Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in

Sharp's 32-inch IGZO 4K Monitor Will Cost $5500

By - Source: Tom's Hardware US | B 34 comments

Sharp's 32-inch IGZO 4K display will retail for around $5,500 USD when it eventually arrives here in the States.

Remember that 31.5-inch IGZO 4K display we saw at CES 2013 weeks ago? It was utterly amazing in sharpness and performance. And, thanks to the IGZO technology, it was amazingly power efficient because the screen doesn't continuously refresh static images.

As previously reported, the display has a 3840 x 2160 resolution, support for 10-point multi-touch input, and a thin design at just 35-mm. The unit on display was a mere prototype, but the company said that it planned to launch the PN-K321 in Japan next month.

The Sharp rep at CES didn't say when or if the panel would arrive in the consumer sector, as there needs to be a market for such an expensive device. However there are plans to launch the PN-K321 for the business market here in the States later this year. It will supposedly cost 450,000 yen, or around $5,500 USD, making it quite an expensive buy for a 31.5-inch panel.

According to Sharp, IGZO's transistors are much smaller than traditional LCDs thanks to significantly higher electron mobility. Because of this, more data can be shown in a single display. The tech has also drastically minimized the noise caused during touch input, thus allowing for quick, easy, more natural-feeling writing and smooth lines.

"IGZO can maintain the onscreen data for a certain period of time without refreshing the data, even when the current is off. This helps cut back the power consumption to achieve longer battery life for mobile displays," the company said.

We expect to hear more about this panel's North American release within the next few months.

Contact Us for News Tips, Corrections and Feedback

Display 34 Comments.
This thread is closed for comments
  • 6 Hide
    dragonsqrrl , January 29, 2013 10:35 PM
    This sounds like the ultimate monitor. It's the sort of thing we've all been waiting for, 4k on our desktops. It's nice to have tech like this to look forward to in the coming years, once the prices drop a little. I'd say once something like this drops to around $1000, I'll start considering it.
  • 3 Hide
    Darkerson , January 29, 2013 10:37 PM
    It has begun. Still a few years before I'll have one, but 4k displays are at least on the move now.
  • 3 Hide
    A Bad Day , January 29, 2013 10:41 PM
    Just a few months ago, a 4K TV cost over $50K...
  • 1 Hide
    jossrik , January 29, 2013 10:49 PM
    Even at the 5500 I'm thinking about it, I do have to say though, when I think 32in screen, the last thing I think of is "mobile".
  • 4 Hide
    kingnoobe , January 29, 2013 10:55 PM
    Honestly I'm surprised it only costs that much. While still way to rich for my blood, gives me some hope that in a couple years I'll be able to afford one.
  • 3 Hide
    dimar , January 29, 2013 10:59 PM
    4k is yesterday's tech.. Bring 8k displays already! :pt1cable: 
  • -1 Hide
    zycuda , January 29, 2013 11:03 PM
    dimarBring 8k displays already!

    4k is fairly new, we dont need 8k yet, plus other hardware couldnt even keep up with that.
  • 1 Hide
    subasteve5800 , January 29, 2013 11:08 PM
    5 years from now is going to be so sweet.
  • 6 Hide
    Onihikage , January 29, 2013 11:15 PM
    32 inches, 4K, IGZO, and multitouch capability all in one screen, for $5500? I'll be honest, I'm surprised - that's a pretty competitive price for such a monitor with two new technologies packed into it. Dropping to just 1/5 of the price would put it among today's higher-end HD sets. Still way too expensive for a part-time, min-wage worker like me, though...
  • 0 Hide
    dark_wizzie , January 29, 2013 11:55 PM
    4k vs Oleds? What do you think?
  • 0 Hide
    dimar , January 30, 2013 12:13 AM
    zycuda4k is fairly new, we dont need 8k yet, plus other hardware couldnt even keep up with that.


