Back to Article

  • EnzoFX - Monday, June 10, 2013 - link

    Drool. What more is there to say. This is pure hotness for desktop/business use. Reply
  • Kevin G - Monday, June 10, 2013 - link

    Tempting. Price out of reason but do not care. When does it ship? Reply
  • chubbypanda - Monday, June 10, 2013 - link

    This 4k LCD was the first thing I went to see at Asus booth! If I remember correctly, it was two miniDP outputs with an adater (at least it seems like it). Reply
  • kylewat - Monday, June 10, 2013 - link

    Outputs? What do you do with them? Reply
  • Inteli - Monday, June 10, 2013 - link

    Daisy-chaining is my guess. Like you would have the GPU power to drive multiple 4K displays right now. Reply
  • ingwe - Monday, June 10, 2013 - link

    Daisy-chaining is correct I believe. It isn't limited to daisy-chaining monitors. There are also storage solutions that use the connection. Reply
  • jeffkibuule - Monday, June 10, 2013 - link

    Hopefully Apple and Dell use slightly smaller versions of this panel (I'm thinking 24"-27") so that they can start shipping those panels in much higher volumes. Reply
  • dishayu - Monday, June 10, 2013 - link

    That was my first thought as well. For me, personally, 31 inch is just WAY too big for a computer monitor. 24-27 sounds just about right. Now if only they could mass produce them and get them in the < 500$ range that would be great :D Reply
  • EnzoFX - Monday, June 10, 2013 - link

    <$500 for 4K monitor? Not even the name brand current 27"s go for that. If this ever comes down to more consumer oriented prices, it'll be $1000+ like the 30" Dell/Apple's and stay that way prob. Reply
  • JDG1980 - Tuesday, June 11, 2013 - link

    4K is being pitched as the next big thing in the TV market. That means that prices will eventually come down to consumer levels. The reason that 1080p is so much cheaper than 2560x1440 or 2560x1600 is that it's a much more widely used resolution. But there is a good chance that 4K will be mainstream in another few years and will therefore be the new 1080p - cheap and easily available. Reply
  • UltraTech79 - Saturday, June 15, 2013 - link

    I find it gimmicky. What does TV need with 4K when 1080p approches what human vision can resolve at the distance most people watch TV? 1600 itself would be more than enough. I dont see it actually gaining anything except trying to revitalize the TV market for people with more money than sense.

    For PC more resolution the better even past what a human can resolve as smooth due to the nature of the PC environment. More room for windows, better font rendering (goodbye cleartype), etc etc.
  • w_km - Monday, June 10, 2013 - link

    $500 4K is at least 2 years away :( Reply
  • web2dot0 - Monday, June 10, 2013 - link

    You know what would be great? If they start handling it out for free. :-D Reply
  • kylewat - Monday, June 10, 2013 - link

    a 24" 4K monitor is probably overkill don't ya think??? I'm not interested in doing the math to get the angular size of a pixel from a meter but my guess is that 1080p probably is sharper than the eye can reconcile. Just a quick guess. 1440p would probably be pretty cool at 24". Right now I'm on my 27" 1440p monitor and surely it is great and could use some retinizing, but 24" is crazy. I'm thinking to stay relevant the desktop will go jumbo. (31" sounds great!) Reply
  • ShieTar - Tuesday, June 11, 2013 - link

    There are different useful definitions of what the eye can resolve. Sure, 1080p for most screens will not look pixelated to anybody, but at the same time the GPU companies put a lot of effort into Oversampling tricks in order to keep Aliasing-Artifacts in check. By increasing the physical resolution of the screen you will finally get to the point where you no longer need any AA modes, as you basically apply "biological anti-aliasing".
    Also, fine details like texts will look better on a higher resolution, even if you can't really make out the pixel in the "high enough" resolution. Keep in mind, that magazine printing is often done with resolutions of 1200 or even 2400 DPI, achieving that would actually require a 25K or 50K resolution on a 24" screen. You might keep your head further from a monitor than from a magazine, but I definitely think 8K on a 24" would still remain useful for anybody working with a lot of text. And you can always scale down for games and movies, where you can't afford those high resolutions.
  • haukionkannel - Tuesday, June 11, 2013 - link

    Yep, sharper text is all what I am looking for. My eyes are not anymore so good as years ago, so better and sharper PC monitor would help a lot! 8K is not too much in 24" it would still be less than we now have in phones! in ppi I mean... Reply
  • B3an - Monday, June 10, 2013 - link

    Any word on Abobe RGB colour gamut? And what type of back light? Reply
  • zanon - Monday, June 10, 2013 - link

