back to article We strained our eyes with Lenovo's monster monitor: 43.4 inches for price of five 24" screens

The Register got its talons on Lenovo's monster monitor, the 43.4-inch ThinkVision P44W-10 curved display. Was it worth the desk space? There is a scene in the 1986 movie Ruthless People where an impossibly young Judge Reinhold attempts to flog a set of gigantic speakers to a gullible music fan. The Dominator MX, enthused …

  1. beast666

    Vertical space rules

    Get a proper 43" 16:9 3840x2160 screen. Trust me.

    1. Pascal Monett Silver badge

      Re: Vertical space rules

      Totally agree. When I read 3840 x 1200 I just groaned. How is it possible that a screen maker can consider 1200 vertical to be acceptable in a 48" screen ? My monitor may be only a 28", but 2160 vertical really is the only way to go these days.

      1. pyite42

        Re: Vertical space rules

        Unless you need perfect color matching, why not just get a 49" or larger screen for $500 or less at the local Wal Mart? I have been doing this for years and they work very well for both programming and gaming.

        The only drawback I've had is that the front plastic part of the screen scratches very easily. They are typically HDMI-only as well, which may be annoying to some.

        1. MrMerrymaker Bronze badge

          Re: Vertical space rules

          That would involve supporting the evil Walmart

      2. Monty Cantsin
        Trollface

        Re: Vertical space rules

        Vertical space? Duh, just flip it to portrait!

        1. Swiss Anton

          Re: Vertical space rules

          Or turn your head sideways.

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: Vertical space rules

            or try sitting sideways. Use magnets for better efficiency.

      3. gnasher729 Silver badge

        Re: Vertical space rules

        It's not really 43". It's just two 24" screens side by side.

      4. K Silver badge

        Re: Vertical space rules

        Agreed this is useless, my 4K porn library deems it so!

        1. This post has been deleted by its author

    2. StargateSg7 Bronze badge

      Re: Vertical space rules

      I like my FOUR monitors MUCH better !!!

      I've got FOUR of these:

      Canon DP-V3010 30" 4K Reference Display

      https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1202266-REG/canon_6902b002_dp_v3010_30_4k_hd_3g_sdi.html

      They are 4096 by 2160 pixels with 10 BIT HDR and can display REC.2020 Super High Definition video!

      I've got the slightly older versions of these Canons handed down from the main research centre who are getting the 8K OLED versions once they become available sometime next year !!!

      If you WANT superb display quality, then DCI 4K and 8K resolution Sony and Canon Colour Reference Monitors with 10-bit IPS or OLED Displays are BEST! Yeah, they can range from $15,000 to as much as $35,000 US (or more for the 8K versions!) BUT they are SUPERB QUALITY !!!!

      .

      Only our 16-bits per colour channel (64-bit RGBA) 128k resolution 10,000 fps IMAX size RGB colour laser projector is better than these displays but of course THAT is a $20 million dollar display system so it doesn't count here!

      .

      1. DrRobert

        Re: Vertical space rules

        I think you sat next to me on the bus once, I drive to work now.

        1. Spacedinvader
          Coffee/keyboard

          Re: Vertical space rules

          New keyboard required!

        2. MJI Silver badge

          Re: Vertical space rules

          I think you sat next to me on the bus once, I drive to work now.

          Still on the bus?

      2. GrumpenKraut Silver badge
        Alien

        Re: Vertical space rules

        > Only our 16-bits per colour channel (64-bit RGBA) 128k resolution 10,000 fps IMAX size RGB colour laser projector is better than these displays but of course THAT is a $20 million dollar display system so it doesn't count here!

        I totally believe that. I also believe Ilya Geller. Oh, and Uri Geller.

        1. StargateSg7 Bronze badge

          Re: Vertical space rules

          It was a lower 2:1 aspect ratio 128k x 64k resolution last year, but newer and faster rotating osmium-coated mirrors make it now a full 128k by 128k resolution (1:1 aspect ratio) 131,072 by 131,072 pixel resolution using 64-bit RGBA pixels (16 bits per colour and alpha channel)

          To get 10,000 fps frame rates, you need to interleave memory banks and use high-speed optical switches to get the 1,374,389,534,720,000 bytes (1.38 Petabytes) per second of data rate REQUIRED to display 10,000 fps at 128k by 128k imagery. Dense Wave Optical Multiplexing is the underlying communications technology to achieve that between the main CPU's, external frame buffers and the DAC (Digital to Analog Convertor) chips which drive the MULTIPLE arrays of RGB laser emitters which are also high bandwidth and very wide in terms of simultaneous numbers of channels. (we are precision scanning multiple lines of pixels at once on a very reflective custom built IMAX-sized screen)

          We're not a small company. $20 Million is NOT a big deal to this company! Not when we have a 143,000 lbs fully autonomous drone that can go to 300,000 feet (Flight level 3000 for you aviation buffs) with a 6-axis gyroscopically-stabilized custom 400mm CMOS substrate 16-bits per RGB channel multi-gigapixel camera attached to an equivalent refractive 1000mm to 4000mm zoom lens on it!

          .

          It's used for 3D-XYZ scientific visualization of GIS mapping systems AND for space-related imagery AND for the development and visualization of internally designed exotic space propulsion systems, human physiology research and human neural systems simulation/emulation.

          .

          I think that about covers it all as to what we do in our spare time with this gear ....

          .

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: Vertical space rules

            I call BS. Drone at the Karman line? Nope.

            "at 300,000 feet (91,440 m) or 57 miles up, ... there is no longer any air to contribute lift: only centrifugal force prevails"

            1. Cynic_999 Silver badge

              Re: Vertical space rules

              "

              ... at 300,000 feet (91,440 m) or 57 miles up, ... there is no longer any air ..

              "

              Yes there is. Albeit at only 1.47 x 10^-5 psi ...

            2. StargateSg7 Bronze badge

              Re: Vertical space rules

              Who said our drone uses aerodynamic lift principles at 300,000 feet (91440 metres)?

              Did I say that ANYWHERE in my piece? It goes to 300,000 feet AND it can go MUCH HIGHER THAN THAT as it's low orbit (300 km) and high orbit capable! (i.e around 42,100 km or about 26,100 miles)

              I said it could GO that high but i didn't say HOW!

              What the heck do you THINK we do with that fancy 210,000 processor 128-bits wide 60 GHz GaAs 119 ExaFLOPS supercomputer we have? Tell it to design paper origami shapes all day?

              DUUUUUUUUH!!!!

              It autonomously designs HIGHLY ADVANCED "Field Effects Propulsion Systems"! We don't NEED NO STINKING ROCKETS to go where we're going! There ain't even any stinking patent on this as we are going to give those field effects propulsion designs away for FREE as COMPLETELY OPEN SOURCE! Field effects engines are remarkably SIMPLE in their design! They're basically cavity resonators and waveguides!

              ANY 2nd or 3rd year (or a really smart high schooler!) can make this with a decent machinist and CNC machine! 418 Grade Stainless steel works BEST but you can get away with 414 grade Stainless Steel too! No EXPENSIVE Titanium needed!

              While "Inertial Dampers" are a few hundred years away, all-attitude High-G, field effects propulsion IS HERE NOW !!!

              .

              .

              .

              1. IkerDeEchaniz

                Re: Vertical space rules

                You forgot your meds

          2. noboard

            Re: Vertical space rules

            but can it play Crysis?

            1. StargateSg7 Bronze badge

              Re: Vertical space rules

              YES! As a matter of fact it CAN via a x86 Assemby-to-MG-Assembly converter!

              .

    3. big_D Silver badge

      Re: Vertical space rules

      I sort of agree. But at least it isn't 1080 vertical!

      I have the Dell UltraSharp 34" 3840x1440 display. The Lenovo 44" with only a 1200 vertical resolution seems very low-res, for the size.

      For me, having two full documents side-by-side good and I don't need the full 2160, currently. But on the 44", I'd want the full 4K resolution. I think it depends on the workload, but 1200 on that size of display is still a no-no.

    4. GX5000

      Re: Vertical space rules

      No Kidding.

      I've been running three "42's for the last few years.

      Don't give me width without giving me height.

      Might be moving up to "44's soon but see no need to yet.

    5. Christian Berger Silver badge

      Re: Vertical space rules

      Yes, particularly since you can simply make your screen wider easily by putting a monitor next to your existing one. This is easy to do horizontally, but not vertically.

    6. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Vertical space rules

      If you're sat roughly 2 feet away from the screen, that's really poor ergonomics, HSE and your eyes,

      It was bad enough when I tried a 32" screen. If you're sat across a room, on a sofa playing games - that's different.

      1. Michael Wojcik Silver badge

        Re: Vertical space rules

        If you're sat roughly 2 feet away from the screen, that's really poor ergonomics, HSE and your eyes,

        Yes. I've never seen the attraction of these huge monitors. Frankly, it's been decades since I was even interested in anything bigger than my laptop screens. They do a good job of filling the center of my field of vision when I'm working. I don't have any use for more screen real estate.

        When I was working at IBM circa 1990 I had a multi-headed workstation with four monitors connected to it. At the time it seemed pretty nifty, but I quickly realized that I only ever made real use of two of the screens, and one of those was connected to an experimental graphics card so it was only used for testing.

        I realize I'm in the minority here, but I have no interest at all in these giant monitors.

    7. Bill Michaelson

      Re: Vertical space rules

      "Get a proper 43" 16:9 3840x2160 screen. Trust me."

      Yes.

      My $800 43" LG is this. It's like having 4 monitors I typically used in a 2x2 matrix - without the seams. It also leaves desk space for a sidecar or two of 1920x1080 for $100-200 a pop if desired.

      The vertical space is good for code, horizontal for the occasional SQL table perusal. The combo for flexible image sizing placement and/or window arrangement. Huge fonts for when the eyes get tired or viewing by a group at some distance.

      That thing is way too costly for the utility.

    8. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Vertical space rules

      I'll stick with my awesome 50" 4K 3840x8 monitor, thanks. When turned vertically, it takes up almost no desk space.

      1. Crypto Monad

        Re: Vertical space rules

        Reminds me of the xkcd phone with 4K screen (50 x 80 pixels)

        https://xkcd.com/1889/

  2. Sir Runcible Spoon Silver badge

    Only 1200 high?