    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9U7e_quvkPQ
    http://www.hfrmovies.com/2013/01/28/japan-plans-to-launch-8k-broadcasts-in-2014-2-years-ahead-of-schedule/
  • 4 Hide
    jimmyjohnz , January 30, 2013 12:20 AM
    It doesn't continuously refresh static images? Is there any start up lag going from a static image to nonstatic?
  • 0 Hide
    crewton , January 30, 2013 12:33 AM
    I wonder what their warranty will be. I'd hate to spend 5500 on a monitor and have it die or lose a couple pixels in a year... I think I'd feel sick inside.
  • 0 Hide
    ikyung , January 30, 2013 12:33 AM
    Well, if you look at pretty much every other electronics, Japan pays a decent chunk of premium for it. Meaning, it can be 450,000 yen there which is $5,500, but it can be cheaper if it comes to the US market. Honestly, I did not think a 30+ inch 4k monitor would start lower then $8,000 which is a great sign. Hoping that by 2014-15, it will drop between $1,000 - $2,000. I'm currently using a 1440 monitor and the transition from 1080 to 1440 was definitely noticeably large. Can't wait to see how big it is from 1440 to 2160.
  • 1 Hide
    samwelaye , January 30, 2013 12:44 AM
    lenasmithe22just before I saw the paycheck which said $7421, I did not believe ...that...my neighbour truly bringing in money part time from there new laptop.. there sisters roommate has done this less than twenty three months and as of now cleard the dept on their place and bought a great Mercedes-Benz S-class. this is where I went, http://Great60.com


    I swear, if you used "their" instead of "there" I might actually think you were smart believe this spam. Real hard for me to take your miracle story seriously with so many grammar errors
  • -5 Hide
    alidan , January 30, 2013 1:01 AM
    dragonsqrrlThis sounds like the ultimate monitor. It's the sort of thing we've all been waiting for, 4k on our desktops. It's nice to have tech like this to look forward to in the coming years, once the prices drop a little. I'd say once something like this drops to around $1000, I'll start considering it.

    Not many of us been waiting for 4K because most of us realize how pointless it is.

    Sure the extra resolution when you're up close to it would be great for photography, or is great when you're in a movie theater and an image is blown up to a hundred some feet. But in a normal living room then I can have a TV big enough to take full advantage of 4K, and a computer gear going to increase the user interface at a point where you can use it again instead of having it at the normal resolution basically showing off all the potential screen real estate you gain from 4K unless you get a 48 inch screen and have fun staring that all day. And for gaming we need to graphics cards just a handled 1600 P (I'm using Dragon don't want to say every single number in the resolution of talking about) but let's do some quick math here.

    1600 P 4,096,000 pixels
    4K (as it pertains to this article) 8,294,400 pixels

    But that effectively means is you need at least four graphics cards to handle any game on this monitor, at the very least 4. I failed to understand what everyone so we need 4K about, and this resolution is even 4K. Here let me go get a different resolution that's closer to a 16:10 version of 4K.

    (consumer 4k 16:10) 3840×2400
    (real 4k) 4096×2304

    And the amount of pixels each one has is as follows respectively
    9,216,000
    and
    9,437,184

    And let's put our final little thought.
    The infrastructure upgrades for 4K are so expensive that Japan's considering not even going for changes jumping the straight to 8K. So there's a good chance that most of the worlds and a feel about the same way.

    The too long didn't read version
    I don't get why everyone's excited about 4K
    it's uses on a computer unless you have a 48 inch screen
    it's expensive as hell
    we may never get the infrastructure for 4K
    the only real use 4K has is in theaters
    it will require at least four graphics cards to run a videogame on it if not more
    the user interface increases to compensate for such a high resolution would kill off any benefit you get from such a high resolution.
    Outside of photography and some amount of video editing there is no use for 4K, outside of a 48 inch monitor.
  • 0 Hide
    InvalidError , January 30, 2013 1:27 AM
    jimmyjohnzIt doesn't continuously refresh static images? Is there any start up lag going from a static image to nonstatic?

