Dell UP3017Q OLED monitor now available for $3499

So, uhh—remember that fancy Dell OLED monitor? As it turns out, rumors of its demise were greatly exaggerated. In fact, you can buy one right now and have it shipped out in one to two weeks, at least if you're in the US. The UP3017Q 30" display is now available on Dell's website.

In case you haven't heard (or justifiably forgot) this monitor uses an OLED panel with 3840×2160 resolution. It supports true 10-bit color and can display 97.5% of the DCI-P3 color space. It can even do 85.8% of the lofty Rec.2020 space. Along with that impressive color performance, Dell rates the UP3017Q as having a 1,000,000:1 contrast ratio. On an LCD monitor we'd assume that figure referred to dynamic contrast hogwash, but on an OLED it might be the real deal.

Dell rates the OLED display for the usual 178° viewing angle both horizontally and vertically. The company puts down a 0.1ms response time for the UP3017. With color-shifting performance like that, it's a bit of a shame that the refresh rate tops out at only 60Hz, and that there's no mention of FreeSync or G-Sync support. You can hook up to the UP3017Q with mini-DisplayPort, HDMI 2.0, or USB Type-C connectors (using DisplayPort Alternate Mode). The monitor can charge USB Type-C devices, too. The included stand supports tilt, swivel, and pivot adjustments, and appears to attach to a standard VESA mount.

As of this writing, the displays are still in stock for $3500. That's a pretty penny for a monitor, but it's a whole lot nicer than the $5000 price that Dell originally announced. Head on over to Dell's web shop if you want to pick one up. Buyers get a zero-bright-dot guarantee and three years of warranty with advanced exchange.

Comments closed
    • Kougar
    • 3 years ago

    So how long will one of these realistically last till half-brightness? OLEDs are like Plasmas in that they lose color brightness the longer they are on, as well as the burn-in issue.

    Wiki says some earlier model blue OLEDs would last five years at eight hours a day to reach half brightness, but didn’t see ratings for this display.

      • kamikaziechameleon
      • 3 years ago

      OLED has a host of issues, burn out and burn in being chief among them. We’ve not seen any solutions on the horizon…

      • Fearless Leader
      • 3 years ago

      I have owned an LG OLED tv for over half a year. I would guess that this Dell is based on LG’s panels (as Panasonic sources from LG and supposedly Sony does too). As the sole supplier, I would expect them to be able to charge a premium, but since they are competing with Samsung’s quantum dot tech, you will see prices continue to drop.

      LG panels do not use blue OLEDs, they are all white OLEDs with a color filter applied in order to get the individual R/G/B colors (they also have an extra OLED specifically for white).

      OLEDs suffer from voltage drift that manifest itself as “image retention” (burn-in is not the proper term, as burn-in applies to plasma’s phosphors, although the resulting image problem is the same). This is easily fixed with LG’s patented software algorithms to essentially “clear panel noise”. I typically run it about once a week.

      Vignetting is the other problem for OLED, in that pixels on the edge of the screen seem to shut off entirely at low levels of black. Only noticable in dark scenes. There is no known solution at the moment, and it random depending on the panel.

      But yes, like OLED light bulbs as, brightest will drop with age. My panel is rated for 100000 hours to half brightness. Depending on viewing habits, I will likely buy a new tv before then.

    • Chrispy_
    • 3 years ago

    OLED’s two biggest advantages:

    1) Low black level (pixels are completely “off”) so the contrast ratio [i<]should[/i<] be infinity. Divide [i<]anything[/i<] by zero, and you get infinity. 2) 0.1ms response time. Great! Why ruin it with a paltry 60Hz refresh, no adaptive sync, or no motion blur technology to speak of. This is just OLED for the sake of OLED. Anyone in the market for a good 30" graphics monitor is going to be better served by a top-notch VA panel at one fifth the price, and best of all, the blue pixels won't burn out within 18 months of daily use!

      • aliquis
      • 3 years ago

      The very high contrast doesn’t matter much to me if the first grey above that is waaaay above and the contrast between that and the brightest isn’t anything near one million to 1.

      Sure there’s a huge step between bright and nothing but it also doesn’t really tell anything. It’s “infinity” yes but .. It’s also pretty incomprehensible.

      With real content such as a movie or a video game there will be grays / stuff in-between on the screen and what matter is how much contrast it can have there not simply that show no brightness when it’s turned off.. that’s fucking obvious.

      With ten bit color will 0000000001b,0000000001b,0000000001b so to say be less bright than on the new ASUS HDR IPS gaming screen with 340 individually lit zones at their lowest non-off setting? The ASUS screen will still be inferior technically because of the 340 zones vs each pixel being adjustable by itself but it would give some useful data.

        • GrimDanfango
        • 3 years ago

        Not really sure what additional information you think using the 1st greyscale above zero is going to tell you. There’s nothing magical about it being “non-off”, it would just make things more complicated and vague, and less comperable between screens, especially between 8-bit and 10-bit screens.

        The first greyscale value above zero is going to be at a very specific fixed intensity level relative to the measured native black-point and white-point of any given panel, assuming the screen conforms accurately to a gamma 2.2 greyscale curve.
        Two screens with different static contrast ratios measured using zero-black, but both conforming closely to gamma 2.2, will have different but entirely similarly proportioned contrast ratios measured using 1/256 grey. The only difference in measuring it that way is you *lose* a small amount of information regarding the full contrast range.

        The only occasion your suggested approach would yield any significantly different information is on a screen that has a significantly deviating gamma curve. Well, that’s a problem that any half-decent review will tell you about in very plain terms anyway, without having to designate a whole new, vaguely defined, and entirely unneeded official measurement to.

    • tfp
    • 3 years ago

    Judging from the picture that screen isn’t any better then my current monitor.

      • Anovoca
      • 3 years ago

      and smaller too!

        • JustAnEngineer
        • 3 years ago

        I printed out a copy of the product brochure. It doesn’t look like the color space of that $3500 monitor is any better than my $350 printer.

      • derFunkenstein
      • 3 years ago

      And for some reason, lossless music releases don’t sound any better than 128kbps MP3s on my laptop speakers. What a rip!

    • CuttinHobo
    • 3 years ago

    I’ll take three, thank you. Put ’em on chuckuka’s tab.

      • chuckula
      • 3 years ago

      Yeah, Chuckuka… my Nigerian Prince cousin… can buy me one too!

        • CuttinHobo
        • 3 years ago

        Doh! 😛

    • TwoEars
    • 3 years ago

    Meanwhile Samsung is working on “Emissive QLED”.

    It’s going to be a tough fight, both LG and Samsung are essentially all in here.

      • brucethemoose
      • 3 years ago

      Samsung already shot themselves in the foot by plastering the “QLED” branding on LCDs.

        • TwoEars
        • 3 years ago

        I found this video of what’s to come: [url<]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1cF3QG8-8Bk[/url<] Pretty interesting stuff.

    • Kretschmer
    • 3 years ago

    Any guesses on when these will hit 120Hz for a grand? I’m going to say 2020.

      • Stochastic
      • 3 years ago

      And with HDR + HDMI 2.1? I’m going to say 2022.

    • kamikaziechameleon
    • 3 years ago

    Nice… how did they resolve the burn in issues?

      • cmrcmk
      • 3 years ago

      I know that was a big deal when OLEDs first hit the market and each generation since has claimed to “improve” the situation. Are there any recent tests to determine the current state of burn-in on OLED panels?

        • derFunkenstein
        • 3 years ago

        I’m less likely to trust “improvements”. Even if it’s improved, we leave our monitors on longer per day than we do our phones, so there’s going to be a lot more mileage on an OLED screen.

          • kamikaziechameleon
          • 3 years ago

          From what I hear there is no anti burn in/burn out functionality to these newer OLED panels… waiting for early adopters to pass or fail this monitor. If it is good, might have to save up 3 grand and get one.

