Dell U2515H - a 25" 1440p monitor?

[PerfectTemplar]

TN?  :wacko:  :wacko:

[snowComet]

TN?  :wacko:  :wacko:

IPS confirmed....

 

http://linustechtips.com/main/topic/255070-image-and-user-guide-of-dell-u2515h-appeared/

[PerfectTemplar]

IPS confirmed....

 

http://linustechtips.com/main/topic/255070-image-and-user-guide-of-dell-u2515h-appeared/

Oh, TY for pointing that one out.

 

Might consider this then, always wanted a smaller 1440p display.

[VulsaviiK]

I would of thought that 1440p is better with 27 inch monitors? 

 

Higher pixel density in a lower size. I may have opted for a 1440p monitor is I could find one that wasn't a 27 inch

[Jerakl]

If it's basically a 1440p u2414h. I WANT IT

[geforceftw]

I don't see why a smaller monitor can't be 1440p

Phones and tablets do it.

[LukaP]

If it's basically a 1440p u2414h. I WANT IT

plus 200$/€ on top

[cubercaleb]

Until windows can handle high dpi screens this is pointless. 

Also from a gaming standpoint 1440p is terrible, either you play at 1080p up-scaled to 1440p which looks terrible or you take a performance hit from running at 1440p. And considering that not even two GTX 980's can play modern titles maxed out at 1080p and achieve 60fps I don't see a point in this.

[Timmyfox]

Until windows can handle high dpi screens this is pointless.

Also from a gaming standpoint 1440p is terrible, either you play at 1080p up-scaled to 1440p which looks terrible or you take a performance hit from running at 1440p. And considering that not even two GTX 980's can play modern titles maxed out at 1080p and achieve 60fps I don't see a point in this.

I think you're mixing 1440p with 4K. 1440p is 2.5K and can be maxed at 60fps in most games no problem with even a single GPU.

Even then, 4K isn't *that* demanding as you seem to imply, just saying.. Not every game runs as terribly as AC Unity.

As for DPI handing, having a laptop with a 3K screen (13.3" 3200x1800) I know what you mean with that, although as of Windows 8 it's not too bad, sure it ain't perfect but it's still usable and I can still take full advantage of the glorious 3K resolution for photo viewing and editing. This monitor is only 2" smaller than the 27" monitors that usually are found with this resolution, so the DPI differences should be quite minimal, especially considering many people have no problem with 27"+ monitors/TV's with a resolution of 1080p despite being way larger than the more common 23-24" size.

[That Norwegian Guy]

considering that not even two GTX 980's can play modern titles maxed out at 1080p and achieve 60fps

 

I don't typically consider fictional arguments at all.

[cubercaleb]

I think you're mixing 1440p with 4K. 1440p is 2.5K and can be maxed at 60fps in most games no problem with even a single GPU.

Not from what I've seen, games like Far Cry 4, Crysis 3, and Metro Last Light still run like shit, and as time goes on games will both get more demanding and developers will also get more lazy, two cards are still needed to max games out at 1080p. Developers have new consoles which they can leverage, and sadly they are putting graphical fiedelity above framerate and resolution. To them it doesn't matter if it runs at 24 fps 720p, because the games looks super realistic now. This transfers over to PC and we get games that yes, look amazing, but don't leverage hardware correctly and still run like shit at 1080p

Even then, 4K isn't *that* demanding as you seem to imply, just saying.. Not every game runs as terribly as AC Unity.

Yes, but again, as developers get lazier and games start to use more tech even cards like the 980 will struggle. Plus, all the 4k benchmarks I have seen use min or medium settings, making 1080p more viable.

As for DPI handing, having a laptop with a 3K screen (13.3" 3200x1800) I know what you mean with that, although as of Windows 8 it's not too bad

 

Good for you.

sure it ain't perfect but it's still usable

 

Not Good enough for me, some things will look good, others will look like shit and it will bother the hell out of me, which is also why I can't use mixed monitors, they have to be the same, otherwise it will bother the hell out of me.

a nd I can still take full advantage of the glorious 3K resolution for photo viewing and editing.

 

Yes, but then your GPU is being used just to push the pixels, I would rahter have a high end GPU and a 1080p screen as opposed to a 4k screen and an integrated GPU (the only laptops with 3/4k screens are ultrabooks with crappy GPU's). Besides, looking at my current 21.5" 1600x900 monitor I can not see any pixels, so why should I car about 4k.

