Asus to release 31.5-inch 4K monitor in the US next month

By on May 31, 2013, 2:45 PM

ASUS has just announced that it is launching a new 4K monitor in the US the market. Known as the PQ321, this 31.5 inch display features a 3840 x 2160 resolution with 16:9 aspect ratio, equivalent to four full HD 1920 X 1080 displays stacked side-by-side. Boasting a 140 ppi screen, Asus' upcoming monitor should be able to meet the demands of even the most dedicated videophiles once it becomes available next month. 

The PQ321 offers 176 degree viewing angles on both the vertical and horizontal planes, so users will be able to see the incredibly high resolution display so matter where they are sitting. In addition, the display includes IGZO technology, which helps keep its energy usage to a minimum.

This beauty is wall-mountable and only 35mm thick at its deepest point, which actually makes it the thinnest UHD monitor available. Of course, there aren't a ton of 4K options for computer displays on the market yet, so it doesn't exactly have a lot of competition in that regard.

Asus will be showing the PQ321 and a 39-inch model at Computex next week. The company kept pricing information under wraps, but with both monitors showing up at the popular trade show, and a retail launch for the smaller unit by the end of next month, it won't be long until we have the full details.




User Comments: 30

Got something to say? Post a comment
JC713 JC713 said:

Aw yeah. Too bad this will be really expensive and there is just a lack of 4K content. Good the PPI is low though, not like Samsungs screen that requires a microscope to operate the OS.

1 person liked this | spydercanopus spydercanopus said:

I bet it's $2k for a 4k

1 person liked this | VitalyT VitalyT said:

Today it is still a gimmick:

1. Scaling in Windows 8 sucks, and in Windows 7 it is even worse.

2. No games that work in 4K

3. No video in 4K, the choice of what's out there at the moment is a joke.

4. When the first games come out supporting 4K, later this year, it will take 2xTitan in SLI to provide good FPS.

I would suggest waiting till next year... And right now a 30" monitor is a way better choice.

BMfan BMfan said:

There's a video on youtube where all the guy was getting as an average fps was about 40 frames on Tomb Raider and he had 3 Titans with a 3970X cpu.

So if you have money to waste or just want the bragging rights then 4k is perfect for you.

Guest said:

Heh, more negativity from our resident naysayer. How do you convince yourself it's even worth getting out of bed in the morning?

JC713 JC713 said:

There's a video on youtube where all the guy was getting as an average fps was about 40 frames on Tomb Raider and he had 3 Titans with a 3970X cpu.

So if you have money to waste or just want the bragging rights then 4k is perfect for you.

I am not really surprised. Hopefully they can figure out how to more efficiently compress 4K so that it doesnt suck up a ton of bandwidth/data when downloading something.

Today it is still a gimmick:

1. Scaling in Windows 8 sucks, and in Windows 7 it is even worse.

2. No games that work in 4K

3. No video in 4K, the choice of what's out there at the moment is a joke.

4. When the first games come out supporting 4K, later this year, it will take 2xTitan in SLI to provide good FPS.

I would suggest waiting till next year... And right now a 30" monitor is a way better choice.

You cant forget also, the games will be 2x the size, that will be bad for SSD owners that have little storage.

BMfan BMfan said:

I downloaded the clip from youtube which is only nine and a half minutes long and it was 1,9gb.

1 person liked this | yhtomitn64 yhtomitn64 said:

Jc713 thanks for keeping it real. Don't want anyone getting to excited for new technology. Thanks for doing your part.

Littleczr Littleczr said:

Well, if games handle multiple monitors just fine, then why not scale a 4k monitor? I'm am very curious about this monitor. I'm sure some one will buy it and post a review on youtube, I will be on of the first to watch it.

PC games will be the closest thing that can render at 4k.

VitalyT VitalyT said:

Well, if games handle multiple monitors just fine, then why not scale a 4k monitor?
They don't scale as much. if you have 3x1080P monitors, you need 2x7970 to get good FPS in high/ultra quality. And 4K is equivalent to 4 monitors, so as I mentioned in my earlier posting you would need 2xTitan to get good FPS in high quality mode, at the very least.

I'm am very curious about this monitor.
It is a marketing buzz, the only reason it may sell a few, because there is no good reason really to buy one.

I'm sure some one will buy it and post a review on youtube.
First off, the price hasn't been announced yet, but I would predict that for the kind of money you can buy 3 x DELL-U3014, plus 3 x GTX 770, and have experience of a life time that no 4K can offer.

Second, people buy and review on YouTube everything, including atrocious and lavishly expensive things outside any reason or common sense.

dividebyzero dividebyzero, trainee n00b, said:

Today it is still a gimmick:

1. Scaling in Windows 8 sucks, and in Windows 7 it is even worse.

2. No games that work in 4K

3. No video in 4K, the choice of what's out there at the moment is a joke.

4. When the first games come out supporting 4K, later this year, it will take 2xTitan in SLI to provide good FPS.

Not necessarily.

