Tuesday, July 2nd 2013

ASUS Announces PQ321Q Pre-Order: The World's First Consumer 4K Monitor

ASUS, a worldwide leader in high performance large screen displays, today announced the exclusive pre-order for the highly-anticipated PQ321Q True 4K UHD monitor. Starting July 1st, US consumers will be able to pre-order the world's first consumer 4K monitor through Newegg, Amazon, or TigerDirect at an introductory MSRP of $3,499 USD. The PQ321Q True 4K UHD Monitor, a desktop display with a stunning Ultra HD 3840 x 2160 resolution, delivers a screen resolution equivalent to four Full HD displays combined. It has a 31.5-inch LED-backlit 4K Ultra HD display (140 pixels-per-inch) with a 16:9 aspect ratio, and supports 10-bit RGB 'deep color' for vibrant images with more natural transitions between hues.

Introducing Cutting-edge IGZO Panel Technology
The ASUS PQ321Q 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, enabling much smaller pixels. This allows the PQ321Q to have four times the amount of pixels compared to a 1920 x 1080 Full HD display. Despite the increase in pixels, the PQ321Q offers peace of mind by coming with a 30-day Zero Bright Dot warranty.

To ensure the ultimate visual experience, 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, maximizing your available space. At 35mm at its thickest point, the PQ321Q is not only the first True 4K UHD consumer monitor but also the thinnest available today.

Comprehensive Video Inputs for UHD Content
The ASUS PQ321Q True 4K UHD Monitor features DisplayPort and dual HDMI ports with Picture-by-Picture support. DisplayPort's Multi Stream Transport mode allows 60Hz refresh rates at 3840 x 2160 resolution using graphics cards from NVIDIA, AMD, and integrated video from 4th Generation Intel Core processors. 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 adjustments.

Specifications:
  • Model: PQ321Q
  • DISPLAY PANEL: 31.5" (80.1 cm), 3840x2160, IGZO WLED Backlit, 0.182mm Pixel Pitch
  • DISPLAY COLORS: 1073.7 million colors /100% sRGB/80% NTSC CIE1976 / 72% NTSC CIE1931
  • BRIGHTNESS: Min < 80cd/m2 Max: 350cd/m2
  • CONTRAST RATIO: Native 800:1
  • VIEWING ANGLE (CR ? 10): Horizontal: 176° / Vertical: 176°
  • RESPONSE TIME: 8ms (GTG)
  • LOOK-UP TABLE: 14 bit LUT
  • COLOR AND GAMMA: Standard, Vivid, and sRGB color modes. 18 levels of color temperature 3K-10K in 500K increments.
  • 5 Gamma Modes: 1.8, 2.0, 2.2, 2.4, Standard
  • VIDEO I/O: DisplayPort 1.2, 2x HDMI 1.4, RS-232C
  • AUDIO I/O: 2W x 2 stereo, 3.5mm In, 3.5mm Out (for HDMI and DP only)
  • HEIGHT ADJUSTMENT: 0 ~ 150mm / 0 - 5.9"
  • PIVOT / SWIVEL / TILT: Swivel +45° to -45° / Tilt +25° to -5°
  • FEATURES: Picture-by-Picture, Screen/OSD Rotate, Kensington Lock
  • VESA WALL MOUNT: 100mm x 100mm
  • DIMENSION (WxHxD): 750 x 489 x 256 mm (with stand) / 29.5 x 19.2 x 10 inches (with stand)
  • NET WEIGHT: 13Kg / 28.6lbs
  • REGULATORY APPROVALS: UL/cUL, FCC, ICES, RoHS, WEEE, Windows 7 and 8 WHQL
  • MAX. POWER CONSUMPTION: Operating ? 93W / Standby < 6W / Low Power < 1W
  • ACCESSORIES: DisplayPort cable, Power Cord, RS-232C conversion cable, Warranty card, Cable Tie
  • MSRP: $3,499 USD
Add your own comment

51 Comments on ASUS Announces PQ321Q Pre-Order: The World's First Consumer 4K Monitor

#1
Vinska
DO WANT! :eek:

