Haha this is a monitor NOT a TV. To me 21" is the best size to work with on a monitor.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
New 24-Inch 4K Monitor Detailed on Dell's Website [Update: $1399]
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Haha this is a monitor NOT a TV. To me 21" is the best size to work with on a monitor.
However, it has multiple inputs and can be adjusted to be vertical or horizontal.
Any guesses when we will see 60hz and 120hz 4k monitors? 
Also can Thunderbolt 2 or any other interface drive a 4K monitor at 60hz or 120hz? I know TB2 can do 30hz at 4k...
Also can Thunderbolt 2 or any other interface drive a 4K monitor at 60hz or 120hz? I know TB2 can do 30hz at 4k...
20" iMac to replace a Mac Mini?? A mini with decent graphics would be better. I don't like glossy screens
Their computers have been all over the place, but you'd be hard pressed to find something to complain about with their higher end IPS monitors. They're about the best consumer monitors around.
Just be aware that it's got an anti-glare Hard Coating 3H. I had a Dell Ultrasharp U2212HM screen with that coating and it's definitely a Marmite moment. I hated it. Made the whites look extremely grainy. So I sent it back for a Dell S2240M which was perfect and a great match for the screen on my 21.5" iMac.
I would hate to have a great 4K resolution obscured by such an aggressive hard coating. I'd want to see it up close before buying.
I would hate to have a great 4K resolution obscured by such an aggressive hard coating. I'd want to see it up close before buying.
Two of the most important words in this rumor: "anti" and "glare"!!
Now if only Apple would follow the same path, at least as an option, I would indeed include the new "4K thunderbolt/cinema" display on my x-mas wish list.
Yes!
Sadly, the Dell UP2414Q anti-glare is "hard coat". I prefer matte. But, all the same, I will take it over a glossy display any day.
Oh I agree about the quality. But god are they ugly.
There is so much FUD going on here. Not sure if it's just because it's a Dell monitor, or people just don't see the point of 4K, or that people don't read up on tech news outside of the Apple sandbox...
Dell monitors aren't cheap. Nor are they made cheaply. All of Dell's UltraSharp line (their highest end) either feature LG panels (the same exact ones as in Apple cinema displays), or the new IGZO panels by Sharp. If a developer or artist worth their salt isn't using an Apple display, rest assured they are most likely using a Dell UltraSharp or NEC SpectraView of some kind due to their quality, fidelity, and ergonomics.
It's also largely agreed in the tech community that Dell has one of the best OSDs (on screen displays) used for calibrating in the business. As for overall aesthetics, well, as a U2713H owner I can say that Dell's monitors are probably some of the most clean, spartan, and elegant outside of Apple. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder though, as they say.
All of Dell's current UltraSharp offerings feature a 'soft' anti glare hardcoating. It's produced by 3M, and is the same anti-glare coating currently used by most other monitor manufacturers. Technically, it's a semi-gloss, but it works very well and the image is nice and clear. Any talk of aggressive and grainy anti-glare coating was from 3M's previous batch of coating which was applied to manufacturers' monitors in 2010, 2011, and some of 2012.
4K is coming whether people think it should or not. Really, it's not up to any of you to tell the rest of us that we don't need a 4K display. Buyers are the arbiters of their own wants and needs. That said, a 3840x2160 resolution on a 24" display? Sign me up. Contrary to comments made here, current $300+ graphics cards from either AMD or NVIDIA can easily do 4K, whether it's design or gaming. It's not up for debate; it's been tested on respected tech sites already. I wouldn't consider $300-$400 'high end'... more like middle of the road. High end would be NVIDIA's $1000 Titan for gaming, or their more pricier Quadro options. That's not to say Intel's integrated graphics options wouldn't struggle, but that it a downside for not having a discrete GPU.
DisplayPort can handle 4K@60Hz; the more important caveat lies with HDMI, which at 1.4 can only handle 4K@30Hz. HDMI 2.0 will take of that, and it's almost here.
Dell monitors aren't cheap. Nor are they made cheaply. All of Dell's UltraSharp line (their highest end) either feature LG panels (the same exact ones as in Apple cinema displays), or the new IGZO panels by Sharp. If a developer or artist worth their salt isn't using an Apple display, rest assured they are most likely using a Dell UltraSharp or NEC SpectraView of some kind due to their quality, fidelity, and ergonomics.
