Monday, June 3rd 2013

ASUS Ultra HD Monitor Lineup Led by a 39-incher

It looks like the 31.5-inch PQ321 won't be the only 4K Ultra-HD monitor from ASUS for long. The company unveiled the even bigger unnamed 39-incher at Computex for a brief moment, before veiling it back, leaving us just enough time to take a few snaps. The 39-inch monitor is based on a VA (vertical-alignment) panel, compared to the IGZO panel that drives the PQ321. That could possibly make it cheaper. It offers a native resolution of 3840 x 2160 pixels, single-figure response time, 60 Hz refresh rate (when taking input from DisplayPort 1.2), 5,000:1 static contrast ratio with dynamic mega-contrast, 350 cd/m² brightness, 170°/170° viewing angles, and inputs that include a DisplayPort 1.2, and two HDMI. It also features a different forked stand design to the PQ321.
Add your own comment

17 Comments on ASUS Ultra HD Monitor Lineup Led by a 39-incher

#2
cdawall
where the hell are my stars
Removes the need for 3 monitors in one swoop...Can't wait for the Koreans to start pumping them out.
Posted on Reply
#3
BigMack70
i really hope this is not terribly expensive... I would LOVE to get one :respect:
Posted on Reply
#4
jigar2speed
You should read the post above yours, that should bring a lot of hope :cool:
Posted on Reply
#6
Octavean
I dont think the 31.5" PQ321 or the unnamed 39" model will be cheap.

However, "relatively" cheap for a 4K would probably be ~$2000 for the 31.5" PQ321,....but i'm just guessing.

Im not really in the market for one myself but the last one I came across was a used 22" IBM 3840x2400 for ~$1600 off of Amazon directly from Amazon as the seller.
Posted on Reply
#7
radrok
39 inch is too big imo, the 31,5 inch model has caught my attention.

I have my eyes set on a 4k monitor by the end of the year.

Will probably be the the PQ321 or the Sharp PN-K321, although the latter's price is ridiculous atm.


by: Octavean
I dont think the 31.5" PQ321 or the unnamed 39" model will be cheap.

However, "relatively" cheap for a 4K would probably be ~$2000 for the 31.5" PQ321,....but i'm just guessing.

Im not really in the market for one myself but the last one I came across was a used 22" IBM 3840x2400 for ~$1600 off of Amazon directly from Amazon as the seller.
To be fair 2000$ would be pretty awesome considering one the first iterations of 30" 2560x1600 monitors costed around 2k EUR.
Posted on Reply
#8
nickbaldwin86
Ya I want the 31.5... but I will wait tell they come down in price and made by all... once it becomes a market hit... everyone will make them and they will become cheap... just like the rest of the monitors. @ $1500 I could pull the trigger,.. dont think this will be $1500 :o
Posted on Reply
#9
radrok
by: nickbaldwin86
everyone will make them and they will become cheap... just like the rest of the monitors.
Has 2560x1600 resolution ever become cheap? That's what boggles me, could take a lot more than we'd imagine to have cheap UHD monitors.
Posted on Reply
#10
nickbaldwin86
by: radrok
Has 2560x1600 resolution ever become cheap? That's what boggles me, could take a lot more than we'd imagine to have cheap UHD monitors.
UMmmm if you remember when the 1st Dell 30 came out it was $2800 (2560x1600)
They are $1000 if you find it on a deal from Dell.
Or a Zr30w HP can be had for around that or less
....I am not willing to jump on new tech just because it is new... I give it a refresh and let it get cheaper.

4k will become a TV standard... sure in a few years. and it will be cheaper. 2k never caught on.
Posted on Reply
#11
JDG1980
At a size of 39 inches, a 4K monitor would have a pixel density of just under 113 ppi. This means it might appeal to people who think better screens should be used to cram in more information, not get smoother text at the same virtual size. (For what it's worth, I'd rather get the smoother text - after using an iPad 4, the low ppi of a PC monitor is somewhat painful.) At 113 ppi, you could probably get away with leaving Windows on the standard 100% scaling factor if you have good eyesight.

To get 96 ppi (the Windows standard), you'd need a 46-inch 4K monitor - or, more likely, a 4K TV repurposed as a monitor. That would be the equivalent of having four bezel-less 1080p screens in one unit.
Posted on Reply
#12
BigMack70
by: radrok
Has 2560x1600 resolution ever become cheap? That's what boggles me, could take a lot more than we'd imagine to have cheap UHD monitors.
2560x1600 has never been marketed at anything other than graphics professionals. There has never been a push to generate content in that format or produce TVs in that format or basically do anything with that format other than market it to graphics professionals, so it has remained an expensive niche product.

If they begin to develop content for 4k and market it in the TV world, it has potential to do what 1080p did and become mainstream. There are no technical reasons why 1440/1600p panels must have the crazy cost of entry that they do, and the same goes for 4k. It all depends who the consumer they target is going to be.


by: JDG1980
At a size of 39 inches, a 4K monitor would have a pixel density of just under 113 ppi. This means it might appeal to people who think better screens should be used to cram in more information, not get smoother text at the same virtual size. (For what it's worth, I'd rather get the smoother text - after using an iPad 4, the low ppi of a PC monitor is somewhat painful.) At 113 ppi, you could probably get away with leaving Windows on the standard 100% scaling factor if you have good eyesight.

To get 96 ppi (the Windows standard), you'd need a 46-inch 4K monitor - or, more likely, a 4K TV repurposed as a monitor. That would be the equivalent of having four bezel-less 1080p screens in one unit.
I really like the ~110 PPI mark. It's about what I've got on my 27" 1440p screen and while I can still make out the pixels, they are small enough that I never notice unless I'm looking for it. That's why I really like the idea of a 40" 4k screen for gaming :)
Posted on Reply
#13
xvi
Looking for one female member with which to produce offspring with the intent to sell said offspring for the purchase of two of these monitors, one for each of us.
Posted on Reply
#14
xBruce88x
And here i just finally got a 1080p monitor...

maybe as more are released 2560x will be more mainstream and cheaper?

looks like a pretty sweet monitor... do want... but can't afford atm
Posted on Reply
#15
acerace
by: xBruce88x
And here i just finally got a 1080p monitor...

maybe as more are released 2560x will be more mainstream and cheaper?

looks like a pretty sweet monitor... do want... but can't afford atm
Haha, seems like our case is similar. 2012 is the first time I'm using 16:9 monitor, before then I'm using 5:4 one. How terrible. :roll:
Posted on Reply
#17
lemonadesoda
Good. Let me just say THUMBS UP for innovation and increasing options on displays.
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment