Sharp unveils 4K 32-inch IGZO LCD monitor, yours for just $5,500

Shawn Knight

Posts: 12,200   +120
Staff member
Sharp has unveiled a new monitor powered by their ultra-thin IGZO technology that delivers an incredibly high resolution in a very sleek looking package. The professional-grade 32-inch (when measured diagonally, of course) PN-K321 display features a 4K resolution of 3,840...

[newwindow="https://www.techspot.com/news/50935-sharp-unveils-4k-32-inch-igzo-lcd-monitor-yours-for-just-5500.html"]Read more[/newwindow]
 

ikesmasher

Posts: 3,050   +1,368
Since 1080p was often the used number, why are they calling it 4k? its more like 2k... whatever. Its misleading to the less savy people who think the picture quality is 4 times as good.
 
G

Guest

Thats good news, already the prices are getting lower :)

I really would love to get one but with all new markets there must be a pile of problems.

Maybe in 2 years time, I hope it gets rushed into mainstream like "3D" has,

This is something I'd actually consider getting on a quality, size and energy efficiency stand point.
 

IAMTHESTIG

Posts: 1,868   +900
Since 1080p was often the used number, why are they calling it 4k? its more like 2k... whatever. Its misleading to the less savy people who think the picture quality is 4 times as good.
No kidding... technically this is 2K, not 4K. They should just call it 2160p and be done with it. This is false advertising as far as I'm concerned. Unfortunately I think whatever standardization entity out there (IEEE?, ISO?) says that 2160p is a MINIMUM resolution for a display to be called "4K", even though technically, it isn't 4K. Kind of a rip off...

I really only see this resolution being useful for some of us hardcore users who want tons of desktop space, want to play games at that res, or are graphics/video artists. otherwise your general consumer will not even be able to discern the difference between 1080p HD and 2160p Ultra HD.
 

VitalyT

Posts: 4,922   +3,709
TechSpot Elite
Pointless gadget, useless and over-priced.

If I had that kind of money I would buy 3 x 30" Monitors, which would create a far superior visual effect, and still have a chunk of cash to spare.
 
G

Guest

It reminds me of the time when HDTVs were just starting to become available to mainstream consumers and were a bit pricy. Too many suckers bought Enhanced Definition Set Plasmas (480p) thinking it's close enough to having an actual HD set.
 

Jesse

Posts: 358   +42
AWesome!!! I know what I want for Christmas!

Since 1080p was often the used number, why are they calling it 4k? its more like 2k... whatever. Its misleading to the less savy people who think the picture quality is 4 times as good.
Yeah, the 4k moniker will be less common soon. It's Ultra HD now.
 

Holyscrap

Posts: 49   +25
Since 1080p was often the used number, why are they calling it 4k? its more like 2k... whatever. Its misleading to the less savy people who think the picture quality is 4 times as good.
If you count pixels as picture quality then 3,840 x 2,160 is 4 times better than 1080p

3,840 x 2,160= (2*1920)x(2*1080)= 2x2x1920x1080=4x(1920x1080)
 
  • Like
Reactions: thewind and ravy

Jad Chaar

Posts: 6,482   +976
AWesome!!! I know what I want for Christmas!



Yeah, the 4k moniker will be less common soon. It's Ultra HD now.
that is just cheesy lol
I have 2 x 4gb 680s for my 30" 2560 x 1600 ips display but this one is kick ***. Cant wait till they make a stand alone PC display with this res for under 2 grand I'll grab one!
how many frames do you get on a game like BF3 on ultra? also does the 4GB help?
 
  • Like
Reactions: prismatics

Darth Shiv

Posts: 2,035   +622
If you count pixels as picture quality then 3,840 x 2,160 is 4 times better than 1080p

3,840 x 2,160= (2*1920)x(2*1080)= 2x2x1920x1080=4x(1920x1080)
4x(1920x1080) is not 3840x2160...4x 1920 is 7680, and 4x 1080 is 4320.
Um ike... did you read his post?

1920x1080 has 2,073,600 pixels

3840 x 2160 has 8,294,400 pixels

So 1080p vs 4K... 4K has 4 times the number of pixels.
 
G

Guest

So, how much gtx 680 must I have to run Crysis (ultra high quality with not less than 30fps) on this monitor? :D
 

thewind

Posts: 81   +8
Since 1080p was often the used number, why are they calling it 4k? its more like 2k... whatever. Its misleading to the less savy people who think the picture quality is 4 times as good.
If you count pixels as picture quality then 3,840 x 2,160 is 4 times better than 1080p

3,840 x 2,160= (2*1920)x(2*1080)= 2x2x1920x1080=4x(1920x1080)
Thank god you said something cuz I was like "are you flippin' kidding me? 4k or what ever you wanta call it is 4x the pixels so 4x as good! but Yes they call it 4k so the average joe knows its 4x its a good marketing ploit.
 

thewind

Posts: 81   +8
So, how much gtx 680 must I have to run Crysis (ultra high quality with not less than 30fps) on this monitor? :D
Given Hitman Absolution cant even run on Ultra at 1080p ( Now when I say that I mean when everything is on ultra and I turn MSAA up to 8x I only get an average of 24FPS) If you turn MSAA to 4x then it runs fine) Anyway given this game is the most demanding game I have seen so far I would like to know how many it would take to run it at 4k! I'm gussing 2 690's or 3 680's. any gusses?
 

9Nails

Posts: 1,215   +177
Since 1080p was often the used number, why are they calling it 4k? its more like 2k... whatever. Its misleading to the less savy people who think the picture quality is 4 times as good.
If you count pixels as picture quality then 3,840 x 2,160 is 4 times better than 1080p

3,840 x 2,160= (2*1920)x(2*1080)= 2x2x1920x1080=4x(1920x1080)
Thank god you said something cuz I was like "are you flippin' kidding me? 4k or what ever you wanta call it is 4x the pixels so 4x as good! but Yes they call it 4k so the average joe knows its 4x its a good marketing ploit.
They should have called it 4x then. Calling it a 4K monitor when it's really a 2K is very misleading. Like that silly Apple 4G phone, which wasn't a 4G phone, but only a 4th generation product.
 
G

Guest

"[SIZE=13px]Given Hitman Absolution cant even run on Ultra at 1080p ( Now when I say that I mean when everything is on ultra and I turn MSAA up to 8x I only get an average of 24FPS) If you turn MSAA to 4x then it runs fine) Anyway given this game is the most demanding game I have seen so far I would like to know how many it would take to run it at 4k! I'm gussing 2 690's or 3 680's. any gusses?"[/SIZE]

[SIZE=13px]Hey, how about we wait for 2-3 years waiting for gtx 780 or gtx 880, also waiting for Sandy Bridge-F (next gen of SandyBridge-E) perhaps? :D[/SIZE]
 

ikesmasher

Posts: 3,050   +1,368
They should have called it 4x then. Calling it a 4K monitor when it's really a 2K is very misleading. Like that silly Apple 4G phone, which wasn't a 4G phone, but only a 4th generation product.
in its defense, it was called the iphone 4, not the 4G. :p
 

Jad Chaar

Posts: 6,482   +976
Given Hitman Absolution cant even run on Ultra at 1080p ( Now when I say that I mean when everything is on ultra and I turn MSAA up to 8x I only get an average of 24FPS) If you turn MSAA to 4x then it runs fine) Anyway given this game is the most demanding game I have seen so far I would like to know how many it would take to run it at 4k! I'm gussing 2 690's or 3 680's. any gusses?
I bet it is just not optimised. It is like metro 2033 and witcher 2, it was a killer until AMD and nvidia fixed the drivers to run it great