MSRP: $3,499 USD *sigh* :ohwell:
Posted on Reply
#2
RCoon
Forum Gypsy
This requires 4 Titans to get 60FPS on metro 2033, so you'd either be getting this for Photoshop, or you have to spend in excess of $10000 to play games on it. The market isnt ready for this. It's ready for 1200, 1440 and 1600 to get cheaper.
Posted on Reply
#3
urza26
by: RCoon
This requires 4 Titans to get 60FPS on metro 2033, so you'd either be getting this for Photoshop, or you have to spend in excess of $10000 to play games on it. The market isnt ready for this. It's ready for 1200, 1440 and 1600 to get cheaper.
Exactly.
But isn't it the case that current games don't support 4k natively anyway, or does the monitor use an upscaling algorithm?
Posted on Reply
#4
radrok
Are they bloody kidding? No way in effing hell I'm shelling out 3 thousand on a monitor that only has 30 days bright pixel policy.

This needs to have 3 years zero bright and zero dead.

screw you ASUS
Posted on Reply
#5
hardcore_gamer
by: RCoon
This requires 4 Titans to get 60FPS on metro 2033, so you'd either be getting this for Photoshop, or you have to spend in excess of $10000 to play games on it. The market isnt ready for this. It's ready for 1200, 1440 and 1600 to get cheaper.
You can play less demanding games on 4k with a couple of 780s. AA can be turned off because of the high ppi. Run the un-optimized games such as metro in 1080 for now( assuming that the monitor can upscale).

If the AMD 8990/ nvidia 880 offers good performance increase at a reasonable price, I'll get a 4k monitor to replace my 5760*1080 setup.
Posted on Reply
#6
DrunkenMafia
I went a checked out one of those 4k TVs the other day, it was 85in and the pic was bloody beautiful, I could only imagine how good that res would look on a much smaller monitor!! Wow!! :rockout::rockout:
Posted on Reply
#7
Roph
I'd view a monitor like this as a long term investment. In the meantime I would utilize pixel doubling or quadrupling so my GPU could keep up.
Posted on Reply
#8
Aquinus
Resident Wat-man
For $3500 USD, I definitely can wait for those to come down in price a bit. Look on the bright side. As 4K displays start showing up, there is a good bet that prices on 2560x1440 displays will go down as well. I'm all for that. Just the other day on NewEgg a Dell 27" IPS display and was on sale and had a promo code for ~$570 USD.
Posted on Reply
#10
de.das.dude
Pro Indian Modder
by: btarunr

  • MSRP: $3,499 USD
  • [/list]
    only if the msrp was in INR XD
    Posted on Reply
    #12
    radrok
    The panel is capable of running 60Hz and as far as I know with single displayport you are limited to 3840x2160 30Hz because of the graphics card pixel clock. (I may be wrong about this though)

    You can run 3840x2160 at 60Hz with double input (two cables) so the monitor gets treated as 2 monitors.

    I remember one user buying the same panel from Sharp (PN-K321H) and he had issues running the monitor for gaming on two inputs because of Nvidia drivers do not currently allow for spanning across two screens surround.

    http://hardforum.com/showthread.php?t=1738793


    ASUS probably got in touch with Nvidia this time around for allowing 2 monitors surround and finally 4k @ 60Hz :)

    I'm pretty sure you can do 2 monitor eyefinity 4K @ 60Hz on AMD/ATI though.

    by: Prima.Vera
    There are TVs with 50" and 4K resolution for less than 1500$. What's the deal ASSus??
    http://www.amazon.com/Seiki-Digital-...9M?ref=prid-20&tag=tec06d-20
    It's an IGZO (Indium gallium zinc oxide) panel and I guess manufacturing does cost a lot due to base material cost.
    Posted on Reply
    #13
    Vinska
    by: RCoon
    This requires 4 Titans to get 60FPS on metro 2033, so you'd either be getting this for Photoshop, or you have to spend in excess of $10000 to play games on it. The market isnt ready for this. It's ready for 1200, 1440 and 1600 to get cheaper.
    >gayming on 60Hz
    Nope.
    Posted on Reply
    #14
    cdawall
    where the hell are my stars
    Wish the price wasn't rediculous. Korean knock offs were you at?

