Thursday, May 30th 2013

ASUS Launches PQ321 Monitor with 3840 x 2160 IGZO Display

ASUS today announced the PQ321 True 4K UHD Monitor, a desktop display with a stunning Ultra HD 3840 x 2160 resolution that’s equivalent to four Full HD displays stacked side-by-side. The PQ321 has a 31.5-inch LED-backlit 4K Ultra HD display (140 pixels-per-inch) with 16:9 aspect ratio, and supports 10-bit RGB ‘deep color’ for vibrant images with more natural transitions between hues.

Cutting-edge IGZO panel technology
The ASUS PQ321 True 4K UHD Monitor uses cutting-edge Indium Gallium Zinc Oxide (IGZO) rather than traditional amorphous silicon for the active layer of its LCD panel. IGZO panels support much smaller transistors than amorphous silicon, which in turn gives much smaller pixels and the 3840 x 2160 resolution of the PQ321 is four times that of a 1920 x 1080 Full HD display.

176-degree wide viewing angles on both vertical and horizontal planes minimize onscreen color shift, while the 350cd/m² brightness rating and 8ms gray-to-gray response time ensure smooth, bright, and vibrant moving visuals. IGZO technology also gives reduced energy consumption compared to amorphous silicon and reduces bulk — at 35mm at its thickest point, the PQ321 is the thinnest 4K UHD monitor available today.

Comprehensive video inputs for UHD content
The ASUS PQ321 True 4K UHD Monitor features DisplayPort and US models offer dual-HDMI ports inputs with Picture-by-Picture support. Built-in 2W stereo speakers remove the need for additional desktop clutter and, in addition to being wall-mountable, the monitor stand offers full height, swivel, and tilt adjustment.

AVAILABILITY & PRICING
ASUS will be exhibiting the 39-inch and 31.5-inch True 4K UHD Monitor models at Computex 2013 in Taipei.
Add your own comment

81 Comments on ASUS Launches PQ321 Monitor with 3840 x 2160 IGZO Display

#1
Prima.Vera
by: PopcornMachine
I got $500 for one right now. Take it or leave it ASUS! :cool:
You forgot a ZEROOO(0)
Posted on Reply
#2
PopcornMachine
by: Prima.Vera
You forgot a ZEROOO(0)
I can dream, can't he. :confused:
Posted on Reply
#3
HeronSword
If they can price this around $2 grand even I would consider getting one. I love gaming in 1440p, it's hard to go back to 1080p, kind of like when I went from my tube tv and Playstation 2 to PC at 1080p, and then again to PC at 1440p... difference just blows me away.

I find I can play most games at 1440p 60 fps if I just turn down a few settings, and its still amazingly gorgeous because of the 1440. :D
Posted on Reply
#4
Fierce Guppy
Even at 31.5" is the pixel density such that any anti-aliasing option is unnecessary?
Posted on Reply
#5
hellrazor
by: Fierce Guppy
Even at 31.5" is the pixel density such that any anti-aliasing option is unnecessary?
Not quite, but it's getting there.
Posted on Reply
#6
JDG1980
Awesome! It's wonderful to finally see some monitors coming out with decent pixel density. It's absurd that smartphones and tablets have been available with over 200 PPI for years, and we're only now starting to see anything much above 100 PPI on the desktop.

Sharp's 4K 32" monitor costs about $5,000 in the U.S., maybe a few hundred cheaper if you know where to look. I hope this competitor will drive down costs further. We know it can be done - that crappy Seiki 4K TV at Tiger Direct only costs $1500. (Amazon has it even lower.) But the Seiki TV is too big to be a good monitor, and it only supports 30 Hz (not because of problems with the panel, but because of input limitations).

I look forward to the time when I can get a 32" 4K monitor from a decent name brand for around $1000. Perhaps that time is not as far off as I thought.
Posted on Reply
#7
Frick
Fishfaced Nincompoop
by: JDG1980
Awesome! It's wonderful to finally see some monitors coming out with decent pixel density. It's absurd that smartphones and tablets have been available with over 200 PPI for years, and we're only now starting to see anything much above 100 PPI on the desktop.

Sharp's 4K 32" monitor costs about $5,000 in the U.S., maybe a few hundred cheaper if you know where to look. I hope this competitor will drive down costs further. We know it can be done - that crappy Seiki 4K TV at Tiger Direct only costs $1500. (Amazon has it even lower.) But the Seiki TV is too big to be a good monitor, and it only supports 30 Hz (not because of problems with the panel, but because of input limitations).

I look forward to the time when I can get a 32" 4K monitor from a decent name brand for around $1000. Perhaps that time is not as far off as I thought.
It is absurd, but understandable imo. I dunno how it is in Linux/MacOS but Windows doesn't do scaling very good. The Metro interface in Windows 8 supposedly does well there, but one of Windows major strenghts is the software library. Running Windows 7 you're out of luck basicly. Sometimes it works, but often it doesn't look good. Phones and tablets are quite different, and Metro is a way forward. But that isn't exactly perfect for desktop use.. Not to mention we have different eyes and different habits. Phones/tables we can just put closer to our face, but a monitor usually stands where it stands. Especially a 30 inch beast.

IMO these are good pixels/dimensions in desktop monitors, for general Windows use:

22' - 1680 x 1050
24' - 1920 x 1080/1200
27' - 2560 x 1600/1440

"4k" I haven't seen IRL. :P
Posted on Reply
#8
McSteel
The trouble with high DPI/PPI/anything-per-inch is that the most popular OS's out there (Windows) aren't really good at scaling visual elements. In fact, only OSX does this with an appreciable amount of thought and professionalism. Gnome and KDE manage somehow, but Windows is horrendous in this area. I know that hardware usually drives software innovations, yet no one seems to have the cojones to do it first, without high-DPI being properly covered in the OS first.