BTW: I'm pretty sure the Pirate Bay torrent you linked to is copyrighted. If it were public domain I'd say they wouldn't be charging for the media

VitalyT VitalyT said:

Ok, so the games start coming out with 4K support, as expected...

Just one quote from that review:

The Titan is averaging something around 35 FPS at Ultra settings at 4K resolutions - pretty nice!

The truth is 35 FPS has never been nice, not by high-end gaming standards. You do need 2xTitan to get good FPS.

BTW: I'm pretty sure the Pirate Bay torrent you linked to is copyrighted. If it were public domain I'd say they wouldn't be charging for the media
Absolutely, it is pirated, stolen fair and square, feel free to download You need at least 1440P available I may have broken some forum regulation here though and get spanked for it... The things I do for users of this forum... thus falleth the martyr, on his jelly pinky back...

JC713 JC713 said:

3. No video in 4K, the choice of what's out there at the moment is a joke.

4. When the first games come out supporting 4K, later this year, it will take 2xTitan in SLI to provide good FPS.

Not necessarily.

BTW: I'm pretty sure the Pirate Bay torrent you linked to is copyrighted. If it were public domain I'd say they wouldn't be charging for the media

Interesting how a 7970 can play it at 25FPS on ultra. 40FPS is playable enough, and if you lower the settings to high (not much of a difference vs ultra), and more mature drivers, you have yourself a good deal.

Guest said:

Not high enough. I want 8000 by 6000 so I can see the photos I shoot with my Nikon d800.

1 person liked this |
Staff
Julio Franco Julio Franco, TechSpot Editor, said:

Although most may think about video/movie playback when hearing 4K, I'd personally love to have a couple of these on my workstation, however the lack of proper Windows scaling is my #1 concern there.

The Macbook Retina 15" that I use outside my desk is the perfect showcase of how much sharper screens can be with proper software support. Custom DPI settings simply do not work as well -- rather, they don't work at all. Time for Microsoft to think clearly what they want to do with the future of Windows in Pro environments (aka beyond Metro).

VitalyT VitalyT said:

Time for Microsoft to think clearly what they want to do with the future of Windows in Pro environments (aka beyond Metro).

They did think about it, they promised to deliver it in Windows 8, they screwed up, which just goes around Windows 8 in general. Unfortunately, I didn't hear anything about improving on it in Windows 8.1 either, although I'm not surprised.

Guest said:

No don't Take All my Money!!!! because $5000 for three monitors is crazy even for the extremely wealthy.. Monitors aren't simply worth that type of money, no matter what the specs are.. Period... Make the products that the masses want at prices they can afford. Get more people buying your products by lowering your prices .

2560x1600 screen are garbage because there over 15 years old on the digital spectrum and even older on the analog CRT spectrum.. We need company's to think like apple "But with more affordable prices" Apple is shipping Laptops and Tablets with resolutions way higher than 2560 res.. Give me an true 240hz 3860x2680 4k monitor "display port 2.0" 2ms response time at a price no higher than $400.00 .. You can already Buy these panels without monitor from Samsung for under 200. This is where apple get their screens for the monitors from..

theBest11778 theBest11778 said:

Considering Sony's 50" 4K TV is starting off at $5000, and there's that cheap Chinese made 50" 4K TV selling for $2000, the 31" Asus should only be $1000-$1500. That's really not bad considering it's new tech, and there's no competition in that market yet. Also you have to realize there's no reason to ever upgrade a good quality 4K monitor/tv again. Past this resolution the human eye will not notice the difference (Except on 65" or larger TVs.) As long as the color depth is good, and it doesn't blow up, this would be the last monitor you'd ever have to buy. Expecting a 5 year life span, $1500 isn't bad, if you get closer to 10 years, you're golden. New tech also has higher quality parts used (part of the high price,) and tend to have longer lifespans.

As far as 4K gaming goes, I'm sure Nvidia/AMD have included in recent drivers the ability to scale to 4K. I can't say that 100%, as I have no way to test it, but both AMD/Nvidia added 4K support a few months ago. I agree with VitalyT that you would need 2x Titans or 2x GTX 780s to run games at 4K today. However in 2 years, and 2 generations later, Titan will be a midrange card around $250, and that generation's $500 cards will be = to 2 Titans if the past decade of performance increases continues (which there's no indication to the contrary.) So, what that means is by the time 4K monitors are around the $400+/- mark, you could then pair it with a $400-$500 card to run the games at that resolution. The good news about this announcement is if you don't want to wait, you can have all of that today. You just have to pay for it. I'd rather have the option to have it now at a steep price, than no option at all.

cliffordcooley cliffordcooley, TechSpot Paladin, said:

I'm currently using 1600 x 900 resolution on a 20" monitor. Unless you are gonna plaster your face 1 foot from the monitor, I don't understand why 4K should be used on anything less than 40" monitors.

