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
BMNify - Tuesday, April 1, 2014 - link
tjoynt, find the best visual quality "2001 A Space Odyssey Opening in 1080 HD" or higher clip you can find https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e-QFj59PON4 and play that , tell us you cant see the ringing due to the 8 bit per pixel pseudocolor, that why we need Rec. 2020 color space, in fact 10bit isnt really enough as it takes 11bit's or more to get true real colour but consumers have to make do for a reasonable price (this is not reasonable)Panzerknacker - Tuesday, April 1, 2014 - link
Way too high input lag, useless display tbh.I guess displays like this are for the niche market where people will buy it anyway to show off. There simply isnt much engineering behind a screen like this anway, they just slap a 4k panel and some electronics into a box and call it a 4k display. The many unacceptible flaws listed in this review prove this point.
CSMR - Tuesday, April 1, 2014 - link
The Windows dpi comments are exaggerated.This monitor is not ultra-high dpi. It is just high dpi. The 4k is just a good resolution for 32".
150% is a suitable dpi setting in Windows for this monitor.
People using this monitor will typically not be using it with other screens at the same time, or low res monitors. The typical uses will be as a single screen connected to a desktop, or to a laptop. 150% might also be suitable for a good laptop screen, say 1080p 13".
Also most software has worked well with high dpi settings in Windows for several years.
The only problem with windows is the lack of per-screen dpi but the extent to which this poses a problem with this screen is exaggerated. The pixel-war 4k resolutions for small screens, e.g. 24", are more likely pose a problem because they would require a dpi setting close to 200% which would be very inappropriate for most other screens.
Penti - Tuesday, April 1, 2014 - link
The problem is if you use this as the primary monitor in Windows with 150%, say your 27" 2560x1440 monitor that you run at 100% will be 150% bitmap scaled to 100% in Windows 8.1. If you choose you 100% screen as primary the results will be really disastrous. One screen will always look blurry and bad if you do not use the same scaling. Plenty of Microsoft's own software doesn't work decent with DPI-scaling and stuff like the browser ignores the native scaling and just scales by zooming. 24" 200% still produces some oddities even if it's your only screen. You can't really speak of any improvements here in Windows yet. OS X seems to do multiscreen better at least. Having different scaling on your laptop screen and external screen seems like a given to me.CSMR - Tuesday, April 1, 2014 - link
I agree that this is a problem in principle, but not so much here because:- Using 32" and 27" is unlikely given the size of screens. (And using non-identical dual screens is not recommended anyway because of differing color profiles needed anyway.)
- 27" 1440p is quite high dpi. So if 150% is preferable for this monitor then 125% is preferable for 27". So you'd end up with things only slightly too large on the 27".
Coping well with screens at different dpis should be done but it is quite challenging for OSes and software and will take many years.
A gradual increase in dpi (as in this Dell) is the best approach at the moment IMO.
Hxx - Tuesday, April 1, 2014 - link
hey Chris, other reviewers found input lag to be less than 20ms. How come your results are so skewed? Aren't you suppose to use the best setting to test this? Why are u testing at a non native resolution? TBH you're better off not testing for it.BinaryTB - Tuesday, April 1, 2014 - link
He already mentioned why he's testing at non-native resolution, because most graphics cards (even the higher end ones), can't drive all games at high settings at a 4k resolution.Makes sense to me, if I'm going to be playing at <4k resolution, that's where I want the input lag tested.
apertotes - Tuesday, April 1, 2014 - link
there are many games that can perfectly be played at native resolution, like Civ 5, or FIFA, or WoW, or any 2/3 years old game. Also, he used HDMI at 30 hz instead of DP at 60 hz.I do not see the point of giving figures if they are not the best the monitor can do.
cheinonen - Tuesday, April 1, 2014 - link
The HDMI input is driving at 1080p at 60 Hz, not 30Hz. 30Hz would be if it was using a 4K signal. Tom's Hardware is measuring using a 1080p signal as well, so their results should be similar but they're using a high speed camera instead of the Leo Bodnar device. TFT Central measures it using SMTT which I find slightly odd as that would require a CRT that can do UltraHD resolution, of which I'm not aware of any.I'm working on a better way for input lag but for right now it's a static test that is as accurate, and comparable, as I can make it.
NCM - Tuesday, April 1, 2014 - link
Regarding the unexpectedly high case temperature the author measured, I'd expect that to be a function of high pixel density, which blocks a greater proportion of the backlight. This in turn requires more backlight intensity to produce a given panel illumination.