    I've had a curved 34" monitor for a couple of years now and that's 3440*1440.

    The extra width is very useful for work, having multiple apps visible at once to work from etc., but it would be for nothing if you constantly had to keep scrolling down.

    I suppose it helps with the gaming though, less pixels to render.

    1. Sorry that handle is already taken. Silver badge

      Re: Only 1200 high?

      It's an awful lot of money for what is essentially two 24" 1920x1200 monitors glued together

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Only 1200 high?

      ultrawide master race :D

    3. ArrZarr Silver badge

      Re: Only 1200 high?

      It partly helps with gaming, my main monitor at home is an ultrawide, but it helps more along the lines of being able to push more frames within the cable standard.

      I know that if I use HDMI on my 3440x1440 screen, the standard of the HDMI port on the back of the monitor itself causes a cap of 50fps. The equivalent standard on full fat 4k is only capable of pushing 30fps.

      Displayport 2's standard was published earlier this year which (I think) is intended to deal with 8k and 16k screens at varying framerates.

  3. StargateSg7 Bronze badge

    This DELL 8K display has 7680 x 4320 pixels at 60 Hz and has 10-bits per colour channel or BILLIONS of colours!

    Dell UltraSharp 32 8K Monitor: UP3218K:

    https://www.dell.com/en-ca/shop/accessories/apd/210-alez?mkwid=sRNfvUWIA

    It's only $6400 CAN ($5400 US or 4800 Euros) so its pretty cheap for the price! and 16x the resolution of HDTV displays!

    The Lenovo SUCKS compared to this!

    .

    1. Sorry that handle is already taken. Silver badge
      Headmaster

      16x the pixels; 4x the resolution*

      * for the same screen dimensions

      1. StargateSg7 Bronze badge

        Yes! You are right! I stand corrected! (i.e. 4 times the resolution on EACH AXIS) and 16x the number of pixels as HDTV!

        .

        I still like the Canon monitors much better than ANY Dell (which I think is actually made by Sharp)! I had to give up the Canon OLED monitors I had originally to another department, so now I have to make do with the Canon IPS displays which are NOWHERE NEAR the quality of their OLED master reference monitors! (the OLED versions are twice as much!) but still I can't complain too much, they're DEFINITELY BETTER than the Eizos I used to have!

        Canon gave us a pretty good deal on them, especially since we ended up buying 40+ of the Canon C700 GS (Global shutter cinema cameras) and 60+ of the Canon EOS 1Dx Mk2 still cameras over the years!

        I should note when the Combined Stills/Video DCI 8k Medium Format Sensor Camera (65mm) comes out soon enough from a certain large multimedia company, they have given us first dibs on 60+ of those, so there goes another $10k per camera! I also trying dig me up some of those Canon DCI 8K OLEDs when they finally come out after next year's NAB show (April 2020)! Our R&D department gets them first but sometimes I get a few of the cast-offs/not-needed ones!

        .

        1. Sorry that handle is already taken. Silver badge

          Canon monitors sound like expensive pro level stuff?

        2. Rainer

          No Pro Display XDR?

          ;-)

          1. StargateSg7 Bronze badge

            That's Sony ..... BUT we're NOT an exclusively Canon shop either ... We have a ton of older HDcam, F55, F65 and Sony Venice cameras so we're open to them too! We even have a few Red and Arri Alexas!

            We tried to buy the Panavision and Primo lenses but it was cheaper and faster to make our own cameras and lenses in the end! Head office was even thinking of BUYING Panavision in its entirety to get at its lens tech -- We bought a RAM chip maker for its SSD capabilities since we were spending a fortune on storage AND a CPU design company, so its not out the realm of possibility for us to still get Panavision or maybe even Arri!

            .

  4. Hans Neeson-Bumpsadese Silver badge

    Interesting (for me anyway) is that despite its width-ways enormity, it has a central stand. I've been shopping for a new tellybox recently, and it's frustrating how many of them , much narrower than the beast here, have feet at either side. That means that it needs to stand on a cabinet that's as wide as the TV, rather than having the option to perch it on something narrower and have the side of the TV protruding. Currently I feel like I'm going to be shopping for both a TV and a new cabinet.

    1. Richy Freeway

      Frog

      Or a TV and a stand that attaches to the VESA mount on the TV? That's the path I took to rid myself of the stupid side feet!

      1. Hans Neeson-Bumpsadese Silver badge

        Re: Frog

        Good call. I hadn't thought about the VESA mount. I detest wall-mounted TVs in a domestic setting, so automatically forget that TVs have that mount.

        1. phuzz Silver badge

          Re: Frog

          VESA mounts are a lot cheaper these days than they were, even five years ago. Although you'll probably not want to cheap out, if you're hanging a huge and expensive screen off of one.

        2. CRConrad

          VESA mount on a stick,

          Attach the stick to the rear of your narrow cabinet?

        3. defiler Silver badge

          Re: Frog

          Oh? I was going to say wall-mount it and now I feel deflated...

