New Dell 49" display

dvsman

dvsman

2[H]4U
Joined
Dec 2, 2009
Messages
3,628
From: https://bgr.com/2018/10/15/new-dell-49-inch-monitor-productivity-beast/

"Dell designed the monitor, which boasts a 32:9 aspect ratio and 5120×1440 resolution, to be able to accommodate either one or two people comfortably. Picture-by-Picture mode allows for multi-tasking content from two different PCs, and a built-in keyboard, video and mouse help users shift around between and edit content using a single keyboard and mouse ..."

u4919dw_km717_shutterstock_337921478.jpg
 
Reading about Dell touting the benefits of "productivity oriented monitors" while sticking to such a narrow vertical resolution just seems inherently dishonest to me. If it came down to it I would rather have two 16:10 2560x1600 monitors for work than one extremely wide and narrow monitor, which seems like it may be uniquely specialized for some very specific environments like timeline editing, and not much else.

On the flip side I think this sort of thing could be cool for gaming if the curve was more drastic and replicated the look of a surround display minus the bezels. On its own the way it is now, I don't know who this is for. I don't want to be a downer twords anyone interested in this display, but I feel like monitors keep getting wider when they should have gotten a bit taller, and that's a bummer.
 
Greyson said:
Reading about Dell touting the benefits of "productivity oriented monitors" while sticking to such a narrow vertical resolution just seems inherently dishonest to me. If it came down to it I would rather have two 16:10 2560x1600 monitors for work than one extremely wide and narrow monitor, which seems like it may be uniquely specialized for some very specific environments like timeline editing, and not much else.

On the flip side I think this sort of thing could be cool for gaming if the curve was more drastic and replicated the look of a surround display minus the bezels. On its own the way it is now, I don't know who this is for. I don't want to be a downer twords anyone interested in this display, but I feel like monitors keep getting wider when they should have gotten a bit taller, and that's a bummer.
Click to expand...

older pic but this is how I use ultrawide.
cubicle-desk-hard-apple.jpg
 
I dunno.
Maybe I'm a mutant.
But I don't find "ultrawide" to be a useful monitor format.
 
Although I do like running my 4K and 1440 display, when I use my old Dell 3011 @2560x1600 being able to see the extra vertical space without the "font" scrunchiness of 4K is just right and really handy for websites / spreadsheets. If I didn't have multiple displays, I'd consider this as a compromise - though I'm not a FPS gamer so YMMV.
 
Last edited:
dvsman said:
Although I do like running my 4K and 1440 display, when I use my old Dell 3011 @2560x1600 being able to see the extra vertical space without the "font" scrunchiness of 4K is just right and really handy fpr websites / spreadsheets. If I didn't have multiple displays, I'd consider this as a compromise - though I'm not a FPS gamer so YMMV.
Click to expand...

Given your requirements there is already an ultrawide 1600p monitor. It's not too wide (in comparison) and is a decent height ( similar to a 30" 1600p) there are curved and flat versions. One does 60hz and one does 75hz. Both are IPS. you won't have that 'scrunchiness' to worry about :p

That said i prefer a single 32" display. Id like to see a slightly larger 36" display with 75hz+ refresh rate.
 
Last edited:
Greyson said:
Reading about Dell touting the benefits of "productivity oriented monitors" while sticking to such a narrow vertical resolution just seems inherently dishonest to me. If it came down to it I would rather have two 16:10 2560x1600 monitors for work than one extremely wide and narrow monitor, which seems like it may be uniquely specialized for some very specific environments like timeline editing, and not much else.

On the flip side I think this sort of thing could be cool for gaming if the curve was more drastic and replicated the look of a surround display minus the bezels. On its own the way it is now, I don't know who this is for. I don't want to be a downer twords anyone interested in this display, but I feel like monitors keep getting wider when they should have gotten a bit taller, and that's a bummer.
Click to expand...
"Narrow" vertical resolution. Is the extra 160 pixels (1.47" at this DPI) really going to break you? This monitor is two 27" 16:9 2560x1440 displays side by side, basically, with no bezel in between to deal with. Dell also provides software to partition the screen the way you'd like.
dvsman said:
Although I do like running my 4K and 1440 display, when I use my old Dell 3011 @2560x1600 being able to see the extra vertical space without the "font" scrunchiness of 4K is just right and really handy fpr websites / spreadsheets. If I didn't have multiple displays, I'd consider this as a compromise - though I'm not a FPS gamer so YMMV.
Click to expand...
https://www.amazon.com/LG-38WK95C-W-38-Inch-Class-UltraWide/dp/B079L4WR4T
 
Greyson said:
Reading about Dell touting the benefits of "productivity oriented monitors" while sticking to such a narrow vertical resolution just seems inherently dishonest to me. If it came down to it I would rather have two 16:10 2560x1600 monitors for work than one extremely wide and narrow monitor, which seems like it may be uniquely specialized for some very specific environments like timeline editing, and not much else.

