Pixel Overload: Asus Announces 31.5-inch 4K Ultra HD (3,840 x 2,160) Monitor

33

Comments

+ Add a Comment
avatar

PCWolf

This Monitor costs WAY too much. & I would need to buy a TITAN to power it at those resolutions without my games chugging. I Think I'll stick to playing on my 52 inch HDTV for now. I'll Update when HDTVs start supporting 4K resolutions & cost about 2-3k.

avatar

aferrara50

you'll need more than one Titan. I have 3 and even at 1440p they chug along quite slowly at some games.

avatar

jnwoll

I run a single 580 @ 2560x1440 and have no issues running games at max resolution, at least with CryEngine3 games.

avatar

andrerocha

I won't be able to afford it, BUT how much is it going to cost? :)

avatar

AFDozerman

Five grand

avatar

SleepyCatChris

How would you drive a single display at that resolution? Isn't HDMI and DisplayPort maxed at 2560x1600?

avatar

Hey.That_Dude

HDMI has 4K support and has had it for a while. I believe the maximum transmission currently available is just over 4K at 24 fps (So if you have two HDMI's feeding it then you should get something like 48 fps minus a few for inefficiencies, call it 45 fps).
The current Display Port Technologies should be able to push out 4K at 60fps. Although, to be honest, I've never seen a test of this ability and it could be just hype.

avatar

Sirius

This may be overly simplistic, but from my understanding, it's the same as using a single card to drive two displays at 1920X1080 resolution and having the GUI spread across both displays. But instead of having two displays sitting side by side, they are meshed together physically into one display. That's why the 4k displays have either two DVI or two HDMI/Display Port inputs or both. There are already a few capable cards on the market. But there's a huge difference between watching a 4k movie or using standard computer applications and running 3d graphics acceleration at 4k. The higher the resolution you want to game at, the beefier the card needs to be to drive it. For instance, you can play many games on a system with Intel HD3000 graphics but to play it at 1920X1080, with the games settings turned on high, the system lag due to the graphics would make the game so choppy you'd not enjoy playing. But yet you can watch a Blu-ray at 1920X1080 with no problem at all.

avatar

John Pombrio

From the July magazine:
"You will need a pair of dual-link DVI or DisplayPort connections and a hell of a graphics card."

avatar

Zstreek

Somebody tell me why you would not just buy the Sony 55" 4k TV and use that? It is only $5k. With 4k resolution you should be able to sit about 2-3 feet from a 55" right? It would fit on my desk, I measured! :)

As far as the complaints in the comments about the need for heavy duty graphics cards, is that really a problem? If you have $3-5K to drop on a monitor why aren't you building a kick ass rig to run it? Seriously, $2k would get you dual GTX 690's, or quad 680's, or triple 780's, I think that would about do it.
In fact, this monitor starts to solve a problem we have had for some time. I can build a sweet computer, but can't get a display that matches the horse power of a serious rig. (and multi-displays blow because of all the space between displays. yuck!) Now I can get this display, there just isn't any content or drivers or media for it yet...

avatar

avenger48

Because the TV only has HDMI, so it upconverts 1080p rather than actually taking 4k images.

avatar

jason2393

HDMI supports 4K now, but at 30 FPS.

avatar

Hey.That_Dude

I think for 10 bit color depth (30 bit (R+G+B)) the max frame rate is stuck at the cinema standard 24fps.(at 4K of course)

avatar

jason2393

You know, you can get a Seiki 50" 4k TV for $1500? Then you can afford the graphics cards to power it even easier.

avatar

raymondcarver

Has anyone here actually tried FPS games on one of these things? I'm so used to my Asus's 2MS refresh rate, that I can't and won't game with anything slower.

This is one of the reviews of this "$1500 Seki" off-brand. This review alone is enough to scare away hardcore FPS gamers:

"Purchased for a total of 2 hours before I returned it. The slow refresh rate makes it unbearable to game with. IMHO, the pixel quality is poor. I would much rather enjoy looking at high res pictures on my cheap-ebay-Korean 2560x1440 than this TV."