          Put curtains over it and pretend it's a window? My telly's probably the size of the front window of my first house! :)

          Is there a reason you don't want to wall-mount? Curved screen on a flat wall? (Saw that one on Sunday.) TV in a corner? (My parents.) Sneaky stuff hidden down the back? (Also my parents, with a Bose passive sub.) Just don't like the look of it / the idea of arranging everything around a telly?

          1. Hans Neeson-Bumpsadese Silver badge

            Re: Frog

            Is there a reason you don't want to wall-mount?

            Firstly, I really don't like the look of it.

            Secondly, it's easy to "manage" cables in the usual rat's nest fashion behind a media cabinet rather than hiding them in trunking (yuk) or cutting cable runs into the walls (very old house made of very hard stone - I can blunt a quality masonry drill bit to death just putting up a set of shelves).

            1. defiler Silver badge

              Re: Frog

              Firstly - fair play. You and differ completely on that one. My wife and I (sounding very pretentious there) prefer clutter-free cabinet-tops, and putting it on the wall lifts it a bit for excellent slouching in front of a movie, but life would be boring if we all wanted the same thing.

              Secondly - solid wall? Ouch. Raggling stone walls is a total nightmare. Trunking? Nope - I agree completely there. If it were a plasterboard wall, or even breezeblock then I'd say to man up and hide the cables properly, but for solid stone walls I'll totally understand.

            2. Warm Braw Silver badge

              Re: Frog

              it's easy to "manage" cables

              I put my wallmount on top of a wooden panel (around 300mm-450mm wide tall enough to extend upwards beyond TV - for aesthetics - and downwards far enough to reach AV cabinet) and put some spacers between that and the wall. Panel conceals wires, choose finish to suit your decor.

          2. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: Frog

            This monitor needs curtains on each side, and a drawstring, so you can reduce it to 22:9 when watching movies and 16:9 when watching TV.

            1. phuzz Silver badge

              Re: Frog

              RaspberryPI, some light sensors and some stepper motors and automate the whole thing!

              (More frugal readers can probably to the same job with a 555 and some resistors)

    2. Unep Eurobats
      Boffin

      'a cabinet that's as wide as the TV'

      ... or two cabinets the same height.

    3. jelabarre59 Silver badge

      I've been shopping for a new tellybox recently, and it's frustrating how many of them , much narrower than the beast here, have feet at either side.

      Yes, I encountered that while looking for a new TV a couple months back. Feet on the ends means you would *also* have to have a deeper cabinet if you want to angle the TV to one side. A center pedestal works far better for that.

      The OTHER issue was that the manufacturers have decided to do away with physical buttons on the TV, instead expecting to rely on the readily broken/lost/dead-battery-filled remote control. All of which comes down to them being CHEAPASS, rather than making something actually functional.

      So I ended up buying a BIGGER TV at an estate sale for far less than I'd have paid for one of those inadequate new ones of a smaller size.

    4. Michael Wojcik Silver badge

      We had this issue at the Mountain Fastness - television set wasn't particularly wide, but we wanted to put it on a quite narrow cabinet we'd picked up for $10 at a salvage place.

      A plank on top of the cabinet solved that nicely. I was even going to whack it down to the correct length with the mitre saw at some point, for extra classiness, but then after a year or so we decided to wall-mount the TV instead. Then we unmounted it a year later and sat it on an antique oak dresser we picked up for $45 someplace.

      I suppose what I'm saying is that these things are easier when you don't give a rat's ass what it looks like. It's not going to win a beauty competition against the views out the windows anyway.

  5. Luiz Abdala Bronze badge
    Stop

    At that resolution, I dare you to get 144 Hz on a demanding game.

    Fullscreen, native resolution, 144 FPS, modern game.

    I'm talking Red Dead 2, GTA, ( a beast of a buggy game to newer hardware), not Counter Strike 1.6.

    People are going BACK to 1080p to get 144Hz smoothness.

    This must be good for CAD operations, but not gaming. Get your priorities straight.

    1. phuzz Silver badge

      Re: At that resolution, I dare you to get 144 Hz on a demanding game.

      Fortunately for me, anything above 50Hz looks basically the same.

      Well that, and a childhood trying to play games like Doom at <10FPS means I'm not much swayed by high frame rates, more than twenty and I'm happy.

      1. Baldrickk Silver badge
        Flame

        Re: At that resolution, I dare you to get 144 Hz on a demanding game.

        20fps is barf inducing... 30fps kiiinda works, but you can feel the latency, and movement isn't smooth. 50-60 isn't bad.

        120 is good, and I start losing the ability to tell around this point.

        icon - my GPU driving the 2880×1600 of my Index along with a 4096 x 2160 display.

        1. TechnicalBen Silver badge

          Re: At that resolution, I dare you to get 144 Hz on a demanding game.

          I physically could not use a 30fps 34inch TV for gaming today, my vision looked sooo blurry (could be response times/ghosting too), so am thankfully back to my 144hz display.

          Lack of ghosting and 60fps + is the sweat spot (144hz etc).

          1. ArrZarr Silver badge

            Re: At that resolution, I dare you to get 144 Hz on a demanding game.

            In my experience, 30, 60, 75fps and beyond is only noticeable if you are already used to the higher frame rate - I've made the decision that I'm going to stick with 60fps monitors for that reason - I can't go back to 30 but if I go up a step, I run the risk of not being able to go back to 60.