It's also largely agreed in the tech community that Dell has one of the best OSDs (on screen displays) used for calibrating in the business. As for overall aesthetics, well, as a U2713H owner I can say that Dell's monitors are probably some of the most clean, spartan, and elegant outside of Apple. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder though, as they say.
All of Dell's current UltraSharp offerings feature a 'soft' anti glare hardcoating. It's produced by 3M, and is the same anti-glare coating currently used by most other monitor manufacturers. Technically, it's a semi-gloss, but it works very well and the image is nice and clear. Any talk of aggressive and grainy anti-glare coating was from 3M's previous batch of coating which was applied to manufacturers' monitors in 2010, 2011, and some of 2012.
4K is coming whether people think it should or not. Really, it's not up to any of you to tell the rest of us that we don't need a 4K display. Buyers are the arbiters of their own wants and needs. That said, a 3840x2160 resolution on a 24" display? Sign me up. Contrary to comments made here, current $300+ graphics cards from either AMD or NVIDIA can easily do 4K, whether it's design or gaming. It's not up for debate; it's been tested on respected tech sites already. I wouldn't consider $300-$400 'high end'... more like middle of the road. High end would be NVIDIA's $1000 Titan for gaming, or their more pricier Quadro options. That's not to say Intel's integrated graphics options wouldn't struggle, but that it a downside for not having a discrete GPU.
DisplayPort can handle 4K@60Hz; the more important caveat lies with HDMI, which at 1.4 can only handle 4K@30Hz. HDMI 2.0 will take of that, and it's almost here.
Last edited:
21.5" and 27" are the perfect sizes. That is why Apple offers iMac in both these configurations. But for a standalone monitor you really should go 27" which is why I think it's strange Apple sells a smaller monitor. 27" is the only size I would offer for a standalone monitor. 24" is a stupid size nobody wants but no surprise that's what Dell tries to sell to uninterested consumers.
This 4K monitor is intended for people who own cameras. Some people, a few, still do create content.
----------
It will almost certainly be HDMI. HDMI works at 4K
So 24" is a stupid size yet it's been a common monitor size for quite a while now. oh, because Apple says it's a dumb size because they don't offer it? C'mon, get your head out of Apple's ass. 24" is a great size for a monitor, especially for those of us who have multiple monitor setups (3 in my case).
Perhaps it's not Dell, it's your company that is cheap? Dell does offer hardware that is better and more expensive than Macs your company just prefers their cheaper offerings (nothing wrong with that though).
----------
There is no such thing as "perfect size" (otherwise iPhone would still have 3.5" screen). It depends on what you do with the display. And Dell (unlike Apple) offers all sizes possible which is greatly appreciated by their customers.
Any guesses when we will see 60hz and 120hz 4k monitors?
Now if use DisplayPort 1.2 and the associated MST technology.
" ...
, as DisplayPort 1.2 can drive a 3840x2160 screen at 60 Hz ... "
http://www.anandtech.com/show/7157/asus-pq321q-ultrahd-4k-monitor-review
Technically it is two screen data streams tightly coupled from the outside.
" ... This is because there are no timing controllers on the market that are capable of doing 4k@60hz, so Sharp worked around this by including two controllers that can do 1920x2160@60hz, and built in a Displayport 1.2 MST hub into the monitor. ... "
http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?p=35497754
So folks looking for a monitor that will do 4K 60Hz via HDMI ... no go right now with what is on market. 2nd half 2014 for HDMI update to roll out in any reasonable sized numbers.
Likewise anyone with a GPU card that doesn't implement DisplayPort v1.2 options is also likely out of luck.
If talking single stream decoders in the monitor then going to be coupled the well HDMI does/doesn't roll out in 2014 as to when they will eventually show up.
Thunderbolt 2 controllers do DisplayPort v1.2 in the bypass ("backward compatibility" ) mode. Can also pump 60Hz of 4K data in Thunderbolt encoding also ( which is decoded back into DP v1.2 at the terminating device on TB network ). However, will have basically used up vast majority of the TB v2.0 bandwidth. Nothing else is going to get much bandwidth (have about a USB 3.0 socket or so left ).
I'm surprised all of the ppi nazis on this forum aren't saying the ppi is too low and they would rather use their smartphone as their primary monitor.