Dell U4021QW 40in monitor offers 5K2K resolution (WUHD)
Click here to post a comment for Dell U4021QW 40in monitor offers 5K2K resolution (WUHD) on our message forum
Martin5000
The sooner they describe their hardware with pixel count and aspect ratio the better.
alanm
Too many unnecessary pixels. Ideal ultra-wide for me would be 3840x1600
SmootyPoody
On the contrary for me this is better with 5K2K.. Finally you can view a true 4K image and still have a ultrawide. I would have bought the LG 34 5K2K (LG 34WK95C) if it didnt have so many negative reviews. Also it was "only" 34".. I am now on a LG CX 48" OLED.. I often dont use all the space but the image man... wow. Wish it was curved and maybe cut in the top so that it was a ultrawide with 3840x1600 as you say.
But the 5K2K is great. Sure not for gaming. I even run my LG CX 48" as 3840x1600 so that my 3070 can run decent.
alanm
Be careful with that. I used to run 3840x1600 on my Samsung 40" but after a year or so there was slight image retention where the black bars are. You only notice it when you revert back to full 4k and you see the lines at the borders of where the black bars were. It will likely be worse with an OLED over time.
Agonist
Your preference means nothing to anyone else.
I wish my 3840x1080 was 5120x2160.
I miss how clean my 3440x1440 looked vs my 3840x1080 i have now.
alanm
Pretty sure it would mean a lot to anyone wanting more pixels than the ubiquitous 3440x1440 that so many have bought. 3840x2160 is already tough for many, so 5120x2160 is just piling on more hurt. 3840x1600 is a more practical gaming res.
3840x1080? Thats just a stretched miserably short 1080p monitor. All you got is more horizontal real estate on a typical 1080p. In fact, its a downgrade over 3440x1440 in pixels! Why?
3840 x 1080 = 4147200 pixels
3440 x 1440 = 4953600!
southamptonfc
Very nice. For work, I do sometimes wish my G9 was 5100x2160 rather than 5100x1440.
But I couldn't live with 60hz, even for work 🙂 When you can get this resolution with 150hz+, I'll upgrade.
I'll need an RTX 5080ti to get a decent framerate though, my 2080super struggles to hit 100fps in most games, let alone 240fps!
digitalforce
So... a $2000 monitor with a 1000:1 contrast ratio. The more people find this acceptable, the more bold these manufacturer's will be to rip people off.
I have a $250 40" 4K TV running at 3840x1600 with a 6000:1 contrast ratio. The image is gorgeous. People apparently don't know how rich an image can be if they are stuck/used to/accepting a 1000:1 ratio as a standard.
These new monitors with pathetic contrast are nothing more than a complete slap in the face to consumers.
Denial
I have a 65" 4K TV with infinite:1 contrast ratio (OLED). The image is gorgeous. People apparently don't know how rich an image can be if they are stuck/used to/accepting a 6000:1 ratio as a standard.
These new TVs with pathetic contrast are nothing more than a complete slap in the face to consumers.
_
I'm not sure what the point of your post is really. I think universally people want more contrast, obviously - but it comes with trade offs. Your TV isn't sRGB 100% , Rec.709 100%, DCI-P3 98% - I don't know any TV that even comes close to that. It also isn't 5ms response time. Nor is it factory calibrated by Dell or has any of the inputs the dell has. It's also not a custom 5k curved screen that isn't going into eleventy billion consumer TVs.
It's like comparing the cost of a 747 Shuttle Carrier Aircraft to a regular 747 - then on top of that complaining you can't fit enough passengers in it. It's a purpose built device and the R&D invested into the panel isn't going to be spread out over a ton of units, which increases the cost.
alanm
What a shame OLED TVs dont come in 40-43" sizes.
rflair
Moderator
Your running a VA panel, contrast will be better then IPS but VA has many drawbacks, ghosting, color shifting, color accuracy.
But your happy with it so that is all that matters, which 40" TV do you have cause all the cheapies have even further draw backs.
Venix
@digitalforce i double dare you to find an ips panel based monitor with 6000 contrast !
digitalforce
I realize there are pros and cons between VA and IPS. I am not denying that at all. What I am fed up with is $500 tech being sold at $2000+ for a.. monitor. The prices are not just gradually going up, monitor manufacturers are gouging consumers and apparently a lot of people are ok with that.
If you can buy a 48" OLED display for $1499, monitor prices are even more ridiculous. Also, it's frustrating at this point there are no 32-40" OLED monitors. Just put a warning about potential burn in/image retention.
For my TV, I tried about 15 monitors and 5 TVs until I found a 40" Vizio that has amazing black levels, contrast and no ghosting. I even tried it next to the LG CX 48 which was too big to my desk and while the CX had better response and refresh, the image quality was almost on par with this Vizio which yes, trust me, I was also shocked.
itpro
It ain't true. VAs like Odyssey Samsung series, destroy all IPS panels, any time.
Undying
Debatable. For instance LG34GK950 ips color accuracy is beatable only by oled.
Denial
True for that panel but the monitor its in is terrible. Give me something with real g-sync, not massively curved, doesn't have flickering issues and then I'll say VA is better.
Rtings has the calibrated G7 basically the same as the calibrated 34GK. The 34GK comes out of the box better. That being said, even if the G7 was slightly behind in calibration, the significantly higher contrast ratio would be preferred by probably everyone comparing the two monitors.
The G7 sucks for other reasons I listed above though.
rflair
Moderator
Its why that monitor is curved, it helps with color shift. And any panel that is flat VA and advertises no color shifting is using a technique that effectively lowers contrast.
Loobyluggs
That's a lot of money.
Who here thinks it's a worthy price for something that appears to be lacking in...relevance?
BLEH!
Not a bad price for what it is.
alanm
Would rather get an LG CX 48" @ $1499 over the Dell.
[youtube=YkDkgWjuQXk]