            I accept that there are good reasons to go higher than 60 fps, but I'm lucky enough to not have to worry about them personally.

      2. katrinab Silver badge

        Re: At that resolution, I dare you to get 144 Hz on a demanding game.

        If you move an object across the screen quickly, you will notice the difference in refresh rate.

        At low refresh rates, you will see copies of the object spaced maybe 5 cm apart, depending on speed.

        1. phuzz Silver badge
          Windows

          Re: At that resolution, I dare you to get 144 Hz on a demanding game.

          "you will see"

          Ahh young 'un! If only my eyes were still that good!

          But then of course I'd need a better graphics card (and monitor), so really this is one part of getting old I'm ok with.

      3. Simon Harris Silver badge

        Re: At that resolution, I dare you to get 144 Hz on a demanding game.

        10fps? You were lucky!

        Try playing Wing Commander 2 on a 286 with EGA at a few seconds per frame.

        1. Clunking Fist Bronze badge

          Re: At that resolution, I dare you to get 144 Hz on a demanding game.

          "at a few seconds per frame"

          Hmm, kinda like playing chess with a friend, resident abroad, via aerogramme.

        2. BinkyTheMagicPaperclip Silver badge

          Re: At that resolution, I dare you to get 144 Hz on a demanding game.

          EGA? You poor sod. I did play WC2 on an Amstrad 2286 (12MHz). I completed it, but the slowdown near capital ships was appreciable..

        3. Michael Wojcik Silver badge

          Re: At that resolution, I dare you to get 144 Hz on a demanding game.

          Try playing Wing Commander 2 on a 286 with EGA at a few seconds per frame.

          Luxury! In my day we played games on Model 33s. After every move you had to wait for it to print the next page character-by-character. But we were happy.

      4. defiler Silver badge

        Re: At that resolution, I dare you to get 144 Hz on a demanding game.

        Ah - remember the good old days of running the DooM and getting the fps dots at the bottom-left. Was it -devparm? I was the first of my friends to get 1 dot steady, when I recklessly overclocked my lavish P90 to 100MHz!!

        I agree that I've never felt the need for 144Hz frame rates, perhaps because I too had to deal with slow FPS "back in the day", but 20 is a bit shabby even for me. Double that and it's about usable. 60Hz+ and I'm happy as a clam.

        1. Luiz Abdala Bronze badge

          Re: At that resolution, I dare you to get 144 Hz on a demanding game.

          I do notice 30 FPS sometimes, but at 60, I'm on the moon.

          But if you wanna buy something that can push 144, you might as well get it.

          I'm happy with 60, and crank my settings around that goal.

          And, honestly, oldish games ran far smoother, given the low resolution we used to have. The occasional guy running at 1024 x 768 was considered beyond posh, definitely smug, back then.

          1. defiler Silver badge

            Re: At that resolution, I dare you to get 144 Hz on a demanding game.

            That's because he had 2x Voodoo 2 cards on SLI! Posh bastard!

  6. KarMann
    Trollface

    No 4DoF??

    "The stand – which allows the screen to be tilted, swivelled, raised and lowered…"

    What, it doesn't even pivot for a portrait-mode vertical display?

    1. TRT Silver badge

      Re: No 4DoF??

      It's probably easier to strap yourself in and rotate the chair.

    2. ArrZarr Silver badge

      Re: No 4DoF??

      "swiveled"

      1. KarMann
        Headmaster

        Re: No 4DoF??

        'Swivelled' means it rotates left and right, or about the vertical axis if you want to get fancy about it. 'Pivot' means it rotates about the forward-backward axis, so you can switch it from a landscape-mode 3840⨯1200 to a portrait-mode 1200⨯3840, in this (hypothetical) case.

        1. TRT Silver badge

          Re: No 4DoF??

          "Pivot" means you can't get the couch up the stairs.

          1. KarMann

            Re: No 4DoF??

            Ah, Friends. I was assuming it was a Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency thing at first.

            1. TRT Silver badge

              Re: No 4DoF??

              Ah yes. Love that bit in DG-HDA - thanks for the reminder. However the explanation in the linked article is incorrect; the comment corrects it. IIRC, the sofa eventually has to be sawn up.

    3. I ain't Spartacus Gold badge
      Happy

      Re: No 4DoF??

      To be fair, the monitor is only about £1,500. That money doesn't even buy you 2 Apple monitor stands - so you wouldn't expect the built-in stand to be as good...

  7. My other car WAS an IAV Stryker

    Dell for the non-curved less-than-gamer sort

    I recently bought a Dell S3219D 32" Class QHD FreeSync from Costco -- 2560 x 1440 (for ONLY $199 USD; membership required). So far I've only used it with the work laptop, but Visio has never been easier. My missus will eventually do photo editing on it once I set up our new desktop.

    PROS: Size vs. price**, speakers actually work (HDMI), dual HDMI + DisplayPort, USB-3 hub

    CONS: For those geekier than I -- resolution COULD be better, not curved, could be bigger, probably not fast "enough", no USB-C

    (I haven't yet seen how bad the speakers are yet with real music, but I have my wired Beats at hand anyway.)

    ** Really, is there a better deal anywhere in the States? It's worth a basic $60 membership on top. I'm sure two side-by-side would look even more sweet unless you require a bezel-less center.

    1. TRT Silver badge

      Re: Dell for the non-curved less-than-gamer sort

      If one requires a bezel less centre, one buys three of them!

      1. My other car WAS an IAV Stryker

        Re: Dell for the non-curved less-than-gamer sort

        At that price, I wouldn't put it past some folks!

        With membership, that's still under $700 USD, and you get about 15" by almost 84" of actual screen -- or 28:5. (I actually measured mine.) But at that width, I'm sure the truly immersed would desire curved instead of three flat panels.

        I'll stick with this one plus the laptop for working from home. With the future home desktop, I'll reuse an old Dell VGA 18" diagonal for a second screen, probably for Task Manager, Sticky Notes, folder browsing and other random stuff. It would look good in portrait next to the main monster if I build a bracket for it (or modify the current base).

        1. Clunking Fist Bronze badge

          Re: Dell for the non-curved less-than-gamer sort

          Curved? You just place the left & right monitors at an angle to the middle monitor...

    2. Aristotles slow and dimwitted horse Silver badge

      So you bought a cheap monitor...

      And from this statement it sounds like you have no interest in musical fidelity either?

      "I have my wired Beats at hand"

      1. CRConrad

        Who gives a fsck...

        ... about “music fidelity”? Even the cheapest shit headphones or earbuds are good enough to hear what's going on. The problem with listening to music isn't sound quality; it's that the sheeple do it ALL THE TIME, in an effort to drown out the silence between their ears — in order not to have to think, and not to notice that they aren't.

        There, now you know; you're welcome. You can now go back to your regularly scheduled 24/7 muzak (on your 800£ over-ear headphones with the gold-plated lead), so that... Well, you know. Now.

      2. jelabarre59 Silver badge

        Re: So you bought a cheap monitor...

        And from this statement it sounds like you have no interest in musical fidelity either?

        "I have my wired Beats at hand"

        Maybe he only listens to hip-hop, the only music Beats headphones are made for.

        But no, he did mention listening to "real music", so that puts hip-hop right out.

    3. Shadow Systems Silver badge

      Re: Dell for the non-curved less-than-gamer sort

      I'd buy enough of them to create a hemisphere around my chair so I could enjoy a Matrix-esque "surround sound" style visual experience.

      Then I'd use them to play Infocomm games. =-)P

      1. My other car WAS an IAV Stryker

        Re: Dell for the non-curved less-than-gamer sort

        Come on, SS, I know you better than that. Monitor -- what monitor?

        (I wouldn't be surprised if you had a massive acoustic surround system, though.)

        1. Shadow Systems Silver badge

          At Stryker, re: audio system...

          I have no idea what you are talking about...

          <Shifty eyed looks to left & right>

          Gotta go, my neighbors are complaining about my Disaster Area brand speaker stacks again... =-)P

  8. Phil Kingston

    32:10

    School me, but that's 16:15 in marketing speak?

    1. Sir Runcible Spoon Silver badge
      Headmaster

      Or even 16:5 psrhaps? :)

      1. Phil Kingston

        Yeah, that'll teach me for typing on my phone

    2. Charlie Clark Silver badge
      Headmaster

      I think you should check your maths…

      1. Phil Kingston

        Yep, my maths is OK, my typing less so.

    3. This post has been deleted by its author

  9. AIBailey Silver badge
    Coat

    Jesus wept

    Come on 'Reg, surely you can wave the flag for common sense aspect ratios?

    ...an aspect ratio of 32:10 (imagine a pair of 16:10 monitors side by side)

    Can't you use basic mathematics and put this into more sensible values?

    "an aspect ratio of 16:5 (imagine a pair of 8:5 monitors side by side)"

    I could just about understand keeping things as ??:9, but even that might confuse some people (i.e.is a 16:9 screen the same as 4:3? Why isn't 4:3 referred to as 12:9?). But even that got bloody stupid once 19.5:9 started to be used.

    -> Mine's the one with the 80:45 phone in the pocket

    1. drand

      Re: Jesus wept

      But an aspect ratio of 16:5 would be really narrow top to bottom. You'd have to stack one on top of another to get it to look right.

      1. TechnicalBen Silver badge
        Coat

        Re: Jesus wept

        I'm honestly not sure if anyone is joking anymore... I'm off to get some gold plated phono cables, and listen to some music on my headphones to drown it all out.

    2. I3N
      Paris Hilton

      Re: Jesus wept

      Didn't fall for the 'Click to enlarge' ...

    3. Michael Wojcik Silver badge

      Re: Jesus wept

      an aspect ratio of 16:5

      Eh, why not "an aspect ratio of 3.2"? Most people won't care. Of those who do, some will be able to do the arithmetic to convert it to whatever denominator pleases them. The others will look for some magical term they don't understand, or assume that bigger numbers are better, so for them there's no point in converting to "more sensible values".

      Personally I like screen ratios around 0.425π.

  10. Caver_Dave

    I've used 43" for 3 years now

    I bought a 4K LG TV with an HDMI 2.1 input. Problem solved for £265 (Argos end-of-line sell-off)

    I can fit 8 A4 pages on the screen at full size (just a few lines lost off the top of the top row of 4 pages), which is excellent for 3-way code merges.

