Sign-in / Sign-up
Your question
Closed

Asus Announces a 4K Gaming Monitor, the PQ321

Tags:
  • Computex
  • Monitors
Last response: in News comments
June 1, 2013 12:02:46 PM

"While the screen itself is not the thinnest screen on the market, in its class, it is the thinnest 4K UHD monitor to date,"
So it actually is the thinnest screen in it's class.......... Some of these "tech" writers need to take a class on logic.
Score
-24
June 1, 2013 12:21:38 PM

YES YES YES!
Score
11
Related resources
June 1, 2013 12:25:02 PM

@southernshark: The writer is saying that it is the thinnest in its class, but not the thinnest out of all screens on the market.
Score
19
June 1, 2013 12:25:03 PM

"So it actually is the thinnest screen in it's class.......... Some of these "tech" writers need to take a class on logic."
You need to take a class in reading comprehension. The writer is saying that it is the thinnest 4k monitor, but is not the thinnest overall monitor on the market.
Score
10
June 1, 2013 12:25:38 PM

"So it actually is the thinnest screen in it's class.......... Some of these "tech" writers need to take a class on logic."
You need to take a class in reading comprehension. The writer is saying that it is the thinnest 4k monitor, but is not the thinnest overall monitor on the market.
Score
0
a b C Monitor
June 1, 2013 12:33:08 PM

It looks like a re-badged Sharp PN-K321 that was rumored to be priced at around $5500.
Score
1
a b C Monitor
June 1, 2013 12:46:07 PM

Its going to be a few more years before these displays become worthwhile for the average consumer. Gotta invest $1-2K on the GPU just to run at this resolution :( 
Score
8
a b C Monitor
June 1, 2013 1:08:30 PM

bigmack says its too small, i say its too big.
i would love a 4k 24 inch monitor, anything larger on a normal desk and you need to turn your head too much.
Score
2
June 1, 2013 1:19:07 PM

Well if it's under $ 600.00 and it's a 1 MS display so i can get at least 100FPS then i may have to upgrade. IF not i have no intentions of getting it.
Score
-9
a b C Monitor
June 1, 2013 1:20:10 PM

mauller07 said:
bigmack says its too small, i say its too big.
i would love a 4k 24 inch monitor, anything larger on a normal desk and you need to turn your head too much.


Then I'll say it's just right :p 

IMO though, I do think 30-32 inch is an appropriate size for 4K. anything smaller and you can't really appreciate the heightened pixel density, and anything larger, such as 39 inch, would never fit in any office/work setting. if I'm $5-6k for a monitor, it's gonna be used both for work and play lol
Score
0
June 1, 2013 1:47:33 PM

Wow...just wow. As expected from a company like Asus.
Score
0
a b C Monitor
June 1, 2013 1:56:50 PM

BigMack70 said:
I am just sad to see it aimed at the "professional" crowd... that means super expensive since it will be designed likely to have perfect/near-perfect color reproduction.

I would LOVE to see someone make a gaming/general use panel above 1080/1200p and nobody has done it yet.


I think it's a matter of budget, since few gamer has a big enough wallet to buy a 4K monitor even for $2-2.5K. and those who do have the budget tend to have gotten into some sort of professional work anyway. going from gaming to making games/3D content or creative graphic design is rather common
Score
1
June 1, 2013 2:36:46 PM

8 MS response time, that is slower than molasses. I Pass.
Score
-10
June 1, 2013 2:42:49 PM

Imagine the gpu you will need to run this thing on decent settings...
Score
7
June 1, 2013 3:16:35 PM

Ok, Niels, you use the word "gaming" quite a bit to describe this monitor. You've pulled this word completely from your ass. There is no mention of gaming anywhere on the original article from techpowerup.
It's not a gaming monitor. It's just a monitor. A monitor that runs 3840 x 2160 resolution. Nothing "gaming" about it at all. If anything, the connectivity and features would suggest that this is a multi-media monitor: PiP, built in speakers, multiple points of connectivity via HDMI/Displayport.
Also, an 8ms response time would be something most gamers would shy away from (especially shooters).
You basically copy everything on their article and add in the word gaming (which you've pulled from your ass).
Good job.
Score
5
June 1, 2013 3:20:58 PM

bobbybamf12 said:
Imagine the gpu you will need to run this thing on decent settings...


