Back to Article

  • ther00kie16 - Monday, January 09, 2012 - link

    Great, about time someone else entered the consumer high-res market other than Dell, HP, Apple. Samsung hasn't quite got it right and Gateway left that market so perhaps someone big like Asus can finally force the price down. HP's was ~$650 at launch at a couple of e-tailers but it's quickly ballooned to $900. High end 24" stay quite high (~$900) for awhile before influx of competitors brought the price down. here's hoping that I can get a 27" for ~$400 in a year. Reply
  • 8steve8 - Monday, January 09, 2012 - link

    this display uses led backlight
    pip could be cool...

    is it 120hz?
  • Haydon - Tuesday, January 10, 2012 - link

    No it's not. There are still no 120 Hz IPS panels. At least not for sale that I've ever heard of. Reply
  • Taft12 - Monday, January 09, 2012 - link

    Can HDMI drive this resolution? I'm almost sure it can't, and we all know what a bad idea it is to run outside of an LCD's native rez... Reply
  • twotwotwo - Monday, January 09, 2012 - link

    HDMI 1.3+ can drive 2560×1600, according to Wikipedia. w00t! Reply
  • jeremyshaw - Tuesday, January 10, 2012 - link

    Unfortuneately, except for the AMD HD7970, no consumer GPU (including the Intel IGPs) can drive more tha 1920x1200@60Hz over HDMI. Why? HDMI specs can be implemented in parts.

    As a result, most, if not ALL 2560x1xxx monitors with HDMI inputs only accept 1920x1200@60Hz max, without modifing the EDID a bit to support higher resolutions (abheit, at much lower refresh rates, around 30Hz),
  • Penti - Tuesday, January 10, 2012 - link

    For prosperities sake I like to point out it's simply to provide stuff like game consoles, blu-ray players and settopboxes the ability to use the display and those should be able to handle that the screens scale it. If you got a laptop you will need displayport in order to actually use the monitor productively. It's not HDMI 1.4a compatible. HDMI 1.3 is single link (TMDS same as DVI-SL). Which will always have those restrictions. The monitors won't support more then 340MHz bandwidth HDMI. They don't implement dual-link HDMI 1.3. If you would like to use it with a future HDMI 1.4a gpu in a notebook you would need still a DP-port on it or a HDMI to Dual-link DVI cable for the monitor/computer. It's actually different cables and connectors on HDMI 1.3 Dual-link/1.4a to accommodate the extra bandwidth. It's not same old HDMI.

    We can safely say that all monitors implement single-link HDMI thus is limited to 1920x1200 @ 60Hz the same way they are with single link DVI. You need dual-link DVI or DisplayPort in order to drive it an any other screen with a higher resolution. Monitors don't have a reason to support HDMI 1.4a today if they are not some new 4k display for use with 7970. The limitation would still be the computer or source rather then what the monitor can show.
  • Penti - Tuesday, January 10, 2012 - link

    Sorry not 340MHz, the monitors and graphics cards will only handle 165MHz single link signal of course. Which will mean what the above post says. They don't implement either dual-link HDMI or 340MHz single-link HDMI. You will have to wait for HDMI 1.4a monitors and common availability of HDMI 1.4a graphics (as 7970 is the only one). Reply
  • claytontullos - Thursday, January 12, 2012 - link

    My 6950 has 1.4a hdmi.
  • Penti - Saturday, January 14, 2012 - link

    Well it has 3D it doesn't support high-resolutions over HDMI. Neither does the monitor as said. Earlier just supports Stereoscopic 3D, xvYCC and deep color (10-bit or more). Look at AMD's specs for the 6000-series or Northern Islands and you will see max 1920x1200 resolution, over HDMI. It's not implemented fully as usual even if 4k support is included in HDMI 1.4a (and supported by AMD HD 7970). AMD's newer card also support 3GHz HDMI which basically is the feature these monitors will need to implement in order to be driven at high-res (and high/normal refresh rate or at least none-modified EDID). It would also probably need to support reduced blanking for monitor use. Reply
  • keithw1975 - Wednesday, April 11, 2012 - link

    I am pretty sure that the GTX 680 also supports 2560x1600. Reply
  • Exodite - Tuesday, January 10, 2012 - link

    At no point do you /need/ DP, regardless of how you choose to define 'productively'. Reply
  • Penti - Tuesday, January 10, 2012 - link

    Why would you have the screen and not run in native resolution for productivity? Don't you actually like to read the text on the monitor?

