms are
| obvious
| timcobb wrote:
| I'm seeing only manfrotto here
| InMice wrote:
| I get bonkers annoyed using just two monitors with macos or
| windows. multi monitor management... nothing behaves how i want
| it to, apps never open where they should etc etc. I havent
| tried it on desktop linux enough to know if it's any better -
| maybe at least id assume have the most configuration control on
| linux.
|
| How do you do it? I always give up in frustration. 100% would
| keep the genelecs :)
| ninkendo wrote:
| I can only speak for the Cinnamon desktop environment on
| Linux Mint, but it's very simple:
|
| - Apps always launch on the monitor your mouse cursor is on
|
| - Switching the focused window to the other monitor is
| Win+Shift+Arrow Keys
|
| So if I clicked to open an app, it's on the monitor I'm
| already looking at. If I used a keyboard shortcut,
| win+shift+arrow is super easy and simple.
|
| The fact that it's a stupid simple rule means I can get way
| better at just doing things by muscle memory... I don't have
| to worry about being outsmarted by the window manager.
| InMice wrote:
| Thanks Im going to try it
| encom wrote:
| >Apps always launch on the monitor your mouse cursor is on
|
| ...but you can set up rules to force a given program to
| always launch at a specified position and dimension.
| Frotag wrote:
| On KDE and things like opening app on active monitor /
| desktop work fine. Only complaint is that on older versions,
| the taskbar on secondary monitors would sometimes disappear.
|
| For reference I have 3 monitors (2x 4k, 1x 1080p) and am
| currently using Debian / Wayland and Ubuntu / X11.
| neves wrote:
| I really miss kde generator of shift click in maximize
| window icon. It would expand a window just vertically.
|
| Does windows has anything similar?
| pbhjpbhj wrote:
| Win+shift+up
| davsti4 wrote:
| It was a bug. I have 3 screens, and it would disappear on
| the third. An update, sometime around middle of last year
| fixed it, if my memory is correct.
|
| But, I still have occasional problems with my monitors not
| waking up when I return to my desk. With 3, I've never had
| all 3 fail to wake, and a simple disable in the monitor
| settings, then choose "revert" usually brings them back.
| sourcegrift wrote:
| On linux i3 I've bound my workspaces to default to a monitor
| and my apps to default to a respective workspace. Very very
| productive
| madmod wrote:
| I use AeroSpace on mac os for tiling window management with
| spaces mapped per monitor so that eg space 1 is my top
| monitor woth my email and chat and space e is on the left for
| my obsidian, spaces asdfgh are my center monitor for code and
| terminals, and spaces zxcvb are the right monitor for
| browsers. I dont stick to this organization rigidly and when
| I'm doing odd tasks like cad or developing an app I break the
| patterns and put things on whatever monitor is convenient. I
| try to stick to a few common apps in the same spaces however.
| pragmatick wrote:
| I'm using DisplayFusion on Windows and am very happy with it.
| Haven't found anything similar on Linux that works as well.
| nottorp wrote:
| I generally don't close the applications i use on an ongoing
| basis :)
|
| This way you only have to drag them to the monitor you want
| them on once on startup. Which on os x at least is not very
| often.
| wincy wrote:
| For Mac I spent $0.99 a long time ago and bought Magnet on
| the App Store which lets me move windows and resize using
| hotkeys. For windows I aggressively use windows key +
| left/right to move the windows around, with 4 displays you
| just have to remember their ordering and eventually it
| becomes muscle memory to get it to snap where you want it. It
| mostly moves left to right, in my case.
| sergiotapia wrote:
| What fixed it for my was switching to Omarchy and using
| wayland (what it comes with). I don't bother very much with
| positioning or window resizing anymore. Give it a shot!
| deepsun wrote:
| Interesting, manfrotto's website has a cookie notice with two
| buttons: ALLOW ALL and ALLOW SELECTION.
