Dell Announces UltraSharp 32-inch Ultra HD 4K Monitor for $3,500

20

Comments

+ Add a Comment
avatar

Jieddo

Why are people arguing about the price? That is like going into a Porsche dealership and arguing with the salesman about how much you paid for your Ford pickup. This is a higher end 4k monitor at 60Hz, early adopers always pay a premium fee.

avatar

vrmlbasic

Actually, since we're all saving $2500/year on our health insurance now I think that this is something of a bargain at $1000, especially since it'll last far longer than a year, right?

(Sarcasm FTW)

avatar

THE_REAL_MAVERICK

DROOL

avatar

Zstreek

Why wouldn't you just buy the "Sony XBR55X850A 55-Inch 4K Ultra HD 120Hz 3D Internet LED" on Amazon for $3k? I would much rather have 55" at 4k than 32". Honestly, 32" is just too small for 4k. Save $500 and buy the better one with way more features.

avatar

jason2393

That might be a feature-rich TV, but it, like the $500 Seiki (admittedly only 39"), is only capable of 30Hz at 4K. If I'm paying $3000 for something I'm using primarily as a computer monitor, I'd want it to have 60Hz at 4K.

Also, a 32" 4K has the same pixel density as a 16" 1080p panel, which is slightly less dense than the 15.4" 1080p panel on my laptop.

avatar

Zstreek

The tv itself is 120Hz. It comes with HDMI 2.0 which runs at 60Hz. So, I'm not sure why you think it is only capable of 30...

avatar

vrmlbasic

Pixel density is nice but sheer resolution is greater IMO. While it doesn't do much for modern gaming, having more stuff on the screen at a time has made my 1440 monitor definitely worth it.

32" sounds about the maximum that I could use as a computer monitor. 55" is definitely out of the question.

Also, any monitor with less than 60Hz at a resolution is useless at that resolution. Utterly, unless you're a masochist.

avatar

legionera

Good point.

avatar

glpeter90

Sadly I remember paying $1700.00 for a 17 inch dell LCD monitor years back. Still works by the way.

avatar

jason2393

I can get 5 Seiki 39" 4K TVs for the price of one of these. I can get 35 1080p monitors for the price of one of these. Why would I buy one of these?

avatar

Nimrod

because the Seiki is an ugly poorly performing POS while the UltraSharp is a pro level display. Its still way to expensive tho.

avatar

jason2393

The reviews I've seen for it indicate the Seiki is decent value for the money... and considering it's 1/7th the cost (turns out I can get 7 Seikis for the cost of a single Dell), I'd say it's a much more sensible way to test 4K computing, because if you don't like it, you still have a fully functional TV.

avatar

Peanut Fox

But the Dell is 60Hz!

avatar

jason2393

The Seiki may be 30Hz at 4K, but it's 120Hz at 1080p, and it's 1/7th the price.

avatar

vrmlbasic

It is 1/7th of the price but has "0/7 th" the usefulness as the Dell at 4K. What is 30 Hz fast enough to display, besides 24 FPS movies? A TV that can't watch live sports or TV shows without purposefully dropping frames sounds useless to me.

As numerous Xbox 360 games have taught me (piss-poor game development, really) that anything under 30 FPS is a slideshow.

avatar

jason2393

We're still several years away from 4K/60Hz broadcasts becoming a reality. I see the TV being useful for things like word processing, coding, web browsing, and playing non-fast-paced games.

All current 4K panels are at an in-between stage, and because of this, I feel I'd rather pay $500 for a taste of 4K than $3,500 for a better experience that will be rendered just as obsolete in a year or two.

avatar

vrmlbasic

Unless the TV itself is doing the upscaling (?!) then, no matter what the resolution of the broadcast/dvd/bluray/game is, it will be at 30 FPS. Or seen at-size, which would be tiny.

I'm not even sure that I could type at 30 Hz as the text would take literally twice as long to appear on the screen and I'd probably overshoot with my mouse movements (which would result in jerky cursor movement unless I slow my mouse motion). It would be the worst "input lag" ever.

$3,500 is way too much for this, I agree with that. If the 500 dollar models came with some sort of split DVI input or some other method of achieving 60+ Hz then I'd be all over them.

avatar

Obsidian

In related news Dell announces they still aren't done price-fixing their displays.

Seriously $3500?! My wallet hurts just thinking about that price for a single 31.5-inch device.

Is this really better than a 4k TV?

For Dell's MSRP price it should come with NO bezel, just edge-to-edge Gorilla Glass, and it should be less than an inch thick. If you're going to give us technology to justify paying for why not bring on some significant advancements.

When it costs less to wire together 4 iPad Air devices then there is something seriously wrong with the price point.

I'm excited that 4k monitors are coming but that price is out of line.

avatar

vrmlbasic

Why is it that the GPUs to power a high-res display cost less than the display itself?

When can we expect mid-grade SK knockoffs of 4K screens? :)

avatar

Hey.That_Dude

You'll keep the screen longer. So they are more expensive jumping in because they need to open the market slowly to ensure that there is one in the next few years.
Does anyone here still run a graphics card from 8-12 years ago? I have an LCD from that time that still works, but not a graphics card.