Dell P2715Q and P2415Q 4K IPS Displays

[psymac]

Been keeping an eye on this thread and the one about the LG 31MU97.

Would like to get a 4K monitor. Some people are reporting problems with the LG. Perhaps more to the point, the way things are going it will soon be possible to buy two Dell P2715Q's for the price of one LG 31MU97 (at least here in the UK it will be). Crazy!?

For me I'm slightly concerned about going from a nice large 30" Apple Cinema HD Display to a smaller 27", however better the quality may be.

Has anyone made a similar move and have any comments to make? Financially I'd like to stick to purchasing a single 4K monitor, although if the price drops a little more then getting two 27" Dell's isn't totally out of the question (but unlikely as things stand at the moment).

Comments?

Get two Dells, I did and can't believe the quality and ease of use, well worth it. And get a competitive price quote by phone thru a chat rep, that got me both for under $1000, shipped and including tax.

 

[spentan]

What to do?

I was considering buying a couple of the P2715Qs and connecting them to my 2012 rMBP.

It can support two displays at 2560x1440, will this be much worse than running the two displays at 1080p (and expecting the internal scaler to scale it up to 2160p)?

I'm not so keen on running at 30Hz,

but I am planning on getting a new Macbook Pro at some point (my 2012 is getting on a bit).

I just feel like buying 2x 1440p displays for around the same price as the 4k ones, is a bit of a waste for the future.

Any opinions, thoughts?

 

[aodesigns]

I was considering buying a couple of the P2715Qs and connecting them to my 2012 rMBP.

It can support two displays at 2560x1440, will this be much worse than running the two displays at 1080p (and expecting the internal scaler to scale it up to 2160p)?

I'm not so keen on running at 30Hz,

but I am planning on getting a new Macbook Pro at some point (my 2012 is getting on a bit).

I just feel like buying 2x 1440p displays for around the same price as the 4k ones, is a bit of a waste for the future.

Any opinions, thoughts?

If you intend to get a new mac soon (which supports 4K @ 60hz) i'd wait until you have purchased the new mac, then get a 4K display. Depends when you plan to upgrade.

 

[SaxPlayer]

Get two Dells, I did and can't believe the quality and ease of use, well worth it. And get a competitive price quote by phone thru a chat rep, that got me both for under $1000, shipped and including tax.

Thanks for the advice. Those Dells do seem to be pretty stable on nMP compared to many other 4K screens out there (including the LG 31MU97 I've been looking at). There has been the odd negative comment in this thread, but you get that with everything and if the MR forums are anything to go by then there are far fewer negative experiences with the Dell than with other screens (like that LG).

I'm in the UK so not sure how I'd do speaking to Dell directly, but it's a great idea and I'll bear it in mind. Their on-line unit price is considerably higher than other retailers (over $200 / £150) but you never know!

 

[tubular-]

for anyone who has a P2815Q , dell will swap them out with a brand new P2715Q free of charge.

i paid 299 @ microsoft store for 2 p2815q's and just received 2 replacement 2715Q's because they 2815's are discontinued due to recall.

Does anyone have any idea if this is still going on? Seems the p2815q's are still on sale at MS Store, its some additional legwork but might be worth the savings.

 

[spentan]

Does anyone have any idea if this is still going on? Seems the p2815q's are still on sale at MS Store, its some additional legwork but might be worth the savings.

Wot

Is this real?

 

[siqueiros]

also not sure which one choose as a secondary display to rMBP15. Can owners of any of 4k dells and macbook retinas say about quality of scaled resolution of your monitor?. Is they as good as scaled res of macbook retina? I mean 1680x1050 and 1920x1200 scaled resolution which quite good on macbook retina as more space alternative to the default "1440x900 retina".
If am i right for 4k dells there is default retina res is 1920x1080 as a 4x of native 4k 3840 x 2160 full res. And as a scaled res might be available 2560x1440 or even more. The question is it is as good at text and pictures as rMBP15 scaled resolution? Or for true retina experience is working only default 1920x1080?
Can you capture screen shot at working any scaled res than more default 1920?