|
| However, there's no selections -- there's only a description of
| hundreds of cookies they store (e.g. 73 in Marketing section),
| but there's nothing to select, it's only text.
| buzer wrote:
| There seems to be grey deny button at top-right on first view
| but it disappears if you select the details. You need hide
| the details first if you want to click it.
| deepsun wrote:
| Thank you. ALLOW SELECTION is still a mystery though.
| whyenot wrote:
| I'm not sure what your point is. This monitor is less than 1/2
| the price of Apple's Pro Display XDR with nano texture glass.
| madmod wrote:
| This monitor is not aimed at the same market segment as the
| pro display xdr which values high brightness, accurate color,
| and higher than normal contrast for hdr content mastering. In
| my opinion for productivity there are much cheaper setups
| which provide more ppi and more pixels per dollar.
| FireBeyond wrote:
| Not for nothing but 6K HDR @ 120Hz is likely a large part of
| the cost of this monitor.
|
| I don't know if I'd put it on my desk, I got somewhat used to
| my setup - I had 2x4K 27" 144Hz monitors with very thin bezels
| (LG or Asus?) that I then traded in when I got a ProDisplay
| XDR. I do wish for higher refresh, and maybe more screen size.
| turtlebits wrote:
| And you can get at least 10x 24" 1080p monitors for the price
| of a single 5k monitor.
|
| Being on the leading edge of tech costs money.
|
| That said, your mixmatched PPIs would drive me nuts.
| madmod wrote:
| The relative distance of the top 4k monitor actually makes it
| work pretty well. I use that for chats and email and
| dashboards that I need to keep an eye on.
| sixtram wrote:
| could you share an anonymized desk photo?
| madmod wrote:
| Sorry I don't have any without work stuff in the image. If I
| do post it one day I will reply to this.
| andrei_says_ wrote:
| I would love to see a photo of that setup.
| perfmode wrote:
| Like that? https://gemini.google.com/share/3dbf617a1e07
| madmod wrote:
| Haha thats amazingly confusing when you look closely.
|
| I'm using baby pin reciever plates on 4080 extrusion with m6
| thumbscrews into drop in t nuts. There is only one c stand.
| The extrusion is actually two parts in a cross. The speakers
| are on the horizontal extrusion mounted on magic arms. My
| momitors are angled slightly upward and the bottom is a few
| inches lower than standard desk height.
| Mistletoe wrote:
| Gemini with the Genelecs, nice.
| libertine wrote:
| I was going to comment about the price, but you kind of wrapped
| it up.
|
| It's like the most popular form of innovation nowadays is just
| marginally nicer products with a massive premium on them - and
| I don't get how this is sustainable. Or maybe there's just way
| more people with massive amounts of disposable income than I
| realize...
|
| There's no breakthrough of like "here's an amazing product, and
| by the way, it's for everyone".
|
| This whole culture of scarcity, scalping, hoarding, FOMO,
| premium, it's so played out I'm literally done with it. This is
| paired with terrible customer support that takes customers for
| granted.
|
| Very few companies seem to value their customers, and don't
| want to squeeze them. Tech, cars, consoles... You name it.
|
| So this is my current stance: I'm out of the market for the
| foreseeable future, unless something breaks and I need to
| replace it. Even the "nice to have" stuff is down to almost
| zero.
| sigy wrote:
| I disagree with this take. Particularly because this isn't
| just a little more of this or that. It's a well-integrated
| set of features that should have already been on the market
| in some form, but wasn't really. And it's also a premium
| setup in terms of each feature individually. It really does
| feel like the whole is more than the sum of its parts in
| practical terms.
|
| I don't feel FOMO. I'm thinking more "why did it take this
| long?"
| michaelmcdonald wrote:
| Would love to see a picture of this setup and your thought on
| the brands / models you have. I'm in the market for new
| monitors / setup and yours sounds very much like something up
| my alley.
