Endorfy Arx 700 Air chassis review
Beelink SER5 Pro (Ryzen 7 5800H) mini PC review
Crucial T700 PCIe 5.0 NVMe SSD Review - 12GB/s
Sapphire Radeon RX 7600 PULSE review
Gainward GeForce RTX 4060 Ti GHOST review
Radeon RX 7600 review
ASUS GeForce RTX 4060 Ti TUF Gaming review
MSI GeForce RTX 4060 Ti Gaming X TRIO review
GeForce RTX 4060 Ti 8GB (FE) review
Corsair 2000D RGB Airflow Mini-ITX - PC chassis review
Dell P4317Q Multi Client 4K Ultra HD Monitor
More info on Dell's new P4317Q Ultra HD monitor has surfaced. The display size is so big that Dell calls this a Multi Client monitor, the monitor uses a 42.51” IPS panel, likely an LG Display model.
The panel boasts a 3840 x 2160 (‘4K’ UHD) resolution, with a pixel density of just under 104 PPI. Dell touts the ‘Multi-Client’ capability of the monitor, with PiP and PbP allowing 4 devices to output to the screen simultaneously.
It has a 60Hz refresh rate, 1000:1 static contrast ratio, 10-bit colour output (likely 8-bit + FRC dithering) and 178° horizontal and vertical viewing angles. An enhanced phosphor WLED backlight is used to offer excellent sRGB colour space coverage but no support for wide colour gamuts.
An 8ms grey to grey response time is specified. The monitor includes 100 x 100mm and 200 x 200mm VESA holes for alternative mounting. The ports include; DP 1.2, mDP 1.2, 2 HDMI 1.4 ports (with MHL), VGA, 4 USB 3.0 ports (plus upstream), a 3.5mm audio input, 3.5mm audio output and RS232 port. Two 8W speakers are also included, which should provide fairly decent sound output.
The monitor is listed for $1350 / 1050 EURO on Dell’s product page and appears to be intended as a B2B product and may not see the usual wider retail availability.
Denial
Senior Member
Posts: 14091
Joined: 2004-05-16
Senior Member
Posts: 14091
Joined: 2004-05-16
#5312615 Posted on: 07/27/2016 09:02 PM
Depends on what games you play and what you understand by maxed out. In GTAV for example I could cripple even the upcoming Pascal Titan X on my ancient Dell U2711 (60Hz @1440p) if I cranked up shadows/grass/msaa and draw distance...
So no, for new games, in no way will we have a single GPU that can drive games maxed, in 4K 144Hz, in the foreseeable future.
I'm not saying that 60hz 4K monitors don't have their place. They do. I just don't buy into the idea that a 144hz 4K display wouldn't be useful until more powerful GPU's come out.
I think about the games I play currently, some old, some new -- Overwatch for example runs at ~90fps @ 4K fully maxed out. Warframe, I get ~135fps with DSR @ 4K fully maxed out. CS:GO, I get like 350 fps at QHD. In WoW I get like 160 fully maxed at QHD, so I'm sure at 4K it would be 60+ too. Not to mention just using the desktop is a better experience at 144hz.
Idk, like yeah, obviously newer AAA titles with the best graphics, GPU's won't get 60+ -- but it's not like having a 144hz monitor and running it sub 60 is taking away from the experience. However if you do decide to take a break from that new AAA title and run Overwatch or something, not having the 144hz is taking away from the experience.
That's how I see it anyway. I'm hoping we get 4K @ 144 in the next year or so. I'm basically buying the first monitor that's half decent with it.
Depends on what games you play and what you understand by maxed out. In GTAV for example I could cripple even the upcoming Pascal Titan X on my ancient Dell U2711 (60Hz @1440p) if I cranked up shadows/grass/msaa and draw distance...
So no, for new games, in no way will we have a single GPU that can drive games maxed, in 4K 144Hz, in the foreseeable future.
I'm not saying that 60hz 4K monitors don't have their place. They do. I just don't buy into the idea that a 144hz 4K display wouldn't be useful until more powerful GPU's come out.
I think about the games I play currently, some old, some new -- Overwatch for example runs at ~90fps @ 4K fully maxed out. Warframe, I get ~135fps with DSR @ 4K fully maxed out. CS:GO, I get like 350 fps at QHD. In WoW I get like 160 fully maxed at QHD, so I'm sure at 4K it would be 60+ too. Not to mention just using the desktop is a better experience at 144hz.
Idk, like yeah, obviously newer AAA titles with the best graphics, GPU's won't get 60+ -- but it's not like having a 144hz monitor and running it sub 60 is taking away from the experience. However if you do decide to take a break from that new AAA title and run Overwatch or something, not having the 144hz is taking away from the experience.
That's how I see it anyway. I'm hoping we get 4K @ 144 in the next year or so. I'm basically buying the first monitor that's half decent with it.
Solfaur
Senior Member
Posts: 7911
Joined: 2005-08-10
Senior Member
Posts: 7911
Joined: 2005-08-10
#5312619 Posted on: 07/27/2016 09:23 PM
I'm not saying that 60hz 4K monitors don't have their place. They do. I just don't buy into the idea that a 144hz 4K display wouldn't be useful until more powerful GPU's come out.
I think about the games I play currently, some old, some new -- Overwatch for example runs at ~90fps @ 4K fully maxed out. Warframe, I get ~135fps with DSR @ 4K fully maxed out. CS:GO, I get like 350 fps at QHD. In WoW I get like 160 fully maxed at QHD, so I'm sure at 4K it would be 60+ too. Not to mention just using the desktop is a better experience at 144hz.
Idk, like yeah, obviously newer AAA titles with the best graphics, GPU's won't get 60+ -- but it's not like having a 144hz monitor and running it sub 60 is taking away from the experience. However if you do decide to take a break from that new AAA title and run Overwatch or something, not having the 144hz is taking away from the experience.
That's how I see it anyway. I'm hoping we get 4K @ 144 in the next year or so. I'm basically buying the first monitor that's half decent with it.
All the games you've listed are extremely light on the GPU, so no wonder you can push 4K without problems. You don't see Overwatch/Warframe/CS:GO(lol) in any GPU review for a reason.
Maybe my "AAA" phrasing wasn't the best, but point is, and it was obvious from my first post, that there are several GPU demanding games, and they don't even have to be brand new, that can't even run 1440p @ 144Hz, yet alone 4K.
I'm not saying that 60hz 4K monitors don't have their place. They do. I just don't buy into the idea that a 144hz 4K display wouldn't be useful until more powerful GPU's come out.
I think about the games I play currently, some old, some new -- Overwatch for example runs at ~90fps @ 4K fully maxed out. Warframe, I get ~135fps with DSR @ 4K fully maxed out. CS:GO, I get like 350 fps at QHD. In WoW I get like 160 fully maxed at QHD, so I'm sure at 4K it would be 60+ too. Not to mention just using the desktop is a better experience at 144hz.
Idk, like yeah, obviously newer AAA titles with the best graphics, GPU's won't get 60+ -- but it's not like having a 144hz monitor and running it sub 60 is taking away from the experience. However if you do decide to take a break from that new AAA title and run Overwatch or something, not having the 144hz is taking away from the experience.
That's how I see it anyway. I'm hoping we get 4K @ 144 in the next year or so. I'm basically buying the first monitor that's half decent with it.
All the games you've listed are extremely light on the GPU, so no wonder you can push 4K without problems. You don't see Overwatch/Warframe/CS:GO(lol) in any GPU review for a reason.
Maybe my "AAA" phrasing wasn't the best, but point is, and it was obvious from my first post, that there are several GPU demanding games, and they don't even have to be brand new, that can't even run 1440p @ 144Hz, yet alone 4K.
hapkiman
Member
Posts: 66
Joined: 2014-12-22
Member
Posts: 66
Joined: 2014-12-22
#5312640 Posted on: 07/27/2016 10:43 PM
Depends on what games you play and what you understand by maxed out. In GTAV for example I could cripple even the upcoming Pascal Titan X on my ancient Dell U2711 (60Hz @1440p) if I cranked up shadows/grass/msaa and draw distance...
So no, for new games, in no way will we have a single GPU that can drive games maxed, in 4K 144Hz, in the foreseeable future.
