1. Welcome to TechPowerUp Forums, Guest! Please check out our forum guidelines for info related to our community.

Dell Readies the U2913WM 29-inch Monitor

Discussion in 'News' started by Cristian_25H, Sep 25, 2012.

  1. Cristian_25H

    Cristian_25H News Poster

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2011
    Messages:
    3,777 (4.34/day)
    Thanks Received:
    1,110
    Location:
    Still on the East Side
    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'.

    [​IMG] [​IMG]

    Source: blog.get-pc.net
    Ikaruga and 1c3d0g say thanks.
  2. UbErN00b New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 5, 2012
    Messages:
    257 (0.43/day)
    Thanks Received:
    46
    Location:
    Ingerland
    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.
  3. PopcornMachine

    PopcornMachine

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2009
    Messages:
    1,562 (0.91/day)
    Thanks Received:
    458
    Location:
    Los Angeles/Orange County CA
    Don't know about that. Might be interesting.

    But make a 2560x1200 and I'm in.
  4. mtosev

    mtosev New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2005
    Messages:
    1,463 (0.44/day)
    Thanks Received:
    145
    Location:
    Maribor, Slovenia
    OMG this looks like 21:9
    hellrazor says thanks.
  5. Frick

    Frick Fishfaced Nincompoop

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2006
    Messages:
    10,259 (3.44/day)
    Thanks Received:
    2,020
    This would be that 21:9 res no? Too wide imo.

    What I really want is my 4:3 (or 5:4) back. :(
  6. blibba

    blibba

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2009
    Messages:
    817 (0.49/day)
    Thanks Received:
    179
    Location:
    Oxford, UK
    64:27

    16:6.75

    21.333:9

    2.370370370:1
    Frick says thanks.
  7. Frick

    Frick Fishfaced Nincompoop

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2006
    Messages:
    10,259 (3.44/day)
    Thanks Received:
    2,020
    :p

    I think the "official" name is 21:9
  8. Bull Dog

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2006
    Messages:
    146 (0.05/day)
    Thanks Received:
    18
    too wide, 16x9 is pushing it for me. I was really happy with 16x10.
    3870x2 and hellrazor say thanks.
  9. glitch New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2011
    Messages:
    19 (0.02/day)
    Thanks Received:
    0
    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
  10. DarkOCean

    DarkOCean

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2009
    Messages:
    1,609 (0.84/day)
    Thanks Received:
    345
    Location:
    on top of that big mountain on mars(Romania)
    soo wide but i gues the people that have 3 monitor configurations would like to see even wider monitors.
  11. grok23 New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2012
    Messages:
    11 (0.01/day)
    Thanks Received:
    1
    Location:
    UK
    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.
  12. rpsgc

    rpsgc

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2007
    Messages:
    695 (0.26/day)
    Thanks Received:
    133
    Location:
    Portugal
  13. jihadjoe

    jihadjoe

    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2011
    Messages:
    381 (0.42/day)
    Thanks Received:
    97
    Portrait mode, LONG CAT, let's go! :roll:
  14. Jon A. Silvers New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2009
    Messages:
    10 (0.01/day)
    Thanks Received:
    0
    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.
  15. XoR New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2011
    Messages:
    27 (0.03/day)
    Thanks Received:
    1
    It will be very nice gaming monitor
  16. Kreij

    Kreij Senior Monkey Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2007
    Messages:
    13,881 (5.27/day)
    Thanks Received:
    5,610
    Location:
    Cheeseland (Wisconsin, USA)
    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"
  17. mcloughj

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2005
    Messages:
    302 (0.10/day)
    Thanks Received:
    65
    Location:
    Dublin, Ireland
    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.
  18. repman244

    repman244

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2011
    Messages:
    1,084 (0.97/day)
    Thanks Received:
    441
    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.
  19. Animalpak

    Animalpak

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2008
    Messages:
    2,031 (0.90/day)
    Thanks Received:
    492
    Nice panoramic view!
  20. Liquid Cool

    Liquid Cool

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2011
    Messages:
    280 (0.24/day)
    Thanks Received:
    93
    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
  21. BigMack70

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2012
    Messages:
    497 (0.65/day)
    Thanks Received:
    111
    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.
  22. radrok

    radrok

    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2011
    Messages:
    2,894 (3.17/day)
    Thanks Received:
    770
    All I ask is 2560x1920, I can even accept 2880x1800 but please stop with 1080p, just stop.
  23. Solidstate89

    Solidstate89

    Joined:
    May 29, 2012
    Messages:
    183 (0.26/day)
    Thanks Received:
    35
    Location:
    Western New York
    21:9 needs to fucking die a swift death.
  24. Octavean

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2008
    Messages:
    650 (0.30/day)
    Thanks Received:
    56
    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.
    NeoXF says thanks.
  25. 1c3d0g

    1c3d0g

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2007
    Messages:
    678 (0.29/day)
    Thanks Received:
    57
    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.
    Yo_Wattup says thanks.

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guest)

Share This Page