Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Dell P2815Q 28-Inch Ultra HD Monitor Review

Tags:
  • Monitors
  • Dell
  • Display
Last response: in Reviews comments
Share
October 15, 2014 12:45:32 PM

Putting a 4K monitor on your desktop means either spending four figures on a 32-inch IGZO screen or going on the cheap with one of the new 28-inch TN-based models. We already reviewed Asus’ PB287Q. Today we look at Dell’s version, the P2815Q.

Dell P2815Q 28-Inch Ultra HD Monitor Review : Read more

More about : dell p2815q inch ultra monitor review

October 15, 2014 1:48:21 PM

Or just go buy a 55" to 65" Samsung 4k TV instead.
m
-2
l
October 15, 2014 2:00:44 PM

"Or just go buy a 55" to 65" Samsung 4k TV instead. "

So instead of buying a $430 monitor, you suggest people to buy a $2000+ TV. This is beyond stupid...
m
2
l
Related resources
October 15, 2014 2:04:30 PM

"you have to decide exactly what you want your 4K monitor to do"

No I don't. I can always choose not to use the tech until they get it right, and if they never do, eh.. oh well!

High input lag makes this a particularly poor choice. Input lag impacts every task, not just gaming. Forget it.

Gamers are really in an "interesting" place this year. You can't get a video card to drive UHD even with the newest chips, and buying a monitor is a minefield. Sure, you can do SLI to get to UHD, that'll get you most of the way there... except certain games (AC), and immediately after any game's release (Titanfall), and sometimes you'll need lower settings to accommodate VRAM issues (Evil Within). This of course bodes poorly for games to be released in the upcoming year if you're buying now. It's the wait for proper support that's really disappointing (usually good support, but look at Titanfall and CoD Ghosts as long waits).

On the monitor side, you can go to 1440p, and watch as your tech is outdated quickly (as 4K/UHD gets its act together...maybe) - and be permanently stuck with a resolution that doesn't scale 1:1 with 1080p (again, hope you're running good GPUs). In all monitor tech, you can get low response times, or great colors, or take a risk on a foreign vendor's product that MIGHT be tricked into doing both but will still have some blur/ghosting. You can get Variable Refresh tech that'll work with one brand of GPU but not the other. Lightboost/ULMB or 3D support is up for consideration, but can't be used with AS/GSync.

I can't help but think it's all a gigantic mess right now.
m
0
l
October 15, 2014 2:30:58 PM

Avus, a 50 inch UE50HU6900 is 750 euro and UHD@60Hz capable. A 55 inch is just 100 euros more in Europe and thus you should be able to find them for the same dollar amount in the US as right now, that pretty much goes for any HW since we Europeans gets charged more and it just happens to fit with the dollar vs slightly more expensive euro 1:1.
-------
I wouldn't be caught dead with this useless monitor in the article. Either go for
- Quality UHD monitor: Dell IPS 32 inch quality, UP3214Q. 1400 usd isch.
- Cheap UHD but not junk: Asus 287 for 28-590 Samsung performance but with a much better stand. If wallmounting get the Samsung and save some cash. 500 usd isch.
- Quality Gaming: Asus 1440p 144Hz super gamer monitor. 1200 usd ish.
- Desktop real estate and best overall choice: Samsung UE50HU6900 for 8ms B2B UHD@60Hz over HDMi 2.0(Require 970/980). 750 usd isch.

I'd pick the TV.
m
0
l
a b C Monitor
October 15, 2014 2:40:01 PM

larsoncc said:
On the monitor side, you can go to 1440p, and watch as your tech is outdated quickly (as 4K/UHD gets its act together...maybe) - and be permanently stuck with a resolution that doesn't scale 1:1 with 1080p

Outdated quickly? PC display resolution takes about a decade to step up between mainstream standards.

Unless all you do with your PC is watch movies, not scaling 1:1 with 1080p is usually a "don't-care" item - people who are bothered by that would not buy into those sort of resolutions in the first place.
m
3
l
October 15, 2014 2:55:10 PM

You lost me at 30hz...
m
7
l
October 15, 2014 3:42:21 PM

I picked up the 39" Seiki 4K TV for use as a monitor, patched the BIOS to a modified version of the 50" BIOS that supports 1920x1080p@120Hz (verified and works fine for gaming) and connected it to a Sapphire Dual-X R9 270 using an HDMI to DisplayPort Active Adapter. Fit and finish could be better, but I can't complain about paying $340 (US) for having a giant hi-res 4K desktop and being able to watch 4K videos (what few there are).