 

This monitor is only 2" smaller than the 27" monitors that usually are found with this resolution,

 

It makes a difference

 

so the DPI differences should be quite minimal, especially considering many people have no problem with 27"+ monitors/TV's with a resolution of 1080p despite being way larger than the more common 23-24" size.

 

I see no point in 1080p 27 inch monitors, they are far and few between and most of them are gaming monitors, not IPS panels.

[cubercaleb]

I don't typically consider fictional arguments at all.

FarCry 4, Crysis 3, DA Inquisition, Metro Last Light. If you want to max them out and still get 60fps at 1080p without any dips you need two 980s, game devs will only get lazier and games will only become more demanding.

[bcredeur97]

id be fine with 1440p taking off before 4K steals its glory...

 

 

4K is great but 1440p being mass produced can make it so cost effective...

[That Norwegian Guy]

FarCry 4, Crysis 3, DA Inquisition, Metro Last Light. If you want to max them out and still get 60fps at 1080p without any dips you need two 980s, game devs will only get lazier and games will only become more demanding.

 

considering that not even two GTX 980's can play modern titles maxed out at 1080p

 

Row, row, row your boat...

 

Anyway, there are other factors at play

 

-Maxwell driver maturity isn't there yet. Graphics cards usually take 3-4 months after release until they are completely up to potential.

-You mention games that are in the typical 'needs patching' state. Solution: don't buy mass-market, processed, focus-tested drivelware like what Ubisoft fetidly shovel at us like wreaths of spider eggs, or at least don't buy them during month 1.

[Timmyfox]

Not from what I've seen, games like Far Cry 4, Crysis 3, and Metro Last Light still run like shit, and as time goes on games will both get more demanding and developers will also get more lazy, two cards are still needed to max games out at 1080p. Developers have new consoles which they can leverage, and sadly they are putting graphical fiedelity above framerate and resolution. To them it doesn't matter if it runs at 24 fps 720p, because the games looks super realistic now. This transfers over to PC and we get games that yes, look amazing, but don't leverage hardware correctly and still run like shit at 1080p

Well, how about actually gaining some personal experience instead of making assumptions based on crap numbers on the internet? My single HD7970, a 3 year old GPU, runs Crysis 3 fine at just one step below max at 60fps on 1080p and handles most of the game at or near 60fps just fine. Last Light ran even smoother on machine maxed than Crysis 3 did one step below max.

Far Cry 4 is Ubisoft and their games have quite a trend lately of running like crap on both PC and consoles.

Yes, but again, as developers get lazier and games start to use more tech even cards like the 980 will struggle. Plus, all the 4k benchmarks I have seen use min or medium settings, making 1080p more viable.

The console imho argument is kinda stupid, those consoles run on hardware significantly slower than even a mid-range PC graphics card. 4K has twice the amount of pixels compared to 1440p and an entire 4x the amount compared to 1080p, those numbers you've seen won't say much about the performance with lower resolutions.

Good for you.

Not Good enough for me, some things will look good, others will look like shit and it will bother the hell out of me, which is also why I can't use mixed monitors, they have to be the same, otherwise it will bother the hell out of me.

Stop being ignorant. For your information your 21.5" 1600x900 probably has more difference compared to 23" 1080p monitor than this 25" one has compared to a 27" screen. Just because you can't afford something it doesn't mean it's bad.

If you're gonna be that picky, why are you stuck with that crappy resolution at that crappy screen size?

Yes, but then your GPU is being used just to push the pixels, I would rahter have a high end GPU and a 1080p screen as opposed to a 4k screen and an integrated GPU (the only laptops with 3/4k screens are ultrabooks with crappy GPU's). Besides, looking at my current 21.5" 1600x900 monitor I can not see any pixels, so why should I car about 4k.

This Ultrabook has an Nvidia 840M GPU which is perfectly fine for the things I need an ultrabook for. It's got a decent IPS screen which makes it perfect for on-the-go photo editing in Lightroom/Photoshop and general browsing. I have 0 issues inside Windows actually, the only scaling issues I've had is with a small amount of 3rd party applications that aren't DPI-aware.

It makes a difference

I see no point in 1080p 27 inch monitors, they are far and few between and most of them are gaming monitors, not IPS panels.

Irrelevant. I said that it exists and it works for many people, not that it's a good panel.

[LukaP]

4K has twice the amount of pixels compared to

I agree with all your other points but not here its 4x as many. and 8k will be 4x 4k pixels. and so on

[Timmyfox]

I agree with all your other points but not here its 4x as many. and 8k will be 4x 4k pixels. and so on

Incorrect! 4K is 4x 1080p and ~2x 1440p. I'm comparing 4k to 1440p and not 1080p

[LukaP]

Incorrect! 4K is 4x 1080p and ~2x 1440p.

oh you were talking about 1440? whoops sorry  then its 2.25 times exactly

[Timmyfox]

oh you were talking about 1440? whoops sorry then its 2.25 times exactly

Yup!

I edited the post to clarify

[cubercaleb]

Well, how about actually gaining some personal experience instead of making assumptions based on crap numbers on the internet?

Most of the online benchmarks are beginning to show terrible performance from cards around the board

My single HD7970, a 3 year old GPU, runs Crysis 3 fine at just one step below max at 60fps on 1080p and handles most of the game at or near 60fps just fine.

 

one step below max makes a huge difference in that game, and " and handles most of the game at or near 60fps just fine." is not good enough.

Last Light ran even smoother on machine maxed than Crysis 3 did one step below max.

 

From the benchmarks I have seen it runs just as bad, and has bad SLI/CF support. Plus you are on AMD, which means you don't get nearly as much of the tech-features as Nvidia cards. PhysX for one, and yes it makes a difference.

Far Cry 4 is Ubisoft and their games have quite a trend lately of running like crap on both PC and consoles.

 

Yes, but games like Metro and Crysis 3 still run like poop, and they are amazing looking games. Plus, Far Cry 4 is an amazing looking title, comparing to those two, its not that it's poorly optimized, but rather its just extrememly demanding.

The console imho argument is kinda stupid, those consoles run on hardware significantly slower than even a mid-range PC graphics card. 4K has twice the amount of pixels compared to

 

Yes, but it isn't hard to push games at 720p 30fps. 1080p is twice the pixels as 720p, and 4k is 4x the pixels as 1080p, 1440p is 4x the pixels as 720p, so 1440p 60fps is 8x as demanding as 720p 30fps. Even two 980's are not 8x as powerful as the xbone and ps4.

Stop being ignorant. For your information your 21.5" 1600x900 probably has more difference compared to 23" 1080p monitor than this 25" one has compared to a 27" screen. Just because you can't afford something it doesn't mean it's bad.

Not really, the monitor is still crisp and provides a good amount of real estate, plus its easy enough for my aging GPU to handle. When I can afford three Dell Ultrasharp monitors I will replace this, I'm not getting some crappy $100 1080p TN panel, and if I'm getting an IPS panel it must have anti-flicker

 

 

If you're gonna be that picky, why are you stuck with that crappy resolution at that crappy screen size? 

 

1. It's not a crappy resolution, 1366x768 is crappy resolution

2. Its not a crappy screen size, 21.5" vs 23" makes jack-shit difference

3. I have no problem with text scaling, unlike 24" 4k monitors

This Ultrabook has an Nvidia 840M GPU which is perfectly fine for the things I need an ultrabook for. It's got a decent IPS screen which makes it perfect for on-the-go photo editing in Lightroom/Photoshop and general browsing. I have 0 issues inside Windows actually, the only scaling issues I've had is with a small amount of 3rd party applications that aren't DPI-aware.

 

The only ultrabooks with the 840m that I am aware of are the Asus Zenbooks, which are known to have structural and rigidity problems.

Irrelevant. I said that it exists and it works for many people, not that it's a good panel.

 

I know.

[LukaP]

snip

Could you stop being so butthurt over nothing? Im not sure anyone in this thread actually takes you seriously still

[Timmyfox]

blablabla

You keep contradicting yourself.. Crysis 3 is far better optimized than Far Cry 4. You're comparing my own first hand experience and testing to unknown numbers you find on the internet? A single high-end GPU like the 970 or 980 will perform much better than my GPU.. You're just talking shit out your ass.

Yes, it's an Asus Zenbook and no I haven't found any problems with the build quality. Stop quoting things you read on the internet.. "I've heard" isn't a very good source and no one will believe you unless you can prove what you're talking about.

This was about a 25" 1440p screen, that vs the common 27" size is, as you put it, jack-shit difference too.

I've heard that if you really to this, your house will explode, just saying.

[TheMissxu]

I hope it's cheap ;]

[totjup5]

TN=No thanks

[snowComet]

TN=No thanks

Again, IPS confirmed through leaked manual (p.10). The Energy Star website always mislabeled monitors having TN panel...

http://downloads.dell.com/Manuals/all-products/esuprt_display_projector/esuprt_Display/dell-u2515h-monitor_User's%20Guide_en-us.pdf

http://linustechtips.com/main/topic/255070-image-and-user-guide-of-dell-u2515h-appeared/