1000 $ ? for edge lit? Isn't AOC selling a mini led HDR 1000 for the same price?

Dell needs to check what their competitors are selling same spec'd monitors for.

dyonoctis1000 $ ? for edge lit? Isn't AOC selling a mini led HDR 1000 for the same price?

AOC have 2 models, both are 1440p not 4k, the AG274QXM and QZM. Being 170Hz and 240Hz respectively.

No I want a flat QD-OLED monitor, just make it happen and take my money

That D is very like my S2721DGF Looks the same, stand is the same, love Dell monitors. the new G3223D should be pretty good too.

CrackongNo I want a flat QD-OLED monitor, just make it happen and take my money

Won't happen for now. Samsung is only making 55", 65" and ultrawide 34" panels.

ZubasaAOC have 2 models, both are 1440p not 4k, the AG274QXM and QZM. Being 170Hz and 240Hz respectively.

Ah right, fair enough.

Yeah, these prices are unacceptable. And why skip the USB-C port on th 4k model? Seems like a lot of weird compromises here.

I'm hoping that with the release of the next generation of graphics cards (and hopefully DisplayPort 2.0) that the display industry will have a wide release of High refresh 5120x2160 ultrawide monitors as the next step up from 3440x1440.....I'd really like to upgrade my 2160p ultrawide with 60hz to one with at least 100hz, if not 120hz.

Maybe I'm an outlier with my opinion, but I don't understand gaming with such a big monitor; especially if you do so competitively where you want to be turning & bending your head as little as possible. I'm currently using a 27" @ 1440p and glad that I didn't go even bigger than that with the 72" x 30" desk that it sits on. It seems to be the sweet spot at that resolution & size so that you don't have to change your seating distance from it when switching from gaming to 3D content work or other productivity tasks. Granted, the higher the resolution you go, the bigger the screen you'll want to have, but regardless, its still going to be a huge screen to have sitting on a desk(not to mention you'll probably need a depth of 30+ inches on it so you'll be able to set the monitor back far enough).

MentalAcetylideMaybe I'm an outlier with my opinion, but I don't understand gaming with such a big monitor; especially if you do so competitively where you want to be turning & bending your head as little as possible. I'm currently using a 27" @ 1440p and glad that I didn't go even bigger than that with the 72" x 30" desk that it sits on. It seems to be the sweet spot at that resolution & size so that you don't have to change your seating distance from it when switching from gaming to 3D content work or other productivity tasks. Granted, the higher the resolution you go, the bigger the screen you'll want to have, but regardless, its still going to be a huge screen to have sitting on a desk(not to mention you'll probably need a depth of 30+ inches on it so you'll be able to set the monitor back far enough).

A minority of gamers play competitive FPS's. It's one of the only reasons extreme high refresh rate 24" 1080p monitors still exist.

As for monitor size, 32" isn't much larger than 27". These being 16:9 monitors, it's only around 1 extra space for a desktop icon on each corner of the screen. I would agree from a value/quality standpoint that 27" 1440p monitors are the sweet spot right now.

To the subject monitors at hand... they look overpriced, even looking at their own lineup, they already sell an ultrawide 34" 144hz 1440p monitor for only ~$500(S3422DWG). The 32" 1440p monitor has the same ppi as a 24" 1080p monitor, so it's not going to look great. The 4k monitor has an excessively high ppi, at 128(27" 1440p are 108ppi), and will be sacrificing a whole lot of FPS for something, something the consumer will almost certainly notice, over something that the consumer isn't likely to notice (ppi) unless they're sitting very close to the screen.

MentalAcetylideMaybe I'm an outlier with my opinion, but I don't understand gaming with such a big monitor; especially if you do so competitively where you want to be turning & bending your head as little as possible. I'm currently using a 27" @ 1440p and glad that I didn't go even bigger than that with the 72" x 30" desk that it sits on. It seems to be the sweet spot at that resolution & size so that you don't have to change your seating distance from it when switching from gaming to 3D content work or other productivity tasks. Granted, the higher the resolution you go, the bigger the screen you'll want to have, but regardless, its still going to be a huge screen to have sitting on a desk(not to mention you'll probably need a depth of 30+ inches on it so you'll be able to set the monitor back far enough).

You're not wrong - I've been planning on upgrading to a 32" panel for a few years, but recently I've been reconsidering (especially after I got a secondary 24" monitor). I still don't think 32" is too large for my use, but it's on the edge, and really depends on your intended use case. I agree that it doesn't make sense for competitive shooters, where having a full overview of the monitor without needing to move your head or even shift your eyes too much is an advantage (which needs balancing against the ability to acquire targets easily and clearly). But for players seeking immersion instead, larger monitors definitely have a lot going for them, simply from filling a larger portion of your field of view. As such, it's a matter of preference on several levels, in addition to being able to fit it, of course.

erockerDell needs to check what their competitors are selling same spec'd monitors for.

Or even their own offerings, they just launched the absolute killer QD-OLED ultrawide for 1300$. Ultrawide has it's drawbacks being a different form factor and all but this pricing is nuts.

ChomiqWon't happen for now. Samsung is only making 55", 65" and ultrawide 34" panels.

It was reported Samsung is using some gen8 like fab for QD-OLED (2.5m x 2.2m - www.techpowerup.com/291819/internal-turmoil-at-samsung-might-lead-to-delay-of-qd-oled-products-in-retail).

That can be cut into 8x 34'', 6x 55'' or 3x 65'' + either 2x 55'' or 6x 32'' (this last case is even on Samsung display blog - global.samsungdisplay.com/28976/). For now the target seems to be 65'' and 55'' only but i'm sure 32'' is certainly in the cards and likely not that far off (from a yield perspective it's better to produce more smaller units instead of larger ones because defects won't mean so many display thrown out but there's also more margin on 55'' high end TVs - it's a balance but there's a large demand for this kind of monitor and they'll want to spice up their next offering on the odissey series which has been stale-ish and riddled with bugs)

trsttteOr even their own offerings, they just launched the absolute killer QD-OLED ultrawide for 1300$. Ultrawide has it's drawbacks being a different form factor and all but this pricing is nuts.



It was reported Samsung is using some gen8 like fab for QD-OLED (2.5m x 2.2m - www.techpowerup.com/291819/internal-turmoil-at-samsung-might-lead-to-delay-of-qd-oled-products-in-retail).

That can be cut into 8x 34'', 6x 55'' or 3x 65'' + either 2x 55'' or 6x 32'' (this last case is even on Samsung display blog - global.samsungdisplay.com/28976/). For now the target seems to be 65'' and 55'' only but i'm sure 32'' is certainly in the cards and likely not that far off (from a yield perspective it's better to produce more smaller units instead of larger ones because defects won't mean so many display thrown out but there's also more margin on 55'' high end TVs - it's a balance but there's a large demand for this kind of monitor and they'll want to spice up their next offering on the odissey series which has been stale-ish and riddled with bugs)

It's all up to Samsung Display and its customers then. Samsung Electronics has only 3 sizes listed officially during CES, unless they announce something at another event.

A lot of good Dell monitors go on sale though, so it can be worth knowing which are actually good

CrackongNo I want a flat QD-OLED monitor, just make it happen and take my money

^^^ This person gets it.

CrackongNo I want a flat QD-OLED monitor, just make it happen and take my money

DeeJay1001^^^ This person gets it.

Flat and 16:9. And ideally with a conventional RGB stripe subpixel layout. Yes, please.

ValantarFlat and 16:9. And ideally with a conventional RGB stripe subpixel layout. Yes, please.

This pretty much rules out any QD-OLED, mainly due to subpixel layout.

www.displayninja.com/best-oled-monitor/
AUO is the only one so far that mentions anything close to 32" 4K 144 Hz.

ChomiqThis pretty much rules out any QD-OLED, mainly due to subpixel layout.

Even LG's are somewhat nonstandard there... though closer to normal.

R-T-BEven LG's are somewhat nonstandard there... though closer to normal.

The closest there is is the JOLED but there's radio silence from them.

Finally some monitors that aren't too flashy in design, but nicely specced! I've always liked Dell's natural-looking colours as well. It got me all excited... until I saw the price. Ouch! :(

AusWolfFinally some monitors that aren't too flashy in design, but nicely specced! I've always liked Dell's natural-looking colours as well. It got me all excited... until I saw the price. Ouch! :(

These will have a discount and be on sale by the end of the year. I'd keep an eye out if you need one. I got a S2721DGF from Dell an year or so back and it's been just an excellent screen all around ^^

ValantarYou're not wrong - I've been planning on upgrading to a 32" panel for a few years, but recently I've been reconsidering (especially after I got a secondary 24" monitor). I still don't think 32" is too large for my use, but it's on the edge, and really depends on your intended use case. I agree that it doesn't make sense for competitive shooters, where having a full overview of the monitor without needing to move your head or even shift your eyes too much is an advantage (which needs balancing against the ability to acquire targets easily and clearly). But for players seeking immersion instead, larger monitors definitely have a lot going for them, simply from filling a larger portion of your field of view. As such, it's a matter of preference on several levels, in addition to being able to fit it, of course.

I have a large desk and one 27" screen and I would say that's the limit. Sitting about 24" away the corners are out of my periphiral vision and i have to either move my eyes or head to see the time in the bottom corner. A big screen is nice, but I think i'd prefer dual 22"-24" screens over one big one.

ValantarFlat and 16:9. And ideally with a conventional RGB stripe subpixel layout. Yes, please.

Having used 16:10 and 3:2 at work (ms surface), I actually wouldn't mind a 3:2 (16:10.7) monitor, it would bring more of the monitor into view. It's too bad tv ratio took over PC industry :|

mechtechI have a large desk and one 27" screen and I would say that's the limit. Sitting about 24" away the corners are out of my periphiral vision and i have to either move my eyes or head to see the time in the bottom corner. A big screen is nice, but I think i'd prefer dual 22"-24" screens over one big one.

Well, people have different preferences. I sit about an arm's length away from my 27" display (with the 24" secondary a bit further away to the side of the main one) on a 160x80cm desk (that's ... 63x31.5" for those operating in Freedom Units), but the main is also mounted on an arm for easy positioning (I've bought a dual arm for more flexibility, but haven't gotten around to mounting it yet). At this distance, I can easily see the entirety of the 27" display without moving my head, though the extreme corners strain my eyes a tiny bit if I don't shift my head. This is comfortable for me for both work and gaming, though I tend to move around and sit differently for both. The entirety of the 24" (mounted vertically) is visible in my peripheral vision when I'm looking dead centre at the 27". Seeing how a 32" is ~10cm wider than a 27" that would definitely make a difference, and I'd likely need to shove it back a bit (plenty of room for that thanks to the arm), but I would probably enjoy it more for gaming.

mechtechHaving used 16:10 and 3:2 at work (ms surface), I actually wouldn't mind a 3:2 (16:10.7) monitor, it would bring more of the monitor into view. It's too bad tv ratio took over PC industry :|

I would love a 3:2 monitor for work, but not for gaming. Sadly I need the same thing to do both, so ... meh. At 27" or above 16:9 is sufficiently tall for it to not matter, but going smaller than that for work would be unacceptable. It fits nearly three full-sized A4 pages side by side, so that's plenty really - the secondary is for managing all the damn windows I need for work, keeping reference material up for glancing at, plus screen capture and that kind of stuff. Having two separate monitors is a benefit in that regard, as stuffing all of that onto a single one would be a mess.

ValantarFlat and 16:9. And ideally with a conventional RGB stripe subpixel layout. Yes, please.

And yet Samsung never released a flat 240hz VA panel. Absolutely mind boggling! I'd relish a comparison of the new Apple Studio Display versus the Dell high refresh 4k monitor. I think Dell makes great monitors, especially if you want adjustable stands and a built in hub. You can buy an amazing $650 4k/60hz with a hub from Dell. Oxide panel, bezels half the size of Apple, and IPS black double contrast. For $650 regularly on sale. Dell is trusted with monitors for a reason. I also think the $1000 MSI Xbox edition monitor looks good.