If my eyesight were perfect, I might be able to make use of 4K at 32" (or perhaps a little smaller), but the way mine is, 39" rocks!
m
1
l
October 15, 2014 3:46:46 PM

larsoncc said:
On the monitor side, you can go to 1440p, and watch as your tech is outdated quickly


What in the world are you talking about? The majority of households have only recently been running 1080p monitors (within the past few years), and the majority of gamers game on 1080p according to many gaming site polls, not QHD. It will be years before 1440p gets to be mainstream in households. They are still considered a luxury buy in the PC market and will be for some time. Further, when 1080p monitors were out after a couple of years, prices dropped sharply. That has not happened with QHD monitors outside of the cheap Korean Apple rejects.

It's going to be several years before I feel the need or even want to plunk down cash for not only a decent 4K monitor when they actually come out and are reasonably affordable (<$800US) but the GPU(s) to power it at decent frame rate numbers.

m
3
l
October 15, 2014 3:50:26 PM

30 hz?
m
1
l
October 15, 2014 3:52:31 PM

B4vB5 said:
Avus, a 50 inch UE50HU6900 is 750 euro and UHD@60Hz capable. A 55 inch is just 100 euros more in Europe and thus you should be able to find them for the same dollar amount in the US as right now, that pretty much goes for any HW since we Europeans gets charged more and it just happens to fit with the dollar vs slightly more expensive euro 1:1.


Your American pricing ("price convertion") for UHD TV is wrong. The cheapest Samsung 50" 4k is around $1300USD. 2nd tier brand 50" 4k is around $1000USD. They are definitely not as cheap as you think.
m
0
l
a b C Monitor
October 15, 2014 4:23:13 PM

10tacle said:
It will be years before 1440p gets to be mainstream in households. They are still considered a luxury buy in the PC market and will be for some time.

The advent of dirt-cheap 1080p screen relegated practically all other resolutions to niche markets so I seriously doubt QHD will ever become a significant mainstream resolution - the same way inexpensive 1080p practically wiped out 1200p.

About eight years ago, 1080p and 1200p were both available around $300 but today, 1080p is down to $100-150 while 1200p is still $300-500.

4k will be the next major mainstream resolution about five years from now.
m
0
l
October 15, 2014 4:59:12 PM

Quote:
"you have to decide exactly what you want your 4K monitor to do"

No I don't. I can always choose not to use the tech until they get it right, and if they never do, eh.. oh well!

High input lag makes this a particularly poor choice. Input lag impacts every task, not just gaming. Forget it.

Gamers are really in an "interesting" place this year. You can't get a video card to drive UHD even with the newest chips, and buying a monitor is a minefield. Sure, you can do SLI to get to UHD, that'll get you most of the way there... except certain games (AC), and immediately after any game's release (Titanfall), and sometimes you'll need lower settings to accommodate VRAM issues (Evil Within). This of course bodes poorly for games to be released in the upcoming year if you're buying now. It's the wait for proper support that's really disappointing (usually good support, but look at Titanfall and CoD Ghosts as long waits).

On the monitor side, you can go to 1440p, and watch as your tech is outdated quickly (as 4K/UHD gets its act together...maybe) - and be permanently stuck with a resolution that doesn't scale 1:1 with 1080p (again, hope you're running good GPUs). In all monitor tech, you can get low response times, or great colors, or take a risk on a foreign vendor's product that MIGHT be tricked into doing both but will still have some blur/ghosting. You can get Variable Refresh tech that'll work with one brand of GPU but not the other. Lightboost/ULMB or 3D support is up for consideration, but can't be used with AS/GSync.

I can't help but think it's all a gigantic mess right now.


