Asus 39 inch 3840x2160 60Hz panel.

Sancus

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jun 1, 2013
Messages
1,043
As much as I would appreciate the reportedly reasonable pricing here it's pretty hard to get excited about this monitor at least for gaming. It would be 112ppi which is no better than the 109ppi of a 2560x1440 27" panel. Add to that the tradeoffs of absolutely requiring 2 or 3 Titans or 780s in SLI, which brings along with it all the issues of SLI and its hard to see why you would be better off with it unless you just love massive screens, in which case okay.

The 31.5" model may be expensive as hell but it's also a legit upgrade in PPI while also being close enough to reasonable desktop monitor size. Personally if I could not afford to spend 4k on the monitor I would steer clear of this whole multi thousand dollar GPU black hole that is 3840x2160 altogether

I could maybe see wanting the extra raw screen real estate for work purposes though. Fortunately that would not require much GPU power.
 

Diverge

Gawd
Joined
Nov 22, 2005
Messages
542
I think the PPI of a 2560 x 1440 27" screeen is just fine, being the owner of one. If this 39" monitor is priced cheap enough i'm very interested in upgrading even though my 27" is only a couple months old.
 

Murzilka

Gawd
Joined
Dec 11, 2011
Messages
959
This monitor looks very interesting indeed! MVA and 4k resolution? What else to wish for? Probably just a smaller size and 120hz and that's it! No need for heaven...
 

Megalith

24-bit/48kHz
Staff member
Joined
Aug 20, 2006
Messages
13,003
4k on a 31" screen is laughable. 2560 x 1440 on a 27" is already uncomfortable.

This would be moot if Windows scaled like OS X, but unfortunately its DPI scaling is hideous.
 

rtangwai

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jul 26, 2007
Messages
1,369
Neat thing about this monitor is you could build one hell of a PLP rig by using 2 27" 1440p monitors in portrait mode on each side of it. It would utterly dwarf a 20-30-20 setup.
 
Joined
Sep 14, 2008
Messages
1,622
4k on a 31" screen is laughable. 2560 x 1440 on a 27" is already uncomfortable.

This would be moot if Windows scaled like OS X, but unfortunately its DPI scaling is hideous.

To each his own.

I am comfortable with 3840x2400 on a 22 inch with smaller fonts than on windows so people saying they are uncomfortable with 2560x1440 on a 27 inch is pretty laughable to me. I mean comeon its barely higher DPI than regular monitors. LOL!

3840x2160 would be fine on a 30 inch. It should be absolutely 0 problem on a 39 inch since then the pixels are almost as large as on the 27 inch 1440p panel.

I guess some people really have horrible vision. I had no problem reading 75 DPI fonts on a 3840x2400 22 inch LCD from 1.5 feet away with an old prescription where I was only getting around 20/30 so far from perfect vision.
 

Megalith

24-bit/48kHz
Staff member
Joined
Aug 20, 2006
Messages
13,003
I've read that article but was unimpressed because it sounds like they simply automized the DPI scaling option rather than address the main issue, which is that UI elements tend not to scale at all relative to fonts. You inevitably end up with gigantic letters in tight, constrained menus.
 

Sancus

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jun 1, 2013
Messages
1,043
4k on a 31" screen is laughable. 2560 x 1440 on a 27" is already uncomfortable.
This would be moot if Windows scaled like OS X, but unfortunately its DPI scaling is hideous.

Some people have better eyes than others. I know someone who prefers to operate his retina macbook at true 2880x1800 with pixel doubling turned off, to get the additional screen real estate. That's 226ppi. It's perfectly comfortable for him because his eyesight is significantly better than 20/20.

The idea that nobody wants >100 ppi on the desktop because it's "uncomfortable" or because "Windows 7 scaling doesn't work"(it actually works fine in many major apps, especially if you stick to 125% which is plenty for a 139ppi monitor) is simply wrong and that's all there is to it. If 109ppi is uncomfortable for you, you're free to not buy such monitors, but don't assume that all other people have similar comfort levels to you, because they don't.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Sep 14, 2008
Messages
1,622
Some people have better eyes than others. I know someone who prefers to operate his retina macbook at true 2880x1800 with pixel doubling turned off, to get the additional screen real estate. That's 226ppi. It's perfectly comfortable for him because his eyesight is significantly better than 20/20.

The idea that nobody wants >100 ppi on the desktop because it's "uncomfortable" or because "Windows 7 scaling doesn't work"(it actually works fine in many major apps, especially if you stick to 125% which is plenty for a 139ppi monitor) is simply wrong and that's all there is to it. If 109ppi is uncomfortable for you, you're free to not buy such monitors, but don't assume that all other people have similar comfort levels to you, because they don't.