    Active Matrix LCDs have small capacitors holding each pixel's state between refresh which is what makes them flicker-free regardless of refresh rates. A static display only needs to be refreshed often enough to keep fading below perceivable levels and that can take over a second.

    As far as delays go, there is no reason for there to be any as long as the clock sync is maintained with the source (avoid PLL locking delays) so the display is ready to accept new frames whenever they come in.
  • 0 Hide
    Azn Cracker , January 30, 2013 1:31 AM
    IN for one!! Just gonna sell my car first...
  • 1 Hide
    Anonymous , January 30, 2013 3:24 AM
    4 video cards? Uh I think not. While it's true that basic stuff wouldn't be able to run much 4k content the top of the line stuff would which would push Nvidia and AMD to develop high end solutions that would work with 4k technology because right now we're largely stalled out at 1080p which is pretty shitty - I mean tablets have better screens than most desktops have these days.
  • 4 Hide
    dragonsqrrl , January 30, 2013 4:09 AM
    alidanNot many of us been waiting for 4K because most of us realize how pointless it is.

    The general reaction I've observed from enthusiasts would suggest otherwise.
    alidanSure the extra resolution when you're up close to it would be great for photography, or is great when you're in a movie theater and an image is blown up to a hundred some feet. But in a normal living room then I can have a TV big enough to take full advantage of 4K, and a computer gear going to increase the user interface at a point where you can use it again instead of having it at the normal resolution basically showing off all the potential screen real estate you gain from 4K unless you get a 48 inch screen and have fun staring that all day.

    If you're going to go on a long rant, could you at least invest a little extra effort into making it comprehensible. I honestly don't understand half of what you wrote here.

    Yes, 4k isn't for every application or every user, but I think you're greatly underestimating its usefulness if you think the additional resolution is gimmicky and pointless for desktop and home theater applications. For desktops the additional real-estate higher resolutions afford is always welcome in my opinion, especially in the content creation software I use on a regular basis (Maya, Mudbox, After Effects). The advantages certainly aren't limited to photo and video work.
    alidanAnd for gaming we need to graphics cards just a handled 1600 P (I'm using Dragon don't want to say every single number in the resolution of talking about) but let's do some quick math here.1600 P 4,096,000 pixels4K (as it pertains to this article) 8,294,400 pixelsBut that effectively means is you need at least four graphics cards to handle any game on this monitor, at the very least 4.

    Why do you assume someone would need 4 current gen cards to run future games at a resolution that probably won't be commonplace for at least another 3-6 years? Even if 4k was a common resolution today on current GPU performance, why do you assume someone would require 4 cards to run that resolution? Because it's 2x 2560x1600? lol
    alidanI failed to understand what everyone so we need 4K about, and this resolution is even 4K. Here let me go get a different resolution that's closer to a 16:10 version of 4K.(consumer 4k 16:10) 3840×2400(real 4k) 4096×2304And the amount of pixels each one has is as follows respectively9,216,000and9,437,184

    Sigh, what are you talking about? "consumer" 4k vs "real" 4k? 4k doesn't represent a fixed resolution. It's a set of standards, and 3840x2160 is one of them, and is just as "real" as 4096x2160.
    alidanAnd let's put our final little thought.The infrastructure upgrades for 4K are so expensive that Japan's considering not even going for changes jumping the straight to 8K. So there's a good chance that most of the worlds and a feel about the same way..

    Actually Japan is increasing its investment in 4k and accelerating its introduction. Current estimates place the first 4k broadcasts in 2014, in time for the World Cup in Brazil and 2 years ahead of original plans.

    Your comment is just overflowing with ignorance, shortsightedness, and excessively poor grammar. Prices will come down, GPU performance per W will increase, and 4k is only a gimmick if you don't know how to take advantage of it... in which case you would probably question its usefulness and resent anyone who wanted it.
Display more comments