Home / News / Monitor News / Dell P2815Q affordable 4K monitor unveiled at CES

Dell P2815Q affordable 4K monitor unveiled at CES


Dell 4K
Dell P2815Q

Dell has taken the wraps off its 28-inch affordable 4K monitor, the Dell P2815Q, at CES 2014.

PC monitors sporting the current Ultra High Definition standard of resolution tend to cost a pretty penny, which keeps the technology at arms length for all but the rich and dedicated.

Meet the Dell P2815Q, a 4K monitor that, while not exactly cheap, is certainly within range of common folk like us. In fact, Dell’s pre-CES teaser of a sub-$1,000 4K monitor does the P2815Q a bit of a disservice.

The P2815Q is a PC monitor that sports as its main feature a 28-inch 3840 x 2160 pixel display. But arguably even more interesting than that Ultra HD resolution is the fact that the Dell P2815Q will only cost $699. That’s around £424 in UK money.

To put that into context, that’s around half the price of the Dell UltraSharp UP2414Q, another (and smaller) 4K monitor that Dell announced recently. Dell claims that the P2815Q's screen performance will match its pricier predecessor, too.

Meanwhile, the other so-called affordable 4K monitors on display at CES 2014 this week, such as the Asus PB287Q and the Lenovo ThinkVision Pro 2840m, cost around $100 more.

Dell provides the same screen guarantee it provides for its higher end 4K TVs, so you’ll be able to exchange if so much as a single pixel (there are a lot of them) is out of place during the warranty period.

So where’s the compromise? Well, we still don’t know specifics on the Dell P2815Q’s connectivity - only that it features "multiple inputs for quick and easy connection to smartphones, tablets, laptops and PCs." So there’s a chance it could be relatively lacking on that front.

We also don’t know what the monitor’s refresh rate will be like.

The Dell P2815Q is due for release on January 23.

Read More: What is 4K TV?

Via: BGR


January 9, 2014, 9:10 am

I don't really understand the craze about such high pixel densities. Yes, it makes text look a lot sharper and images look more detailed, which is nice for handheld devices, but with monitors it doesn't really increase my productivity in any way.

Given the capabilities exist to make a 40" panel with 4K resolution, why isn't anybody using them to make monitors (i.e. without all the motion processing found in TVs)? The additional screen estate could actually be used to do more things at once, instead of having to resort to using multiple displays to achieve the same.


January 9, 2014, 11:32 am

From what I've read elsewhere, this monitor will use a TN panel & only offers a refresh rate of 30Hz, so not really of interest to me, despite the low price. Still, it might stimulate the market into releasing more low cost 4K monitors, which can only be a good thing.


January 9, 2014, 12:26 pm

Looks great, but $699 will likely translate to £600-£699 as usual with tech products?


January 22, 2014, 9:03 pm

well productivity would be a lot better because you can fit a lot more programs on 1 screen, 1080p video would be a quarter of the screen, is like being able to view 4 internet browser windows at the same time at 1080p per quarter i think would help productivity and better viewing experience


January 22, 2014, 9:30 pm

But the screen is the same size as before, it's just the pixel density has doubled. So you could fit a low more windows on screen but they would be a quarter of the size they were previously, and not very usable. It's like having a 600dpi laser printer instead of a 300dpi one: nobody would consider halving their font size to fit more text on a page because it would become illegible.

So I already have a 27" 2560x1440 monitor with a fairly high dot pitch, and the default UI scaling in Windows and OS X is ok, but tending towards the small side. A 27" screen with 4K resolution is going to mean that I would have to adjust the UI scaling in whichever OS, so that everything appeared at the same size and is still usable. The only advantage I would have is that images and font rendering will be more detailed, which is nice, but ultimately this doesn't aid my productivity.


January 22, 2014, 10:58 pm

not really to small browsers can be scaled easy control-+ and with monitors at that resolution you can sit closer without to much strain

darren evans

January 27, 2014, 4:47 pm

30hz is no good for gaming,wait for the 799 dollar asus pb287q which is 4k,60hz and 1ms response time. Us uk poor people will have to pay 6-700 pounds though

darren evans

January 27, 2014, 4:53 pm

Gaming mainly, 40'' is too big for people to be sitting 2 feet away its just pointless


January 28, 2014, 2:01 pm

Given that a 40" screen at 2 feet would occupy a larger field of your vision, I would hope games could use those extra pixels to render a wider field of view (both horizontally and vertically) making for a far more immersive experience. For driving and flight sims particularly, I would prefer it to a multi-monitor setup.

comments powered by Disqus