Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Displays

Dell Demos 5K Display 204

Posted by Soulskill
from the all-the-pixels dept.
An anonymous reader writes: Even though 4k displays are just making their way into consumer affordability, manufacturers are already pushing beyond. Dell has previewed a computer monitor it calls a "5k" display. The resolution is 5120x2880, stuffing 14,745,600 pixels on a 27" screen. For comparison, that's more than seven times the amount of pixels in a 1920x1080 display. Pixel density is 218 PPI, roughly the same as a 15" Retina MacBook Pro. ExtremeTech suggests, "As far as we're aware, no one is actually making 5120×2880 panels, especially not at 27 inches diagonal – so what we're probably looking at is two 2560x2880 panels squished together as a 'tiled display.'" Unfortunately, it's pricy, expected to cost around $2,500. But hopefully it will help drive 4k display prices even further toward mainstream availability.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Dell Demos 5K Display

Comments Filter:
  • by polar red (215081) on Friday September 05, 2014 @12:13PM (#47835751)

    when will we finally get hihger than 1920*1080 resolution monitors at a decent price ????

    • by polar red (215081)

      about 2500 * 1500 should suffice for now.

    • by Rafael Jaimes III (3430609) on Friday September 05, 2014 @12:22PM (#47835851)

      when will we finally get hihger than 1920*1080 resolution monitors at a decent price ????

      Or when will 1920x1080 be the standard for small laptops instead of 1366x768?

      • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

        by brwski (622056)
        Why x1080 when x1200 works so, so much better? Finding an affordable monitor with useful vertical space is getting difficult. There are a good number of people who use their boxen to do something more useful than watching movies.
        • Why x1200 when x1440 so much better?

          16:10 is dead but we've finally got resolution numbers rising again, so you won't miss it much.

          • I use 16x10 on my mbp every single day. Tim cook would have a bone to pick with you.
          • by Mal-2 (675116)

            16:10 means that while watching a 16:9 video, you can pop up the control panel of the player without obscuring the video itself. Also, people who like the taskbar or equivalent on the bottom of the screen appreciate all the vertical pixels they can get. Personally I bit the bullet and adapted to putting the taskbar on the right on the machines that have vertically cramped displays, but it would be nice not to have to make this choice. Even at 2048x1152, I find I want more vertical pixels often, and only occ

          • by brwski (622056)
            x1440 is OK, but I'd still prefer the 16:10 to 16:9. x1600 would be the next best step to preserve that view. More vertical pixels is good, but the view is still squished when the horizontal is taken into account.
        • by Andy_R (114137)

          Economies of scale. LCD makers already have huge factories pumping out more 1920x1080 screens for use in HD TVs each week than the whole laptop industry uses in a year.

    • Re:in the meantime : (Score:5, Informative)

      by gman003 (1693318) on Friday September 05, 2014 @12:37PM (#47836007)
      You can get 2560x1440 for about $500 +/-200 now - cheap imports are $350 on eBay, top-of-the-line ones are $700+ but you only need that if you do pro graphics stuff. For regular use, there's 27" 1440p monitors all over the place now.
    • by jon3k (691256)
      Define decent price? You can get WQHD (2560x1440) 27" IPS A- panels for $400. For example, here's the Monoprice one [monoprice.com].
    • by ohieaux (2860669)
      My Yoga 2 has a 3200x1800 display. It is practically useless as many applications cannot scale correctly. With windows 8 on there, it's rarely used. I've not found decent Linux distro that works well, either. I'll stick with 1080.
    • I saw a "Good Guys" circular from the late 1980s yesterday and they had a Motorola "car phone" for sale in there for $1200. IIRC, it must have been a bag phone because I remember they said it was portable from car-car in the ad.

      That's like $2500 in today's purchasing power-- can you imagine $2500 these days for an analog-only mobile phone? And what do you suppose calls were back then, 50 cents or more per minute, closer $1/minute in contemporary purchasing power?

      About the only thing good about those bag p

      • by drinkypoo (153816)

        About the only thing good about those bag phones was they had more transmit power.

        They had bigger antennae, too, and you could reasonably retrofit an even larger one. These days, if a phone even has an external antenna jack, it's one that could be clogged by a single grain of sand.

  • by GlennC (96879) on Friday September 05, 2014 @12:19PM (#47835823)

    Because that ought to be enough for anybody! :D

  • Fix 4k first (Score:5, Interesting)

    by MytQuinn (1846480) on Friday September 05, 2014 @12:25PM (#47835899)
    How about they focus on getting 4k working decently first. Saturates DisplayPort and cuts in and out in major graphics cards, and screen tearing with dual HDMI. I'm sure Dual DisplayPort at 5k will fix it all....
    • by PopeRatzo (965947)

      Until there are GPUs powerful enough for gaming on a 4k screen, I'll just wait this one out.

    • by thegarbz (1787294)

      Not a display problem.

      Just because the video card and processing industry is playing catch-up does not mean that R&D should stop on display tech itself. I'd rather them force the change by creating more and more high res displays so that pressure is put on the other players to fix their problems.

    • by AbRASiON (589899) *

      Exactly this, current 4k implimentations are balls.

      There's a large contingent of gamers pushing for 120/144hz gaming for example, we can't even do 60hz at 4k easily. (Forget about the GPU power, the damn cabling and interface standards to send the signal to the display) this really needs to be solved, especially with OLED coming and it's potential 1000's of frames per second refresh rate.
      I suspect the display will work on some kind of 10:1 ratio, where it updates 10 times for every 1 time the GPU can - as

  • I was thinking about getting a Asus PB287Q 28" 4K 60Hz as it has good reviews but was unsure as to whether I can stick with icons and stuff being small. I love the idea of the additional pixels as I always seem to not have enough but I here some programs aren't a good match as they don't scale well.

    Anybody use a 4K display for programming / development work? Good or bad idea?

    • by Yakasha (42321)

      I was thinking about getting a Asus PB287Q 28" 4K 60Hz as it has good reviews but was unsure as to whether I can stick with icons and stuff being small. I love the idea of the additional pixels as I always seem to not have enough but I here some programs aren't a good match as they don't scale well.

      Anybody use a 4K display for programming / development work? Good or bad idea?

      This guy thinks so: http://tiamat.tsotech.com/4k-i... [tsotech.com]

      The Seiki is only 30Hz @ 4k resolution, but at 39" and $339 (compared to the Asus 28", 60Hz at $600), I (hoping, because one is being delivered next week) think its a better deal.

      • by polar red (215081)

        Anybody use a 4K display for programming / development work? Good or bad idea?

        i would LOVE that. I am now using 2 * 1920*1080, and i would gladly trade them in for a 4K. I would love to be able to see more code, multiple windows side by side, and more vertical space would eliminate a lot of scrolling

      • by jasno (124830)

        A lot of folks at work are switching to these and they seem happy.

        I'm going for a stand-up desk first. I'll look into the 4k monitor early next year and see how things are then.

      • 30Hz is a deal breaker for me. 60Hz or nothing. 30Hz is ok for watching movies apparently but I don't think I could cope with mouse lag.

        39" would be nice though and removes the issue of everything being small.

        • by jerpyro (926071)

          The mouse lag is annoying at first but it's not so bad if you get a high dpi mouse and spend a few weeks getting used to the new setup. I wouldn't play games on it, but it's been awesome for code/productivity at the office.

          I've had one [the seiki 39"] for about 9 months now. It's due with our baby in two weeks, because we had such a honeymoon when I first got it.

