28-Inch '4K' Display from Dell Priced at $699, Launches January 23

[Moonjumper]

A lot of people are wondering whether their current Mac will support this monitor or not.

If your Mac has Thunderbolt 1/mDP: Yes, but only at 30 Hz, which is fine for videos but a little choppy for computer use or gaming. I don't recommend dropping that amount of money on a monitor you'll only use at 30 Hz, unless you plan to upgrade your Mac in the not-so-distant future.

If your Mac has Thunderbolt 2: Yes, up to 60 Hz as long as OS X "whitelists" this monitor for use with Multi-Stream Transport (MST). Anandtech found the 24" version of this monitor does not work with MST under OS X (limiting the refresh rate to 30 Hz), but it's just a matter of time before Apple updates OS X with better 4K support and an updated MST whitelist. Meanwhile, it should work fine at 60Hz under Windows 8.1.

If you own another device with DisplayPort: Make sure it has DisplayPort 1.2 in order to use this monitor's MST feature and reach 60Hz, otherwise you're stuck at 30Hz.

If you own another device with HDMI: If you have HDMI 1.3 or earlier, it won't work at all. If you have HDMI 1.4, it'll work, but you're stuck at 30Hz. Only HDMI 2.0 will allow 60Hz UHD 4K and this monitor doesn't appear to include it. HDMI 2.0 is expected to debut in Q2 2014.

I do hope OS X is updated with better 4K support soon.

One little thing. HDMI 2.0 is already out. The Panasonic TX-L65WT600 was the first released product in 2013.

 

[The Doctor11]

Well, that's.... cheap.

Not cheap. Cheaper.

----------

Why does dell make 4k displays? Well all know no one will ever use a dell 4k display with a dell computer. Just a fact of life...

 

[milo]

Why does MR keep putting "4K" in quotes? Aren't these 4K monitors? Not "4k" monitors? Reading the article it seemed like scare quotes, like the companies were calling them 4k but they weren't really.

 

[GJN]

So when will we finally see the Apple Thunderbolt II 4K display(s)?

 

[pgiguere1]

One little thing. HDMI 2.0 is already out. The Panasonic TX-L65WT600 was the first released product in 2013.

Thanks for the info! I edited my comment.

 

[Mr. Retrofire]

would this be a good buy for a mac mini?

Wait for an update.

----------

Why does dell make 4k displays? Well all know no one will ever use a dell 4k display with a dell computer. Just a fact of life...

1. 4K is the new standard 16:9 resolution.
2. Dell workstations and 4K displays-why not!?

 

[Illusion986]

A lot of people are wondering whether their current Mac will support this monitor or not.

If your Mac has Thunderbolt 1/mDP: Yes, but only at 30 Hz, which is fine for videos but a little choppy for computer use or gaming. I don't recommend dropping that amount of money on a monitor you'll only use at 30 Hz, unless you plan to upgrade your Mac in the not-so-distant future.

If your Mac has Thunderbolt 2: Yes, up to 60 Hz as long as OS X "whitelists" this monitor for use with Multi-Stream Transport (MST). Anandtech found the 24" version of this monitor does not work with MST under OS X (limiting the refresh rate to 30 Hz), but it's just a matter of time before Apple updates OS X with better 4K support and an updated MST whitelist. Meanwhile, it should work fine at 60 Hz under Windows 8.1.

If you own another device with DisplayPort: Make sure it has DisplayPort 1.2 in order to use this monitor's MST feature and reach 60 Hz, otherwise you're stuck at 30 Hz.

If you own another device with HDMI: If you have HDMI 1.3 or earlier, 4K won't work at all. If you have HDMI 1.4, it'll work, but you're stuck at 30Hz. Only HDMI 2.0 will allow 60 Hz UHD 4K and this monitor doesn't appear to include it (other Dell UHD 4K monitors in the same series don't). HDMI 2.0 is technically already released and has been available for license for a while, but computer monitors are only expected to include it starting in Q2 2014.