      • GrimDanfango
      • 3 years ago

      As I understood it, from earlier reports on this particular monitor, they’d gone to great lengths to compensate for burn-in (which very much still is a problem for OLED) – it seemed like that was where a good bulk of the price came from, that it actually had some kind of inbuilt monitoring and correction system that would recalibrate for burn-in throughout the life of the monitor.

      I can’t see *any* mention of that stuff in the currently Dell feature lists and specs however. Maybe that’s why it suddenly appeared, $1500 cheaper, after a rumoured cancellation.

      I certainly wouldn’t jump in on this one even as a graphics professional, without seeing some very in-depth reviews of it first.

        • kamikaziechameleon
        • 3 years ago

        OLED seemed great for movies… and that is it. The burn in on phones and burn out of pixels that display one color with a HUD or GUI on a regular basis was a major issue.

          • Chrispy_
          • 3 years ago

          Yeah, every OLED screen I have ever owned/used suffers from SEVERE burn-out of the blue pixels and burn-in of high-contrast.

          Samsung Galaxy SII (SAMOLED)
          LG EF950V 65″ LG OLED 4K HDTV
          Motorola Droid Turbo 2 (AMOLED)
          Nokia Lumia 930 (AMOLED)

          I would STRONGLY recommend avoiding OLED at all costs, unless you think $3500 is disposable income that you can afford to toss in the garbage every year.

            • travbrad
            • 3 years ago

            I plan on getting OLED when we reach the year of the linux desktop

            • GrimDanfango
            • 3 years ago

            May it happen in our lifetimes.

      • jihadjoe
      • 3 years ago

      Flying toasters

    • short_fuze
    • 3 years ago

    [quote<] rumors of its demise were slightly exaggerated[/quote<] ... fixed. At that price, it's still dead to me.

    • odizzido
    • 3 years ago

    I bet the colour/black levels are nice….but 60hz and no vertical sync 🙁 Not that I’d pay that much for a monitor, but for 3500 I’d want it all.

    • kvndoom
    • 3 years ago

    for those who have seen the film Kingsman… The picture on that monitor is my head after I saw the price.

    • nico1982
    • 3 years ago

    I wish Dell had a physical store only to shed a tear in front of such unbearable OLEDness :/

      • drfish
      • 3 years ago

      I don’t want to see one in person, it’s safer to underestimate it from afar.

        • Kretschmer
        • 3 years ago

        Yeah, if it’s really that good I’d expect to black out and wake up with a hole in my credit card statement.

          • derFunkenstein
          • 3 years ago

          and missing a kidney.

      • paulWTAMU
      • 3 years ago

      I don’t want to be tempted to break out a credit card for this though. That might break me

      • UberGerbil
      • 3 years ago

      The first time I saw an OLED TV at Fry’s I stopped short and stared.

    • EndlessWaves
    • 3 years ago

    A typical LCD contrast measurement is meaningless on an OLED. As it’s black depth comes from how much light it reflects you can just turn out the lights in a room and get a zero figure.

    To get a meaningful idea of contrast you have to measure the screen with a given external illumination or measure the closest shade to black.

    On the bright side, it might be the first screen to actually be able to justify the claimed 178° viewing angles. It’d be great to see someone deconstruct a picture taken of an OLED at a 1° angle and see how much picture information actually remained.

    I wonder if there are any sRGB panels in the pipeline?

      • nico1982
      • 3 years ago

      [quote<]I wonder if there are any sRGB panels in the pipeline?[/quote<] As in sRGB coverage only? I doubt they would be any cheaper.

        • EndlessWaves
        • 3 years ago

        They may not be cheaper, but in a world of non-colour aware applications they’d definitely be better for a lot of uses.

          • synthtel2
          • 3 years ago

          Giving a panel like this an sRGB mode would seem to be better in every way.

            • EndlessWaves
            • 3 years ago

            Maybe, I don’t know enough about OLED tech to understand what the compromises would be.

            • synthtel2
            • 3 years ago

            Basically just reduce saturation in sRGB mode until it matches what most content is designed for (since most screens can’t manage halfway decent saturation). There isn’t really much downside, and it’s been a thing for OLED phone screens for a while.

      • rechicero
      • 3 years ago

      I’m not so sure about that. The same was said about plasma and was not true… of course they’d emit light. And some panels emitted more with the years making them worse for blacks than modern leds.

        • kamikaziechameleon
        • 3 years ago

        OLED has better black than plasma.

      • synthtel2
      • 3 years ago

      I’ve seen OLED screens emit light from pixels that are supposed to be at zero. My old Galaxy SIII in particular had that problem pretty badly. Good control schemes should make that problem moot, but apparently not all of them have good control schemes.

      • meerkt
      • 3 years ago

      Surprisingly, the viewing angle does affect OLED. Here’s a particular recent model that’s affected more:
      [url<]http://www.rtings.com/tv/reviews/lg/e6#comparison_93[/url<] But the blacks at least seem perfect, which may be the main issue with LCDs.

        • EndlessWaves
        • 3 years ago

        Those are still much better curves than even a high quality IPS panel like the X850D though.

          • meerkt
          • 3 years ago

          The color shifts aren’t much better than the KS8000, except the green:
          [url<]http://www.rtings.com/tv/reviews/samsung/ks8000#comparison_93[/url<]

    • DPete27
    • 3 years ago

    (drool)

    • techguy
    • 3 years ago

    This is a rip-off. This is what lack of competition brings. That and $1200 GPUs that get replaced in 6 months.

      • EndlessWaves
      • 3 years ago

      There are multiple new OLED factories being built so they’re clearly at maximum capacity. Why shouldn’t they charge whatever people are willing to pay?

      It’s not as if a better screen is going to hugely improve someone’s quality of life.

      • Kretschmer
      • 3 years ago

      $1,200 GPUs are because someone, somewhere out there wants to pay ALL THE MONEY for THE BEST, even if THE BEST is a few % ahead of the second best.

      In a world of $20K watches and $100K cars, a $1,200 GPU is a fairly restrained purchase.

      This OLED monitor is literally the only option on earth, so it makes sense for it to be priced at a premium. Especially with a perfect pixel guarantee.

      • Sargent Duck
      • 3 years ago

      You don’t quite understand how the market works, do you?

      • CuttinHobo
      • 3 years ago

      For naming yourself “techguy”, you aren’t much of a tech…guy, are ya? 😛

        • techguy
        • 3 years ago

        It’s really too bad so many people today are more interested in getting one up on another rather than thinking about a different point of view and considering its merits.

        Here’s why this monitor is a rip-off for $3500:

        It’s 30″
        it costs $3500

        Do you have any idea what $3500 buys in display tech?
        You can have a 55″ (or larger) OLED 4k TV (see, OLED can be done far cheaper than this over-priced product)
        You can buy a high refresh rate 1440p 27″ monitor with Freesync or GSync
        And a VR solution of your choice

        So you tell me, what’s the better way to spend $3500? All of those awesome things I mentioned, or one puny 30″ display?

        And the bit about $1200 GPUs that get replaced in 6 months is entirely true. I owned a 2016 Titan X – thankfully I sold it a couple months ago and didn’t lose any money.

          • CuttinHobo
          • 3 years ago

          Oh, it costs too much. The first of anything in a market always does because there is pent up demand and people with amazingly deep pockets. I’ll be surprised if they don’t sell every unit they make.

          But comparing it to TV pricing is unfair. For example, I doubt you’ll find any TV with such accurate color reproduction as this, let alone a 4k OLED, if you take a look at the color specs on the paragraph under the picture. From what I’ve noticed, they’re only now starting to care about color standards such as Rec.2020.

