ASUS PQ321Q 4k 32" Monitor first look

http://www.anandtech.com/show/7145/asus-pq321q-first-look

by zdw • 13 years ago

66 52 13 years ago

sciurus• 13 years ago

$3,500. Ouch.

zanny2• 13 years ago

Hope its not like 1440p screens that never came down in price. I just want 150 - 200 PPI at 22 - 27" between $200 and $400.

sultezdukes2• 13 years ago

You can get Korean 27" 1440p for around $300 these days.

http://www.ebay.com/itm/New-QNIX-QX2710-LED-Evolution-27-256...

jacques_chester2• 13 years ago

What's important is that we're starting to see movement in high-end resolutions for the first time in quite a while. The arrival of 1080 HD screens created a long term set point in the market that brought progress to a bit of a halt.

But I'm paid to look at text, not watch movies.

It's nice to have real estate, but my eyes are crappy and I would dearly love resolutions to start getting denser again so I can use smaller font sizes without going crosseyed.

It used to be that monitor resolutions trickled down from the top. Now, thanks largely to Apple, they're trickling up from the bottom. But this is movement at the high end. In a few years I can imagine buying a 4k ~27-30" monitor to replace my current 30" monitors.

DannoHung• 13 years ago

I wonder if there's some way to use eyetracking and headtracking to fake an enormous display with extremely high DPI. Only a very narrow area of the eye is actually focused and can detect features with maximum fidelity.

bhauer• 13 years ago

That monitor fulfills a dream of mine. The price, however, is a nightmare.

joaomsa• 13 years ago

I imagine that along with the price tag the main issue for this thing is software support (or lack thereof).

How is HighDPI support in Linux these days?

sounds• 13 years ago

The article also mentions they needed to enable DisplayPort 1.2 MST for the full 60Hz refresh rate, so I'm inferring that the monitor might be detected as two screens (a left-right split). If someone has more info on 4Kp60 and displayport, please chime in.

Note that both nVidia and AMD support MST on their major products, including AMD APUs if the motherboard has displayport.

jlgreco• 13 years ago

I'm running Debian Wheezy on a Chromebook Pixel (2,560×1,700 at 12.85 in, or 244.28. Intel HD Graphics 4000) and it works great.

If Intel GPUs can drive a screen that large, then I strongly suspect that Linux will as well. Intel support in Linux appears to be more or less on par with Intel support elsewhere.

bsimpson• 13 years ago

Like so much in Linux, it varies from app-to-app.

Stratoscope• 13 years ago

This is a medium DPI monitor, not anywhere close to high DPI. At 138 DPI, its pixel density is a bit lower than my ThinkPad W520's 141 DPI.

So you have nothing to worry about regarding DPI; every Linux distro I've tried works fine on this kind of pixel density.

The only question would be the sheer number of pixels on the screen.

jzwinck• 13 years ago

The only question would be the sheer number of pixels on the screen.

Which on Linux is a big, big question. My experience is that a 2x2 array of 2560x1440 displays is simply not reliable under Linux. The same worked fine with Windows. The total number of pixels is one factor that seems to trip up Xorg (or something); the above setup had a total resolution of 5120x2880, yet a 1x3 array totalling 4320x2560 worked fine. This was last year, on multiple machines with various graphics cards (but just one card in a given machine).

So I don't know why, but it seems that somewhere between 4320 and 5120 linear pixels, or between 11 and 15 total megapixels, Xorg or some other part of Linux (but probably Xorg) has problems. This Asus screen is 3840x2160 which means two of them together (16.5 MP) will likely not work (there's a chance if they're oriented vertically so the max linear resolution is 4320), and three in any configuration is very likely to fail.

Using many displays and getting very high resolution on Linux has been a bad situation for a long time now. Some hardware configurations just won't work (but are fine with Windows); others will hard-lock sometimes; still others will mostly be OK but once in two weeks freak out and spew artifacts everywhere. It's a real mess, and nobody seems to "own" fixing it.

Amadou3• 13 years ago

That thing is waaaay overpriced. Seiki (a big cheapo chinese manufacturer) has a 4k 50" "tv" that is currently selling for under $1,000 on amazon:

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00BXF7I9M/

One problem with using the Seiki for a PC monitor is a maximum 30Hz refresh rate at that resolution. However you won't notice the difference between a 30Hz display and a 60Hz display unless playing video games. Movies are 24hz and tv shows are 30hz (25hz in the UK). I have a lot of experience using one of those old Viewsonic 3840x2400 monitors (same as IBM T220) which also ran at roughly 30Hz.

I think the Seiki would make a perfect monitor if it were only 40" - I love my 30" + rotated 24" set up now. Apparently a 39" version is due any day now. Model number SE39UY04. MSRP $700.

On a personal note... I've waited a decade for higher dpi monitors to become mainstream. Just in the last year or so I've noticed my near-field eyesight starting to go. Ironic for me that just as these things start to show up, I start to become less able to use them.

mturmon2• 13 years ago

The 39'' version of the 4K monitor you mention seems to be at Amazon right now for $700. I'd be interested to know if this works as an external monitor (in clamshell mode) for a MBP running OSX. I understand that it won't work as an additional display.

This size seems a bit overwhelming for use as a monitor. (I used to have a 30" display but got rid of it because it was too imposing on my desk.). It's still nice to see this as an option. It should be good for visualization of large data sets.

AYBABTME• 13 years ago

The problem seems to be latency. TV aren't meant to be interactive as much as PC monitors are. Especially at a high resolution like this, you will notice a lag between the time you perform an action and the time the TV renders it.

nitrogen4• 13 years ago

However you won't notice the difference between a 30Hz display and a 60Hz display unless playing video games.

Try moving your mouse around. Try dragging a window around. Then try it on a 120Hz monitor. You will notice the significantly greater fluidity of motion added by each step up in refresh rate, even with bottom-of-the-line USB mice, which report at 125Hz.

Movies are 24hz and tv shows are 30hz (25hz in the UK).

Sports, news, and daytime dramas (yarg) are typically 50Hz or 60Hz, so they will be less fluid on a 30Hz display. Also, watching a 24Hz movie on a 30Hz monitor will make for a terribly juddery experience. The video will appear to "chunk" every 4 input frames/5 output frames, or 6 times per second.

----

All that said, for static design work, coding, writing, etc., 4K at 30Hz would still be very useful if you can put up with the less natural feel to basic system movements.

coldtea• 13 years ago

I doubt the 30Hz would be the only qualitative difference between a $3500 display and a $1000 one.

That they blew such a fundamental spec of the display tells me that it should be much worse in other aspects (color rendition, etc).

DiabloD33• 13 years ago

These TVs are 24p capable as well, so you don't have to worry about jerky motion as long as you sync at the right refresh rate.

An unboxing review of that TV: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uXBu9nxLN78

Amadou3• 13 years ago

You will notice the significantly greater fluidity

Its the law of diminishing returns. When I had 30Hz and 60Hz monitor on the same desktop (as in I could drag windows from one monitor to the other) it was barely noticeable and not at all distracting.

Sports, news, and daytime dramas (yarg) are typically 50Hz or 60Hz

That's interlaced. So 60 fields per second but only 30 frames per second. You can make an argument that proper de-interlacing requires a 60hz display but in practice its only the kind of thing that videophiles will notice.

watching a 24Hz movie on a 30Hz monitor will make for a terribly juddery experience.

The seiki also accepts 24hz at 4K, and will even go as high as 120Hz if you feed it the right 1080p signal (the upscaling will look like crap though). You just need to fiddle the PC's display settings as needed.

tathagata2• 13 years ago

Ironic for me that just as these things start to show up, I start to become less able to use them.

Same with me! I just bought the expensive 15" MacBook Pro with retina display, but I ended up using a 17" 1280x1024 external monitor with it to lower the eye strain. I am even more comfortable using a 19" 1280x1024 Dell monitor at work!

nwh• 13 years ago

The Retina MacBook is effectively 1440x900 though, how is that straining to look at?

mikevm• 13 years ago

However you won't notice the difference between a 30Hz display and a 60Hz display unless playing video games.

This is absolute rubbish. I have an HTPC, and I played with the refresh rate settings on the TV. You can definitely notice the difference between 30Hz and 60Hz. Heck, I could even notice the difference between 50Hz and 60Hz (mouse movement was faster/more fluid).

ericfrenkiel• 13 years ago

I have the Seiki 50" and can confirm it is awesome for videogames. Using an Nvidia GTX 780 to drive the 4k resolution with "ultra" settings, and while the frame rate is 24-30 fps, you don't want to go back to 1080p.

Incidentally, sitting about 18 inches away from the monitor and you feel like you're in the game.

superuser23• 13 years ago

People bash Mac users for paying hundreds of dollars extra for style and marketing. But some of the extra cost does go somewhere: the display. I haven't been able to find anything approaching the pixel density of my 13" Macbook Air for less than $400. Name brands are more like $1000.

jmillikin2• 13 years ago

The 13-inch Macbook Air has a native resolution of 1440x900, which is a fairly low pixel density for a laptop and only slightly better than typical desktop monitors. Any modern[1] laptop should exceed the MBA's pixel density, and high-end laptops (Macbook Pro, Chromebook Pixel) nearly double it.

For any given pixel density a 32-inch panel will be much more expensive than a 13-inch panel, so it doesn't make much sense to compare a laptop screen to a desktop. A better Apple product to compare with is the Cinema Display, which has a 2560x1440 resolution at 27 inches and is priced the same as any other equivalently specced monitor.

[1] The 13-inch MBA has not had a screen refresh in years.

rayiner• 13 years ago

The modern trend in lower-cost laptops is unfortunately to use a 1366x768 screen resolution. Ultrabooks feature higher-resolution displays, but until recently the closest competitor to the MBA (Samsung Series 9) used the same resolution display (900 vertical pixels, though Apple uses a 16:10 aspect ratio while Samsung uses a 16:9). The most recent run of Ultrabooks does exceed the MBA's resolution, though, featuring 1080p displays (XPS 12, Vaio Pro 13, etc). But these are more expensive than the MBA.

superuser23• 13 years ago

Is there a consumer Windows laptop available at Best Buy or similar that has:

1) a solid state drive and 2) a display with Apple-level pixel density

for substantially less than a Mac? Closest I've gotten is configuring the ThinkPad T430 online up to $930, in which case we're not talking about that much cost savings.

I agree with you that any modern laptop should exceed its pixel density. But take a look at your local Best Buy. Even the 15" displays are usually 1366x768. Some of the most expensive Ultrabooks might be 1080p, but those prices are Apple-level anyway.

I'm between HS and college right now, so people are asking me for laptop recommendations. Most of them oppose Macs because they believe they'd be paying extra just for prestige, and I have a hard time finding them similar quality Windows hardware for any cheaper. Which leads me to conclude that Mac users are not just paying for prestige.

dbcooper• 13 years ago

The Macbook Air has a cheap TN display.

Synaesthesia• 13 years ago

No it's a good TN display. The contrast ratio and overall quality of the MBA TN display is miles ahead of most cheap TN displays - many of which are a pitiful 200:1. You can easily tell the difference between it and a cheap e.g. Acer laptop. http://images.anandtech.com/graphs/graph6063/48121.png

DiabloD33• 13 years ago

My 13" Macbook Pro Retina is 2560x1600. So, what?

Edit: To those downvoting me, why? It is 13", it is also a Mac, it is similarly priced. Why downvote?

adamnemecek• 13 years ago

Time to sell a kidney I guess.

jimmcslim• 13 years ago

Monitor manufacturer's REALLY need to start uniformly implementing some sort of remote control, for input source at least. KVMs are pretty expensive, these monitors generally have several inputs for multiple PCs (or other sources). Why not just have a USB-based protocol for switching the active source? or infra-red?

spot• 13 years ago

what i want to know is what graphics card/driver can decode video at that resolution?

ASUS PQ321Q 4k 32" Monitor first look

Related Stories