I need Advil after reading this! Good post thou I'm sure it will be useful to many

 

[chfilm]

LOL at all the people who expected Apple to come out with a uber-expensive UHD display last year when the price UHD panels were obviously going to drop like a stone during 2014.



This. This has been posted several times, including in a MR front page article, and it doesn't seem to have penetrated people's heads yet. Until Apple supports arbitrary DPI modes (like Windows) and persuades developers to write resolution-independent code, these are only going to be useful for people with better-than-20:20 eyesight who can work with tiny system fonts at native res, or as a secondary display for previewing UHD video.

Exactly, I've been posting this a thousand times now in the forums and still no one seems to get it.

This screen is most likely at least in the beginning not gonna be compatible with the nMP (see anand review) plus the resolution scaling issue.
It drives me crazy! I need to buy a screen for my Mac Pro before it arrives In February and don't know what to do! I'd like to buy this as an investment, being pretty confident that apple will fix the issues in osx in the future but who knows when that will be? And I can't work at 1x resolution!

 

[Macist]

Who cares about 4k displays being cheap?

What's the viewing angle like? The contrast? The gamut? Can it be accurately colour calibrated?

Currently, you can spend $199 on a 24" display or $1600 for a high end 24" LaCie. There's more to a display than cheapness.

 

[ckeck]

As others have mentioned, this is not an "UltraSharp" series like the larger 4K display that Dell just released. I'm very curious to see what's left out of this screen/monitor versus the UltraSharp (aside from size). The price is good but what was sacrificed?

For what it's worth, I talked to my Dell rep today and he was able to discount the new UP3214Q from $3,499 to $1,975. Would love to get one at that price but I don't think this display or the smaller 24" Dell are properly supported in Mavericks yet

 

[guzhogi]

Anyone else wonder how high resolutions will go? I can appreciate more detail, but at what point is it just adding pixels to add pixels? At what point do people say "There are enough pixels on this size screen"? We're talking about 4K now, in a year or two, we'll see 8K displays. When will we hit our limit?

 

[Polyphonie]

If Apple were to released a 4K display @ 3840*2160 it would have to be for 21.5" or 24" display (doubling from the current resolution of 1920*1080).

For the 27" or 30" display, it's probably 5120*2880/3200 or what is known as WHXGA. That way you can still run a 4096*2160 (the industry resolution) window within a single display setup of FCPX. Which is similar to running 1080p windows in the current 27" CD/TBP or rMBP. Here's what a 4K window would look like on a 5120*3200 display:

 

[wetcanvas]

these 700 dollar 4k dell monitors will come with a very special 25 dead pixels or less policy.

 

[ajfahey]

What a Waste

You need to get above 55 inches to even notice the pixelation in a 4K display. At 28 inches it is a distinction without a difference.

 

[PatriotInvasion]

You need to get above 55 inches to even notice the pixelation in a 4K display. At 28 inches it is a distinction without a difference.

Huh?

Hold an iPhone 4, 4s, 5, or 5s up against an iPhone 3G

Hold an iPad Air next to the iPad 2

Hold a Retina MacBook Pro next to a MacBook Air

All NO CONTEST. More pixels = better 100 times out of 100

Now go look at Apple's current Thunderbolt Display and iMac line. The individual pixels are very apparent on screen, especially when you get used to viewing Retina screens on iOS devices and rMBP's. Text is grainy and not as pleasant to read. 4K will dramatically help the pixel density of 21+" computer monitors and in some cases not even enough to qualify as "Retina".

 

[Renzatic]

No tech spech found. They're hiding something. I presume it will be 6-bit per channel and the RGB primaries suck.

I'm kinda worried about that, too. But considering Dell usually doesn't cut corners with their Ultrasharp line, I'm gonna be cautiously optimistic assume it's gonna be a quality display.

...and by cautiously optimistic, I mean I'd wait for the reviews before buying one. Just in case.

 

[LordVic]

All NO CONTEST. More pixels = better 100 times out of 100
.

ehhhh, I don't agree to this statement at all.

at least not as a blanket statement.

