Dell Outs Ultra HD 5K Monitor For $2,499

[tolham]

This is UHD+ (5120x2880). Not 5K (5120x2160).

Why are we calling the UHD standard 4K—despite being a lower resolution—but calling this UHD+ monitor 5K despite it being a higher resolution?

what do you mean despite? adding the "+" to UHD signifies that it's a little bit bigger than standard UHD, which is true (since, you know, 5 > 4). this is a perfectly logical naming scheme.

 

[redgarl]

Maximum resolution of a 290x is 4k. I wonder how you can use this right now with a single graphic card.

 

[CAaronD]

Well somebody was able to run Crysis 3 on 8K with his HD 7850 and he got 2 FPS lol.

 

[g-unit1111]

$2500??? I'm out.

 

[TechieNewbie]

I'm not going to be satisfied until I can see the atomic structures of what's on the screen. What K would that be?

 

[Damon Palovaara]

Would be great for 4k video editing so you can preview the 4k video at 100% size and still have some editing panels surrounding it. If I had that monitor I'd be using it for Blender, no doubt would it be able to fit 4 viewing windows without it feeling cluttered

 

[mapesdhs]

For that sort of work, surely it makes a lot more sense to use more than one monitor, have the info panels on
a separate display anyway.

Ian.

 

[icemunk]

Why not 10k? Lets just go full retard and go 10240 x 5760

 

[christinebcw]

Yes, those 100-inch 16k's are the real prize. No need to wait for these lowlies to fill shelves then landfills - let's get to those full-wall-sized units.

 

[CAaronD]

I don't think you would notice anything above 8k anyway. Unless you put your face right in front of the screen. 16k sounds pretty useless for gaming

 

[xenol]

So 4K is still expensive and require expensive video card to run and isn't common or relevant for screens under 26'' but they already want to sell us 5K monitor ?

I have a 23'' monitor at 1080P and i don't see why i would even change for a 4K.

If you're gaming, then sure. If you're just going on the web and surfing YouTube, nope, you don't need an expensive video card.

And if you don't have a need or desire for extra resolution, good for you. I however, enjoy the extra space offered by a 2560x1440 monitor.

 

[mapesdhs]

I wanted to get a 2560x1600, but the prices were crazy. Whole market shifted to 1440 as the next default.

Ian.

 

[belardo]

So 4K is still expensive and require expensive video card to run and isn't common or relevant for screens under 26'' but they already want to sell us 5K monitor ? I have a 23'' monitor at 1080P and i don't see why i would even change for a 4K.

1080 is fairly standard RES. I've been doing 1920x1200 on a 24" for about 7 years. I'm sick of the pixels... compared to my 720P phone which is 5" which is smooth.

I'm looking at getting a 26~28" display that is 4K in the near future, they are $500~2000. But hey, I got my 1920 back when it was $500.. nowadays, 1080P monitors start at $100.

 

[mapesdhs]

belardo writes:
> ... I've been doing 1920x1200 on a 24" for about 7 years. ...

Ditto, though the CRT monitor I used to have could do 2048x1536, which I used for gaming
for a while until I finally bought an HP IPS 1200-height display.


> ... I'm sick of the pixels... compared to my 720P phone which is 5" which is smooth.

I guess that's not surprising, your phone has about 50% higher dpi perhaps? Not sure.


> I'm looking at getting a 26~28" display that is 4K in the near future, they are $500~2000.

Hmm, at 28", wouldn't that make fonts & suchlike a tad small?


> But hey, I got my 1920 back when it was $500.. nowadays, 1080P monitors start at $100.

True, my HP was 450 UKP when new, though I wouldn't use cheap 1080 TN displays;
I prefer IPS, and they start somewhat higher, more like $300+ for 1200-height, $200+
for 1080.

Ian.

 

[soldier44]

So 4K is still expensive and require expensive video card to run and isn't common or relevant for screens under 26'' but they already want to sell us 5K monitor ?

I have a 23'' monitor at 1080P and i don't see why i would even change for a 4K.

Feel sorry for you and those of you still stuck at 1080p. Ive been gaming at 2560 x 1600 30 inches for 4 years now and just got a 32 inch Asus 4K display and its such an improvement over my 30 inch which is technically 2K. Well worth the money if you have it to spend. Of course having 2 GTX 780 Tis helps too.

 

[CAaronD]

I've been gaming at 720P low settings in the last 7 years My parents never did allow me to get a PC + monitor more expensive than $500. Until now I should be getting an 1080p monitor next week along with a new PC at least xD

 

[terroralpha]

i was planning to upgrade my dual 2560x1600 monitors (for which i paid $1,200 at some point in the past) to 4k monitors. i just ordered them yesterday. after seeing this i cancelled that order. hopefully these will be IPS.

 

[CAaronD]

Well the samsung 4K 28 seems like a really great deal!

 

[bedfoto]

To the person who said he thought he was the only one to prefer the 16x10 format.. I concur. I also prefer that format. Actually, I still like having 4x3 monitors to turn vertical.

 

[joshmage]

People who suggest that 4K or even 5K is not enough have perhaps not realized that that human eye has a limit and past a certain resolution, given the distance from the screen, the increased resolution will simply not make any difference whatsoever. I don't know what that limit is but I suspect that 5K might already be very close to it. Of course everything I just said only applies to screen sizes around 30 inches. Right now I only have the dell ultrasharp 30 inch (2560 X 1600) and so I feel rather miserable (lol).

 

[SE_Apocalypse]

4k = ~8 mega pixel
5k = ~15 mega pixel

Yeah, small steps ;-)