Dell Ultrasharp 30" "WQXGA" -- 2560x1600

[Fishrrman]

While browsing displays, I ran across this one:
Dell Ultrasharp 30" "WQXGA" -- 2560x1600

Dell UltraSharp30 Inch USB-C Hub Monitor (U3023E) : Computer Monitors | Dell USA

View the Dell UltraSharp30 Inch USB-C Hub Monitor (U3023E) featuring wide color coverage, multitasking features & connectivity ports or view all Dell computer monitors at Dell.com.

www.dell.com

It seems to fit "half-way" between 27" and 32", but can't be used in HiDPI mode, rather, only as "pixel-for-pixel".

It has a nice complement of inputs, works with Dell Display Manager on the Mac.
And it's a premium "Ultrasharp" model.

Pixel pitch is .25
Pixels per inch is 101.4.

I'm wondering if anyone out there is using a display resolution of 2560x1600.
A little more than "1440p" (2560x1440), BUT, it's on a panel that is slightly smaller.

Before going further, I'm older with "older eyes".
I currently use a 27" panel running at plain old 1080p.
Pixel size on this one is .31mm
Many younger users will cry out, "that's too grainy" but for my old eyes, it's fine.
Actually, necessary.

I'd like to move to a slightly larger panel, but was hedging on 32" displays because the choice would be either 1440p "native" or a 32" 4k display running with "looks like 1440p" scaled.

The 30" panel could be a nice compromise, but I'm thinking that in normal resolution of 2560x1600 with a pixel size of only .25mm, things are gonna be "too small" for me.

Has anyone ever tried one of these?

EDIT:
I just came to the information that 2560x1600 is the native resolution of the old Apple 30" display. (I never owned nor had experience with one of these)

OK, then... how was the Apple 30" for older users with eyesight that "isn't what it once was" ??

 

[theluggage]

I'd like to move to a slightly larger panel, but was hedging on 32" displays because the choice would be either 1440p "native" or a 32" 4k display running with "looks like 1440p" scaled.

Remember that a 27" 4k display running in the misleadingly-named "looks like 1080p" mode would give you exactly the same size text and icons as your current 1080p display but with everything twice as sharp, using exact 2:1 scaling.

Also, with a 4k or 5k display, you at least get the option of fractionally scaled modes - like "looks like 1440p" and a couple of intermediate ones that might be useful on a 30 or 32" display. They really work quite well - and are much "sharper" than the "looks like" resolution - outside of a few edge cases where you need to do pixel-accurate editing without zooming in (in which case just switch to 2:1 mode and put up with slightly large screen furniture for a spell), and the extra GPU load is only really an issue if you've got an Intel Mac with a weak GPU.

Apple is running down support for non-HIDPI displays with recent decisions w.r.t. default fonts and the removal of subpixel anti-aliasing so I wouldn't invest money on a "standard def" display (outside of a few exceptions...)

Unfortunately, there have been a series of blog/youtube posts that really unfairly demonised "scaled mode" and the use of 4k displays (Sure, if you've got a few grand burning a hole in your pocket, a 5k or 6k screen is better, but...)

 

[someoldguy]

While browsing displays, I ran across this one:
Dell Ultrasharp 30" "WQXGA" -- 2560x1600

Dell UltraSharp30 Inch USB-C Hub Monitor (U3023E) : Computer Monitors | Dell USA

View the Dell UltraSharp30 Inch USB-C Hub Monitor (U3023E) featuring wide color coverage, multitasking features & connectivity ports or view all Dell computer monitors at Dell.com.

www.dell.com

It seems to fit "half-way" between 27" and 32", but can't be used in HiDPI mode, rather, only as "pixel-for-pixel".

It has a nice complement of inputs, works with Dell Display Manager on the Mac.
And it's a premium "Ultrasharp" model.

Pixel pitch is .25
Pixels per inch is 101.4.

I'm wondering if anyone out there is using a display resolution of 2560x1600.
A little more than "1440p" (2560x1440), BUT, it's on a panel that is slightly smaller.

Before going further, I'm older with "older eyes".
I currently use a 27" panel running at plain old 1080p.
Pixel size on this one is .31mm
Many younger users will cry out, "that's too grainy" but for my old eyes, it's fine.
Actually, necessary.
I'd like to move to a slightly larger panel, but was hedging on 32" displays because the choice would be either 1440p "native" or a 32" 4k display running with "looks like 1440p" scaled.

The 30" panel could be a nice compromise, but I'm thinking that in normal resolution of 2560x1600 with a pixel size of only .25mm, things are gonna be "too small" for me.

Has anyone ever tried one of these?

EDIT:
I just came to the information that 2560x1600 is the native resolution of the old Apple 30" display. (I never owned nor had experience with one of these)

OK, then... how was the Apple 30" for older users with eyesight that "isn't what it once was" ??

I've had both the Apple 30 " and am currently using its' successor , a now quite discontinued HP Z30i . The HP is in use on a Win 10 HP Z2 SFF . I REALLY like both the screen size and the 16:10 aspect ratio . It's a ton of space .Plus it works fine for my vintage vision . Never had an issue with graininess . I had to increase the text size up some , though , to 150% IIRC.

 

[CalMin]

I have a Dell U3014 (2560 x 1600) which is the predecessor to the model you're referencing and I use it alongside a 27" Apple Studio display.

It was my main display before the ASD and it is effectively a 2560 x 1440 27" monitor with an extra 160 rows of pixels underneath it. Remember that the 30" is measured on the diagonal as is the 27", so it's not 3" wider as you might reasonably assume. While 160 pixels doesn't seem like much it actually makes a huge difference in daily use and I love the 16:10 aspect ratio. In the picture below, you can see that it's roughly the same width as the ASD but with a 'chin' below it. I run the ASD in an effective 2560 x 1440 (in HIDPI with a native 5120 x 2880).

Now - it does not compare to a Retina display or a 4K in terms of overall sharpness. Side by side the text looks soft (fuzzy) especially with how MacOS renders fonts. It looks better with a Windows PC frankly, but it does look good enough for productivity (if not for graphics pros).

I have changed my setup from the picture below - which was what I did when I first got the ASD. The ASD is now my main display, but I keep the Dell off to one side as sort of a storage space for Windows such as my calendar, To-Do, drafts, Notes etc. As much as I love the ASD, I do miss the aspect ratio of the Dell. The extra vertical space came in so handy with a dock, and it's the reason that laptop displays are all moving to 16:10.

Lastly - I have tried replacing the Dell multiple times with a 27" or 32" 4K display with a Samsung something or other, or a cheap current Dell Model. It never works out. The brightness and color of the U3014 are excellent. It looks 'right' next to the ASD, whereas most 4K displays under $1,000 do not. It also has great color and after a little tweaking I got it to match the ASD well enough. The 4K displays are all 16:9 as well, so I end up going back to the Dell.

Bottom-Line

My bet is that you will enjoy the U3023E. Just know it's not going to look great compared side-by-side to 4K or 5K displays. I know that's stating the obvious, but before we had 4K, this was state of the art. I enjoyed it that way for many years.

I still use my 2560 x 1600 display everyday for productivity and think it's awesome!

 

[Fishrrman]

Thanks for taking the time to reply above!

 

[jlevy73]

I have a Dell U3014 (2560 x 1600) which is the predecessor to the model you're referencing and I use it alongside a 27" Apple Studio display.

It was my main display before the ASD and it is effectively a 2560 x 1440 27" monitor with an extra 160 rows of pixels underneath it. Remember that the 30" is measured on the diagonal as is the 27", so it's not 3" wider as you might reasonably assume. While 160 pixels doesn't seem like much it actually makes a huge difference in daily use and I love the 16:10 aspect ratio. In the picture below, you can see that it's roughly the same width as the ASD but with a 'chin' below it. I run the ASD in an effective 2560 x 1440 (in HIDPI with a native 5120 x 2880).

Now - it does not compare to a Retina display or a 4K in terms of overall sharpness. Side by side the text looks soft (fuzzy) especially with how MacOS renders fonts. It looks better with a Windows PC frankly, but it does look good enough for productivity (if not for graphics pros).

I have changed my setup from the picture below - which was what I did when I first got the ASD. The ASD is now my main display, but I keep the Dell off to one side as sort of a storage space for Windows such as my calendar, To-Do, drafts, Notes etc. As much as I love the ASD, I do miss the aspect ratio of the Dell. The extra vertical space came in so handy with a dock, and it's the reason that laptop displays are all moving to 16:10.

Lastly - I have tried replacing the Dell multiple times with a 27" or 32" 4K display with a Samsung something or other, or a cheap current Dell Model. It never works out. The brightness and color of the U3014 are excellent. It looks 'right' next to the ASD, whereas most 4K displays under $1,000 do not. It also has great color and after a little tweaking I got it to match the ASD well enough. The 4K displays are all 16:9 as well, so I end up going back to the Dell.