On the flip side I think this sort of thing could be cool for gaming if the curve was more drastic and replicated the look of a surround display minus the bezels. On its own the way it is now, I don't know who this is for. I don't want to be a downer twords anyone interested in this display, but I feel like monitors keep getting wider when they should have gotten a bit taller, and that's a bummer.
Click to expand...

Yeah, 1440 dissapoints. My 38" is 3840 X 1600 and I'll take that any day.

I'd love a 5120 X 1600 49" though :)
 
Greyson said:
Reading about Dell touting the benefits of "productivity oriented monitors" while sticking to such a narrow vertical resolution just seems inherently dishonest to me. If it came down to it I would rather have two 16:10 2560x1600 monitors for work than one extremely wide and narrow monitor, which seems like it may be uniquely specialized for some very specific environments like timeline editing, and not much else.

On the flip side I think this sort of thing could be cool for gaming if the curve was more drastic and replicated the look of a surround display minus the bezels. On its own the way it is now, I don't know who this is for. I don't want to be a downer twords anyone interested in this display, but I feel like monitors keep getting wider when they should have gotten a bit taller, and that's a bummer.
Click to expand...

The curve really does help ultrawides a TON! Really. It does. For computer monitors.

For Tv's at distance? Not so much. I don't get it for TV's at all.
 
Armenius said:
"Narrow" vertical resolution. Is the extra 160 pixels (1.47" at this DPI) really going to break you? This monitor is two 27" 16:9 2560x1440 displays side by side, basically, with no bezel in between to deal with. Dell also provides software to partition the screen the way you'd like.

https://www.amazon.com/LG-38WK95C-W-38-Inch-Class-UltraWide/dp/B079L4WR4T
Click to expand...

I have the Acer. It's awesome !

It does suffer from those GD DisplayPort black-outs that happen from time to time though. I really do wish that shit would get fixed.
 
Greyson said:
Reading about Dell touting the benefits of "productivity oriented monitors" while sticking to such a narrow vertical resolution just seems inherently dishonest to me. If it came down to it I would rather have two 16:10 2560x1600 monitors for work than one extremely wide and narrow monitor, which seems like it may be uniquely specialized for some very specific environments like timeline editing, and not much else.

On the flip side I think this sort of thing could be cool for gaming if the curve was more drastic and replicated the look of a surround display minus the bezels. On its own the way it is now, I don't know who this is for. I don't want to be a downer twords anyone interested in this display, but I feel like monitors keep getting wider when they should have gotten a bit taller, and that's a bummer.
Click to expand...

Yup. I want a 1:1 2160x2160 monitor. Really, 1:1 needs to be a thing. It's the best aspect ratio.
 
Greyson said:
Reading about Dell touting the benefits of "productivity oriented monitors" while sticking to such a narrow vertical resolution just seems inherently dishonest to me. If it came down to it I would rather have two 16:10 2560x1600 monitors for work than one extremely wide and narrow monitor, which seems like it may be uniquely specialized for some very specific environments like timeline editing, and not much else.

On the flip side I think this sort of thing could be cool for gaming if the curve was more drastic and replicated the look of a surround display minus the bezels. On its own the way it is now, I don't know who this is for. I don't want to be a downer twords anyone interested in this display, but I feel like monitors keep getting wider when they should have gotten a bit taller, and that's a bummer.
Click to expand...

Inherently dishonest because it's not your preferred resolution? Really?

It's two 27" monitors melded into one organism with a bezelectomy and flexible addressing / KVM capabilities.

I think it's awesome for work and semi awesome for non fps gaming.

I could be wrong but I think 32:9 is going to eclipse 21:9 in the next couple years.

Not everyone wants more vertical, some of us want more horizontal.

And G-Sync. No sale without G-Sync.
 