    I too would be interested in that, as well as progress on improved backlighting such as quantum dot films with LEDs. I think though that color has to take a back seat until we get a better connector. Without a true 10/12-bit panel, a higher gamut means larger steps between colors and potentially worse images for a lot of uses. Better color is where we should be aiming, and it's a target for UHDTV (see Rec 2020). But standard gamut increases need to go hand in hand with additional space, and that takes bandwidth which we don't have right now. Reply
  • B3an - Monday, June 10, 2013 - link

    What do you mean a better connector? DisplayPort 1.2 supports 3840×2160 @ 60 Hz with 10-bit colour (1.073 billion colours), and many high-end monitors are 10-bit, i'm using two right now. Reply
  • zanon - Monday, June 10, 2013 - link

    I want to see beyond 2160p and 60 Hz, and the industry overall has seemed to put feature importance in order of resolution > refresh > color. I'd be happy to be wrong but I was guessing that the former would be prioritized over the latter. If DP1.2 is all we get for another few years though then you're probably right that everything will settle around UHDTV specs. Reply
  • Taracta - Monday, June 10, 2013 - link

    I would like to see these large monitors with at least half the PPI/DPI (200+) of high end phones, we can dream, so it is good to see some progress after years of regression. 10-bit colors have been around for years now, even though it has not been fully exploited, so I do not have an issue with the order of importance you listed as this is what I believe the industry needs to concentrate on. In the process of doing this they can now standardize and fully exploit 10-bit colors which should help your issue. Reply
  • dragonsqrrl - Monday, June 10, 2013 - link

    Hey that's not bad. Cheapest 4K monitor yet. The prices are coming down quicker than I thought. Once 4K drops to ~$1000, I'll start considering it. Reply
  • apertotes - Monday, June 10, 2013 - link

    3840x2160 = 8.294.400, so its 8k, right? 4k is 2560x1600 Reply
  • ingwe - Monday, June 10, 2013 - link

    4K is approximately 3840. 8.294.400 is not 8k, that is 8 million. Reply
  • apertotes - Monday, June 10, 2013 - link

    Why then 2560x1600 is called as 4k? Reply
  • Blindsay - Monday, June 10, 2013 - link

    2560x1600 is not referred to as 4k Reply
  • Sancus - Monday, June 10, 2013 - link

    Was it possible to determine whether this uses DP 1.2 MST like the Sharp PN-K321, or does it actually present as 1 full 3840x2160 surface over DP? Reply
  • dwade123 - Tuesday, June 11, 2013 - link

    Too much just to beta test 4k. Reply
  • ShieTar - Tuesday, June 11, 2013 - link

    True, but a 4k$ offer in June from ASUS, one month after the 6k$ offer from Sharp, which came in one month after the 20k$ offer from EIZO ... looks like we might get something for below 2k$ for Christmas this year. Reply
  • jbwhite99 - Tuesday, June 11, 2013 - link

    IBM actually brought out a QUWXGA (3840*2160) monitor in 2000 or 2001, if I remember correctly. It was 22", had 2 AC adapters, and ran at 60 Hz. The original list price was around $30,000. Last I remember, it was about $11,000 but that was in about 2004. Reply
  • b3nzint - Saturday, June 15, 2013 - link

    Does it come with miniDP cables? Are they 16:9 or 16:10? i still prefer 16:10 though. Reply
  • b3nzint - Saturday, June 15, 2013 - link

    for USD 80.0. at my town i can get a New LCD LED 17" with 1920 x 1080. i can't tell u the brand. Reply
  • Shadowmaster625 - Tuesday, June 18, 2013 - link

    How can one panel cost $3500 when you can buy 4 1080p panels for $79 each and place them side by side for $300? Why dont they jsut take 4 1080p panels and place them all within the same bezel? I dont care if there is a minor distortion in the middle of the screen, it would certainly be thinner than an obnoxious bezel. Reply
  • Stefeno - Sunday, June 23, 2013 - link

    So 4K @ 31.5" would be 50% smaller pixels then 1600p monitors?

    Think Id prefer the 39" for desktop.
  • shin0bi272 - Saturday, July 13, 2013 - link

    Ive never used display port but does the video card youre running on not make a difference as to how fast the screen can be drawn? If so why are they running 2 of these off of an onboard video card? Plug those suckers into an nvidia 780! Reply
  • sheikhjee - Tuesday, August 13, 2013 - link

    Why peoples like this ASUS brand because its quality is better to many other brands and one thing which is teasing me that is it supported to the as a projector like this Reply

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now