We don't roll with ghosting and slow refresh.

avatar

aruisdante

140PPI is dense enough that things are going to look small, but not dense enough that you can use scaling to instead make them look sharp without losing serious pixel real-estate. At the 1.5 scaling value in Windows 8 you'd wind up with the same effective resolution as a 1080p monitor, defeating the purpose of a 30" monitor. The problem is that current cable standards/ graphics cards cannot handle the resolutions required to give you the effective screen space of a 2560x1600 monitor with a high pixel density.

avatar

Hey.That_Dude

Graphics cards have supported 1600p for years. A quick look will also show you that a lot of the new cards are coming with support for 4K output (or will receive it shortly via firmware updates).
AS for the cables, both HDMI and Display Port have support for 4K resolution.
Pixel density issues stem from heat and fabrication limitations. It has nothing to do with the cables or the graphics which are more than capable of pushing that resolution.

Also, I really have no idea what you're getting at with your post. You stated three different things that really don't have any problems. Could you be more clear?

avatar

John Pombrio

Hmm, I would like to see one. I am not sure if the higher resolution is worth it. It would also take a very fast graphics card to push that many pixels for a high end game. Like TVs, the higher resolutions are wasted if you are sitting close enough. Smartphones and tablets are in your face displays so high pixel count helps in some things.

avatar

Slowman

Double

avatar

Zefram0911

Do the math. It's 4 times.

avatar

Slowman

I'm glad they're finally pushing up the resolution but I'm quite sure the price will be more than I'd like to pay. If they would make a 24 incher 2560 x 1600 and put a $700 price tag on it. My credit card number is theirs.

avatar

HiGHRoLLeR038

My Shimian is beautiful and i enjoy the 1440p resolution very much (but my 580 doesnt). 4K at 31 inches in crazy!

avatar

flo21

It's about time we go beyond 2560x1600 on monitors! It's been around for nearly 10 years. I shudder to think what the price will be though...

avatar

CaptainDoug

I still find this frustrating. Why are there these super high pixel density screens but they can't make a 20 or 22 inch 1920x1200 monitor? The lame thing is, they can. There are 17" laptop screens at that resolution. Can someone explain this to me?

avatar

avenger48

They make 22" 1080p screens. It's not an issue of pixel density, it's an issue of people preferring 16:9 to 16:10.

avatar

John Pombrio

It's probably the distance you sit from the screen. Monitors are usually further away from you than laptop screens. I mean, if it was worth it, both TVs and monitors would have higher resolutions long ago.

avatar

Stripe

No price yet, probably in the 2K range. I will be happy to see what the eye test shows, and some benchmarking. Even though it's in the size range I'm looking for and would love to have the 31.5" size especially when I sit 2 together side by side, But it will be way overpriced for sure. I'll continue to look for other options while I keep my eye on this one to see how it performs and the price.

avatar

AFDozerman

Extremetech is reporting it as 5 grand.

avatar

Zstreek

If that is true why not get the Sony 55" 4k tv, it is $5k? heheheheh now that would be a monitor!

avatar

PCWolf

4k TVs are almost pointless now as there is little content that would take advantage of 4k resolutions. 4K Blu-Ray movies are just starting to appear. & gaming at that level would most likely require a TITAN graphics card to get at least 30fps at 4k. Would be nice to see Maximum PC do some tests, since they have a Titan Graphics card to test with.

avatar

AFDozerman

There's more to look at than just resolution, Z. You also have pixel density, color gamurt, refresh rate, build quality, etc etc etc. There's a huge difference between TVs and monitors, too. The big news here is that this is the first consumer-oriented computer monitor offered to us mortals.

avatar

xopethx

Awesome, but unless it's got IPS-level viewing angles and color reproduction and costs under $1500, there's no way I'd buy it.

avatar

HiGHRoLLeR038

"In any event, the PQ321 supports 10-bit RGB "deep color" and features a wide 176-degree viewing angle on both vertical and horizontal planes"

Log in to MaximumPC directly or log in using Facebook

Forgot your username or password?
Click here for help.

Login with Facebook
Log in using Facebook to share comments and articles easily with your Facebook feed.