ValantarIsn't the most important thing then that this has USB-C? It'll work on literally every USB4 device, after all. Including MST display daisy-chaining and the USB hub and Ethernet ports. If this was USB4 it would likely be $100 more expensive while adding only minor benefits at best (maybe a couple more USB ports, possible TB daisy-chaining?). I don't see the major benefit overall, especially seeing how this maintains backwards/current gen compatibility without caveats.

USB4 cables and devices natively support, and therefore guarantee, support for DisplayPort 2.0 at up to 80 Gbps. USB 3.2 Gen 1×2 cables and devices may support DisplayPort 1.4a via Alt Mode, at up to 32.4 Gpbs. Regardless of the bandwidth differential, USB4 is going to finally end all this horrific confusion over whether a particular device or cable supports DisplayPort or not, and thus whether using them together will actually work - and that will be a godsend.

W1zzardTyping this on a Dell 30" 2560x1600 :love:

Don't see any reason why I should buy this over what I have

I very much miss all 3 of mine I had...... I was gutted when two of them gave up on me and they sent out newer models which wouldn't connect to the last 3008 I had :( I had to sell them at that point and been stuck at 1080P since :( God I miss the desktop space....

phillI very much miss all 3 of mine I had...... I was gutted when two of them gave up on me and they sent out newer models which wouldn't connect to the last 3008 I had :( I had to sell them at that point and been stuck at 1080P since :( God I miss the desktop space....

Why not 27" 1440? when i got this dell after the 30" 1080p, the difference was awesome, really enjoy the extra space, and it is a really good albeit expensive 27" Dell

TiggerWhy not 27" 1440? when i got this dell after the 30" 1080p, the difference was awesome, really enjoy the extra space, and it is a really good albeit expensive 27" Dell

I went from a 27" 1080P :) I've not yet, ever had a high refresh panel....

It was glorious when running games on them....



I had just bought 3 GTX 580 3GB cards at that point too, from having a pair of 5970's and a pair of 8800GT's!!... The 5970's used to run the game fine, medium settings and triple screen no issue really, 55fps.. Got the 580s installed (only two...) and ultra settings and 100fps :) I soon understood back then what 'not having enough VRAM meant' :laugh: Those poor 5970's trying to run above medium settings, was a no go, 5 fps !!

AssimilatorUSB4 cables and devices natively support, and therefore guarantee, support for DisplayPort 2.0 at up to 80 Gbps. USB 3.2 Gen 1×2 cables and devices may support DisplayPort 1.4a via Alt Mode, at up to 32.4 Gpbs. Regardless of the bandwidth differential, USB4 is going to finally end all this horrific confusion over whether a particular device or cable supports DisplayPort or not, and thus whether using them together will actually work - and that will be a godsend.

...but none of that matters on the monitor's side of things. Those are host side issues. The monitor supports the featureset and inputs it supports, as long as the host device supports the same or higher. The monitor does not care whatsoever whether the USB-C port it's connected to is USB 3.1, 3.2, TB3, TB4 or USB4 as long as it supports DP Alt Mode and PD. And obviously you need a compatible cable, but that's still not a problem directly related to the monitor. Making the monitor "USB4", even if that included backwards compatibility for USB 3.x w/DPAM and PD, would just make it seem more restrictive in its compatibility than it is. That applies both to host devices and cabling: making the monitor USB4 risks the impression that it will only work with USB4 devices, limiting compatibility.

I completely agree that the current state of USB-C is a friggin' mess, but arguing to make sink devices USB4 for that reason really won't help whatsoever.

matarI still have The 30" 2560X1600 DELL Ultrasharp 3008 with the soundbar

Nice, I had a 30" 3007WFP-HC back in 2008 if I recall correctly, I've always been a fan of bigger higher resolution displays.

It would be perfect but again the 2023 model has no VRR, HDR, and is stuck at 60Hz. Even just 120Hz is nice to have on the desktop not just for games. Dell won't even add 75 or 100Hz on a $800-$1000 display.

I little brighter, very little and a little better colors. No need to upgrade from my 3011 or 3017.

