Dell Unveils Canvas, A Surface Studio Competitor, As Well As An 8K Monitor And AIO

[Lucian Armasu]

At CES, Dell unveiled its own Surface Studio competitor, the "world's first" UHD 8k monitor, and an all-in-one with an integrated soundbar.

Dell Unveils Canvas, A Surface Studio Competitor, As Well As An 8K Monitor And AIO : Read more

 

[wifiburger]

right... sounds good and looks good but then again all dell products are like that till you use them, all of their product are either 100% contracted in China for cheap engineering or their in house engineering is not that great !

 

[bit_user]

So, no word on what display tech the 8k monitor uses?

For those specs, I'm thinking $5k isn't unreasonable. More than I can afford, but not unreasonable.

 

[stranger_3]

So, no word on what display tech the 8k monitor uses?

For those specs, I'm thinking $5k isn't unreasonable. More than I can afford, but not unreasonable.

5K$ is very expensive ... think of 32 inch 8k screen as 4 screens each 4K , This thing should be in the 3K price range ...

 

[stranger_3]

Some one please make an AIO desktop with Mobile GTX 1080/1070 please ?

Whats keeping them ?

 

[ziomek]

I still have the U3011 and I love the color and quality of the monitor. (I have many to compare) Dell has some nice new monitors and I hope they continue to bring up new sizes and models this year especially on the larger side. A 43-55 version with 8k would be sweet. I'm waiting on an updated P4317Q perhaps with hdmi 2.0 and DP 1.3 with higher picture quality maybe (UP4318Q?)

 

[Nintendork]

Why they keep insisting with the useless 16:9 aspect ratio, MSFT showed the way, 3:2 is the best for both productivity, reading a media consumption.

Another option is 16:10.

 

[chicofehr]

8K I can't wait for someone to post benchmarks using this monitor. The frame rate will be below 30FPS on many of the games (using a Titan XP). It will be great for eye candy though.

 

[bit_user]

5K$ is very expensive ... think of 32 inch 8k screen as 4 screens each 4K , This thing should be in the 3K price range ...

We're talking about a monitor - not carpeting. If you truly feel they're equivalent, just buy yourself 4x 4k screens and be happy.

The reality is that almost nothing works that way. You can't buy a V8 supercar for 2x the price of a 4-cylinder car, for instance. And a 4-wheeled car doesn't necessarily cost 2x what a motorbike would run.

I think most people who would be interested in this monitor would not consider 4x 4k screens to be equivalent.

 

[bit_user]

8K I can't wait for someone to post benchmarks using this monitor. The frame rate will be below 30FPS on many of the games (using a Titan XP). It will be great for eye candy though.

It's obviously not a gaming monitor.

Mostly targeted at graphics professionals (2D & 3D artists + CAD), I assume. Would be great for reviewing satellite imagery and GIS, as well.

I'm interested in trying 8k for programming (among other things), but I've yet even to jump to 4k. At 2.5k, I have no problems filling my screen with text in tiny fonts. I think I'd need 8k in a larger format, in order to get maximum use from it.

 

[stranger_3]

5K$ is very expensive ... think of 32 inch 8k screen as 4 screens each 4K , This thing should be in the 3K price range ...

We're talking about a monitor - not carpeting. If you truly feel they're equivalent, just buy yourself 4x 4k screens and be happy.

The reality is that almost nothing works that way. You can't buy a V8 supercar for 2x the price of a 4-cylinder car, for instance. And a 4-wheeled car doesn't necessarily cost 2x what a motorbike would run.

I think most people who would be interested in this monitor would not consider 4x 4k screens to be equivalent.

who said anything about carpeting?

it IS very expensive , and actually 4 , 4K screens cost more to make , for each have a circuit board , 10 - 12 bit color processor , power supply , 4 stands , 4 enclosures , etc ....

Actually DELL can sell this thing for $2k and profit from it ...

and your comparison with car engines does not fit.

Dell is asking $5k just because it is the first in the market (If we ignore the 27 inch SHARP 8K monitor that was never released) .

Th Monitors market are expensive for nothing. for a LONG time you could get a Tablet with 4K , or 1600P AMOLED, IPS screen for just $300 (the panel just 100$ in it) ..

try to find the SAME Panel as a PC SCREEN and they will sell it more expensive than the whole TABLET ...

and if you want to argue about SIZE , look at 4K TVs , you can get a 49 inch 4K TV with HDR , CURVED , 10 Bit colors , CPU, HVEC Decoding , Low input LAG , full Android, 20 watts speakers for just $1000 , while a stupid 4k 32 inch for PC without the CPU , and the extras of TV would cost MORE ..

yes the PC Monitors Market are EXPENSIVE for NOTHING.

 

[cryoburner]

Although it seems the screen must be connected to a PC, it's reminiscent of Microsoft’s recently launched “Surface Studio,” which is a stand-alone computer.

Why not point out that it's even more reminiscent of a Wacom Cintiq? It clearly seems to be targeted as an alternative to Wacom's 27 inch 1440p pen and touch display, which sells for over $2,500 with similar functionality and features. Microsoft's Surface Studio is its own thing, with it's convertible stand and built-in PC, making it more of a hybrid between an all-in-one computer and pen display. Sure, maybe this will technically compete in some capacity, but I'm sure Microsoft is more interested in seeing third-party support like this for their new Windows 10 features anyway.

5K$ is very expensive ... think of 32 inch 8k screen as 4 screens each 4K , This thing should be in the 3K price range ...

You can't really compare the price of a display like this to lower-cost consumer-oriented screens. These have greater color range and accuracy, and are designed for graphics professionals. How about we compare it to Dell's 32 inch 4k PremierColor display, which they're currently selling for $1,350. Four of those would cost more than their 8k monitor. Plus, when you increase the number of pixels in a single display, you're also increasing the likelihood of there being a defective pixel, leading to lower yields, since they guarantee these screens against having any bright stuck pixels. And of course, this is currently a unique product, so there's no competing products with similar specs to compare the screen against. If someone wants the highest resolution monitor available for graphics design work, it's currently the only option. For anyone concerned about the price, they can wait another year or two for more 8k monitors to hit the market, at which point the price might drop closer to what you suggested.

 

[stranger_3]

Although it seems the screen must be connected to a PC, it's reminiscent of Microsoft’s recently launched “Surface Studio,” which is a stand-alone computer.

Why not point out that it's even more reminiscent of a Wacom Cintiq? It clearly seems to be targeted as an alternative to Wacom's 27 inch 1440p pen and touch display, which sells for over $2,500 with similar functionality and features. Microsoft's Surface Studio is its own thing, with it's convertible stand and built-in PC, making it more of a hybrid between an all-in-one computer and pen display. Sure, maybe this will technically compete in some capacity, but I'm sure Microsoft is more interested in seeing third-party support like this for their new Windows 10 features anyway.

5K$ is very expensive ... think of 32 inch 8k screen as 4 screens each 4K , This thing should be in the 3K price range ...

You can't really compare the price of a display like this to lower-cost consumer-oriented screens. These have greater color range and accuracy, and are designed for graphics professionals. How about we compare it to Dell's 32 inch 4k PremierColor display, which they're currently selling for $1,350. Four of those would cost more than their 8k monitor. Plus, when you increase the number of pixels in a single display, you're also increasing the likelihood of there being a defective pixel, leading to lower yields, since they guarantee these screens against having any bright stuck pixels. And of course, this is currently a unique product, so there's no competing products with similar specs to compare the screen against. If someone wants the highest resolution monitor available for graphics design work, it's currently the only option. For anyone concerned about the price, they can wait another year or two for more 8k monitors to hit the market, at which point the price might drop closer to what you suggested.

I am not comparing to a consumer grade monitor.

a professional monitor is in the $800-1000 Price range (27 inch) ... 4 of them $3200-$4000 and this includes 4 boards , 4 10-12 bit color processing , 4 power supplies , 4 expensive pivot stand and 4 usb hubs .... and 4 27 inch will give you a 54 inch screen ..

Read my last reply please ...

 

[KirbyKirby]

I like that the Canvas isn't tied to an embedded CPU, allowing for easier upgrades down the road. Just upgrade whatever PC it's attached to. I doubt MS is concerned about competition in this space, and is probably content with just helping to drive new spaces for Windows devices.

As far as the 8k display, Dell said it's intended for high-end photography and medical display type uses, so framerates aren't a big concern.

 

[bit_user]

who said anything about carpeting?

Because you're treating monitors a though you can just add up the # of pixels and that's how much it should cost. It doesn't work that way. For one thing, more pixels mean a higher defect rate. The yield can have a dramatic effect on price, if it drops too low.

Processing and addressing that many pixels is another area that doesn't just scale linearly, even if it seems like it should.

it IS very expensive , and actually 4 , 4K screens cost more to make , for each have a circuit board , 10 - 12 bit color processor , power supply , 4 stands , 4 enclosures , etc ....

All the parts for those displays are now commodities, and there are economies of scale all up & down the production chain.

Furthermore, you're not comparing this with 4k monitors of equivalent quality. Those still cost more than the $750 that would add up to your figure of $3k for four of them.

and your comparison with car engines does not fit.

