Dell To Ship 32-Inch 8K Monitor This Year

Dell is taking an 8K monitor to market this year just in time for HDMI 2.1.

26

If 4K wasn't taxing enough for your computer, Dell has an 8K monitor coming soon that will shame the best graphics cards. The UP3218K will be releasing in March or April for $4,999 and is a beast of a display.

The Dell UP3218K is a 32-inch 280 ppi monitor that can output 7680x4320 at 60Hz. It has a 178 degree vertical and horizontal viewing angle, 400 cd/m2 brightness, 1,300:1 contrast, and can output 100% of the Adobe RGB, sRGB, and Rec709 color gamuts.

The monitor has a slim 9.7mm bezel and comes with 2 DisplayPort 1.3 connections, 4 USB 3.0 ports, and 2.5mm audio out. HDR isn't mentioned, and more than likely isn't included. HDMI 2.1 will be supporting 8K video, and a cheap adapter will allow HDMI 2.1 output to stream to this device.

Dell is targeting the monitor at commercial uses where in-depth image zooming is essential. Photo and video editing, medical diagnostics, and oil and gas exploration, are all businesses that will benefit from this monitor's high fidelity. However, don't let the high-ceiling stop you from trying to game on it. Someone is sure to build a ridiculous rig to push this 8K behemoth.

Contributing Editor
From The Chatty
  • reply
    January 9, 2017 10:47 AM

    Jason Faulkner posted a new article, Dell To Ship 32-Inch 8K Monitor This Year

    • reply
      January 9, 2017 11:22 AM

      Here's a hands on video with Linus Tech Tips

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IjpqQwhAVE4

      fast forward to the end to watch him fix the monitor, haha

    • reply
      January 9, 2017 11:54 AM

      This is so stupid, the whole 4k/8k trend; i can't believe why manufacturers are not fixing their shit with 1440p 144hz IPS/VA monitors

      • reply
        January 9, 2017 12:11 PM

        Hint: it's not for video games

      • reply
        January 9, 2017 3:45 PM

        Cause gaming is all that matters right?

        For my usage I'd rather have my 5k/60hz monitor any day.

    • reply
      January 9, 2017 11:58 AM

      I'm all about high dpi displays, they're great. I hope manufacturers don't push this beyond 8k though. ~240 ppi seems like a pretty good sweet spot and is probably even a bit much for a desktop display.

      • reply
        January 9, 2017 12:12 PM

        I'm thinking 16k is where we need to be. The PPI needs to be so small that you don't notice GPU scaling. That way we can be back to the days of the CRT monitor where we can run any resolution we please.

        • reply
          January 9, 2017 12:57 PM

          I want them to include a "Degauss" button that just does the effect for old times sake. Even if it's meaningless.

      • reply
        January 9, 2017 12:12 PM

        With Japan broadcasting select programs in 8K, people will need displays that allow native resolution editing. Plus, the HDMI 2.1 spec allows up to 10K.

        http://www.theverge.com/2016/8/2/12349954/8k-broadcasts-start-japan-nhk

      • reply
        January 9, 2017 12:33 PM

        I want 1080k

      • reply
        January 9, 2017 12:56 PM

        People said the same about screens and their DPI before Apple pushed Retina Display.

        • reply
          January 9, 2017 4:52 PM

          Except the difference now is that we have something we can look at. We have phones that are pushing 500ppi

      • reply
        January 9, 2017 8:25 PM

        yah they do look nice but I have no desire to try to run games at 4K much less 8K... the GPU power just isn't there. And running shit at non-native resolutions sucks!!

        • reply
          January 9, 2017 9:02 PM

          Your experience with non-native resolutions, I'm guessing, is rooted in experience on 1080p display with consoles, and maybe looking at a Windows desktop with poorly scaled text and icons.

          Scaling games to 4k or 8k is a whole different thing, especially now that many game engines have their own built in scaling that combine with their anti-aliasing solutions. Titanfall 2's dynamic resolution with TAA is a really good example of how good it can look.

    • reply
      January 9, 2017 12:09 PM

      [deleted]

      • reply
        January 9, 2017 4:27 PM

        Dell pushes all its chips to the center only table.....

    • reply
      January 9, 2017 4:06 PM

      I would pay 5 grand for a 16:10 monitor with decent DPI, but 16:9? screw that..

      • reply
        January 9, 2017 4:54 PM

        Is there a single 16:10 monitor on the market with Freesync or Gsync? I highly doubt it. But there are over 150 16:9 or 21:9 monitors with Freesync.

        So yeah, I'd love some 16:10 too, but if you gotta realize if you hold out for that, you might be holding out for the rest of your life.

        • reply
          January 9, 2017 6:45 PM

          So be it. >:|

        • reply
          January 9, 2017 6:49 PM

          21:9 is so much superior to 16:10 for gaming.

          • reply
            January 9, 2017 6:56 PM

            why not 31:9? Or 99:9?

            16:10 or 16:9 are the best. They don't make yor PC waste extra resources rendering stuff on the sides you're not going to look at most of the time.

            • reply
              January 9, 2017 6:58 PM

              Uhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh

            • reply
              January 9, 2017 8:23 PM

              Well shit, with that attitude, you might as well go back to 4:3 or take it one step further and go with 9:16 for the ultimate phone video monitor.

              • reply
                January 9, 2017 9:04 PM

                I'm actually on a 4:3 CRT. Just played a little nuDoom at 1536x1152@75hz Ultra settings and it was glorious.

                • reply
                  January 9, 2017 10:17 PM

                  Yeah, I don't think I could live with that resolution.

                  • reply
                    January 9, 2017 11:17 PM

                    It's not my monitor's max resolution or anything, it's just the highest I can play Doom on Ultra settings at 75fps. For a fast game like that I'd rather go with a slightly lower resolution to get a little faster frame rate. Well, I could play it way higher if it supported multi-GPU, but it doesn't so I'm cool with what I'm getting.

                    And that resolution isn't that bad. 17% less pixels than 1080p, still gorgeous. I mean, if you can't "live" with that resolution, you must either be upgrading your GPU every 10 years, or you're always dropping your settings to medium in most games.

                    • reply
                      January 9, 2017 11:17 PM

                      every 2 years*

                    • reply
                      January 9, 2017 11:36 PM

                      Yeah dude WTF look at this shit

                      http://chattypics.com/files/Doom1152pCRT_855xekuhyo.png

                      Now imagine that with self-illuminating pixels, being scanned one line at a time, at 75hz. Quite livable IMO

                        • reply
                          January 10, 2017 9:28 AM

                          And no, I'm not upgrading my GPU all that often, though I do upgrade it from time to time when the price is right. I have a 970 right now from the tail end of that model's life and it runs Doom at 2560x1440 and hits 90-ish FPS constantly. The lowest it might drop is 60-something (there's one weird area that's worse than anything else in the game) but I don't ever notice it because this is a gsync monitor so there's neither tearing nor do I have the tradeoffs of vsync. It's no problem at all. Even back when I had my 660Ti, which was my previous card, I never ran anything below 1080p because I never needed to.

      • reply
        January 9, 2017 7:12 PM

        I want the 3:2 monitor from the microsoft surface studio. 4500x3000 in 28".

        I don't care about the pc or touchscreen or stand, I just want that screen for coding.

        • reply
          January 9, 2017 7:32 PM

          Id like that screen for photo editing as well.

        • reply
          January 9, 2017 8:39 PM

          Yeah, I'd like to see more 3:2 displays. 4:3 is too square, 16:9/10 is too wide. 3:2 is an awesome middle ground.

          It's pretty awesome that if I want Netflix in a browser on a 3:2 display, if it's 16:9 content, with a taskbar and Edge browser chrome the video will show the full width of the display and fit pretty much perfect with almost no letterboxing vertically.

    • reply
      January 9, 2017 5:06 PM

      Milleh!

    • reply
      January 9, 2017 7:58 PM

      I saw this at Dell World when it was still just a dual stitched 4k monitor (you could see the single pixel with dead line down the middle). I was in love and I want it.

    • reply
      January 9, 2017 8:03 PM

      The Dell Canvas 27 is what I want to see

    • reply
      January 9, 2017 9:05 PM

      And here I am just wanting a 24" 1080p 144hz that's also IPS for nice looking competitive gaming. Too bad they're only doing that with 1440p monitors.

    • reply
      January 10, 2017 3:53 AM

      Okay.

Hello, Meet Lola