Asus 4K 31.5-inch monitor available for pre-order, ships July 16

By on July 2, 2013, 4:30 PM

Asus has opened pre-orders for their new 31.5-inch 4k monitor. This pixel-dense beast of a monitor goes by the markedly unremarkable name of PQ321Q, and will run you $3,500—quite a high barrier for entry for average consumers.

Should you choose to drop a load of cash on this immoderate monitor, you’ll be one of the first to have a consumer grade 4k display. The PQ321Q was first announced at Computex in May, and features a 3840 x 2160 resolution, which is four times greater than a 1080p monitor. It’s not 16:10, but hopefully with that many pixels, we’ll finally be able to settle for a 16:9 standard for computer displays.

The PQ321Q boasts a 140ppi pixel density, which doesn’t sound high next to numbers from smartphone and tablet displays, but is very impressive when compared to full size monitors. For instance, the similarly sized HP ZR30w 2560 x 1600 30-inch monitor has a pixel density of 101ppi.

Asus used Sharp's IGZO technology, or Indium Gallium Zinc Oxide, for the PQ321Q. IGZO has a number of benefits for display technology, including higher image quality than normal LCDs, with lower power consumption.

IGZO also allows for each transistor in the display to be made much smaller, which in turn allows for higher pixel density (more important for small screens), and reduced overall device thickness. The PQ321Q is 35mm deep at its thickest point, not counting the stand, which Asus says is the thinnest wallmountable 4K display on the market.

As for the rest of the technical specs, the monitor features a 176-degree viewing angle, 10-bit color depth, 350 cd/m2 brightness rating, 8ms GTG response time, and built in speakers. Connect it to your computer or entertainment devices with DisplayPort or through the dual HDMI ports.

The PQ321Q is slated to ship on July 16, and can be pre-ordered today from Amazon, Newegg, or TigerDirect.




User Comments: 31

Got something to say? Post a comment
Guest said:

But, can it display crysis at full resolution.

avoidz avoidz said:

But will the resolution difference be noticeable at that screen size? If there is enough 4k consumer content to even warrant buying such a thing.

Burty117 Burty117, TechSpot Chancellor, said:

I think, you'd need at least a 780 to run original crysis at its native resolution xD

VitalyT VitalyT said:

Just 1 month ago it's price was announced at $3799, and now for the actual sale day they drop it to $3499. I'd wager this product will fall below $3000 before the end of September.

Come September, there will be a number of similar but cheaper products announced, with support for DisplayPort 2 and HDMI 2.0 connectivity, making this PQ321Q obsolete.

By the way, HDMI 2.0 is coming out before the end of July. And Thunderbolt 2 official product lunch is in September, just before Apple's announcement of the new Mac Pro + Macbook Pro line that use Thunderbolt 2.

Good things to those who wait...

Guest said:

Yes and all webpage is thin line in middle of screen, the rest 80% is background or nothing on 22" fullHD monitor, especially Techspot cca. 60% content but 40% grey background.

St1ckM4n St1ckM4n said:

There's no content, games aren't made for this (HUD scaling issues etc), you need 3-4 GPU's to run any games, DPI scaling in Windows sucks.

tl;dr - keep moving folks, nothing to see here.

soldier1969 soldier1969 said:

Disappointing its 16:9 will wait a year or so and see who else brings these out. I'm still happy with my HP ZR30 mentioned in the article. Using a 2560 x 1600 has been sweet the last few years and can wait another to upgrade to 4K. Hopefully using 16:10 mode as I like the extra height even though its not a huge difference. I have a big bias against those cheap 1080p models they churn out to the masses.

Littleczr Littleczr said:

Can the cable even support these high resolutions on direct x? I'm sure we will see some one on youtube unbox it.

JC713 JC713 said:

Way too expensive. Also, you need 4 Titans in order to get 80 FPS on ultra on games like Crysis 3 according to a recent benchmark I saw.

VitalyT VitalyT said:

I'm still happy with my HP ZR30 mentioned in the article. Using a 2560 x 1600 has been sweet the last few years and can wait another to upgrade to 4K.
I saw 4K as an overpriced gimmick that will remain that way until the rest of hardware and content start pulling it together, which won't happen in a foreseeable future. It is a major strain on GPU to support such resolution, and not usable in games, unless you go for a 3/4-way SLI setup of Titan-s or so. Considering it all for a while I went and purchased DELL U3014 in April, and quite happy about the product. I believe you will happily get not less than another year out of yours before finding a viable 4K option

VitalyT VitalyT said:

Among other things, the fate of products like this one hinges on the High DPI improvements that Windows 8.1 brings.

1 person liked this | Darth Shiv Darth Shiv said:

But will the resolution difference be noticeable at that screen size? If there is enough 4k consumer content to even warrant buying such a thing.

First of all, yes, there is a noticable difference. Particularly the closer you are to the screen obviously.