I work and play games!

TanquenIt would be perfect but again the 2023 model has no VRR, HDR, and is stuck at 60Hz. Even just 120Hz is nice to have on the desktop not just for games. Dell won't even add 75 or 100Hz on a $800-$1000 display.

I little brighter, very little and a little better colors. No need to upgrade from my 3011 or 3017.

I work and play games!

Almost every monitor released now days caters for you, I think its a breath of fresh air that refresh rate has been ignored, as I think its had way too much focus in recent years from monitor vendors.

TanquenEven just 120Hz is nice to have on the desktop not just for games.

What kind of workload is going to benefit from a 120hz panel other than games?

AquinusWhat kind of workload is going to benefit from a 120hz panel other than games?

What kind of games really benefit ? Been playing for 30+ years at 60Hz and game that run well look great. It just a little smother and competitive FPS can see a tinny benefit if you play at the upper 1%.

I just noticed with my LG C9 77 OLED that can do 120Hz, the windows moved smother and the mouse seemed a little more responsive. Just a little but what not have 75Hz or 100Hz on all dosplays at this point? There is more cost in making different chipsets for displays at some point.

chrcolukAlmost every monitor released now days caters for you, I think its a breath of fresh air that refresh rate has been ignored, as I think its had way too much focus in recent years from monitor vendors.

No, they do not. I don't want curved or messed up text or colors, low res 300Hz, RGB lighting and or supper wide and so on. It's just that even the desktop is a little nicer at 100Hz or so. Don't need 300Hz+ that is nuts and mostly useless.

TanquenWhat kind of games really benefit ? Been playing for 30+ years at 60Hz and game that run well look great. It just a little smother and competitive FPS can see a tinny benefit if you play at the upper 1%.

I just noticed with my LG C9 77 OLED that can do 120Hz, the windows moved smother and the mouse seemed a little more responsive. Just a little but what not have 75Hz or 100Hz on all dosplays at this point? There is more cost in making different chipsets for displays at some point.


No, they do not. I don't want curved or messed up text or colors, low res 300Hz, RGB lighting and or supper wide and so on. It's just that even the desktop is a little nicer at 100Hz or so. Don't nee 300Hz+ that is nuts and mostly useless.

If you have the Division (1 or 2) play with your 120HZ panel you will be able to make sniper kills with a Machine Gun then set your panel to 60HZ and try to make a Sniper Kill with a Machine Gun. Using a controller for both is a real example of what high refresh rates Mean.

kapone32If you have the Division (1 or 2) play with your 120HZ panel you will be able to make sniper kills with a Machine Gun then set your panel to 60HZ and try to make a Sniper Kill with a Machine Gun. Using a controller for both is a real example of what high refresh rates Mean.

Yes, I've seen a few videos on that and I've played some First Person Shooters on the TV at 120Hz and it can see a little difference but it just not night and day for me. I'm just too old now. I'd still like the option.
It's essayer to see when moving the mouse and moving windows around the desktop. Maybe something is up with the wireless mouse but I played with the refresh rate and 30Hz is bad and 60Hz is night and day better and 120Hz is not that big a change but the mouse and windows moving just seems a little more responsive.

If you are playing for money sure but it just a part of the game difficulty for me. I remember the first multiplayer games online with dial up modems. I got really good at leading the shot just from playing so much with the lag and it would change on the fly. It was just part of the random difficulty and fun at the time. Every other time I'd get someone you would see the "LAG!" in the text chat.

Anyway, I was just saying, I work and play games. It seems silly to not just add little bump in refresh rate and maybe VRR to displays that are $500+ let alone $1000+. At some point it will be a no cost adder for them and then they'll advertise how the mouse is smoother and puts less strain on you eyes. :p

TanquenBeen playing for 30+ years at 60Hz and game that run well look great.

You have? Damn, you must have had tons of headaches back in the CRT days, considering that 60Hz CRT monitors were mostly considered unusable due to their flickering, with 80Hz (85?) IIRC being the norm for PC usage.