 

[siqueiros]

No, this is the only available mode if you have a discrete graphics board like I do. I've read that some graphics cards they can handle 1440p hidpi, and then they convert the image to 4k before sending the signal to the monitor, but my iris graphics 5100 is not able of that...and I think the rmbp 13'' has the same graphics card, so, for you, the best you can achieve is 1080p hiDpi by the moment, which I think is enough for the 24'' monitor. Only when I need many real estate to work, I go to 1440, not so sharp but more useful to work in. For any other thing, 1080Hidpi it is fantastic.

What's the point of a 2560x1440 screen from a 4k monitor if it isn't HiDPi? It's not different than the Thunderbolt ACD. The point of me wanting 2560x1440 is for the HiDPi.

So basically, the only HiDPi mode available on the 27 or 24 is 1080p?

Has rMBP15 and worry about it, can you found answer to your question?
If it so, and HiDPi only at 1080p then i think 24' will be just enough for me as a size of display. But if resolution 2560x1440 is near to HiDPi and sharp, then 27' size is better choice because is bigger working space is available.

 

[siqueiros]

Is the 1440p on Dell 2414 or 2715 is still HiDPi/Retina? How you can compare to 1080p which is must be most HiDPi quality to this display. I'm own rMBP"15 and try to choose between 24" and 27 size for a secondary monitor for macbook.
If it just every others monitors 1440p with no sharp and crispy text and pic, then there is no reason to buy 27", but if it even much better than standart 2560x1440 resolution and even little bit retinier and HiDPi, then better to has bigger display size for more working space for big resolution as 1440p.
Can someone capture screenshot of 1440p on 24 or 27 dell please?

 

[iamfredrik]

I just received a P2415Q today. I long debated whether to get a 24" or 27", but finally settled for the 24" because it has higher pixel density and it's 200 euros cheaper than the 27" in my country. Now I'm really glad I chose the 24", ergonomically it seems like the perfect size for desktop use. With a 27" you would just have to keep the monitor further away, so I see no point with that unless you're going to use it for videos and gaming.

As for the monitor, it was recognized as 60Hz right out of the box on my late 2013 rmbp 15 with dGPU running Mavericks. And it seems very sturdy and well built. The image quality is just amazing and that it's non-glossy is a huge plus.

To answer siqueiros question, to me it looks retina like on all scaled resolutions. I see no big difference in sharpness between best for display and 1440p.

 

[aodesigns]

I just received a P2415Q today. I long debated whether to get a 24" or 27", but finally settled for the 24" because it has higher pixel density and it's 200 euros cheaper than the 27" in my country. Now I'm really glad I chose the 24", ergonomically it seems like the perfect size for desktop use. With a 27" you would just have to keep the monitor further away, so I see no point with that unless you're going to use it for videos and gaming.

As for the monitor, it was recognized as 60Hz right out of the box on my late 2013 rmbp 15 with dGPU running Mavericks. And it seems very sturdy and well built. The image quality is just amazing and that it's non-glossy is a huge plus.

To answer siqueiros question, to me it looks retina like on all scaled resolutions. I see no big difference in sharpness between best for display and 1440p.

Thanks for that post, I too have been struggling to decide on 24-27" and from reading this post I think I'll give the 24 a shot.

Also, the price difference is quite substantial (for me) + £200 for the 27.

 

[siqueiros]

just about half hour ago received a P2715Q. Well, my choice 27' for now, just googling for 1440p res working space on 4k and liked it, after decide that even for rarely using scaled res the 27' is has more space for handling 2560x1440, than 24". But if you plan just 1080p, then 24" is better choice, and i don't know for now, may be i will decide to change it to 24" after few days if 1440p going not comfortable for me. Will see.
Generally i like it, but rMBP15 is not quite and cool as usually, i opened just some jpegs in Adobe Photoshop CC2014.
May be TB speed of MacBooks not fast to work with external display and its reason why Apple not making 4/5K displays? Hope to listen from Macbook users about coolers working state and temperature when they using with connected 4k displays!
Continue to using, keep to write post hear about my experience, thanks to all!
Below insert screenshot with default "retina" resolution and file properties in photoshop.

 

[iamfredrik]

just about half hour ago received a P2715Q. Well, my choice 27' for now, just googling for 1440p res working space on 4k and liked it, after decide that even for rarely using scaled res the 27' is has more space for handling 2560x1440, than 24". But if you plan just 1080p, then 24" is better choice, and i don't know for now, may be i will decide to change it to 24" after few days if 1440p going not comfortable for me. Will see.
Generally i like it, but rMBP15 is not quite and cool as usually, i opened just some jpegs in Adobe Photoshop CC2014.

Text size is about the same size as on the 15" retina best for display when running the 24" at 1440p. I think I'm going to continue using it at 1440p. With 1080p texts look so big.

Does your rMBP have dGPU or only the Iris Pro?

 

[siqueiros]

Does your rMBP have dGPU or only the Iris Pro?

yes, dGPU, GT750M with 2gb. it is mid2014 rMBP15", i7 2.5Ghz/16GB/SSD512.

 

[siqueiros]

Text size is about the same size as on the 15" retina best for display when running the 24" at 1440p. I think I'm going to continue using it at 1440p. With 1080p texts look so big.

I think it individual and depend. As i am said before, the reason why i prefered 27" instead 24" is 1440p resolution, because my prior iMacs and another display using experience is about that if yours comfortable working space is about 2560x1440 res. then 27/30" will be more breathe for pixels than 21.5/24".
But after couple hours usage 27" i am founded 1920x1080 pretty enough yet, where some switches to 1440p is make me less comfortable, text and icons look small. It's first experience of course, but at this time i quite comfortable at 1080p@27"
Below two screenshots, with 1440p and 1080p, if someone miss how it look like on 4k 27"dell.

 

[jenzjen]

I think it individual and depend. As i am said before, the reason why i prefered 27" instead 24" is 1440p resolution, because my prior iMacs and another display using experience is about that if yours comfortable working space is about 2560x1440 res. then 27/30" will be more breathe for pixels than 21.5/24".
But after couple hours usage 27" i am founded 1920x1080 pretty enough yet, where some switches to 1440p is make me less comfortable, text and icons look small. It's first experience of course, but at this time i quite comfortable at 1080p@27"

All I can tell you is hands down, the P27 is much much clearer than the UP27 in OSX at any resolution

 

[iamfredrik]

I think it individual and depend. As i am said before, the reason why i prefered 27" instead 24" is 1440p resolution, because my prior iMacs and another display using experience is about that if yours comfortable working space is about 2560x1440 res. then 27/30" will be more breathe for pixels than 21.5/24".

Yes, it also depends on how close you're sitting. I'm coming from using only the rMBP 15" screen and 1440p on 24" is comfortable to me at the same distance. I could probably comfortably use a 27" at full scaled resolution of 3008x1692 at this distance, but then ergonomics would suffer, so I would still have to keep it at 1440p and further away for optimal use. And to me that is pointless because 1440p on 24" looks better because it has more pixels per inch.

 

[siqueiros]

Yes, it also depends on how close you're sitting. I'm coming from using only the rMBP 15" screen and 1440p on 24" is comfortable to me at the same distance. I could probably comfortably use a 27" at full scaled resolution of 3008x1692 at this distance, but then ergonomics would suffer, so I would still have to keep it at 1440p and further away for optimal use. And to me that is pointless because 1440p on 24" looks better because it has more pixels per inch.