Don't worry, by the time graphics cards can easily run 4k resolution the monitors themselves will be much cheaper. Probably be a couple years before they become mainstream and cheaper.
Score
3
June 1, 2013 3:26:34 PM

@hakesterman Just to give you some perspective, it takes the human body/brain about 80ms just to realize anything. If you're poked by a friend on the arm, you don't even have a clue for, on average, about 80ms. So, really, 8ms isn't that slow. :p 
More info here: http://tinyurl.com/4yxn5qw (wanted to keep the link short).
Score
0
a b C Monitor
June 1, 2013 3:35:35 PM

SlitWeaver said:
@hakesterman Just to give you some perspective, it takes the human body/brain about 80ms just to realize anything. If you're poked by a friend on the arm, you don't even have a clue for, on average, about 80ms. So, really, 8ms isn't that slow. :p 
More info here: http://tinyurl.com/4yxn5qw (wanted to keep the link short).


that's mostly based on cognitive understanding. however, with enough training, hardcore FPS players develop something similar to a reflex reaction. in short, the player will "point and click" on anything that looks like an enemy before their brain actually registers what happened XD

of course, personally I don't have anywhere near that kind of training, and to me, 8ms, great color and contrast, and 4K res would be the perfect monitor for casual games, movies, and work
Score
0
June 1, 2013 3:50:50 PM

vmem said:
that's mostly based on cognitive understanding. however, with enough training, hardcore FPS players develop something similar to a reflex reaction. in short, the player will "point and click" on anything that looks like an enemy before their brain actually registers what happened XD

of course, personally I don't have anywhere near that kind of training, and to me, 8ms, great color and contrast, and 4K res would be the perfect monitor for casual games, movies, and work

You can develop fast reflexes (playing 200 hours of Battlefield: Bad Company 2 has sort of made me "twitchy" with my fingers when I see things move lol) but it still takes the brain ~80ms to process anything. It would take even longer than that 80ms for you to register it as something you recognize. I stopped playing hardcore (BFBC2 again) because I kept shooting my teammates because I shot anything that moved all the time ahaha
Score
0
June 1, 2013 4:08:17 PM

BigMack70 said:
Dun worry guys the human eye can't see more than 24fps anyways so its k

Lol you should probably put some "sarcasm" tags so someone doesn't think think you're serious... xP
Score
1
June 1, 2013 5:12:15 PM

YES what ive been waiting for, something to upgrade my 2 yr old 30" 2560 x 1600 display and will need a second gtx 780 I'm sure to game on it.
Score
0
June 1, 2013 5:14:27 PM

YES what ive been waiting for, something to upgrade my 2 yr old 30" 2560 x 1600 display and will need a second gtx 780 I'm sure to game on it.
Score
-1
June 1, 2013 5:30:54 PM

I wonder how much GPU power I'd need to render Crysis 3 on it's highest settings at 40 + fps on this thing...I hope GPUs will start pumping out more performance per dollar once 4k becomes mainstream.
Score
0
June 1, 2013 5:43:16 PM

at 31 inches the pixle dencity is to high and you have to scale the ui... which is why i will never get a 4k monitor unless its around 48 inches.

i have a 24 inch 1920x1200 monitor, the only way i see pixles is if its either an extreme contrast, or if i am so close my nose it touching the screen...

if i have to scale the ui just so i can see things without a magnifying glass, why would i get a 4k screen when a 2560x1600 would be in the same size range, but far cheaper?
Score
0
June 1, 2013 5:57:25 PM

What about latency? Would it be like 12ms? usually large displays with high resolutions have lower response times.
Score
0
June 1, 2013 6:06:10 PM

madjimms said:
What about latency? Would it be like 12ms? usually large displays with high resolutions have lower response times.

It says 8ms in the article...learn2read ;) 
Score
-1
June 1, 2013 7:54:47 PM

Show me 120hz next to this monitors specs and I'm sold
Score
0
June 1, 2013 8:23:18 PM

Jess Castro-1331610 said:
Show me 120hz next to this monitors specs and I'm sold


You would need 3 Titans and a lot of copper in that cable and even then I don't know if you'd be able to pull off gaming @ 120hz.

Direct link bypass DVI-D might handle the signal. Even then you would probably need to hack drivers.
Score
0
June 1, 2013 9:05:03 PM

BigMack70 said:
ismaeljrp said:
I wonder how much GPU power I'd need to render Crysis 3 on it's highest settings at 40 + fps on this thing...I hope GPUs will start pumping out more performance per dollar once 4k becomes mainstream.


More than currently available. Even 3 Titans wouldn't manage that.


Exactly, that's whats bugging me about the gpu industry. Resolutions are getting higher and higher, meaning a lot harder to render enthusiast gaming. Are we expected to be stuck at 1080p forever ?
Don't get me wrong, 1080p is still awesome , but you see where I'm going right ?
Score
0
a b C Monitor
June 1, 2013 9:07:03 PM

can someone explain me how is that a 4K monitor. it seems to me its just 260 pixels shy of 4000 x 2160???
Score
0
June 1, 2013 10:38:39 PM

chumly said:
8ms response time


I stopped reading the article after that.

