No, they are proper IPS panels. What they aren't is wide gamut panels.

Don't know about 4K models, but a lot of the cheap screens are e-IPS, which are 6 bit screens with dither and a few other compromises for a lot less money. FWIW I've compared them side by side against real 8 and 10 bit IPS and PVA panels, and I can ONLY tell a difference on close examination of test patterns. It would never show up as a problem in real life. The 10 bit panels can do much better gradient rendering which can show up in graphic design, but it doesn't really even matter (or help) if you're doing digital work for digital distribution.

Currently I have a 1680x1050 23", but am interested in upgrading - both screen physical size and PPI. Those 2560x1440 27" look good, but those 2560x1600 30" might suit me even better.

I tried two screens, and it was just too unsymmetrical for me.

I'd rather make the jump from one monitor to three.

i got a 2560x1440 27" touchscreen recently. that's a joy, too.

Do you make good use of it being a touch-screen? I can't imagine myself reaching up from my keyboard and mouse to physically touch my monitor (a full arm's reach away) on a regular basis.

davepermen, on 13 May 2014 - 04:23 AM, said:


i got a 2560x1440 27" touchscreen recently. that's a joy, too.


Do you make good use of it being a touch-screen? I can't imagine myself reaching up from my keyboard and mouse to physically touch my monitor (a full arm's reach away) on a regular basis.

I haven't tried Windows 8.1, but there are certain things which make Windows 8 worth having a touchscreen. Small things though, which can be done with mouse and keyboard but are more of a nuisance to. Pulling up a menu or dragging a file just seems more accurate with a touchscreen.

I'm using a laptop though. So the screen isn't that far away.

Currently I have a 1680x1050 23", but am interested in upgrading - both screen physical size and PPI. Those 2560x1440 27" look good, but those 2560x1600 30" might suit me even better.

I tried two screens, and it was just too unsymmetrical for me.
I'd rather make the jump from one monitor to three.

Not to mention they're generally IPS, so the image quality is vastly improved too.

Actually, many of these 4K displays aren't IPS -- they're some new thing that's definately better than TN, and supposedly as good as IPS (and sometimes even marketted as IPS) -- but they definitely aren't up to the color quality of the professional ultrasharp monitors (like the 30s and 27s we've been talking about), let alone even more expensive displays with 10 bit per channel support.

All of the inexpensive 4K displays use this new variation of TN technology

So many things to answer. I'll start with the last post.

@Ravyne, the refresh rate depends on 3 things:

1) GPU
2) Method of connection (DVI, HDMI, Display Port)

3) Monitor

The Samsung U28D590D is the first 'inexpensive' 4k monitor to support 60hz. It requires DisplayPort 1.2. If hooked up via HDMI or DVI, it runs at 30hz.

Dell's ~$800, 28" 4k display is a 30hz part, and there is no way to make it run at 60hz.

I tested at 30hz, just for fun. I wouldn't want this; there is a "springiness" to the mouse that would drive me crazy.

For GPUs, any Radeon 7000 series (or later) will drive 60hz on these, so will late 2013 Mac's, and some nVidia cards too, but I don't know which.

As for having many monitors...

Up until about 7 years ago, I was a one monitor guy, and had been since 'monitor' meant 'old television.' My [then] fiance, an accountant, talked me into trying a 2nd monitor (at work, where my employer would pay for it). He agreed--studies show improved productivity. I was hooked.

In 2008, when I built my next PC, I bought 2, and loved them.

In 2010, when I built my current PC, I bought 3 25" monitors (the older 2 going to an employee), and used every inch. The software I was producing at the time (PhoneMyPC) consisted of an Android app, a PC app, and a server component. It was not uncommon for me to have the following open:
* Eclipse (for the Android part)
* VS (two instances, one for PC, one for Server app)
* 2 or more PC instance VMs, for testing
* 2 or more Server instance VMs, for testing

I really did use all the space.

Later, when I let go my employees, I took those old two monitors and mounted them above my current 3. It was nice; I could throw research or reference material up there and not "burry" it behind other windows. However, it was a bit inconvenient (and uncomfortable) to look "Up" to see it. Hence, the 3 new 4k monitors.

@JDX_John, great question. I assumed that 3 4k monitors would give me the screen-space of 12 HD monitors (4 HD monitors each), but as I said in my blog post, that isn't the case. If I were half my age that might be so, but not now. With Windows Scaling, I estimate that I get somewhere between 2 and 3 HD monitor equivalent from each display, so instead of 12, I get between 6 and 9. This is still quite a lot more than 5, or 3 without looking "up" to the top two monitors. Things on my screen now are smaller--in real-world measurements--than before, because the DPI is higher so it is clearer. But they are not 1/2 the size (in each direction).

Later, when I let go my employees, I took those old two monitors and mounted them above my current 3. It was nice; I could throw research or reference material up there and not "burry" it behind other windows. However, it was a bit inconvenient (and uncomfortable) to look "Up" to see it. Hence, the 3 new 4k monitors.

(1) Are those all homogenous displays (ie. same pixel density for all displays on the system)? Do you have any experience with heterogenous arrangements?

(2) Does Microsoft Windows not support multiple workspaces? I admit I have next to no experience with that OS, so I'm genuinely curious. I couldn't live without multiple workspaces (4 "virtual" desktops on one set of physical displays). I have one for my email client and IRC, three others for various tasks (usually one for heads-down editing and building, one for remote sessions or VMs, and one for browser windows with docs and buglists). With two monitors that's the equivalent of 8 display on the system, with much less desk real estate and head swivelling.

All of the inexpensive 4K displays use this new variation of TN technology

Interesting. The weird part is that all of Dell's 4K monitors is that they are exact spec matches in every other respect for the 2560x1440 IPS panels. Are you positive that the 4K's aren't just e-IPS?

I couldn't live without multiple workspaces (4 "virtual" desktops on one set of physical displays). I have one for my email client and IRC, three others for various tasks (usually one for heads-down editing and building, one for remote sessions or VMs, and one for browser windows with docs and buglists). With two monitors that's the equivalent of 8 display on the system, with much less desk real estate and head swivelling.

don't know you guys, but I still don't like 16/9 screens, even @4k res... Yes, I still prefer 16/10 and 4/3 format : \

The Samsung U28D590D is the first 'inexpensive' 4k monitor to support 60hz. It requires DisplayPort 1.2. If hooked up via HDMI or DVI, it runs at 30hz.

That is unsurprising. HDMI 1.4 peaks out at slightly over 8.16 GBit/s with a 8b/10b encoding, dividing that by 32-bit color depth gives you 204,000,000 and divided by (3840*2160) you get 24.59 -- so you have just about barely enough bandwith to transmit that signal at slightly under 30 Hz (they're probably running outside the spec or cheating on frames to actually do this).

DisplayPort 1.2 has 17.28 Gbit/s, which is a bit over twice as much, so they get to deliver 60 Hz. Now of course HDMI 2.0 would work too (18 GBit/s), but even if your graphics card is that modern, the monitor only supports 1.4.

It is pretty much unimportant what the TV/monitor can deliver on the inside. It's what cable you use to hook it up with that counts, since that's the limiting factor.