logoalt Hacker News

Dell UltraSharp 52 Thunderbolt Hub Monitor

113 pointsby cebertyesterday at 5:14 PM145 commentsview on HN

Comments

lejalvyesterday at 6:37 PM

This has pixels the size of my hand, and it fully covers my field of view. Not my cup of tea.

What I do recommend (having bought one) is the Kuycon G32p, 32 inches @ 6K. Incredible quality and unbelievable value for money (https://clickclack.io/products/in-stock-kuycon-g32p-6k-32-in...).

show 15 replies
gouthamveyesterday at 6:50 PM

I just setup mine today, and I am not sure I recommend it.

I went from a 40" to a 52", and I'm just moving my head waaay too much and my shoulders hurt. It is curved, but very little imo, it's almost like it's flat. I'm going to try it for a week before making the call on whether to return it.

I feel like this needs a workflow where you do work in the middle and use the fringes for other applications that you rarely look at. Otherwise you're moving your head waaay too much and squinting a bunch.

show 9 replies
mrandishyesterday at 7:30 PM

I've found ideal monitor size and resolution depends greatly on viewing distance and relative position. I use a 38" ultra-wide and it's almost too wide - but I have it 'floating' on an adjustable monitor arm so it's only about 24" from my eyes and a bit higher than most monitor stands would allow. The monitor arm is key because once I put a full ergo split keyboard at a comfortable arm-rest distance, a normal monitor stand sitting on the desk would force the monitor to be too far back.

For the full breadth of a 52" monitor to be comfortably viewable for detail work, I'd have to be farther back enough that the difference between 4K and 6K wouldn't be meaningful. It's kind of like how 8k resolution can provide meaningful value in a head-mounted display two inches from your eyeballs, but 8k on a 65" living room TV seven feet away from your couch viewing position is pointless because even those with 20/10 vision can't resolve the additional detail at that distance.

For detail work I find my best ergo seating position is up close with my legs tucked well-under the desk and my stomach almost touching the edge of the curved desk inset. This allows my forearms to be supported comfortably on the desk. I also have my desk surface a little lower than most and my Aeron chair a little higher, putting the top of my legs almost touching the underside of the desktop.

bigstrat2003yesterday at 6:29 PM

The smaller sizes would be nice if they had a 16:10 option. 16:9 just isn't a very nice aspect ratio imo, the extra height on 16:10 is much better.

show 2 replies
throw0101dyesterday at 6:13 PM

The pixels per inch (ppi) density is 129.

Some other specs: refresh rate, 120Hz; brightness, 400 cd/m².

show 1 reply
zenethianyesterday at 8:28 PM

I really want more monitors that are taller and have 3:2 aspect ratio.

show 1 reply
JakeStoneyesterday at 8:24 PM

I've got big monitors, that I hook up to my work laptop and my own laptop. I make it work with a kvm hub. It's really sweet, for my use.

I keep a browser, an IDE, and a terminal pretty much side by side on the bottom one. I keep slack, email, and a clock on the top monitor. I also place pullout tabs from my IDEs on the top one.

Thing is, no matter the cost range, I generally have to replace the KVM hub about once a year. I've just come to accept that as a part replacement cost. <shrug> This thing has its own KVM hub internally. Maybe I'm just rough on my KVM, but if someone puts significant wear and tear on this monitor, I'd imagine that part would wear out, which seems like a potential money sink if you have to keep calling the warranty folks.

For me, it's too much of a risk, but YMMV.

show 1 reply
owenversteegyesterday at 7:59 PM

$2900 seems pretty reasonable to me considering the size. Works out to $416/sqft, which is much cheaper than Bay Area real estate.

I never understood the draw of these huge monitors until I had to do CAD for work and now I understand. Giant monitor + SpaceMouse is a gamechanger. My current monitor is 36” and I could easily use more width.

phaseryesterday at 6:52 PM

Maybe this is the living room dumb-TV that I was waiting for

show 1 reply
elevationyesterday at 9:37 PM

I run a pair of the 43" model listed on the page (U4323QE). Coming from a desk full of 24" 1080P screens which I used with no scaling, the selling point for me was that the DPI was similar (~114, no scaling needed) while the total real estate was larger.

This 6K panel seems like it would scratch a similar itch.

nerdsniperyesterday at 8:31 PM

RTings has a very in-depth review[0] on this product line, ranking it tied for #6 for "best office monitor".

0: https://www.rtings.com/monitor/reviews/dell/u3225qe

show 2 replies
swframe2yesterday at 7:42 PM

I use 2 32" 4K which cost about $800 for both monitors. The small gap between the monitors is annoying but I can't really justify paying $2k more. Also there is a samsung dual 4k that is about the same price as the dell.

Moving my head to see everything doesn't bother me. I also have a setup with 3 32" 4k which I find a little too wide but in that setup 1 monitor connects to different computer.

bhoustonyesterday at 7:58 PM

Very large monitors are amazing. I’ve been rocking a single OLED 48” monitor for my MacBook Air M3. It is killer and I can not go back to smaller screen sizes. I just wish it was 6K or 8K instead of my current 4K. And if I do upgrade it will be to a 52/55”.

show 2 replies
piinbinaryyesterday at 5:23 PM

I have a 34" ultrawide and it is huge. I can't imagine a 52" - the edges would be so far away that it must be hard to read text without physically moving left/right

show 6 replies
bluedinoyesterday at 7:57 PM

I wonder if this would work for me. I sit 36" from 43" 4K TV, I run it scaled at 125%

I think I'm already at the edge of how big of a monitor I could use without spinning my head all around. But the curvedness of it might make up for it.

t1234syesterday at 7:47 PM

Is 130PPI useable at a 1:1 pixel ratio or would this monitor need to be run at a 2:1 ratio

esafakyesterday at 6:51 PM

I never got into the ultra wide thing. Where the 8K monitors at?? We've been stuck on 4K for ten years!

show 2 replies
apetrovyesterday at 6:47 PM

Interestingly it has Thunderbolt 4 (40Gb), 6K typically saturates 30-31Gb, which leaves less 10Gb/s which isn't a lot especially assuming 2.5Gb network. Looks like a perfect case for TB5 and given its price.

nennesyesterday at 9:10 PM

Size and pixel density concerns aside, one downside of larger monitors is the power draw. This burns 64W, which adds £3 to your monthly electricity bill if used for 8hrs every weekday. It's not a terrible amount, but I can run 3 micro pc servers 24/7 for that cost.

flyinglizardyesterday at 8:03 PM

I have the 40" (5K) and it's perfect. Replaced a 27-32-27 setup (the 27"s being portraits, the 32" landscape). For my coding and office work, absolutely no reason to go wider. Highly recommended.

Note the 40", and probably this one too. support MST which makes the display appear as two monitors to the OS and is great in terms of window management without going too fancy with custom software.

show 2 replies
bilsbieyesterday at 8:53 PM

Would the latest Mac minis work with this?

show 1 reply
MarlonProyesterday at 7:23 PM

Expansive and expensive at the same time!

sulamyesterday at 6:40 PM

I have a smaller version of this and it's pretty good as a display.

I'm somewhat disappointed with it as a hub/KVM. It's better than having to swap cables, but just barely. It can't handle any high bandwidth USB devices I've tried (Focusrite Scarlett 2i2, a DSLR via capture card DSLR and a Logitech webcam). The downstream USB strangely isn't even sending down a keyboard and mouse to a PC, I ended up having to get separate dedicated KVM for those. It worked fine with a Thunderbolt to my Macs, but that's not surprising. I'm not sure how it would work with two Macs (one would have to be HDMI or DisplayPort and use that downstream USB port). I could try that but it's not my use case.

2OEH8eoCRo0yesterday at 6:22 PM

Nice. I have the predecessor 40" U4025QW and it's outstanding.

dkobiayesterday at 6:26 PM

At 52" I now believe that there is a limit to the size of a monitor. This might have crossed it.

burnt-resistoryesterday at 8:03 PM

So I use a 49" Dell U4919DW (5120 x 1440 @ 60Hz) with an Anker 777 powered Thunderbolt hub to support a MBP, but also use it directly with a lab Windows box. I can't see spending $3k on a monitor because this one was $1100 + $157.29 tax and shipping in 2022. I threw on a 4 port USB-C hub that clamps on the front bezel, so it has reachable ports.

I guess this almost replaces the Anker, but lacks Ethernet.

ajrossyesterday at 7:04 PM

Looks nice enough. But seems pretty steep. The 42" TV I bought five years ago for $260 does basically the same thing. Slightly more vertical space (albeit at a lower DPI) and somewhat less horizontal. But it still supports four 80-column text windows without a sweat.

Late stage FAANGery is watching 20-somethings try to find ridiculous junk to spend money on.

show 1 reply
apiyesterday at 7:02 PM

Still would love a true AMOLED monitor that's decently large. Doesn't need to be this big. One with perfect contrast ratio.

_zoltan_yesterday at 7:28 PM

another meh display from dell.

if you truly want a great display for productivity, I can't recommend the Samsung 57 enough. 240hz, 2x4k in one panel. it's great.

LegitShadyyesterday at 7:08 PM

dont believe them - this only has 1 thunderbolt port, not 52

NoSaltyesterday at 7:48 PM

> "Unlock unparalleled productivity"

LOL

stalfosknightyesterday at 6:10 PM

Abysmally low pixel density. :(

show 2 replies
ardit33yesterday at 6:10 PM

I have a 39" (almost 40") LG ultrawide, and it is the perfect size. Can't see how a larger monitor would fit a normal desk...

BUT.... this is perfect for folks that want to use one monitor for both work, and as/for entertainment /just normal tv watching in a living room.

fadedsignalyesterday at 6:22 PM

[flagged]

__sp__yesterday at 6:21 PM

[flagged]