Seriously..... 8ms..... for gaming. :kikou: 

Score
0
June 1, 2013 10:45:54 PM

who ever buys this, have fun playing your games at 20fps
Score
0
June 1, 2013 10:46:20 PM

who ever buys this, have fun playing your games at 20fps
Score
-2
June 1, 2013 10:58:15 PM

SlitWeaver said:
@hakesterman Just to give you some perspective, it takes the human body/brain about 80ms just to realize anything. If you're poked by a friend on the arm, you don't even have a clue for, on average, about 80ms. So, really, 8ms isn't that slow. :p 
More info here: http://tinyurl.com/4yxn5qw (wanted to keep the link short).


But that's the same argument people use for 120hz+ screens. Reality doesn't work like internet articles on human limitations.

All of this is besides the point since the response time is more an issue with blurring/ghosting etc, not how fast you can react to something.

Anyway, this isn't a gaming monitor. It's like 32 inches and promises of 39 inch models.
( constantly moving your head around to see things on screen =/= gaming ) That's too big to game on a desk and too small to game on a couch.
Score
1
June 1, 2013 11:49:41 PM

Barely anything has 4k support.
Score
0
June 2, 2013 12:38:44 AM

h4ndsome said:
SlitWeaver said:
@hakesterman Just to give you some perspective, it takes the human body/brain about 80ms just to realize anything. If you're poked by a friend on the arm, you don't even have a clue for, on average, about 80ms. So, really, 8ms isn't that slow. :p 
More info here: http://tinyurl.com/4yxn5qw (wanted to keep the link short).


But that's the same argument people use for 120hz+ screens. Reality doesn't work like internet articles on human limitations.

All of this is besides the point since the response time is more an issue with blurring/ghosting etc, not how fast you can react to something.

Anyway, this isn't a gaming monitor. It's like 32 inches and promises of 39 inch models.
( constantly moving your head around to see things on screen =/= gaming ) That's too big to game on a desk and too small to game on a couch.


I disagree about 32 inch not being good for gaming. Some people like myself can play shooters(or any other game) on a 32 inch close up just as well as a 24 inch. As long as the resolution is above 1080p on a 30/32 inch monitor, it's a better experience, 24 feels to small to me too. Only con to a large 32 inch monitor is the need to sit back a bit more as not to ruin eyes.
Score
0
June 2, 2013 12:53:15 AM

BigMack70 said:
If the 39" version of this is reasonably priced at all, I'm buying one. I think 32" is a bit small for 4k, and I'd prefer something closer to 40" - would make it double really well as a TV too.


Hmmm... when the 31" will be 5000$-6000$, the 39" will be a little bit more expensive. 8000$-12000$ reasonable priced I think...
Yep they are expensive at this moment, but the direction is right. In a couple of years you can buy 27" 4K monitor near 1000$ so it is affordable (not cheap even then) allso in two years there will be GPU cards that can actually run games at desent speed. I at least hope so! Even Intell Haswell has been a guite bit let down in speed increase, graphic cards has been advansing at reasonable speed. Good that we still have competition in GPU production. The Intells practically monopoly situation is not good for CPU part...
But in any way in two years you can put 1000$ for 4K monitor and another 1000$ for the best Nvidia or AMD GPU an get a desent gaming experience!
Score
0
June 2, 2013 6:22:06 AM

At 39 inches I am sold. Hoping it will be a 120hz 2d panel. This is the best news I heard all year. Just waiting for pricing 2000 sounds right at first. Wonder what panel type it will be. Exciting :) 
Score
0
June 2, 2013 7:28:45 AM

alhachamyali said:
who ever buys this, have fun playing your games at 20fps


Whoever buys this don't just game use it for professional reasons as well. Yes I game at 2560 x 1600 res on a 30 inch for the last 2 years currently with a single gtx 780 and it cant be beat currently unless you have 3 x 30 inch displays. My next display will be a 4K one and have the money to buy th gpus it will take to game at that res. Anyone who can spend $2500+ for a display like this one can certainly buy multiple gpus at a grand a piece (Titans) if needed with no problems. You need to get out more...
Score
1
a b C Monitor
June 2, 2013 8:00:27 AM

mauller07 said:
bigmack says its too small, i say its too big.
i would love a 4k 24 inch monitor, anything larger on a normal desk and you need to turn your head too much.


I could not imagine using a singe 24" monitor anymore after using 3 27" Asus monitors for over 2 years. However I could see using that single 32" monitor on one of my rigs instead of three.
Score
0
June 2, 2013 8:15:51 AM

8ms response does seem long vs current 1080p pc monitors (1 to 2 ms ) but compared to tvs which are 50ms response it's not too bad.
120 hz for 4k is wishful thinking at this point my guess is not until 4k becomes where 1080p standard is today another 5 years.

update
FYI my current rig :
>3 year old with updated 1 year old gtx 690 oc @ 1150/6500 mhz, with dedicated 8800 ultra for you know what
cpu i7 980 xe @ 4.3 ghz with only
ram 6 gigs of the lowest latency dominators @ 2ghz,
storage c300 256 gigs at sata 6 ssd, that can easily play metro last light at max settings in 4k without anti aliasing for an average of 75 fps with current drivers!
lol to haswell ( well not really besides the plateau in performance and ability oc past 4.7 +/- some ghz with decent cooling )
Score
0
June 2, 2013 2:35:58 PM

Drool..
Score
0
June 3, 2013 6:10:52 AM

For video (which is the bulk of video game content) it is physically impossible for the human eye to distinguish between HD and 4K. Static images have more detail, but for video is it pointless.
Score
0
June 3, 2013 8:10:57 AM

Well I run 3 27" asus monitors , What I would like to see is 27" 144hz monitors with super small bezel and display port adapters .
Score
0
a b C Monitor
June 3, 2013 9:46:32 AM

From what I understand the refresh rates for these 4K screens are 30Hz?
Score
0
June 3, 2013 10:19:34 AM

"Normal" vision (20/20) can resolve about 1 minute of arc, however a non-trivial amount of the population can see better than normal; 20/12 is about the best encountered regularly which is about double that resolution. You would probably also want to give yourself a little buffer, so even with 20/20 vision targeting 20/12 would probably be a good idea.
So here is what that equates to at various distances:
distance (in) -- 1 minute of arc (dpi) -- 1/2 minute of arc (dpi)
8 -- 430 -- 860
12 -- 286 -- 573
24 -- 143 -- 286
48 -- 72 -- 143
96 -- 36 -- 72
For a 4k screen this means:
distance (in) -- screen diagonal (in) at 1 min -- diag (in) at 1/2 min
8 -- 10.3 -- 5.1
12 -- 15.4 -- 7.7
24 -- 30.8 -- 15.4
48 -- 61.5 -- 30.8
96 -- 123 -- 61.5
For a smart phone I would say max you would expect is 8"; with 4k anything up to a 5.1" inch screen would exceed perfect vision. For gaming 24" and a 30" screen would still have visible pixels for normal vision; if you had perfect vision or sat closer to the screen you could still exceed this and see the pixels. For a 60" TV at 8 feet this would be just beyond what anyone could see the difference of. So 4K seem like it is getting close to an actual "retina" display, but gaming's combination of big screens and being very close to the screen means it has higher requirements than anything else.
Score
0
June 4, 2013 5:28:32 AM

lamorpa said:
For video (which is the bulk of video game content) it is physically impossible for the human eye to distinguish between HD and 4K. Static images have more detail, but for video is it pointless.


Human vision is equivalent to around 100K pixels across at near distance, about
8K across at horizon. Since both games and video content often have scenes with
little motion, there will always be a benefit to having higher resolutions, but
even more so better frame rates. You haven't lived if you've not seen a film of
a waterfall on an 8K display. :D  16K tech is already in progress.

Note that human vision and side effects of VR was my research area for a while
back in the mid-90s. I got to know someone at US Army Training who was working
on some similar research. A lot of effort went into this field as part of
developing flight sims and other training systems. 4K to 8K resolution was
typical, but critically the frame rate had to be 60 minimum, or twice that for
stereo systems. Also important was colour fidelity, ie. 12 bits per channel,
not just 8 or even 10. Mach banding effects with night training or sunrise &
sunset scenarios is not acceptable (only 256 shades of each colour with 8 bit;
this rises to 4096 shades with 12bit).

Also, perception quality varies from one person to another. You might not be
able to tell the difference between HD and 4K motion video, but other people can.

We're a long way from having tech that's capable of matching the real potential
of the human eye, though atm displays do not optimise the output in ways which
could save on processing, such as dedicating less detail to peripheral vision
on very wide/surround displays - doing so dynamically with eye tracking would
be another big step, especially if that was carried over into compression
technologies, etc. Our central sharp vision isn't remotely as powerful as a
bird's vision, but it's definitely quite different to our side vision.

Ian.

Score
0
June 4, 2013 4:36:12 PM

soldier44 said:
alhachamyali said:
who ever buys this, have fun playing your games at 20fps


Whoever buys this don't just game use it for professional reasons as well. Yes I game at 2560 x 1600 res on a 30 inch for the last 2 years currently with a single gtx 780 and it cant be beat currently unless you have 3 x 30 inch displays. My next display will be a 4K one and have the money to buy th gpus it will take to game at that res. Anyone who can spend $2500+ for a display like this one can certainly buy multiple gpus at a grand a piece (Titans) if needed with no problems. You need to get out more...


i didnt think of it that way but IN MY OPINION when gaming i have to max out all my games out MAX OUT and if i dont get a minimum of 60fps then i have to upgrade.

i need to get out more??????what??
Score
0