ValantarYou have? Damn, you must have had tons of headaches back in the CRT days, considering that 60Hz CRT monitors were mostly considered unusable due to their flickering, with 80Hz (85?) IIRC being the norm for PC usage.

Not at all. Higher Hz was rare and normally meant a lower res on a CRT. When LCDs came out for the desktop games looked worse but office and dev work was so much better. Could read the text better and It was so odd having a ture square (pincushion!) flat screen. :)

TanquenNot at all. Higher Hz was rare and normally meant a lower res on a CRT. When LCDs came out for the desktop games looked worse but office and dev work was so much better. Could read the text better and It was so odd having a ture square (pincushion!) flat screen. :)

Now, I was a bit too young to really be following hardware back in the CRT days, but back when I built my first (and second, just about during the CRT-LCD transition) I can't remember there being a single monitor where the most advertised resolution was at 60Hz, as it was quite widely acknowledged that 60Hz was low enough to cause headaches (and for some, nausea). LCDs avoid that due to working entirely differently, of course, and are unproblematic at 60Hz. You're entirely right about LCDs being generally crap compared to CRTs (and they arguably still are in some regards), but again: I don't think I've ever seen a CRT advertised with a 60Hz resolution most prominent, nor seen anyone use one at that setting long term. I guess maybe if you were desperate for resolution? I can understand that being the case for programmers wanting to see more lines of code at a time, but for anyone else, the headaches just weren't worth it.

They all advertise the highest res and refresh, using it was another matter, with the video cards and ram they had and then the monitor and how readable text was at a given CRT size and res and refresh.

My memory is bad but at the time most everything was 1280x1024. I was not buying displays everyday but we had lots of HMI projects and they were all like 1024x768 and 1280x1024 at 60Hz. no one in the office or on projects bothered with 75 or 80Hz. That is what everything had been and we were used to it. Maybe other were more affected but I worked on them all day and gamed and messed with them at home most nights and it was never the headache inducing unusable experience some speak of. I remember (sort of) messing with a 75 or 80hz and it had other issues. I want to say my last CRT was 17" but forget make, model, res and refresh rate. Being old is not fun. :(

I have no idea about others but just for fun I looked up what was one of the last Sony 17" CRTs.
Saw something that said they stopped in 2004 and this one came out in 2003.
CPD-200ES
On the cover sheet:
• Digital Multiscan Technology supports multiple PC and Mac resolutions up to 1280 x 1024 @ 60Hz

Then in the specs:
640 x 480 @ 60Hz VGA Graphics
640 x 480 @ 85 Hz VESA
800 x 600 @ 75Hz VESA
800 x 600 @ 85Hz Macintosh 16"
832 x 624 @75Hz VESA
1024 x 768 @ 75Hz VESA
1024 x 768 @ 85Hz VESA
1280 x1024 @ 60 Hz VESA

I'm sure I was at 1280x1024 @ 60Hz rather than a lower res. You forget how small those resolutions were but I wanted 1280x1024 more than 75Hz.

Even if the HMI was in 1024x768 I was in 1280x1024 so I had more room for toolbars and the like.

TanquenThey all advertise the highest res and refresh, using it was another matter, with the video cards and ram they had and then the monitor and how readable text was at a given CRT size and res and refresh.

My memory is bad but at the time most everything was 1280x1024. I was not buying displays everyday but we had lots of HMI projects and they were all like 1024x768 and 1280x1024 at 60Hz. no one in the office or on projects bothered with 75 or 80Hz. That is what everything had been and we were used to it. Maybe other were more affected but I worked on them all day and gamed and messed with them at home most nights and it was never the headache inducing unusable experience some speak of. I remember (sort of) messing with a 75 or 80hz and it had other issues. I want to say my last CRT was 17" but forget make, model, res and refresh rate. Being old is not fun. :(

I have no idea about others but just for fun I looked up what was one of the last Sony 17" CRTs.
Saw something that said they stopped in 2004 and this one came out in 2003.
CPD-200ES
On the cover sheet:
• Digital Multiscan Technology supports multiple PC and Mac resolutions up to 1280 x 1024 @ 60Hz

Then in the specs:
640 x 480 @ 60Hz VGA Graphics
640 x 480 @ 85 Hz VESA
800 x 600 @ 75Hz VESA
800 x 600 @ 85Hz Macintosh 16"
832 x 624 @75Hz VESA
1024 x 768 @ 75Hz VESA
1024 x 768 @ 85Hz VESA
1280 x1024 @ 60 Hz VESA

I'm sure I was at 1280x1024 @ 60Hz rather than a lower res. You forget how small those resolutions were but I wanted 1280x1024 more than 75Hz.

Even if the HMI was in 1024x768 I was in 1280x1024 so I had more room for toolbars and the like.

Hm, that's weird - in my experience the "60Hz CRTs are borderline unusable" thing was pretty universal among everyone I knew. From what I can remember (which is likely very, very inaccurate despite how much time I spent drooling over hardware I couldn't afford at the time), most monitors seemed to support a peak resolution at 60Hz and one step down at 80Hz or thereabouts. When I finally could afford to build my first PC I got an LG Flatron (not the LCDs, the flat-glassed CRTs - they were neat!) that IIRC could do 1024*768 at 60Hz or 800*600 at 80-something (it might have been 1280/1024, vant remember) and while I did switch to the higher resolution from tile to time, I never used it beyond playing around due to the discomfort.

TanquenThey all advertise the highest res and refresh, using it was another matter, with the video cards and ram they had and then the monitor and how readable text was at a given CRT size and res and refresh.

My memory is bad but at the time most everything was 1280x1024. I was not buying displays everyday but we had lots of HMI projects and they were all like 1024x768 and 1280x1024 at 60Hz. no one in the office or on projects bothered with 75 or 80Hz. That is what everything had been and we were used to it. Maybe other were more affected but I worked on them all day and gamed and messed with them at home most nights and it was never the headache inducing unusable experience some speak of. I remember (sort of) messing with a 75 or 80hz and it had other issues. I want to say my last CRT was 17" but forget make, model, res and refresh rate. Being old is not fun. :(

I have no idea about others but just for fun I looked up what was one of the last Sony 17" CRTs.
Saw something that said they stopped in 2004 and this one came out in 2003.
CPD-200ES
On the cover sheet:
• Digital Multiscan Technology supports multiple PC and Mac resolutions up to 1280 x 1024 @ 60Hz

Then in the specs:
640 x 480 @ 60Hz VGA Graphics
640 x 480 @ 85 Hz VESA
800 x 600 @ 75Hz VESA
800 x 600 @ 85Hz Macintosh 16"
832 x 624 @75Hz VESA
1024 x 768 @ 75Hz VESA
1024 x 768 @ 85Hz VESA
1280 x1024 @ 60 Hz VESA

I'm sure I was at 1280x1024 @ 60Hz rather than a lower res. You forget how small those resolutions were but I wanted 1280x1024 more than 75Hz.

Even if the HMI was in 1024x768 I was in 1280x1024 so I had more room for toolbars and the like.

ValantarHm, that's weird - in my experience the "60Hz CRTs are borderline unusable" thing was pretty universal among everyone I knew. From what I can remember (which is likely very, very inaccurate despite how much time I spent drooling over hardware I couldn't afford at the time), most monitors seemed to support a peak resolution at 60Hz and one step down at 80Hz or thereabouts. When I finally could afford to build my first PC I got an LG Flatron (not the LCDs, the flat-glassed CRTs - they were neat!) that IIRC could do 1024*768 at 60Hz or 800*600 at 80-something (it might have been 1280/1024, vant remember) and while I did switch to the higher resolution from tile to time, I never used it beyond playing around due to the discomfort.

To weigh in with my anecdotal experience, my last daily-driver CRT was a Hitachi 19" tube that maxed at 1280x1024@60Hz. I ran 1152x864@75Hz precisely because of the flickering issue, and secondarily because it made onscreen elements larger than unusably small.

kapone32If you have the Division (1 or 2) play with your 120HZ panel you will be able to make sniper kills with a Machine Gun then set your panel to 60HZ and try to make a Sniper Kill with a Machine Gun. Using a controller for both is a real example of what high refresh rates Mean.

Indeed, personally I cannot tell the difference on the latency my brain cannot compute the difference between 16 and 8ms., but I get there is a market.

The problem is almost the entire PC industry have started designing monitors for just one segment, competitive FPS gamers its as if all that matters is Hz and response times. Hence my breath of fresh air comment.

On CRT my daily driver was 60hz.

TanquenWhat kind of games really benefit ? Been playing for 30+ years at 60Hz and game that run well look great. It just a little smother and competitive FPS can see a tinny benefit if you play at the upper 1%.

Never answer a question with a question, particularly if you know that there are answers. :) Twitch gaming for things like FPS games really do benefit from faster panels because it gives a slight edge to the player compared to a slower panel. However refresh rate really has nothing to do with image quality unless you're sacrificing the type of panel for refresh rate. Things like a window being smoother when you drag it isn't really a benefit because it doesn't impact anything other than your perception of the window moving, which I'd argue has minimal value. I'd much rather have a decent 60Hz panel at a higher resolution with good panel tech than something with a higher refresh rate with a lower resolution or older panel tech (such as TN panels for example.)

All in all, I personally believe that outside of FPS games or anything where there is a ton of movement then you're not getting the most out of your panel and you're better off with a 60Hz IPS panel or something along those lines.

AquinusThings like a window being smoother when you drag it isn't really a benefit because it doesn't impact anything other than your perception of the window moving, which I'd argue has minimal value.

I mostly entirely agree with you, except for this one point. Even increased UI smoothness can have a significant impact on perceived performance of a system - there's a reason why Apple spends so damn much time and money on their UI animations, and puts 120Hz displays on everything. Subjective? Sure, but so is literally everything any human has ever perceived or experienced. It might not be important to you, or even to the majority of people, but that, again, is subjective. Faster frame rates have a broad range of benefits across a broad range of applications, which different people prioritize differently, and weigh against other drawbacks differently. Heck, I'm writing this on my 11-year-old 60Hz IPS monitor, which I'm still happy with even for gaming, but I'm well aware that I would like a 120+Hz panel better - as long as it wasn't TN or a bad VA or had shitty artefacting or poor color reproduction or low contrast or other significant drawbacks.

ValantarI mostly entirely agree with you, except for this one point. Even increased UI smoothness can have a significant impact on perceived performance of a system - there's a reason why Apple spends so damn much time and money on their UI animations, and puts 120Hz displays on everything. Subjective? Sure, but so is literally everything any human has ever perceived or experienced. It might not be important to you, or even to the majority of people, but that, again, is subjective. Faster frame rates have a broad range of benefits across a broad range of applications, which different people prioritize differently, and weigh against other drawbacks differently. Heck, I'm writing this on my 11-year-old 60Hz IPS monitor, which I'm still happy with even for gaming, but I'm well aware that I would like a 120+Hz panel better - as long as it wasn't TN or a bad VA or had shitty artefacting or poor color reproduction or low contrast or other significant drawbacks.

You're right. I consider it a nice to have, but I can see some people being like, "Ohhhh, buttery smooth," and be mesmerized by it. :P

On a serious note, I like having good image quality and contrast over most other things. That's just how I roll, however I will say that the ghosting on my 2019 MBP is pretty bad. It's not a very fun experience to play games on, but the 5Ks are pretty good in that regard, even if I can't play most game at the native resolution. (Factorio does and it looks awesome.)

YukikazeSame here. U3011 still going strong as my main work monitor.

I just sold one of my 49" ultrawide monitors and went to the supply in the garage and brought out the ol' Dell U3011 for that machine...forgot about all of the connectivity that it has. I am not saying "go out and buy a used U3011" but I am enjoying seeing this thing back in the fray. I have always said that if I had to sell all of the 25 or so monitors in the house I would keep the U3011 as the last choice .

No VGA port :(

unwind-protectNo VGA port :(

VGA?

at the native res of this monitor will look blurry AF.