    Rock solid display with no flickering or colour/brightness variation.

    The only problem I have is when I screen share with colleagues on laptops, and I have to make the text ridiculously large on my screen for them to be able to read.

    1. This post has been deleted by a moderator

  11. anthonyhegedus Silver badge

    I've got a 1024x768 14" monitor. It's much lighter than this monster and only cost me £15 (second hand) back in 2006.

    1. GrumpenKraut Silver badge
      Happy

      In other words, you got less than one tenth of a 4K monitor.

      Genuine question: is it a CRT?

    2. GrumpenKraut Silver badge
      Happy

      You got a down-vote, probably from a very envious owner of a 800x600 monitor! ...which is less then one seventeenth of 4K.

      Oh, and the first version of Doom (320*240) would be 1 / 108 of 4K.

  12. Simon Harris Silver badge
    Joke

    Click to Enlarge.

    I pressed that and the resulting picture broke through the sides of my screen.

  13. gormful
    Pint

    I'm not a fan of wide monitors -- give me vertical pixels!

    On the other hand, kudos to El Reg for working in a reference to my favorite movie!

    1. Charlie Clark Silver badge

      Yes, because the human field of vision is wider than it is taller… oh, hang on.

      I've got a 27" 4K Acer which can be rotated, if you like, that kind of thing. At 70cm from my eyes it's about as wide as I feel comfortable with.

  14. Claverhouse Silver badge
    FAIL

    Suboptimal

    Lenovo provides HDMI, DisplayPort and USB-C cables (as it should, considering the £1,549.99 price tag)

    The lack of a VGA port will be a killer.

    1. Kevin McMurtrie Silver badge

      Re: Suboptimal

      VGA signal? What would that look like on this monitor?

    2. TechnicalBen Silver badge

      Re: Suboptimal

      Honest question... WHY?

      What would you drive it with/through, and why are you connecting this up to legacy kit anyhow (and not it's own specialised/chosen monitor)?

  15. LeahroyNake Silver badge

    Calibrated curved display

    I like the way that they state its colour calibrated. I'm guessing calibrating that thing with an xrite would be an absolute nightmare when you take into account the curve and the fact that you would need a bloody huge light box if accurate colour perception was a requirement, you would pay North of £1K Just for the photospectrometer if you really cared.

    At half the price I think it would still be too expensive. Think I will stick with my 2x24 inch TN for work (£80 each) and the 48inch 60Hz 1920 x1080 TV (£200) for PC gaming, the max I will pay for a gfx card is £150 / RX 580. TBH even when I stream it to the 4k display in the living room I can hardly tell the difference / up sampling for the win lol.

    If you want to blow your load though, have fun.

  16. This post has been deleted by a moderator

  17. Zebo-the-Fat

    How do you stop the annoying reflections on a curved screen?

    1. veti Silver badge

      At a guess - by facing the screen toward an interior wall, and pulling a ridiculously bright image onto it.

      My question is, what's the power consumption?

    2. Nick Ryan Silver badge

      How do you stop the annoying reflections on a curved screen?

      Sandpaper. Reflections tend to be worse on shiny surfaces, so make them less shiny

    3. ArrZarr Silver badge

      Use the monitor in a dark room with no windows or blackout curtains.

      works for me.

      1. Michael Wojcik Silver badge

        Use the monitor in a dark room with no windows or blackout curtains.

        The only drawback is that mom keeps coming down to do the laundry.

    4. Kevin McMurtrie Silver badge
      Mushroom

      There's also the unfortunate moment where the sun sets behind you, you lean back to reflect upon the day, and then your face bursts into flames as it crosses the focal point.

  18. This post has been deleted by its author

  19. John Geek

    Costco (US big box membership retailer) had Samsung 32" 3840x2160 monitor on sale for $319 this weekend. Bought one for my wife, its gorgeous.

    has HDMI 2.0 and DP 1.4(?) inputs. on her Latitude w/ the usb c expander box, I had to use the DP port to get 60Hz, the HDMI port would only do 30Hz, awwwww. I had the DP cable already, so all is good.

    a bigger screen would have to be farther away to minimize neck strain looking back and forth, so zilch for gain.

    1. defiler Silver badge
      Coat

      Bought one for my wife, its gorgeous.

      That's nice of you to say so, but maybe say it to her face next time, and stop calling her "it".

  20. Roger B

    Have you still got it?

    Halo: reach out later this evening on PC.

  21. Wzrd1

    Just an excuse for waiting, due to production delays

    Of a new GPU scheme.

    After, everything will be gooder.

    Or something.

  22. Tom 7 Silver badge

    Bad for storage

    I have about 4 times the surface area and 3* the pixels occupying the volume of a stack of A3 paper in the corner of my cave. In a few minutes I can have them all up and working. If I got one of these and got bored with it and upgraded it would be virtually unstoreable giving it about a 5th of its possible lifetime.

  23. Prst. V.Jeltz Silver badge
    Trollface

    y'all be spending too much too much of the earths resources and burning too many cycles displaying your pixels. no one can actually see 8k res.

    a couple of 1024x768 screens is more than enough!

