Dell UltraSharp 27" 5k monitor (5120 x 2880)

Actually seems reasonabled priced for on US$2.5K for the specs...

But what connectivity is required eg. will it require DP MST, or will it run from a single HDMI connection?, and will it do the full res @60Hz+...
 
Wow, I'm surprised they went this route. Larger horizontal pixel count and still people are struggling to get to or afford 4K panels. I'd rather than revisit and improve on their 4K offerings before expanding. Maybe this will be a new trend. I also have questions on the same concerns Chewy mentioned. Also, what panel type at this price range?
 
Will there ever be monitors with a taller scree than the awful 16:9?
 
A friend of mine attached his two widescreen monitors to VESA mounts, and then used the mounts to turn them sideways and set them to "Portrait" through the Screen Resolution option. Tall enough for ya? :)

Actually, if you set them on top of each other, they are *almost* usable as a single 4:3 display.

Personally, I prefer 4:3 displays. The thing is, you can't find them new anymore. It just doesn't seem right to run something like W2K (which I have running on the GX270 alongside a custom Debian install now, by the way) on a 16:9 or 16:10 monitor.
 
16:10 is the best you can do without paying through the nose. I've done the portrait mode before (3 wide), but the image looks suboptimal. A single DP can handle 4k @ 60Hz, I have no idea about 5k.
 
I don't know if this new 5k monitor will take off and set the standard or die, but I'm just glad that the vendors are actually thinking HIGHER resolution is the was to go. We had been stuck at 2560x1600 for years and years. Good to see something higher. Get the higher rez and transmission standards set, then get the quality up.

LunarMist said:
Will there ever be monitors with a taller scree than the awful 16:9?
Click to expand...

Mainstream, NO. High-end medical/engineering, maybe @ 4-10x the cost.

I read someone elses thoughts on this and was wondering: If you have enough vertical pixels when does 16:9 become well crappy? 1280x720 = not enough vertical pixels. 5120x2880 = maybe enough pixels?

Thoughts?

I'd like the 21:9 and 16:9 for those that need horizontal space and 3:2 and 4:3 for those that do "boring" work.
 
snowhiker said:
I don't know if this new 5k monitor will take off and set the standard or die, but I'm just glad that the vendors are actually thinking HIGHER resolution is the was to go. We had been stuck at 2560x1600 for years and years. Good to see something higher. Get the higher rez and transmission standards set, then get the quality up.

Mainstream, NO. High-end medical/engineering, maybe @ 4-10x the cost.

I read someone elses thoughts on this and was wondering: If you have enough vertical pixels when does 16:9 become well crappy? 1280x720 = not enough vertical pixels. 5120x2880 = maybe enough pixels?

Thoughts?

I'd like the 21:9 and 16:9 for those that need horizontal space and 3:2 and 4:3 for those that do "boring" work.
Click to expand...

I could live with the short screen if the display could be narrowed. Unfortunately I don't know if any modern video cards allow a range of resolutions that would leave the sides black.
 
LunarMist said:
I could live with the short screen if the display could be narrowed. Unfortunately I don't know if any modern video cards allow a range of resolutions that would leave the sides black.
Click to expand...

I'm pretty sure they all do? I just changed the resolution of my Dell 30" from 2560x1600 (native) to 2048x1536 and the black bars automatically appeared on the sides.

Further, I just used the nVidia control panel to create a custom resolution of 1600x1600 and it displayed perfectly, no interpolation at all.

Why you would pay for the pixels and not use them is another question?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top