...um... no... im playing 290x xfire, on Samsung 4k, liquid cooling and all games including Titanfall, BF4, ESO, etc are max settings between 60fps - 90fps. only game that has issues is Watch Dogs and we all know why that is happening. Call it what you want, once you go 4k (done right) you know it is the true PC gamer master race!
m
0
l
October 15, 2014 5:39:37 PM

1440p = 2560x1440 = 16x9. 1440p will display/scale 1080p just fine, also 720p and 1600x900. 1440p monitors are becoming very reasonable in price. If you shop around you can find them for around $300 and the price will continue to drop as they are out longer.
m
1
l
a b C Monitor
October 15, 2014 6:04:48 PM

centralpoint said:
1440p monitors are becoming very reasonable in price. If you shop around you can find them for around $300 and the price will continue to drop as they are out longer.

The only $300 1440p displays that are "available" are Asian imports, many of which coming with vague (if any) performance guarantees. For people who want to stick to something officially sold in North America, prices start in the neighborhood of $500. Some of the cheaper 4k displays are getting close to that.

With 4k displays entering the $500-700 range, 1440p is going to get relegated exclusively to niche status and the price tag is going to rise due to low volume.
m
0
l
October 15, 2014 6:23:33 PM

InvalidError said:
The advent of dirt-cheap 1080p screen relegated practically all other resolutions to niche markets so I seriously doubt QHD will ever become a significant mainstream resolution - the same way inexpensive 1080p practically wiped out 1200p. About eight years ago, 1080p and 1200p were both available around $300 but today, 1080p is down to $100-150 while 1200p is still $300-500.


Hmmm. I'm not sure that's really the same comparison. I have both 1080p and 1200p monitors (two 24" 1080s, one 25.5" 1200). Both screens still share 1920 horizontal lines. The only difference is that a 1920x1200 monitor of course has a little more viewing height in display lines. Effectively otherwise to the eye they are the same resolution (same desktop screen icon sizes, no noticeable increase in game graphics resolution, etc.).

Just my opinion of course, but I think that's a completely different situation than moving up to a completely new eye candy world of 2560x1440. I still love my 25.5" Samsung's extra viewing height. It is hard to beat without moving up entirely to a new screen size and resolution, which is what I did with a Dell U2713H. With HDTVs being 1080p, it was only logical that LCD screen manufacturers focus on 1080p monitor screens for the mainstream markets. Simply put, 1920x1200 monitors were not manufactured in high capacity and hence the higher pricing. But you probably are right though...QHD will not be mainstream ever like 1080p.
m
1
l
October 15, 2014 7:08:16 PM

Gaming at 1440p for the last twelve months highlights just how bad most games textures still are. Seeing as the market continues to be flooded with shoddy console ports or 'filler' indie titles, I can't see any reason to upgrade.

Hell I almost regret going 1440p, only a handful of titles have put that to good use. For everything else, it just highlights how bad the texture res is. And yes I run the vast majority of games on Ultra presets.
m
0
l
October 15, 2014 7:25:37 PM

Have of agree with Shawn, once bitten with 4k gaming at 28 inch, 1440p feels 'unrealistic'. 1080 is now being used as my work screen (in add to 900p) . For every privilege , price and sacrifice has to be made.
Suggestion: try Sniper Elite 3, BF4, Thief and WatchDogs at 4k.
m
0
l
a b C Monitor
October 15, 2014 8:14:42 PM

10tacle said:
Effectively otherwise to the eye they are the same resolution (same desktop screen icon sizes, no noticeable increase in game graphics resolution, etc.).

The point I was trying to make had absolutely nothing to do with "noticeable increase in resolution" but everything to do with which resolutions turn into commercial success - as in widely adopted and mass-manufactured mainstream resolution that ends up becoming the de-facto standard even for cheap displays.

When 1080p became widely accepted, 1080p display prices dropped like like rocks all the way down to $100 while 1200p displays remained at $300+ despite having only marginally higher resolution. Vanishing demand made production vanish and without mass manufacturing, unit costs remain high.

With 4k displays already starting to undercut 1440p before 1440p ever had a chance to reach mainstream-friendly price points, it looks like 4K is already set to win the race for next mainstream desktop resolution - by this time next year, 4K will probably be widely available for cheaper than most similar-quality 1440p.
m
1
l
October 15, 2014 10:41:51 PM

4K @ 30Hz, and TN panel = how about NO.
I'll stick with my old IPS 60hz until 4K is IPS+60Hz and become affordable.
m
1
l
October 16, 2014 12:35:49 AM

Being able to game at 4k is - and will be for a very long time - a luxury few people can afford, and we don't want to give false information to folk who don't know enough about these requirements.

