Asus unveils 31.5" 4k Monitor

O

Ohmycaptain

Gawd
Joined
Jul 10, 2011
Messages
717
Last edited:
Please let it be 60hz. I'm willing to part with my eyefinity setup for this. When the price is cheaper of course. ;)
 
Sieg said:
Please let it be 60hz. I'm willing to part with my eyefinity setup for this. When the price is cheaper of course. ;)
Click to expand...

You can run it at 60hz by "merging" the 2 virtual panels together with eyefinity. It's a left half and a right half, both at 60hz. Instead of 1 panel at 30hz.
 
Do you guys think DELL will come out with a 4k panel any time soon? I like Asus products, but I'm not too fond of their customer service and support. And with monitors, I've only stuck with premium brand names such as DELL & HP....they offer professional/business type warranties and Dell even overnights you another monitor for a single dead pixel, without question.
 
dukenuke88 said:
Do you guys think DELL will come out with a 4k panel any time soon? I like Asus products, but I'm not too fond of their customer service and support. And with monitors, I've only stuck with premium brand names such as DELL & HP....they offer professional/business type warranties and Dell even overnights you another monitor for a single dead pixel, without question.
Click to expand...

Depends if they can get in bed with a manufacturer of 4K panels at a good price!
 
It uses white led, so it's standard gamut.
If you want 4k, better wait for the technology to mature and to get cheaper.
 
Here's to hoping a Korean knock off hits Ebay within a year for half the price. :eek:
 
Will wait. Cards can barely push 60 fps at 1600p.

As for work, I can still manage with 1600p, though I would surely prefer a 37"-40" 4k Monitor.

That Seiki sure was tempting at 1100$ for 4K. But 30 FPS limitation = wait longer.
 
adriantrances said:
Will wait. Cards can barely push 60 fps at 1600p.

As for work, I can still manage with 1600p, though I would surely prefer a 37"-40" 4k Monitor.

That Seiki sure was tempting at 1100$ for 4K. But 30 FPS limitation = wait longer.
Click to expand...

Same here...I'll wait till cards are able to push decent FPS doing 4k...I don't mind buying two high end GPUs in SLI to run around 60fps in 4k...but right now, it appears 3 Titan's would be the minimum at 4k and decent frames...and $3k on GPUs is just out of the question for me...but around $1200 in GPU's is fine

It also helps that while waiting for GPU's to catch up in performance, the price of 4k will drop :)
 
adriantrances said:
Will wait. Cards can barely push 60 fps at 1600p.
Click to expand...

Only if you insist on max settings. Drop the bling and frame rates should shoot up. I wonder what the frame rate of, say, FC3 will be on a Titan at 4K with no AA, no AF, and medium graphics settings?
 
funny that a monitor that awesome -- and they are sticking the silly little 2W stereo speakers on it?

I have to be in a desperate (and very temporary) situation to even think about using speakers that are embedded in any monitor.

Something like this though is the holy grail for me -- I'm running a regular ass HP 27" LED 1920X1080p monitor... nothing special (vertical viewing angle sucks) and the dot pitch is larger than I'd like it to be -- but it was cheap.

hoping to upgrade to something like an UltraSharp here in a few months.
 
Wish they dropped the speakers and put that cost toward lowering the input lag to at least 7ms
 
Quartz-1 said:
Only if you insist on max settings. Drop the bling and frame rates should shoot up. I wonder what the frame rate of, say, FC3 will be on a Titan at 4K with no AA, no AF, and medium graphics settings?
Click to expand...

Well yeah I obviously don't max out settings. I run 1600p and I only bother with 2x MSAA or equivalent. Sometimes I see people running 8x MSAA at 1600p and I'm just like SMH...its just totally un necessary and only for bragging rights

At 4k I probably won't run AA at all. I would however run AF 16x as theres barely any impact in performance with AF.
 
these newer 4k displays. lcd technology will stay here for a longer time. because, can oled displays 4k? I guess not.
 
Quartz-1 said:
Only if you insist on max settings. Drop the bling and frame rates should shoot up. I wonder what the frame rate of, say, FC3 will be on a Titan at 4K with no AA, no AF, and medium graphics settings?
Click to expand...

I can't even get 60 fps in all areas in Crysis 3 with 2x 780 SLI and 3770k @ 4.5Ghz. This at 1080p, never mind 1600p.

Maxed of course (FXAA only).

There's no other way to play these penis shooters, than maxed. Need to enjoy the ambiance :)
 
adriantrances said:
I can't even get 60 fps in all areas in Crysis 3 with 2x 780 SLI and 3770k @ 4.5Ghz. This at 1080p, never mind 1600p.