You wouldn't want a 2x2cm desktop icon on a 31.5" display now would you? And no readable fonts below 16pt size?

Other than that, I join this drool-fest. Wondering how solid that stand is, though...

## EDIT ##
Frick beat me to it, again. :p I bow to you, lurker king :respect:
Posted on Reply
#9
Wbat
Can I also pay TRUE 1K USD for it?
And by TRUE 1K I actually mean 950 USD, cause true and K doesn't mean anything today. :rolleyes:
Posted on Reply
#10
Mindweaver
Moderato®™
4k tv's are coming. You can already buy this 4k tv and this is the same tv PC Perspective use to run BF3 at 4k here and it's only $1258.40 at amazon. Now sony has a 4k monitor for around 5k.. but for the money i'd get the SEIKI. :toast:
Posted on Reply
#11
PopcornMachine
by: Mindweaver
4k tv's are coming. You can already buy this 4k tv and this is the same tv PC Perspective use to run BF3 at 4k here and it's only $1258.40 at amazon. Now sony has a 4k monitor for around 5k.. but for the money i'd get the SEIKI. :toast:
Do you realize you used "k" in two different ways in the same sentence.

K? :p
Posted on Reply
#12
DarkOCean
by: W1zzard
must ... have ..
Looking forward to see that resolution added to your reviews.
Posted on Reply
#13
cdawall
where the hell are my stars
Heck of a monitor :eek: I do want one.
Posted on Reply
#14
Animalpak
This type of products give a sense to your dual gpu or SLI/CrossFire setup...
Posted on Reply
#15
JDG1980
In response to Frick and McSteel: Yes, there are definitely issues with DPI scaling on Windows, but the problems aren't with the OS itself. Windows 7 scales just fine, as does IE and almost all the other stuff built into Windows. The problem is with ill-behaved third-party applications. If 4K monitors start to become commonplace, there will be pressure on these vendors to fix their applications to be DPI-aware (Microsoft has actually been urging them to do it for years, but most haven't). Adobe Lightroom 5 now does DPI scaling properly and Adobe claims that Photoshop will be updated to do so in the not-too-distant future.
Posted on Reply
#16
McSteel
Most of those applications are written in Microsoft's own SDKs, using Windows API calls and standard buttons/menus etc. Who except The Scene codes their GUI from scratch, using direct GPU access and not GDI? If it was a matter of static resources (bitmaps for icons and such), pretty much all software could be patched to comply incredibly simply. No, this really is fundamentally an OS issue, and while it's being worked on, it most definitely is pretty low on the to-do list.

Photoshop uses it's own GUI that was developed using Adobe's own AIR, so this is one of the "third-party offenders" that you reference. But I am absolutely sure that, if Microsoft didn't just push the issue, and rather implemented the solution fully, all other major software vendors (Adobe, AutoDesk, Corel, etc.) would follow suit very shortly.

There really are only two ways to do this. Either a) make a new raster renderer that will dynamically upscale/downscale the basic elements (windows, borders, buttons, fonts) around a work area, or b) make all said elements true vector graphics and be done with it.
Posted on Reply
#17
Rowsol
For the size, 1600p is already high for 30 inches. I can't see a purpose in this resolution for screens under 50 inches.
Posted on Reply
#18
tigger
I'm the only one
by: W1zzard
must ... have ..
Soon W1zzard, you probs will haz.
Posted on Reply
#19
BigMack70
*drool*

Price tag is going to be super scary on this thing though... I'm betting $3k
Posted on Reply
#21
Prima.Vera
by: JDG1980
In response to Frick and McSteel: Yes, there are definitely issues with DPI scaling on Windows, but the problems aren't with the OS itself. Windows 7 scales just fine, as does IE and almost all the other stuff built into Windows. The problem is with ill-behaved third-party applications. If 4K monitors start to become commonplace, there will be pressure on these vendors to fix their applications to be DPI-aware (Microsoft has actually been urging them to do it for years, but most haven't). Adobe Lightroom 5 now does DPI scaling properly and Adobe claims that Photoshop will be updated to do so in the not-too-distant future.
Agree. Java, Flash, ActiveX, etc, are ridiculous horrible with high DPI scaling, even impossible on some occasions. And 3rd party apps. Ha, give me a break. Most of them are still "optimized" for the 1280x1024 HIGH resolution...
Posted on Reply
#22
hellrazor
by: Rowsol
For the size, 1600p is already high for 30 inches. I can't see a purpose in this resolution for screens under 50 inches.
Because some of us aren't blind.
Posted on Reply
#23
Brusfantomet
Well, under 15000 kr (ca 2000 usd) and i might get myself a Asus monitor instead of a Dell. will need a new stand for my 30" to use in portrait mode tho.

Also, anybody know how IGZO is compared to IPS?
Posted on Reply
#24
bencrutz
by: Brusfantomet

Also, anybody know how IGZO is compared to IPS?
other than the fact that IGZO uses rare earth mineral that most likely it will sustain it's high price? no, i don't :roll:
Posted on Reply
#25
Solidstate89
I've never understood how people think Windows scales horribly. Windows is by far the most flexible OS when it comes to scaling the UI and text elements. The only issues I ever run into are third party programs that aren't developed properly, but the OS and first party applications all run magnificently at any scale level that I set within Windows. And with an add-on installed in Firefox, that browser works fine as well.
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment