Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Dell Wasn't Joking About That 28-Inch Sub-$1000 4K Monitor; It's Only $699

forbes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 238 posts

Re: Dell Wasn't Joking About That 28-Inch Sub-$1000 4K Monitor; It's Only $699

#161

Post by JackC »

mortenjorck wrote: post #149

Something to keep in mind is that this is effectively a Windows monitor, not a Mac one. The reason for this is PPI: Most Apple displays are in the 100-110 PPI range, with Retina Display Macs doubling that to 220 PPI. At 28", a 3840 x 2160 panel has a PPI of 157, which sits right between Retina and non-Retina densities. This means that on a Mac, you’ll have to use it one of two ways: Either at 1x, where the higher PPI…

> This means that on a Mac, you’ll have to use it one of two ways: Either at 1x, ... or at 2x

Huh. Are you maybe thinking of iOS, or have you confirmed this with a high-PPI external monitor on a Mac? Because it's not true of the built-in screen for retina MBPs. I typically use the 1.5x resolution (1920x1200) or 12/7x resolution (1680x1050), which are both supported by the built-in system prefs, and both look perfectly sharp as far as I can tell. Other resolutions are available via 3rd-party hacks and seem to work fine.

The sharpness is supposedly because things are rendered at double resolution and then scaled down, which required some clever GPU work; whatever it is, it works for me. I'm prepared to believe that things don't work as well for third-party external monitors, though. Or maybe we're not ready yet to handle 60% more pixels, when the rMBP is already pushing performance limits?

Re: Dell Wasn't Joking About That 28-Inch Sub-$1000 4K Monitor; It's Only $699

#162

Post by catinsocks »

Jongseong wrote: post #125
chrisdone wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think everybody cares about high DPG typography, they just rarely have a choice in the matter. If you ask Joe bloggs on the street to choose the more readable text that they'd prefer between a display from 2001 and 2010 they'll choose the 2010 one every time. Nobody sells a cutting edge laptop with a lower screen resolution, so it's never a choice somebody has to make, so nobody really knows it's a thing, explicitl…

I'm only relying on memory, but I don't think screen resolutions on high-end personal computers improved significantly between 2001 and 2010, even as drastic improvements were seen in smaller devices such as phones. The reason is that large screens with higher resolutions mean even more pixels, and a higher likelihood that one of them will fail during the manufacturing process, resulting in significant numbers of fau…

We are only just starting to see higher ppis in bigger devices (retina macbooks, high ppi tablets, limited ultrabooks).

But even the difference between a 13" laptop and 15" laptop is noticeably crisper when directly compared at the same resolution (1366x768 in recent years).

Even going from an older 1680x1050 22" monitor to a 16:9 1920x1080 is a somewhat noticeable difference.

However when you aren't comparing directly, or switching from one to the other, it is hard to see the clarity improvement.

Looking at a 22" monitor from a retina display makes the fonts look blurry and off but if you start working on that monitor at the beginning of the day it isn't quite so bad.

Re: Dell Wasn't Joking About That 28-Inch Sub-$1000 4K Monitor; It's Only $699

#164

Post by bhauer »

dmm wrote: post #150
bhauer wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I so want to believe you're right, but I don't see anything on that page that suggests those DisplayPorts can drive 3840x2160. The footnotes imply, but do not say specifically, that 2560x1600 is the maximum resolution supported by each port. Am I wrong?

I'm not sure what resolutions it supports. Looking at it again it seems like a 2560x1600 max is a safe assumption. Looks like you're stuck with full-length, double width cards for now: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814129...

Awesome! That fits the bill just fine since it's still just right for the board in my PC, which has a single PCI Express x16 slot. Thank you for pointing me to this!

Re: Dell Wasn't Joking About That 28-Inch Sub-$1000 4K Monitor; It's Only $699

#165

Post by hyko »

JackC wrote: post #161
mortenjorck wrote: post #149

Something to keep in mind is that this is effectively a Windows monitor, not a Mac one. The reason for this is PPI: Most Apple displays are in the 100-110 PPI range, with Retina Display Macs doubling that to 220 PPI. At 28", a 3840 x 2160 panel has a PPI of 157, which sits right between Retina and non-Retina densities. This means that on a Mac, you’ll have to use it one of two ways: Either at 1x, where the higher PPI…

> This means that on a Mac, you’ll have to use it one of two ways: Either at 1x, ... or at 2x Huh. Are you maybe thinking of iOS, or have you confirmed this with a high-PPI external monitor on a Mac? Because it's not true of the built-in screen for retina MBPs. I typically use the 1.5x resolution (1920x1200) or 12/7x resolution (1680x1050), which are both supported by the built-in system prefs, and both look perfectl…

I think mortenjorck is talking about HiDPI mode, which doesn't provide as many options as retina mode: http://apple.stackexchange.com/questions/107846/how-to-enabl...

