LG Teases 31-inch 4K monitor for CES in January
LG is gearing up for CES and is teasing us with a host of new monitors.
LG today unveiled its first 4K monitor ahead of CES 2014 this coming January. Dubbed the 31MU95, the monitor is a 31-inch panel with a 4,096 x 2,160 resolution at a 16:9 aspect ratio. It also boasts sport for Thunderbolt 2.
The 31MU95 is joined by the 27MB85, LG's 27-inch Color Prime Model, as well as the UltraWide UM95 (available in 34- and 29-inch models) and the UltraWide UM65 (25-, 29-, and 34-inch models).
"LG IPS 21:9 UltraWide series was originally developed as user-centric PC monitors to enhance the computing experience, for both work and play," said Hyoung-sei Park, head of LG's IT Business Division. "Our 21:9 aspect ratio monitors has proven to be a critical and commercial success and we forecast this market will continue to grow."
The UM95 supports Thunderbolt 2.0, and True Color Finder calibration software, while the UM65 is a 'leaner' lower cost option. Both will be on display alongside the 31MU95 at CES in just a couple of weeks. Stay tuned for hands on photos!
Follow Jane McEntegart @JaneMcEntegart. Follow us @tomshardware, on Facebook and on Google+.

Maybe then we'll be able to enjoy alias-free games (assuming they run at native resolution) without having to use AA?
Do mainstream screens really have to be that much more expensive?
Do mainstream screens really have to be that much more expensive?
Mainstream? No, certainly not, but I just picked up a PB287Q for 500$ and its well worth it imo, when 4k is available for those prices I'll look into it, till then its not even worthy of time unless its for people who need the screen real(business) estate or those with more money than sense
These monitors should all ready be priced in the $200 range frankly especially considering the price fixing the LCD monitor makers were found guilty of consumers got scroogled and trust me many of us haven't forgotten these can't be that much more expensive and difficult to manufacturer.
Yeah, I tried to look up what's the aspect ratio of 4096x2160, but 256:135 sounded too... Long?
How hard is it to sell me the HD version or at least put 5 dvd's on a bluray saving me craploads of space from discs. If you force customers to do this themselves you shouldn't be surprised when they sell the 5-7 dvd season a second after they merge them to bluray. They now have two copies of the same show, and all they wanted was FEWER discs or HD. If you merge the dvd's to a bluray, just leave them untouched (no need to squish SD vids, when 5 fit on one disc easily).
I have no need for anything but 16:10 monitors unless NONE are available when I buy next year. I understand how this works on an IT helpdesk (we have wide needs with spreadsheets etc of lots of data) etc, but on the web WIDE just sucks. Most pages are made for 1024x768 (you can zoom it, but that often doesn't produce good results even in full page zoom). We need more height on the web. If I full zoom a 1024x768 page on my 1920x1200 monitor I end up with a very short page top to bottom already, never mind the HUGE complaints I'd have on an even WIDER screen. No thanks pal.
Only at work. At home TALLER is better
Took me 5 years to get a 300 EURO 32 inch flat TV, so...
Funny thing is, some tablets with higher than FULL HD resolution are cheaper than Monitors over FULL HD resolution.
1080p took nearly 7 years from its introduction to high end consumers to finally break through into the low cost monitor market. Hate to burst your bubble but it's going to be a long wait since 4k is currently where 1080p was at in 2004.