I use my retina macbook in the same way on linux with even smaller fonts than Mac OS X or windows. The thing is that is the extreme. I get that pixels that small are not comfortable for everyone but I did not have problems even on my old prescription where I was only getting around 20/30 (corrected) so not really awesome vision. What I don't get is how people are having issues with 108 PPI vs a regular LCD that is around 95 PPI. We are not talking about a 200 PPI display like my 20 inch 4k display or retina macbook.

I just really dont see how 110 PPI-ish is a problem unless you have crap vision or you like to sit 4-5 feet away from the display (although at 110 ppi I would have no problem at 5 feet away).
 

Panmaster

Limp Gawd
Joined
May 31, 2013
Messages
228
How long until major retailers such as Amazon or Ebuyer (a.k.a BestBuy in 'murrica) start stocking these 4K screens?
 

IdiotInCharge

NVIDIA SHILL
Joined
Jun 13, 2003
Messages
14,679
How long until major retailers such as Amazon or Ebuyer (a.k.a BestBuy in 'murrica) start stocking these 4K screens?

That's a good question; I'd like to see them too, but I doubt most retailers are in a hurry to display or even list 4k panels that are significantly cheaper than the Sonys and Samsungs that are currently retailing for 3x-5x the price.

Granted there's definitely some pent up demand here that they could be taking advantage of. Put out a 4k 60Hz (DisplayPort) monitor at any size above ~30" and they'd start flying off the shelves.

Also remember that the higher-end monitors/TVs come with a lot of compelling features even at their slightly bloated price points, too. There's something to be said about quality that we know we won't be getting out of Seiki etc.
 

Mark Rejhon

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jul 6, 2004
Messages
1,395
Does this use the same panel? This one is much cheaper, reportedly just $600.

Skyworth 39E780U -- 4K UHD TV (domestic China model)

Check out this Overclock.net review by maarten12100

maarten12100 said:
The overclock results:
UHD 3840×2160 was 30Hz max now 38Hz (up to 40Hz by reducing the extra pixels/blanking in the stream but with minor artifacting)
QFHD 2560×1440 was not there now 82Hz
HD 1920×1080 was 60Hz max now 140Hz (I checked with RRMT Refresh Rate Multi Tool and it actually did it without dropping)
QHD 1280×720 was 60Hz max now 254Hz (checked again with RRMT but it was too fast for my eyes then I took pictures and video)

The good: Only $600.
The bad: Difficult to order. Sold only in China domestic market.
I *knew* for a while that these 39 inch 4K panels cost only $425 in factory quantity, so I guess that explains the unusually low price ($600) for a 4K monitor.
Almost too good to be true, but it's confirmed -- this is the real thing!

Now added to the HardForum HDTV Overclocking Thread, and also blogged at Blur Busters

Also, can the ASUS 4K monitor overclock too?
 

Mark Rejhon

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jul 6, 2004
Messages
1,395
Only 38 Hz @4K? Not worth the move.
True, if 4K@60Hz is a consideration.

I'm just curious if it is using the same panel.
The 1080p@120Hz and 720p@240Hz can be worth it to some people, though!
I am curious if the ASUS can overclock those modes too?
 

Diverge

Gawd
Joined
Nov 22, 2005
Messages
542
Only 38 Hz @4K? Not worth the move.

That's a TV, so that is w/ HDMI, not DP. I think that just shows how cheap the panel is, if it is the same used in the asus. So if Asus can release their monitor, if using the same panel as those TVs for around $1000 or less, I think it will probably make a lot of people happy.
 

Mark Rejhon

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jul 6, 2004
Messages
1,395
That's a TV, so that is w/ HDMI, not DP. I think that just shows how cheap the panel is, if it is the same used in the asus. So if Asus can release their monitor, if using the same panel as those TVs for around $1000 or less, I think it will probably make a lot of people happy.
Realistically, markups for the North American market, with North American warranties, English, power, etc, would mean a sweet spot price of about $1000-1500. Not too bad. But that may still take time.
 

kabobi

Limp Gawd
Joined
Jun 4, 2013
Messages
271
An Asus representative on Tom's ASUS AMA confirmed that this monitor will be released "in the beginning of 2014" and didn't offer any price information -____-

The 32" meanwhile goes on pre-order next week.
 
Joined
Sep 14, 2008
Messages
1,622
An Asus representative on Tom's ASUS AMA confirmed that this monitor will be released "in the beginning of 2014" and didn't offer any price information -____-

The 32" meanwhile goes on pre-order next week.