Re: Dell Wasn't Joking About That 28-Inch Sub-$1000 4K Monitor; It's Only $699

#166

Post by viraptor »

kayoone wrote: post #154
bhauer wrote: post #126

Excellent. Again, a big thank you to Seiki for dropping a bomb on the display industry, whether or not Dell acknowledges it. 3840x2160 at 28 inches is quite fantastic. A step closer to 10,000+ horizontal pixels in a single ~50 inch display, which I consider an ideal for desktop computing. The burning question for me right now is who will sell me a GPU with three DisplayPorts to drive three of these? The top-end nVidi…

+1 for the idea of the single 50inch 16K display. I also would love something like that, running a single 40inch 4K display should be possible quite soon and would give me roughly the same DPI as my current 2x 1920x1200 24s. But since im a coder, separating windows in different monitors might be better than using one super large display with windows cluttered everywhere, but id be willing to try. What to you use your…

> separating windows in different monitors might be better than using one super large display with windows cluttered everywhere

There's lots of desktop environments which will provide you with nice window tiling, so you can simulate any monitor split you want. Or even without full tiling, many environments allow to use a halfscreen-left / halfscreen-right placement.

Re: Dell Wasn't Joking About That 28-Inch Sub-$1000 4K Monitor; It's Only $699

#167

Post by Jongseong »

catinsocks wrote: post #162
Jongseong wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm only relying on memory, but I don't think screen resolutions on high-end personal computers improved significantly between 2001 and 2010, even as drastic improvements were seen in smaller devices such as phones. The reason is that large screens with higher resolutions mean even more pixels, and a higher likelihood that one of them will fail during the manufacturing process, resulting in significant numbers of fau…

We are only just starting to see higher ppis in bigger devices (retina macbooks, high ppi tablets, limited ultrabooks). But even the difference between a 13" laptop and 15" laptop is noticeably crisper when directly compared at the same resolution (1366x768 in recent years). Even going from an older 1680x1050 22" monitor to a 16:9 1920x1080 is a somewhat noticeable difference. However when you aren't comparing direct…

Yes, as far as ppis on bigger devices, it feels like there has been much more progress in the past couple of years than in the decade preceding them. The difference is certainly noticeable in direct comparison, though most consumers are not likely to notice except in cases such as poorly hinted text.

Re: Dell Wasn't Joking About That 28-Inch Sub-$1000 4K Monitor; It's Only $699

#168

Post by simcop2387 »

bhauer wrote: post #136
bryanlarsen wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you're happy with the HDMI port driving your 4K monitor (which means you're running at 30Hz), it seems that a GTX 660 or better will work. (AMD cards have similar port layouts) DP: 4K @ 60Hz HDMI: 4K @ 30Hz 2xDVI: use dual-link DVI->HDMI adapters (which are expensive, granted) If your monitor supports being driven by 2 HDMI cables, you can use 2 of the HDMI ports to drive one of the monitors at 60Hz. Of course, I…

I am presently happy with 30 Hz—very happy in fact because the resolution is so spectacular. However, if I owned three of these Dell monitors, I would definitely want them to all function at 60 Hz. And I don't believe the dual-link DVI ports on the nVidia cards will do greater than 2560x1600. I think the only way to drive three of these Dells at 60 Hz would be a 3x DisplayPort GPU. nVidia and AMD, are you listening?…

Apparently AMD makes one at least, https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7024581

And so does NVIDIA, never heard of their NVS line though.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?gclid=CPr5wO6T77s...

Re: Dell Wasn't Joking About That 28-Inch Sub-$1000 4K Monitor; It's Only $699

#169

Post by ColinDabritz »

GigabyteCoin wrote: post #163

Who ever thought they were joking?

I think the "wasn't joking" is in reference to the "less than $1000". I think many people assumed the usual marketing phrasing here indicated that the display would likely run $999 or similar. $699 is dramatically less, which is surprising to me.

Re: Dell Wasn't Joking About That 28-Inch Sub-$1000 4K Monitor; It's Only $699

#170

Post by byuu »

0x0 wrote: post #13

Does this monitor have a built-in scaler, or do you get a small picture if you run at less than the full native resolution? I saw some earlier articles complaining about the lack of a scaler on some of the new "4k" monitors, but I couldn't find anything right now about this one.

It's worse than just a tiny picture: my ZR30w cannot display any source formats not 2560x1600. So I cannot connect it to any game consoles, a Roku box, etc. Only a PC video card.

But it does result in an astonishingly low latency, at least.

Post reply on HN