Print 36 comment(s) - last by jamescox.. on Dec 3 at 7:56 PM

Pricing and availability are unknown

Dell has tipped some of the details on a new 24” UHD computer monitor called the UP2414Q.
Dell says that the UP2414Q features the highest pixel density of any of its available displays at 185 ppi. The native resolution of the IPS display is 3840 x 2160 and it offers viewing angles of 178-degrees horizontally and vertically. The contrast ratio is listed as 1000:1 typical and 2M:1 dynamic. Brightness for the panel is 350 cd/m2 and the panel has a 8ms response time.

The display supports 99% Adobe RGB color gamut and 100% sRGB.
Unfortunately, important details like pricing and availability haven’t been announced at this time.

Sources: Mac Rumors, Dell

Comments     Threshold

This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Not sold
By bug77 on 12/2/2013 10:30:38 AM , Rating: 2
24" may be too little for that resolution. You know, like the occasional laptop that crams 1920x1080 onto a 13" display...
But I'd love to have a 4k monitor when doing photo editing. It's among the few thing you can use it for, for the time being, seeing as 4k movies are a no show (pun intended).

RE: Not sold
By hughlle on 12/2/2013 10:39:53 AM , Rating: 4
I think that's the point. This type of equipment is hardly being designed for your 2am failblog marathons. The same as with say a 30 inch display. They are not typically marketed at or bought by people who just fancy sending their uncle an email, they are bought and used by professionals for specific tasks.

RE: Not sold
By Souka on 12/2/2013 11:45:50 AM , Rating: 2
Hmmm... nobody seems to mind the 264ppi of the iPad air, or the 339ppi of the Kindle Fire HDX. :)

Just curios.. what would the native resolution be for a 24" monitor with 339ppi?

RE: Not sold
By retrospooty on 12/2/2013 11:54:02 AM , Rating: 2
You would almost have to double it to 8k. 7860x4320@24 inches = 373PPI

Some people just like low res and hate anything that they consikder too high... Whatever, "let them eat 1366x768 cake" and leave the high end products for those that would appreciate them.

RE: Not sold
By Keeir on 12/2/2013 12:09:24 PM , Rating: 2
An issue here is the scaling.

264 ppi on an iPad air would be different than 264 ppi on a 24" monitor. In balanced setup, your eyes are around 10"-15" from an ipad air.

From a 24" widescreen... I'd say 20"-30" is about as close as I'd get.

185 ppi compares pretty favorably to the iPad air and the HDX screens already... provided you aren't pressing your nose into it.

RE: Not sold
By retrospooty on 12/2/2013 12:13:51 PM , Rating: 3
Windows scaling does suck... But that isn't a good reason to hold back on good tech. MS needs to fix that, and I am sure they will as more and more high res LCD's are available.

"185 ppi compares pretty favorably to the iPad air and the HDX screens already... provided you aren't pressing your nose into it."

True, but it depends on your desk setup. Some people have it closer than others and PPI is extremely dependent on viewing distance and how good the users eyesight is. Some people cant make out pixels on a 326PPI iPhone, some can. It just depends on what you need and how you use it.

RE: Not sold
By inighthawki on 12/2/2013 12:31:26 PM , Rating: 3
Win 8.1 does improves scaling significantly, although personally on a 24" display, I would rather have the screen realestate of 4K than to scale it at all :)

RE: Not sold
By retrospooty on 12/2/2013 1:53:48 PM , Rating: 2
Nice... Looks like 32 and 28 inch models are on the way too.

32 inches @ 4k would work great for me.

RE: Not sold
By Spuke on 12/2/2013 11:30:30 PM , Rating: 2
32 inches @ 4k would work great for me.
Sweet!! I don't have $3500 for a monitor though.

RE: Not sold
By TakinYourPoints on 12/3/2013 12:59:25 AM , Rating: 2
Even 8.1 still needs a lot of work. There is still no easy solution for resolution independence. OS X gives options for both maintaining normal text/graphics size and shrinking things down in HiDPI, but it uses an incredibly hacky workaround that involves supersampling:

Apple actually renders the desktop at 2x the selected resolution (3360 x 2100 or 3840 x 2400, respectively), scales up the text and UI elements accordingly so they aren’t super tiny (backing scale factor = 2.0), and downscales the final image to fit on the 2880 x 1800 panel. The end result is you get a 3360 x 2100 desktop, with text and UI elements the size they would be on a 1680 x 1050 desktop, all without sacrificing much sharpness/crispness thanks to the massive supersampling. The resulting image isn’t as perfect as it would be at the default setting because you have to perform a floating point filter down to 2880 x 1800, but it’s still incredibly good.


The flexibility offered by Apple’s handling of the Retina Display in OS X is unparalleled. What applications like Aperture, iPhoto, iMovie and Final Cut HD offer, is unbridled resolution independence. What Apple has done here is so much more difficult than what it pulled off in iOS with the Retina Display. It will take time for third party application developers to get on board, but with the power of the Mac app store and Apple’s growing install base of Mac users I suspect we will see incredibly quick adoption of support for the MacBook Pro’s Retina Display.

Supersampling really isn't as simple or efficient a method as the simple quadrupling of assets/text used in iOS, but that is a much more locked down and targetable hardware ecosystem compared to the myriad display sizes/viewing distances that have to work for both desktops and laptops.

Maybe a simpler solution like pixel quadrupling isn't the way to go and supersampling is the only way around this problem on the desktop, I don't know. Some things in OS X are 2x the size (its had 4k wallpapers since Mountain Lion) but that clearly doesn't solve or apply to everything. Hopefully Windows and Linux either supersamples or uses alternate methods that work just as well, because OS X is the only place where HiDPI works properly on a desktop right now.

