15 ms·

ASUS Launches Monitor with 3840 x 2160 IGZO Display

211 points by fdm 13y ago

fdm 13y ago
More than 10 years after the IBM T220/T221 came out, but the IBM monitor still has a significantly bigger resolution (3840x2400) and PPI (203.98 vs 139.56).
- jtreminio 13y ago
  Yes but the problem is its low refresh rate. If you're looking at static images, I'm sure it will do great, but if you are trying to watch a movie, play a game, or do anything that has fast motion, you won't have a good time.
  - masklinn 13y ago
    Meanwhile the PQ321 has a refresh rate of ???.
    - Torn 13y ago
      DisplayPort 1.2 should allow for 60hz: http://forums.guru3d.com/showthread.php?p=4608199#post4608199 http://forums.guru3d.com/showthread.php?p=4608199#post460819... Gotta assume the monitor supports 60, going to 30 would be terrible.
    - jfb 13y ago
      8ms, according to the OP.
      - bestham 13y ago
        8ms is the panel switch rate, not the same as the slow refresh rate of the Lenovo due to the bottleneck in the interconnect with the GPU (4 DVI-channels and 41 Hz refresh, when the panel surly did 60 Hz). It is a massive datarate, especially for a 12 year old system.
    - vadman 13y ago
      60 fps, but the current drivers for both AMD and Nvidia (still in development) make you connect 2 cables and essentially treat it like 2 1920x2160 displays from what I read.
MattDL 13y ago
Honestly I think my next monitor will have to be a 120Hz 4k screen. I'm not sure I could take the step back down to 60Hz after getting used to it, for me it's a much bigger deal than resolution.
- adlpz 13y ago
  Why is it so important? Is it for gaming, maybe? Because I am pretty sure it's impossible to notice that while working, because there is no flicker between frames anyway. And gaming on a 4K screen (at PC viewing distance) is pretty crazy.
  - chopsueyar 13y ago
    And gaming on a 4K screen (at PC viewing distance) is pretty crazy. Crazy Awesome.
    - adlpz 13y ago
      Well yes, but I'd rather play at 1920x1080 and not have to sell a kidney for a graphics card that can drive the 4K display.
      - papsosouid 13y ago
        You still have that option, I can't imagine any 4k displays would fail to support running at a 2x multiplier given that it is designed specifically for that.
      - rangibaby 13y ago
        The next generation of graphics card will probably be able to take the dubious honor of being able to run Crysis (2007) at 1920x1080 / 60fps on a single GPU... [1] http://www.anandtech.com/show/5261/amd-radeon-hd-7970-review/16 http://www.anandtech.com/show/5261/amd-radeon-hd-7970-review...
  - arianvanp 13y ago
    Yes. Quake players swear by 120Hz+ screens. We're all geeks and nerds who still use CRT monitors because those new hip 'flat' things have too much input lag and too low refresh rate. In a fast-paced game like quake, these things make the difference between winning a duel and losing one. Also in the fighting game community (King of Fighters, streetfighter) input lag is a killer. if your monitor has lag, you won't be able to chain your combos as well as the pros. For working and document editing and browsing, 50Hz with slow input time is fine, but for 'serious' gaming it's not, I guess. It's also one of the arguments I hear why PC gamers consider themselves 'more awesome'. "Why would I play on an xbox, on one of those TVs with the horrible refresh rate, and all the post-processing that adds milliseconds of delay"
mtgx 13y ago
Random guess - under $1,000? Would that be an okay price for it?
- sciurus 13y ago
  I doubt that a 31.5-inch 3840 x 2160 monitor will be less than $1,000. Dell's U3014, which is 30-inch and 2560x1600, is $1,200.
  - jacquesm 13y ago
    And that one is worth every penny (looking at it right now).
    - jacques_chester 13y ago
      You can get the same panels for 1/3rd to 1/2 the price from the usual Korean suppliers. I bought two.
      - jacquesm 13y ago
        Fortunately I am no longer in the spot where I have to order things from halfway around the world to save a few bucks but I can just go to dell.com/dell.nl and order what I need for my job. I'd feel if I still had to scrape the bottom of the barrel in order to get the tools I need for my trade at 48 that I'd be doing something seriously wrong :) It's good those cheaper options exist, me, I just buy what I need at the list price if it's tools, I have one of these at home and one of them at work. It may be a bit more expensive but the time spent and possible frustration on trying to save $500 on something ordered from far away just is not worth it to me, especially not if it were to break at some point during what would normally be the warranty period. I guess at your price point you could simply order yet another one as a spare :) I have the same attitude towards cars (even though I'm perfectly capable of fixing just about anything), food and a few other items. In some ways this is a tremendous luxury and I am well aware of that.
        13y ago
Dirlewanger 13y ago
Refresh rate is probably 30Hz I'm guessing. If so...ick.
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
- adlpz 13y ago
  I don't think I would need more for a terminal and a text editor, really.
- trimbo 13y ago
  Specs on page say 8ms response time.
  - tr4656 13y ago
    That's not relevant to what he's saying.
vladev 13y ago
I can't wait to see all the broken applications/unreadable small fonts on my Linux. I've been excited for a high density display since Apple announced the retina display, but I have a gut feeling that it will take a lot of time for the Linux desktop to support it properly, if ever.
- krenoten 13y ago
  You're talking about Linux, not a BSD. There are many desktop users who are capable of developing support, and I'd be surprised if nobody is already working on similar things for retina.
  - papsosouid 13y ago
