Dell 27" 4k IPS 60 Hz

[wand3r3r]

The first cheap(er) IPS screen that I've seen.
$699 MSRP
(based on dell's price)

Ultra HD 3840 x 2160 resolution: Over 8 million pixels with four times the resolution of Full HD, plus wide color coverage at 99% sRGB (deltaE <3).

Panel Type, Surface:
In-plane switching (IPS)

Optimal resolution:
3840 x 2160 at 60 Hz

Response Time:
Grey-to-Grey. 9 ms (typical). 6ms (fast)

Viewing Angle:
178° vertical / 178° horizontal

http://accessories.us.dell.com/sna/...&cid=283233&lid=5382216&acd=12309207133360126

As noted in the other thread where it was mentioned it's already available for $500 on sale! That's incredibly cheap for a 4k IPS monitor.

 

[Bateluer]

 

[Qwertilot]

Well cheap for an IPS 4k

The ASUS PB279Q has been showing at a few European outlets for a little while at around the same price but doesn't seem to have arrived on sale yet. Some BenQ thing due too.

Not that the Dell has arrived everywhere yet - not their UK website yet for instance.

I just hope the panels are any good really. All very good news though.

 

[imaheadcase]

Deal dead.

 

[TheThirdMan]

Why is the u2715 $100 expensive than this? I don't get how 2560x1440 monitors are more than 4k. It's like that resolution is cursed to never be affordable...

 

[Borealis7]

60hz via DP only, right?

 

[Skurge]

What the heck does this mean?

"Grey-to-Grey. 9 ms (typical). 6ms (fast)"

 

[SexyK]

Deal dead.

Dang, probably would have jumped on this at $500. Although I would prefer something in the 30-32" range at 4K.

 

[TrulyUncouth]

What the heck does this mean?

"Grey-to-Grey. 9 ms (typical). 6ms (fast)"

I would guess there is a "fast" setting that trades some image quality for improved response time.

 

[smackababy]

What the heck does this mean?

"Grey-to-Grey. 9 ms (typical). 6ms (fast)"

I think it means it averages 9ms, but in some cases can perform as fast as 6ms. Rather than simply say "Up to 6ms response time!" like an ISP would, they given the typical numbers and the fastest results they could achieve under ideal settings.

In other words, expect 9ms grey to grey, and be happy that in certain situations, you will get faster than that.

 

[Bateluer]

Why is the u2715 $100 expensive than this? I don't get how 2560x1440 monitors are more than 4k. It's like that resolution is cursed to never be affordable...

1440p monitors had their day for affordability with prices under 400 USD. Now, they're the red headed step child as attention is all focused on 4K UHD displays. Less production on 1440p, higher prices. More production on 4K, lower prices.

 

[TheThirdMan]

1440p monitors had their day for affordability with prices under 400 USD. Now, they're the red headed step child as attention is all focused on 4K UHD displays. Less production on 1440p, higher prices. More production on 4K, lower prices.

The cheapest 1440 monitor in the UK is the u2713hm and that costs over $600 for a b-grade one. 4k Is useless at 24" on windows at the moment, not sure what the market is.

 

[Attic]

The cheapest 1440 monitor in the UK is the u2713hm and that costs over $600 for a b-grade one. 4k Is useless at 24" on windows at the moment, not sure what the market is.

Useless because of DPI scaling issues or other?


I love the MacBooks i've used that have 1600p on as small as 13" screens.

 

[ShintaiDK]

It is a very tempting screen. But I would prefer something bigger than 27" for 4K.

 

[wand3r3r]

http://tftcentral.co.uk/ has a review "coming" for it.

I'm curious to see their expert opinion on it. I'm also VERY curious if this is a display which will support freesync with a firmware update.

My personal favorites at the moment are the:
Sharp 40" VA
Dell 27" IPS
ucoming 4k freesync monitors

 

[Bubbleawsome]

See, I think 4k 27" is great. It's the size of an imac screen for comparison, and up until this gen those were 1440p. I guess I just like clarity over size. Scaling is an issue though.

 

[wand3r3r]

Everyone complaining about the scaling could be more useful by providing screenshots of the issues you are talking about.

I see the statement perpetuated all over the place but I haven't ran into anything which would ruin the experience.

It's an interesting time in the monitor world and I can't wait to see the next screens as they keep trickling out. 4k, faster hz, curved displays, synchronization (g/free sync), new panels (va/s-ips etc). Not all of those are immediate improvements but over the past handful of years. We're finally getting beyond tiny little improvements (in the past merely 1024x768 to 1280x1024 with a couple ms reduction in g2g etc.) and actually getting appreciable improvements. Something has driven the industry to innovate, at least it feels like it to me.

 

[ShintaiDK]

Everyone complaining about the scaling could be more useful by providing screenshots of the issues you are talking about.

Not a screenshot tho.

http://www.pcgamer.com/the-secret-problem-with-4k-display-scaling/

Also why I feel 27" is a bit small for 4K.

 

[Attic]

For scaling in windows 7 on my HTPS I set to 150% DPI under Display settings from control panel.

For 4k might need up to 200% on a 27" screen depending on distance.


Problem I have with the non 100% (default) DPI is that some programs don't work with it and you get critical information not being displayed because of program specific lack of support for non standard DPI settings. This has gotten much better over the past few years, but is still an issue in some situations. Chrome specifically was a problem for me because it would always revert it's zoom to 100%, IE properly scales, chrome would have to be set for every new tab I opened (nightmare). Chrome appears fixed to me from the past week though (HTPC been dormat for few months).

 

[Black Octagon]

Windows 10 should fix the scaling issue, one would hope

 

[Hauk]

Also why I feel 27" is a bit small for 4K.

Would a 32" screen be ideal?

 

[wand3r3r]

I disagree, primarily since I've used 28" 4k and found no scaling issues that were alarming to me. If it scales, it will scale at 27,28,32,40 or any size in between. I'm still waiting for some screenshots from the guys who keep perpetuating the statements. I have seen for example some text in steam was tiny, and there were browser differences, but some work excellent so it's no big deal.

There are two different ideas here, and I can see both sides.
1. Go small and get incredible "retina" details (for lack of a better term).
2. Go huge and get similar big pixels like they are in some screens (for more open windows etc.).

I don't feel that 27" is too small, or 40" to big, both have their uses. For screen real estate for productivity the large screen may be more desirable to have more apps open side by side etc., whereas for gaming the highly detailed retina could provide a better experience.

Most of the opinionated posters don't seem to have even tried it and go off of hearsay which is why I like examples to go off and discuss.

 

[imaheadcase]

Windows 10 should fix the scaling issue, one would hope

We hoped that for win 8.

 

[ShintaiDK]

Would a 32" screen be ideal?

30-32 I think.

 

[Eric1987]

For scaling in windows 7 on my HTPS I set to 150% DPI under Display settings from control panel.

For 4k might need up to 200% on a 27" screen depending on distance.


Problem I have with the non 100% (default) DPI is that some programs don't work with it and you get critical information not being displayed because of program specific lack of support for non standard DPI settings. This has gotten much better over the past few years, but is still an issue in some situations. Chrome specifically was a problem for me because it would always revert it's zoom to 100%, IE properly scales, chrome would have to be set for every new tab I opened (nightmare). Chrome appears fixed to me from the past week though (HTPC been dormat for few months).

Thats insane scaling! 150%? 200%? Hell I only changed mine to 125% and I thought it was perfect.