DoubleTap said:
Inherently dishonest because it's not your preferred resolution? Really?
Click to expand...

It's not simply about preference, if this was 32:10 instead of 32:9 it would still have the exact same horizontal resolution, just with more vertical pixels. For example, in the demonstration image they show, with more vertical pixels you could fit another couple of audio steams on the screen without having to scroll through them. If it was an option, why would you ever not want the extra resolution on a display like this? I understand the arguement against 16:10, it declined in popularity because 16:9 is more suitable for media consumption. 21:9 also has the benefit of being able to display 2.39:1 cinema content without letterboxing. With the resolution this has, the extra vertical resolution isn't going to make media playback any better or worse, so why wouldn't you want the extra screen real estate for work or gaming?
 
Greyson said:
It's not simply about preference, if this was 32:10 instead of 32:9 it would still have the exact same horizontal resolution, just with more vertical pixels. For example, in the demonstration image they show, with more vertical pixels you could fit another couple of audio steams on the screen without having to scroll through them. If it was an option, why would you ever not want the extra resolution on a display like this? I understand the arguement against 16:10, it declined in popularity because 16:9 is more suitable for media consumption. 21:9 also has the benefit of being able to display 2.39:1 cinema content without letterboxing. With the resolution this has, the extra vertical resolution isn't going to make media playback any better or worse, so why wouldn't you want the extra screen real estate for work or gaming?
Click to expand...

Why stop at 1600? Why not more?

Vertiphiles can jump on a 3840x1600 Ulrawide or any 4k monitor.

I want width and I want to keep the pixel count reasonable.
 
DoubleTap said:
Why stop at 1600? Why not more?

Vertiphiles can jump on a 3840x1600 Ulrawide or any 4k monitor.

I want width and I want to keep the pixel count reasonable.
Click to expand...

I agree, why not more? At 5120×1440 are you really worried about an additional 160 pixels? That's certainly a fine line between "reasonable" and "unreasonable." Are you a "horizontaphile?" Am I a commentphile? A hardphile?
 
Greyson said:
I agree, why not more? At 5120×1440 are you really worried about an additional 160 pixels? That's certainly a fine line between "reasonable" and "unreasonable." Are you a "horizontaphile?" Am I a commentphile? A hardphile?
Click to expand...
It's not just 160pixels, it's the physical size as well. After using a 30" 16:10 or 32" 16:9 going back to 27" does feel cramped. Also a monitor can be too big too, haven't tried above 40" (16:9) yet in person, but based on 32" being my daily driver I do feel that would be too big for my sitting distance (1-1.3 meters). Ultrawides are good replacements for 2 monitor setups, although I find that a 32" 16:9 4k does a decent job at it as well. I don't feel the need for much more room on the sides. The 38" ultrawide might be ok, but comes with lower PPI for now, if it was available in 2160p it would be very tempting. This 49" ultra-ultra-wide is to wide but short for my taste :)
 
Last edited:
I don't really think the Chinese, Dell, LG, Samsung get it .... we really do need a non-sync-branded 100 - 120 or 144Hz display that's around 43"+ ... You don't need Gysnc or Freesync, All tho I guess Freesync is free. Still.

Would love a quality display that isn't cheaped out to same money, etc and isn't branded with nVidia or AMD ...
 
SixFootDuo said:
I don't really think the Chinese, Dell, LG, Samsung get it .... we really do need a non-sync-branded 100 - 120 or 144Hz display that's around 43"+ ... You don't need Gysnc or Freesync, All tho I guess Freesync is free. Still.

Would love a quality display that isn't cheaped out to same money, etc and isn't branded with nVidia or AMD ...
Click to expand...

Freesync is automatic because it's a no cost value add. They don't add it on 60hz business monitors, but you won't see 100+ Hz monitors anymore without one or the other.

As much as I want a double wide monitor, I'm not spending money unless it has G-Sync or I get sucked into an alternate universe where AMD cards are not slow.
 
ultra wide sucks.

