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

By Dave LeClair · 30 replies
May 31, 2013
Post New Reply
  1. 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...

    Read more
  2. Jad Chaar

    Jad Chaar Elite Techno Geek Posts: 6,515   +974

    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.
  3. spydercanopus

    spydercanopus TS Evangelist Posts: 855   +121

    I bet it's $2k for a 4k
    Jad Chaar likes this.
  4. VitalyT

    VitalyT Russ-Puss Posts: 3,660   +1,948

    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.
    Jad Chaar likes this.
  5. 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.
  6. Heh, more negativity from our resident naysayer. How do you convince yourself it's even worth getting out of bed in the morning?
  7. Jad Chaar

    Jad Chaar Elite Techno Geek Posts: 6,515   +974

    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.

    You cant forget also, the games will be 2x the size, that will be bad for SSD owners that have little storage.
  8. I downloaded the clip from youtube which is only nine and a half minutes long and it was 1,9gb.
  9. yhtomitn64

    yhtomitn64 TS Rookie

    Jc713 thanks for keeping it real. Don't want anyone getting to excited for new technology. Thanks for doing your part.
    Jad Chaar likes this.
  10. yhtomitn64

    yhtomitn64 TS Rookie

  11. Littleczr

    Littleczr TS Addict Posts: 439   +86

    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.
  12. VitalyT

    VitalyT Russ-Puss Posts: 3,660   +1,948

    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.

    It is a marketing buzz, the only reason it may sell a few, because there is no good reason really to buy one.

    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.
  13. dividebyzero

    dividebyzero trainee n00b Posts: 4,891   +1,264

    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
  14. VitalyT

    VitalyT Russ-Puss Posts: 3,660   +1,948

    Ok, so the games start coming out with 4K support, as expected...
    Just one quote from that review:
    The truth is 35 FPS has never been nice, not by high-end gaming standards. You do need 2xTitan to get good FPS.
    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... :)
  15. Jad Chaar

    Jad Chaar Elite Techno Geek Posts: 6,515   +974

    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[/quote]

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

    Julio Franco TechSpot Editor Posts: 7,667   +987

    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).
    spydercanopus likes this.
  18. VitalyT

    VitalyT Russ-Puss Posts: 3,660   +1,948

    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.
  19. 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..
  20. theBest11778

    theBest11778 TS Addict Posts: 296   +125

    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.
  21. cliffordcooley

    cliffordcooley TS Guardian Fighter Posts: 9,713   +3,688

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

    cliffordcooley TS Guardian Fighter Posts: 9,713   +3,688

    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.
  24. Just turn FXAA off
  25. GhostRyder

    GhostRyder This guy again... Posts: 2,198   +593

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

    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.

Similar Topics

Add your comment to this article

You need to be a member to leave a comment. Join thousands of tech enthusiasts and participate.
TechSpot Account You may also...