For example, in a 5" device, if the device passes that mystical "Retina" point where you can no longer discern individual pixels in a display, what is the point at ramming even more pixels in it? we're already at that with 1080p displays in ~5" phones.

Yet, they're now showcasing and trying to get 5" 1440p phone displays...

so, they're talking about increasing the resolution from a point that you can't tell the difference, to a point that you can't tell the difference. Meanwhile, that increase in screen resolution will require more overall processing power, memory bandwith and everything related to driving that many more pixels. Which overall means devices that require more and more power just to run in the "normal state". The obvious trade off is battery, and the like

But I do agree in the basic sense that if there are no trade offs to be made, go for the highest pixel density you can get for comfort

 

[Renzatic]

Anyone else wonder how high resolutions will go? I can appreciate more detail, but at what point is it just adding pixels to add pixels? At what point do people say "There are enough pixels on this size screen"? We're talking about 4K now, in a year or two, we'll see 8K displays. When will we hit our limit?

Honestly, 4k is the first step towards the threshold of diminishing returns. I see 8k being targeted more towards the print, CAD, and industrial design markets, who live and die by high quality displays. The consumer to mid level production markets though, they'll be thriving off of 4k for years to come.

 

[MacAddict1978]

Its still only a 28" display and currently movies won't take advantage of the increase in resolution anyway as most all are 1080 so for watching movies you still may wanna just buy a bigger hd tv set

And on a display that small, you won't even notice the difference for a movie.

Just like 1080 was useless on sub 50" screens, 4K isn't truly realized until you're going above 70" and is more a tech for whole wall displays.

But no one ever bothers to learn these details. 4k, oh wow. its so much better i have to have it now!

The only people who actually need this in a monitor are video pros who will be editing and working with 4K content....

But this is marketing at its finest.... and I think they've managed to create a market that everyone said wouldn't hit for at least a decade beacuse no one needs this until tv's hit wall size, 100" plus screens....


*And disclaimer.... those who argue the 1080/720 the components in most 720p tvs were crap which the only reason you saw differences in images not the resolution itself

 

[PatriotInvasion]

And on a display that small, you won't even notice the difference for a movie.

Just like 1080 was useless on sub 50" screens, 4K isn't truly realized until you're going above 70" and is more a tech for whole wall displays.

But no one ever bothers to learn these details. 4k, oh wow. its so much better i have to have it now!

The only people who actually need this in a monitor are video pros who will be editing and working with 4K content....

But this is marketing at its finest.... and I think they've managed to create a market that everyone said wouldn't hit for at least a decade beacuse no one needs this until tv's hit wall size, 100" plus screens....


*And disclaimer.... those who argue the 1080/720 the components in most 720p tvs were crap which the only reason you saw differences in images not the resolution itself

This is just wrong when it comes to computer monitors that people sit 2 feet away from. I can see the pixels on an iMac. The lower pixel density makes text jagged and grainy. At 4K resolution, this will be mitigated considerably.

I understand when you're 8-10 feet away from a television, that 1080p vs 4K won't be a huge change on smaller tv's, but we're not talking about tv's here.

 

[GP20]

So is a late 2013 15 rMBP with Iris Pro ONLY capable of driving a 4K display at 60Hz?

 

[ohbrilliance]

It's fantastic to see such solid price reductions sooner rather than later. Now all we need is OS X to support HiDPI/scaled resolutions on external monitors.

 

[theSeb]

FYI, only these two 4K displays are specifically listed as "supported" on the Late 2013 Mac Pro.

Sharp PN-K321
ASUS PQ321Q

I am quite confident that this will change in the near future.

 

[macchiato2009]

lots of 4K screens coming

but this reminds me of when apple first introduced retina displays, internet looks ugly, like pictures on yahoo, all pixelated

4K will do the same

 

[AppleScruff1]

Honestly, 4k is the first step towards the threshold of diminishing returns. I see 8k being targeted more towards the print, CAD, and industrial design markets, who live and die by high quality displays. The consumer to mid level production markets though, they'll be thriving off of 4k for years to come.

Personally I think that 401K is better for the future.