Wha???

They previously said Q3 2013...
 

kabobi

Limp Gawd
Joined
Jun 4, 2013
Messages
271
Wha???

They previously said Q3 2013...

I know. I was actually the one posing the question on Tom's for confirmation of release date and pricing. But it was an Asus representative who said 2014, so I'm inclined to believe him.

This sucks though. I was looking forward to getting one before the school year started...
 

FishHead

Gawd
Joined
Jan 19, 2005
Messages
622
I'll never understand why these reviewers are always so concerned about how thin it is. What exactly are they putting behind their monitors that requires those few extra millimeters of space?

These trendy idiots are the reason that CRTs got phased even though they display a better picture, along with why Apple is able to move their overpriced crap products. There are plenty of people like me willing to sacrifice fashion for performance but these days you have to pay out the ass for it while "tech reviewers" gather around and gawk at razor-thin smartphones like apes around a golden banana.

It really pisses me off what the tech world has become. Too much glitter for my taste.
 
Joined
Sep 14, 2008
Messages
1,622
Totally agree with you man. I actually bought an apple laptop for the first time (retina macbook pro) simply due to the fact no other notebook existed that was the same resolution and to me the display is one of the most important things for a notebook.

I will admit it is a very nice thin/light machine; however, I would have been fine with saving $700 if it meant a bit thicker/heavy and less pretty machine.

In the end I am still glad I did it as a year later there *still* aren't really any comparable PC laptops. I thought I was saving maybe 6 months and at the time I really needed a new laptop but it ended up saving me even more than that on waiting to get a pc equivelent laptop.
 

IdiotInCharge

NVIDIA SHILL
Joined
Jun 13, 2003
Messages
14,679
Totally agree with you man. I actually bought an apple laptop for the first time (retina macbook pro) simply due to the fact no other notebook existed that was the same resolution and to me the display is one of the most important things for a notebook.

I will admit it is a very nice thin/light machine; however, I would have been fine with saving $700 if it meant a bit thicker/heavy and less pretty machine.

In the end I am still glad I did it as a year later there *still* aren't really any comparable PC laptops. I thought I was saving maybe 6 months and at the time I really needed a new laptop but it ended up saving me even more than that on waiting to get a pc equivelent laptop.

Now that I've gotten into photography, a Retina MacBook has gone to the top of my list.

I hate Apple; but damn, they have the best hardware on the planet. Just wish they wouldn't go full retard on the keyboard, and put a damn numpad on the thing. Can't for the life of me figure out why they do that, it's like they don't expect people to use them for actual work. Go do some Excel stuff without it, sheesh.
 

Sancus

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jun 1, 2013
Messages
1,043
I thought I was saving maybe 6 months and at the time I really needed a new laptop but it ended up saving me even more than that on waiting to get a pc equivelent laptop.

It's pretty disappointing how Lenovo and other top-tier PC laptop makers have completely punted regarding their high-end machines. Either they're too heavy, the specs are bad, or they have crappy low resolution non-IPS displays.

Even aside from the display, retina macbooks have top-end performance combined with weight that's typically a pound less than alternatives and 2-3 hours more battery life than those alternatives as well! I don't even really like OSX that much, but I'm stuck with it if I want to use the best hardware.
 

IdiotInCharge

NVIDIA SHILL
Joined
Jun 13, 2003
Messages
14,679
It's pretty disappointing how Lenovo and other top-tier PC laptop makers have completely punted regarding their high-end machines. Either they're too heavy, the specs are bad, or they have crappy low resolution non-IPS displays.

[agree on Apple comment posted here]

I have one of those 'configurable' DTR's that has an Ivy quad and the mobile spin of the GTX560. It has a very decent 1080p TN panel, that has much better than average viewing angles and I've successfully calibrated it at one point (then I upgraded it to Windows 8 Pro).

Main issue? The keyboard is a piece of shit. No two ways about it. The trackpad is passable, but it pales in comparison to the trackpad on my Toshiba beater laptop. It's also heavy; with the power supply, it's over 12 pounds; and I could give a crap about that if I didn't also need to carry a keyboard around for it. I mean seriously, there are keys that hardly work at all.
 
Joined
Sep 14, 2008
Messages
1,622
It's pretty disappointing how Lenovo and other top-tier PC laptop makers have completely punted regarding their high-end machines. Either they're too heavy, the specs are bad, or they have crappy low resolution non-IPS displays.

Even aside from the display, retina macbooks have top-end performance combined with weight that's typically a pound less than alternatives and 2-3 hours more battery life than those alternatives as well! I don't even really like OSX that much, but I'm stuck with it if I want to use the best hardware.

