×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

4K Computer Monitors Are Coming (But Still Pricey)

timothy posted about a year ago | from the if-by-consumer-you-mean-anaestheologist dept.

Displays 286

First time accepted submitter jay age writes "When TV makers started pushing 4K screens on unsuspecting public, that just recently upgraded to 1080p, many had doubted what value will they bring consumers. Fair thought — 1080p is, at screen sizes and viewing distances commonly found in homes, good enough. However, PC users such as me have looked at this development with great hope. TV screens must have something to do with market being littered with monitors having puny 1080p resolution. What if 4K TVs will push PC makers to offer 4K screens too, wouldn't that be great? Well, they are coming. ASUS has just announced one!" You could hook a computer up to one of the available 4K displays, but will generally be paying a lot more for the privilege; this one is "only" about $5,000, according to ExtremeTech.

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

286 comments

But can you play Crysis on it? (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43879109)

The question is... what content will take advantage of this? Most consumable content is at 1080p and I've yet to see a game which can run at these resolutions yet alone the newest Cryengine.

Re:But can you play Crysis on it? (1)

eddy (18759) | about a year ago | (#43879165)

I would assume many games would play well in 4k (at least this fake-4k we're unfortunately talking about here). I think "Metro: Last Light" supports it officially.

Re:But can you play Crysis on it? (0, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43879335)

By "support", what are the texture sizes like?

If I play a DVD on 4k it's going to look terrible because the source data is awful. I'm guessing that if my source textures are small then I'm going to experience the same sort of issues?

Re:But can you play Crysis on it? (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43879411)

People routinely play on 3-4 monitor setups and I've never heard anyone complain about texture quality on a proper PC game. A shitty console port? Those doesn't even look good at 1080p. Besides, there are too many variables to even answer you question. If you want to know about M:LL specifically I guess you have to buy the game and look at the resource files if you really want to know, or maybe you could just settle to look at one of the many many 4K screenshots that is out there.

Re:But can you play Crysis on it? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43879523)

The problem is that 'glitz' doesn't quite pan on a high res screen. Take the Unreal engine for example - you can play Unreal Tournament 3 today and the lighting effects and such aren't too departed from 2013 games but the textures look like cack and it's very noticeable. Another example is Skyrim - with the 2-4k resolution enhancements the game looks fantastic on 1080p monitors but I cannot imagine how awful the stock game would look on a 4k screen.

Re:But can you play Crysis on it? (3, Insightful)

Dr Max (1696200) | about a year ago | (#43879651)

Most games support higher resolutions (especially crysis) so that people can run multiple monitors side by side (of course you need very decent graphics to keep up with that many pixels). The problem for this monitor wont be resolution it'll be refresh rate; 8ms is more than enough for watching video but it doesn't feel quite natural when you have control of the camera.

Re:But can you play Crysis on it? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43879787)

Metro: last light sucks...

It's a fucking movie... Call it a movie.. lump it into that catagory. it's not a game.

Straight up on rails (sometimes literally) movie.

Re:But can you play Crysis on it? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43879193)

Are you suggesting that 1080p ought to be enough for anybody?

Re:But can you play Crysis on it? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43879323)

No but current graphical hardware struggles with antialiasing at 1080p and it's still a requirement to smooth pixels even at high res if you want 'great' visuals.

Re:But can you play Crysis on it? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43879445)

The thing about having a higher resolution, is that with a good renderer, anti-aliasing isn't needed. It is useful for lower resolution to emulating having a smoother image. 4k I'd image (even 2k) wouldn't need AA aside from maybe some nut jobs.

Now, I don't think my vision is poor in any regard sitting maybe at most 2 feet from a 1920x1080 monitor, but I'm not sure if I could even tell a difference without leaning in closely and trying to find the pixels if I went to a higher resolution. Ghosting, response times, contrast, and durability (back lights fading) are more important to me. A 4k projector would be nice though. Spread those pixels out.