Just get a 4k, and put all the windows in the bottom half.

with a 49" ultrawide, you have to crank your head left and right too much
 
Greyson said:
I agree, why not more? At 5120×1440 are you really worried about an additional 160 pixels? That's certainly a fine line between "reasonable" and "unreasonable." Are you a "horizontaphile?" Am I a commentphile? A hardphile?
Click to expand...

ors said:
It's not just 160 pixels, it's the physical size as well. After using a 30" 16:10 or 32" 16:9 going back to 27" does feel cramped. Also a monitor can be too big too, haven't tried above 40" (16:9) yet in person, but based on 32" being my daily driver I do feel that would be too big for my sitting distance (1-1.3 meters). Ultrawides are good replacements for 2 monitor setups, although I find that a 32" 16:9 4k does a decent job at it as well. I don't feel the need for much more room on the sides. The 38" ultrawide might be ok, but comes with lower PPI for now, if it was available in 2160p it would be very tempting. This 49" ultra-ultra-wide is to wide but short for my taste :)
Click to expand...

The x:10 ratio... are people really still beating this dead horse?

It used to be a valid argument back when we had the option of using 1080p vs 1200p, and higher resolution screens were too expensive and too few.

I swear it's like moving the goal post each time. If people just don't like x:9 ratio, that's fine, but realize that's all it comes down to, since it has nothing to do with pixels or physical size at this point. If people don't like 23" 1080p, they can go buy a 27" 1440p, or if they don't like 27" 1440p, they can go buy a 32" 4K. In each case they get greater resolution, and greater physical size.
 
Kdawg said:
ultra wide sucks.

Just get a 4k, and put all the windows in the bottom half.

with a 49" ultrawide, you have to crank your head left and right too much
Click to expand...
This is a monitor made for business productivity, so...
 
Kdawg said:
ultra wide sucks.

Just get a 4k, and put all the windows in the bottom half.

with a 49" ultrawide, you have to crank your head left and right too much
Click to expand...

4K monitors on the desk suck for multiple reasons.

The ones with reasonable PPI are too tall and it's too hard on my neck to look at the top half - turning left and right is much easier.

I don't want anything taller than a standard 24 (or maybe a 27) inch monitor and a 24" 1440P monitor is already at the upper bound for what I consider usable PPI without scaling

If I'm going to push that many pixels, I'd rather put it in a wider FOV than higher density.

These panels are an ideal compromise for people who think an Ultrawide isn't that wide, 2 monitors is just right, but use 3 monitors because a center bezel is unacceptable.
 
DoubleTap said:
The ones with reasonable PPI are too tall and it's too hard on my neck to look at the top half
Click to expand...

Depends on how you mount the monitor and how tall you are but in general id agree. 32" is just about perfect but the PPi is too low at 1440p ( only just ) and still a bit too high at 4k from the required extra seating distance. It's why i think a higher refresh 36" 16:9 would be a nice compromise between the vertical height of a 40"+ 4k screen and the slightly high PPi of the 32" 4k screen. In theory a 36" 16:9 would have the similar width as a 34" 21:9 and a more reasonable 122ppi vs 110 for the 1440p. You wouldnt get as much neck strain with it an inch off the desk and you would also get more definition than a 1440p screen.
 
GNUse_the_force said:
Depends on how you mount the monitor and how tall you are but in general id agree. 32" is just about perfect but the PPi is too low at 1440p ( only just ) and still a bit too high at 4k from the required extra seating distance. It's why i think a higher refresh 36" 16:9 would be a nice compromise between the vertical height of a 40"+ 4k screen and the slightly high PPi of the 32" 4k screen. In theory a 36" 16:9 would have the similar width as a 34" 21:9 and a more reasonable 122ppi vs 110 for the 1440p. You wouldnt get as much neck strain with it an inch off the desk and you would also get more definition than a 1440p screen.
Click to expand...

Maybe for people that don't wear glasses. I like my 24s at about 24 inches from my nose and the side screens at 45 degrees.

I have a high prescription and relatively rectangular lenses so taller screens just don't work for me. YMMV.
 
gan7114 said:
I swear it's like moving the goal post each time. If people just don't like x:9 ratio, that's fine, but realize that's all it comes down to, since it has nothing to do with pixels or physical size at this point. If people don't like 23" 1080p, they can go buy a 27" 1440p, or if they don't like 27" 1440p, they can go buy a 32" 4K. In each case they get greater resolution, and greater physical size.
Click to expand...

That's... not how aspect ratio works, but you do your thing. It's about height relative to width, regardless of size.
 
Greyson said:
That's... not how aspect ratio works, but you do your thing. It's about height relative to width, regardless of size.
Click to expand...

lol I understand exactly how aspect ratios work, but nice try at attempting to discredit my comment.

