Asus PQ321 4k Monitor 3840x2160 IGZO Display

Agreed. Let the 4K revolution finally begin. Freaking tablets with 3MP displays for $500...

...that one is a bullshit (said in Angry Korean accent)...

Bitterness aside, I currently use a Native 6MP monitor at 30.4". Its great for work and play, but for general web use and forum trolling, meh. I will hold out for a 40" before I trade out my NEC.
 
Nice - this one supports 60hz at 4k resolution via displayport.

I hope more manufacturers follow suit so that a price war ensues.
 
how much Vram would you need for something like this?

and how much gpu power to run games at least 30fps?
 
I believe there are some tests online already. Guru3d has one if i am not mistaken. Google search yields several. Most modern cards seem capable.
 
My ZR30W is not even two years old yet and I just know I am going to want a 4K monitor.
 
I really hope that besides the resolution, the panel itself will be high quality. 10 bit/1.07 Billion colors, AH-IPS or better panel type, newest generation LED backlighting, able to support as high frequency as possible, brightness 350+ nits, all without PWM flicker and hopefully with a natural glossy finish instead of a "smeary" antiglare coating... basically, if they can start and one-up the latest Dell 27" (and 30", but I hear that has more problems), then it it may be worth it. I hope the image quality and features are good and that this isn't just a high resolution with a big pricetag on a mediocre panel.
 
I am impressed; even the stand looks fine.

Hopefully they manage to keep it under 2k.
 
4k panels that operate at 120hz exist currently. However, no one has developed the controller boards to use existing connection standards to power them (e.g. splitting the screen into 3 separate regions so that each region could operate at 120hz through a dvi cable. This would require 3 inputs into the monitor.)

Interestingly 39inch 4k panels are under 450 dollars, if you buy them in lots of 7.
 
Now make it smaller and then I'd be interested.

By the way, I hope they include pixel doubling in gpu drivers in the future.
 
Well, having a displayport connector is no guarantee it does 60 hz @ 3840x2160 - it could be using a crappy controller board or something. Guess we'll just have to wait for more information.
 
Ooo guess I will hold off a little longer on my planned purchase of a Dell 27" and see what this thing looks like.

:D
 
I am impressed; even the stand looks fine.

Hopefully they manage to keep it under 2k.

Doubtful. This is the Sharp Panel and Sharp wants $5500 for their version.

Even if Asus is the "budget" version, I bet it $4000+.
 
Ignoring budget, this thing sounds unpleasant. The pixel density is just too high for most web interfaces. There's a lot of people who switch back from 30" setups because of the pixel density problems, <10% larger with 35% more pixels would just make this worse.
 
The 39" model might be decent, but there is a point where a monitor is simply too large. 4K pixels wide on the web would be no fun.
 
The 39" model might be decent, but there is a point where a monitor is simply too large. 4K pixels wide on the web would be no fun.

You don't need to be in full screen. If you don't want your browser to be that wide make the window smaller. You can also control the size with zoom, just hold control and use the mouse wheel. Mobile browsers are zoomed by default.
If you're browsing at 4k and want your browser window at full screen just set your zoom to 200% and it will look fine.

Yesterday I turned all the navigation graphics on my site from bitmaps to vector graphics so they'll look good at any resolution.
 
The 39" model might be decent, but there is a point where a monitor is simply too large. 4K pixels wide on the web would be no fun.

Not if the web moves to vector based text with high resolution images. Should work just fine.
 
Ignoring budget, this thing sounds unpleasant. The pixel density is just too high for most web interfaces. There's a lot of people who switch back from 30" setups because of the pixel density problems, <10% larger with 35% more pixels would just make this worse.


Are you joking? 100 PPI of a 30 inch is a problem for people. Give me a freaking break. I can use a 204 PPI 22 inch no problem. Too many people with horrible vision out there I guess...
 
I wonder if MacBooks can drive this. Their specs list 2560x1600 as max, but it's been that way since 2008.
 
Vector graphics ideally. And if not, scaling scaling scaling! The more we have reasonable resolution monitors, the more people will use vector graphics and the better scaling options we'll have in software. Don't be a luddite, progress requires change and rethinking how we do things. The tradeoffs in this case are worth it!
 
I wonder if MacBooks can drive this. Their specs list 2560x1600 as max, but it's been that way since 2008.

no, only full DisplayPort 1.2 will drive this. Older Macs max out at 2560x1600 and even lightningbolt equipped models are iffy.

it isn't even really a DisplayPort 1.2 limit but how it is implemented.Older chipsets don't bother with full support of the spec along the lines of how AMD and Nvidia both support DisplayPort 1.2 but Nvidia limits 10bit/30-bit color to Quadro , OSX doesn't even support 10 bit color.
 
I'm going to guess that this will be $3000-$4000 because the Sharp version is currently selling for $3400 in Japan and $4600 in the US... there wouldn't be much point in Asus releasing a more expensive version, especially if the input options aren't the same in all markets...
 
I wonder if this panel will be actually manufactured by Sharp or if this is a licensing deal with one of the Taiwanese panel makers.
 
4K? I thought 4K was 4096xSomething? Is this like how 720p is "high def"?

It is, technically. Because of existing technologies, people are also calling quad 1080p (i.e. 1920x2 X 1080x2) 4K, because it's relatively close. I don't think it's like 720p vs 1080p because that was a doubling of pixels (i.e. a 100% increase), this is closer to a 6% increase from 3840x2160 to 4096x1060 - i.e. quite minor, and mainly to do with keeping the aspect ratio of 16:9 instead of inventing yet another even wider aspect ratio. Wikipedia 4K article.
 
4K? I thought 4K was 4096xSomething? Is this like how 720p is "high def"?


4K is just a number and a letter, it is not a defined standard. It is loosely applied to any display or format with approximately 4000 pix width. Defined standards are 4K UHD, Academy 4K, DCI 4K, etc.

4K UHD is the one most relevant for consumers, it is defined as 3840x2160. It was always going to be an even multiple of 1080p for scaling and production reasons. If you don't like it.... tough. You are free to create your own standard and market your own displays.
 
Back
Top