    You need DP on a laptop in order to drive it, or even odder and less common dual-link DVI supporting docking stations. Otherwise it's no use for computing use. Buy a lower res monitor if you can't drive the screen then.
  • santiagoanders - Tuesday, January 10, 2012 - link

    Not true. I can drive 2560x1440 over HDMI to my u2711 via a geforce 460. I just create a custom resolution. Reply
  • Penti - Tuesday, January 10, 2012 - link

    Still bandwidth starved, not running 60Hz. Reply
  • santiagoanders - Thursday, January 19, 2012 - link

    The info panel on the display says 60Hz. Reply
  • twotwotwo - Monday, January 09, 2012 - link

    Pivoting's awesome for things that aren't media (long webpages, code) and it'd be big step up from my Dell WFP2007. If ASUS sets a decent price, color me interested. Reply
  • Solidstate89 - Monday, January 09, 2012 - link

    Looks like this is another option to throw on the pile. I know I want some kind of 27" - 2560x1440 monitor, but until now it's been between a Dell Ultrasharp U2711 and that new Samsung Syncmaster PLS display.

    The more choices the better.
  • darckhart - Monday, January 09, 2012 - link

    agree. 1080p at 27" is just ugly.

    i also want to know if its hdmi v1.4a and 120 Hz....
  • Haydon - Tuesday, January 10, 2012 - link

    It's not 120 Hz. As such it doesn't really matter if it's hdmi 1.4a as I'm sure even if it were it wouldn't handle full resolution at 60 Hz. HDMI 1.4a only requires 30 Hz progressive at this monitor's full resolution. HDMI 1.4a has OPTIONAL modes that can run this monitor at full resolution at 60 Hz, but since there are no consumer devices other than the AMD Radeon HD 7970 graphics card that have adopted this optional specification, nobody makes monitors or TVs that can do it. It requires an HDMI chip that runs at 340 MHz . Unfortunately, to keep saving money, no company other than AMD has made a consumer device with anything other than a 165 MHz chip (only capable of half the total pixels per second required of a 2560x1600 monitor, or in this case 2560x1440 monitor at the full standard 60 Hz)

    Until 340 MHz HDMI chips become mainstream you're not going to see monitors or TVs capable of using HDMI for anything over 1920x1200 if you want 60 Hz progressive. You can force an interleaved mode at 60 Hz or progressive at 30 Hz at best unless you use Displayport or Dual Link DVI as of today.
  • cactusdog - Tuesday, January 10, 2012 - link

    IPS is at the end of the road, 2012 is the year for OLED and will make IPS look like junk. Reply
  • werfu - Tuesday, January 10, 2012 - link

    Maybe, but for tenfold the price of the IPS panel. Reply
  • FaaR - Friday, January 13, 2012 - link

    OLED suffers from burn-in (or rather, pixel wear). Good luck watching movies with shadows of your browser window, task bar and desktop icons constantly floating in your field-of-view... Lol.

    I'll stick to my LCD screen, thankyouverymuch. ;)
  • Bigginz - Wednesday, January 18, 2012 - link

    Market research firm DisplaySearch says that OLEDs currently only amount to 4 percent of the display market, but will rise to a substantial 16 percent by 2018.

    Quote from another article.

    I wish you were right about OLED's taking over in 2012 but the technology is not mature yet. It's going to take years for prices to come down to compete with LCD's.
  • DParadoxx - Monday, January 09, 2012 - link

    Please let us know if there are any new 30'' 16:10 displays. This 16:9 trash has got to go. Reply
  • Margalus - Monday, January 09, 2012 - link

    16x10 has to go. 16x9 is what should be the standard.. Reply
  • palladium - Tuesday, January 10, 2012 - link

    I agree with DParadoxx. 16:9 is only good for movies, everything else - gaming, browsing, document viewing/writing is better off on 16:10. Unfortunately the price gap between 2560*1440 screens and 30" 1560*1600 is too wide to justify the latter. Sigh. Reply
  • B3an - Tuesday, January 10, 2012 - link

    Er no. 16:10 is superior for actually doing... work. You know, what most people actually use these higher end displays for.

    16:9 is only good for watching movies and maybe gaming. Literally everything else, even browsing the web, is worse on 16:9 because of less vertical space.
  • Haydon - Tuesday, January 10, 2012 - link

    Technically 3:2 (or 15:10 for comparison purposes) is the optimal ratio for the human field of vision, so both 16:9 and 16:10 fail somewhat, though 16:10 is closer. Reply
  • Penti - Tuesday, January 10, 2012 - link

    Just buy a tv if you like 16:9, for work and computer use the added vertical space is much appreciated. It's even needed many times and pretty much essential in tablets now days. Navigation/buttons won't leave much vertical space otherwise. Reply
  • piroroadkill - Tuesday, January 10, 2012 - link

    Disagree for PC use. Reply
  • tumbleweed - Monday, January 09, 2012 - link

    ARE there even any 16:9 30" monitors? All of the ones I know of are 2560x1600 (16:10). The 27" ones are, however, 16:9. *sigh* Reply
  • Exodite - Tuesday, January 10, 2012 - link

    Why settle for 16*10?

