Dell introduces new 32 and 24-inch 4K Ultra HD resolution monitors

By on December 2, 2013, 1:30 PM

After leaking over the weekend, Dell has now officially announced its new Ultra HD 4K monitors today. The new Dell UltraSharp line will ship in two models, the 31.5-inch flagship and a 24-inch version, both of which run in full 3840 x 2160. As you might have imagined, these displays will not be cheap. The 31.5-inch UltraSharp will hold the same $3500 price tag as the Asus Ultra HD display and the 24-inch (seen below) model will come in at $1400.

Along with the 24-incher's much more digestible price tag, the 185 PPI display features a 178-degree viewing angle with an adjustable stand, as well as HDMI, mini-DisplayPort, DisplayPort, USB 3.0 ports (x4) and multifunction card reader connectivity. For $1400, Dell promises a 3 year Premium Pixel Guarantee, in which apparently the company will replace your display if even a single pixel acts up.

As for the flagship 31.5-inch, it boasts a very similar spec set as its smaller counterpart, beyond its more limited 176 degree viewing angle and its 140 pixel per inch count.

While these are certainly pricey monitors, Dell is expected to introduce an Ultra HD display at what sounds like a slightly lower price tag some time next year. Reports say the company has a 28-inch 4K Ultra HD display coming in 2014 that will sit somewhere in the sub $1000 price range. Dell expects this to be the most affordable 4K display on the market when it launches.

Both the 31.5 and 24-inch 4K Dell UltraSharp monitors are available now on Dell.com.




User Comments: 30

Got something to say? Post a comment
2 people like this | RH00D RH00D said:

Thank you Dell!! I'm glad someone finally has the balls to release a 24" monitor with a resolution higher than 1920x1080. I'm going to buy the 24" 4K one as soon as I've saved up enough.

Mooseinadesert Mooseinadesert said:

Can't wait until these are standard monitors in a handful of years.

Guest said:

I'd rather have a 4k 46" tv. The dpi on the 24". Seems a bit too much but I can see the 36 inch as acceptable. Now all they need to do is stop using edge lit back lighting.

JC713 JC713 said:

Ehhh. Way too overpriced. Also, this will need some serious horsepower to game on. The only good application for this currently is graphic design rather than gaming. I bet once we get next generation GPUs, gaming at 4K will be easier.

Experimentongod said:

"Dell promises a 3 year Premium Pixel Guarantee, in which apparently the company will replace your display if even a single pixel acts up."

They do in fact exchange displays for a single defective pixel and even send the replacement first so you have zero downtime. The "Premium Guarantee" is why buying Dell "Ultrasharp" displays is such a good idea.

I had a 2 year and 8 months old 2209WA (22" 1680x1050) and received a brand new U2312HM (23" 1920x1080) less than 24 hours after placing a customer support call just because the LED on the power button had died. You can complain about ANYTHING about your display and they will exchange it until you're happy with your unit. I suppose you could even make up a defect and they will exchange your display anyway, I don't think they even check the stuff they get back, they just refurbish it and send it to another customer hoping they don't care that much about it. The only problem is that you may need to exchange the display 3 or 4 times until you get a "perfect" one as a result of that practice.

hahahanoobs hahahanoobs said:

When GPU's under $500 can do 60fps on High I'll go 4K.

Guest said:

Finally something to replace my 27" 2560x1440 monitor. I've been wanting a second one, but knew I should wait for 4k. Damn right Dell! I'd love to get two 31.5" screens, but I think I'll be good with two 28" instead. :)

1 person liked this | cliffordcooley cliffordcooley, TechSpot Paladin, said:

I still say 4k resolution on less than 40" display is overkill. But then at least this is advancing in technology, and hopefully decreasing the price of 4K on 40+" displays. I'd love to one day at least witness 4K displays in Eyefinity, and know of no one that would have 100K to spend on displays.

Thank you guinea pigs, for spending your money on needless tech. Keep reducing the price of tech that is needed.

