Dell, Lenovo, Asus debut more affordable 4K monitors

Posted:
in General Discussion edited January 2014
This year's Consumer Electronics Show has been a boon for buyers awaiting an affordably-priced entry into the world of ultra-high definition monitors, with several manufacturers unveiling sub-$1,000 4K displays.

Pro Parts
Apple's new Mac Pro can drive up to 3 4K monitors


The price drops come as the market for 4K desktop displays begins to gain steam -- Apple's Haswell-based MacBook Pros support 4K output over Thunderbolt, and the company's all-new Mac Pro can drive up to 3 of the ultra-high resolution monitors. For readers looking to make the leap, AppleInsider has rounded up this week's more affordable announcements.

Dell 2815Q

Dell 2815Q


Dell's newest 28-inch display is actually the company's third entry into the 4K arena, but its previous efforts --?a $1,299 24 inch model and $3,322 32-inch variant --?bore premium price tags. The 2815Q, according to a report from Forbes, will cost consumers just $699.

The new 28-inch model sports a 3840 x 2160 pixel anti-glare TN panel, in contrast to the IGZO parts found on its more expensive siblings. Connectivity includes DisplayPort in and out, HDMI, and a built-in USB hub. Availability is still unknown.

Lenovo ThinkVision Pro2840m

Lenovo ThinkVision Pro2840m


Lenovo's ThinkVision Pro2840m is another 28-inch, 3840 x 2160 display mounted on a tilt and swivel stand. Lenovo has not specified the type of panel used on the professionally-targeted monitor, but the company does tout a 72 percent color gamut.

The Pro2840m also features touch-sensitive controls and edge-to-edge cover glass. DisplayPort, mini DisplayPort, and HDMI ports provide video connectivity, while a USB hub and dual built-in speakers round out the $799 device. Lenovo expects to begin shipping the Pro2840m in April.

Asus PB287Q

Asus PB287Q


Asus's PB287Q mirrors its competition with a 28-inch, 3840 x 2160 panel. The display does boast the quickest response time of any other sub-$1,000 unit released thus far at just 1ms, and sports a native 60Hz refresh rate.

Taipei, Taiwan-based Asus says the PB287Q will ship in the second quarter of 2014 for $799.
«13

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 46
    macxpressmacxpress Posts: 4,830member

    I'd like to see an Apple 32" 4k Thunderbolt 2 display. I'm sure they're working on it. Maybe even a 30 and 32" or something like that...maybe larger. I'm sure it won't be cheap coming from Apple though. You typically get what you pay for with Apple displays from my experience. 

  • Reply 2 of 46
    solipsismxsolipsismx Posts: 19,566member
    1) Sure, they exist and they have the right ports but does Mavericks support these monitors? So far it seems you need to run Windows natively on a Mac to get these to work right.

    2) These sub-$1000 4K monitors and HDTVs should mean quality 1080p set prices will be dropping, which is what I'm counting on as I look for a 60"+ LED-backlit ultra-slim 1080p set this year.
  • Reply 3 of 46
    macxpressmacxpress Posts: 4,830member

    I'm sure these displays won't be near the quality of Apple's. Maybe this is why Apple hasn't released one yet. To me, it doesn't really matter who is first, it matters who does it better. Getting it out just to say I have one doesn't cut it for me if its a POS. 

  • Reply 4 of 46
    solipsismxsolipsismx Posts: 19,566member
    macxpress wrote: »
    I'm sure these displays won't be near the quality of Apple's. Maybe this is why Apple hasn't released one yet. To me, it doesn't really matter who is first, it matters who does it better. Getting it out just to say I have one doesn't cut it for me if its a POS. 

    These are very low cost monitors. If you're coding or writing they may be great for text but I doubt any video or photo professional would consider them. Apple does sell a 4K display as an option with their Mac Pro but it's $3,600.
  • Reply 5 of 46
    formosaformosa Posts: 261member

    A TN panel for this type of monitor? (which I consider at least moderately high end, based on pixel count)

     

    A TN 4K monitor seems like an oxymoron.

  • Reply 6 of 46
    MarvinMarvin Posts: 14,213moderator
    formosa wrote: »
    A TN 4K monitor seems like an oxymoron.

    I would say so but some people would like to see a Retina Macbook Air even if it was just the resolution that went up. In that scenario, if the choice is TN or Retina TN then the latter is better.

    In this scenario, I wouldn't say it's bad to have 4K TN panels if and only if they were price competitive with TN panels but they aren't. I would take a $799 1440p IPS display over a $799 2160p TN display any day.