Guest said:

Maybe some people have better vision than yourself and prefer the extra room on the desktop for developing

cliffordcooley cliffordcooley, TechSpot Paladin, said:

4K is 4K regardless of whether it's a 30" or 40", you might as well get the larger 40". A 30" will not give greater real estate than a 40", when the resolution is locked at 4K.

If my calculations are correct.

  • My monitor has 92 DPI.
  • A 40" 4K monitor would have 110 DPI.
  • A 31.5" 4K monitor would have 140 DPI.

I'm happy with 92 DPI and while my eyes are not the greatest they are far from bad. I understand someone preferring 110 DPI over 92 DPI, 140 DPI on the other hand is borderline to nitpicking.

Guest said:

Just turn FXAA off

GhostRyder GhostRyder said:

Considering Sony's 50" 4K TV is starting off at $5000, and there's that cheap Chinese made 50" 4K TV selling for $2000, the 31" Asus should only be $1000-$1500. That's really not bad considering it's new tech, and there's no competition in that market yet. Also you have to realize there's no reason to ever upgrade a good quality 4K monitor/tv again. Past this resolution the human eye will not notice the difference (Except on 65" or larger TVs.) As long as the color depth is good, and it doesn't blow up, this would be the last monitor you'd ever have to buy. Expecting a 5 year life span, $1500 isn't bad, if you get closer to 10 years, you're golden. New tech also has higher quality parts used (part of the high price,) and tend to have longer lifespans.

As far as 4K gaming goes, I'm sure Nvidia/AMD have included in recent drivers the ability to scale to 4K. I can't say that 100%, as I have no way to test it, but both AMD/Nvidia added 4K support a few months ago. I agree with VitalyT that you would need 2x Titans or 2x GTX 780s to run games at 4K today. However in 2 years, and 2 generations later, Titan will be a midrange card around $250, and that generation's $500 cards will be = to 2 Titans if the past decade of performance increases continues (which there's no indication to the contrary.) So, what that means is by the time 4K monitors are around the $400+/- mark, you could then pair it with a $400-$500 card to run the games at that resolution. The good news about this announcement is if you don't want to wait, you can have all of that today. You just have to pay for it. I'd rather have the option to have it now at a steep price, than no option at all.

Im going to put this in quotes for this, "Supposidly" there are cards that now support 4k resolution, but its limited.

[link]

[link]

[link]

These cards so far are the only ones I found saying that high of resolution support. But yeah dunno about the drivers, I would assume they work.

Guest said:

4k monitors are not still a gimmick. The extra real estate is a massive benefit to those of us who use PC's for actual work, as opposed to playing games and watching videos.

Emexrulsier said:

Today it is still a gimmick:

1. Scaling in Windows 8 sucks, and in Windows 7 it is even worse.

2. No games that work in 4K

3. No video in 4K, the choice of what's out there at the moment is a joke.

4. When the first games come out supporting 4K, later this year, it will take 2xTitan in SLI to provide good FPS.

I would suggest waiting till next year... And right now a 30" monitor is a way better choice.

virtually every game supports "4K" it's noting new PCs have been doing resolutions higher then that long before the days of main stream lcd screens. With directx if the drivers support the res so will the game

VitalyT VitalyT said:

Pricing has surfaced up at $3,799 per, which is the same as 3 x DELL U3014 that offers a way better experience.

LinkedKube LinkedKube, TechSpot Project Baby, said:

Pricing has surfaced up at $3,799 per, which is the same as 3 x DELL U3014 that offers a way better experience.

Are you sure? You just said pricing has just surfaced. Or did you get one to test out already?

VitalyT VitalyT said:

Are you sure?
http://www.engadget.com/2013/06/03/asus-31-5-inch-4k-monitor
priced-at-3-799-39-inch-version-com/?utm_medium=feed

You just said pricing has just surfaced. Or did you get one to test out already?
I wouldn't be able to, though some people did test it in part, with a Macbook Pro Retina: http://www.theverge.com/2013/6/4/4394294/asus-4k-monitor-pri
e-release-date-and-retina-compatibility

LinkedKube LinkedKube, TechSpot Project Baby, said:

Asus exposes the downside of being ahead of ones's time.

I'd really like to cross that ocean, but it looks flat from here. I'm too scared to go!!!!

Load all comments...

Add New Comment

TechSpot Members
Login or sign up for free,
it takes about 30 seconds.
You may also...
Get complete access to the TechSpot community. Join thousands of technology enthusiasts that contribute and share knowledge in our forum. Get a private inbox, upload your own photo gallery and more.