Friday, January 6th 2017

Dell Unveils 32", 8K UltraSharp Monitor

At CES 2017, Dell has unveiled yet another addition to their monitor product line, and this one is drool worthy: an 8K, 32" UltraSharp monitor, with an insanely high resolution of 7,680 x 4,320 at 60Hz. Labeled as the world's first 32-inch 8K resolution display with Dell PremierColor, the UP3218K offers 1.07 billion colors and packs in more than 33 million pixels - four times as many as a 4K display and 16 times more than Full HD. That means it offers a PPI rating of 280 - which translates into "very high" settings for a desktop screen.
The display covers 100 percent of the Adobe RGB and sRGB color gamut, offers a brightness of 400 cd/m2 and has a contrast ratio of 1,300:1. Connectivity options include 2x DisplayPort 1.3 connections, 4x USB 3.0 ports (1x BC1.2 charging capability) and an audio line-out connection.

Now if you ignore the fact that Windows scaling doesn't work that well, and that having to upscale your desktop to make any real use of this display on a normal desktop environment basically defeats the purpose of having it in the first place, you can probably convince yourself that you need this piece of technology right away. But then, you also have to consider that buying this monitor will have you selling all two of your kidneys, and you'd probably have to find another one somewhere else (it comes with a price-tag of $4,999 when it goes on sale on March 23). Also do the math on the serious, serious hardware you'd need just to drive any real games at this 8K resolution, and... You get the picture.

This is an amazing, sleek-looking proof of concept, but it's probably still too early for any serious adoption of this kind of display technology.. That said, someone has to push the game forward, and Dell has at least proven they can do it.Source: Techspot
Add your own comment

67 Comments on Dell Unveils 32", 8K UltraSharp Monitor

#1
PowerPC
OK, we can pack our bags now.

This is some serious business.

I didn't expect to see 8K Monitors in 2017, but I would want one please!

Even just to watch my cursor in all its glorious 8K goodness
Posted on Reply
#2
Ferrum Master
Games? The heck... you even will struggle to find a proper wallpaper for it.
Posted on Reply
#3
Prima.Vera
This is for professional photochoppers and/or designers.
Posted on Reply
#4
ZeDestructor
Prima.Vera said:
This is for professional photochoppers and/or designers.
Or just people who work with serious amounts of text.

I want one, and I want it 4 years ago.. now to find 5k to drop on it...
Posted on Reply
#5
mdjasrie
Did anyone notice how small the taskbar is from the last picture?!!
Posted on Reply
#6
ZeDestructor
mdjasrie said:
Did anyone notice how small the taskbar is from the last picture?!!
Nope, but I like it!
Posted on Reply
#7
Prima.Vera
mdjasrie said:
Did anyone notice how small the taskbar is from the last picture?!!
Yeah. Good luck with that. :))))) And they say Windows scaling is good, lol :))))
Posted on Reply
#8
Brusfantomet
Since its DP 1.3 you will need both inputs to get 60 Hz on this monitor, just to add to all the other problems a 8K resolution will give you.

But hey, i realy like the design of it, hope other, less extreme monitors also gets it.

Guess its a IPS panel?

mdjasrie said:
Did anyone notice how small the taskbar is from the last picture?!!
What task bar?
Posted on Reply
#9
ZeDestructor
Prima.Vera said:
Yeah. Good luck with that. :))))) And they say Windows scaling is good, lol :))))
I've used windows scaling for the past year or so on my laptop, at the horrible scaling ratio of 125%. It's fine, because app support is pretty decent too. I mean, browsers, MSOffice and development tools already support it, and Adobe is finally working on their scaling support, so CS will finally join 2012

Brusfantomet said:
Since its DP 1.3 you will need both inputs to get 60 Hz on this monitor, just to add to all the other problems a 8K resolution will give you.

But hey, i realy like the design of it, hope other, less extreme monitors also gets it.