| port11 wrote:
| I would pay the premium to have just this one monitor, although
| I find it too large.
|
| And that's fine for me: that different people want different
| setups. I'd never want a multi-monitor setup if I can avoid it,
| where others say it makes them more productive and whatnot.
| shell0x wrote:
| 1. I don't think I'll ever buy Dell again. My current monitor is
| a Dell S3221QS 32" screen and it has vertical lines and starts
| flickering on both the Macbook M1 and the Mac Studio with the M4
| Max chip after some time, which is a known issue[0][1]. It also
| defaults to YPbPr colors rather than RGB/SRGB, so the colors look
| off. I'm using HDMI to HDMI connectivity currently.
|
| Part of it is also my fault as I thought a monitor would work
| with any computer.
|
| 2. That aside, what are you all using for window management on
| these large screens? I'm currently using Rectangle on Mac, but I
| was wondering if there's a better way.
|
| [0]
| https://www.reddit.com/r/Dell/comments/1221mz2/dell_s3221qs_...
| [1]
| https://www.reddit.com/r/Dell/comments/n8ei34/dell_s3221qs_f...
| user68858788 wrote:
| Spectacle for Mac and power toys for windows.
|
| I've been using a single large monitor for a while and it's
| been great with window managers. The biggest downside is when
| playing games full-screen.
| AceJohnny2 wrote:
| Counter-anecdata: I have 2 Dell U2720Q (Ultrasharp 27") bought
| in 2021 and they've been great.
|
| That said, I've always stuck for Dell's upper-range Ultrasharp
| (U prefix in models) monitors, being slightly wary of their
| cheaper series which the S in your S3221QS implies.
| antod wrote:
| I have a 13yr old 27" Ultrasharp still going well.
|
| +1 to only buy Ultrasharp if buying from Dell. The others can
| be junk.
| brailsafe wrote:
| I'm using 2x Dell U3011s, one I purchased around ~2013
| probably and the other I got used recently for $100. My
| only issue with them is that they have PWM coil whine that
| only goes away if I crank the brightness to ~90%, which
| seems to produce an immense amount of heat and probably
| power consumption. I'd love to find a viable alternative
| solution for this, because these are my favorite monitors
| for now.
|
| The model appears to have been released 16 years ago.
|
| I haven't yet found a monitor that makes sense to replace
| them with either.
| dripdry45 wrote:
| I think there is a slightly newer version of these, but I
| have the same set up. I haven't been able to find
| anything that has the vertical space that these monitors
| do. Even Ultra Wide monitors just aren't tall enough. If
| I got this 52 inch behemoth that would help, but I would
| actually lose horizontal space.
| brailsafe wrote:
| > I think there is a slightly newer version of these, but
| I have the same set up
|
| Ya, I've tried at least one of the newer versions and
| they were great too. 16:10 or almost anything else than
| 16:9 please
| funkychicken wrote:
| I've been a big fan of the big dell curved displays. The
| U4025QW has been a solid single monitor
| wlonkly wrote:
| Yes, the flickering problem is definitely an S-series issue.
| SanjayMehta wrote:
| One of my Dell's would randomly decide that the mini DP
| connection has no signal, and rebooting the MacBook Pro was the
| only way to restore it. HDMI would work just fine.
| ghshephard wrote:
| I've gone the other direction - and after having struggled with
| other various monitors (the worst is easily the SAMSUNG 49"
| Odyssey Neo G9 G95NA - both cruddy capability (should have
| noted before buying it has no Power Delivery) as well as easily
| some of the blurriest text ever) - I've decided I will _only_
| ever buy Dell Monitors. Every one I 've purchased (5 of them)
| in the last 15sh years has been a flawless performer - no
| hardware failures either.
|
| Every monitor on every desk at work (around 3000 desks) is a
| Dell U3821DW - no broadscale systemic complaints that I've ever
| heard of.