    >You're talking about Linux, not a BSD. No, he is talking about desktop environments and windowing systems that run on both, and have very little to do with either. What was your remark supposed to be implying?
- xixora1 13y ago
  It should be pretty well supported. 140ppi isn't a massive leap over current displays that are common in laptops. 11.6" at 1366x768 is similar... density wise.
- bashtoni 13y ago
  I'm typing this in Debain Linux on a Chromebook Pixel, which has a 239 dpi display, significantly higher than this Asus monitor. Everything works very nicely once I've tweaked a few settings, specifically adding zoom in Chrome and setting appropriate font scaling in Gnome 3.
- dman 13y ago
  Both dwm and xfce have worked just fine on my chromebook pixel. This is on debian 7. The only two applications that have given me issues are ones that do their own custom rendering - Chromium and Sublime text. Both of them have some UI text that cannot be resized and does not appear to respect system dpi settings.
rbanffy 13y ago
> Inputs/outputs DisplayPort, 2x HDMI (optional), RS-232C, 3.5mm audio-in, 3.5mm audio-out RS-232C?! Cool!
- cletus 13y ago
  RS-232 is basically required for any serious display. Why? Integration into videoconferencing and other systems with Krestron and other units. This channel is used for switching them on and off, changing the mode and input, etc.
potatolicious 13y ago
Anybody have more info on this "IGZO" tech? My main interest in viewing angle, color stability, and color reproduction.
- vld 13y ago
  I'm guessing they're using the Sharp panel announced last year. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L1wRivEeIU8 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L1wRivEeIU8
- alok-g 13y ago
  The IGZO replaces the a-Si transistors, while the viewing angle, color stability, etc. depend on the LCD, color filters and the backlight.
lingben 13y ago
so is this IPS or TN?
- wmf 13y ago
  IGZO
  - lingben 13y ago
    oh, so it isn't even TFT technology?
    - deno 13y ago
      http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/04/13/sharp_begins_production_of_igzo_retina_display_tech/ http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/04/13/sharp_begins_product...
      - lingben 13y ago
        neat, I didn't know about this, thank you!
sdfjkl 13y ago
Finally some movement in the desktop display market. I've been hoping for this every time I dragged a window from my retina display to the desktop monitor and it lost 3/4th of it's pixels.
dochtman 13y ago
I'd much prefer having higher-ppi 24" screens.
- sliverstorm 13y ago
  Take what you can get. The biggest obstacle right now is getting over the 1080p "hump"; once 4K is common, you'll see a variety of sizes available.
bhauer 13y ago
I have been waiting for this for years [1]. I am salivating at the thought and I'm eager to know the price. Will I be able to afford to retire my 30" monitors that were first manufactured eight years ago? ASUS, if you're reading this: I'd say add an option to drop the integrated speakers because I still want a very thin bezel so that I can orient two or three side-by-side. Edit: Ars has a photo of the PQ321 [2]. [1] http://tiamat.tsotech.com/displays-are-the-key http://tiamat.tsotech.com/displays-are-the-key [2] http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2013/05/asus-brings-4k-to-your-desktop-with-massive-31-5-3840x2160-monitor/ http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2013/05/asus-brings-4k-to-you...
- vadman 13y ago
  They are using Sharp's 4K IGZO panel. The MSRP for Sharp's own monitor is $5500, the street price is closer to $4800. ASUS will be in the same ballpark most likely. If you can just order 3 of them to put side by side in portrait mode, I envy you :) BTW - one nasty thing about the Sharp display is that it's LED edge-lit, and the ASUS is most likely the same (the press release says "backlit" but they don't mention local dimming so I'm guessing edge-lit as well). Perhaps I am being an unreasonable purist, but I don't like such corner-cutting on premium displays.
  - bhauer 13y ago
    That is disappointingly pricey, but not all that surprising. Maybe just one to start out with. :) I can rationalize such caution against my desire to splurge thus: with any luck, this will spark a little bit of necessary competition in desktop displays; an area stagnant since 2005's introduction of 30" 2560x1600 monitors. Better to have not invested heavily in the initial offering. Plus, as you point out, there may be some odd corners cut. Edge-lit? Boo. On the other hand, I've been dealing with four fluorescent backlit 30" monitors for years. LED backlit would be an upgrade even with an edge-lit design. Is it too much to ask for OLED or similar 150+ dpi displays on my desktop before the close of the 2010s? 50+ inch. Possibly even flexible/concave. Please?
- fdm 13y ago
  There are more pictures here: http://www.techpowerup.com/184696/asus-launches-pq321-monitor-with-3840-x-2160-igzo-display.html http://www.techpowerup.com/184696/asus-launches-pq321-monito...
jfb 13y ago
So a 24" Retina Thunderbolt display at WWDC is pretty much a given, then.
- mortenjorck 13y ago
  Maybe a bit premature, but I'd say you're spot-on in execution. This is almost certainly how Apple will bring Retina to the desktop: A 24" 1080p @2x, which just happens to be the same resolution as the emerging 4K standard. 27" is too big for 1080p-scaled UI elements, but 24" is just about right (and being Retina, you'll no doubt be able to crank it a bit higher if you give up the pure 2x multiplier). If they launched this summer, I think it'd be a $2000+ display, which is probably more than Apple wants to enter the market at. In another 6-12 months, I can see them being able to hit something more like $1499, which sounds about right.
  - jfb 13y ago
    It'll be 16:10 (3840x2400), not 16:9 (3840x2160), but otherwise, yeah, that's what I figure.
    - nsxwolf 13y ago
      What makes you think they'd switch back to 16:10? (I'd love it if they did)
      - jfb 13y ago
        I'd like to claim Special Knowledge, but of course it was strictly a brainfart.
    - ttrreeww 13y ago
      Whoever down-voted you is a hater of the first degree. I would love less wide monitors as well.
  - rdl 13y ago
    I don't think Apple has the same cost structure as everyone else; they could afford to loan a supplier enough money to essentially bring cost savings forward. I could see a $999-1499 Retina Desktop display now, and/or Retina iMac.
Xcelerate 13y ago
This is great! I probably annoy my friends with how much I tell them I wish there was an (affordable) high-resolution monitor available. In fact, the retina MBP's screen is the only reason I switched from Windows to a Mac; that display alone was worth it. Looking forward to a non-pixelated future. I'm surprised ASUS was the one to take the initiative though!
- tuananh 13y ago
  Not sure the 140PPI is comparable to the Retina.
  - ajross 13y ago
    It is for a 31" monitor. How close do you plan on sitting to it?
    - Bud 13y ago
      No, it's not comparable to 227ppi on a Retina MBP, not even if it is slightly further away. Desktop monitors' ideal distance is usually arm's length, barely further away than where a laptop screen sits. This isn't enough to make a 140ppi screen appear equivalent to a "Retina" screen.
      - barrkel 13y ago
        A laptop screen is usually quite a bit closer than a desktop screen because the comfort of typing on it limits how far you can push it away. I got my measuring tape and put some numbers on this. I sit an average distance of 75cm away from my desktop screens. The 24" screen in front of me is 52cm wide. So the horizontal viewing angle is 2 * inv_tan(52/2 / 75) = 38.2 degrees, assuming I sit positioned at the middle of it. I sit about 45cm away from my MBA's screen, with the keyboard in a comfortable position. Maintaining the same viewing angle, the screen's visible-resolution-equivalent width would be inv_tan(x / 45) = 38.2, or 45 * tan(38.2) = 35cm. So in order to have a higher effective eye resolution than my monitor, the screen would have to have more than 52 / 35, or about 1.5, times the PPI. Work that out with the numbers in this thread, and you get a 140ppi monitor being roughly equivalent to a 210ppi laptop screen, in terms of average view angle of a pixel on an mid-range sized display. IMO it's not that far off the 220ppi of a 15" MBP. Definitely comparable. Especially since a 31" monitor won't be as easy to sit right in front of as a 24" - as your screen gets bigger, you end up with more head movement, and it can get tiring.
dawkins 13y ago
I just bought a 2560x1080px monitor just to discover that there is no way to use it with my laptop. It seems that most laptops are limited to 1920x1080 despite that the graphics card may support higher resolutions.
- vamega 13y ago
  If your laptop has a displayport output you should be fine, alternatively try to use dual link DVI if your laptop supports that.
- gknoy 13y ago
  I had a similar problem at work getting my external (27" 2560x1440) monitor working with my laptop (a Sony F-series) running Ubuntu. We solved it by lowering the refresh rate used by the HDMI output. It took quite a bit of tweaking to find the right values, and frankly I've forgotten what most of it meant, but this may help you: In the "Monitor" section, we defined modelines: ModeLine "2560x1440_33" 164.99 2560 2688 2960 3360 1440 1441 1444 1468 -hsync +vsync ModeLine "2560x1440_30" 146.27 2560 2680 2944 3328 1440 1441 1444 1465 -hsync +vsync Then, in the Screen section, I appear to have modes selected from there: Option "metamodes" "DFP-0: nvidia-auto-select +0+360, DFP-1: 2560x1440_33 +1920+0; # ... and a bunch more that seem to be auto-generated by nvidia-settings? The down side of this is that I can't connect my laptop to use any of our projectors in on conference rooms, but it's a small price to pay in order to be able to drive the larger screen.
  - deleted 13y ago
    [deleted]
daniel-cussen 13y ago
I can only slobber at the thought of 24 (3 monitors * 8 columns per monitor) columns of emacs open at once. That's almost 3 KLOCs.
alberth 13y ago
People talk about Retina displays etc ... but back in 2003 (yes, 10 years ago) ViewSonic had even higher resolution display called the "ViewSonic VP2290b" [1] It was 3840x2400 in just a 22" display. It has a 204dpi and again, that was 10 years ago. Any for the nay sayers, yes - this was mass produced to the point that IBM was selling them as the T220 display [2] [1] http://reviews.cnet.com/lcd-monitors/viewsonic-vp2290b-lcd-monitor/4505-3174_7-30967920.html http://reviews.cnet.com/lcd-monitors/viewsonic-vp2290b-lcd-m... [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_T220/T221_LCD_monitors http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_T220/T221_LCD_monitors
- TylerE 13y ago
  Those cost like $20k though. If this is available for under $1000, it's a game changer.
  - alberth 13y ago
    It cost approx $8,500 [1] when released. Also keep in mind that it wasn't until extremely recently (last few years) that LCD priced have dropped liked crazy. People back in 2003 were use to paying these kind of prices. It's simply amazing how today, you can buy an highly performance computer ... even laptop, for less than $800. [1] http://gizmodo.com/017019/viewsonic-vp2290b-mega-monitor-lusted-after-reviewed http://gizmodo.com/017019/viewsonic-vp2290b-mega-monitor-lus...
    - TylerE 13y ago
      That's a later model. The original IBM T220 cost $17,999 (In 2000 dollars, $24,300 in 2013 dollars). It wasn't until 2 years later that the price dropped below $10k.
    - gcb0 13y ago
      yeah, it was around the $12k line. but also keep in mind, that cheap LCDs were in the $2k line. So not too much in terms of high end specialized gear. today low ends are $200, and the high ends for $1.2k are uninteresting at best.
