Last year I spent time with one of the first UltraHD monitors to be come out and came away convinced of the benefits. Even though the screen size was not much larger than my usual display, the extra clarity and detail was totally worth it. It sealed my decision to buy a MacBook Pro Retina when it was updated last fall as well. Now we’ve seen the field of UltraHD displays expand considerably and so we now look at another 32” UltraHD display, the Dell UP3214Q.

The Dell UP3214Q is very similar to the ASUS PQ321Q that I looked at last year. Both are 32” and both feature a 3840x2160 resolution. They are also both saddled with one of the current UltraHD weaknesses: a requirement that you have DisplayPort 1.2 MST support to get 60 Hz refresh rates. However, the Dell UP3214Q does have a few higher-end features that the ASUS lacks to help set it apart.

The first feature is that it supports the full AdobeRGB color gamut and not the more limited sRGB gamut. Since these initial UltraHD monitors are expensive and more likely to be used by professionals than home users, this support can go a long way. Second it has built-in support for Dell’s calibration software that lets you set two presets to be whatever settings you desire. If you have day and night settings, or different settings for online vs. print, this can be accomplished.

It also offers a larger selection of inputs than the ASUS model. With HDMI 1.4, DisplayPort, and MiniDisplayPort options you can connect it to two 60Hz UltraHD sources at once instead of just a single PC. This is most useful for those that wish to use it with a laptop as well as a desktop. Like many of the upper-end Dell displays it also features a 4-port USB 3.0 hub as well as a media card reader on the side. Unfortunately all of the USB 3.0 ports are hard to access on the rear instead of placing a pair on the side. I swap out my monitors more than 99.9% of the population but I hate having the USB ports being so hard to access.

The updated Dell design features a metal trim around the border which gives it a modern, semi-industrial look and also seems to work as a way to dissipate heat. I found this out as trying to adjust the monitor from the top after it has been on for a few hours can cause it to get quite warm. An IR temperature gun gave me readings of almost 130F. I’ve had monitors get warm to the touch before but the Dell UP3214Q is certainly the hottest so far, and that's quite surprising considering it uses LED backlighting. The stand that the Dell includes is also a new industrial design but still includes height adjustment, tilt, swivel and a way to route cables. There is no pivot so if you want to use your 32” UltraHD display in Portrait mode you’ll need to use the 100mm VESA mounts with a different stand.

Dell also has their on-screen menu system that I still think is the best in the business. They’ve made an unfortunate move to touch-sensitive buttons but the overall user interface is still the same. From an ergonomics perspective the Dell is an overall winner. I’d like to see them find a way to side-mount the inputs so they are easier to access, and move a couple USB ports around, but overall it is good.

Viewing angles, as an IPS display, are fantastic. I’d be hesitant about a TN panel of this size because off-angle issues could arise far too easily but it is not a problem with the Dell. With specs, ergonomics, and the on-screen display of the Dell UP3214Q there is not much that I find issue with...well, other than a high price, but that's expected.

Dell UP3214Q
Video Inputs HDMI 1.4a, DisplayPort, Mini DisplayPort
Panel Type IGZO IPS
Pixel Pitch 0.182mm
Colors 1.07 Billion
Brightness 350 cd/m2
Contrast Ratio 1000:1
Response Time 8ms GtG
Viewable Size 32"
Resolution 3840x2160
Viewing Angle (H/V) 176 / 176
Backlight LED
Power Consumption (operation) 100W Typical, 170W Max
Power Consumption (standby) 1.2W Typical
Screen Treatment Anti-Glare
Height-Adjustable Yes, 3.5"
Tilt Yes
Pivot No
Swivel Yes
VESA Wall Mounting Yes, 100mm
Dimensions w/ Base (WxHxD) 29.5" x 19" x 8.4"
Weight 20.3 lbs.
Additional Features 4 port USB 3.0 hub, card reader
Limited Warranty 3 years
Accessories MiniDP to DP Cable, USB 3.0 cable, power cord
Price $3,499 (Currently $2800)

 

UltraHD Today: Still Not There
POST A COMMENT

85 Comments

View All Comments

  • BMNify - Wednesday, April 02, 2014 - link

    "Nothing has Rec. 2020 coverage as aside from lasers (I've been told), nothing can produce the gamut required. "

    :) he is wrong OC as they would not and could not ratify the 2020 spec if they could not already produce the results it lays out, the guy was probably trying to sell the Mitsubishi LaserVue panels with their use a laser for red and regular LED’s for blue and green...

    rather than just state they can ill point you to this page as you will probably find it interesting... the quantum dots and the M3 film are cool too
    http://www.tftcentral.co.uk/articles/content/point...

    for the less interested ill just add this paste...
    "Rec. 2020

    Much like with Rec. 470, Rec. 601 and Rec. 709 the Rec. 2020 standard is more than just a color space. It is the standard for Ultra High Definition Television (UHD-TV), which knows two versions: 4K (3840x2160 and 4096x2160) and 8K (7680x4320 and 8192x4320). Apart from the obvious improvement in resolution over the Rec. 709 standard, the Rec. 2020 standard also improves upon its predecessor in many other ways. The maximum frame rate doubles from 60 Hz progressive to 120 Hz progressive (interlaced resolutions are no longer supported, which is good). The color depth also increases by at least 2 bits per channel, with the possibility of 4 bits. Because Rec. 709 and Rec. 2020 both use studio swing /narrow band, this does not result in the usual 16.8 million, 1.07 billion and 68.7 billion colors though.

    Bit depth per channel
    Reference black level
    Reference white level
    Usable combinations per channel
    Total number of colors
    8
    16
    235
    220
    10,648,000
    10
    64
    940
    877
    674,526,133
    12
    256
    3760
    3505
    43,059,012,625

    Last but not least, the Rec. 2020 offers significant improvement over the Rec. 709 standard when it comes to the color gamut: nearly twice the size of its predecessor. It uses three monochromatic primaries with wavelengths of 630, 532 and 467 nm. This results in a very large gamut, but without most of the drawbacks of even larger color spaces like the Adobe Wide Gamut RGB color space.

    Most of the thought process behind the origin of these primaries can be found in ITU Recommendation BT 2246-2:2012. The summarized version is that UHD-TV should have a larger color gamut in order to cover the real surface colors (based on Pointer’s gamut and SOCS database) as much as possible using real primaries."

    what is clear is that much like the PCISIG the ethernet SIG etc the panel entities are also not fit for purpose as they dragged their feet actually producing new panels and ened to end kit to the latest specs that where in effect made by NHK and the BBC R&D...
    Reply
  • tjoynt - Tuesday, April 01, 2014 - link

    For my data point: using the Mac 10.9.3 with HiDPI on an UltraHD display is gorgeous. If you have a Mac that can handle it (I have a 2012 Macbook Retina, as a reference point), you should definitely try it. It's like the retina display but huge. My eyes are finally happy. Reply
  • BMNify - Tuesday, April 01, 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) Reply
  • Panzerknacker - Tuesday, April 01, 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.
    Reply
  • CSMR - Tuesday, April 01, 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.
    Reply
  • Penti - Tuesday, April 01, 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. Reply
  • CSMR - Tuesday, April 01, 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.
    Reply
  • Hxx - Tuesday, April 01, 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. Reply
  • BinaryTB - Tuesday, April 01, 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.
    Reply
  • apertotes - Tuesday, April 01, 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.
    Reply

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now