    One more 7950 and I will be set. They appear to compete rather well with the titans from that article :eek:
    Posted on Reply
    #15
    Roph
    by: cdawall
    Wish the price wasn't rediculous. Korean knock offs were you at?

    One more 7950 and I will be set. They appear to compete rather well with the titans from that article :eek:
    The koreans are hardly knock offs, they're the same panels. It's that ASUS, Dell, Apple especially are taking these panels and ripping customers off. They can do it since the average consumer just wants 1080p.

    Koreans would rather play starcraft in higher resolution though, so 1440 is mainstream there :laugh:
    Posted on Reply
    #16
    zinfinion
    by: radrok
    The panel is capable of running 60Hz and as far as I know with single displayport you are limited to 3840x2160 30Hz because of the graphics card pixel clock. (I may be wrong about this though)

    You can run 3840x2160 at 60Hz with double input (two cables) so the monitor gets treated as 2 monitors.
    DP 1.2 has full support for 3840x2160 60Hz over a single cable and is not restrained by any artificial GPU driver imposed pixel clocks. The "double screen" issue with the current 4K displays is that the manufacturers did a hack job rather than create a proper single logical display.

    There is absolutely nothing at the hardware level preventing a single cable DP 1.2 solution. Hopefully ASUS has done a proper job with their displays.
    Posted on Reply
    #17
    Prima.Vera
    by: radrok

    It's an IGZO (Indium gallium zinc oxide) panel and I guess manufacturing does cost a lot due to base material cost.
    Common man, this costs more than double than a 50" TV with the same res...
    Posted on Reply
    #18
    radrok
    by: Prima.Vera
    Common man, this costs more than double than a 50" TV with the same res...
    Different tech, different price tag :)
    Posted on Reply
    #19
    RCoon
    Forum Gypsy
    by: hardcore_gamer
    You can play less demanding games on 4k with a couple of 780s. AA can be turned off because of the high ppi. Run the un-optimized games such as metro in 1080 for now( assuming that the monitor can upscale).

    If the AMD 8990/ nvidia 880 offers good performance increase at a reasonable price, I'll get a 4k monitor to replace my 5760*1080 setup.
    I'll also state that these screens would need 8GB of VRAM (plus or minus 1GB) to run top end games at high settings, so that means you'd need 3 cards or more with insane amounts of VRAM.
    Running sh*t games on 4K almost defeats the point in 4K, why buy 4K for $3800 if you're just going to play in 1080p most of the time?. You buy it for top end high res quality, and as such you need hardware to run it that fast. A 780 is slightly slower than a Titan at stock, so to run games (assuming they are still mostly console ports) on this monitor you need some serious horsepower.
    Also considering how performance improvement between generations has been minimal, we'd need to wait approximately 4 generations of video cards before we can run games in 4K on a single GPU at acceptable frame rates.
    These manufacturers have chosen a retarded time to release something that nobody besides photo editors can use. The hardware needs to catch up a huge deal, and the prices need to come down, not to mention games need porting properly and optimising better.
    Like I said, the market is in perfect positioning for 1200, 1440 and 1600. 4K shouldnt be considered for gaming until we have a single or dual GPU capable of running AAA titles at 60FPS on a native 4k res using a single universal cable.
    Posted on Reply
    #20
    james888
    Buys 4k monitor... plays quake live.
    Posted on Reply
    #21
    hardcore_gamer
    by: RCoon
    Like I said, the market is in perfect positioning for 1200, 1440 and 1600. 4K shouldnt be considered for gaming until we have a single or dual GPU capable of running AAA titles at 60FPS on a native 4k res using a single universal cable.
    I think we are only 1 or 2 GPU generation away from AAA gaming at 4k. I'm running a multimonitor setup at 2/3rd resolution of 4k. Surprisingly, a lot of AAA titles are playable at this resolution at high settings (without AA of course) using a couple of 670s.

    4k is a good upgrade from a multimonitor setup, since it offers better ppi at a good aspect ratio and bezel-free experience.
    Posted on Reply
    #22
    btarunr
    Editor & Senior Moderator
    by: RCoon
    This requires 4 Titans to get 60FPS on metro 2033, so you'd either be getting this for Photoshop, or you have to spend in excess of $10000 to play games on it. The market isnt ready for this. It's ready for 1200, 1440 and 1600 to get cheaper.
    If it wasn't for the 1080p dark-ages (2005- date), 3840x2160 would be mainstream.
    Posted on Reply
    #23
    RCoon
    Forum Gypsy
    by: btarunr
    If it wasn't for the 1080p dark-ages (2005- date), 3840x2160 would be mainstream.
    But this isnt about what could or couldnt happen before. This is about what is happening, what is available, and what is possible to run. Sure we might only be 2 or even 3 generations away from running 4K monitors on single or dual GPU's, but thats still perhaps almost 3 years away, and people can barely afford to run on 1200 plus resolutions on the current GPU's of today.
    Either these 4K screens drop significantly in price within 3 years (to within 1200 or 1440 monitor prices of today) and people are able to buy pretty high end systems to run it, or they simply arent going to sell except to those 1% of enthusiasts with money, or oil barons with cash to splash.
    Sadly we're in the situation now, and 1080p is still mainstream because the hardware available just isnt fast enough to warrant such a jump from 1080p to 4K to anyone except those with money. They need to work on getting IPS 1200+ monitors cheaper, or their precious 4K technology will fail, and they'll blame consumers for not needing it, when in actual fact, they just pushed it too soon.
    Dont get me wrong, I'd love 4K, for everyone, used in everything. But we're not prepared for it. We cant afford to run it. Not to mention they used 2 PSU's to run 4 titans on the monitor...
    Posted on Reply
    #24
    btarunr
    Editor & Senior Moderator
    by: RCoon
    But this isnt about what could or couldnt happen before. This is about what is happening, what is available, and what is possible to run. Sure we might only be 2 or even 3 generations away from running 4K monitors on single or dual GPU's, but thats still perhaps almost 3 years away, and people can barely afford to run on 1200 plus resolutions on the current GPU's of today.
    Either these 4K screens drop significantly in price within 3 years (to within 1200 or 1440 monitor prices of today) and people are able to buy pretty high end systems to run it, or they simply arent going to sell except to those 1% of enthusiasts with money, or oil barons with cash to splash.
    Sadly we're in the situation now, and 1080p is still mainstream because the hardware available just isnt fast enough to warrant such a jump from 1080p to 4K to anyone except those with money. They need to work on getting IPS 1200+ monitors cheaper, or their precious 4K technology will fail, and they'll blame consumers for not needing it, when in actual fact, they just pushed it too soon.
    Dont get me wrong, I'd love 4K, for everyone, used in everything. But we're not prepared for it. We cant afford to run it. Not to mention they used 2 PSU's to run 4 titans on the monitor...
    5760 x 1080 = 6,220,800 pixels. 3840 x 2160 = 8,294,400 pixels. Some enthusiasts have been using 5760 x 1080 (3x 1080p Eyefinity/3DVS) for nearly 4 years now; and 5760 x 2160 = 12,441,600 pixels (six-monitor Eyefinity), has existed all that while. So 3840 x 2160 isn't ahead of its time. Anandtech's review runs all its games maxed out (which could include settings such as 8x MSAA), and obviously a GTX 680 will crawl. The fact that it's even doing 20-30 FPS on some games, shows that 3840x2160 is very much doable with today's hardware. You just need to turn down a few settings.
    Posted on Reply
    #25
    tigger
    I'm the only one
    by: btarunr
    5760 x 1080 = 6,220,800 pixels. 3840 x 2160 = 8,294,400 pixels. Some enthusiasts have been using 5760 x 1080 (3x 1080p Eyefinity/3DVS) for nearly 4 years now; and 5760 x 2160 = 12,441,600 pixels (six-monitor Eyefinity), has existed all that while. So 3840 x 2160 isn't ahead of its time. Anandtech's review runs all its games maxed out (which could include settings such as 8x MSAA), and obviously a GTX 680 will crawl. The fact that it's even doing 20-30 FPS on some games, shows that 3840x2160 is very much doable with today's hardware. You just need to turn down a few settings.
    At 3840 x 2160 I'm sure AA is not needed.
    Posted on Reply
    Add your own comment