|
| I'm currently using my 4K 27" Dell P2715Q that I bought for
| $400 back in December 2017, and I've carried (physically) with
| me from office to office from Michigan to the Bay Area - thing
| runs for 10+ hours a day (minus weekend) for 8 years running.
| Eventually it's going to have to give in- and when it does -
| definitely going to buy another Dell (probably the U2725QE 27"
| 4K)
| wooptoo wrote:
| Yap I can confirm, Dell's P (professional) and U (ultra)
| lines are excellent and work flawlessly. The S (standard?)
| line not so much.
| seanalltogether wrote:
| I'm kinda the same. I have a Dell monitor and a Gigabyte
| monitor side by side and my mac constantly loses the
| connection to the gigabyte monitor. At least once per day I
| have to unplug my video link to the gigabyte monitor to get
| the mac to rediscover it, this never happens with the dell
| one.
| kstrauser wrote:
| I bought a brand new Dell monitor through Amazon's Dell Store
| (i.e. fulfilled by Dell themselves and shipped to me directly
| from their warehouse). The HDMI port broke a couple months
| later as it was sitting undisturbed on a desk, which was a
| common problem mentioned in its reviews. Dell flat out refused
| to replace it, saying that their database showed a different
| owner than me. Remember, they themselves shipped it straight to
| me. Amazon did right and let me return it even though it was
| already past the return period.
|
| I will never, ever buy Dell hardware again. They're dead to me.
| And when the IT department at a previous job reported to me,
| and a Dell rep cold called me to offer us a business plan, I
| politely explained why I'd rather gargle broken glass than risk
| my reputation on a vendor who doesn't understand what a
| warranty means. That felt pretty good.
| davsti4 wrote:
| Are you referring to this store - https://www.amazon.com/stor
| es/Dell/page/9B75DD0E-9F42-4B9B-A... ?
| kstrauser wrote:
| I think so.
| neebz wrote:
| For window management, Aerospace has been a game changer for
| me. I could never work with multiple monitors before that.
| gnfargbl wrote:
| Have you tried disabling GPU temporal dithering via
| BetterDisplay or StillColor? I had a similar problem with a
| different brand of monitor, and this has been the only reliable
| fix.
| ysleepy wrote:
| This helped with my S2722QC.
|
| Also: https://www.dell.com/support/kbdoc/en-
| us/000331897/apple-m-p...
| port11 wrote:
| I bought a refurbished P24-something, basically the last 4K
| monitor I could find that was 24" or smaller -- 4k @ 27+ looks
| bad for me. That Dell has been amazing. Just a counterpoint :)
| aljarry wrote:
| I had a strange problem with Dell P2720DC (27'' 2560x1440) -
| the whole outer edge of the screen would flicker if I used dark
| background with a lot of dim colours (like dark mode in IDE, or
| default Grafana theme). It wouldn't happen all the time, but it
| would happen on a weekly basis (I most often seen that on
| Sunday). I've RMA'd it, got another monitor, which also started
| showing the same problem. I gave it to someone who doesn't use
| dark mode - no issues.
|
| So, I'm not getting another Dell until I'd be sure this issue
| won't happen again :)
| wlonkly wrote:
| I have the 27" from that series. In my experience, after I
| fixed the RGB issue, I also fixed the flickering issue. And to
| fix the RGB issue, I used BetterDisplay[1], controlled by a
| Hammerspoon[2] script[3] that calls its CLI on the appropriate
| display events.
|
| The free version of BetterDisplay is sufficient, I really don't
| use any of its other features.
|
| The flickering seems to be gamma related, and is triggered by
| Nightshift or Flux for me.
|
| [1] https://github.com/waydabber/BetterDisplay#readme [2]
| https://www.hammerspoon.org/ [3]
| https://github.com/wlonkly/dotfiles/blob/master/home/.hammer...