And another reason why online distribution is the way forward because it takes the distribution and accessibility out of the equation and just leaves base content production cost. The raw content is already captured in 4K for a start.

An aside, this is the chicken vs egg problem - no point producing content when no-one has a device to view it. No point buying a device without content. Just like IPv6, people are just going to have to take the plunge. There isn't the same reason to upgrade from a 1080p flatscreen compared to going to a SD CRT to 1080p.

Arris Arris said:

I've love this for photo editing. Being able to view RAW files at closer to 1:1 full screen would be very welcome (although my camera output is still 4912 x 3264 vs this 3840 x 2160). Outside of video, photo, graphic work I don't see this being of much use to the mainstream home user.

ypsylon said:

Cute little toy, but faaar too expensive for casual user at the moment. Like with classic LCDs (first 4:3 and then 16:10/9) price will come down sharply the moment there is enough of content which requires/supports that kind of display.

For now, with that kind of price tag, I can see PQ321Q in medical research, nuclear engineering, astronomy etc. For standard user (gamer) quote from Martin Luther King is in order: "I have a dream..."

MilwaukeeMike said:

There's no content, games aren't made for this (HUD scaling issues etc), you need 3-4 GPU's to run any games, DPI scaling in Windows sucks.

tl;dr - keep moving folks, nothing to see here.

Yeah, but it's the first step. The product for a new technology is always way overpriced and hard to utilize. 12 years ago the first plasma TV's were $10,000 and front and center at electronics stores because they were so much cooler looking than the huge projection TVs. Now it's a technology that's falling into obscurity.

This isn't a product to run out and buy, but it is a door being opened.

1 person liked this | Darth Shiv Darth Shiv said:

I've love this for photo editing. Being able to view RAW files at closer to 1:1 full screen would be very welcome (although my camera output is still 4912 x 3264 vs this 3840 x 2160). Outside of video, photo, graphic work I don't see this being of much use to the mainstream home user.

The same reason iPhones went to massive DPI. Because it looks awesome next to the worse (current screen) DPI. Desktop real estate is another plus. 1080p on a 15" screen is noticeably grainy to me.

I don't do video, photo or graphic work but my 1440p screen is the best computer part investment I've made (arguably apart from an SSD) in the last 8+ years. And that is a 27" display which would be pretty close to the DPI of a 31.5" 4K.

Guest said:

Anyone know what the refresh rate is on this thing? Aren't some 4k monitors/tvs stuck with 30Hz?

VitalyT VitalyT said:

Anyone know what the refresh rate is on this thing? Aren't some 4k monitors/tvs stuck with 30Hz?

30Hz on a single HDMI, 60Hz on dual HDMI or DisplayPort 1.2

1 person liked this | Guest said:

I think Apple is about to surprise us with a 30 inch retina aluminum display. 6000 x 4000 resolution. Can see your sony 77 pix in full resolution. Nah. But at least 4000x2000 resolution since the 5000 series video supports that. Or their tunder bolt 2.0

RenGood08 RenGood08 said:

Nice. Um can I have this?

tipstir tipstir, TS Ambassador, said:

Yeah but you can get TV/HDMI/VGA right now in 24 and up too 32-inch for $199, just have to make sure it supports 1920x1080p @ 60Hz in VGA mode also which most do already. 27-inch computer monitor goes for $249 at wholesale.

soldier1969 soldier1969 said:

Yeah but you can get TV/HDMI/VGA right now in 24 and up too 32-inch for $199, just have to make sure it supports 1920x1080p @ 60Hz in VGA mode also which most do already. 27-inch computer monitor goes for $249 at wholesale.

Some of us like to spend more than lunch money on our displays thanks.

JC713 JC713 said:

It is just too pricey IMO.

DAOWAce DAOWAce said:

16:9 will never replace 16:10 as a standard for desktops so long as it continues to fail to properly support 4:3 content.

Though, I half expect people to turn to CRTs even more in future.. if they aren't all dead by then.

There is only one advantage 16:9 has over 16:10, and that is wider FoV in games where the developers don't bother to include an FoV option (or don't standardize the FoV regardless of AR). Obviously, that's a piss poor advantage and one created solely due to developer incompetence.

There is no real advantage to 16:9 over 16:10. None. Yet manufacturers are continuing to ignore 16:10 and push 16:9. It's been over 3 years since I've wanted a 120Hz+ display at 1920x1200 or greater to replace my "1200p" monitor from 2004. I'm still waiting for one.

Guest said:

Well this monitor is just as absurd as the mac book pro with a retina. The fact is that the pixel density is getting to such level where the human eye has a hard time discerning. So it is worthless. But it is the greatest thing that could happen. This is going to make it where you can pick up a 30 inch apple cinema display for $50 on a garage sale. Coolest thing in the world. The fact is my friend got a 30 inch a while back and if we put it to full resolution you can not read the articles on the internet. The letters are so tiny. So you see on a monitor that size the only useful resolution is 1900 by 1200. That is the density at which you can see letters anything higher is just waist of your money. But hey there are plenty of suckers in this world. So the big question is will the average people or even the visually most smart be able to tell the difference of a picture from on to just the other with just 1900x1080.

