AMD Ryzen 9 3950X review
ASUS PRIME X570 Pro review
ASUS ROG STRIX Scope keyboard review
GALAX GeForce RTX 2070 Super WTF review
ADATA Spectrix S40G 512GB NVMe M.2 SSD review
Red Dead Redemption 2: PC graphics performance benchmark review
XFX Radeon RX 5700 XT THICC III Ultra review
Promo: URcdkey Halloween sale Windows 10 Pro for 11$
Guru3D Rig of the Month - October 2019
MSI GeForce GTX 1660 SUPER GAMING X 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.
Prometheus336
Member
Posts: 30
Joined: 2015-07-29
Member
Posts: 30
Joined: 2015-07-29
#5312393 Posted on: 07/27/2016 08:54 AM
I'd be happy just with g-sync and a better response time. But please leave the 16:9 and don't curve it, people need a big 4k screen that can be use both for gaming, movies and content creation. The extra-large ratio and the curved monitor unless you like to watch movie alone in the perfect center of the screen are completely useless in my opinion.
I'd be happy just with g-sync and a better response time. But please leave the 16:9 and don't curve it, people need a big 4k screen that can be use both for gaming, movies and content creation. The extra-large ratio and the curved monitor unless you like to watch movie alone in the perfect center of the screen are completely useless in my opinion.
cryohellinc
Senior Member
Posts: 2708
Joined: 2014-10-20
Senior Member
Posts: 2708
Joined: 2014-10-20
#5312397 Posted on: 07/27/2016 09:19 AM
Clearly a matter of preference, however I do agree that having a curved monitor for example in an office is unnecessary.
However at home, id love that being the only user of the given monitor.
Perhaps two models can be an idea solution, add a tad bit higher refresh rate on top of it, and its very attractive.
However we shall see whats future holds for us as we have some new tech around the corner.
I'd be happy just with g-sync and a better response time. But please leave the 16:9 and don't curve it, people need a big 4k screen that can be use both for gaming, movies and content creation. The extra-large ratio and the curved monitor unless you like to watch movie alone in the perfect center of the screen are completely useless in my opinion.
Clearly a matter of preference, however I do agree that having a curved monitor for example in an office is unnecessary.
However at home, id love that being the only user of the given monitor.
Perhaps two models can be an idea solution, add a tad bit higher refresh rate on top of it, and its very attractive.
However we shall see whats future holds for us as we have some new tech around the corner.
Solfaur
Senior Member
Posts: 7143
Joined: 2005-08-10
Senior Member
Posts: 7143
Joined: 2005-08-10
#5312447 Posted on: 07/27/2016 11:41 AM
I would be happy with even just g-sync. Jizz would be all over it while playing Witcher 3...
We need better GPUs however, one 1080 is not nearly enough. Maybe two, but even then there is still a LOT room for improvement in 4K performance.
I'd be happy just with g-sync and a better response time. But please leave the 16:9 and don't curve it, people need a big 4k screen that can be use both for gaming, movies and content creation. The extra-large ratio and the curved monitor unless you like to watch movie alone in the perfect center of the screen are completely useless in my opinion.
I would be happy with even just g-sync. Jizz would be all over it while playing Witcher 3...
We need better GPUs however, one 1080 is not nearly enough. Maybe two, but even then there is still a LOT room for improvement in 4K performance.
Prometheus336
Member
Posts: 30
Joined: 2015-07-29
Member
Posts: 30
Joined: 2015-07-29
#5312471 Posted on: 07/27/2016 12:45 PM
Clearly a matter of preference, however I do agree that having a curved monitor for example in an office is unnecessary.
However at home, id love that being the only user of the given monitor.
Perhaps two models can be an idea solution, add a tad bit higher refresh rate on top of it, and its very attractive.
However we shall see whats future holds for us as we have some new tech around the corner.
I totally agree, 2 models would be better for a market point of view
Clearly a matter of preference, however I do agree that having a curved monitor for example in an office is unnecessary.
However at home, id love that being the only user of the given monitor.
Perhaps two models can be an idea solution, add a tad bit higher refresh rate on top of it, and its very attractive.
However we shall see whats future holds for us as we have some new tech around the corner.
I totally agree, 2 models would be better for a market point of view
cryohellinc
Senior Member
Posts: 2708
Joined: 2014-10-20
Senior Member
Posts: 2708
Joined: 2014-10-20
#5312473 Posted on: 07/27/2016 12:48 PM
I would be happy with even just g-sync. Jizz would be all over it while playing Witcher 3...
We need better GPUs however, one 1080 is not nearly enough. Maybe two, but even then there is still a LOT room for improvement in 4K performance.
Speaking from my own experience Technology is just being able to run modern beautiful games on 2160p on single GPU, 1080 can do it but Baarely I would say. Titan maybe will have better chances here due to larger ram. My 1080 in Rise of the Tomb Raider with everything on maximum except AA (using FXAA instead of SMAA) at 1440p eats 7.8gb vram, thats quite a lot.
I can only assume that at 2160p it will eat even more vram.
Hence the way I see it right now we need a GPU which can run at around 2.5k mhz, which has 12-16gb ram, and on top of that have better cooling - ideally water.
Will we see a single GPU like that any time soon? Maybe, 1080Ti might show something like 12gb vram, however I doubt we will see it at 2500mhz, more like ~2200mhz.
So current generation leaves it to SLI to be used with 2160p if you want 60+fps on modern titles.
And SLI speaking from my own experience is Not that good especially recently. Less and less titles support it (might change, but so far that has been my observation for past couple of years, moving from 670's SLI to 980's SLI), you get much higher temperatures compared to single GPU, gameplay is less fluid due to micro stutter, latency, which of course CAN be partially fixed by Gsync but still.
So the way I see this currently 1440p is best all rounder for gaming as 1080 works currently really well with it, while 2160p is a bit of too much challenger for 1 GPU.
What we need is 32-36 inch 1440p screens with 100+hz, IPS (or new tech), low response and Gsync. Preferably curved (at least for me). This would be amazing.
I would be happy with even just g-sync. Jizz would be all over it while playing Witcher 3...
We need better GPUs however, one 1080 is not nearly enough. Maybe two, but even then there is still a LOT room for improvement in 4K performance.
Speaking from my own experience Technology is just being able to run modern beautiful games on 2160p on single GPU, 1080 can do it but Baarely I would say. Titan maybe will have better chances here due to larger ram. My 1080 in Rise of the Tomb Raider with everything on maximum except AA (using FXAA instead of SMAA) at 1440p eats 7.8gb vram, thats quite a lot.
I can only assume that at 2160p it will eat even more vram.
Hence the way I see it right now we need a GPU which can run at around 2.5k mhz, which has 12-16gb ram, and on top of that have better cooling - ideally water.
Will we see a single GPU like that any time soon? Maybe, 1080Ti might show something like 12gb vram, however I doubt we will see it at 2500mhz, more like ~2200mhz.
So current generation leaves it to SLI to be used with 2160p if you want 60+fps on modern titles.
And SLI speaking from my own experience is Not that good especially recently. Less and less titles support it (might change, but so far that has been my observation for past couple of years, moving from 670's SLI to 980's SLI), you get much higher temperatures compared to single GPU, gameplay is less fluid due to micro stutter, latency, which of course CAN be partially fixed by Gsync but still.
So the way I see this currently 1440p is best all rounder for gaming as 1080 works currently really well with it, while 2160p is a bit of too much challenger for 1 GPU.
What we need is 32-36 inch 1440p screens with 100+hz, IPS (or new tech), low response and Gsync. Preferably curved (at least for me). This would be amazing.
Prometheus336
Member
Posts: 30
Joined: 2015-07-29
Member
Posts: 30
Joined: 2015-07-29
#5312477 Posted on: 07/27/2016 12:57 PM
I would be happy with even just g-sync. Jizz would be all over it while playing Witcher 3...
We need better GPUs however, one 1080 is not nearly enough. Maybe two, but even then there is still a LOT room for improvement in 4K performance.
tbh I don't really see the problem, I mean it's easier to use a big screen with a lower resulution than use DSR on a lower res screen. Also, in my opinion, it's way easier to change (unsless you do WC) and resell the video card than the monitor. I mean if a monitor is good for its usage it can last from 3 to 5 years, a video card 2 generations later gets really old and is almost unusable.
I would be happy with even just g-sync. Jizz would be all over it while playing Witcher 3...
We need better GPUs however, one 1080 is not nearly enough. Maybe two, but even then there is still a LOT room for improvement in 4K performance.
tbh I don't really see the problem, I mean it's easier to use a big screen with a lower resulution than use DSR on a lower res screen. Also, in my opinion, it's way easier to change (unsless you do WC) and resell the video card than the monitor. I mean if a monitor is good for its usage it can last from 3 to 5 years, a video card 2 generations later gets really old and is almost unusable.
Prometheus336
Member
Posts: 30
Joined: 2015-07-29
Member
Posts: 30
Joined: 2015-07-29
#5312481 Posted on: 07/27/2016 01:00 PM
Speaking from my own experience Technology is just being able to run modern beautiful games on 2160p on single GPU, 1080 can do it but Baarely I would say. Titan maybe will have better chances here due to larger ram. My 1080 in Rise of the Tomb Raider with everything on maximum except AA (using FXAA instead of SMAA) at 1440p eats 7.8gb vram, thats quite a lot.
I can only assume that at 2160p it will eat even more vram.
Hence the way I see it right now we need a GPU which can run at around 2.5k mhz, which has 12-16gb ram, and on top of that have better cooling - ideally water.
Will we see a single GPU like that any time soon? Maybe, 1080Ti might show something like 12gb vram, however I doubt we will see it at 2500mhz, more like ~2200mhz.
So current generation leaves it to SLI to be used with 2160p if you want 60+fps on modern titles.
And SLI speaking from my own experience is Not that good especially recently. Less and less titles support it (might change, but so far that has been my observation for past couple of years, moving from 670's SLI to 980's SLI), you get much higher temperatures compared to single GPU, gameplay is less fluid due to micro stutter, latency, which of course CAN be partially fixed by Gsync but still.
So the way I see this currently 1440p is best all rounder for gaming as 1080 works currently really well with it, while 2160p is a bit of too much challenger for 1 GPU.
What we need is 32-36 inch 1440p screens with 100+hz, IPS (or new tech), low response and Gsync. Preferably curved (at least for me). This would be amazing.
I would pre-order it XD
Speaking from my own experience Technology is just being able to run modern beautiful games on 2160p on single GPU, 1080 can do it but Baarely I would say. Titan maybe will have better chances here due to larger ram. My 1080 in Rise of the Tomb Raider with everything on maximum except AA (using FXAA instead of SMAA) at 1440p eats 7.8gb vram, thats quite a lot.
I can only assume that at 2160p it will eat even more vram.
Hence the way I see it right now we need a GPU which can run at around 2.5k mhz, which has 12-16gb ram, and on top of that have better cooling - ideally water.
Will we see a single GPU like that any time soon? Maybe, 1080Ti might show something like 12gb vram, however I doubt we will see it at 2500mhz, more like ~2200mhz.
So current generation leaves it to SLI to be used with 2160p if you want 60+fps on modern titles.
And SLI speaking from my own experience is Not that good especially recently. Less and less titles support it (might change, but so far that has been my observation for past couple of years, moving from 670's SLI to 980's SLI), you get much higher temperatures compared to single GPU, gameplay is less fluid due to micro stutter, latency, which of course CAN be partially fixed by Gsync but still.
So the way I see this currently 1440p is best all rounder for gaming as 1080 works currently really well with it, while 2160p is a bit of too much challenger for 1 GPU.
What we need is 32-36 inch 1440p screens with 100+hz, IPS (or new tech), low response and Gsync. Preferably curved (at least for me). This would be amazing.
I would pre-order it XD
slyphnier
Senior Member
Posts: 651
Joined: 2009-11-30
Senior Member
Posts: 651
Joined: 2009-11-30
#5312494 Posted on: 07/27/2016 01:58 PM
that "unusable" depends on the user... i still seeing people using GTX5** series, even older one
even say its unusable for you, it still last like 3-4years
as each gpu generation is like 2-3years
kepler may.2012
maxwell Feb.2014
pascal april.2016
by the time you get the last gen card, probably your monitor already failing
tbh I don't really see the problem, I mean it's easier to use a big screen with a lower resulution than use DSR on a lower res screen. Also, in my opinion, it's way easier to change (unsless you do WC) and resell the video card than the monitor. I mean if a monitor is good for its usage it can last from 3 to 5 years, a video card 2 generations later gets really old and is almost unusable.
that "unusable" depends on the user... i still seeing people using GTX5** series, even older one
even say its unusable for you, it still last like 3-4years
as each gpu generation is like 2-3years
kepler may.2012
maxwell Feb.2014
pascal april.2016
by the time you get the last gen card, probably your monitor already failing
xrodney
Senior Member
Posts: 326
Joined: 2015-06-18
Senior Member
Posts: 326
Joined: 2015-06-18
#5312500 Posted on: 07/27/2016 02:24 PM
Another meh 4k monitor with only hdmi 1.4.
Another meh 4k monitor with only hdmi 1.4.
Prometheus336
Member
Posts: 30
Joined: 2015-07-29
Member
Posts: 30
Joined: 2015-07-29
#5312558 Posted on: 07/27/2016 05:17 PM
that "unusable" depends on the user... i still seeing people using GTX5** series, even older one
even say its unusable for you, it still last like 3-4years
as each gpu generation is like 2-3years
kepler may.2012
maxwell Feb.2014
pascal april.2016
by the time you get the last gen card, probably your monitor already failing
Yeah that's why you can resell the video card to someone with different needs before it gets 3-4 years old but it's way harder to sell a monitor, ergo a monitor should last as much as possible. The problem with this new screens is that as soon as we will have a real 4k card we will discard them due to low refresh rate and low response time for better ones, and since I'm quite optimistic I'd say we are 2years away, and since a screen for me should last 4+ years buying a screen now would be a waste. I mean a future proof screen is a 30"+ 144hz 4k IPS with 1ms response time (not really sure on the aspect ratio, I would prefer 16:9 since it's more common for music and work best with content creation programs) with g-sync. Otherwise I will always feel to go a step back from what I have (asus vg248qe 25”)
that "unusable" depends on the user... i still seeing people using GTX5** series, even older one
even say its unusable for you, it still last like 3-4years
as each gpu generation is like 2-3years
kepler may.2012
maxwell Feb.2014
pascal april.2016
by the time you get the last gen card, probably your monitor already failing
Yeah that's why you can resell the video card to someone with different needs before it gets 3-4 years old but it's way harder to sell a monitor, ergo a monitor should last as much as possible. The problem with this new screens is that as soon as we will have a real 4k card we will discard them due to low refresh rate and low response time for better ones, and since I'm quite optimistic I'd say we are 2years away, and since a screen for me should last 4+ years buying a screen now would be a waste. I mean a future proof screen is a 30"+ 144hz 4k IPS with 1ms response time (not really sure on the aspect ratio, I would prefer 16:9 since it's more common for music and work best with content creation programs) with g-sync. Otherwise I will always feel to go a step back from what I have (asus vg248qe 25”)
ScoobyDooby
Senior Member
Posts: 7089
Joined: 2004-10-01
Senior Member
Posts: 7089
Joined: 2004-10-01
#5312567 Posted on: 07/27/2016 05:45 PM
Yeah this is a bit of a headscratcher.. otherwise, its a nice looking display.
Another meh 4k monitor with only hdmi 1.4.
Yeah this is a bit of a headscratcher.. otherwise, its a nice looking display.
HittriX
Senior Member
Posts: 154
Joined: 2005-08-20
Senior Member
Posts: 154
Joined: 2005-08-20
#5312591 Posted on: 07/27/2016 06:48 PM
Wake me up when they bring out a 4k 144hz monitor.
Wake me up when they bring out a 4k 144hz monitor.
Solfaur
Senior Member
Posts: 7143
Joined: 2005-08-10
Senior Member
Posts: 7143
Joined: 2005-08-10
#5312593 Posted on: 07/27/2016 06:52 PM
Wake us up in 3 years when they bring GPU power to run it.
Wake me up when they bring out a 4k 144hz monitor.
Wake us up in 3 years when they bring GPU power to run it.
Denial
Senior Member
Posts: 12385
Joined: 2004-05-16
Senior Member
Posts: 12385
Joined: 2004-05-16
#5312595 Posted on: 07/27/2016 06:59 PM
There are plenty of games that run over 60fps at 4K, even when maxed out.
Wake us up in 3 years when they bring GPU power to run it.
There are plenty of games that run over 60fps at 4K, even when maxed out.
Click here to post a comment for this news story on the message forum.
Senior Member
Posts: 2708
Joined: 2014-10-20
Hell, 42.5inch! Now this is impressive, besides I think this is more or less a sweetspot resultuon for 2160p. Add a gsync and a curve to it and it would be amazing for high end desktop. Would need two 1080's to run it thou.