Could always just run Windows on it but then batterly life suffers, otherwise windows works pretty good on it. For actual work I mainly use linux on it but that does have some problems (LCD brightness, wifi, touchpad).

If I am just using it for browsing when I am out and about then I stick to mac OS X as that has the best battery life by far. I used to run games now and then off windows (almost never use it now) and primarily run linux.
 

undermined

Limp Gawd
Joined
Nov 16, 2008
Messages
423
pre-orders up:

ASUS Announces PQ321Q Pre-Order:
The World’s First Consumer 4K Monitor

31.5-inch 4K Ultra HD Monitor features four-times the resolution of a Full HD display for incredibly detailed and lifelike images


Fremont, California (July 1, 2013) — ASUS, a worldwide leader in high performance large screen displays, today announced the exclusive pre-order for the highly-anticipated PQ321Q True 4K UHD monitor. Starting July 1st, US consumers will be able to pre-order the world’s first consumer 4K monitor through Newegg, Amazon, or TigerDirect at an introductory MSRP of $3,499 USD. The PQ321Q True 4K UHD Monitor, a desktop display with a stunning Ultra HD 3840 x 2160 resolution, delivers a screen resolution equivalent to four Full HD displays combined. It has a 31.5-inch LED-backlit 4K Ultra HD display (140 pixels-per-inch) with a 16:9 aspect ratio, and supports 10-bit RGB ‘deep color’ for vibrant images with more natural transitions between hues.
 

kabobi

Limp Gawd
Joined
Jun 4, 2013
Messages
271
It sucks that we have to wait until 2014 for the 39".....I don't have $3.5k for a monitor....$1k can be managed though.

Also, anyone heard anything about the 39" Seiki that's supposed to be $700? Is it a TV or monitor? I assume it's 30Hz though rather than 60Hz unlike the Asus?

Finally, how do you guys think everything will look if these 4K monitors are run at 1080p or 1440p? I don't plan to game at 4K on these because I don't have 4 Titans...so will it look as bad as games look on current monitors at sub-default resolution? Or is this a function of DPI scaling?
 

notarat

2[H]4U
Joined
Mar 28, 2010
Messages
2,331
It sucks that we have to wait until 2014 for the 39".....I don't have $3.5k for a monitor....$1k can be managed though.

Also, anyone heard anything about the 39" Seiki that's supposed to be $700? Is it a TV or monitor? I assume it's 30Hz though rather than 60Hz unlike the Asus?

Finally, how do you guys think everything will look if these 4K monitors are run at 1080p or 1440p? I don't plan to game at 4K on these because I don't have 4 Titans...so will it look as bad as games look on current monitors at sub-default resolution? Or is this a function of DPI scaling?

I ran (2) 7970s and games ran just fine. Two Titans do make a difference.
 

kabobi

Limp Gawd
Joined
Jun 4, 2013
Messages
271
I ran (2) 7970s and games ran just fine. Two Titans do make a difference.

Interesting. I was just going off of this Anand article.

I currently have a 2gb GTX670 which i don't think will be enough for 4K@60Hz for any modern game really...though I play Age of Empires 2 quite often still :D
 

burningrave101

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Sep 9, 2003
Messages
11,825
I want one so bad but every time I almost talk myself into submitting a pre-order that $3500k price tag stares me right back down.
 
Last edited:

Mr.Pixel

Limp Gawd
Joined
Oct 30, 2010
Messages
138
Interesting. I was just going off of this Anand article.

They appear to be using very high levels of AA (SSAA in Sleeping Dogs should cut the performance by half or more). This is supported by the good performance of the Titan VS the 690, since the Titan doesn't need to share its 6GB of memory between 2 chips.
 

IdiotInCharge

NVIDIA SHILL
Joined
Jun 13, 2003
Messages
14,679
Interesting. I was just going off of this Anand article.

I currently have a 2gb GTX670 which i don't think will be enough for 4K@60Hz for any modern game really...though I play Age of Empires 2 quite often still :D

I'm running a pair, which are just enough for 1600p (still can't max out BF3), can't really complain. So I'll liken this experience to using an HD4870 1GB at 2560x1600 when I was between GPUs- it ran BF:BC2 just fine with sliders leaning to the left, 'just fine' being that it didn't keep me from being competitive.

I'm going to go out on a limb and say that while we won't be maxing out recent games on 4k monitors with one or two GPUs, most of us will probably be fine if we keep a good handle on which settings are the real drivers and limiters of graphics performance at such high resolutions.
 
Top