    4*3, or 5*4 like I'm using currently, is even better.
  • dcollins - Friday, January 13, 2012 - link

    Just get over it. 16:10 is dead and 16:9 is the standard that everyone is using. Try moving your windows task bar to the left or right of the screen: it helps a lot when you get used to it. Reply
  • Grizzlebee - Monday, January 09, 2012 - link

    Do people really think they would include a version of hdmi that isn't capable of 2560 x 1440? What good would that be? Reply
  • palladium - Tuesday, January 10, 2012 - link

    The HDMI on Dell U2711 can only do 1920 by 1200. It is still a great monitor, but it just means that you can only get 2560 with DP and DL-DVI Reply
  • B3an - Tuesday, January 10, 2012 - link

    Both my Dell and HP 30" monitors have HDMI but neither can do 2560x1600. Only 1080p with HDMI.

    Fuck HDMI though, DisplayPort is the way to go and with many AMD cards they come with atleast two DP's.
  • Haydon - Tuesday, January 10, 2012 - link

    Yes they would. See my long post above as to why. No 2560x1600 or 2560x1440 monitor has ever been sold that can do 60 Hz progressive over HDMI despite all of them in the last few years being sold with HDMI ports. Reply
  • chris1317 - Tuesday, January 10, 2012 - link

    I have to agree with the posters. 16x9 was only a cash saving exercise with spin placed on the announcement to make it look like the manufacturers were doing you a favour.

    I really do not see the advantage of less pixels on a screen
  • DanNeely - Tuesday, January 10, 2012 - link

    At a minimum if all displays go 16;9 I could be mollified by a 32/33" 2844x1600 monitor. Same 100DPI and vertical resolution as the pair of 1200x1600 panels I use as flanking displays with my current 30" monitor. Reply
  • Penti - Tuesday, January 10, 2012 - link

    Any details on the panel or price? Here in Sweden we can get pretty much Dell U2711 H-IPS, Samsung S27A850D PLS or HP ZR2740W IPS for basically as cheap as you can get a 2560x1440 27" display. Dell provides all the usual ports of mDP, DL-DVI, component, vga and HDMI. It's hard to rival the S27A850D PLS panel in terms of just computer display I think. It's what? 900 on newegg? Could maybe be a good all around display but it need a high-end panel and accept other signals then just DVI/DP properly. I bet many hook up their consoles to them. Otherwise they look stylish/clean enough. Something Asus displays don't always are. It lacks those component inputs for consoles though, and they could please drop the "HDMI" text in the top left corner of the screen on the bezel. Pretty hard to compete here. Reply
  • Groo21 - Thursday, January 12, 2012 - link

    What's with the love affair with HDMI? DisplayPort is significantly better. It can handle much higher resolution, chained displays and embedded USB. Plus, Content protection is not required. Reply
  • ypsylon - Friday, January 13, 2012 - link

    I don't get it. If you have to choose from DVI-D, HDMI and DP then by far the most convenient and superior is DP. Then DVI and last come HDMI with its super-duper expensive cables and limited resolution. Running right now HP zr2740w over DP. Working like a charm. This particular LCD need a bit of love with fine tunning things (no OSD), but after that it is work of art. Picked HP over Dell because of customer service and LCD back-light not CCFL - basically if Dell fail one day after guarantee period you end with very expensive paper weight; Dell offer no repair service/replacement (even if you -want to- pay for that). CCFL chewing power like mad. Even properly calibrated Dell can easily hit 80W which is very much over the top. HP keeps the tabs on power drain at ~40W. Reply
  • Stas - Friday, January 13, 2012 - link

    I can haz for $600? Reply
  • mac2j - Friday, January 13, 2012 - link

    My Samsung S27A950D does 1920x1080x120Hz via DL-DVI, HDMI 1.4a or DP and to be honest the picture is as good or better than any IPS panel I ever owned including the one I replaced with it.

    The S27A850D is the 2560x1440x60hz version though and only supports DL-DVI and DP. I'll be curious to see how that one compares to this Asus when Anand reviews them.

    Hopefully with the new push to 4K in TVs and the growing number of people wanting 2560x1440x120hz monitors we'll finally get some connection standards to support higher resolutions / frequencies later in 2012.
  • mi1stormilst - Tuesday, June 26, 2012 - link

    is this thing ever coming out? Reply

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now