| lowbloodsugar wrote:
| Could almost get 2x Apple Studio Displays for that $. Then you
| got 10240x2880. The Dell is only 2" taller and yet 320 less
| vertical pixels.
| kgwxd wrote:
| is there something special about it to make the front page?
| BoingBoomTschak wrote:
| Too bad it's not using IPS Black 2
| (https://www.lgdisplay.com/eng/product/monitor-display/ips-bl...)
| like the U3225QE/U2725QE or iiyama's new ProGraphics.
| quotemstr wrote:
| I can recommend the 45-inch LG Ultragear too. Nice OLED.
| 5120x2160 resolution. Perfect curvature for me, coming from a G9.
|
| Just don't be an idiot like I was. I connected my monitor to my
| dock with both DisplayPort and some random USB-C cable. Worked
| fine initially. One day, cleaning my office, I swapped out that
| USB-C cable with a higher-quality one. Took me a bit to realize
| that the consequent Wayland post-resume resolution flakiness came
| from a race condition enumerating the real-DP and USB-C-alt-mode
| "separate" monitors that my machine thought I now had.
|
| It's not often that downgrading a USB cable fixes a problem.
| breakds wrote:
| Exactly what I had via sunshine and moonlight in my Vision Pro
| ...
| para_parolu wrote:
| I have dell with similar resolution and 32 inches. It is a decent
| matrix to work with code. But increasing diagonal without
| increasing resolution just makes it expensive tv and not
| something where you read text
| Forgeties79 wrote:
| I had a Dell thunderbolt hub monitor (not sure if that was the
| exact name for it but functionally the same thing) in idk 2018?
| 1440p. _Loved it_. It played so well with my 2016 MBpro too. Even
| had HDD's running through it. It worked fantastically from top to
| bottom.
|
| For 2 years.
|
| Obviously this is not the same product and it has been a long
| time. But man I hadn't thought about that in years and now I'm
| all bitter about it again ha
| teleforce wrote:
| It's a shame that this 6K tunderbolt hub monitor does not support
| the latest thunderbolt 5 standard. Otherwise you can connect and
| daisy chain two of these 6K displays together.
| compounding_it wrote:
| I've been using a single 24 inch 1080p benq usb c monitor after
| realizing 4k 27 inch scaling is just terrible and 5k 27 inch is
| just too pricey. It's a budget monitor but it's surprising what
| 140$ can get you these days cause the quality of the panel is
| really good. It supports daisy chaining so I can add another
| monitor to my m1 air (which I can't otherwise I think). If it was
| 4k 24 inch I'd buy two as I find that size kinda perfect.
|
| Personally I've found that a single monitor is enough 90% of the
| time while coding. It's when I need to do something nitty gritty
| that I need a second monitor.
|
| That being said working with only a laptop is painful and
| extremely uncomfortable for the posture. I don't think I can get
| anything real done without a monitor keyboard and mouse. Going
| down to an 11 inch iPad sounds impossible.
| swader999 wrote:
| I always plug in a keyboard and raise the laptop up 3-5
| textbooks high. Can't work at a desk and just a laptop, too old
| for that.
| nja wrote:
| For some reason nobody makes 2K 24"s anymore -- that was my
| sweet spot. But now to get the pixel density you have to go way
| bigger :/ dreading the day the old monitors I have cease
| working. I like the 24" size but 1080 is just so annoying. I
| was using 2048x1156 20" monitors back in 2010 and they had
| better density!
| compounding_it wrote:
| we have become used to retina displays these days so 1080p 24
| inch looks 'pixelated'. I sit about 18 inches from the
| monitor and it looks okay. I find this distance and size most
| comfortable for me. The 27 inch 4k was too big for my setup
| and the scaled 2560x1440 is something I would not recommend
| (was warned about it but didn't listen :P).
| tra3 wrote:
| I didn't know you could do multimonitor setup with m1 air. Can
| you share what your setup is?