Additionally, developers have to start properly supporting this res with appropriate textures, etc - and not introduce compromises/cheating e.g. concentrating on only 'slow paced games' so they can force 30fps lock.
m
1
l
October 16, 2014 2:38:09 AM

centralpoint said:
1440p = 2560x1440 = 16x9. 1440p will display/scale 1080p just fine, also 720p and 1600x900. 1440p monitors are becoming very reasonable in price. If you shop around you can find them for around $300 and the price will continue to drop as they are out longer.


No it won`t scale ! Though the AR is still 16:9, the 2560 is 1.33 times larger than 1920 ... while 4k (3840x2160) is exactly 2 times as 1080p meaning you`ll have a parity on pixels on the screen thus making 1080 gaming on a 4k monitor just fine.
m
0
l
a b C Monitor
October 16, 2014 4:30:39 AM

Pro=4K
Con=30Hz (This is absolutely unacceptable. What is this? 1950?)

I'm sure the colors on this thing are good, but with a TN monitor, you better bring the higher refresh rates or you have no market. Dell will be giving these things away with some PC packages before too long. Who is buying these 30Hz-refresh rate things?

For now, they can take advantage of people that simply want to tell their friends they have a 4K monitor.
m
0
l
October 16, 2014 6:59:05 AM

Until movies are being widely released in a high bitrate 4K format, and I can afford a wall-sized OLED 4K screen, 1080p will be the only resolution I care about. I really do hope people start buying into the 4K hype, if only to drive down the prices of the remaining premium quality plasmas. I've got my eye on the Samsung PN60F8500. My S27A750D will do just fine if I still need something with low input lag and a high refresh rate.
m
0
l
a b C Monitor
October 16, 2014 7:21:54 AM

ubercake said:
Pro=4K
Con=30Hz (This is absolutely unacceptable. What is this? 1950?)

Who is buying these 30Hz-refresh rate things?

If it were $300, I might buy one for photo editing and get a crapload of extra desktop space to dump stuff on. I might use it in portrait to read web pages, write code and other stuff but 28" is a bit of an extreme size for that.
m
1
l
October 16, 2014 7:56:48 AM

ShawnT007 what are you even talking about. Max setting between 60fps to 90fps? really? which samsung 4K UHD (not even close to 4k res but whatever) are you even using that if you are playing a pc game is able to give you over 60fps when V-sync is on?

You speak of 4k being done right. Your 4k isn't even done right in the first place.
m
0
l
October 16, 2014 10:10:31 AM

lol even my graphic calculator have display with 30hz... Too Bad Dell.
m
0
l
October 16, 2014 10:28:39 AM

But is 4K resolution a waste on anything below 40'' ?
If you have to scale everything, I don't see other interest than a little quality improvement.
m
0
l
October 16, 2014 10:50:02 AM

30Hz and ~700-750:1 contrast ratio. Could this display be any less interesting or less desirable? I think not.
m
0
l
October 16, 2014 10:51:48 AM

InvalidError said:
When 1080p became widely accepted, 1080p display prices dropped like like rocks all the way down to $100 while 1200p displays remained at $300+ despite having only marginally higher resolution. Vanishing demand made production vanish and without mass manufacturing, unit costs remain high.

Even funnier is that a good 1680x1050 screen usually costs more than a decent 1080 screen right now. 16:9 is fine for games and media, but the extra height on 16:10 is very important for productivity and as such I'm loath to move away from it. I hope some day soon I'll be able to upgrade to a 1600p IPS panel, but I doubt those prices will ever become reasonable.
m
0
l
October 16, 2014 11:21:04 AM

Quote:
30 hz?

If that was intended for me, yes the 30Hz 4K desktop on the Seiki is for normal browsing, programming, videos, etc. and works just acceptably. I use a display profile in AMD Catalyst to switch to 1080p@120Hz for gaming.