    - 13y ago
driverdan 13y ago
8ms GTG response time is probably fine for most users but isn't great. Even Monoprice's cheap IPS displays are 6ms.
sebnukem2 13y ago
Finally!!! I've read the article multiple times and no price? Did I miss it?
akurilin 13y ago
Would do anything for an affordable ultra high resolution 24" or 30" monitor for development. Think of all the tmux and vim panes you can cram into one of these puppies :)
Jakehp 13y ago
I swear technology is working against me; I just finished buying my IPS panel monitors.
cclogg 13y ago
Can anyone explain how 10 bit color would work for a monitor? Would we even notice it since most image formats are 8-bits-per-channel... and what does the OS do? Is the monitor able to more accurately show the difference between the sun vs a desk-lamp? (Where today both would appear as RGB 255 in a photo, unless you took 3 exposures and combined them into a 32 bit HDR file... but anyway...)
- KaiserPro 13y ago
  10bit colour eliminates banding on gradients.
- mark-r 13y ago
  I think you can take advantage of the extra bits for color calibration. Your source is still 8 bits, but those 8 bits are converted to 10 in a way that provides better accuracy.
  - cclogg 13y ago
    I'm still trying to wrap my head around how this works, I guess. If I am viewing a JPEG that is only 8 bit color (per channel), how does a 10 bit monitor make that any better without having a 10 bits per channel image source? Or what if I'm in Photoshop in 32 bits per channel mode, doing some HDR work... does this 10 bit monitor mean I'm seeing slightly better colors (more dynamic range) than my old 8 bit monitor?
    - brotchie 13y ago
      I'd assume the JPEG can have some embedded colour profile. This profile specifies a transform between the JPEG's 24bit colour space into the monitor's 30bit colour space. For example, consider two JPEGs with embedded colour profiles. "Red" (255,0,0) in one image will map to some "Reddish" 30 bit value, while (255,0,0) in the other will map to a slightly different 30 bit value.
    - nitrogen 13y ago
      The data channel from GPU to display is most likely still 8-bit. The path from the display controller to the panel, however, is 10-bit (some monitors even use 12). This allows the display controller to apply gamma, contrast, and brightness curves to the incoming data without sacrificing any color resolution. When you make the same adjustments on your PC, the GPU has to dither the result back to 8-bit for transmission.
kunai 13y ago
It's disappointing that every new display I see is still stuck with the archaic 16:9 resolution. Sure, humans may have more periphery side-to-side. This is great for television. But, when you read a book, I doubt you read it horizontally. So, if we do a lot of text manipulation with our computers, why not use a taller aspect ratio, like 3:2 or 4:3? It makes no sense why this display still has less resolution than some ThinkCentre monitors from the early 00's. It makes no sense why there's still that crap 1366x768 being sold now. We went from 1280x800 to 1366x768 (fewer vertical pixels), from 1440x900 to 1600x900 (same vertical), from 1680x1050 to 1600x900 (far fewer vertical pixels), from 1920x1200 to 1920x1080 (fewer), from 2560x1600 to 2560x1440 (far fewer). You could keep the vertical resolutions the same, and simply increase the width, but that would be more expensive to produce, and for the same cost, you'd get a more proportional 8:5 display, so why would you bother? It's an extremely sad, sad, thing.
- tfe 13y ago
  I think it's the best of both worlds. If I can have four files open side-by-side and see a reasonable slice of each, I think that's a win.
  - kunai 13y ago
    But you can do that with 8:5, plus get the same vertical screen height as the 16:9 display. You can still use xmonad/dwm/whathaveyou like you want; you'll just have more vertical height per slice.
- skymt 13y ago
  Many desktop monitors can be rotated 90 degrees, effectively giving you a 9:16 ratio.
  - kunai 13y ago
    Horizontal resolution is important as well. 1080 pixels of horizontal resolution is far too little. 1440 is the same as my MacBook's Air's horizontal res, which is kind of ridiculous when I'm paying in excess of $1000 for a monitor. Again, 8:5 ratios give you the same horizontal res (I don't know why this is such a difficult concept to grasp for some people) with more vertical resolution, in landscape mode.
skizm 13y ago
8 ms response time... not ideal for PC gaming I don't think.
paddy_m 13y ago
Seiki has a 4k 50 inch screen for $1300. It has poor inputs and is currently sold out, but it signals things to come. http://www.tigerdirect.com/applications/SearchTools/item-details.asp?EdpNo=7674736 http://www.tigerdirect.com/applications/SearchTools/item-det...
ttrreeww 13y ago
Why can't they make a 21 inch 4k monitor...
Aardwolf 13y ago
Awesome progress! Now also do it witha 24" monitor please, 31" is a bit on the big side for my desk setup at home.
veidr 13y ago
Disinclined as I am to use Apple's "Retina" marketing term, it is a conceptually useful distinction. On a given display at the real world distance you use it for work, you can't see the pixels. That is what we as users want, and it is also the limit of what is useful: packing additional pixels into the same surface area doesn't help anything. This monitor isn't quite there. But it is still a big leap in terms of progress over the standard 2560x1440 27" inch panels currently used by Apple, Dell, etc. We already have similar monitors in Japan for like $4000... it will be interesting to see how this one is priced. I have a couple 30" and a newer 27" monitors, but I'd trade all three of them for one 24" truly retina monitor.
MonkoftheFunk 13y ago
Maybe this will trickle down to the oculus? We just got one and Ya the only things missing is pixel density.

211 points by fdm 13y ago

fdm 13y ago

More than 10 years after the IBM T220/T221 came out, but the IBM monitor still has a significantly bigger resolution (3840x2400) and PPI (203.98 vs 139.56).

jtreminio 13y ago
Yes but the problem is its low refresh rate. If you're looking at static images, I'm sure it will do great, but if you are trying to watch a movie, play a game, or do anything that has fast motion, you won't have a good time.
- masklinn 13y ago
  Meanwhile the PQ321 has a refresh rate of ???.
  - Torn 13y ago
    DisplayPort 1.2 should allow for 60hz: http://forums.guru3d.com/showthread.php?p=4608199#post4608199 http://forums.guru3d.com/showthread.php?p=4608199#post460819... Gotta assume the monitor supports 60, going to 30 would be terrible.
  - jfb 13y ago
    8ms, according to the OP.
    - bestham 13y ago
      8ms is the panel switch rate, not the same as the slow refresh rate of the Lenovo due to the bottleneck in the interconnect with the GPU (4 DVI-channels and 41 Hz refresh, when the panel surly did 60 Hz). It is a massive datarate, especially for a 12 year old system.
  - vadman 13y ago
    60 fps, but the current drivers for both AMD and Nvidia (still in development) make you connect 2 cables and essentially treat it like 2 1920x2160 displays from what I read.

MattDL 13y ago

Honestly I think my next monitor will have to be a 120Hz 4k screen. I'm not sure I could take the step back down to 60Hz after getting used to it, for me it's a much bigger deal than resolution.

adlpz 13y ago
Why is it so important? Is it for gaming, maybe? Because I am pretty sure it's impossible to notice that while working, because there is no flicker between frames anyway. And gaming on a 4K screen (at PC viewing distance) is pretty crazy.
- chopsueyar 13y ago
  And gaming on a 4K screen (at PC viewing distance) is pretty crazy. Crazy Awesome.
  - adlpz 13y ago
    Well yes, but I'd rather play at 1920x1080 and not have to sell a kidney for a graphics card that can drive the 4K display.
    - papsosouid 13y ago
      You still have that option, I can't imagine any 4k displays would fail to support running at a 2x multiplier given that it is designed specifically for that.
    - rangibaby 13y ago
      The next generation of graphics card will probably be able to take the dubious honor of being able to run Crysis (2007) at 1920x1080 / 60fps on a single GPU... [1] http://www.anandtech.com/show/5261/amd-radeon-hd-7970-review/16 http://www.anandtech.com/show/5261/amd-radeon-hd-7970-review...
- arianvanp 13y ago
  Yes. Quake players swear by 120Hz+ screens. We're all geeks and nerds who still use CRT monitors because those new hip 'flat' things have too much input lag and too low refresh rate. In a fast-paced game like quake, these things make the difference between winning a duel and losing one. Also in the fighting game community (King of Fighters, streetfighter) input lag is a killer. if your monitor has lag, you won't be able to chain your combos as well as the pros. For working and document editing and browsing, 50Hz with slow input time is fine, but for 'serious' gaming it's not, I guess. It's also one of the arguments I hear why PC gamers consider themselves 'more awesome'. "Why would I play on an xbox, on one of those TVs with the horrible refresh rate, and all the post-processing that adds milliseconds of delay"

mtgx 13y ago

Random guess - under $1,000? Would that be an okay price for it?

sciurus 13y ago
I doubt that a 31.5-inch 3840 x 2160 monitor will be less than $1,000. Dell's U3014, which is 30-inch and 2560x1600, is $1,200.
- jacquesm 13y ago
  And that one is worth every penny (looking at it right now).
  - jacques_chester 13y ago
    You can get the same panels for 1/3rd to 1/2 the price from the usual Korean suppliers. I bought two.
    - jacquesm 13y ago
      Fortunately I am no longer in the spot where I have to order things from halfway around the world to save a few bucks but I can just go to dell.com/dell.nl and order what I need for my job. I'd feel if I still had to scrape the bottom of the barrel in order to get the tools I need for my trade at 48 that I'd be doing something seriously wrong :) It's good those cheaper options exist, me, I just buy what I need at the list price if it's tools, I have one of these at home and one of them at work. It may be a bit more expensive but the time spent and possible frustration on trying to save $500 on something ordered from far away just is not worth it to me, especially not if it were to break at some point during what would normally be the warranty period. I guess at your price point you could simply order yet another one as a spare :) I have the same attitude towards cars (even though I'm perfectly capable of fixing just about anything), food and a few other items. In some ways this is a tremendous luxury and I am well aware of that.
      - 13y ago

Dirlewanger 13y ago

Refresh rate is probably 30Hz I'm guessing. If so...ick.

deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
adlpz 13y ago
I don't think I would need more for a terminal and a text editor, really.
trimbo 13y ago
Specs on page say 8ms response time.
- tr4656 13y ago
  That's not relevant to what he's saying.

vladev 13y ago

I can't wait to see all the broken applications/unreadable small fonts on my Linux. I've been excited for a high density display since Apple announced the retina display, but I have a gut feeling that it will take a lot of time for the Linux desktop to support it properly, if ever.

krenoten 13y ago
You're talking about Linux, not a BSD. There are many desktop users who are capable of developing support, and I'd be surprised if nobody is already working on similar things for retina.
- papsosouid 13y ago
  >You're talking about Linux, not a BSD. No, he is talking about desktop environments and windowing systems that run on both, and have very little to do with either. What was your remark supposed to be implying?
xixora1 13y ago
It should be pretty well supported. 140ppi isn't a massive leap over current displays that are common in laptops. 11.6" at 1366x768 is similar... density wise.
bashtoni 13y ago
I'm typing this in Debain Linux on a Chromebook Pixel, which has a 239 dpi display, significantly higher than this Asus monitor. Everything works very nicely once I've tweaked a few settings, specifically adding zoom in Chrome and setting appropriate font scaling in Gnome 3.
dman 13y ago
Both dwm and xfce have worked just fine on my chromebook pixel. This is on debian 7. The only two applications that have given me issues are ones that do their own custom rendering - Chromium and Sublime text. Both of them have some UI text that cannot be resized and does not appear to respect system dpi settings.

rbanffy 13y ago

> Inputs/outputs DisplayPort, 2x HDMI (optional), RS-232C, 3.5mm audio-in, 3.5mm audio-out RS-232C?! Cool!

cletus 13y ago
RS-232 is basically required for any serious display. Why? Integration into videoconferencing and other systems with Krestron and other units. This channel is used for switching them on and off, changing the mode and input, etc.

potatolicious 13y ago

Anybody have more info on this "IGZO" tech? My main interest in viewing angle, color stability, and color reproduction.

vld 13y ago
I'm guessing they're using the Sharp panel announced last year. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L1wRivEeIU8 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L1wRivEeIU8
alok-g 13y ago
The IGZO replaces the a-Si transistors, while the viewing angle, color stability, etc. depend on the LCD, color filters and the backlight.

lingben 13y ago

so is this IPS or TN?

wmf 13y ago
IGZO
- lingben 13y ago
  oh, so it isn't even TFT technology?
  - deno 13y ago
    http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/04/13/sharp_begins_production_of_igzo_retina_display_tech/ http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/04/13/sharp_begins_product...
    - lingben 13y ago
      neat, I didn't know about this, thank you!

sdfjkl 13y ago

Finally some movement in the desktop display market. I've been hoping for this every time I dragged a window from my retina display to the desktop monitor and it lost 3/4th of it's pixels.

dochtman 13y ago

I'd much prefer having higher-ppi 24" screens.

sliverstorm 13y ago
Take what you can get. The biggest obstacle right now is getting over the 1080p "hump"; once 4K is common, you'll see a variety of sizes available.

bhauer 13y ago

I have been waiting for this for years [1]. I am salivating at the thought and I'm eager to know the price. Will I be able to afford to retire my 30" monitors that were first manufactured eight years ago? ASUS, if you're reading this: I'd say add an option to drop the integrated speakers because I still want a very thin bezel so that I can orient two or three side-by-side. Edit: Ars has a photo of the PQ321 [2]. [1] http://tiamat.tsotech.com/displays-are-the-key http://tiamat.tsotech.com/displays-are-the-key [2] http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2013/05/asus-brings-4k-to-your-desktop-with-massive-31-5-3840x2160-monitor/ http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2013/05/asus-brings-4k-to-you...

vadman 13y ago
They are using Sharp's 4K IGZO panel. The MSRP for Sharp's own monitor is $5500, the street price is closer to $4800. ASUS will be in the same ballpark most likely. If you can just order 3 of them to put side by side in portrait mode, I envy you :) BTW - one nasty thing about the Sharp display is that it's LED edge-lit, and the ASUS is most likely the same (the press release says "backlit" but they don't mention local dimming so I'm guessing edge-lit as well). Perhaps I am being an unreasonable purist, but I don't like such corner-cutting on premium displays.
- bhauer 13y ago
  That is disappointingly pricey, but not all that surprising. Maybe just one to start out with. :) I can rationalize such caution against my desire to splurge thus: with any luck, this will spark a little bit of necessary competition in desktop displays; an area stagnant since 2005's introduction of 30" 2560x1600 monitors. Better to have not invested heavily in the initial offering. Plus, as you point out, there may be some odd corners cut. Edge-lit? Boo. On the other hand, I've been dealing with four fluorescent backlit 30" monitors for years. LED backlit would be an upgrade even with an edge-lit design. Is it too much to ask for OLED or similar 150+ dpi displays on my desktop before the close of the 2010s? 50+ inch. Possibly even flexible/concave. Please?
fdm 13y ago
There are more pictures here: http://www.techpowerup.com/184696/asus-launches-pq321-monitor-with-3840-x-2160-igzo-display.html http://www.techpowerup.com/184696/asus-launches-pq321-monito...

jfb 13y ago

So a 24" Retina Thunderbolt display at WWDC is pretty much a given, then.

mortenjorck 13y ago
Maybe a bit premature, but I'd say you're spot-on in execution. This is almost certainly how Apple will bring Retina to the desktop: A 24" 1080p @2x, which just happens to be the same resolution as the emerging 4K standard. 27" is too big for 1080p-scaled UI elements, but 24" is just about right (and being Retina, you'll no doubt be able to crank it a bit higher if you give up the pure 2x multiplier). If they launched this summer, I think it'd be a $2000+ display, which is probably more than Apple wants to enter the market at. In another 6-12 months, I can see them being able to hit something more like $1499, which sounds about right.
- jfb 13y ago
  It'll be 16:10 (3840x2400), not 16:9 (3840x2160), but otherwise, yeah, that's what I figure.
  - nsxwolf 13y ago
    What makes you think they'd switch back to 16:10? (I'd love it if they did)
    - jfb 13y ago
      I'd like to claim Special Knowledge, but of course it was strictly a brainfart.
  - ttrreeww 13y ago
    Whoever down-voted you is a hater of the first degree. I would love less wide monitors as well.
- rdl 13y ago
  I don't think Apple has the same cost structure as everyone else; they could afford to loan a supplier enough money to essentially bring cost savings forward. I could see a $999-1499 Retina Desktop display now, and/or Retina iMac.