| compounding_it wrote:
| https://youtu.be/pcz0R6eEWNA?t=345
|
| I think it's called Displaylink. yet to try it with this
| particular benq but I know it can be done. The total output
| pixels are limited though so I doubt what the limitation of
| the Air is. but 2 24 inch 1080p should be doable.
| hk1337 wrote:
| I had the UltraSharp 40" similar to this, I loved it until I went
| to readjust it, apparently tilted it wrong, and the screen
| blanked. :(
| akulbe wrote:
| Am I the only one who thinks 120Hz is still low for a display of
| that size?
|
| My 38" LG goes up to 144Hz. I would have figured something larger
| would be at least that much.
| slashtom wrote:
| I purchased this as soon as it was announced, I was surprised
| they had it ready to ship on the day of the CES announcement.
|
| I do enjoy it, with Fancyzones, I can set up Unreal Engine
| Editor, Rider, discord/teams and a small corner window for
| searching and/or youtube watching on the side. At first I thought
| the pixel count was going to be too low but from my position it
| 'feels' retina at 125% windows scaling. Yes you can do the same
| with multiple monitors but I don't get the fatigue of turning my
| physical head, it's the perfect size to sit in middle and use
| your eyes to adjust/focus if that makes sense..
|
| 120hz and fast motion helps a lot. DCS World looks amazing on
| this, it feels like it's your full fov when playing games.
| Granted this isn't an OLED panel, I wouldn't play anything
| competitive on here but EU V and/or RTS games are very nice at
| 6k/52.
|
| This replaced my dual 4K 120hz monitors. Recommend if you're not
| gaming.
| diebillionaires wrote:
| I got both of my 4k dell 27" monitors for like $450 each and it's
| amazing. I would never pay this much. I'd just buy a 48" OLED.
| But that was too big. This is just silly and overpriced.
| cranium wrote:
| Looks slick! In the >50" category, I've recently upgraded from
| the Samsung Odyssey G9 49" (with res 2x1440p) to a Samsung
| Odyssey G9 57" (2x4K). With a tiling window manager and
| workspaces it's really a pleasure to use, and contrarily to some
| beliefs, I do more focused work that way because I don't have to
| switch workspace to find the information I'm looking for - less
| risk of distraction.
| 9021007 wrote:
| Any display that is <200ppi is garbage and manufacturers should
| be ashamed of themselves for pricing them above $800.
| paranoidrobot wrote:
| My desk has 2x 27" and 1x 43" Dell monitors. Unfortunately the
| new work MacBook only supports two external displays so one of
| those 27 sits idle.
|
| What used to be nice is now a case of constantly shuffling
| windows, not made easy by MacOSs janky window handling.
|
| I've been looking for a second 43" to replace the 27"s but the
| high price and sub-par quality of the 43 is making me wait.
|
| I am also finding it difficult to find monitor arms that will
| carry such large and heavy screens. The 43 is already at the
| limit of the one reasonably priced arm I found and a definite
| struggle to mount.
| sabalaba wrote:
| Is HN the last refuge of real internet discourse? While some of
| the replies are very Reddit m-coded, it still feels like real
| humans. I wonder how long this will last before the agents take
| over.
| casperb wrote:
| The scroll hijacking on this page is horrendous. I could almost
| not close the page anymore on iOS because of everything going on.
| whatever1 wrote:
| I was hoping that 8k tvs at ~50inches would become widely
| available.
|
| They were high enough density and tall enough for coding
| applications, but as first versions they had some rough edges
| (text rendering not great by default).
|
| Instead they just disappeared from the market :(
|
| I think Aliexpress has no brand panels, but at $600 it is a non
| trivial gamble.
| hinkley wrote:
| Dell has a shitty habit of down-rating monitor model numbers over
| time. The very expensive monitor your internet buddy waxed poetic
| about six months ago is now half the price and also half the
| monitor. It's not worth the trouble.