Agree with you, 24" has 185 PPI, while 27" is about ~163 PPI. And of course the eye distance to displays different when we are working at monitors or laptops screen, or iPads. I don't know what is the industry "retina" or HiDPi minimum requirements for monitors, and also it little different than PPI's on handhelds devices, like iPhones, iPads and more, because, as you said, sure, it's depends of the distance you sitting and looking to the display. For example, 5K 27" Dell and Apple 5K 27" iMac has 218 PPI, and if i am not mistaken, at this time on the market all 5K displays is at 27" or bigger size, but maybe Apple and other players of IT industry will introduce 5K displays with smaller display size, like near ~24", may be small display size 5K iMac, 22" or 24" and obviously at this displays size PPI's will be even more, i think it's may be will ~247 PPI.

 

[VirtualRain]

Agree with you, 24" has 185 PPI, while 27" is about ~163 PPI. And of course the eye distance to displays different when we are working at monitors or laptops screen, or iPads. I don't know what is the industry "retina" or HiDPi minimum requirements for monitors, and also it little different than PPI's on handhelds devices, like iPhones, iPads and more, because, as you said, sure, it's depends of the distance you sitting and looking to the display. For example, 5K 27" Dell and Apple 5K 27" iMac has 218 PPI, and if i am not mistaken, at this time on the market all 5K displays is at 27" or bigger size, but maybe Apple and other players of IT industry will introduce 5K displays with smaller display size, like near ~24", may be small display size 5K iMac, 22" or 24" and obviously at this displays size PPI's will be even more, i think it's may be will ~247 PPI.

I think it's worth noting that there's display PPI and there's also your effective desktop PPI which relates to how large UI elements appear.

For example, the 5K display has 218PPI but the desktop at best for display looks like 109PPI. And similarly, a 24" 4K display has 185PPI but the desktop looks like 93PPI at best for display (albeit very sharp).

I reckon most people are actually very comfortable with a desktop that looks like something around 125PPI and thus choose a scaled setting. On a 27" display 125PPI gives you a resolution of 3008x1692 and on a 24" display that would be about 2560x1440. Both of these scaled settings will look extremely sharp (nearly indistinguishable from best for display) and icons and text will be exactly the same size... So why not go for more desktop real-estate?

The bottom line is... If you fall into this group of folks that wants more real-estate and near-retina sharpness, you're best off buying the 27" unless your work environment just can't accommodate the bigger display.

 

[siqueiros]

I think it's worth noting that there's display PPI and there's also your effective desktop PPI which relates to how large UI elements appear.

For example, the 5K display has 218PPI but the desktop at best for display looks like 109PPI. And similarly, a 24" 4K display has 185PPI but the desktop looks like 93PPI at best for display (albeit very sharp).

I reckon most people are actually very comfortable with a desktop that looks like something around 125PPI and thus choose a scaled setting. On a 27" display 125PPI gives you a resolution of 3008x1692 and on a 24" display that would be about 2560x1440. Both of these scaled settings will look extremely sharp (nearly indistinguishable from best for display) and icons and text will be exactly the same size... So why not go for more desktop real-estate?

The bottom line is... If you fall into this group of folks that wants more real-estate and near-retina sharpness, you're best off buying the 27" unless your work environment just can't accommodate the bigger display.

Hmm, are you really about 3008x1692@27", it is everything so small for all time working! Yes, i agree, that very comfortable to open 6K or even more image on Photoshop when you have a lot of heal brush or stamp tool or another retouch job. But a long time working with text, UI menu it very hard to me, sure it's my IMHO, sorry.

 

[siqueiros]

And just a little bit more about distance to displays and PPI's from IS THIS RETINA PPI calculator site.
As a calculated, generally the distance from eyes to display when its become Retina is:
5K@27"(~217ppi) is 16" (41cm) or over.
4K@27"(~163ppi) is 21" (53 cm) or over
4K@24"(~183ppi) is 19" (48 cm) or over.
5K@24"(~244ppi) is 14 (36 cm) or over, ---> if it will be available.

