Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in

Pre-Order Asus 31.5" 4K IGZO Monitor for $3500

By - Source: The Tech Report | B 33 comments

Asus is reportedly now taking pre-orders for its 31.5 inch monitor (PQ321Q) featuring Sharp's anti-glare LED-backlit IGZO technology. It sports a screen resolution of 3840 x 2160, 140 pixels per inch, and not only cuts down on energy consumption but features an extremely long durability given that Sharp's tech doesn't constantly refresh the images. It's all static until something moves on-screen.

The company introduced the new monitor last month, reporting that Sharp's IGZO tech supports smaller transistors than amorphous silicon thanks to significantly higher electron mobility. It also not only reduces energy consumption, but reduces the monitor's overall bulk as well: at 35 mm at its thickest point, the PQ321 is the thinnest 4K UHD monitor available today, the company said.

A Sharp rep said during CES 2013 in January that the 31.5 inch panel will be marketed to professionals first given the end-price. The prototype also had ten-point touch input which apparently didn't make it into the company's own PN-K321 31.5 inch IGZO monitor selling for $5,000 USD. The Asus model also doesn't support touch.

The upcoming PQ321Q supports wide 176° horizontal and vertical viewing angles, 10 bit RGB "deep" color, and an 8 millisecond gray-to-gray response time. Other features include a 0.182 mm pixel pitch, a max brightness of 350 cd/m2, a max contrast ratio of 800:1, picture-by-picture support and HDCP support. The monitor's typical power consumption is 93 watts.

On the connectivity front, the I/O panel has two HDMI ports, a DisplayPort, and an RS-232C port for old-school VGA connections. There's also a 3.5 mm mini-jack for PC audio input, a 3.5 mm mini-jack for AV audio input, and a 3.5 mm mini-jack for earphones (for HDMI and DisplayPort).

Last month the company said that the new display is the "equivalent to four Full HD displays stacked side-by-side." It can now be pre-ordered on Amazon here, and on Newegg here, both requesting $3,499.99 USD. The monitor is slated to arrive on July 16, 2013.

Discuss
Display all 33 comments.
This thread is closed for comments
  • -1 Hide
    Someone Somewhere , July 1, 2013 7:57 PM
    Maybe you meant DB-9; RS-232C is a serial interface. Good luck on running VGA over that.

    EDIT: Nope, VGA only.
  • 1 Hide
    vmem , July 1, 2013 8:17 PM
    is it just me or does that monitor get slightly cheaper every time I see the price

    I mean it's by no means cheap, but at first the rumor was $5k, then $4k, then $3750, now $3500. by the time it hits market maybe it'll be $3k, and $2.5k for an xmas special? lol
  • 0 Hide
    mrmez , July 1, 2013 8:36 PM
    "the PQ321 is the thinnest 4K UHD monitor available today"
    Except that it's not available today.
  • -1 Hide
    slomo4sho , July 1, 2013 8:56 PM
    Or pickup a Seiki 50" 4K display for roughly $1200
  • 0 Hide
    hero1 , July 1, 2013 9:06 PM
    I want one but it better have a 60-120Hz not 30Hz!
  • 0 Hide
    eklipz330 , July 1, 2013 9:06 PM
    seiki only does 4k at 30hz.
  • 1 Hide
    hero1 , July 1, 2013 9:08 PM
    Quote:
    seiki only does 4k at 30hz.


    And that's the reason I haven't opened my wallet for it. If I would have bought it if it did 60Hz ouot of the box even it meant paying 1500 for it. So I think I will wait for the better refresh rates to come out with good pricing!
  • 0 Hide
    alidan , July 1, 2013 9:16 PM
    if i get a 4k anything, it MUST be at least 48 inches, or else i have to scale the ui and i lose all benefit a 4k would offer me.
  • 0 Hide
    hero1 , July 1, 2013 9:18 PM
    Quote:
    if i get a 4k anything, it MUST be at least 48 inches, or else i have to scale the ui and i lose all benefit a 4k would offer me.


    This is also a good point. I think I will wait it out until second half of next year and see where the prices are. A 50" is what I want for both gaming and 3D work.
  • 0 Hide
    vmem , July 1, 2013 9:26 PM
    Quote:
    if i get a 4k anything, it MUST be at least 48 inches, or else i have to scale the ui and i lose all benefit a 4k would offer me.


    It's unfortunate that this is what it is. I can see the 39" working well for ASUS in professional space, but the 31.5" is really only useful for gamers, where the "size shrink" due to 4K would mean little in a game. but at $3.5k, few would buy it to just play games
  • 0 Hide
    alidan , July 1, 2013 10:04 PM
    Quote:
    Quote:
    if i get a 4k anything, it MUST be at least 48 inches, or else i have to scale the ui and i lose all benefit a 4k would offer me.