Re:But can you play Crysis on it? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43879499)

Where did you get this idea? AA isn't that expensive, unless you're doing super-sampling. Besides, the need for AA goes down as resolution goes up. I know there are some 'visuaphiles' out there who spend more time looking for and complaining about jaggies than playing the game, but I think we can ignore the nut-case market with pretty good concience.

Re:But can you play Crysis on it? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43879609)

Pop LOTRO on a 1080p screen and tell me you can't see the jaggies.

Re:But can you play Crysis on it? (1)

Solapse (925467) | about a year ago | (#43879657)

True, but it's not that bad with AA - it's only noticeable with static images like with the logon screen.

Re:But can you play Crysis on it? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43879675)

your hardware sucks really badly. I've got hardware that's now 3 generations old, wasn't top of the line when I bought it (GTX 470), and it still plays most things I throw at it in 1920x1200 with 4x antialiasing, 16 ansiotropic filtering, and high settings, at playable frame rates.

if you're buying a titan or a gtx 690, you're buying them to game on 3 monitors.

Re:But can you play Crysis on it? (1)

Solapse (925467) | about a year ago | (#43879749)

Have you seen the GPU load playing badly optimised games like Planetside 2 on single monitor? You might be able to find games that a 7970 etc will be fine with multi-screen but the majority of developers are still in 2007 in terms of multi-screen.

Re:But can you play Crysis on it? (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43879263)

The question is... what content will take advantage of this?.

Video? Content? None will take advantage of it. Text. Text is the #1 driver of high density displays. Smooth text is pleasing to the eye. Developers will buy this and photo-editors.

Re:But can you play Crysis on it? (1)

Nyder (754090) | about a year ago | (#43879271)

The question is... what content will take advantage of this? Most consumable content is at 1080p and I've yet to see a game which can run at these resolutions yet alone the newest Cryengine.

Well, as currently (granted the Next Gen of consoles is around the corner) all the games on the market are made for the Xbox 360 & PS3, and then ported to the PC, and those games are barely 720p on the consoles, I wouldn't want to see any of those games on a 4k monitor.

Maybe if the next gen games are made at a resolution of 1080p, then yes, they probably be nice on the new 4k monitors. Of course, we don't have any of those next gen games out, so we really do NOT know if the new consoles can even push out 1080p resolution games.

Re:But can you play Crysis on it? (1)

atriusofbricia (686672) | about a year ago | (#43879511)

Well, as currently (granted the Next Gen of consoles is around the corner) all the games on the market are made for the Xbox 360 & PS3, and then ported to the PC...

This right here is one of the saddest things of the last 15 years or so. How much has gaming been held back and stunted by this one fact. :(

Re:But can you play Crysis on it? (4, Informative)

JDG1980 (2438906) | about a year ago | (#43879333)

The question is... what content will take advantage of this?

Anyone who edits (or views) photos should appreciate the higher resolution. Even a cheap modern digital camera can usually take a picture with a resolution about as high as this monitor.

But the biggest advantage is in smooth text (and vector UI elements where available). You aren't supposed to run this at standard DPI and squint at tiny boxes; you're supposed to run it at 200% scaling and get far smoother text than usual, since it gets 4x the number of pixels at the same point size.

Re:But can you play Crysis on it? (3, Interesting)

Sir_Sri (199544) | about a year ago | (#43879337)

Um...

You realize there are lots of multi monitor setups that support 3, 4, or 6 or even more 1080p displays right?

If you are trying to power 6 displays in the new Tomb Raider or Crysis 3 with a single GTX 680 you're going to have a rough time no doubt. But you can certainly build a Titan SLI configuration or AMD 7990's in crossfire setups. It is not cheap by any means. But it's certainly possible.

I would expect to see the PC space start to adopt 'retina' displays or 4K or something else as we go forward. 4k in TV's is only for really big displays or ones viewed up close, and they're astronomically expensive. If you're spending 5k on a monitor and then complaining that your 500 dollar GPU isn't fast enough you should probably have thought of that expense first, or you shouldn't care about the money.