Currently i am sitting at ~30" in front of 4K 27" Dell.

 

[siqueiros]

Just one more question to honor auditory which a little confuse me.
How PPI related to the desktop resolution switching and using not native res? I mean what happen with number of pixels inside 1 inch square when we use different resolution on the same display? For example 4K 24" display has 185PPI, because it has 3840 by 2169 at all. And how pixels number per inch will change on the same monitor when we switch to 2560 by 1440 ? It's will be same 185PPI@2560x1440 too because maximal number is 4K? Or will be calculate from current resolution 2560 by 1440 and will decrease to ~122PPI?

 

[asus]

Hmm, are you really about 3008x1692@27", it is everything so small for all time working! Yes, i agree, that very comfortable to open 6K or even more image on Photoshop when you have a lot of heal brush or stamp tool or another retouch job. But a long time working with text, UI menu it very hard to me, sure it's my IMHO, sorry.

As I understood this scaling thing, images and videos will always be at it's native resolution, 1:1 pixel to pixel?

So whatever scaled resolution you choose, image in photoshop on a 4k display will always be the same? 8Mpix max

Am I wrong?

 

[siqueiros]

Does anybody to experiment with cables and connecting way by port?
I am now connected to rMBP with default mDP-->DP. Planing to buy mDP-->mDP and try to check will it to increase video performance. Also default cable from the box visually look cheap.

 

[VirtualRain]

Just one more question to honor auditory which a little confuse me.
How PPI related to the desktop resolution switching and using not native res? I mean what happen with number of pixels inside 1 inch square when we use different resolution on the same display? For example 4K 24" display has 185PPI, because it has 3840 by 2169 at all. And how pixels number per inch will change on the same monitor when we switch to 2560 by 1440 ? It's will be same 185PPI@2560x1440 too because maximal number is 4K? Or will be calculate from current resolution 2560 by 1440 and will decrease to ~122PPI?

Of course when you scale, the PPI of the display doesn't change, just the size of text and UI elements change. At 2560x1440 on a 4K display it makes things look like the size of a desktop on a 122PPI display but is still rendered on the display at the full 185PPI.

Normally, upscaling a 2560x1440 desktop on a 4K display would look fuzzy and unusable, but Apples scaling algorithm first renders the desktop at double the resolution allowing it to take advantage of retina double-pixel artwork and icons before down-sampling to match the displays native rez. Thus a 2560x1440 setting is rendered in the frame buffer at 5120x2880 before being down sampled to 3840x2160. This provides incredible sharpness compared to basic upscaling. And I believe rasterized text is always rendered at native resolution.

So I think people should find out what size they like their text and UI at, then buy the biggest 4K display they can, and scale the desktop to archive that desired size. For some people, 100PPI might be most comfortable. For others 125PPI. I even work at 165PPI (native 4K on my 27" display) when editing photos.

----------

As I understood this scaling thing, images and videos will always be at it's native resolution, 1:1 pixel to pixel?



So whatever scaled resolution you choose, image in photoshop on a 4k display will always be the same? 8Mpix max



Am I wrong?

This is only true at "best for display" (true pixel doubled retina setting). Scaled resolutions do not work that way... As mentioned above scaled desktops are first rendered at double pixel resolution (including image content) and then down sampled to native display resolution. You can verify this by setting your desktop to a scaled setting (eg 2560x1440) and taking a screen capture... You'll see the image is twice the pixels of what you set it to (5120x2880).

If you want pixel perfect image display, you need to use "best for display" or native rez.

----------

Does anybody to experiment with cables and connecting way by port?
I am now connected to rMBP with default mDP-->DP. Planing to buy mDP-->mDP and try to check will it to increase video performance. Also default cable from the box visually look cheap.

There's nothing wrong with the cables Dell provides. Don't waste your time unless you think you may have a bad cable.