Dell UP3214Q Review
by Chris Heinonen on April 1, 2014 12:00 AM ESTWith the backlight set to maximum in sRGB mode I measure 322 cd/m2 of brightness with a pure white screen on the UP3214Q. Setting the backlight to minimum results in a reading of 33 cd/m2. I could possibly use a different color preset to get a higher reading, but that usually means tinted whites and a loss of dynamic range, so I prefer to stick to the maximum value you would want in a real world setting.
Using the same test setup for black levels, the Dell emits 0.3901 cd/m2 of light with the backlight at maximum and 0.0422 cd/m2 with the backlight at minimum.
Combined, we get contrast ratios around 800:1. In comparison to the only other UltraHD display reviewed to this point, the ASUS PQ321Q, the Dell has a slightly higher contrast ratio but a slightly lower maximum light output. I believe the combination on the Dell is better for most people as going past 300 cd/m2 produces an image most people find too bright but everyone can utilize a higher contrast ratio. That said, the contrast ratio difference isn’t huge, as you can see.
UltraHD displays are still lagging behind QHD displays when it comes to contrast ratio, as those are approaching 1,100:1 now. It isn’t bad, but it’s also an area that hopefully can improve over the next year or two as better panels become available.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
84 Comments
View All Comments
Samus - Tuesday, April 1, 2014 - link
For <$400 and 2560x1440, I'll take a thick (matte finish) bezel with an IPS panel. Infact, I'll take 6 of them and keep the change instead of buying a "Dell"Samsung just announced a direct-competitor to this monitor for $800 starting price. So maybe just 3 of those and keep the change, and they have a razor thin bezel and aluminum frame construction.
I mean...I just can't get over the price here. $2800 bucks. It's not even worth $1000.
inighthawki - Tuesday, April 1, 2014 - link
Are you referring to the ud590? It's hardly a "direct competitor." It's not only 4" diagonal smaller but it's a TN panel, and lacks quite a few input types. Or are you referring to the ud970, in which case would you please post a source to the $800 price tag, which sounds unlikely.On top of that, remember that you then need 2 video cards to power 4/6 monitors (nvidia supports 4 but only in span with the fourth as an "extra" display) so you won't even be able to tile them properly by default. On top of that have fun trying to play a game across all the monitors. At least with a single 4K display you can render at 1080p and have a seamless scaling across the entire display. With 4 or 6 monitors you'd have to run it in the standard "eyefinity" style 3x1 configuration which is nice, but also will cost you with resolution. At that point you're going to need not just two GPUs, but likely two high end GPUs. When all is said and done I don't think you'll save much once you take into account the disadvantages of the setup on top of the price.
nevertell - Tuesday, April 1, 2014 - link
You have never been truly productive with a computer, have you ?A multi monitor setup enables me to do things just that much faster. While you could argue that a 4K monitor would allow me to do stuff side by side on the same panel, at the end of the day, when the new resolution becomes the norm, you have to develop content for 4k. And the only way to see your results is to see them at 4k, so you have to have another panel. Single display setups are meant for lazy office people and content consumers. And even then, playing a game with a surround monitor setup is much nicer than having one large monitor.
People used the same kind of software back in the days of 1280 by 1024, 1024 by 768 and 800 by 640. And even though most of the software for today is written for 1080p or 1200p panels, the fact still remains, you cannot operate Visual Studio in half of that. Hell, it's a nightmare to run Visual Studio on 1336 by 768, let alone something like 960 by 1080p. Even though application UI's appear scalable, scaling them is a last resort. So yes, when we will catch up to 4K on the software side of things, we will need multiple monitors again. But yes, of course, for a web developer of today, being able to edit multiple stylesheets, javascript and html files at the same time AND seeing the result largely in scale is truly great. Unfortunately, most enterprise developers rarely need to edit countless files at once and the php/css people just simply will not be able to afford these displays.
Sabresiberian - Sunday, April 6, 2014 - link
What do you mean by "run 4K at 1080p"? That makes no sense.If you are talking running those 4 monitors to get a total screen space of 3840x2160, sure, you could do that, but you entirely miss the point of having a high-density monitor. The pixels on a 39" 1080p screen are the size of a truck. Maybe suitable for using as a TV viewed across your living room, but not as a monitor a couple of feet from your face.
mczak - Tuesday, April 1, 2014 - link
A wall of TN panels is fairly pointless if you can only see the center one due to the poor viewing angles :-).cheinonen - Tuesday, April 1, 2014 - link
AdobeRGB vs. sRGB, HiDPI vs. Regular DPI, Apples to Orangescheinonen - Tuesday, April 1, 2014 - link
I tested with both Nvidia and AMD cards and had the same issues with both.toncij - Sunday, April 6, 2014 - link
Yes, that information could help, since not every test was done on Nvidia/AMD and the same driver. Also, it would help a lot to hear if those problems also happen with ASUS and Sharp, to compare those products. Anandtech made a review already: http://www.anandtech.com/show/7157/asus-pq321q-ult...jasonelmore - Tuesday, April 1, 2014 - link
Where the hell is HDMI 2.0? Its done and being produced, why isnt it in these new devices?SunLord - Tuesday, April 1, 2014 - link
It takes more then 6months to go from a finished standard to fully certified working silicon let along shipping it in quantities to enable mass production of consumer devices.