Dell's new 8K monitor is simply jaw-dropping

Dell monitor
Dell monitor (Image credit: Windows Central)

What can I say? Dell's new 32-inch 8K display is the most gorgeous monitor ever seen. The monitor itself isn't that exciting, it's the display panel with its 7680x4320 resolution that simply wows. That makes for a 280 pixels-per-inch density that's unrivaled in a display of this size. 5K displays can suck it, because the Dell UP3218K and its 33.2 million pixels is the new king of the hill.

Of course, that won't come cheap. Dell's shooting for a launch at the end of March 2017 with a price tag that's as lofty as the resolution: $5,000. Let's just hope that Dell is able to follow through on the 8K display better than the never-released 4K OLED 30-incher they unveiled last year.

Derek Kessler

Derek Kessler is Special Projects Manager for Mobile Nations. He's been writing about tech since 2009, has far more phones than is considered humane, still carries a torch for Palm, and got a Tesla because it was the biggest gadget he could find. You can follow him on Twitter at @derekakessler.

  • Still waiting for that OLED monitor :(
    Really want an oled monitor for my desktop, and yet no one seems to really be making them yet, even though they have been in phones for many years, and now TVs for a while. I just want super black blacks.
  • Why not just get a TV and use it as a monitor. That's what I'm currently doing. Haven't figured out what I want yet...I don't want a Smart TV and all the new ones are SMART! I want mine to be DUMB. So, I will be going opposite and getting a Monitor probably.
  • 2016 Vizio P series perhaps?? I purchased one a few months back and love it. No smart TV interface. It's essentially a 4k HDR monitor with google cast built in  
  • That is a question I've had. What really IS the difference between current high quality TV's and computer monitors?
  • Well, you get an Antennae input on TVs and more HDMI ports. But that point is moot for me. I have a Soundbar with 3 HDMI inputs and one output to TV. So I can just connect all my equipment to the Soundbar. I had a 24" monitor hooked up to my PC before, but I gave that one and my old PC to my sister and am now just using my 42" TV for everything. I'm sure there's a technical aspect to it for Real Gamers...refresh rate(most TVs and Monitors are 60Hz...thought I had a 120Hz TV, but it was Marketing at that time) and response time I suppose. But to me ATM, there's no difference besides that Antennae input and remote control. EDIT: Also, maybe it's just me, but I haven't seen any monitors with that HDR Tech.
  • TV screen - 3m viewing distance
    Monitor - 600mm viewing distance Always has been.
    You cannot use a TV as a computer screen and not need to visit an optometrist
  • Why is that though?  I mean my monitor was pretty bright and my TV I keep on Game mode, so it's a bit dark. If I watch a movie I'll put it in cinema mode and it will brighten up a little. I also keep the Eco thing on Low. That also darkens it a bit. 
  • A TV is designed to receive, upscale and process all TV standards...analogue and digital
    It's an all-rounder
    A monitor is digital only and doesn't upscale, the PC does the processing.
    If you use the TV for video and game, then it's fine.
    If you use it to run Win32 programes like Autodesk stuff, a monitor is the only option.
  • I use a TV for my Windows 10 gaming rig in the living room, and run Win32 and UWP non-game programs on it without much trouble. Now, the picture is admittedly crisper downstairs on the Mac which uses a dedicated monitor. There is indeed a difference in how a signal is processed on TVs and monitors, and monitors, for most things, are optimal. Granted and double granted. But to call it the "only option" is hyperbole at best, and my grounds for objection here. If you want the absolute best possible picture in most cases, go monitor. But if convenience is the prime factor, and/or big screen PC gaming - a TV is a -MUCH- more viable option than you express, Hiswona. I just think you're confusing "optimal" and "viable", is all, friend. :-) Cheers!
  • I've already said gaming is fine.
    Games = Video
    Programs/Apps = need monitor, unless the tv is setup as a boardroom display.
    Planting a TV on a desktop will require a optometrist
  • Right. I get that. But I was even taking issue with that.
  • Isn't 8k too much for 32" screen.
  • Not for a computer screen, we have 4k laptops after all. Larger display similar pixel density.
  • its all about marketing, nothing else
  • How is it all about marketing?
  • Because there is no 8k content, and precious little 4k
    Hell, I'd be happy to get constant quality 1080
  • Well, the monitor isn't for watching video content only, obviously... Imagine how much you would fit on the screen while editing video or editing LARGE photos.
  • True
  • Not even this years PC graphics cards would run last years games at 8K over 10fps. Not even close. 8K is 10+ years away. The next few years is 4K mass buying territory.
  • It's not all about gaming. Video production is moving towards 8K. That's where it can be used.
  • I doubt any consumer graphics cards this year can handle 8K video editing either. The very latest cards coming out only just manage 4k video editing at an acceptable speed.
  • It's not about editing 8K video, it's just about video editing, i.e. being able to fit a lot of stuff on the screen. Are there any reasons to edit in native video resolution?
  • LinusTech tips already did it at over 10FPS in Crysis 3 using 4 4k TVs and two TitanXPs in SLI. They were getting 21-41fps, IIRC. 8k gaming is possible, just not right this second. Give it 5 years and it will start to come around as 4k becomes mainstream.
  • Crysis 3 is over 5 years old. Ryse Son Of Rome which came out 3 years ago from the same company on a supposedly similar engine according to Crytek is doing alot more than CryEngine3 used in Crysis 3 on PC. You try running Battlefield 1 doing that. You'll be lucky to hit 5 fps.
  • But BF1 doesn't have a benchmark test that can also stress test. Same with Doom, which would be another great title if it did. I'm not sure about Ryse, but didn't that game flop or something? I never hear of anyone playing it
  • Bench tests on a game engine that is over 5 years old is pointless. Real world performance of the latest games is what's important. What good is it if your setup runs 35fps on Crysis 3. But 5fps on Battlefield 1????
  • Exactly!
    As a Photographer myself, I see this monitor as goal worthy. It would make a great addition to the viewing and editing process. I admit though it's not necessary.
  • It's not always about content. Browsing the web with sharp and crisp text on an 8K monitor, or generally beautiful looking UI is another aspect.
  • same like 3D video!
  • You're wrong, I could potentially see and entire A0 page drawing without connecting two screens
  • I am wondering what video card pushes 8k... Here I am finally look at updating to 2k for my monitors ;). 
  • Said the old guy back in 2017...
  • Is 2k too much for a 5.5" screen?
  • Yeah, it is. But it sure helps in VR. EDIT: Did a blind test with my brother on a phone using YouTube. He said he could tell the difference in resolution, but he couldn't. I can't either. In VR, it's definitely noticeable though. OTH, we had an FPS test and he was able to guess which was 60FPS vs 30FPS 100% of the time.
  • Youtubes compressed files aren't really the best for checking. Bluray to 4K bluray you can tell straight away. Or Netflix or Amazon etc. YouTube says 4K. But it's file size says otherwise.
  • Given we need about 1080p for 5" phones to not be able to see the pixels anymore, 8K for 32" isn't that overkill to be honest.
  • True 4K on a 50" tv is pixeless viewing at about 10ft. Perfect for my living room. And can confirm you cannot see the pixels watching Sense8 on Netflix in 4K HDR on a 50" tv. It's unbelievable.
  • Is this really necessary?  8K I mean.
  • No. Staying fed, warm and healthy is.
  • Totally not. I mean, AFAIK 4k hasn't fully landed yet.
  • To keep pushing technology forward, yes, it is. Can you image what vr would be like without 2k/4k displays?
  • Even less edifying than they currently are. The Vive is like looking through a screen door already. :P
  • Are we there already? I mean, display resolution is fine but can today's processors and GPUs move that many pixels? What about bandwidth for streaming content? And games?
  • My questions too. No, I dont think we are. Unless you can spend enough money on an i7 with 2 gtx1080s to power one of these displays. If we are dreaming 4 sli 1080s probably could power 2 or 3 of these. That means for just under 20,000 you can have superb screens... ;)
  • Nope. That will not run last years games at 8K @ even 30fps on PC. Let alone this years game engines.
  • 8k? My god. I thought we were just transferring to 4k and now theres 8k?!
  • This dell pales in comparison to the 16k panels on the horizon.
  • Still needs moar pixels
  • This is stupid. You'd have to sit 6 inches away from the screen to tell the differnce between a 4k/5k screen and this 8k screen. and yes, I have decent vision.
  • Exactly this. I even had this with the difference between 720p and 1080p back in the day. And yes my vision is fine too.
  • will need to invest in a rack mount of 10 gtx1080 videos cards to run this   >.> but wow, 8k. dayum bruh.   edit: is it just me or are they advertising for 8k Street Fighter with Ken Masters. 
  • Seems like people doesn't understand the concept of resolution on a monitor... and just think that it is stupid to have 8K. It's about how much you can fit on the screen while e.g. editing videos or photos. You can have multiple applications opened side-by-side and so on.
  • I wonder what the scaling is like on this with windows.
  • For me it's display size. If you look around there aren't many 32" 4K monitors. I really can't play my Xbox One S very well on my 42" TV. I have used monitors for years now. I'm currently using an Asus MG28UQ 4K monitor. The television sets I've seen don't offer freesync either and I'm adding a gaming desktop to the setup this month. There are tons of answers to all your 4K, 5K and maybe 8K now, on rtings website. Very unbiased. 🖒
  • Would need a serious GPU to drive one of these bad boys...
  • OMG!!! I can see the Furr!!!
  • People need to understand that to make 8K even remotely feasible in PC for video editing or gaming its not just power. They also need to up the memory bandwidth on these cards to near 600gb/sec. And then the CPU has to have not just raw power but no bottlenecks. The whole PC in general needs to be better. Not just graphics cards. At 8K each frame contains a huge amount of data.
  • Not everything on Windows is scalable. Adobe still is small on my 4k laptop even with hiDPI. I think it is jumping too far when Windows hasn't yet made the system scale everything correctly.
  • totally drool worthy
  • Why is this called an 8k monitor? 7680x4320=33177600 pixels. That's 16 times the amount of pixels (2073600) on an HD screen.
  • For some reason with HD they called them 1080p sets. Which is the lower of the 2 dimensions. When sets went up to 2160p as the lowest dimension they called them 4K. Not 2160p. In my opinion its because it sounds better on marketing.
  • IMHO, a Surface Studio 2 with an 8k, 40 inches, 10bits HDR display (4X4k, 20 inches, 10bits HDR displays) could be better suited than current Surface Studio for the purposes of Surface Studio (NOT gaming).
    Excluding gaming, a GPU suitable for the case of Surface Studio, that can manage a 8k, 10bits HDR display, is not so far.
    In conclusion, IMHO 8k display have some purposes.
  • You can never have too much resolution really when working with graphics
  •  Derek Kessler - stop calling it 8K when it is clearly not 8K 7680x4320 is not 8K, calling it 4320 would be appropriate
  • 8K refers to the horizontal resolution, which rounds to 8000 pixels wide.  4320p would be the vertical resolution.
  • You had me at "oiled up half naked muscle man".