Mostly true. However, a lot of settings are imperceptible (especially anything to do with anti-aliasing) on a 27-32" UHD monitor due to pixel density at 4k and what a human eye can discern. The argument that is often made that you have to "sacrifice" so much in settings to get playable frame rates on a 4k monitor is not 100% accurate (not saying you said that, but it is something I hear all the time) because there is no true single 4k card yet.
I spent a whole day testing this with my buddy when I got my 1080 so there was a second set of eyes on a dozen or so games (including GTAV) and it makes little if any difference visually cranking most of those settings up "to the max." Of course it will slow down and "cripple" your system just like Crysis used to do back in the day, but you aren't gaining anything visually with a few exceptions. It looks freaking awesome already. I had two monitors side by side with an ASUS 1440p monitor which was also 27", and the difference visually is very noticeable at the same settings, even giving the ASUS a bump on a few settings, the 4k looks so much better its ridiculous.
Now the 144Hz vs. 60Hz refresh rate does have validity. The ASUS was 144Hz and it definitely looked smoother overall. But the Dell 4k was still very smooth at 60Hz. It was only really evident because they were next to each other. And some (like me) can tolerate the 60Hz just fine.
It's arguable I know from both sides. I'm just speaking from my personal experience. And yes I have 20/20 vision.
A game like BF4 (yes I know it's getting long in the tooth, but the Frostbite engine still looks freaking fantastic), at all Ultra settings, it will run a 60FPS solidly with my GTX 1080 FTW on the Dell 4k. It may run smoother on the ASUS, but it looks noticeably better on the Dell. Crazy better.
But I too will be happy to see 120Hz refresh rates on UHD using DP 1.4.
Depends on what games you play and what you understand by maxed out. In GTAV for example I could cripple even the upcoming Pascal Titan X on my ancient Dell U2711 (60Hz @1440p) if I cranked up shadows/grass/msaa and draw distance...
So no, for new games, in no way will we have a single GPU that can drive games maxed, in 4K 144Hz, in the foreseeable future.
Mostly true. However, a lot of settings are imperceptible (especially anything to do with anti-aliasing) on a 27-32" UHD monitor due to pixel density at 4k and what a human eye can discern. The argument that is often made that you have to "sacrifice" so much in settings to get playable frame rates on a 4k monitor is not 100% accurate (not saying you said that, but it is something I hear all the time) because there is no true single 4k card yet.
I spent a whole day testing this with my buddy when I got my 1080 so there was a second set of eyes on a dozen or so games (including GTAV) and it makes little if any difference visually cranking most of those settings up "to the max." Of course it will slow down and "cripple" your system just like Crysis used to do back in the day, but you aren't gaining anything visually with a few exceptions. It looks freaking awesome already. I had two monitors side by side with an ASUS 1440p monitor which was also 27", and the difference visually is very noticeable at the same settings, even giving the ASUS a bump on a few settings, the 4k looks so much better its ridiculous.
Now the 144Hz vs. 60Hz refresh rate does have validity. The ASUS was 144Hz and it definitely looked smoother overall. But the Dell 4k was still very smooth at 60Hz. It was only really evident because they were next to each other. And some (like me) can tolerate the 60Hz just fine.
It's arguable I know from both sides. I'm just speaking from my personal experience. And yes I have 20/20 vision.
A game like BF4 (yes I know it's getting long in the tooth, but the Frostbite engine still looks freaking fantastic), at all Ultra settings, it will run a 60FPS solidly with my GTX 1080 FTW on the Dell 4k. It may run smoother on the ASUS, but it looks noticeably better on the Dell. Crazy better.
But I too will be happy to see 120Hz refresh rates on UHD using DP 1.4.
xrodney
Senior Member
Posts: 364
Joined: 2015-06-18
Senior Member
Posts: 364
Joined: 2015-06-18
#5312662 Posted on: 07/27/2016 11:36 PM
Mostly true. However, a lot of settings are imperceptible (especially anything to do with anti-aliasing) on a 27-32" UHD monitor due to pixel density at 4k and what a human eye can discern. The argument that is often made that you have to "sacrifice" so much in settings to get playable frame rates on a 4k monitor is not 100% accurate (not saying you said that, but it is something I hear all the time) because there is no true single 4k card yet.
I spent a whole day testing this with my buddy when I got my 1080 so there was a second set of eyes on a dozen or so games (including GTAV) and it makes little if any difference visually cranking most of those settings up "to the max." Of course it will slow down and "cripple" your system just like Crysis used to do back in the day, but you aren't gaining anything visually with a few exceptions. It looks freaking awesome already. I had two monitors side by side with an ASUS 1440p monitor which was also 27", and the difference visually is very noticeable at the same settings, even giving the ASUS a bump on a few settings, the 4k looks so much better its ridiculous.
Now the 144Hz vs. 60Hz refresh rate does have validity. The ASUS was 144Hz and it definitely looked smoother overall. But the Dell 4k was still very smooth at 60Hz. It was only really evident because they were next to each other. And some (like me) can tolerate the 60Hz just fine.
It's arguable I know from both sides. I'm just speaking from my personal experience. And yes I have 20/20 vision.
A game like BF4 (yes I know it's getting long in the tooth, but the Frostbite engine still looks freaking fantastic), at all Ultra settings, it will run a 60FPS solidly with my GTX 1080 FTW on the Dell 4k. It may run smoother on the ASUS, but it looks noticeably better on the Dell. Crazy better.
But I too will be happy to see 120Hz refresh rates on UHD using DP 1.4.
There are still very few displays supporting 144 fps even on sub 4k resolutions and same applies for decent size (37"+) 4k@60.
I do not think we will see 4k@120/144 anytime soon.
Here we are unfortunately still depending highly on TV displays advancements.
GTX 1080 is still way to far from smooth and futureproof 60fps.
Existing games dips even bello 40 fps and as usualy we can expect future games getting more realistic and also more demanding which translate to even less fps.
Mostly true. However, a lot of settings are imperceptible (especially anything to do with anti-aliasing) on a 27-32" UHD monitor due to pixel density at 4k and what a human eye can discern. The argument that is often made that you have to "sacrifice" so much in settings to get playable frame rates on a 4k monitor is not 100% accurate (not saying you said that, but it is something I hear all the time) because there is no true single 4k card yet.
I spent a whole day testing this with my buddy when I got my 1080 so there was a second set of eyes on a dozen or so games (including GTAV) and it makes little if any difference visually cranking most of those settings up "to the max." Of course it will slow down and "cripple" your system just like Crysis used to do back in the day, but you aren't gaining anything visually with a few exceptions. It looks freaking awesome already. I had two monitors side by side with an ASUS 1440p monitor which was also 27", and the difference visually is very noticeable at the same settings, even giving the ASUS a bump on a few settings, the 4k looks so much better its ridiculous.
Now the 144Hz vs. 60Hz refresh rate does have validity. The ASUS was 144Hz and it definitely looked smoother overall. But the Dell 4k was still very smooth at 60Hz. It was only really evident because they were next to each other. And some (like me) can tolerate the 60Hz just fine.
It's arguable I know from both sides. I'm just speaking from my personal experience. And yes I have 20/20 vision.
A game like BF4 (yes I know it's getting long in the tooth, but the Frostbite engine still looks freaking fantastic), at all Ultra settings, it will run a 60FPS solidly with my GTX 1080 FTW on the Dell 4k. It may run smoother on the ASUS, but it looks noticeably better on the Dell. Crazy better.
But I too will be happy to see 120Hz refresh rates on UHD using DP 1.4.
There are still very few displays supporting 144 fps even on sub 4k resolutions and same applies for decent size (37"+) 4k@60.
I do not think we will see 4k@120/144 anytime soon.
Here we are unfortunately still depending highly on TV displays advancements.
GTX 1080 is still way to far from smooth and futureproof 60fps.
Existing games dips even bello 40 fps and as usualy we can expect future games getting more realistic and also more demanding which translate to even less fps.
Click here to post a comment for this news story on the message forum.
Senior Member
Posts: 7911
Joined: 2005-08-10
Depends on what games you play and what you understand by maxed out. In GTAV for example I could cripple even the upcoming Pascal Titan X on my ancient Dell U2711 (60Hz @1440p) if I cranked up shadows/grass/msaa and draw distance...
So no, for new games, in no way will we have a single GPU that can drive games maxed, in 4K 144Hz, in the foreseeable future.