  24. Prst. V.Jeltz Silver badge
    Boffin

    what is the aspect ratio of any given resolution?

    ever wondered if your accidentally choosing the wrong shape res for your screen?

    here is a script to work out the lowest common denominator of a resolution:

    if wscript.arguments.count = 0 then msgbox "usage example:"&vbCrlf&" Resolution Ratios 800 600":wscript.quit

    w=wscript.arguments(0)

    h=wscript.arguments(1)

    n=2

    do until n=>h OR n=>w

    if h/n=clng(h/n) AND w/n=clng(w/n) then

    h=h/n

    w=w/n

    else

    n=n+1

    end if

    loop

    wscript.echo "The lowest common denominator of "&wscript.arguments(0)&" x "&wscript.arguments(1)&" is:"

    wscript.echo " Width="&w &", Height=" & h & " (" & w & "x" & h &")"

  25. Big_Boomer Bronze badge

    2x 32"

    I just bought two 32" Samsung curved monitors for £404 delivered. Gives me a shed load of screen real-estate to work with, specifically 55" wide and 15.5" high, the equivalent of a 57" diagonal. Yes, they are *only* 1920x1080 max but higher resolution is wasted on me as I mostly can't see the difference and on the few monitors where I could see a slight difference it certainly didn't warrant the extortionate hike in price. You can keep your WQHD/4K/8K monitors and their stupid price tags. About the only gain over my setup you'd have with one of those ultra-wide monitors is the ability to game full width. Not worth the money for me, but if it floats your boat, have fun! :-)

  26. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Get an LG 43". Much cheaper and v useful

    I'd get an LG 43UD79-B instead. 43", 4K, 4 HDMI inputs, comes with a remote so you don't have to fiddle with buttons or joysticks that are hard to find/use, and enough real estate to represent 4 21" screens with plenty room to spare. And it's (relatively) cheap as well, and it's more of a rectangle - the problem with a wide screen is that moving egde to edge is far more of a distance than with a proper rectangle.

    The only reason I don't have one now is because I have a 32" with the same resolution, but I suspect I'll upgrade mid next year because my eyes are not what they used to be (read: young :) )..

    As for curved, I found it a pain once the novelty wears off. For gaming it is probably fantastic, but for office use I found it less useful. Oh well, I guess it's also preference and what you're used to.

  27. This post has been deleted by its author

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: How to keep clean?

      Get a lot of alcohol.

      If you bought none pure alcohol, chug it in one go. Your should no longer see the dried yogurt with your distorted vision. If not, chug another bottle. Repeat until the yogurt disappears.

      If you bought pure alcohol, wipe it on the screen with a cloth to clean off the yogurt. Repeat until the yogurt disappears.

  28. This post has been deleted by its author

  29. sum_of_squares

    big screen

    small p..

  30. FatGerman

    2 monitors is better

    The thing with twin monitors for working on 2 things side by side is you can drag a window to one screen and just maximise it. No faffing around dragging edges to resize two windows to half screen, or indeed trying to remember the keyboard shortcut to tile windows (which never does what I want it to anyway).

    1. GruntyMcPugh Silver badge

      Re: 2 monitors is better

      @FatGerman

      I'm not assuming your OS, ... but _if_ it were Windows 10, you'd just 'Windows <arrow key>' to shift an app to the left or right, then tab around the remaining tiles, and hit enter and that app will fill the space to the other side.

  31. streaky

    Meh.

    I bought a C49RG90 the other day and it's absolutely badass. Never horizontally scroll excel ever again.

  32. jelabarre59 Silver badge

    VR

    Come on, you're getting to this point where you need to swivel your head back & forth, you should just be using a VR headset as your monitor.

  33. ZanzibarRastapopulous

    32" Flatscreen

    This used to be the definition of - supposedly - overly generous benefits by right-wing old farts, is this the new benchmark?

  34. JulieM Silver badge

    Bloody yanks

    What is it with bloody Americans and their bloody stupid measurements?

    I think "one hundred and ten centimetres" sounds more impressive as a screen size anyway (assuming those weren't men's inches).

  35. MachDiamond Silver badge

    2x 23's

    That monitor is so huge that it may have a very limited market. I have two 23" monitors that I use for photo/video/graphics work that were chosen for image quality over sheer m^2. That still spans a good portion of my 2m wide desk with the sides being occupied by a pair of nice speakers. I'm not a gamer so frame rates aren't a big deal as long as I can keep up with editing video. A pair of 2gb graphics cards work nicely.

    Going any bigger on my desktop doesn't make much sense for me. It's a good enough move to get the cursor from one side of my visual workspace to the other and I've had to constrain my Wacom tablet to the right hand monitor or the mapping would be horrible.

    I also have two 19" monitors above my 23's that I use to monitor my server under the desk and to plug my laptop in. I don't use them that often, but I like having them rather than bouncing between screens when I remote into them. I can also monitor what the server is doing with a quick glance if I have a lengthy task loaded up.

  36. plrndl
    Pint

    I have a couple of second hand Dell 24 inchers that give me 3840 x 1200 for £70. I shall not be upgrading any time soon.

    I say, it's beer o;clock. Must be going.

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019