Tuesday, September 25th 2012

Dell Readies the U2913WM 29-inch Monitor

After updating the S Series last week, Dell is now working on bringing new blood into its UltraSharp line. That new blood is the U2913WM, a 29-inch models equipped with a (likely IPS) panel with a maximum resolution of 2560 x 1080 pixels. Seen below, the upcoming monitor also features four USB ports and D-Sub, DVI, HDMI and DisplayPort connectors.

No word yet on pricing. As for availability, Dell's just saying that it's 'coming soon'.

Source: blog.get-pc.net
Add your own comment

51 Comments on Dell Readies the U2913WM 29-inch Monitor

#1
UbErN00b
by: Cristian_25H
resolution of 2560 x 1080 pixels
I haven't seen this resolution before, wonder how it compares to 2560x1440 which is commonly found on 27" panels and 2560x1600 on larger 30" panels.
Posted on Reply
#2
PopcornMachine
Don't know about that. Might be interesting.

But make a 2560x1200 and I'm in.
Posted on Reply
#3
mtosev
OMG this looks like 21:9
Posted on Reply
#4
Frick
Fishfaced Nincompoop
This would be that 21:9 res no? Too wide imo.

What I really want is my 4:3 (or 5:4) back. :(
Posted on Reply
#5
blibba
by: mtosev
omg this looks like 21:9
by: frick
this would be that 21:9 res no? Too wide imo.

What i really want is my 4:3 (or 5:4) back. :(
64:27

16:6.75

21.333:9

2.370370370:1
Posted on Reply
#6
Frick
Fishfaced Nincompoop
by: blibba
64:27

16:6.75

21.333:9

2.370370370:1
:p

I think the "official" name is 21:9
Posted on Reply
#7
Bull Dog
too wide, 16x9 is pushing it for me. I was really happy with 16x10.
Posted on Reply
#8
glitch
way too wide for me. i still use my old nec lcd2070nx 1600x1200 ips panel and i wont buy anything that has less then 1200 pixel height resolution
Posted on Reply
#9
DarkOCean
soo wide but i gues the people that have 3 monitor configurations would like to see even wider monitors.
Posted on Reply
#10
grok23
I run triple monitor set ups myself and no, I don't want wider per se. I want taller. 1920 x 1200 and 2560 x 1200 (ie: 16:10) are the type I like best out of the currently available monitor resolutions. 1920 x 1080 in triple wide is wide enough, but not tall enough for me.

I can see how it makes sense for somebody who only wanted to watch movies on it and how it might make for an easy entry level to widescreen gaming, but this resolution doesn't appeal to me at all.
Posted on Reply
#12
jihadjoe
Portrait mode, LONG CAT, let's go! :roll:
Posted on Reply
#13
Jon A. Silvers
2560:1080, is 2.35:1 aspect ratio, which is cinemascope, anamorphic standard which was used prior to 1970, nowadays are used 2.39, but due to convention it is called 2.35.
Golden ratio is 1:Φ = 1.6180339887..., which is thought to be ideal for many things, also in viewing aspect ratio. the closest to this ratio is 16:10, which i prefer.
16:10 = 1.60:1
16:9 = 1.77:1, better, only for movies, than 16:10, for every other thing 16:10 is the way to go.
Posted on Reply
#14
XoR
It will be very nice gaming monitor
Posted on Reply
#15
Kreij
Senior Monkey Moderator
If they are going to use a 2.37:1 ratio, I would rather they chose 3792x1600 on a ~40" monitor.

I think I'll stick with my 30"
Posted on Reply
#16
mcloughj
Wow, that's bloody minded devotion to the number 1080.
Just goes to show that if it isn't 1080 then it might hurt sales because it's not 'High Definition', even it the number was higher.
Posted on Reply
#17
repman244
Sorry for the language, but feck off with these idiotic aspect ratios. 16:9 is already horrible enough.
What's the point, as soon as you start a program that has toolbars on top (Solidworks, Photoshop, 3Ds, or anything similar) you are left with a very small working space.
Posted on Reply
#19
Liquid Cool
Huge fan of Dell monitors...but this is repulsive. We bought P2212's in the office, took one out of the box and sent them all back.

I'm not getting why these companies keep going wider...when everyone wants taller?

LC
Posted on Reply
#20
BigMack70
Why don't these companies realize that 16:10 is the most pleasing monitor ratio to work and game on?

I don't get it... this monitor is way too wide for anything but watching movies on. I'll pass.
Posted on Reply
#21
radrok
All I ask is 2560x1920, I can even accept 2880x1800 but please stop with 1080p, just stop.
Posted on Reply
#23
Octavean
I don’t much care for 16:10 because it seems too close to the old 4:3 ratio. It looks antiquated to me. I much prefer 16:9 and I have four 27” monitors (one 2560x1440 and three 1920x1080). I also have one 16:10 and some older 4:3 LCD monitors.

As for 21:9 at 2560 x 1080 this is something I would like to see first hand. I’m not going to prejudge it. My dislike of 4:3 and 16:10 is at least based on extensive use with both.
Posted on Reply
#24
1c3d0g
I don't get why you people are moaning about 120 less pixels...back in them days, we used to do just fine with 640 x 480. That's right bitches, 480 motherfucking pixels to work with, and NONE of us whined like you pussies do. :shadedshu

Maybe I'm just getting old.
Posted on Reply
#25
Frick
Fishfaced Nincompoop
by: 1c3d0g
I don't get why you people are moaning about 120 less pixels...back in them days, we used to do just fine with 640 x 480. That's right bitches, 480 motherfucking pixels to work with, and NONE of us whined like you pussies do. :shadedshu

Maybe I'm just getting old.
Herpderp different times etc. I bet you'd moan if you got 640x400 instead.
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment