Dell resolves to have the most pixels ever; meet 5120 x 2880 aka 5K

Subject: Displays | September 4, 2014 - 04:49 PM |
Tagged: dell, 5120 x 2880, 5k, UltraSharp 27 Ultra HD 5K

That's right, Dell is releasing the Dell UltraSharp 27 Ultra HD 5K Monitor with a resolution of 5120 x 2880 for a mere $2500 just in time for Christmas.  That is just under 6.5 million more pixels than 4k which is an impressive jump and should look very interesting on a 27" display!

View Full Size

While we may not have TV content to justify this resolution gamers with extreme GPUs should be able to take advantage of it as soon as it is released. You will probably be able to turn your anti-aliasing settings down with pixels that small.  It will also have 16W integrated Harmon Kardon speakers and quite likely a few USB ports.  Surround setups are going to need every PCIe lane you can toss at it though, good thing those 295X2's are on sale right now!  They've also added some information about their 4K displays here.

View Full Size

 

Source: Dell
September 4, 2014 | 05:22 PM - Posted by PapaDragon

"In time for Christmas"...So I guess Dell anticipates that the new GTX 900 series or the Titan II will have Displayport 1.3 ?..Current Dp 1.2 maxes out at 4k ..right?

September 4, 2014 | 06:27 PM - Posted by willmore (not verified)

Yeah, that's a lot of pixels. At 24bpp and 60hz, there's no way that's fitting over DP1.2(a). DP1.3 has plenty of room.

So, it's either <60Hz or DP1.3.

September 4, 2014 | 07:13 PM - Posted by Anonymous (not verified)

According to this TweakTown video, they are bonding 2 DP 1.2 connections together (so 2 connections needed): http://www.tweaktown.com/news/40060/dell-announces-its-new-5k-display-wi...

Personally, especially at $2500, I would just get multiple Dell UP2414Q monitors for $770 off of Amazon right now (or the Dell UP3214Q at $1500-1800) or wait for another monitor revision in 2 years which will have DP 1.3 instead.

September 4, 2014 | 05:37 PM - Posted by Andrew K (not verified)

Was hoping they'd have the balls to do 16:10, but then calculator :(

September 5, 2014 | 03:22 AM - Posted by Anonymous (not verified)

Ye, but its a good thing that its not 16:10.
16:10 is/was/willbe shit.
Gaming and any productivity is best on 21:9. And coding is best on 4:3, or microsofts new 3:2 laptop.

16:10 has no worth here and should never be reanimated, cuz we have a FAR better middleground called 16:9.

September 5, 2014 | 06:22 AM - Posted by Branthog

As someone who has only gone 16:10 for the last dozen years and would prefer only 16:10 going into the future, I don't know what hte hell you're smoking.

There is absolutely no logic behind claiming that 16:9 is a "better middleground". More vertical pixels is always beneficial. Seriously, please explain to us why the same pixel count horizontally is better with fewer vertical pixels than more?

The only benefit to 16:9 is that manufacturers have crammed it into PC monitors as a result of manufacturing them for everything else and it's easier to maintain one ratio than manufacturer two.

September 13, 2014 | 03:37 PM - Posted by Anonymous (not verified)

1440p monitors cost now as much as any cheapest 16:10`s...

Please explain why you would still choose less pixels to get that fanboi ratio.

September 5, 2014 | 03:22 AM - Posted by Anonymous (not verified)

Ye, but its a good thing that its not 16:10.
16:10 is/was/willbe shit.
Gaming and any productivity is best on 21:9. And coding is best on 4:3, or microsofts new 3:2 laptop.

16:10 has no worth here and should never be reanimated, cuz we have a FAR better middleground called 16:9.

September 4, 2014 | 06:25 PM - Posted by Anonymous (not verified)

Oh my god!

September 4, 2014 | 08:31 PM - Posted by Anonymous (not verified)

A good upgrade from my 3840x2400 IBM. I don't need to downgrade the resolution!

September 4, 2014 | 10:45 PM - Posted by Pixy Misa (not verified)

I was thinking last night that my perfect display would be a 32" 5120x3200. I didn't think that today I'd see something that came very close to that.

The one problem is that hardly any non-pro cards actually have more than a single DisplayPort. None of the 290/290X cards, no 770 or 780 cards.

September 5, 2014 | 04:32 AM - Posted by Anonymous (not verified)

My 6970 have 2 mini-DP. Several AMD cards, like the R9 280X have 2 mini-DP. Also, the R9-295X have 4 of them.

September 7, 2014 | 04:00 PM - Posted by Dave Haynie (not verified)

That's not a pro vs non-pro problem, that's a nVidia problem. My AMD Radeon HD6970 from 2011 has dual DisplayPort ports.

One DisplayPort is all you need for this monitor... and it's probably your only option, anyway. DisplayPort supports MST (Multi Stream Transport).. the same thing that lets you break out that single DisplayPort connector to three DisplayPort connections, using an MST hub.

This kind of monitor has a built in Hub, and follows a few conventions to tell your PC that it's actually an MST hub with two 2560 x 2880 monitors attached in a linked config. All those nVidia cards should be able to handle one of these (with support for bonding the two displays as one, hopefully). My fairly ancient AMD could support two.

September 4, 2014 | 11:40 PM - Posted by EsaT (not verified)

Now with small size of 27" 16:9 just actually how much of that marketing pee... err marketing pixels do any good from reasonably ergonomical viewing distance?

This is getting ridiculously similar to digicams in which marketroids keep cramming more and more blurred, high noise, low DR pixels.

September 8, 2014 | 09:01 PM - Posted by Rishi (not verified)

Er, except that higher resolution digicams most often offer advantages rather than disadvantages when images are viewed at the same size (that is, when viewing conditions are 'normalized').

Have you seen 'retina' displays? Once you see the clarity of high DPI displays, it's hard to go back to regular screens.

It's most certainly *not* marketing. There's a clear benefit. At least for those of us with high visual acuity, anyway.

September 5, 2014 | 12:20 AM - Posted by greg reavis (not verified)

Personally I feel 4k is pointless at 27 inches, and a 5k display at that size isn't going to change my mind. I feel that screen sizes like 32 inches+ will see the most benefit. My vision is terrible and anything above 1440p on 27 inches makes it impossible for me to see anything. I will stick with my 1920x1080 tv set until a nice 2560x1080 tv comes out at a nice price. The one from vizio that's $1000+ look super sweet from some of the reviews I've seen. I would have to see it in person before I would even think of getting it though.

I'm more of a movie watcher and a couch gamer with bad vision so I don't care about pixels as much.

September 5, 2014 | 12:23 AM - Posted by Anonymous (not verified)

Might be good for DOCTORS to look at high-res image scans like MRI.

There are also more important specs than simply the number of pixels.

It's my understanding that beyond 3840x2160 at 27" at same distance away is pointless as the eye can't tell the difference.

I do have a 2560x1440 screen and even the really small text is quite sharp so going beyond 4K just seems pointless to me.

September 5, 2014 | 05:37 PM - Posted by Branthog

Gaming without the need for anti-aliasing.

September 5, 2014 | 01:57 AM - Posted by DIYEyal

Is it DP 1.2 or it will be 1.3? DP 1.2 won't do justice to that resolution because it will most likely be 30Hz.. Also windows scaling is a mess so unless you have eagle eyes like me you're going to have a bad time.

Let's hope the next iteration of windows will do a better job standardizing scaling tools for desktop apps for the developers. And encourage them to do so.

September 5, 2014 | 02:15 AM - Posted by Simon Zerafa (not verified)

Hi,

So 5K over 27 inches? So that 217 DPI.

Not bad.

What would it take for them to get to the same DPI as my phone though? :-)

Regards

Simon

September 5, 2014 | 06:26 AM - Posted by Branthog

This is exactly the pixel count that I'm looking for. Finally! Unfortunately, I don't want it in 27". I want it in 30". Possibly 32" would be acceptable. It also needs to be an IPS panel (I presume that's what this is) but it also needs to have a very fast response time - which I doubt this has, because even the lower resolution Dells in this line are mediocre in that respect.

What I'm really interested in is whether they'll offer choices in screen type. I do not want that shiny goopy glittery diamond garbage they coat their monitors with. Give me a nice ACD-style *high quality/clarity* matte.

What's even worse is bundling all sorts of unnecessary crap onto the monitor. If I'm dropping $2500 on a display (and I have dropped much more than that on a PC monitor), why do I want shitty 16w built-in speakers? All that does is make it hard to modify the monitor in the future and give you more potential breaking points to deal with.

Anyway, very high resolution single-display solutions are nice to see. If they're starting to move in that direction, it means the quality behind such a high resolution display will follow in the coming years. I'll just have to hang on a little longer with my 30" 2560x1600 ACD and hope we see real viable options coming to market sooner.

September 5, 2014 | 08:03 AM - Posted by Anonymous (not verified)

Yea i can now play my games at 25 fps instead of the whole 45 i get at 4k with demanding games maxed out with 2 titans.

September 5, 2014 | 05:39 PM - Posted by Branthog

You don't plan to keep your $2500+ monitor for awhile? Say, for example, five or so years over which there'll be five or more generations of cards with much more VRAM and power overall to pump out far more pixels significantly faster?

September 6, 2014 | 01:20 PM - Posted by razor512

Why only 5K?, it is not much of an improvement, especially considering that 4K HD is already pretty outdated, they should have really made the jump to 8K HD. It would be awesome to get some 8K cat videos.

September 8, 2014 | 09:39 AM - Posted by Aaron (not verified)

There's just no desktop upgrade path for me unless its 16/10 5120 × 3200 (see 4k wiki WHXGA resolution).
The extra height over 16/9 is more useful than it seems.
I can see the case for 16/9 in tablets and laptops etc but only as a compromise for price or size.
The desktop PC has always been about work and entertainment due to its versatility and performance so the OS's have been written with the extra height in mind (bottom task bar, top menu bar/ribbon etc).
The reason we are getting all of these 16.9 screens is that the factories are tooled up for them for TV's and laptops (and costs).
16/10 is going to be a niche ratio for the foreseeable future which is a shame because the PC has always been a content creation AND consumption system.

Post new comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <a> <em> <strong> <cite> <code> <ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd> <blockquote><p><br>
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.

More information about formatting options

By submitting this form, you accept the Mollom privacy policy.