Maxed of course (FXAA only).

There's no other way to play these penis shooters, than maxed. Need to enjoy the ambiance :)
Click to expand...

w/ higher PPI you don't really need high AA or much at all. Smaller pixels = less jaggies, ect. So there is some balancing to be had if you want good image quality and good performance. You can't really compare it to a 23-24" 1080P screen.
 
input lag on this will be high as hell, at least 5-6 frames.
 
TroyX said:
input lag on this will be high as hell, at least 5-6 frames.
Click to expand...

Pulling facts out your butt?

No one knows until it's reviewed. Since input lag is directly related to electronics that control the panel, and the firmware, it can't even be compared to the sharp panel - even if it was reviewed for input lag.
 
adriantrances said:
I can't even get 60 fps in all areas in Crysis 3 with 2x 780 SLI and 3770k @ 4.5Ghz. This at 1080p, never mind 1600p.

Maxed of course (FXAA only).

There's no other way to play these penis shooters, than maxed. Need to enjoy the ambiance :)
Click to expand...

780 sli can't handle it at 1080p? Time to start settling for occasional dips.
I run a quite steady 60 on high at 1080p and a mix of high/med at 1440p

Sounds like you have too many horses and no where to run. Get a bigger screen.
 
Assuming that's MSRP, it may be found somewhat cheaper, and that is a minimum of $600 cheaper than the Sharp PN-K321 is going for right now stateside, so that's really not too bad at all. About what one would have expected.
 
I would actually consider paying that price if they could guarantee me a panel without bleed or dead pixels.
 
The cool thing about 4k displays is that several companies in Taiwan and mainland China have invested in the the production side of this panel technology and consumers are no longer held as slaves to high prices when you only have 1 or 2 companies releasing said technology.

The 50" Seiki 4K display I can guarantee was seen as a "disruptive" product because it basically short changes Sony, Panasonic, Sharp, etc from coming to market later and at a much higher price point with these types of panels.

The Chinese have this game figured out. Invest now in infrastructure and reap the benefits 10x fold now and 100x later. All bases are covered.

We will see 4K displays in all sizes and shapes in the coming 18 to 24 months. Personally, I want a 50 - 60" 16:10 4K display for my desktop. To get a mental picture of this, take a 42" HDTV and add on an additional 14" to either side of the 42".

Both Japan and Korea will have no choice but to enter the market at prices that make sense to consumers.

I'm sure Asus and Sharp will hit the market with quality 29 - 30 and yes, there is an Asus 39" 4K monitor coming out that will be expensive be it will be very short lived that early adopters will take it in the ass.
 
collegeboy69us said:
funny that a monitor that awesome -- and they are sticking the silly little 2W stereo speakers on it?

I have to be in a desperate (and very temporary) situation to even think about using speakers that are embedded in any monitor.

Something like this though is the holy grail for me -- I'm running a regular ass HP 27" LED 1920X1080p monitor... nothing special (vertical viewing angle sucks) and the dot pitch is larger than I'd like it to be -- but it was cheap.

hoping to upgrade to something like an UltraSharp here in a few months.
Click to expand...


I wish they wouldn't put speakers on it at all. Waste of space and money and natural resources...and it's heavier and...mainly what I said first, waste of space and money. I don't want speakers in my displays.
 
Diverge said:
w/ higher PPI you don't really need high AA or much at all. Smaller pixels = less jaggies, ect. So there is some balancing to be had if you want good image quality and good performance. You can't really compare it to a 23-24" 1080P screen.
Click to expand...

Yup, had no problems playing Crysis 3 maxed out at 1080P using 580 sli without any AA on a CRT. The low PPI count of current LCD results in a much harsher image quality that can only be partially addressed with AA. Is one of the main reasons why I have refused to move on from CRTs until now.
 
Only 800:1 Contrast ratio, this sucks!
Wasn't IGZO supposedly cure-all for bad contrast and whatnot? Not much left of it now, bah!
What's the point of 10bit if brightest to darkest pixel doesn't differ that much, who knows how much backlight bleed and other failures creep up on this one.
I'm sorely disappointed.
 
Xpuser said:
Only 800:1 Contrast ratio, this sucks!
Wasn't IGZO supposedly cure-all for bad contrast and whatnot? Not much left of it now, bah!
Click to expand...

IGZO does only one thing. Lets more light pass through backplane.

The only real outcome from this is some combination of improved efficiency and/or brightness.

This does not affect contrast/viewing angles, color etc..
 
Supposedly the larger version uses a VA panel. Very interesting.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top