Oddly, I had to disable the AMD HDMI Audio device and use the motherboard audio to make it stop blanking the display periodically. I'm not sure if that is an artifact of the modified monitor BIOS, HDMI to DisplayPort Active Adapter, AMD graphics card/driver or something else, but I've worked around it.
m
0
l
a b C Monitor
October 16, 2014 11:54:30 AM

RedJaron said:
Even funnier is that a good 1680x1050 screen usually costs more than a decent 1080 screen right now.

That is exactly what I meant by 1080p wiping out just about everything else - prices have dropped so low that anything lower is not really worth considering and the gap for stepping up to anything better is so large it makes no sense to most people. With production volumes an order of magnitude if not two larger than just about any other resolution, the other resolutions have no chance of matching the cost effectiveness.

If 4K displays continue dropping in price as quickly as they have been for the past year, 4K could very well end up being the next low-cost display resolution within the next three years.

I wish I had a 1600p display too but those have been losing pricing ground to 1440p for the last many years and the number of 1600p models on the market has dropped considerably over time as well. This is simply the power of the market at work, dictating to manufacturers which display sizes, resolutions and aspect ratios will get successfully mass-manufactured and achieve economies of scale.
m
1
l
October 16, 2014 12:09:51 PM

Avus said:

Your American pricing ("price convertion") for UHD TV is wrong. The cheapest Samsung 50" 4k is around $1300USD. 2nd tier brand 50" 4k is around $1000USD. They are definitely not as cheap as you think.


Ok, fair point. But since I still have to pay usd-to-euro 1:1 prices for the Samsung 28-590 or the 287 Asus, my Euro bet is still with the 50 inch TV. For the US I guess it becomes more up to what you want.

I have 2x27s and they are too wide for my neck in the long run although I've had for em 3 yrs now. The 1x50 would be perfect, especially since my need is real estate desktop and not (quickpaced) games.
m
0
l
October 16, 2014 12:19:17 PM

What a joke! These manufacturers have been dragging their feet with TN panels, deliberately withholding 60Hz IPS panels, and here Apple comes along andreleases a 5K (15 mega pixel) IPS monitor with computer built-in for $2499
m
0
l
October 16, 2014 12:45:19 PM

Even for movies, unless there's a 24p mode, it wouldn't be good. Movies are shot at 23.976fps i believe (dubbed 24fps, 24p or 24Hz if you prefer)
m
0
l
October 16, 2014 1:16:20 PM

Max_x2 said:
Even for movies, unless there's a 24p mode, it wouldn't be good. Movies are shot at 23.976fps i believe (dubbed 24fps, 24p or 24Hz if you prefer)


There are extremely few monitors which can playback 24p correctly anyway, I have no doubt that this one can't either. Not that I think 3:2 pulldown is the worst thing in the world, but turns out it won't matter anyway because a) it can only do 60Hz @ 1080p, so scaled it will be less sharp than a native display and b) contrast levels are horrendous for movie watching anyway.

This display is pretty much just a way to display multiple documents/excel sheets as a 2nd monitor. I can't think of many other useful usage scenarios. A hard sell at $500.
m
1
l
October 16, 2014 1:46:41 PM

InvalidError said:


...um... no... im playing 290x xfire, on Samsung 4k, liquid cooling and all games including Titanfall, BF4, ESO, etc are max settings between 60fps - 90fps. only game that has issues is Watch Dogs and we all know why that is happening. Call it what you want, once you go 4k (done right) you know it is the true PC gamer master race!


um, yes.

For BF4, DigitalStorm's benches peg your setup at about 50, and I'm willing to bet that's about right, given my own setup. 90 isn't on max settings like you're saying.

There's plenty more games with issues for your setup, and more on their way. Here's a few of the games your graphics cards can't play on highest settings at 4K/60:
Metro Last Light,
Metro Last Light Redux (have to turn to high to hit mid 50s)
Thief (have to turn down to Normal to hit 50s)
Hitman Absolution (can hit 60 if AA is off)
Far Cry 3 (Medium with no AA)
Crysis 3 (Very High gets ~30)
Shadow of Mordor (20-30fps, ultra textures not running on that setup)

Other issues:
Total War: Rome 2 and Shogun 2 plays movies on 1/2 screen
Civ V load screens / movies
Batman: Arkham City - mouse is borked

But whatever, give it about 6-12 months, and 4K will be rocking it. I hope. I certainly think it's got potential.

ohim said:
centralpoint said:
1440p = 2560x1440 = 16x9. 1440p will display/scale 1080p just fine, also 720p and 1600x900. 1440p monitors are becoming very reasonable in price. If you shop around you can find them for around $300 and the price will continue to drop as they are out longer.


