Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in

Intel Partners with Samsung for Cheaper 4K Monitors

By - Source: Tom's Hardware US | B 29 comments

A new partnership between Intel and Samsung is planning to shake that up at half the price of high-end monitors very soon.

Most consumers have been sitting on 1080p for quite some time, and with 4K monitors running into the thousands, that's not without good reason. A new partnership between Intel and Samsung is planning to shake that up at half the price of high-end monitors very soon.

According to some in-house research at Intel, in 2013 more than 90 percent of monitors were running at 1080p or less. Modern PCs can generally handle 4K for everyday tasks (gaming is a whole other story), and it's odd to see such a large sector of the tech field stuck with a standard that saw popular adoption almost a decade ago. With standard phones and tablets pushing resolutions quite a bit beyond 1080p, Intel's saying it's time the PC plays catch-up for once.

Intel's partnership wants to bring the cost of a 23.6-inch PLS 4K screen down to $399, from a rate of $800-$1000. The chip manufacturer has also been clear stating that they don't want to sacrifice quality to bring these price drops.

No release dates have been mentioned either, just that there is a clear plan to put desktop-class 4K monitors into more consumers' hands. One of the biggest roadblocks thus far has been the investment it takes to bump up the scale of production. If Intel is bankrolling a portion of that, there's no reason to expect these price drops to take too long. This could also play straight into a larger game plan by Intel. More consumers with bigger, better screens will be more likely to start picking up better and pricier chips. Regardless, cheaper products are good for everyone, so hopefully, we'll see the effects of the partnership sooner rather than later.

Follow us @tomshardware, on Facebook and on Google+.

Add your comment Display 29 Comments.
  • 8 Hide
    n3cw4rr10r , June 4, 2014 6:06 AM
    Intel and cheap dont go together. Neither does Samsung for that matter.
  • 9 Hide
    Falcorion , June 4, 2014 6:16 AM
    Quote:
    Intel and cheap dont go together. Neither does Samsung for that matter.


    If there target price is $399 though that's not bad at all for a 4k Samsung monitor.
  • 9 Hide
    InvalidError , June 4, 2014 6:23 AM
    Displays are not Intel's core business so Intel does not care too much if prices drop in that market. On the other hand, driving 4k displays would require faster CPUs, faster IGPs, faster display links, etc. and Intel has stakes in many of those areas.
  • 2 Hide
    vir_cotto , June 4, 2014 6:32 AM
    Excellent!
  • 4 Hide
    Au_equus , June 4, 2014 6:37 AM
    Quote:
    With standard phones and tablets pushing resolutions quite a bit beyond 1080p, Intel's saying it's time the PC plays catch-up for once.


    WHAT?!?!?! :ouch: 
    They actually listen to consumers? :bounce: 
    But yeah... higher resolutions require more cpu/gpu power. AMD/Nvidia should be jumping on this bandwagon too.
  • 0 Hide
    vipboy28 , June 4, 2014 6:41 AM
    Im glad we have partnerships to better accommodate our technology and drive the prices down as time progresses. Nothing sucks more than when the technology is ready from mass consumption yet the price is to high for average Joe
  • -3 Hide
    velocityg4 , June 4, 2014 6:55 AM
    Seiki is making 39" 4K screens for $399 already. The Intel goal should be $199 for a 24" screen.

    Sure the Seiki is considered a TV but the only difference between a TV and Monitor are the number and type of connectors in the back, quality of speakers and TVs have a stronger backlight. So just swap out the connectors for Displayport and HDMI 2.0 then dim the backlight and you have a $399 4K monitor that is 39".
  • 3 Hide
    Fokissed , June 4, 2014 7:10 AM
    Quote:
    Seiki is making 39" 4K screens for $399 already. The Intel goal should be $199 for a 24" screen.

    Sure the Seiki is considered a TV but the only difference between a TV and Monitor are the number and type of connectors in the back, quality of speakers and TVs have a stronger backlight. So just swap out the connectors for Displayport and HDMI 2.0 then dim the backlight and you have a $399 4K monitor that is 39".

    TVs also have horrendous input lag and tend to overscan HDMI connections into oblivion.
  • 5 Hide
    DarkSable , June 4, 2014 7:17 AM
    @velocityg4:

    Please tell me you're kidding, dude. TV's have to deal with input lag up the ying yang, with interpolation, poor color gamuts, horrible pixel density, and a HOST of other problems.

    It sounds like you think a TV is as good as a monitor - it's not. Far from it.

    On top of that, you expect a 24", 4k panel for $200? I don't even...

    First of all, you can't buy a top quality 1080p screen for $200!