Supersampling definitely looks the best so far, just look at retina apps on a rMBP, but it also requires additional work from third parties to make their applications HiDPI compatible. Big big problem IMHO.

RE: Not sold
By BZDTemp on 12/3/2013 7:20:48 PM , Rating: 3
The thing is that having a higher resolution is great for everything, be it reading, gaming or more traditional graphical work. In fact a high PPI means I prefer using 27" 2560x1440 over a 30" 2560x1600 and a 24" 4K monitor sounds even better to me, although I suspect for some jobs two 24" is then a requirement.

For more than two decades I have been spending extra money on having the best possible monitor(s) as well as the best keyboards and mice. After all it is how we interface with the computer and good input/output means being more productive so the extra money pays of in the long run. I highly recommend putting out the extra money if at all possible - and this also goes if it is "just" for gaming.

RE: Not sold
By NellyFromMA on 12/2/2013 10:53:06 AM , Rating: 2
Just curious, does anyone know how 1080p looks on a 4k display? It should amount to pixel doubling, and perhaps 1080p scaled up to 4k doesn't look so bad?

Thinking of a 4k display but my SLI setup isn't going to drive 4K at max settings, so I may keep gaming at 1080P while using the display as a stepping stone to 4K. Plus, I can still do 2D at 4K in theory.

Any thoughts?

RE: Not sold
By Nexos on 12/2/2013 11:20:31 AM , Rating: 2
Ive been using a 2048x1152 resolution screen for years now and have on occasion had to run old win95/98 games in 1/4 resolution (1024x576) because they don't support 16:9 resolutions that high. They all look perfectly sharp, with no visual artifacts. (unlike for example 1280x720 or 1024x768)

I imagine 1080 on this new screen will look just as sharp as 1080 displayed natively on a screen the same size, perhaps even a bit sharper since the gap between pixels should be smaller.

RE: Not sold
By Jeffk464 on 12/2/2013 11:31:37 AM , Rating: 2
Yeah this is the problem with 4K, its going to require some insane graphics card power.

RE: Not sold
By inighthawki on 12/2/2013 11:34:51 AM , Rating: 2
Benchmarks show that even SLI of the highest end cards (290X and 780Ti) is still struggling to achieve 4K on high settings. You will definitely have to run many games at 1080p until video cards catch up. Old games shouldn't be too hard, though.

RE: Not sold
By 91TTZ on 12/2/2013 10:55:02 AM , Rating: 2
I'm able to see the pixels on my iPhone and my Nook HD+ tablet. The Nook has 1920x1080 resolution on a 9" screen. I don't think it's wasted resolution.

One of the main problems I had with the Surface tablets was their horrible resolution. 1366 x768 resolution on a 10.6" screen looked absolutely horrible. It was a grainy, pixelated mess. When users picked up a new iPad and a new Surface, the Surface looked outdated with its low-resolution screen. The new Surfaces look much nicer.

Right now I'm using a 24" screen with 1920x1080 resolution. I could actually use more resolution to tell you the truth. Since the monitor is further away from my eyes I can't see all the pixels as easily as I can with my iPhone 4S or Nook HD+, but I can still see the blockiness of the graphics.

RE: Not sold
By Flunk on 12/2/2013 11:07:47 AM , Rating: 2
I don't know, we have phones with a 1080 displays now. If this came out at a price point I could afford (Maybe $500?) I would probably buy one.

It would let me cram more and smaller text onto my screen for programming and that text would be more legible. I was very surprised when I bought a Nexus 5 because the higher resolution really does make very tiny text legible.

RE: Not sold
By Flunk on 12/2/2013 11:08:21 AM , Rating: 2
PS, I don't expect this will be affordable. But in a few years they will be.

RE: Not sold
By inighthawki on 12/2/2013 11:17:40 AM , Rating: 2
I'm going to guess this will be released at (at least) a similar price to other 4K monitors, and possibly more since it's a higher density display. That meaning the base price will likely be between $3500 and $5000.

RE: Not sold
By retrospooty on 12/2/2013 2:06:16 PM , Rating: 2
RE: Not sold
By inighthawki on 12/2/2013 3:39:54 PM , Rating: 2
Pretty awesome I must say. 4K is really interesting to me because I can now get more screen real estate while also having a perfect 2:1 scale for 1080p so games do not require bilinear filtering for the scaling. $1400 is still quite a bit for a monitor though. I wish I could see one in person first.

RE: Not sold
By retrospooty on 12/2/2013 5:54:46 PM , Rating: 2
"4K is really interesting to me because I can now get more screen real estate while also having a perfect 2:1 scale for 1080p so games do not require bilinear filtering for the scaling. "


"$1400 is still quite a bit for a monitor though"

Ya, its a bit high but no more so than when the first 30 inch 2560x1600 mass market monitors came out. It will drop. Considering the amount if laptops that are available with higher res like this, I am going to guess it will drop alot faster than the first 30 inch 2560x1600 mass market monitors did.

RE: Not sold
By inighthawki on 12/2/2013 7:08:42 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah they probably will. Considering the 28" monitor is slated for an "early 2014 release at under $1000" I bet both the 24" and 32" models will drop pretty quickly over the next year or so. If the 28" model really sells for under $1000 then it won't be that much more than their existing 27" models which usually retail around $750-$800. At that point it'd almost be a steal (relatively speaking)

RE: Not sold
By Jeffk464 on 12/2/2013 11:29:12 AM , Rating: 2
Oh yeah, this is where 4K really has a point. It will be nice when these get to an affordable price.

“So far we have not seen a single Android device that does not infringe on our patents." -- Microsoft General Counsel Brad Smith

Copyright 2016 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki