News - Dell updates flagship Ultrasharp monitor range

[HEXUS]

Four new monitors unveiled including an ultra-wide 21:9 ratio 29-inch display.

Read more.

[dvirv52]

my brother have Dell UltraSharp U2413 24-inch Monitors with PremierColor really worth the money
the best monitor i saw

[sykobee]

I'd like a 24" monitor with a 2560x1440 resolution. That 21:9 display 29" display is quite low resolution for its size.

[idris]

Agree with Sykobee - been waiting for 24" with higher than 1920x1200 - that would be great.

[bobharvey]

Ye gods and green things. 30" and 0nly 1600 vertical pixels? What is this, 1999?

There are 10" tablets with that many vertical pixels. I hope this thing sells for a couple of hundred quid.

[kompukare]

Well, Windows still doesn't scale fonts properly (maybe Metro apps will be stricter...), so 24" with 1440P would look tiny. My eyes certainly would quickly get tired. Also, I though I read somewhere that the higher res screens are not as bright for a given backlight intensity so they require brigher light, i.e. consume more power. My monitor is an old NEC 2170NX which is S-PVA so the colours, viewing angles and text are fine but for a 21" monitor is pulls ~70W. A 42" LED backlit TV pulls less than that so power consumption would be a major factor when I upgrade my monitor.

[kingpotnoodle]

I love the idea of 21:9 - it fits great with the idea of using your laptop or docked tablet with a big screen on the desk, most tablets/laptops only having one display out port means that a 21:9 monitor in theory gives you a lot more multitasking ability, especially with Windows 7/8 Window snapping it'd work really well.

But, 2560x1080? Useless - why would I not simply buy a 27" 2560x1440 or 2560x1600 monitor and have more vertical pixels?

Worth noting that 29" 2560x1080 would be similar physical vertical height as a 24.8" 16:9 monitor if my Pythagorean maths is right so pixel density isn't *that* bad, but very average and much worse than a 27" 2560x1440 monitor.

2560x1200 would have been a step in the right direction but for me 21:9 would need to be 3360x1440/1600 to be of any useful benefit, no point in a wider monitor having the same number of horizontal pixels as 27" 16:9/16:10 monitors unless it undercuts them in price by a large margin - and it doesn't really. The 29" Dell's RRP is $699, plenty of 2560x1440 monitors out there at that price.

[gagaga]

Ye gods and green things. 30" and 0nly 1600 vertical pixels? What is this, 1999?

There are 10" tablets with that many vertical pixels. I hope this thing sells for a couple of hundred quid.

Couple of hundred... riiight. It'll be a grand or so here like the 3011. My 3011 is great - resolution is about right for the size (you have to sit a reasonable distance back or the size is overwhelming when on the desktop). Top quality screen, factory calibrated, proper stand etc. I know a lot of people use 32" TVs as monitors but I think they are for gaiming mainly where the immersion helps.

I'm waiting for the 3214 for my next upgrade with the 32" 3840x2160 Sharp panel... not sure what the girlfiend will make of the 30" when it turns up on her desk (though she seems to manage her current 3 screens pretty well...).

[kingpotnoodle]

Ye gods and green things. 30" and 0nly 1600 vertical pixels? What is this, 1999?

There are 10" tablets with that many vertical pixels. I hope this thing sells for a couple of hundred quid.

The issue (and same with my 3360x1440 suggestion) is cable bandwidth, AFAIK you need 4 channel Displayport 1.2 to handle more than 2560x1600 @ 60Hz. Which is a fairly small market, but to be fair if you'd shell out on a 30" monitor you'd probably also stretch to a decent graphics card...

[cptwhite_uk]

I stumped for the 27" Dell 2560x1440 and the DPI isn't comfortable even at current viewing distances for website and general windows use. I now have all my icons at 125% and webpages the same. You really really, wouldn't want that res in a 24" screen unless you view it from 30cm away. As komukare pointed out windows isn't well optimised for higher res displays still, this includes windows 8 and it's something they need to look at in the next release with the push to higher res displays.

[kingpotnoodle]

I stumped for the 27" Dell 2560x1440 and the DPI isn't comfortable even at current viewing distances for website and general windows use. I now have all my icons at 125% and webpages the same. You really really, wouldn't want that res in a 24" screen unless you view it from 30cm away. As komukare pointed out windows isn't well optimised for higher res displays still, this includes windows 8 and it's something they need to look at in the next release with the push to higher res displays.

I find 2560x1440 quite doable on 27" with 100% DPI. I've tried the 125% setting on that and on my 1920x1080 TVs and found that many older icons scaled poorly and a lot of programs didn't handle it well. With Windows 7/8 Microsoft supplied stuff was usually fine but a lot of 3rd party software just had text all over the place - MediaPortal for example.

[kompukare]

I have tried 125% scaling in the past but actually what I said earlier needs a bit of clarification. In general font scaling is pretty good in almost all programs. What doesn't work well is UI scaling. So at more than 100% you get UI elements in wrong places / wrongly scaled and the occasional button etc. you can't click. Most programs work ok but obviously the rules are lax or badly though out and Window's GDI is unable to help. I'd guess that for affected program some elements are drawn in such a way that the program draws them directly: that is requests Windows do draw a bitmap over something and that doesn't get scaled. Anyway it is a mess but then Windows has been around since the 80s and this is the price paid for backward compatibility.

[snootyjim]

So what exactly have they updated? Nothing I'm particularly bothered by, I'm afraid, unless the price come down.

[Terbinator]

So what exactly have they updated? Nothing I'm particularly bothered by, I'm afraid, unless the price come down.

Its a shame they knocked that U2713 deal on the head from December; £360 isn't bad for such a panel.

[snootyjim]

Its a shame they knocked that U2713 deal on the head from December; £360 isn't bad for such a panel.

When it happened, I presumed they were clearing stock to make way for a new one, and thought I might as well hold out and see what was coming - partly why I'm so thoroughly unimpressed with this line-up.

[CampGareth]

I stumped for the 27" Dell 2560x1440 and the DPI isn't comfortable even at current viewing distances for website and general windows use. I now have all my icons at 125% and webpages the same. You really really, wouldn't want that res in a 24" screen unless you view it from 30cm away. As komukare pointed out windows isn't well optimised for higher res displays still, this includes windows 8 and it's something they need to look at in the next release with the push to higher res displays.

27" 2560x1440 feels comfortable for me at a range of 70cm, to each their own I guess. I added my old 22" monitor on the side because I didn't have enough working space, and now I'm kinda hating that old one, 1680x1050 at 22" looks pixelated at 70cm and kinda 'zoomed in'. 24" might be too small for 2560x1440 at normal viewing distances though, desktops should stick with a resolution appropriate to the screen size until scaling works nicely (though I would love to see a 60-70" computer monitor at 100dpi)