    Second, you do understand how pixel density works, yes? It is far, FAR easier to make a 37", 4k screen than a 24" one... which means that the monitor is going to be expensive. $400 is more than reasonable, when a good quality 1440p monitor is $600.
  • 4 Hide
    InvalidError , June 4, 2014 7:34 AM
    Quote:
    Nothing sucks more than when the technology is ready from mass consumption yet the price is to high for average Joe

    Average Joe does not care that new technology is "ready for mass-consumption" if it brings little to no clear benefit over what he already had. Failing that, Average Joes usually do not fix stuff that is not broken.
  • 10 Hide
    icemunk , June 4, 2014 7:41 AM
    Now if we could only convince people to stop spending $700-800 on those 2560 x 1080 overpriced monitors. They're not worth that much!!
  • 2 Hide
    de5_Roy , June 4, 2014 7:46 AM
    the biggest obstacles are odms themselves with their panel price fixing. next are the ongoing standards war, o.s. incapability to scale well on a high res. high ppi display. if these are solved, the stagnated pc display sector will start moving forward again.
  • 3 Hide
    InvalidError , June 4, 2014 7:46 AM
    Quote:
    TVs also have horrendous input lag and tend to overscan HDMI connections into oblivion.

    Before complaining about the lag and trying to use that as a justification not to use them as PC displays, you need to take a pause to think about why that lag is there: extra image processing to try improving the signal sources usually connected to TVs.

    Many actual PC monitors do some of their own image enhancement processing and that is where you get displays with 50-100ms of in-to-out latency.

    The "lag" thing is not exclusive to TVs. Many half-decent TVs have special modes to disable some or all of that extra processing just as PC monitors sometimes do.
  • 2 Hide
    Steveymoo , June 4, 2014 7:55 AM
    Lower prices are goof for everyone - except Foxconn employees, and the environment. Jus' sayin' :p 
  • 1 Hide
    boju , June 4, 2014 8:02 AM
    InvalidError made a good point about image processing but seems TV's have more than monitors do, or at least in LCD technology anyway.

    I like my display big, seems to be more immersive in games for me. I use a Panasonic plasma large display (Not sure if all brands are the same) and the picture is crisp, text and HDMI scanning is normal (With either Nvidia and AMD as ive had both) and also concerning input lag, i have literally none. Look it up if curious, the response is just as good if not better then your fastest monitor at less than 1ms.

    Plasmas do have image retention a little but it washes away and don't notice any abnormalities while gaming, although i dont play games several hours straight and the tv does have game mode which says it helps by rotating pixels.

    Anyway simple put;

    Monitor LCD is much better then LCD TV & and if it wasn't for Plasma's drawbacks (which with a little care isnt much of a problem) this display type might have been more popular.

    OLED was meant to be the better of both worlds and hoping it or something else more feasible comes a long.
  • 2 Hide
    BoredSysAdmin , June 4, 2014 8:26 AM
    Before making 4k cheap, how about making 1080p cheap - I still cringe to see new mid-tier laptops with 720p displays and while there - How about fix scaling issues in Windows apps
  • 1 Hide
    Mitchell Marvin , June 4, 2014 8:52 AM
    Quote:
    Seiki is making 39" 4K screens for $399 already. The Intel goal should be $199 for a 24" screen.

    Sure the Seiki is considered a TV but the only difference between a TV and Monitor are the number and type of connectors in the back, quality of speakers and TVs have a stronger backlight. So just swap out the connectors for Displayport and HDMI 2.0 then dim the backlight and you have a $399 4K monitor that is 39".


    $199 seems very low for such a thing to be of any quality... BUT this guy does knows what hes talking about regarding the Seiki. I have the 50 inch and it runs at a native 4k 30hz which feels plenty smooth once you edit the windows registry to make the DWM service run the GUI at 30fps instead of 60. But when productivity time is over and you want to game this same set can be run at 1080p 120hz or 720p 240hz practically eliminating most input lag. It even feels faster than my Asus144hz monitor. http://hardforum.com/showthread.php?s=7f9dfabf7d868f84b24c031b693bab1c&p=1040518697#post1040518697
  • 0 Hide
    therealduckofdeath , June 4, 2014 8:58 AM
    Quote:
    Before making 4k cheap, how about making 1080p cheap - I still cringe to see new mid-tier laptops with 720p displays and while there - How about fix scaling issues in Windows apps


    Tell the 3rd party devs to fix their apps, the API's are right there. And you have to buy pretty poorly in 2014 to buy a 720p midrange laptop. Or stretch what you call mid-range really far down the scale.
  • 2 Hide
    TerryFawkes , June 4, 2014 9:32 AM
    as long as they are stated that the base configuration is following the real official UHD-1 10bitpp/12bitpp 16:9 Rec2020 3840x2160 pixels. Frame rate: 50fps "full UHD" then fine, im interested.

    if its more of the pseudocolor 8bitpp "UHD ready" CRAP forget it, they might make it ,im not buying though.
  • 3 Hide
    Tanquen , June 4, 2014 10:38 AM
    "One of the biggest roadblocks thus far has been" No one really needs 4k PC display.

    My 30" U3011 with 2560x1600 the DPI is small enough at desktop distances let alone further back. PC apps still do not handle font sizing well.

    I don’t know how folks are going to use those 4k laptops. When we got 1920x1080 laptops at the office all I got was complaints that the fonts were too small and changing the font size messed up apps or only some of the fonts in the app would change and so on.

    We need something like OLED or something with a better color, blacks, light balance across the screen, refresh rates and tiny bezels.

    After 2560x1600 a res bump is at the bottom of my list.
Display more comments
React To This Article