    I can actually see a lot of these displays being returned because the PC crowd buying these tend to try and hook them into whatever configuration they have and expect it to work. When they find their PCs not running them at 60Hz and lagging, they'll go back to the store. The Dell one is noted here as being 30Hz:

    http://www.forbes.com/sites/jasonevangelho/2014/01/07/dell-wasnt-joking-about-that-28-inch-sub-1000-4k-monitor-its-only-699/

    "I now have confirmation of the P2815Q’s full specs, and have listed them below. Unfortunately, it tops out at 30Hz 3840 x 2160 and 60Hz for 1920 x 1080. This should prove a deal breaker for gamers, but the monitor still has a solid feature set for the asking price."

    That's a deal-breaker for anyone IMO because the mouse and other UI elements will lag all the time. Gamers who like 60FPS will be disappointed and are the only real audience for a high-res TN panel.
  • Reply 7 of 46
    These "technically" aren't 4K monitors.

    "4K" is a video standard used by the movie industry that measures 4096 x 2160 (1.9:1 aspect ratio) and represents a standardized specification, including compression algorithm, bitrate, etc. These are "Ultra High Definition" monitors (UHD) that represent a display resolution of 3840 x 2160 (1.78:1 aspect ratio).

    The monitor industry needs to stop referring to these as 4K monitors when they don't meet the 4K video specification.
  • Reply 8 of 46
    tallest skiltallest skil Posts: 43,399member
    Originally Posted by David Byers View Post

    The monitor industry needs to stop referring to these as 4K monitors when they don't meet the 4K video specification.

     

    They also need to stop referring to them as 4K monitors when they’re 2K monitors. You can’t arbitrarily change what dimension you use to name it without people noticing.

  • Reply 9 of 46
    hmmhmm Posts: 3,405member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post





    These are very low cost monitors. If you're coding or writing they may be great for text but I doubt any video or photo professional would consider them. Apple does sell a 4K display as an option with their Mac Pro but it's $3,600.

    I do both of the first two and used to do the third many years ago:D (hopefully more coding and less video in the future). I'll wait for NEC to come out with a spectraview version, then wait for it to come down in price. Past experience suggests they're a little slow with bug fixes, then really solid once those fixes are in place, and a year in they are typically in line with Apple's pricing. Eizo is even better, but they're extremely expensive. The Sharp is a 32". I prefer something closer to 24". Otherwise graphics tablets tend to be too jumpy.

  • Reply 10 of 46
    solipsismxsolipsismx Posts: 19,566member
    They also need to stop referring to them as 4K monitors when they’re 2K monitors. You can’t arbitrarily change what dimension you use to name it without people noticing.

    We've gone over this before. You're conflating different marketing terms. They aren't calling these 4000p or 3840p monitors, they are calling them 4K. That's very different.

    And they can change which axis to market, and frankly I like using the longer axis anyway.
  • Reply 11 of 46
    solipsismxsolipsismx Posts: 19,566member
    hmm wrote: »
    The Sharp is a 32". I prefer something closer to 24". Otherwise graphics tablets tend to be too jumpy.

    I don't necessarily want something as tall as the 32" but I want something wider. I really hope we see a move to a wider aspect ratio for these larger desktop monitors and HDTVs. Our eyes are designed for it.
  • Reply 12 of 46
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by David Byers View Post



    These "technically" aren't 4K monitors.



    "4K" is a video standard used by the movie industry that measures 4096 x 2160 (1.9:1 aspect ratio) and represents a standardized specification, including compression algorithm, bitrate, etc. These are "Ultra High Definition" monitors (UHD) that represent a display resolution of 3840 x 2160 (1.78:1 aspect ratio).



    The monitor industry needs to stop referring to these as 4K monitors when they don't meet the 4K video specification.

     

    If we're being pedantic about it, "real" 4K is 4096 x 2560. 4096 x 2160 is DCI standard theater 4K, but consumer/television 4K - aka 4x 1080p, or 3840 x 2160 - is the only thing that will ever actually find its way onto someone's desk in mass quantities.

  • Reply 13 of 46
    tallest skiltallest skil Posts: 43,399member
    Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

    they are calling them 4K.

     

    So basically this is the iPhone 5, huh? It has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the device/technology in question, but it’s explicitly named in a way that misleads people into thinking so.

  • Reply 14 of 46
    mdriftmeyermdriftmeyer Posts: 7,242member
    That $699 Dell is what you can characters as one big POS. the Ultra 24" for $1299 is the only 4k to look at under $2500 worth wasting money on.
  • Reply 15 of 46
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by BobJohnson View Post

     

     

    If we're being pedantic about it, "real" 4K is 4096 x 2560. 4096 x 2160 is DCI standard theater 4K, but consumer/television 4K - aka 4x 1080p, or 3840 x 2160 - is the only thing that will ever actually find its way onto someone's desk in mass quantities.