    It's unfortunate that this is what it is. I can see the 39" working well for ASUS in professional space, but the 31.5" is really only useful for gamers, where the "size shrink" due to 4K would mean little in a game. but at $3.5k, few would buy it to just play games


    actually, for gaming, a 30 inch would be bad too. think if it, how many games properly scale ui? even than, how much processing power is necessary to run a 4k resolution without degradation in detail? sure you could run 1080p window but even then, it would be like playing it on a 15 inch screen. full screen, you would need 4 high end gpus, 2 dual gpu cards, or dual titans, just to manage a barely acceptable frame rate.

    yea, in maybe 4 years this will be consolidated to a single gpu, but we are looking at the now.

    with a 48 inch screen, i would have productivity, the equivalent of 4 1080p monitors (in productivity terms, 4k is reasonable, 250-400$ a monitor, opposed to one monitor at 1000$ (google it, you can find 4k for 1k) it is reasonable, and for gameing, i can go 1080p and use the equivalent of a 24 inch screen space. granted i would want at least 60hz, but thats another story.

    main point is, even for gamers, 4k isn't really good, you could just use 8-16X AA and save a crap ton of money,
  • 0 Hide
    SteelCity1981 , July 1, 2013 10:07 PM
    remove one of the zeros in the price and you got a deal. :) 
  • 0 Hide
    JOSHSKORN , July 2, 2013 1:30 AM
    No thanks. Call me when it's under $1k.
  • 0 Hide
    chicofehr , July 2, 2013 2:01 AM
    I want the 39". I got the Dell U3011 30" 2560x1600 and for a similar sized monitor, the pixel size would be too small to be useful for professional stuff unless you are looking really close to the screen. 45" would be a good size for a monitor with that resolution which is a great balance for gaming and video and image editing. How much info you can fit on one the screen is more important then how much DPI it has when you are doing editing.
  • 0 Hide
    alidan , July 2, 2013 2:13 AM
    Quote:
    I want the 39". I got the Dell U3011 30" 2560x1600 and for a similar sized monitor, the pixel size would be too small to be useful for professional stuff unless you are looking really close to the screen. 45" would be a good size for a monitor with that resolution which is a great balance for gaming and video and image editing. How much info you can fit on one the screen is more important then how much DPI it has when you are doing editing.


    well, if you think of it, image editing with photoshop is probably the only thing you could do professionally with a 30 inch 4k, but with that said, a cintiq would probably be better, and most likely cheaper and higher quality.

    possibly even just viewing photographs too...

    but yea, at 30 inches its severely limited. even at 39 it would still be a bit limiting, 48 is the number i came up with because i have a 24inch 1920x1200, and keeping similar dpi to that, a dpi where i don't see pixels unless its HIGH contrast. hell even with i get up close(1 foot or less), i dont notice individual pixels unless there is some fairly high contrast going on.
  • -1 Hide
    cmartin011 , July 2, 2013 2:33 AM
    Whats up with 4x the resolution? My math says its only 2x1080 and more than 4x720. Anyway waiting for 39 inch 60hz we will probably see in 10 years for reasonable price :( 
  • 1 Hide
    Someone Somewhere , July 2, 2013 2:40 AM
    4x the number of pixels - a 2x2 array of 1080p screens would be the same res, hence 4x.
  • 1 Hide
    vagnluv , July 2, 2013 3:30 AM
    Someone wrote a note on it over on New Egg:


    Pros: Only 4K@60Hz monitor on the market that doesn't cost 5 figures

    Cons: Doesn't work with Nvidia Video cards at 4K@60Hz
    False advertising about supporting 4K@60Hz over a single cable

    Other Thoughts: This is a complete rebadge of the Sharp PK-N321. If you look at the manual you will see that this monitor suffers the same limitations at 4K that the Sharp does.

    The mail limitation is that you can't run this monitor at 4K@60Hz over a single cable without using MST (multi streaming technology). MST is a display port feature that lets you stream several simultaneous discrete video streams over a single display port cable. The feature was intended to let you daisy chain multiple monitors together via Display port.

    In order to get 4K@60Hz you need to enable MST mode to this display. This means that the display will present itself to Windows as TWO separate physical monitors. This means that you will get two desktops and that you will not be able to use applications full screen.

    To get around the above limitation you need to use driver hacks like ATI Eyefinity. The ATI solution works OK on this monitor but Nvidia's Surround feature only supports 3 monitors currently. They don't support 2 monitors so If you want to game on this monitor and you have Nvidia you are out of luck.

    Nvidia has stated that they indent to add support for this in the 325 version of their driver:

    https://forums.geforce.com/default/topic/539645/nvidia-surround/2-monitor-gaming-/

    Buyer beware if you have Nvidia hardware.
  • 0 Hide
    CaedenV , July 2, 2013 4:46 AM
    too good and too small.
    I am going to agree with others here that a 4K computer monitor needs to be at least 40" (though 50" would be too large I think). At PC monitor distances of 2-3' that is still technically a 'retina' display, and should take up a field of view large enough to make things very immersive.
    Also, this display is 'too good'. By that I mean that 10bit color is something that very few computers can take advantage of as it is reserved for professional cards. Gaming cards are capped at 8bits per color, and while I do a little bit of professional work on my computer, it is nowhere near enough to justify paying through the nose for that kind of quality. 10bit is nice (very nice), but 8bit is just fine.

    So how about it? Can we get a manufacturer to come up with a 4K monitor that is 40-45", 60Hz, and 8bit color for ~$1500? That would be a pretty penny for me right now, but something like that being available would be pretty tempting. But watching 4K prices fall as fast as they are, it would seem that we will have sub $1000 displays within a year or two from now.
  • 0 Hide
    icemunk , July 2, 2013 5:06 AM
    The Seiki 50" 4K television sells for $1400, that would be the best route to go.. imagine 3 of those in Eyefinity.
Display more comments