I saw a (1080p) 120Hz 60 inch TV for 800 bucks this week. New. I'm sure there are better deals in the US. We're not too many years away from an 80 inch or bigger TV being in the 1000 dollar range, and for that 4k is worth it.

Now yes, the PS4 and XB3 trying to do 4K might be... troublesome. We'll have to see exactly the specs on the GPU and then there's a tradeoff between lower quality at higher resolution or higher resolution and lower quality.

huh? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43879399)

games have been running at 1080p for a long time now, thank god no one modded you up.

Re:But can you play Crysis on it? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43879643)

Following that line of thinking, we'd never get electricity. Who has the appliances to take advantage of electricity? My water well works just fine.

Re:But can you play Crysis on it? (2)

gman003 (1693318) | about a year ago | (#43879751)

Yes, but with difficulty. Rendering generally scales linearly with the number of pixels, so rendering at 3840x2160 takes four times as much processing power as rendering at 1920x1080.

Games rarely have to specifically support a resolution. Most will query the system to see what resolutions are possible - they may have to upscale UI elements that are normally 1:1 or downscaled, and they may only support certain aspect ratios, but they rarely "break". Even games that use hardcoded resolution lists tend to work if you edit a config file - I did so to get UT2004 rendering at 2560x1440.

The problem, of course, is getting that power. Top-tier video cards tend to be tested at 5760x1080 (triple 1080p) or at 2560x1440, and they rarely break 60fps at high settings. My comparatively-puny Radeon 6870 struggles at 1440p, requiring me to drop Crysis down to medium settings. I can still max out undemanding games (UT3, BF2) but recent titles (or Crysis games), no.

PS: What the hell are you talking about, games not running at 1080p? In the time since I got a 1080p monitor, I have found only one game that cannot play at that resolution (Star Wars: Republic Commando), and that's because it only runs in 4:3. Everything else runs fine. Are you perhaps saying that you cannot find *console* games that can run at 1080p?

Re:But can you play Crysis on it? (1)

Solapse (925467) | about a year ago | (#43879887)

I think this was the OP point - we don't have the graphical hardware to display the content. I'm sure conventional means have the bandwidth - HDMI 2.0 has 14.4 Gbit throughput for the video but the authors of the content don't provide the content in the right format. So the next best thing is that which is extensible i.e. Games and such. At the moment, you may be able to provide the resolution but the actual content is not scaled to be so. We're talking about Duke Nukem 32 on 1080p monitors - it seriously does not look good without the crazy modpack the community has provided. A fine example of bad resolution textures is Deus Ex 3 - a very decent linear game but terrible textures when upscaled to 1080p. I can't imagine what this would look like on 4K

ajax.googleapis.com (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43879153)

FFS, why do I need to enable ajax.googleapis.com in NoScript just to view Asus's website?

I'm sick of creepy Google gathering info on me.
Then, when I later email someone with a Gmail mailbox, Google will link my IP address (contained in the email's header) with my unique email address and add that intel to their already overflowing collection of 'big data'.

You know what? Stuff it, I won't enable it. Asus just lost me as a website visitor.

Re:ajax.googleapis.com (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43879185)

Google operates a javascript CDN that many sites use. It doesn't use cookies, and means you don't have to load common libraries like jquery from every website individually.

Re:ajax.googleapis.com (1)

cheater512 (783349) | about a year ago | (#43879201)

ajax.googleapis.com isn't a tracking domain and your IP shouldn't be in any emails you send unless you run your own mail server.

Next?

Re:ajax.googleapis.com (2)

forkazoo (138186) | about a year ago | (#43879261)

ajax.googleapis.com isn't a tracking domain and your IP shouldn't be in any emails you send unless you run your own mail server.