Right. Just like your attempt to equate this to 4x 4k monitors. And now you introduce tablets & TVs into the mix.

Th Monitors market are expensive for nothing. for a LONG time you could get a Tablet with 4K , or 1600P AMOLED, IPS screen for just $300 (the panel just 100$ in it) ..

try to find the SAME Panel as a PC SCREEN and they will sell it more expensive than the whole TABLET ...

The size of an AMOLED screen is a huge factor in price. In this case, I think yield is even a bigger factor than the higher materials cost.

and if you want to argue about SIZE , look at 4K TVs , you can get a 49 inch 4K TV with HDR , CURVED , 10 Bit colors , CPU, HVEC Decoding , Low input LAG , full Android, 20 watts speakers for just $1000 , while a stupid 4k 32 inch for PC without the CPU , and the extras of TV would cost MORE ..

Again, you're not comparing equivalents. A high-end 4k TV does not cost $1k. You can get plenty of crap 4k monitors for less than $1k.

You don't seem to understand the economics of the monitors business, not that I'm an expert on the matter. You say their pricing doesn't make sense, to you. So, instead of just assuming that the PC monitor business is a total scam, why not actually try to educate yourself about it and learn what goes into the pricing of these products?

And yes, we should expect some healthy profit margin when someone is first to market with a premium product. If that's the price of progress & some people are willing to foot the bill, so what? If you remove that incentive, perhaps the industry would advance even more slowly.

 

[bit_user]

a professional monitor is in the $800-1000 Price range (27 inch) ...

Please show me a 4k monitor with the specs as this, for $800 - $1k. I might buy it!

 

[010TheMaster010]

In the article you say R9 480X and 470X, I'm asuuming where you say this it's supposed to be mobile parts as with your table afterwards?

 

[stranger_3]

who said anything about carpeting?

Because you're treating monitors a though you can just add up the # of pixels and that's how much it should cost. It doesn't work that way. For one thing, more pixels mean a higher defect rate. The yield can have a dramatic effect on price, if it drops too low.

Processing and addressing that many pixels is another area that doesn't just scale linearly, even if it seems like it should.

it IS very expensive , and actually 4 , 4K screens cost more to make , for each have a circuit board , 10 - 12 bit color processor , power supply , 4 stands , 4 enclosures , etc ....

All the parts for those displays are now commodities, and there are economies of scale all up & down the production chain.

Furthermore, you're not comparing this with 4k monitors of equivalent quality. Those still cost more than the $750 that would add up to your figure of $3k for four of them.

and your comparison with car engines does not fit.

Right. Just like your attempt to equate this to 4x 4k monitors. And now you introduce tablets & TVs into the mix.

Th Monitors market are expensive for nothing. for a LONG time you could get a Tablet with 4K , or 1600P AMOLED, IPS screen for just $300 (the panel just 100$ in it) ..

try to find the SAME Panel as a PC SCREEN and they will sell it more expensive than the whole TABLET ...

The size of an AMOLED screen is a huge factor in price. In this case, I think yield is even a bigger factor than the higher materials cost.

and if you want to argue about SIZE , look at 4K TVs , you can get a 49 inch 4K TV with HDR , CURVED , 10 Bit colors , CPU, HVEC Decoding , Low input LAG , full Android, 20 watts speakers for just $1000 , while a stupid 4k 32 inch for PC without the CPU , and the extras of TV would cost MORE ..

Again, you're not comparing equivalents. A high-end 4k TV does not cost $1k. You can get plenty of crap 4k monitors for less than $1k.

You don't seem to understand the economics of the monitors business, not that I'm an expert on the matter. You say their pricing doesn't make sense, to you. So, instead of just assuming that the PC monitor business is a total scam, why not actually try to educate yourself about it and learn what goes into the pricing of these products?

And yes, we should expect some healthy profit margin when someone is first to market with a premium product. If that's the price of progress & some people are willing to foot the bill, so what? If you remove that incentive, perhaps the industry would advance even more slowly.

meh , I will answer it short ,

here is one of the best 4k TV from Samsung and very popular :

https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1235525-REG/samsung_un49ks8000fxza_ks8000_series_49_class_suhd_smart.html

and here is a review about it

http://www.rtings.com/tv/reviews/samsung/ks8000

and thank you I dont need your education . keep it.

you are selective in answering , for example I said BOTH AMOLED and IPS , you picked AMOLED to bla bla bla ...

and keep your $750 it is also selective , $100 +- is no big deal we are talking about $5000

and again keep your education I dont need it.

 

[bit_user]

you are selective in answering

So you say, in a very selective reply.