No it won`t scale ! Though the AR is still 16:9, the 2560 is 1.33 times larger than 1920 ... while 4k (3840x2160) is exactly 2 times as 1080p meaning you`ll have a parity on pixels on the screen thus making 1080 gaming on a 4k monitor just fine.


Thank you, that's what I'm saying! Surprised at how my post was received.
If you can't get good performance at1440p in a game, you'd choose to go down to 1080p, and it frankly looks funny. 1440p is one of these odd resolutions that I can't wait to see go away. And it really is going away, given the availability of UHD making it a bit unnecessary (ASUS ROG aside).

Add to that that we're already getting to the point where 4K is cheaper, and you've got outdated tech. No one is going to give 1440p a second thought in two-three years.
m
0
l
October 16, 2014 3:06:27 PM

I'm wondering why Dell isn't announcing a Gsync monitor yet. Nearly all the others have something coming soon or about to hit. Unless AMD's solution is far cheaper (remains to be seen how much scaler makers charge for their work, how much monitor makers tack on etc) and works JUST AS GOOD, I'm pretty much Gsync or bust on my next monitor purchase. A monitor without one of these techs is useless to me at this point. My monitors still work fine, so barring a death of one of them soon, I can wait this out for another 6-12 months I hope. I need a 20nm gpu and a broadwell first anyway...LOL.
m
0
l
a b C Monitor
October 16, 2014 3:52:52 PM

somebodyspecial said:
Unless AMD's solution is far cheaper (remains to be seen how much scaler makers charge for their work, how much monitor makers tack on etc)

The thing is the key principles behind AMD/VESA's FreeSync are part of the DisplayPort 1.2a spec and are provided royalty-free. They were unofficially part of the DP spec even before that since DP's packet-based protocol with multiplexed multiple display capability meant displays have to be able to cope with irregular data feed. FreeSync effectively makes zero-sync an official part of the DP spec.
m
0
l
October 16, 2014 4:01:01 PM

Loving my Dell UP2414Q I got 3 months ago for $850. 2160p at 60Hz is awesome on a 24" IPS. When my 2 Titan Blacks can't push 4K at a full 60 FPS then I can run the monitor 1440p @ 85Hz. When browsing the net I switch to 1080p @ 85Hz.
m
0
l
October 16, 2014 8:33:17 PM

u sure its 16:9 it? look wider (thing that i hate)
m
0
l
October 17, 2014 10:14:21 AM

ust my opinion of course, but I think that's a completely different situation than moving up to a completely new eye candy world of 2560x1440. I still love my 25.5" Samsung's extra viewing height. It is hard to beat without moving up entirely to a new screen size and resolution, which is what I did with a Dell U2713H. With HDTVs being 1080p, it was only logical that LCD screen manufacturers focus on 1080p monitor screens for the mainstream markets. Simply put, 1920x1200 monitors were not manufactured in high capacity and hence the higher pricing. But you probably are right though...QHD will not be mainstream ever like 1080p.
http://bestgamingmonitors.net/
m
0
l
October 17, 2014 5:37:32 PM

30hz = no buy.

Waiting for a 120hz 3840x2160 monitor with a DisplayPort 1.3 - you know, the one that actually supports 2160p resolutions. Preferably an IPS display [continues dreaming].
m
0
l
October 18, 2014 8:26:37 AM

Emanuel Elmo said:
ShawnT007 what are you even talking about. Max setting between 60fps to 90fps? really? which samsung 4K UHD (not even close to 4k res but whatever) are you even using that if you are playing a pc game is able to give you over 60fps when V-sync is on?

You speak of 4k being done right. Your 4k isn't even done right in the first place.


