Skip to main content

Eizo Updates CG276 IPS Monitor to Accept 4K Resolutions

Eizo's ColorEdge CG276 has already been on the market for quite a while, but a new update will allow it to support 4K signals. While the previous models wouldn't, any model produced as of now will be able to support 4K signals as well as 2K signals.

The monitor itself doesn't have a 4K panel; in fact, its resolution is 'just' 2560 x 1440. What the unit does is scale down the UHD (3840 x 2160) or 4K (4096 x 2160) resolution to the panel's resolution. Granted, at these resolutions the refresh rate will only be 30 Hz.

The reason why Eizo has decided to update the monitor to support this is because in the film industry 4K is becoming a standard at an ever-increasing rate. While televisions are slowly gaining 4K support, computer monitors are not. The WQHD resolution (2560 x 1440) is still far away from becoming a standard, so obviously, it'll be a long wait until we see 4K computer monitors.

Eizo's ColorEdge GC276 has already been on the market since November 2012, and it now has a street price of about $2,300.

Contact Us for News Tips, Corrections and Feedback

  • d_kuhn
    I've been looking for a 4k panel that doesn't cost as much as a car... but a 2k panel masquerading as a 4k panel isn't what I was hoping for.
    Reply
  • AzureFlash
    Why would you even brag about this? What's the point of this news? "Hey, check this out, our pricy 1440p monitor can murder your 2K or 4K signal at the cost of speed". Gee, that's revolutionary, Eizo. What's next, a GPU that can output 4K at half the framerate?
    Reply
  • yialanliu
    It's not for the normal user. This is for people who make movies in 4k able to see their movies scaled appropriately on their computer monitor. Just a nice addition for people who need this function. It's not masquerading, it's just to help people out.
    Reply
  • LukeCWM
    AzureFlashWhy would you even brag about this? What's the point of this news? "Hey, check this out, our pricy 1440p monitor can murder your 2K or 4K signal at the cost of speed". Gee, that's revolutionary, Eizo. What's next, a GPU that can output 4K at half the framerate?
    I think a closer expectation is to get 1/4th the frame rate, since 4k is 4x the resolution of 1080p. And frankly, that is what we're looking for.

    1080p is approximately two megapixels. The highest res monitors are about four megapixels, and a 3x1 Eyefinitity setup of 1080p monitors is about six megapixels. A large 4k monitor is pretty close to eight megapixels, the highest yet.

    I wonder, if a game like Skyrim or the latest Battlefield game had 4k support, how they would run on a 4k monitor with maxed settings and a single, double or triple GTX Titan. Of course a game like Crysis 3 on max settings could choke even three Titans, I'd guess. But what about a less demanding game or playing with less than max settings?

    I wonder whether gamers would prefer, if given the choice, 2560x1440 at max settings or 4k without the anti-aliasing. I guess time will tell.
    Reply
  • mouse24
    Its more like: Hey guys, we have a monitor that can do super-sampling... while still having the same PPI...
    Reply
  • maxinexus
    We just have to wait a decade or so perhaps than 4k will be a standard
    Reply
  • drwho1
    I rather wait until 4K 60 inch TV's are under $1K
    30 inch monitors at 4K should be under 500 dollars.

    eventually it will happen.
    until then I'm good with what I have.
    Reply
  • itheral
    At a tech website I would hope more people would understand how little good 4k resolution does for the typical consumer. Complete overkill. At under 50" no one is going to tell the difference between 4k and 1080p at normal viewing distance.

    Hell.. most people can't see the difference side by side 720p vs 1080p on a typical monitor sized screen.

    This is obviously for video/tv and the such. The upped resolution would be cool for gaming graphics, but we're far away from the tech to run such resolutions at an acceptable level..
    Reply
  • leon2006
    I'll wait when things settle down...To date only movies recorded with IMACS camera have contents to support 4K...The rest will be interpolated content...
    Cable companies can barely provide 1080P...mostly 1080i and 720p...

    No need to spend money on this 4K display until it settles down
    Reply
  • Thunderfox
    itheralAt a tech website I would hope more people would understand how little good 4k resolution does for the typical consumer. Complete overkill. At under 50" no one is going to tell the difference between 4k and 1080p at normal viewing distance.Hell.. most people can't see the difference side by side 720p vs 1080p on a typical monitor sized screen.This is obviously for video/tv and the such. The upped resolution would be cool for gaming graphics, but we're far away from the tech to run such resolutions at an acceptable level..
    Agreed. I know the theory is that you can fit more stuff on one screen, but if it's too small to see, then who cares.

    Personally I am more interested in better display technologies. I wish OLED displays would hurry up and go mainstream. After two phones with them, I'd like a 24" one to replace my current monitor.
    Reply