Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in

Dell P2815Q: 4K On The Cheap (With A Caveat)

Dell P2815Q 28-Inch 4K Ultra HD Monitor Review
By

Ever since Ultra HD monitors appeared about a year ago, value-minded enthusiasts have been waiting for an affordable solution. The market is slowly responding with 28-inch TN panels all based on the same part from Chi Mei Optoelectronics. Like the high-priced IGZO and IPS 4K monitors, it represents a compromise. If you’re shopping for more pixels, just remember this: high resolution, high performance, low price – pick two.

The perfect screen isn’t available yet. The expensive models offer large size and professional features in an IPS format, but still cost around $2000. The $500 displays have to settle for a TN panel and business-class performance. And don’t forget the size factor. A 28-inch monitor is large for sure, but with 157 pixels-per-inch, Windows text and icons are really tiny. Heck, they’re barely big enough on a 32-inch screen.

If you’re considering one of the new value Ultra HD monitors, your choices right now are the Asus PB287Q, Samsung U28D590D, Planar IX2850, Phillips 288P6LJEB or Dell P2815Q. They’re all based on the same TN panel, so performance should be similar. We reviewed the Asus already and found this to be true. Evaluations of the other two products should be coming soon. But where Dell departs from the rest is that its maximum refresh rate is 30Hz, while the others can hit 60.

For that reason, you have to decide exactly what you want your 4K monitor to do. Its color accuracy is excellent even without calibration. It offers contrast comparable to business-class QHD screens. And it sports solid build quality. It’s a fine monitor for productivity, although you’ll probably need to use Windows DPI scaling to improve readability. And by the way, Microsoft, could you please improve the font handling of your flagship operating system? Monitor resolution is going to keep increasing, and it’s getting harder and harder to use Windows as pixel densities top 150 ppi. Thank you.

If gaming is a priority for you, then the P2815Q is not suitable. Not only is the 30Hz limitation an obstacle, but so is the extreme input lag. After playing Watch Dogs on an Asus ROG Swift, it was quite a shock to give up G-Sync and the almost non-existent input lag of that monitor.

The one entertainment discipline that Dell masters is movie-watching. Refresh rate is not an issue when a film is showing at 24FPS. And since the scaling from 1920x1080 to Ultra HD is so good, image clarity is top-notch. If your computer use revolves around video editing, the P2815Q makes an excellent choice.

Ultimately, we find ourselves in conflict over the P2815Q. It’s a really good monitor in every way except for the low refresh rate and high input lag. The panel is certainly responsive, so it seems to come down to Dell’s choice of scaler. We don’t know the specific part used, but it’s obviously a different one than the competition. Perhaps that problem can be solved in a future upgrade.

We’re happy to see display manufacturers working to lower the price of Ultra HD screens. The process never happens as fast as we’d like, but progress is being made. For now, our wish list remains the same: Ultra HD at 60Hz in a 32-inch screen with accurate color and low input lag. If you're in the same boat, then our wait continues.

Add a comment
Ask a Category Expert
React To This Article

Create a new thread in the Reviews comments forum about this subject

Example: Notebook, Android, SSD hard drive

Display all 41 comments.
  • -2 Hide
    bak0n , October 15, 2014 1:48 PM
    Or just go buy a 55" to 65" Samsung 4k TV instead.
  • 2 Hide
    Avus , October 15, 2014 2:00 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...
  • 0 Hide
    larsoncc , October 15, 2014 2:04 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.
  • 0 Hide
    B4vB5 , October 15, 2014 2:30 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.
  • 3 Hide
    InvalidError , October 15, 2014 2:40 PM
    Quote:
    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.
  • 7 Hide
    jas340 , October 15, 2014 2:55 PM
    You lost me at 30hz...
  • 1 Hide
    CerianK , October 15, 2014 3:42 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!
  • 2 Hide
    10tacle , October 15, 2014 3:46 PM
    Quote:
    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.

  • 1 Hide
    Xander Konrad , October 15, 2014 3:50 PM
    30 hz?
  • 0 Hide
    Avus , October 15, 2014 3:52 PM
    Quote:
    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.
  • 0 Hide
    InvalidError , October 15, 2014 4:23 PM
    Quote:
    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.
  • 0 Hide
    ShawnT007 , October 15, 2014 4:59 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!
  • 1 Hide
    centralpoint , October 15, 2014 5:39 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.
  • 0 Hide
    InvalidError , October 15, 2014 6:04 PM
    Quote:
    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.
  • 1 Hide
    10tacle , October 15, 2014 6:23 PM
    Quote:
    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.
  • 0 Hide
    bimbam360 , October 15, 2014 7:08 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.
  • 0 Hide
    kalijaga1 , October 15, 2014 7:25 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.
  • 1 Hide
    InvalidError , October 15, 2014 8:14 PM
    Quote:
    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.
  • 1 Hide
    tomfreak , October 15, 2014 10:41 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.
  • 1 Hide
    Jim90 , October 16, 2014 12:35 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.
Display more comments
React To This Article