| GardenLetter27 wrote:
| I love the Dell Ultrasharp series, interesting they went with
| Thunderbolt though I had issues with it not working when trying
| to use another dock with my Thinkpad.
|
| I'd rather buy the USB-C one so I know it will work with the
| Steam Deck, etc.
|
| EDIT: Oh, only one port is Thunderbolt.
| arnejenssen wrote:
| Sure it would be cool, but I don't think not having 6k is my
| limiting factor (I have an ok 4k 42" monitor)
| littlecranky67 wrote:
| Do product companies visit their own websites? You have to click
| on three (!) overlays/popups if you visit the website - cookie
| notice, another popup telling me that I am not from the US and
| can visit their european website, and an AI alert overlay telling
| me about their new AI features. Only after clicking away all
| three I can actually see the product content. Madness.
| alchemist1e9 wrote:
| 4200R is very gentle curvature. Wouldn't it have been better to
| curve more aggressively, like at least 2000R for such a large
| screen if the purpose is a desk monitor?
| pipeline_peak wrote:
| I don't understand the point of these ultra wide monitors.
|
| On windows 11, you can only have 3 verticals columns with a
| monitor this wide. If I had 3 regular width monitors, I could
| have 6 columns overall.
|
| I'd also imagine it looks awkward when you have one window in
| full screen, but I've never used one in person.
| steveBK123 wrote:
| I refuse to buy a dell monitor again because I found their
| quality low and their warranty process onerous. Took hours of my
| time to get a replacement sent and it had I failed in a different
| way soon after.
|
| For a cheap throwaway monitor maybe. For anything premium no way.
| dnkejtskkfkg wrote:
| Even though apple, asus and samsung have some top-notch models,
| premium monitors is actually where dell excels. At least the
| different models I've bought through the last decades. Cheap
| crap hardware are not welcome in my home.
| wraptile wrote:
| This size just doesn't make sense due to overwhelming evidence
| that ergonomic viewing angles matter.
| sigy wrote:
| I ordered this within 30 minutes of learning about it. I've been
| waiting for something like this. Here's why:
|
| - My eyes are getting older, and I need a better visual
| connection to my work.
|
| - We spend much of our lives in front of these devices.
| Optimizing this just makes sense.
|
| - It is more than just a monitor with some features. It's a well-
| rounded kit with good software support.
|
| - I previously used multiple 4K monitors and external KVMs. The
| built-in KVM and management software that works with the display
| makes multi-system use as easy as it could possibly be.
|
| - The resolution has _more than_ overcome the issues I had with
| font rendering on lower resolutions while trying to have more
| visual workspace.
|
| - The thunderbolt hub has vastly reduced multi-system
| USB/wiring/speed clutter and confusion.
|
| Yes, it was expensive. Yes, I'm very happy with it. Within this
| week, it has drastically improved my sense of comfort and
| utility, and I got rid of all the other monitors.
|
| Ok, for the gripes:
|
| - The curvature is a bit minor compared to what I'm used to.
| Given the spatial density I want, the optimal distance is less
| than 30" from the display, and with my aging eyes at this
| distance, looking from center to edge changes my focal depth by
| more than a small amount. That said, the off-axis views are quite
| good. Essentially, looking at this display from a longer distance
| wastes much of the effective ocular resolution.
|
| - The software is great, but if you want something more tactile,
| reaching to the sole multi-purpose menu stick is not that great.
| It wouldn't have hurt for them to provide a USB-connected desktop
| switch. I hope they still do. This monitor runs its own "OS" of
| sorts, and can be extended with new functionality should they
| choose to.
|
| - Finding the improved dynamic range took a bit of learning. The
| way it works feels better (less of a special case) for me, but I
| had to go adjust the settings to tap into higher resolution per
| color plane.
|
| If anybody has any specific questions, I'll be happy to answer
| them.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2026-01-17 23:01 UTC)