     

    Not necessarily true.  The "real" 4K you're referring to is a screen resolution, not a broadcast standard.  The DCI 4K is officially standardized with not only screen resolution, but image compression, bit rate, and more.  But technically, 3840 x 2160 shouldn't be called "4K" at all.  Of course, nobody uses the "real" name for 1080p either, which is "Full HD".

     

    My point is:

    3840 x 2160 should be referred to as UHD.

    4096 x 2160 should be referred to as DCI 4K.

    4096 x 2560 should be referred to as 4K.

    7680 x 4320 should be referred to as QUHD.

     

    Check out this article... it explains it better than I do.

    http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/174221-no-tv-makers-4k-and-uhd-are-not-the-same-thing

  • Reply 16 of 46
    herbapouherbapou Posts: 2,221member
    macxpress wrote: »
    I'd like to see an Apple 32" 4k Thunderbolt 2 display. I'm sure they're working on it. Maybe even a 30 and 32" or something like that...maybe larger. I'm sure it won't be cheap coming from Apple though. You typically get what you pay for with Apple displays from my experience. 

    You are certainly NOT getting what you paid for if you get Apple current monitor. Instead of ripping off people Apple should either upgrade it or stop selling it.
  • Reply 17 of 46
    solipsismxsolipsismx Posts: 19,566member
    So basically this is the iPhone 5, huh? It has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the device/technology in question, but it’s explicitly named in a way that misleads people into thinking so.

    When it comes to marketing it can be anything they want, even if it sounds somewhat technical. The iPhone 5 being the 6th generation iPhone and the first with 4th gen cellular technology works but I think T-Mobile and then AT&T calling HSPA+ '4G' is a more apt. Unless they called it 3GPP 4G it's perfectly fine from a legal standpoint as annoying as it is (but with cellular the problem started long before T-Mobile).
  • Reply 18 of 46
    hmmhmm Posts: 3,405member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post





    I don't necessarily want something as tall as the 32" but I want something wider. I really hope we see a move to a wider aspect ratio for these larger desktop monitors and HDTVs. Our eyes are designed for it.

     

     

    Wider than 16:9? There are things I like about wide formats if the GUI works well with them. Having extra width makes it easier to use one display rather than primary and secondary ones. I often use a secondary one for notes or reference, but it does mean having to glance over at it. It's possible that the other way would promote distraction, but I haven't yet tried it. The other thing is that I would like to see touch screens of very high quality in larger form factors, but that may only appeal to a small subset of possible customers. What I really want is something like this by a company not known to use cheap soldering and poor cable designs. In 4K it would be even better. I don't expect such a thing to surface anytime soon, especially with the number of patents owned by Wacom.

  • Reply 19 of 46
    solipsismxsolipsismx Posts: 19,566member
    hmm wrote: »

    Wider than 16:9? There are things I like about wide formats if the GUI works well with them. Having extra width makes it easier to use one display rather than primary and secondary ones. I often use a secondary one for notes or reference, but it does mean having to glance over at it. It's possible that the other way would promote distraction, but I haven't yet tried it. The other thing is that I would like to see touch screens of very high quality in larger form factors, but that may only appeal to a small subset of possible customers. What I really want is something like this by a company not known to use cheap soldering and poor cable designs. In 4K it would be even better. I don't expect such a thing to surface anytime soon, especially with the number of patents owned by Wacom.

    Yes, because I feel one monitor is more effective than two if it's designed properly. Our eyes and muscles are designed for a wider aspect ratio than taller one as displays get larger.

    For instance, the current iMac and ACD use:

    27" 16:9 = 23.5w x 13.2h = 311.48 sq in


    If we make the display 31.5", like we see in the quality 4K panels that are coming out we see you don't get an excessive mount of additional area but you get a lot more usable space. (note: they are 16:9 but I'm using the Cinemascope aspect ratio for this example):

    31.5" 21:9 = 29.0w x 12.3h = 357.50 sq in

    If we were to scale that so it's the same display height as the current 27" display it would be about a 33.5" display which i think would be absolutely brilliant for Xcode.
  • Reply 20 of 46
    These "technically" aren't 4K monitors.

    "4K" is a video standard used by the movie industry that measures 4096 x 2160 (1.9:1 aspect ratio) and represents a standardized specification, including compression algorithm, bitrate, etc. These are "Ultra High Definition" monitors (UHD) that represent a display resolution of 3840 x 2160 (1.78:1 aspect ratio).

    The monitor industry needs to stop referring to these as 4K monitors when they don't meet the 4K video specification.

    LOL. Fat. Chance. Who's going to make them?
Sign In or Register to comment.