Pre-Order Asus 31.5" 4K IGZO Monitor for $3500

[exfileme]

This monitor features Sharp's IGZO technology.

Pre-Order Asus 31.5" 4K IGZO Monitor for $3500 : Read more

 

[Someone Somewhere]

Maybe you meant DB-9; RS-232C is a serial interface. Good luck on running VGA over that.

EDIT: Nope, VGA only.

 

[vmem]

is it just me or does that monitor get slightly cheaper every time I see the price

I mean it's by no means cheap, but at first the rumor was $5k, then $4k, then $3750, now $3500. by the time it hits market maybe it'll be $3k, and $2.5k for an xmas special? lol

 

[mrmez]

"the PQ321 is the thinnest 4K UHD monitor available today"
Except that it's not available today.

 

[slomo4sho]

Or pickup a Seiki 50" 4K display for roughly $1200

 

[hero1]

I want one but it better have a 60-120Hz not 30Hz!

 

[eklipz330]

seiki only does 4k at 30hz.

 

[hero1]

[quotemsg=11076664,0,133584]seiki only does 4k at 30hz.[/quotemsg]

And that's the reason I haven't opened my wallet for it. If I would have bought it if it did 60Hz ouot of the box even it meant paying 1500 for it. So I think I will wait for the better refresh rates to come out with good pricing!

 

[alidan]

if i get a 4k anything, it MUST be at least 48 inches, or else i have to scale the ui and i lose all benefit a 4k would offer me.

 

[hero1]

[quotemsg=11076704,0,269694]if i get a 4k anything, it MUST be at least 48 inches, or else i have to scale the ui and i lose all benefit a 4k would offer me. [/quotemsg]

This is also a good point. I think I will wait it out until second half of next year and see where the prices are. A 50" is what I want for both gaming and 3D work.

 

[vmem]

[quotemsg=11076704,0,269694]if i get a 4k anything, it MUST be at least 48 inches, or else i have to scale the ui and i lose all benefit a 4k would offer me. [/quotemsg]

It's unfortunate that this is what it is. I can see the 39" working well for ASUS in professional space, but the 31.5" is really only useful for gamers, where the "size shrink" due to 4K would mean little in a game. but at $3.5k, few would buy it to just play games

 

[alidan]

[quotemsg=11076757,0,686747][quotemsg=11076704,0,269694]if i get a 4k anything, it MUST be at least 48 inches, or else i have to scale the ui and i lose all benefit a 4k would offer me. [/quotemsg]

It's unfortunate that this is what it is. I can see the 39" working well for ASUS in professional space, but the 31.5" is really only useful for gamers, where the "size shrink" due to 4K would mean little in a game. but at $3.5k, few would buy it to just play games[/quotemsg]

actually, for gaming, a 30 inch would be bad too. think if it, how many games properly scale ui? even than, how much processing power is necessary to run a 4k resolution without degradation in detail? sure you could run 1080p window but even then, it would be like playing it on a 15 inch screen. full screen, you would need 4 high end gpus, 2 dual gpu cards, or dual titans, just to manage a barely acceptable frame rate.

yea, in maybe 4 years this will be consolidated to a single gpu, but we are looking at the now.

with a 48 inch screen, i would have productivity, the equivalent of 4 1080p monitors (in productivity terms, 4k is reasonable, 250-400$ a monitor, opposed to one monitor at 1000$ (google it, you can find 4k for 1k) it is reasonable, and for gameing, i can go 1080p and use the equivalent of a 24 inch screen space. granted i would want at least 60hz, but thats another story.

main point is, even for gamers, 4k isn't really good, you could just use 8-16X AA and save a crap ton of money,

 

[SteelCity1981]

remove one of the zeros in the price and you got a deal.

 

[JOSHSKORN]

No thanks. Call me when it's under $1k.

 

[chicofehr]

I want the 39". I got the Dell U3011 30" 2560x1600 and for a similar sized monitor, the pixel size would be too small to be useful for professional stuff unless you are looking really close to the screen. 45" would be a good size for a monitor with that resolution which is a great balance for gaming and video and image editing. How much info you can fit on one the screen is more important then how much DPI it has when you are doing editing.

 

[alidan]

[quotemsg=11077702,0,669092]I want the 39". I got the Dell U3011 30" 2560x1600 and for a similar sized monitor, the pixel size would be too small to be useful for professional stuff unless you are looking really close to the screen. 45" would be a good size for a monitor with that resolution which is a great balance for gaming and video and image editing. How much info you can fit on one the screen is more important then how much DPI it has when you are doing editing.[/quotemsg]

well, if you think of it, image editing with photoshop is probably the only thing you could do professionally with a 30 inch 4k, but with that said, a cintiq would probably be better, and most likely cheaper and higher quality.

possibly even just viewing photographs too...

but yea, at 30 inches its severely limited. even at 39 it would still be a bit limiting, 48 is the number i came up with because i have a 24inch 1920x1200, and keeping similar dpi to that, a dpi where i don't see pixels unless its HIGH contrast. hell even with i get up close(1 foot or less), i dont notice individual pixels unless there is some fairly high contrast going on.

 

[cmartin011]

Whats up with 4x the resolution? My math says its only 2x1080 and more than 4x720. Anyway waiting for 39 inch 60hz we will probably see in 10 years for reasonable price

 

[Someone Somewhere]

4x the number of pixels - a 2x2 array of 1080p screens would be the same res, hence 4x.

 

[vagnluv]

Someone wrote a note on it over on New Egg:


Pros: Only 4K@60Hz monitor on the market that doesn't cost 5 figures

Cons: Doesn't work with Nvidia Video cards at 4K@60Hz
False advertising about supporting 4K@60Hz over a single cable

Other Thoughts: This is a complete rebadge of the Sharp PK-N321. If you look at the manual you will see that this monitor suffers the same limitations at 4K that the Sharp does.

The mail limitation is that you can't run this monitor at 4K@60Hz over a single cable without using MST (multi streaming technology). MST is a display port feature that lets you stream several simultaneous discrete video streams over a single display port cable. The feature was intended to let you daisy chain multiple monitors together via Display port.

In order to get 4K@60Hz you need to enable MST mode to this display. This means that the display will present itself to Windows as TWO separate physical monitors. This means that you will get two desktops and that you will not be able to use applications full screen.

To get around the above limitation you need to use driver hacks like ATI Eyefinity. The ATI solution works OK on this monitor but Nvidia's Surround feature only supports 3 monitors currently. They don't support 2 monitors so If you want to game on this monitor and you have Nvidia you are out of luck.

Nvidia has stated that they indent to add support for this in the 325 version of their driver:

https://forums.geforce.com/default/topic/539645/nvidia-surround/2-monitor-gaming-/

Buyer beware if you have Nvidia hardware.

 

[CaedenV]

too good and too small.
I am going to agree with others here that a 4K computer monitor needs to be at least 40" (though 50" would be too large I think). At PC monitor distances of 2-3' that is still technically a 'retina' display, and should take up a field of view large enough to make things very immersive.
Also, this display is 'too good'. By that I mean that 10bit color is something that very few computers can take advantage of as it is reserved for professional cards. Gaming cards are capped at 8bits per color, and while I do a little bit of professional work on my computer, it is nowhere near enough to justify paying through the nose for that kind of quality. 10bit is nice (very nice), but 8bit is just fine.

So how about it? Can we get a manufacturer to come up with a 4K monitor that is 40-45", 60Hz, and 8bit color for ~$1500? That would be a pretty penny for me right now, but something like that being available would be pretty tempting. But watching 4K prices fall as fast as they are, it would seem that we will have sub $1000 displays within a year or two from now.

 

[icemunk]

The Seiki 50" 4K television sells for $1400, that would be the best route to go.. imagine 3 of those in Eyefinity.

 

[JPNpower]

ASUS branded SHARP monitor... wait didn't SHARP sell their own monitors? Or is this just for the 'merican market?

 

[CaedenV]

[quotemsg=11078230,0,271082]The Seiki 50" 4K television sells for $1400, that would be the best route to go.. imagine 3 of those in Eyefinity.[/quotemsg]

As cool as it seems to be there are several issues with that TV.
1) For computer use it is hard limited to 30fps. That is fine (but not great) for TV, but not really acceptable for PC gaming.
2) 50" is simply way too large for a computer desk. But then again, when I got my first 28" monitor I thought it was huge compared to my old 17" (15" viewable) CRT monitor. Fast forward 4 years and now I could really see having 2-3 28" monitors side by side without much of an issue. So perhaps in time I could get use to a 50" screen, but at traditional viewing distances that would be well beyond the scope of my stereoscopic viewing space. 40-45" would also be beyond that a bit, but at least most of the screen would be in my field of view.
3) Perhaps a personal rant, but I hate TVs as computer monitors. The contrast and brightness of them is simply too high for me. While I wish my current cheap monitor had better contrast (though not brightness), stepping up to TV level just causes me headaches and eye strain.
4)Seiki is a panel maker that is just beginning to break into the consumer market. Perhaps it is paranoia, but it seems like OEMs that transition to a consumer store front tend not to have very good customer service when they start out, and they tend to start out by offering products that their partners simply do not want in the first place. Maybe I am wrong in this, but I suspect that they had several batches of screens that nobody wanted due to QC issues, and they are more than willing to pawn them off at a lower $1500 price point than to simply let them go to waste. Probably not dead pixels, but more likely having uneven color or back-lighting across the panel.
Then again, I could be quite wrong. But if it seems too good to be true, then you are probably giving something up in the process.

 

[alidan]

[quotemsg=11078731,0,515213][quotemsg=11078230,0,271082]The Seiki 50" 4K television sells for $1400, that would be the best route to go.. imagine 3 of those in Eyefinity.[/quotemsg]

As cool as it seems to be there are several issues with that TV.
1) For computer use it is hard limited to 30fps. That is fine (but not great) for TV, but not really acceptable for PC gaming.
2) 50" is simply way too large for a computer desk. But then again, when I got my first 28" monitor I thought it was huge compared to my old 17" (15" viewable) CRT monitor. Fast forward 4 years and now I could really see having 2-3 28" monitors side by side without much of an issue. So perhaps in time I could get use to a 50" screen, but at traditional viewing distances that would be well beyond the scope of my stereoscopic viewing space. 40-45" would also be beyond that a bit, but at least most of the screen would be in my field of view.
3) Perhaps a personal rant, but I hate TVs as computer monitors. The contrast and brightness of them is simply too high for me. While I wish my current cheap monitor had better contrast (though not brightness), stepping up to TV level just causes me headaches and eye strain.
4)Seiki is a panel maker that is just beginning to break into the consumer market. Perhaps it is paranoia, but it seems like OEMs that transition to a consumer store front tend not to have very good customer service when they start out, and they tend to start out by offering products that their partners simply do not want in the first place. Maybe I am wrong in this, but I suspect that they had several batches of screens that nobody wanted due to QC issues, and they are more than willing to pawn them off at a lower $1500 price point than to simply let them go to waste. Probably not dead pixels, but more likely having uneven color or back-lighting across the panel.
Then again, I could be quite wrong. But if it seems too good to be true, then you are probably giving something up in the process.[/quotemsg]

i have seen people use 4 monitors at once, they don't have them in that eyefinity setup they have them basically in a square box setup. would 48-50 inches be large, yea, a bit, especially if you are use to a stitting in front of a 24 inch and your eyes meet the center of the monitor, but the use/need for a 4 display with 0 borders is there, and getting use to it its all that left.

30fps for games is acceptable, in certain circumstances and games. i prefer 60 all the way, but that doesn't mean 30 in not doable.

 

[vinhn]

How many GTX Titan do you guys reckon that it can run this resolutions?