Guess its a IPS panel?
We had the same on 4K initially and 5K even now, and it worked pretty OK, so I'm not too fussed
Posted on Reply
#10
PowerPC
mdjasrie said:
Did anyone notice how small the taskbar is from the last picture?!!
o_O
Posted on Reply
#11
cryohellinc
Comes in complect with a magnifying glass.
Posted on Reply
#12
Brusfantomet
ZeDestructor said:
I've used windows scaling for the past year or so on my laptop, at the horrible scaling ratio of 125%. It's fine, because app support is pretty decent too. I mean, browsers, MSOffice and development tools already support it, and Adobe is finally working on their scaling support, so CS will finally join 2012



We had the same on 4K initially and 5K even now, and it worked pretty OK, so I'm not too fussed
True, anybody that have used a dual link DVI also have, since its two DVI cables in one. It does however mean that there is only enough connectors for one computer if one wishes to fully utilize the screen, winch is uncommon for Dell high end screens (the 3007 WFP being the only one i can think of with only one connection).

according to Wikipedia DP 1.4 should support 8K 60 Hz over one cable.
Posted on Reply
#13
buggalugs
HDMI 2.1 can do 8K@60Hz, but obviously this monitor doesnt have it.

Edit: Holy Shit, HDMI 2.1 can do 10K @ 120Hz!! Finally we have a cable that can deliver.
Posted on Reply
#14
ZeDestructor
Brusfantomet said:
True, anybody that have used a dual link DVI also have, since its two DVI cables in one. It does however mean that there is only enough connectors for one computer if one wishes to fully utilize the screen, winch is uncommon for Dell high end screens (the 3007 WFP being the only one i can think of with only one connection).

according to Wikipedia DP 1.4 should support 8K 60 Hz over one cable.
Fine by me, given I only have my computer plugged into my 3 screens.

As for DP1.4, it's not really relevant: it doesn't increase bandwidth over DP1.3 (still 25.92Gbit/s usable). Meanwhile, 7680x4320x30@60Hz (59.72Gbit/s) (I'm taking 10bpp/30-bit colour space, cause professional screen with wide-gamut generally are 10bpp) still exceeds the bandwidth of 2 cables without any timing data. I suspect they're probably gonna "overclock" the interface a bit to get there, assuming nV and AMD allow them to do it.

buggalugs said:
HDMI 2.1 can do 8K@60Hz, but obviously this monitor doesnt have it.
Not without any kind of compression mode it can't. Not even if you reduce it down to only 8bpp, cause with timing info, that's 49.65gbit/s which exceeds HDMI's 48gbit/s cable. Unless ofc HDMI is underrating their spec or has new timing modes,, the former I'd be impressed if they did because a bigger number would be better for marketing, and the latter they have not talked about.

EDIT:

buggalugs said:
Edit: Holy Shit, HDMI 2.1 can do 10K @ 120Hz!! Finally we have a cable that can deliver.
lolnope. 10K at 120Hz at 24bpp (188.74gbit/s) then chroma subsampled down to 4:2:0 is a "mere" 94.37gbit/s, well beyond what the 48gbit/s cable can deliver.
Posted on Reply
#15
yogurt_21
Ironically as you scale up the horizontal, the naming scheme makes less and less sense.

1920 eh almost 2000, so we'll call it 2k (only 80 off)
3840 eh almost 4000 so we'll call it 4k (only 160 off)
7680 eh almost 8000 so we'll call it 8k... (only 320 off)

by the time we get to 16k

15360 eh almost 16000 so we'll call it 16k ("only" 640 off...pretty much 15k at this point)

32k

30,720 eh almost 32,000 (dude you didn't even make 31k)

Still though 4k hasn't really made it to mainstream yet. Streaming content is minimal, highend gaming rigs can barely keep up and people have stopped obsessing about megapixels on their digital cameras. They now go for better lenses, and things that will actually improve the quality of the shot rather than going straight for a 32 megapixel camera that has a shutter speed too slow to catch a blink.

So cool developers can now use this for art projects...not exactly the largest market there.
Posted on Reply
#16
cdawall
where the hell are my stars
I wouldn't mind one of these. It would be curious to see what games actually allowed scaling to 8k
Posted on Reply
#17
Capitan Harlock
I heard that 4K on 40" minimum is like having the same ppi of a 27" at 2560 x 1440 so why they think is smarth put 8k on a 32" pannel?
The only reason i see is because of cost production.
Posted on Reply
#18
wiak
mdjasrie said:
Did anyone notice how small the taskbar is from the last picture?!!
good luck running it on linux or Non-DPI aware programs on windows, it will look either tiny or a blurry mess
Posted on Reply
#19
Rowsol
Make sure you sit 3 inches from it.
Posted on Reply
#20
Captain_Tom
Ferrum Master said:
Games? The heck... you even will struggle to find a proper wallpaper for it.
LOL. That's actually a fact!


