Skip to main content

Intel Partners with Samsung for Cheaper 4K Monitors

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+.

  • n3cw4rr10r
    Intel and cheap dont go together. Neither does Samsung for that matter.
    Reply
  • Falcorion
    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.
    Reply
  • InvalidError
    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.
    Reply
  • vir_cotto
    Excellent!
    Reply
  • Au_equus
    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.
    Reply
  • vipboy28
    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
    Reply
  • velocityg4
    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".
    Reply
  • Fokissed
    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.
    Reply
  • DarkSable
    @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.
    Reply
  • InvalidError
    13433795 said:
    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.
    Reply