Bottom-Line

My bet is that you will enjoy the U3023E. Just know it's not going to look great compared side-by-side to 4K or 5K displays. I know that's stating the obvious, but before we had 4K, this was state of the art. I enjoyed it that way for many years.

I still use my 2560 x 1600 display everyday for productivity and think it's awesome!

Off topic, but the colors sure do pop on that ASD!

 

[CalMin]

Off topic, but the colors sure do pop on that ASD!

Totally. People in these forums seem to hate them for some reason but it’s easily the best monitor I’ve ever had - and by some margin.

 

[Boyd01]

Don't know anything about that monitor, but I've been using a 32 inch BenQ PD3200Q at 2560x1440 at native resolution on a 2018 Mini for over three years and am still very happy with it. When I got this screen I wanted a replacement for my old 23" Apple Cinema Display which is 100ppi. The BenQ is about 94ppi (IIRC) which results in slightly larger text, which I like (I'm 74 years old). That Dell screen is 101 ppi, so I'd probably also be OK with that too.

But 1080p on your current 27 inch screen... that's got to be a very low PPI, like 80-something maybe? Seems like you would find 101ppi quite small, coming from that.

 

[Fishrrman]

Boyd wrote:
"But 1080p on your current 27 inch screen... that's got to be a very low PPI, like 80-something maybe? Seems like you would find 101ppi quite small, coming from that."

I've come to that conclusion myself.
So... I think I'll be sticking to a 27" 4k display running at "looks like 1080p".
That will be just fine for me.

 

[picpicmac]

Unfortunately, there have been a series of blog/youtube posts that really unfairly demonised "scaled mode" and the use of 4k displays

For sure. And the demonizers almost never take into account viewing distance and the acuity of one's own eyes.

 

[throAU]

I've used 2560x1440 pretty regularly on a 27" monitor and it was noticeably "chunky" compared to a Retina display.

2560x1600 on a 32" will be worse.

Guessing similar pixel density to 1920x1080 on a 27" panel?

You'll get desktop real estate, but it's not really a high res display at that size.

 

[Boyd01]

2560x1600 on a 32" will be worse.

Guessing similar pixel density to 1920x1080 on a 27" panel?

No, not at all, it's much worse than that (as I said above). Just did some quick "back of the envelope" calculations, so I could be off a bit. But I think native 1920 x 1080 on a 27 inch screen works out to about 78 pixels/inch. My 32 inch screen at 2560 x 1440 is about 94 pixels per inch. 78ppi will result in very large text.

Upgrading to a 27 inch 4k screen will be better because there will be more detail in images and text will be smoother. This might be a good solution for many people, but would not work well for my kind of use. I spend much of my time using GIS software to make maps and I want to see more of the document on the screen, or have room for multiple windows at the same time. I don't care as much about the amount of detail in an image or how smooth the user interface text is.

It really depends on how you use your computer. The OP seems to have a pretty good idea of his needs, and although they are different from mine, there's nothing wrong with that!

 

[meson]

EDIT:
I just came to the information that 2560x1600 is the native resolution of the old Apple 30" display. (I never owned nor had experience with one of these)

OK, then... how was the Apple 30" for older users with eyesight that "isn't what it once was" ??

Back many years ago I had a research advisor that had a 30" Cinema Display in his office, and it was beautiful and massive at the time. A resolution of 2560x1600 seemed almost unfathomable to those of us working on G4 iMacs with 1024x768 screens. I was barely in my 20's then with excellent eyes, so I can't comment about older eyes. With a modern display panel, I suspect the image on that Dell will look comparable to if not better than the Cinema Display of days gone by.

That said, I would still recommend a 27" or 32" 4k display. Extra pixels making everything sharper is not a bad thing, even if your eyes hardly notice (if at all). I will run my 32" 4k at looks like 2560x1440 when I share my screen in online meetings, and it doesn't look bad, and would certainly be pleasing to older eyes. Using displays with larger pixels at lower resolution was a pointless task in the past. Now, with higher pixel densities, fractional resolutions make the display more accessible, and can accommodate users with different visual acuities. I don't leave native full 4k resolution often on my 32" 4k screen, but when I share my screen in remote meetings, I will drop down to looks like 2560x1440 or 1920x1080 in recognition that others on lower res screens may have issues if I open a window that doesn't use the full screen.