Making sense of the spaghetti pile of monitor series, numbers, designations

@rsteer I agree it’s confusing, and it doesn’t help that Dell has changed things up over the years in terms of what features are associated with which model lines, what model lines exist at all, and even the meaning of a given suffix character. But I’ll try to help.

The first character is the model line.

• The U and P models are often very similar, although the U line is positioned as higher end. They often differentiate themselves with more display inputs and/or USB ports, support for daisy chaining, support for charging laptops over USB-C (or how much wattage they provide), degrees of adjustability of the stand, and possibly having support for the latest standards sooner, such as HDMI 2.0 and DisplayPort 1.4/HBR3, including over USB-C. Some of those things are also now found on P displays, but the P displays might not have gotten some of those features until later models, whereas the U models had them earlier.
• There are also “UP” models, which are UltraSharp PremierColor. They are geared toward professionals doing color-sensitive work because they typically have higher color accuracy, wider color gamut, and support for things like 10-bit color and hardware LUTs.
• S displays typically have nice panels but less adjustable stands, fewer inputs (and probably no daisy chain output), and maybe no USB ports.
• E displays are low end. Some only have DisplayPort and omit HDMI, I believe because HDMI connectors require the manufacture to pay a royalty whereas DisplayPort doesn’t. Basic panel, basic stand, no frills.

After that, the first two numbers are diagonal size.

The next two numbers are the “model year” of the display, which took me a long time to figure out. And yes, sometimes the generational refreshes are very minor, potentially even just changes to display input connectors, bezel thickness, etc. You might have to find deep dive reviews of the displays to figure it out, although sometimes reviews of the newer display explicitly call out differences from the previous model.

The last character(s) typically indicates resolution, aspect ratio, panel technology, and more recently the presence of a USB-C input. But again, this has changed over the years, and except for USB-C displays, displays usually don’t have more than one letter here, even though any given display would have a particular resolution, aspect ratio, panel type. I suspect the letter used would have been based on what differentiated that display model from other similar models at the time it was introduced.

• C when it appears as a second suffix character now means the display has a USB-C input. For example a DC display would be D (panel type indicator, below) + C.
• H means 16:9 aspect ratio and was introduced when 16:10 was more common, since those displays had no suffix letter (like the U2415). Nowadays almost everything is 16:9, so the H is sometimes left off if Dell wants to highlight a more significant differentiator.
• HC a while ago meant “high color” because those displays used a different backlight technology (before LED backlights), but that may not be true anymore. And yes, “HC” did not mean both H and C, at least back then when C didn’t exist. It was a separate two-letter designation, not the sum of its parts — although HC today might just mean H and C.
• Q and K have both been used for 4K.
• D denotes a particular panel type, I believe AH-IPS, but I’m not sure.
• W is ultrawide, such as 21:9 or 32:9.
• G means support for NVIDIA G-Sync, I believe. Not sure.
• F means support for AMD FreeSync, I believe. Not sure.

Hopefully this helps.

@rsteer Sorry for the triple post here, but while I may be wrong about this, I don’t think Dell ever made a 27” 16:10 display as you indicated. I believe they only made 16:10 displays in 24” (1920x1200) and 30” (2560x1600), plus some smaller sizes, whereas 27” displays have always been 16:9 (FHD, QHD, or 4K).

@rsteer in addition to my attempt at an explainer above, if you share what specifically you’re looking for and/or the displays that look similar to you, I may be able to make a recommendation and/or differentiate them for you. I realize your post is also intended as a general comment about the branding strategy and product planning overall, but if I can help with something specific, just let me know.

And in fairness, try looking at BenQ or Samsung someday. Their model lineups and model naming schemes are even more opaque!

@jphughan -- Thanks for the insights.  (Though I'm hoping a Dell website manager or FAQ person takes note...)

There are actually quite a few 2-letter suffixes that seem to be common right now, like HR.  And then there's DGF, which either means (if your interpretations are right) that it supports both the Nvidia *and* AMD sync protocols, or it breaks most of your interpretations.  I personally was wondering if the "GF" referred to "gaming framerates", since those are the monitors which seem to have the highest refresh rates (I forget if it's 144Hz or 155Hz) and fast pixel response (~1ms).

@jphughan> I don’t think Dell ever made a 27” 16:10 display...

I forget the model number, but I believe the resolution was 1920 x 1280 or something like that -- very non-standard to my mind, but nice because a more square monitor usually results in slightly larger font size as default.  (More vertical height for the specified ".)  I originally thought it was a 30" but when I checked the model number I do recall noting that it began with "27".  In their day they were VERY expensive.

@rsteer  There's never been 1920x1280 to my knowledge, but 16:10 would be 1920x1200.  However, I don't recall that ever being used on a 27" display, especially an old one, and if it was, the pixel density would have been well below the 96 ppi that Windows considers "standard", so it wouldn't have been high end by any means.  27" displays far more commonly use 2560x1440, which is somewhat higher pixel density than 96 (I think it's 107 or 118, but I'm not looking up horizontal dimensions to do the math right now).

As for the display naming, as noted I'm not entirely sure about HR, DGF, etc.  I buy and spend most of my time using U and P series models, so I don't follow the S and E lines very closely, and I'm not a gamer, so although I'm familiar with the workings of some of the technologies in that space like G-Sync, I don't keep up on the various products targeted at that market.

Anyhow, there are definitely a lot of options, and unfortunately Dell's product pages often don't contain enough tech specs to differentiate them effectively.  I usually end up reading the manuals of displays I'm considering purchasing just to see as much technical info as I can and make sure there aren't any "gotchas" that wouldn't be in the marketing material, particularly since I tend to keep displays for quite a while.  But as I said, if there are any particular displays you're looking at where the differences aren't entirely apparent, post here and I or someone else may be able to help.

Thanks for the offer of buying advice -- I basically have two paths I can follow, although I may go out to Microcenter this afternoon and just look at a few and make a choice.

(My usage is mostly business apps and browsing, with some photo editing.  No gaming, no movies.)

I figured out that the onboard graphics in my Inspiron (Intel HD 4600) maxes out at regular HD (1920x1024) at 60Hz.  So the path of least effort is just to buy an inexpensive "full HD" monitor.  The Dells have a native refresh of 75Hz, which I like in theory, but I don't know if they'll be a little funky if the onboard only drives them at 60Hz.  MSI and Acer models can sync to many signals and have "flicker-free" modes.

OR, I can buy an inexpensive video card (I want passive cooling so probably a 2GB GT-710-based card) that will allow me to go to QHD modes (not full 4K, but 2560 x whatever).  Then I spend more, may or may not have more problems with font legibility, but get in theory a better image and higher refresh.

The only reason I care about refresh (since I don't game) is that I'm old-school about video -- I remember when researchers finally figured out in the '90s that refresh rates over 72Hz made screen-viewing easier on the eyes, at least in old CRT monitors.  I know I could see and feel a difference.  I never really understood why LCDs standardized on 60 Hz, when European and other standards mandated a minimum of 72 Hz for CRTs.  I'm driving my 19" Samsung (primary) monitor at 75Hz right now.  (The onboard graphics can do that for less-than-HD resolutions.)

@rsteer  the Intel HD 4600 can support up to 4K 60 Hz.  I have personally run that from an XPS 15 9530 that had that GPU, and I also ran dual QHD displays via DisplayPort daisy chaining from that same system.

@rsteer  building on the answer above about the HD 4600 capabilities, the XPS 15 does have a discrete GPU, but that GPU does not have direct control of any display outputs.  The Intel GPU is physically wired to all of that system's display outputs, so I wouldn't have been able to run those setups if the Intel 4600 itself didn't actually support them.  It runs as a render-only device when needed, which is how most laptops with discrete GPUs are set up these days.

In any case, I'm fairly sure the 4600 can support dual 4K 60 Hz displays as long as the system offers the necessary display outputs to achieve that, although I never tested that setup.  Newer Intel GPUs can support up to triple 4K 60 Hz.

@rsteer  my aforementioned XPS 15 9530 launched in late 2013.  You would need a DisplayPort 1.2 interface to run 4K 60 Hz or dual QHD though.  If you're running a display from an era where 1280x1024 was available though, I expect you're using either VGA or DVI.  Both of those outputs would be limited to 1920x1200 (1920x1280 isn't a resolution I've seen anywhere), since I don't think that GPU ever supported dual link DVI.  So that might be why you're seeing the max that you are.  And if those are the only outputs on your particular system, then you'd be stuck despite the GPU's ability to do more.

59 Hz probably refers to 59.94 Hz.  Yes, that is technically distinct from 60 Hz.  I can't remember why.  It has something to do with some holdover from the analog era that made it into the digital era to maintain compatibility or something, just as there's 29.97 Hz as distinct from 30 Hz.

@jphughan> I don’t think Dell ever made a 27” 16:10 display...

I did a little searching and the Ultrasharp 2707WFP (1920x1200) looks like the one I've got two of at work; if you search for that on Amazon you'll see pictures and description.  Colors are not perfect but they are REALLY nice, legible work monitors.

@jphughan-- Re: the Intel HD 4600 being able to do 4K.  Maybe the board chipset makes a difference, or maybe I misread something. This is a Dell Inspiron 3847 with i7 and 16GB, probably circa 2013 or 2014.

I went to the device manager video properties and un-checked the box for showing only modes supported by your monitor (max 1280x1024) -- which I assumed would show everything the graphics circuitry could produce, and I think it maxed out at 1920x1024, and offered 30Hz interlaced, 59Hz (?why?), and 60Hz.

@jphughan > 16:10 would be 1920x1200.  However, I don't recall that ever being used on a 27" display, especially an old one, and if it was, the pixel density would have been well below the 96 ppi that Windows considers "standard", so it wouldn't have been high end by any means.

[I posted a version of this reply a couple of weeks ago but it didn't seem to "stick".]  I figured out that the pair I have at work are the U2707 WFP -- see this CNET review:  https://www.cnet.com/reviews/dell-ultrasharp-2707wfp-lcd-monitor-27-series-review/ .  List price was $1,400 when introduced.

Thanks for your advice.  I ended up buying a U2415 at a local computer dealer a week ago, but will now be switching my postings to threads about "flashing" monitors, which I'd seen a couple of old references to but I was assuming (hoping) that Dell would have solved the problem in the last 4 years or so.  Evidently not.  I may return it next Saturday and go with another brand.

@rsteer  Interesting!  I never knew about this display, although for most people's use case I still don't really see the point of adding 3" of diagonal size without increasing resolution.  You just end up looking at a larger but grainier version of the same image, and paying more in both monetary cost and desk space for that dubious privilege.  If your use case involves having to be farther away and/or coping with challenged eyesight, then sure, but I would argue those situations don't fall into the "most people's use case" category.  But Dell clearly found a market for such a display back in 2007, and judging by the continued existence of 27" 1080p displays, continues to find a market for such displays today.

Why are so many websites devoid of tabular presentation of detailed specs?  That's DETAILED specs, so that those of us who fund their BMW payments can make decisions easily?