Xcelerate 13y ago

This is great! I probably annoy my friends with how much I tell them I wish there was an (affordable) high-resolution monitor available. In fact, the retina MBP's screen is the only reason I switched from Windows to a Mac; that display alone was worth it. Looking forward to a non-pixelated future. I'm surprised ASUS was the one to take the initiative though!

tuananh 13y ago
Not sure the 140PPI is comparable to the Retina.
- ajross 13y ago
  It is for a 31" monitor. How close do you plan on sitting to it?
  - Bud 13y ago
    No, it's not comparable to 227ppi on a Retina MBP, not even if it is slightly further away. Desktop monitors' ideal distance is usually arm's length, barely further away than where a laptop screen sits. This isn't enough to make a 140ppi screen appear equivalent to a "Retina" screen.
    - barrkel 13y ago
      A laptop screen is usually quite a bit closer than a desktop screen because the comfort of typing on it limits how far you can push it away. I got my measuring tape and put some numbers on this. I sit an average distance of 75cm away from my desktop screens. The 24" screen in front of me is 52cm wide. So the horizontal viewing angle is 2 * inv_tan(52/2 / 75) = 38.2 degrees, assuming I sit positioned at the middle of it. I sit about 45cm away from my MBA's screen, with the keyboard in a comfortable position. Maintaining the same viewing angle, the screen's visible-resolution-equivalent width would be inv_tan(x / 45) = 38.2, or 45 * tan(38.2) = 35cm. So in order to have a higher effective eye resolution than my monitor, the screen would have to have more than 52 / 35, or about 1.5, times the PPI. Work that out with the numbers in this thread, and you get a 140ppi monitor being roughly equivalent to a 210ppi laptop screen, in terms of average view angle of a pixel on an mid-range sized display. IMO it's not that far off the 220ppi of a 15" MBP. Definitely comparable. Especially since a 31" monitor won't be as easy to sit right in front of as a 24" - as your screen gets bigger, you end up with more head movement, and it can get tiring.

dawkins 13y ago

I just bought a 2560x1080px monitor just to discover that there is no way to use it with my laptop. It seems that most laptops are limited to 1920x1080 despite that the graphics card may support higher resolutions.

vamega 13y ago
If your laptop has a displayport output you should be fine, alternatively try to use dual link DVI if your laptop supports that.
gknoy 13y ago
I had a similar problem at work getting my external (27" 2560x1440) monitor working with my laptop (a Sony F-series) running Ubuntu. We solved it by lowering the refresh rate used by the HDMI output. It took quite a bit of tweaking to find the right values, and frankly I've forgotten what most of it meant, but this may help you: In the "Monitor" section, we defined modelines: ModeLine "2560x1440_33" 164.99 2560 2688 2960 3360 1440 1441 1444 1468 -hsync +vsync ModeLine "2560x1440_30" 146.27 2560 2680 2944 3328 1440 1441 1444 1465 -hsync +vsync Then, in the Screen section, I appear to have modes selected from there: Option "metamodes" "DFP-0: nvidia-auto-select +0+360, DFP-1: 2560x1440_33 +1920+0; # ... and a bunch more that seem to be auto-generated by nvidia-settings? The down side of this is that I can't connect my laptop to use any of our projectors in on conference rooms, but it's a small price to pay in order to be able to drive the larger screen.
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]

daniel-cussen 13y ago

I can only slobber at the thought of 24 (3 monitors * 8 columns per monitor) columns of emacs open at once. That's almost 3 KLOCs.

alberth 13y ago

People talk about Retina displays etc ... but back in 2003 (yes, 10 years ago) ViewSonic had even higher resolution display called the "ViewSonic VP2290b" [1] It was 3840x2400 in just a 22" display. It has a 204dpi and again, that was 10 years ago. Any for the nay sayers, yes - this was mass produced to the point that IBM was selling them as the T220 display [2] [1] http://reviews.cnet.com/lcd-monitors/viewsonic-vp2290b-lcd-monitor/4505-3174_7-30967920.html http://reviews.cnet.com/lcd-monitors/viewsonic-vp2290b-lcd-m... [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_T220/T221_LCD_monitors http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_T220/T221_LCD_monitors

TylerE 13y ago
Those cost like $20k though. If this is available for under $1000, it's a game changer.
- alberth 13y ago
  It cost approx $8,500 [1] when released. Also keep in mind that it wasn't until extremely recently (last few years) that LCD priced have dropped liked crazy. People back in 2003 were use to paying these kind of prices. It's simply amazing how today, you can buy an highly performance computer ... even laptop, for less than $800. [1] http://gizmodo.com/017019/viewsonic-vp2290b-mega-monitor-lusted-after-reviewed http://gizmodo.com/017019/viewsonic-vp2290b-mega-monitor-lus...
  - TylerE 13y ago
    That's a later model. The original IBM T220 cost $17,999 (In 2000 dollars, $24,300 in 2013 dollars). It wasn't until 2 years later that the price dropped below $10k.
  - gcb0 13y ago
    yeah, it was around the $12k line. but also keep in mind, that cheap LCDs were in the $2k line. So not too much in terms of high end specialized gear. today low ends are $200, and the high ends for $1.2k are uninteresting at best.
  - 13y ago

driverdan 13y ago

8ms GTG response time is probably fine for most users but isn't great. Even Monoprice's cheap IPS displays are 6ms.

sebnukem2 13y ago

Finally!!! I've read the article multiple times and no price? Did I miss it?

akurilin 13y ago

Would do anything for an affordable ultra high resolution 24" or 30" monitor for development. Think of all the tmux and vim panes you can cram into one of these puppies :)

Jakehp 13y ago

I swear technology is working against me; I just finished buying my IPS panel monitors.

cclogg 13y ago

Can anyone explain how 10 bit color would work for a monitor? Would we even notice it since most image formats are 8-bits-per-channel... and what does the OS do? Is the monitor able to more accurately show the difference between the sun vs a desk-lamp? (Where today both would appear as RGB 255 in a photo, unless you took 3 exposures and combined them into a 32 bit HDR file... but anyway...)

KaiserPro 13y ago
10bit colour eliminates banding on gradients.
mark-r 13y ago
I think you can take advantage of the extra bits for color calibration. Your source is still 8 bits, but those 8 bits are converted to 10 in a way that provides better accuracy.
- cclogg 13y ago
  I'm still trying to wrap my head around how this works, I guess. If I am viewing a JPEG that is only 8 bit color (per channel), how does a 10 bit monitor make that any better without having a 10 bits per channel image source? Or what if I'm in Photoshop in 32 bits per channel mode, doing some HDR work... does this 10 bit monitor mean I'm seeing slightly better colors (more dynamic range) than my old 8 bit monitor?
  - brotchie 13y ago
    I'd assume the JPEG can have some embedded colour profile. This profile specifies a transform between the JPEG's 24bit colour space into the monitor's 30bit colour space. For example, consider two JPEGs with embedded colour profiles. "Red" (255,0,0) in one image will map to some "Reddish" 30 bit value, while (255,0,0) in the other will map to a slightly different 30 bit value.
  - nitrogen 13y ago
    The data channel from GPU to display is most likely still 8-bit. The path from the display controller to the panel, however, is 10-bit (some monitors even use 12). This allows the display controller to apply gamma, contrast, and brightness curves to the incoming data without sacrificing any color resolution. When you make the same adjustments on your PC, the GPU has to dither the result back to 8-bit for transmission.

kunai 13y ago

It's disappointing that every new display I see is still stuck with the archaic 16:9 resolution. Sure, humans may have more periphery side-to-side. This is great for television. But, when you read a book, I doubt you read it horizontally. So, if we do a lot of text manipulation with our computers, why not use a taller aspect ratio, like 3:2 or 4:3? It makes no sense why this display still has less resolution than some ThinkCentre monitors from the early 00's. It makes no sense why there's still that crap 1366x768 being sold now. We went from 1280x800 to 1366x768 (fewer vertical pixels), from 1440x900 to 1600x900 (same vertical), from 1680x1050 to 1600x900 (far fewer vertical pixels), from 1920x1200 to 1920x1080 (fewer), from 2560x1600 to 2560x1440 (far fewer). You could keep the vertical resolutions the same, and simply increase the width, but that would be more expensive to produce, and for the same cost, you'd get a more proportional 8:5 display, so why would you bother? It's an extremely sad, sad, thing.

tfe 13y ago
I think it's the best of both worlds. If I can have four files open side-by-side and see a reasonable slice of each, I think that's a win.
- kunai 13y ago
  But you can do that with 8:5, plus get the same vertical screen height as the 16:9 display. You can still use xmonad/dwm/whathaveyou like you want; you'll just have more vertical height per slice.
skymt 13y ago
Many desktop monitors can be rotated 90 degrees, effectively giving you a 9:16 ratio.
- kunai 13y ago
  Horizontal resolution is important as well. 1080 pixels of horizontal resolution is far too little. 1440 is the same as my MacBook's Air's horizontal res, which is kind of ridiculous when I'm paying in excess of $1000 for a monitor. Again, 8:5 ratios give you the same horizontal res (I don't know why this is such a difficult concept to grasp for some people) with more vertical resolution, in landscape mode.

skizm 13y ago

8 ms response time... not ideal for PC gaming I don't think.

paddy_m 13y ago

Seiki has a 4k 50 inch screen for $1300. It has poor inputs and is currently sold out, but it signals things to come. http://www.tigerdirect.com/applications/SearchTools/item-details.asp?EdpNo=7674736 http://www.tigerdirect.com/applications/SearchTools/item-det...

ttrreeww 13y ago

Why can't they make a 21 inch 4k monitor...

Aardwolf 13y ago

Awesome progress! Now also do it witha 24" monitor please, 31" is a bit on the big side for my desk setup at home.

veidr 13y ago

Disinclined as I am to use Apple's "Retina" marketing term, it is a conceptually useful distinction. On a given display at the real world distance you use it for work, you can't see the pixels. That is what we as users want, and it is also the limit of what is useful: packing additional pixels into the same surface area doesn't help anything. This monitor isn't quite there. But it is still a big leap in terms of progress over the standard 2560x1440 27" inch panels currently used by Apple, Dell, etc. We already have similar monitors in Japan for like $4000... it will be interesting to see how this one is priced. I have a couple 30" and a newer 27" monitors, but I'd trade all three of them for one 24" truly retina monitor.

MonkoftheFunk 13y ago

Maybe this will trickle down to the oculus? We just got one and Ya the only things missing is pixel density.