St1ckM4n St1ckM4n said:

Advantage: cost.

Cost > everything.

Edit:

@Guest above: it's about reducing jagged edges. Macbook 'retina' screens may have a high resolution, but their 'effective' resolution is exactly the same as before. They use software to take advantage of the extra pixels and smooth out any jagged lines. 4K PC monitors are just interim, we need better than 8K.

Darth Shiv Darth Shiv said:

Well this monitor is just as absurd as the mac book pro with a retina. The fact is that the pixel density is getting to such level where the human eye has a hard time discerning.

1080p is hardly undiscernable. It's great when placed next to PAL or NTSC but there is a also a noticeable difference to 4K.

captaincranky captaincranky, TechSpot Addict, said:

I've love this for photo editing. Being able to view RAW files at closer to 1:1 full screen would be very welcome (although my camera output is still 4912 x 3264 vs this 3840 x 2160). Outside of video, photo, graphic work I don't see this being of much use to the mainstream home user.
If you think about it, there's really no use for this in imaging work either. When you consider that digital cameras, (for the most part), still follow 35mm aspect ratio 1.5:1.0, (15:10 if you prefer), then to transfer that camera work product to a 16:9 monitor requires mentally cropping while shooting, to an aspect ratio that looks like s***, for still images any anyway!

16:9 kills image height when working in portrait orientation on a horizontal screen, and again, looks like s***, when you consider the proportions of a subject seated for a formal portrait.

I could go on about how much I loathe having 16:9 forced on me by an industry only interested in making life easy on itself, and I will. 16:9 only, is about as stupid as when they made video tapes and DVDs with a CinemaScope aspect ratio, (2.35:1.00), to be viewed on standard def TVs, aspect 4:3.

And how much do you want for this abomination? Right, I'll get my checkbook..........(wait for it).......NOT!

Arris Arris said:

If you think about it, there's really no use for this in imaging work either. When you consider that digital cameras, (for the most part), still follow 35mm aspect ratio 1.5:1.0, (15:10 if you prefer), then to transfer that camera work product to a 16:9 monitor requires mentally cropping while shooting, to an aspect ratio that looks like s***, for still images any anyway!

16:9 kills image height when working in portrait orientation on a horizontal screen, and again, looks like s***, when you consider the proportions of a subject seated for a formal portrait.

I could go on about how much I loathe having 16:9 forced on me by an industry only interested in making life easy on itself, and I will. 16:9 only, is about as stupid as when they made video tapes and DVDs with a CinemaScope aspect ratio, (2.35:1.00), to be viewed on standard def TVs, aspect 4:3.

And how much do you want for this abomination? Right, I'll get my checkbook..........(wait for it).......NOT!

Aside from the aspect ratio (I started shooting in 16:9 but did find it wasn't suitable) being able to have more of the full size image on screen is surely going to help for those wishing to process images for printing? Being able to get a better idea of what the image is going to look full size output on A3 or A2? I like the idea of being able to have a better representation of the image at it's true resolution, even if the display itself isn't the ideal aspect ratio. But since I play games too I can make do with 1920x1200 monitor at home for the time being.

captaincranky captaincranky, TechSpot Addict, said:

Aside from the aspect ratio (I started shooting in 16:9 but did find it wasn't suitable) being able to have more of the full size image on screen is surely going to help for those wishing to process images for printing? Being able to get a better idea of what the image is going to look full size output on A3 or A2? I like the idea of being able to have a better representation of the image at it's true resolution, even if the display itself isn't the ideal aspect ratio. But since I play games too I can make do with 1920x1200 monitor at home for the time being.

Yeah OK. Here you go, and at about 1/4 of the price: [link] And it's 16:10.

If you want me to belabor the the points about printing resolution being 300+ DPI, and it has nothing to do with screen res

You can't pixel edit at 1:1 even if you could get all the pixels on the screen. (the more pixels you put up, the smaller they get).

Using the Dell, with 2500 pixels on the long side, you could put up the whole image at an honest 50%. (Dell is claiming 125% color gamut).

I use a 16:9, 23" vertical monitor on one computer. The image vertical height is 19".

A 40" TV has about a 20" vertical .. So,16:9 sucks, period!

You can't buy a monitor big enough, to put the printing sizes you mention up vertically @ 1:1, in landscape orientation. Either 30" monitor, the Asus or the Dell, would need to be turned on their sides. But, you could buy a pair of the Dells, and a second desktop, for the price of the Asus. (One horizontal, one vertical, two desktops)

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.