          I use a 50″ plasma TV as a monitor, and sooner or later I’ll trade it for a 4k HDR of similar size. Even so, I know it will be inferior in display quality to a good monitor, but since I game from bed, Size Matters. 🙂

          • Metonymy
          • 3 years ago

          You’re probly right: Most of the idjits on this site are, as my high school friend’s father used to say, just “ignant sheeps” who will go along with anything technical, so we probably just don’t get it.

          • K-L-Waster
          • 3 years ago

          Those TVs won’t have 10 bit colour or the gamut coverage this has. Most people won’t care, of course, but graphics pros will (which is clearly what this is aimed at).

          And why did you have to replace your Titan? Did it stop working? Did the fact something arrived that was faster make it completely useless?

            • techguy
            • 3 years ago

            You’re misinformed about those TVs not having 10-bit color. It’s been the standard since HDR became standardized.

            As for why I sold my Titan X (2016), it was because I needed the money as I had just lost my job.

          • Spunjji
          • 3 years ago

          Why did you buy a 2016 Titan X if you care about value? It was quite obviously going to be rapidly replaced, and it was /never/ a good-value purchase decision.

      • GrimDanfango
      • 3 years ago

      What a rip-off $300,000 is for a new Ferrari. This is what a lack of competition brings.

      I mean, it’s not like there are any cheaper, moderate-performance alternatives available.

        • techguy
        • 3 years ago

        This isn’t a hand-made low-volume eventual collector’s piece of a supercar. It’s a freaking monitor that is built in an automated factory. Your analogy is broken.

          • GrimDanfango
          • 3 years ago

          It also doesn’t cost $300,000. My point wasn’t that it’s a handmade collectors’ piece. My point was that it’s a premium, *extremely* bleeding edge piece of tech, made in small batches, targeted at a tiny niche of professional applications, and if you want something reasonably priced, there are countless other cheaper, mass produced monitors to choose from.

          • Anovoca
          • 3 years ago

          [quote<] Your analogy is broken. [/quote<] Technically it is also stolen: [quote<]Kretschmer: In a world of $20K watches and $100K cars, a $1,200 GPU is a fairly restrained purchase [/quote<]

            • GrimDanfango
            • 3 years ago

            That’s working on a false assumption that I even read that post. Aside from the fact that the context and point of the analogy is completely different, I suspect it’s also just a simple and obvious analogy that a lot of people tend to come up with when discussing anything expensive.

            “Technically”, it’s a tad bizarre that you feel the need to not only attribute ownership to such a thing, but to accuse others of theft of it.

            • rahulahl
            • 3 years ago
          • Wonders
          • 3 years ago

          I really do understand how you feel about this, and you are on the right track by considering the impact of competition. But also consider the following:
          – Why didn’t they start selling this monitor 6 months ago?
          – Why not last year, or 10 years ago?
          While there are simple ways to answer those questions, those answers are idiotic. Instead, there are precise, technical engineering answers to those questions that overrule the simplistic perspective.

          Until we live in a post-scarcity world, or some kind of radically different intersubjective/social/economic situation, firms who put in massive resources up front to develop new things are going to have to charge as much money as they can, for as long as they can. Which often isn’t that long, or really that much money in the larger picture: If they had enough buyers at $50,000 per monitor, they would do that first and we wouldn’t even be reading a press release.

          I feel the same frustration as you do sometimes. It would be really nice if as soon as a better process were developed (in technology, business, or any other domain) it were immediately available for all to use and benefit from. But that dynamic will not work “globally” (i.e. reliably everywhere in all disciplines) within our lifetimes, or possibly ever.

            • psuedonymous
            • 3 years ago

            ” If they had enough buyers at $50,000 per monitor, they would do that first and we wouldn’t even be reading a press release.”

            And if you DID have several tens of thousands to spend on an OLED monitor, then you would be buying the broadcast/mastering grade monitors already available for that price. For example, the Sony BVM-X300 V 2.0 is also a 30″ UHD monitor with wide gamut support, and a steal at a mere £32k!

            It does seem to be a common theme when high-end gear starts to trickle down and get its first consumer dedicated SKU. Those who have never heard of the tech flip their lid on how expensive it is, those who have already seen or worked with the tech flip the lid on how cheap it is.
            VR is another good example: £600 is ‘expensive’ for a HMD to someone who has never used one, or hilariously cheap compared to a high-end Sensics model or even an old Fakespace Wide5 that only a year or two ago would have been your only game in town if you wanted a decent VR HMD (and that doesn’t even count the separate tracking system you’d need to buy, also at great expense).

            • techguy
            • 3 years ago

            Thanks for taking the time to read what I’ve written, consider it, and make a reasoned response. Few people round these parts seem to want to do the same.

            Without getting into the potential future economic system argument (because that could devolve quite quickly), I would like to address your remarks pertaining to the introduction of a new(ish) technology and a product which uses it. Namely, OLED, and this particular monitor. My primary rebuttal to this remark comes in the form of other products which use OLED panel technology. LG has been manufacturing these panels for several years now for use in their own brand of TVs. Prices were initially very high, as they were truly the first commercial products to make use of this technology. LG introduced OLED-based televisions to market in 2012, approximately 5 years ago. Since that time, prices have decreased and available TV sizes have increased. This is a typical track record for a technological product.

            This history underlies my argument. The technology (OLED) has been available for several years now, prices have dropped since release, and panel sizes continue to increase. One can purchase a 55″ OLED 4k TV (3.36x larger than the 30″ monitor in question) for $2000 today: [url<]http://www.bestbuy.com/site/searchpage.jsp?cp=1&searchType=search&_dyncharset=UTF-8&ks=960&sc=Global&list=y&usc=All%20Categories&type=page&id=pcat17071&iht=n&seeAll=&browsedCategory=pcmcat301000050010&st=pcmcat301000050010_categoryid%24abcat0101001&qp=tvtype_facet%3DTV%20Type~OLED&sp=%2Bcurrentprice%20skuidsaas[/url<] One can even purchase a 65" model (4.69x larger than the 30" monitor) for just under $3500. With these facts in mind, I believe this monitor is over-priced. Keep in mind what I have not said, and that is not that Dell "cannot" charge $3500 for this monitor. Neither am I unfamiliar with the "early adopter tax" having often been at the forefront of new technology many times over the years. Nonetheless, I believe I have demonstrated that $3500 is entirely too much money to pay for this monitor given the evolution of OLED technology since introduction, and the price of other products which feature OLED panels.

            • GrimDanfango
            • 3 years ago

            You’re still directly equating LG’s OLED televisions with this monitor, and excluding anything else.

            There are significant differences. For one, LG televisions are all white-only OLED, with colour filters applied to subpixel elements to give the different colours. Basically, a cheap hack so that they can bring affordable OLED to the TV mass-market. Samsung tried to do it the other way, and eventually pulled their OLED efforts out of the TV market entirely, as they couldn’t work out a way to actually turn a profit (without impinging on LG’s patents and straight-up stealing their technique)

            If you want to compare like-for-like, this screen is probably as close to the Sony BVM-X300 V2.0. A monitor that currently costs well over $30,000.

            I don’t know any more than you do about the definite specifications of this Dell monitor yet, having not actually seen a review, but given previous information they’ve released, it’s entirely possible that it contains some fairly complex and cutting edge self-calibration systems to compensate for burn-in/OLED aging.

            Combine that with the higher quality levels required all round to build a monitor accurate enough to do professional work on, the fact that they’re presumably using true OLED, rather than filtering two thirds of the available light as LG do, the higher pixel density compared to a TV, the zero-bright-pixel guarantee, and the presumably much smaller market…
            – why do you think this monitor is *directly* comperable to an LG mass-market television?

            Your guess is as good as mine how much this *really* costs to build, or needs to be sold for to recoup costs of the R&D required to even bring it to market.

            I’m not even suggesting that it is “worth” $3500… worth is a nebulous notion at best anyway, and neither you or I know nearly enough about the screen to make even the barest attempt at even an objective material-cost assessment, let alone a labour-cost assessment.

            At the end of the day, what does it matter. It’s clearly not “worth” $3500 to you, and it’s not worth that to me. The value of the benefits such technology brings isn’t worth that much to us, even if it cost that much for them to build. Should they simply not sell the screen at all? Wait for further years and years until they’re able to bring the cost of a professional quality piece of equipment down to a more mass-market friendly level, and only *then* release a screen? Seems pointless when, given the price they’re releasing it at, they obviously think there is a niche market currently for whom the benefits *are* worth $3500.

            • techguy
            • 3 years ago

            Clearly “not selling the screen at all” is not the only option. Reducing the price would completely eliminate my complaint. I could see maybe $1500 being a price the market would bear. At least if they want to appeal to consumers and not just professionals.

            • GrimDanfango
            • 3 years ago

            My point is, you, nor I have any way to know what price they could reduce the screen to before they would be selling it at a loss. You’re blindly speculating that they could, based solely on comparing it to a line of mass-market televisions that it’s very clearly not directly comparable to.

            My point is, *if* they could price this thing at a level that would appeal to a mass market, don’t you think they would? It’s obviously economically better for a company to sell 500,000 of a thing than 5000., even if their margin was 50x smaller. The only reason they wouldn’t is if their margin would be so small as to require them to sell 10s-of-millions of them in order to break even, which they couldn’t hope to achieve, or if the margin was so small that it was actually negative, and they would be losing money.

      • Laykun
      • 3 years ago

      No one is forcing you to buy it.

      • WhatMeWorry
      • 3 years ago

      On the contrary, this is a perfect example of unfettered competition and free markets. Think of all those wonderful inexpensive monitors you have purchased from the USSR, North Korea, and Venezuela over the years. What is or is not a rip-off is completely subjective and quite frankly is between me and the service or good being sold. Mind your own business.

    • Kretschmer
    • 3 years ago

    It’ll be fun to look back at this post in 10 years when these are down to $350. Until then, I will pine from afar.

      • Neutronbeam
      • 3 years ago

      I’m going to oak from afar…and curious as to just how poplar this monitor will be at that price.

        • chuckula
        • 3 years ago

        Dell is going against the grain, but I woodn’t expect the sales to be larch.

          • poisonrain
          • 3 years ago

          That’s a lot of ash to be laying down

            • Anovoca
            • 3 years ago

            The price may be a birch, but fir what you get, I bet these will be at the elm of a lot of visual studio workstations.

            • CuttinHobo
            • 3 years ago

            This monitor appears to be giving all of you… wood.

            *Pinky to lip*

            • derFunkenstein
            • 3 years ago

            ( c •_•)
            ( c •_•)>⌐■-■
            (⌐■_■)

            • captaintrav
            • 3 years ago

            Is reddit leaking again?

            • derFunkenstein
            • 3 years ago

            I have a (roughly) two-year history of using this emoji. Here’s the oldest post on TR (that I can find) that has it.

            [url<]https://techreport.com/news/28646/oculus-acquires-hand-tracking-company-pebbles-interfaces?post=922640#922640[/url<]

            • captaintrav
            • 3 years ago

            I replied to the wrong comment, I was referring to the endless puns.

            • derFunkenstein
            • 3 years ago

            It’s all good. I love the puns, too.

            • Growler
            • 3 years ago

            I didn’t want to be graphic designer. I wanted to be… a lumberjack!

      • DPete27
      • 3 years ago

      On first glance I only saw $349 since, you know, pretty rare to see monitors that cost 4 figures. Needless to say, I was pretty excited….until I noticed the extra digit.

        • spiritwalker2222
        • 3 years ago

        For that size of display, 4 digits is common. I’m looking at a very cheap 32″ LCD for $850.

          • LostCat
          • 3 years ago

          I got the Omen 32 at ~$400 heh.

    • Mad_Dane
    • 3 years ago

    Well it’s a start heh, now we just need them at a price normal mortals can afford!

Pin It on Pinterest

Share This