• Welcome to TechPowerUp Forums, Guest! Please check out our forum guidelines for info related to our community.
  • The forums have been upgraded with support for dark mode. By default it will follow the setting on your system/browser. You may override it by scrolling to the end of the page and clicking the gears icon.

Dell Readies the U2913WM 29-inch Monitor

Cristian_25H

Cristian_25H

Joined
Dec 6, 2011
Messages
4,784 (0.97/day)
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'.



View at TechPowerUp Main Site
 
Cristian_25H said:
resolution of 2560 x 1080 pixels
Click to expand...

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.
 
Don't know about that. Might be interesting.

But make a 2560x1200 and I'm in.
 
OMG this looks like 21:9
 
This would be that 21:9 res no? Too wide imo.

What I really want is my 4:3 (or 5:4) back. :(
 
too wide, 16x9 is pushing it for me. I was really happy with 16x10.
 
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
 
soo wide but i gues the people that have 3 monitor configurations would like to see even wider monitors.
 
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.
 
Portrait mode, LONG CAT, let's go! :roll:
 
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.
 
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"
 
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.
 
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.
 
Nice panoramic view!
 
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
 
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.
 
All I ask is 2560x1920, I can even accept 2880x1800 but please stop with 1080p, just stop.
 
21:9 needs to fucking die a swift death.
 
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.
 
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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top