Although 3 x Vega 10 should run 8K quite well in the games that support crossfire.
Posted on Reply
#21
ZeDestructor
wiak said:
good luck running it on linux or Non-DPI aware programs on windows, it will look either tiny or a blurry mess
Linux has better scaling support than Windows overall. And as for windows being a blurry mess.. it gets better when you go past the 200% point because of how the smoothing algorithms work. Besides, Windows programs are getting better and better at scaling.

Rowsol said:
Make sure you sit 3 inches from it.
I can spot the difference between 1920x1080 (141ppi) and 3200x1800 (235ppi) on my laptop at 45cm. 4K just doesn't cut it at desktop sizes for my desires (140-189ppi depending on size, 31.5-24"). Really, I want 300ppi on desktop so that text looks good, but that's at least 1 more year out.

PS: for reference, my 30" 2560x1600 is 100ppi, and my 24" 1920x1200 is 94ppi.
Posted on Reply
#22
Scrizz
Finally, a real "Ultra-Sharp". :D
Posted on Reply
#23
Scrizz
ZeDestructor said:

I can spot the difference between 1920x1080 (141ppi) and 3200x1800 (235ppi) on my laptop
try 1600x900 since that should scale correctly on your laptop screen.
1080p on your screen will looks fuzzy because it is not a whole number:1 ratio of pixels. whereas 900p is 4:1
Posted on Reply
#24
Captain_Tom
ZeDestructor said:
Linux has better scaling support than Windows overall. And as for windows being a blurry mess.. it gets better when you go past the 200% point because of how the smoothing algorithms work. Besides, Windows programs are getting better and better at scaling.



I can spot the difference between 1920x1080 (141ppi) and 3200x1800 (235ppi) on my laptop at 45cm. 4K just doesn't cut it at desktop sizes for my desires (140-189ppi depending on size, 31.5-24"). Really, I want 300ppi on desktop so that text looks good, but that's at least 1 more year out.

PS: for reference, my 30" 2560x1600 is 100ppi, and my 24" 1920x1200 is 94ppi.
Dude it's not worth arguing with these people. When I saw a 1440p phone for the first time, its sharpness stood out to me across the room! That's a 5.5" screen from 6 feet away!

Yet I remember people telling me it took a 50" screen to tell the difference between 720p and 1080p. Now they say the same thing with 4K. Just like 144 vs 120 vs 60 fps - the peasant arguments will never end.


Better is better, and it is easy to tell the difference. If you can't tell the difference - well I am sorry then you have terrible eyesight.
Posted on Reply
#25
ZeDestructor
Scrizz said:
try 1600x900 since that should scale correctly on your laptop screen.
1080p on your screen will looks fuzzy because it is not a whole number:1 ratio of pixels. whereas 900p is 4:1
I actually use only 125% scaling, giving me the equivalent of 2560x1440 on my 15.6" screen. Most things work fine, but older/more technical stuff like MMC is a bit blurry. Perfectly readable.

Captain_Tom said:
Dude it's not worth arguing with these people. When I saw a 1440p phone for the first time, its sharpness stood out to me across the room! That's a 5.5" screen from 6 feet away!

Yet I remember people telling me it took a 50" screen to tell the difference between 720p and 1080p. Now they say the same thing with 4K. Just like 144 vs 120 vs 60 fps - the peasant arguments will never end.


Better is better, and it is easy to tell the difference. If you can't tell the difference - well I am sorry then you have terrible eyesight.
On phones I can't tell past ~400ppi during normal use at normal phone distances 15-30cm. It's good enough for me and I welcome the lower power usage of "only" using a 1080p screen on the various Sony Xperia flagships.

For the record, I owned an HTC 10, that had a 2560x1440 screen in the same 5.2" size as the 1920x1080 in my Xperia Z2, and it improved nothing for what I use my phone for (primarily IM and reddit). Sadly, the HTC's firmware had an annoying number of niggles, so I sold it on and went back to my now quite old Z2 despite the performance improvement in places.
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment