Dell announces 32" 8k monitor for $4,999

RareEntitee · 6 Jan 2017 at 17:27

Article on tomshardware suggests connectivity being dual display port 1.3 to drive 8k @60hz. If it was 1.4 it wouldn't need two cables.

The bandwidth on the 1.3 spec maxes out at 8k 30hz, so it looks like each cable is driving half the screen, same as when dell bought their 5k monitor to market. I understand the new standard was announced recently, probably after its design was finalised, but it would have been better to delay release for 1.4 or even a thunderbolt 3 port

Greebo · 6 Jan 2017 at 17:30

southernorth said:
I wonder how many generations we are from 8k @144hz anyway, 3? It might only be possible well past 2020 and even then for like 5k

God wishful thinking! AT the snails pace the monitor industry moves I cant see them till 2025.

RareEntitee · 6 Jan 2017 at 17:32

*edit just watched video in link, dell says its 1.4 compliant and can run off a single cable, so im assuming a pascal chip can support it with supported drivers, video stated they were using workstation quadros

RareEntitee · 6 Jan 2017 at 17:33

at least they have officially announced release, unlike the oled from a year ago

Brazo · 6 Jan 2017 at 23:17

Surely these are pointless given a certain screen size. Retina screens (apple) are about 220dpi and anything more is wasted. This screen is 275dpi so a waste as far as the human eye is concerned.

Basically 4K at 27inch is as good as it gets. Yes 8k becomes more important if you want bigger screens but that's all it's good for.

Vega · 8 Jan 2017 at 17:08

http://www.lesnumeriques.com/monite...s-oled-dell-est-finalement-annule-n59151.html

Look's like the Dell OLED is officially cancelled. I wonder if they will go through with this 8K monitor.

Quartz · 8 Jan 2017 at 19:08

Brazo said:
Surely these are pointless given a certain screen size. Retina screens (apple) are about 220dpi and anything more is wasted. This screen is 275dpi so a waste as far as the human eye is concerned.

So there's no point in investing in a 600 dpi printer because the output is just the same as a 300 dpi printer, right?

RidingTheFlow · 8 Jan 2017 at 20:18

Quartz said:
So there's no point in investing in a 600 dpi printer because the output is just the same as a 300 dpi printer, right?

Apples and oranges. Printers are using patterns to generate colour shade grades (since drop of ink always at "max" colour intensity, unlike screen pixel), hence printers need lot of smaller "dots" for same image quality.

southernorth · 9 Jan 2017 at 13:53

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IjpqQwhAVE4

Video about the monitor

Rofflay · 9 Jan 2017 at 17:40

Im the kind of person who would want this but higher HZ 75 minimum. PPI really really does bother me i hate it with a passion if i see pixels. And 4K at the sizes they sell doesnt do it this one with that PPI at 280 would finally get rid of everythingg imagine the clarity it is basically complete perfection as an image.

The problems start when you move with blur and refresh rate. And i doubt this one has anything near ULMB and it is still 60hz so a fair bit of that 8K resolution will simply vanish once in motion which is really sad when you are driving 8k pixels. So i would say no thanks yet Dell the 4K 120hz panel they have looks a better option because driving pixels that blur is not something i can personally bring myself to do.

SilverFish21 · 10 Jan 2017 at 19:59

Vega said:
http://www.lesnumeriques.com/monite...e become old hat by then. Or so I hear... :)

Captain · 10 Jan 2017 at 20:03

Nexus18 said:
Nope.

The only people that seem to keep saying that there is little to no support are the ones who don't own an ultrawide monitor in the first place

95% of the stuff I do on my 21.9 monitor works superbly and any game that hasn't supported 21.9 has been easily fixed with a simple click of a button via flawless widescreen or going through a config file to change a few lines. AFAIK, there is only one game that has awful 21.9 support and that is overwatch (developers seem to think that it adds a competitive advantage yet their other games have 21.9 support...)

The game that was the biggest faff to get 21.9 working was fallout 4 as you have to go through about 4-6 config files to get proper 21.9 support.

Personally, the only way I will move back to a 16.9 display for my PC is for OLED tech or possibly a HDR with full array zone back lights...

As for 8k, lol... we are still at least 1-2 years of until we can play games at 4k with a consistent 60 FPS and satisfactory settings....

What about simple things like youtube not playing in 21:9? So much wasted screen space unless you find the odd video shot in 21:9

Nexus18 · 10 Jan 2017 at 22:59

Clov!s said:
What about simple things like youtube not playing in 21:9? So much wasted screen space unless you find the odd video shot in 21:9

That is down to content creators shooting/recording in 16.9, they need to ascend then 21.9 videos will be more common!

But yup most of the youtube videos are still 16.9 and I imagine will be for quite a while, any videos which are 21.9 and don't fill the screen i.e. blacks bars at the sides and top are fixed by an extension.

Personally it doesn't bother me as I never full screen a youtube video, 99% of the time, I will put it to one side with a browser on the other side:

Legend · 11 Jan 2017 at 00:03

LOL!!

4K barely scraping by at 60FPS and the 8K hype train has started. Brilliant!

southernorth · 11 Jan 2017 at 00:34

Legend said:
LOL!! 4K barely scraping by at 60FPS and the 8K hype train has started. Brilliant!

As mentioned in various videos for the monitor, it's intended use is for professionals and not gaming. Even spending £10k on GPU's won't get you 8k at 60fps. Will be nice for the very lucky few who have their company fork out for an 8k screen though.

Am still not sure who will be running that other new screen (4k @144hz) at anywhere near design specifications. Certainly not even titan xp sli reaches there.

Akagi · 11 Jan 2017 at 00:47

Needs to be about 60" to make that resolution usable.

Brazo · 17 Jan 2017 at 22:55

Acme said:
Needs to be about 60" to make that resolution usable.

Exactly and even then it's simply a whole string of interconnected 1080p panels!

A smaller 1080p screen is far 'sharper' than a 40inch 4K screen

Quartz · 18 Jan 2017 at 00:14

Linus did a test last year with 4x 4K monitors with two Titan XPs and found that he could game at medium or high settings at 8K at decent frame rates.

Perfect_Chaos · 18 Jan 2017 at 02:03

Frame rates would be absolutely abysmal, much much rather the upcoming 144hz 4k screens even if unable to run newer games close to the full refresh rate right now.

Still, for non gaming i guess some might find a use for these.

TNA · 26 Mar 2017 at 10:51

I think these are out now. Dell UltraSharp 32 8K Monitor: UP3218K.

@Kaapstad - So, you getting one mate? Would love to read your comparison from 4K to 8K