So my Samsung U28D590D monitor hooked up to my 290x in crossfire, with full custom XSPC liquid cooling, and i7 4770k, 16 gigs 2100mhz, 1300watt PSU (i could keep going) "ISNT" me gaming in 4K??? wow... so these screenshots (that are 30Meg files so I cant upload them cause they have so much information) that show BF4 running at 90+fps max settings (MSAAx2 just cause you dont need anymore than that in 4k lol) arent screenshots of 4k? Or what about these screenshots that make ESO look so good that you cant even believe its the same game... Thats not 4k bruh?? lol -- YEAH I DID IT RIGHT HOMIE - Thanks for playing tho!
m
0
l
October 18, 2014 9:20:21 AM

Very Happy with my 32 inch Asus 4K display running at 60hz and display port since day one. Powered by 2 gtx &80 classifieds. Its been rough sailing in the beginning but after a couple driver updates and tweaking I can manage most games at descent playing fps. Including BF4 in ultra getting about 40 fps. May upgrade to a third 780 to improve the games that are coming up.
m
0
l
October 18, 2014 3:21:02 PM

pereirdp said:
What a joke! These manufacturers have been dragging their feet with TN panels, deliberately withholding 60Hz IPS panels, and here Apple comes along and releases a 5K (15 mega pixel) IPS monitor with computer built-in for $2499


While that is true, that computer cannot be used as an external monitor for another computer and is thus pretty weak for serious desktop performance with the old CPU onboard it has. Also it has to be Hackintosh'ed to have non-OSX dev potential.

This "monitor"/Mac would've been infinitely much cooler, had it had an input for HDMi 2.0 or DP 1.3+ for being used as an external UHD display for laptop/workstations. 5K@60 wouldn't be possible in full 4:4:4 over either DP 1.2a or HDMi 2.0 though, so maybe that's why. And ofc they want people to actually use the Mac as a machine rather than an external monitor in itself. If one can settle for a Mac for dev work or is willing to Hackintosh it, it could be a decent machine if raw CPU is not that much of a concern for one and one can live with the very small 27 inch screen(for using the full 5K without just scaling stuff up to "nicelooking" 1080 mode).
m
0
l
October 18, 2014 4:07:09 PM

I'm confused about your comments on DPI scaling. I have a Samsung 28" 4k monitor and have scaling set to 150%. This makes text size slightly bigger than 100% on my old 22" 1080p monitor. In windows 8.1 there are options to go up to 250% which makes text and UI WAY TOO BIG!!!

In my 3 months experience of using this monitor for just about everything I can say that I haven't run into a single UI or text scaling issue in windows itself. Even most 3rd party software has caught up on the scaling. The only issue is that sometimes icons/buttons/web images look horrible because they are low resolution. Oh and Steam... Steam just looks terrible, seems like the whole of steam including text and UI renders at 1080 then upscales.
m
0
l
October 18, 2014 4:10:57 PM

larsoncc said:
InvalidError said:


...um... no... im playing 290x xfire, on Samsung 4k, liquid cooling and all games including Titanfall, BF4, ESO, etc are max settings between 60fps - 90fps. only game that has issues is Watch Dogs and we all know why that is happening. Call it what you want, once you go 4k (done right) you know it is the true PC gamer master race!


um, yes.

For BF4, DigitalStorm's benches peg your setup at about 50, and I'm willing to bet that's about right, given my own setup. 90 isn't on max settings like you're saying.

There's plenty more games with issues for your setup, and more on their way. Here's a few of the games your graphics cards can't play on highest settings at 4K/60:
Metro Last Light,
Metro Last Light Redux (have to turn to high to hit mid 50s)
Thief (have to turn down to Normal to hit 50s)
Hitman Absolution (can hit 60 if AA is off)
Far Cry 3 (Medium with no AA)
Crysis 3 (Very High gets ~30)
Shadow of Mordor (20-30fps, ultra textures not running on that setup)


lol ur benchmarks are wrong for me... i will be happy to email you screenshots (big files) and benchmarks - im running BF4 MAX EVERYTHING except w/msaax2 (thats all you need in 4k) and getting 70fps-110fps all day online...
Samsung U28D590D monitor, 290x in crossfire, with full custom XSPC liquid cooling, and i7 4770k, 16 gigs 2100mhz, 1300watt PSU (i could keep going).... Every game you listed above i run better than your listed benchmarks.
m
0
l
!