Fbarnett Fbarnett said:

Yea just think you only need like 4 titans to run them

1 person liked this | Littleczr Littleczr said:

24 inches for a 4k display is way too small, web pages will be too small to read. You will need to zoom in and when that happens it defeats the purpose of having a 4k display. I have the dell u2711 and the text is small as is, I would much rather get another 1440p display to have more room for documents.

Guest said:

What a lot uneducated comments....sigh. Since when is 4K not suited for anything under 24"? I think some people seriously need to do some research before they post such comments. A comment like "That would make my browser way too small" really makes me laugh.

Guest said:

"24 inches for a 4k display is way too small, web pages will be too small to read. You will need to zoom in and when that happens it defeats the purpose of having a 4k display."

Ask anyone who owns an Apple iPad or laptop with Retina of he wants back the old pixel density.... (rolling eyes). Trust me....10 years from now when you're browsing with super crisp text that is sharper than the text from a traditional book and look back at the old days, you will wonder how you could ever post that comment.

Puiu Puiu said:

I still say 4k resolution on less than 40" display is overkill. But then at least this is advancing in technology, and hopefully decreasing the price of 4K on 40+" displays. I'd love to one day at least witness 4K displays in Eyefinity, and know of no one that would have 100K to spend on displays.

Thank you guinea pigs, for spending your money on needless tech. Keep reducing the price of tech that is needed.

it's mostly for work related stuff and very high end gaming.

many need the extra pixels on a single monitor when using CAD or Photoshop. if paying 1000$ improves productivity and brings back 2 or 3 times that amount then it's worth it.

cliffordcooley cliffordcooley, TechSpot Paladin, said:

10 years from now when you're browsing with super crisp text that is sharper than the text from a traditional book and look back at the old days, you will wonder how you could ever post that comment.
There is currently not enough visual difference between the two, for me to make that statement. And my eyes will probably be worse in 10 years. I'm more interested in whether you will maintain that statement, in 10 years when your eyesight has failed a bit.

Darth Shiv Darth Shiv said:

When GPU's under $500 can do 60fps on High I'll go 4K.

Yeah that's the catch isn't it? Running an overclocked HD7950 and I can't get decent FPS on BF4 at 1920x1080 let alone native monitor resolution of 2560x1440. So it would be interesting to see how you'd get decent FPS on a 4K...

St1ckM4n St1ckM4n said:

@Guest Uneducated? Cool story bro, did you know that ipad non-retina and ipad-retina doesn't even use traditional DPI scaling? If you launch Windows on Retina Mac, it becomes almost unusable due to the small size. Apple gets around it by using HiDPI, which doubles the dimensions of the UI and uses the extra pixels to smooth jaggies.

Until Windows natively supports such a thing, 24inch 4K displays are borderline unusable for generic users.

RH00D RH00D said:

@Guest Uneducated? Cool story bro, did you know that ipad non-retina and ipad-retina doesn't even use traditional DPI scaling? If you launch Windows on Retina Mac, it becomes almost unusable due to the small size. Apple gets around it by using HiDPI, which doubles the dimensions of the UI and uses the extra pixels to smooth jaggies.

Until Windows natively supports such a thing, 24inch 4K displays are borderline unusable for generic users.

Windows does support native DPI scaling, it's just not as good as Apple's currently, but it's still natively supported.

St1ckM4n St1ckM4n said:

Yes it has UI DPI scaling, but the the options and limited scope of it means it doesn't apply to all UI elements uniformly. Doesn't work like Mac.

hahahanoobs hahahanoobs said:

Yeah that's the catch isn't it? Running an overclocked HD7950 and I can't get decent FPS on BF4 at 1920x1080 let alone native monitor resolution of 2560x1440. So it would be interesting to see how you'd get decent FPS on a 4K...

Not sure if serious.

3 people like this | technogiant said:

Don't really get the push for higher and higher resolutions.....higher resolution does not equal greater realism.....when my games appear as real as a blu-ray movie at 1080p then I'll be happy to push up to higher resolutions....until then lets not waste gpu power on more and more pixels....it's what you do with the pixels in terms lighting, shading and effects that will produce greater realism not just more pixels.

Blue Falcon said:

28 inch 4K for sub $1k sounds like a nice compromise vs. 30 inch 1600p monitors today but the price for 31.5/32 inches at $3.5k is way too steep. I am going to wait until there is a GPU with 2.5-3x the power of a GTX780Ti before I upgrade to a 4K monitor, preferably with screen size of 32-37 inches. 4K @ 24 inches is too small for my taste. Good to see Dell entering the marketplace which is bound to put price pressure on other players. Only wish the monitors at this price would be better built, not this plastic border crap.

H3llion H3llion, TechSpot Paladin, said:

Ehhh. Way too overpriced. Also, this will need some serious horsepower to game on. The only good application for this currently is graphic design rather than gaming. I bet once we get next generation GPUs, gaming at 4K will be easier.

Even with Graphic Design, a normal IPS will be just fine.

1 person liked this | St1ckM4n St1ckM4n said:

@technogiant You're assuming that the target market for 4K 24 inch monitors is gamers. Your assumption is incorrect.

Workstation monitors have had high resolution specialty displays for a long time. There is a requirement for this, the technology is advancing, so the monitors are being released.

Darth Shiv Darth Shiv said:

Not sure if serious.

Was being serious... running on Ultra @ 1080p FPS can drop down below 40 in some situations. Not good in 1v1. Tend to die when that happens.

Darth Shiv Darth Shiv said:

@technogiant You're assuming that the target market for 4K 24 inch monitors is gamers. Your assumption is incorrect.

Workstation monitors have had high resolution specialty displays for a long time. There is a requirement for this, the technology is advancing, so the monitors are being released.

This... 4K for development, 3D graphics modelling, 2D etc would be fantastic.

hahahanoobs hahahanoobs said:

Was being serious... running on Ultra @ 1080p FPS can drop down below 40 in some situations. Not good in 1v1. Tend to die when that happens.

You bought the wrong card for Ultra settings. Drop some of the post processing options.

For best performance I play on Medium quality @ 1920x1080 with my 7870. The game looks great when maxed out, but Battlefield MP is a game where frame rate comes before the visuals, especially if you don't have proper hardware to support it.

Guest said:

Currently running a GTX 690 (slightly better than a Titan), and I game with everything maxed out (ultra) on my 2560x1440@120hz monitor. I'm usually able to keep a constant 120fps to match the refresh rate. I would happily upgrade to a higher res screen for gaming. I would then upgrade my graphics card too of course. Unfortunately these screens will only be 60hz as far as I'm aware. Maybe they'll be overclockable though, like the Dell 2b PCB.

Darth Shiv Darth Shiv said:

You bought the wrong card for Ultra settings. Drop some of the post processing options.

For best performance I play on Medium quality @ 1920x1080 with my 7870. The game looks great when maxed out, but Battlefield MP is a game where frame rate comes before the visuals, especially if you don't have proper hardware to support it.

Yes I got the card well before BF4... I don't run ultra settings of course... go for framerate.

Darth Shiv Darth Shiv said:

Currently running a GTX 690 (slightly better than a Titan), and I game with everything maxed out (ultra) on my 2560x1440@120hz monitor. I'm usually able to keep a constant 120fps to match the refresh rate. I would happily upgrade to a higher res screen for gaming. I would then upgrade my graphics card too of course. Unfortunately these screens will only be 60hz as far as I'm aware. Maybe they'll be overclockable though, like the Dell 2b PCB.

Are you overclocking? I seriously doubt that you are getting constant 120fps if you haven't. You'd be lucky to average half let alone min FPS...

[link]

[link]

Are you checking FPS from console? I.e. in console type "perfoverlay.drawfps true".

hahahanoobs hahahanoobs said:

Yes I got the card well before BF4... I don't run ultra settings of course... go for framerate.

I misread your comment. My apologies.

I'll go 4K when GPU's run that res like current cards run 1080p for less than $500.

Load all comments...

Add New Comment

TechSpot Members
Login or sign up for free,
it takes about 30 seconds.
You may also...
Get complete access to the TechSpot community. Join thousands of technology enthusiasts that contribute and share knowledge in our forum. Get a private inbox, upload your own photo gallery and more.