You can keep on wanting your extra 160 vertical pixels. All I'm saying is, if you want "more pixels," whether it's to fill your field of view or just to have more work space, then buy the next resolution and size up. It's not 2008 anymore, and it wasn't my choice that the industry centered around x:9 derivatives.

Just get off it already, the horse is dead and x:10 isn't really a thing anymore.
 
for $1700, I'd still rather get six 4k TV/monitors for ultra productivity
and a reclining chair to compensate for neck cranking
 
Martha Stewart said:
if this was 100hz I'd be in. Damn u Dell : \
Click to expand...

I don't think DP has the bandwidth to go over 60hz? Anyways, I have the Samsung 49in but that's 1080p. Desktop looks like crap but gaming is awesome. $1.7k a bit too much but Dells are always on sale and will come down. Once it hits 1-1.2k, I'll buy.

 
Armenius said:
This monitor is two 27" 16:9 2560x1440 displays side by side, basically, with no bezel in between to deal with. Dell also provides software to partition the screen the way you'd like.
Click to expand...

The more I’m looking at this monitor the more I’m liking it. Do we know if the display manager software gives the ability to run a “center” 2560x1440 screen in the middle with a 1280x1440 screen on either side? Because that would be the ideal setup and the way I’d do it.

I think this also has interesting implications for future monitors. Heck, if they can make this, than technically speaking they can do a "triple QHD" panel (7680x1440), which would be pretty fucking cool.

Can you imagine that unbezeled awesomeness sitting on your desk?
 
Last edited:
inglewood78 said:
I don't think DP has the bandwidth to go over 60hz? Anyways, I have the Samsung 49in but that's 1080p. Desktop looks like crap but gaming is awesome. $1.7k a bit too much but Dells are always on sale and will come down. Once it hits 1-1.2k, I'll buy.

Click to expand...



they could dual DP it (like they do with their 5k & 8k monitors)
 
Kdawg said:
ultra wide sucks.

Just get a 4k, and put all the windows in the bottom half.

with a 49" ultrawide, you have to crank your head left and right too much
Click to expand...

Thats where the curve helps. A lot. I would never buy a monitor that size that isn't curved.

That said, I have to go full disclosure and say I do, from time to time, move windows to the center of my 39" if I'm going to be working on them for a long period of time.
 
Is there some kind of conspiracy to make every single monitor released a piece of dog shit?

"This monitor seems generally okay. Let's make it 60hz with no variable refresh."

"This monitor has a nice feature set. Let's add a fuckton of input lag."

"This monitor's decent. Let's make the viewing angles terrible."

"We've got a solid product here. Let's make the image as smeary as shit when anything moves."

Good job, you fucks. I'll continue to NOT GIVE YOU ANY MONEY.
 
  • Like
Reactions: N4CR
like this
TechLarry said:
I have the Acer. It's awesome !

It does suffer from those GD DisplayPort black-outs that happen from time to time though. I really do wish that shit would get fixed.
Click to expand...

Random black outs = defective product. Those fuckers need to get class actioned. Half the products they release don't even work. They just keep releasing shitty monitors that CUT OUT randomly. How is anyone tolerating that?

And regarding the productivity issue, yes, 1:1 is the best aspect ratio for people who actually do work.

 
DoubleTap said:
Maybe for people that don't wear glasses. I like my 24s at about 24 inches from my nose and the side screens at 45 degrees.

I have a high prescription and relatively rectangular lenses so taller screens just don't work for me. YMMV.
Click to expand...

i wear glasses and sit typically 28" from a 32" 1440p screen. If i sit at 24" the PPI is too low ( although it's good for sniping ) the added benefit of a larger screen though is that you can lean or move your chair further back ( upto 47"(120cm ) and still play casual games / watch streams really nice even with another person so your not huddling around the screen, it's more of a TV-Monitor. That said there doesn't seem to be a single fit for people when it comes to monitors, i have been through and returned quite a few and never quite got perfection. Im sticking with the 1440p 32" 60hz for now until a higher refresh non curved version is out, or maybe even a 144hz 38" 1600p ultrawide with freesync2 and with proper HDR support (in theory next year). Right now im not interested in 4k below 36" and realistically that means a 40" screen which is too big for my use cases where i would just buy a 4k TV and couch game for that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top