    • by Mal-2 (675116) on Friday September 05, 2014 @01:07PM (#47836295) Homepage Journal

      Do you have eagle eyes or sit close to the screen? (Yes, and no, in my case.)
      Can you see the scan lines and pixels of a normal, good-quality display from a distance greater than the diagonal size of the monitor itself? (I do.)
      Have you ever set shell windows to 6 or 8 point fonts so they don't clutter up your screen(s), yet still find them legible? (Also yes for me.)
      Are you looking to reduce the WALL OF DISPLAY effect without losing precious real estate? (I have three monitors totaling 6.5 MPix, and wouldn't mind at all if I could reduce that to two [I'd still want a video display for watching across the room] or just one [if the scaling works well enough to do said video]).

      If you sound anything like me, then yeah, you probably want this. If you're one of the types that runs a display at something other than its native resolution ALL THE TIME, because everything is too tiny for you, then you almost certainly do NOT want this.

      • All good points. I do like stuff small so it would probably be ok for me and I absolutely insist that displays are run at native resolution. It would be nice to see a 4K in operation though before I purchase. More research needed.

    • I got this display -- Asus PB287Q -- for work. It's been absolutely delightful.

      That said, I found that at the distance I'm sitting -- about 24" from the display -- The full 4K resolution was way too high and made me have to upscale things pretty regularly. I downgraded to the second-highest resolution (~3200 instead of ~3800 on the horizontal) and it's delightfully usable, and gives me SO MUCH more real estate than the previous monitor (27" Apple Cinema Display -- the standard for my workplace).

      One word

  • This may not be practical, but I'm still glad to see companies driving bigger displays with higher resolutions. It wasn't that long ago that our cell phones had better resolutions than our 55" TVs. I can't wait to see where technology takes us next!
    • by Mal-2 (675116)

      This may not be practical, but I'm still glad to see companies driving bigger displays with higher resolutions.

      Me too. It may be more than current video cards can handle, but personally, I typically go through two video cards for every desktop computer, and two to four desktop computers for every generation of displays I buy. That means the video hardware will get there.

  • Mine goes to 11.

  • by UnknowingFool (672806) on Friday September 05, 2014 @01:00PM (#47836261)
    "Fuck it. Boys, we're going to 6K!"
  • by rsborg (111459) on Friday September 05, 2014 @01:16PM (#47836385) Homepage

    http://www.theonion.com/articl... [theonion.com]

    "What part of this don't you understand? If two blades is good, and three blades is better, obviously five blades would make us the best fucking razor that ever existed. Comprende? We didn't claw our way to the top of the razor game by clinging to the two-blade industry standard. We got here by taking chances. Well, five blades is the biggest chance of all."

    • by thegarbz (1787294)

      You're confusing progress with "progress". There are many of us dying to get higher than 1920x1080 as the standard display types. I recently realised I have had 1200 vertical pixels on my computer display for 14 years now. It's quite sad.

  • ... a display that actually has the number of kilopixels in width that is advertised.

  • by WhoBeDaPlaya (984958) on Friday September 05, 2014 @04:34PM (#47837927) Homepage
    Sorry, until Windows fixes it's DPI scaling, there's not much point in having retina-like desktop displays.
  • I've got 2 x 2560x1440 screens and it's more than enough real estate for anything. I can't see the point of effectively having 4 of them on one screen of the same size. Even modern graphics cards struggle to do decent 3D on what I have, so what on earth is going to work on such a high res display? The only advantage I can see in 3D is less need for AA which might save some cycles...

    Plus Windows scaling is so rubbish, and there is still so many non-dpi aware apps out there that many people still (need to) us

  • I have a 39" Seiki 4K monitor (TV) that I mostly love. It's not the best color rendition, but it's hard to beat sheer screen real estate for dev work. My biggest complaint is that at that size, 4K is a similar resolution to existing 30" monitors @ 2560x1600.

    I'd love a 5K / 6K display in this size and thought it was probably a few years out. 8K would be nice, but I doubt that will be practical in a 35"-40" size for quite a while longer. I don't need 300+ dpi, but a solid 220 or so would be great.

I am not now, nor have I ever been, a member of the demigodic party. -- Dennis Ritchie

Working...