The only thing you're doing, here, is doubling down on flawed reasoning that an 8k professional monitor should have the same economies as a mass-market TV. You've provided no evidence to support this claim. The only relevant material you should be posting is information about the economics of display manufacturing that supports this notion.

and again keep your education I dont need it.

Clearly, it doesn't seem to be one of your priorities.

Knowledge is power, my friend. You can choose to be ignorant and believe that everything which doesn't add up, in some simplistic way, is evidence of somebody running a scam. But, ultimately, that mindset doesn't get you very far.

There are real scams and conspiracies, in this world. But, in order to determine whether something is truly a rip-off, it often takes more than superficial analysis.

Most of the scientific progress made in human history comes from people digging deeper and trying to understand those things which they found surprising. If you seek to educate yourself about a subject, you might or might not come to a different conclusion, but you'll probably learn a few things along the way.

Now, you started out with a straight-forward observation & question. To paraphrase: "This doesn't cost the same as 4x of some 4k monitors. Why not?"

So, why not investigate and try to understand what goes into the price of something like this?

 

[stranger_3]

you are selective in answering

So you say, in a very selective reply.

The only thing you're doing, here, is doubling down on flawed reasoning that an 8k professional monitor should have the same economies as a mass-market TV. You've provided no evidence to support this claim. The only relevant material you should be posting is information about the economics of display manufacturing that supports this notion.

and again keep your education I dont need it.

Clearly, it doesn't seem to be one of your priorities.

Knowledge is power, my friend. You can choose to be ignorant and believe that everything which doesn't add up, in some simplistic way, is evidence of somebody running a scam. But, ultimately, that mindset doesn't get you very far.

There are real scams and conspiracies, in this world. But, in order to determine whether something is truly a rip-off, it often takes more than superficial analysis.

Most of the scientific progress made in human history comes from people digging deeper and trying to understand those things which they found surprising. If you seek to educate yourself about a subject, you might or might not come to a different conclusion, but you'll probably learn a few things along the way.

Now, you started out with a straight-forward observation & question. To paraphrase: "This doesn't cost the same as 4x of some 4k monitors. Why not?"

So, why not investigate and try to understand what goes into the price of something like this?

keep your advice to yourself . the monitor is very expensive for nothing. and if you dont like my "educated" opinion dont ever try to act the teacher. you are not. actually you are wrong here. end of conversation.

 

[bit_user]

the monitor is very expensive for nothing. and if you dont like my "educated" opinion dont ever try to act the teacher. you are not. actually you are wrong here.

Hey, I simply voiced an opinion which you countered with a factual claim that you have yet to back up. If you're going to do such things, is it realistic to expect a different outcome?

I was trying to be nice about this. You can do and think as you please, but when you try to impose your ignorant views on others, it's going to be a problem.

end of conversation.

You can unsubscribe. You can stop replying. But it's not your call when the thread is closed.

Debates should be won on their merits, not by trying to shout down your opponent.

 

[ex_bubblehead]

@stranger_3 & @bit_user, the petty bickering will cease immediately. Civility and respect are required at ALL times in these forums. If you can't, or won't, comply with these requirements then I suggest you find somewhere else to play (or somewhere else will be chosen for you).

The only acceptable reply to this post is "I have read and understand the warning".

 

[Draven35]

The Canvas is as much a Wacom Cintiq competitor as a Surface Studio competitor.

 

[cryoburner]

.... and 4 27 inch will give you a 54 inch screen ..

A 54 inch screen with a pair of big black lines crossing the center. If a graphics designer or professional photographer is in the market for a screen of this resolution, they will undoubtedly want the image they're viewing to not be cut apart by bezels. With a screen like this, they can view a photograph up to 33 Megapixels at one-to-one resolution on a single display.

Clearly this isn't a product for everyone, and $5,000 is certainly "too expensive" for regular consumers, but it isn't intended as a consumer product. 8k resolution is not something one would want to play games at today, as even high-end graphics cards would get poor frame-rates pushing that many pixels, and you're not going to watch movies at that resolution either, since practically no 8k video content is available (and even most 4k content is compressed to the point where you might as well watch it on a 1080p display).

This is intended as a product sold to businesses, who will treat it as an investment to help their artists create better content, or who will use it to showcase their products. For a business with a need for a screen fitting these characteristics, $5,000 might be a drop in a bucket compared to the value of the content they display on that screen. Many products aimed at businesses tend to cost more, since the business is profiting off the use of that product, and as a result is willing to pay more for it. Home users interested in an 8k display can simply wait until more companies release competing products and ramp up production, eventually driving the price down to more consumer-friendly levels. At this point, I can't see much of an actual need for 8k displays on consumer PCs in 2017 though.