Erm, that seems like a bit of a failure of imagination. Why wouldn't that be a "tracking domain?" Do you have some specific proof that it's somehow impossible for Google to use normal logging functionality on the web server for that domain? And that this will be true forever? Obviously, the idea that any particular domain can't be used for tracking is just silly. So, if google knows you visited the manufacturer's website, why couldn't they use that for ad tailoring when you log into gmail to send an email? Or anywhere else that you get a Google served ad, for that matter...

I'm not amazingly paranoid about this stuff, but to seriously dismiss the possibility of doing these things is just silly.

Re:ajax.googleapis.com (1)

hotrodent (1017236) | about a year ago | (#43879353)

I had ajax.googleapis.com still blocked and the site loaded fine. Just had to allow asus.com. Seems AC didn't check properly.

Re:ajax.googleapis.com (2)

cheater512 (783349) | about a year ago | (#43879387)

The googleapis.com domain exists purely to be a cookie free domain. Helps with caching.
Its a pretty common technique for static content.

Without cookies, they have a IP and the website that loaded the script. Hardly useful for advertising and it cannot be tied to your personalised advertising profile.

Re:ajax.googleapis.com (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43879561)

IP address + user agent string is often sufficient to uniquely-enough track people.

Of course Google the advertising company offers all these free services out of the the good of their hearts and not because they're tracking your internet browsing behavior.

Re:ajax.googleapis.com (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43879273)

Thus speaks a man who's only ever used webmail...

Re:ajax.googleapis.com (1)

cheater512 (783349) | about a year ago | (#43879453)

Nope. I've used webmail, commercial email solutions and ISP email.

The latter two *should* always say the username you authenticated with the SMTP server with, not your IP.
I just did a test to demonstrate this. If your email provider doesn't do this then it might be an idea to use one who knows what they are doing.

Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1])
        by smtp29.relay.dfw1a.emailsrvr.com (SMTP Server) with ESMTP id 02066398EA5
        for ; Fri, 31 May 2013 19:49:02 -0400 (EDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: OK
Received: by smtp29.relay.dfw1a.emailsrvr.com (Authenticated sender: sending-AT-email.address) with ESMTPSA id F384B398E99
        for ; Fri, 31 May 2013 19:49:00 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID:

As you can see, Rackspace's email server is the first received header and it only says 'Authenticated sender: sending-AT-email.address' which is my email address. My IP isn't there at all.

Weak! (3, Informative)

tysonedwards (969693) | about a year ago | (#43879183)

$5000 for a 31.5" monitor with a 3840x2160 resolution?
$800 gets a 30" monitor with a 2560x1600 resolution.
$1400 gets a 50" TV with a 3840x2160 resolution.
$2200 gets a 15" laptop with a 2880x1800 resolution.

Sure, none of these are directly comparable, but at the same time it's disappointing to see Asus at such an extreme price point.

Re:Weak! (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43879421)

"Is it a 16:10 display?"
"It's a beautiful HD display! Look at how HD it is! It's so HD, it's MORE HD than what we call HD today!!!"
"But is it 16:10?
"Friend, this is the H-est of Ds ever known to home entertainment science! So much H! So much D! It's HD to the MORE!"
"Is. It. A. 16:10. Display. Answer that. Now."
"...No."
"Then it's CRAAAAAAAAAAP!"

Re:Weak! (1)

sd4f (1891894) | about a year ago | (#43879727)

Yep, although my monitor is 1920x1200, it's going to take a while for me to move along from that, unless there is a 3840x2400.

Re:Weak! (1)

rthille (8526) | about a year ago | (#43879893)

Two monitors, one 16x9 and one 9x16 is what most people at my work use. I'm pretty happy with the 1920x1080 laptop next to the 2560x1440, but yeah another 160 pixels vertically would be nicer.

Re:Weak! (5, Informative)

Tagged_84 (1144281) | about a year ago | (#43879881)

It's Extreme Tech and they admit to making up the price in the article. That site is extremely opinionated and I wouldn't trust it with my bookmarks!

almost 4K (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43879221)

"almost 4K" is pretty bad marketing fail. it's starting out with an obvious inaccurate oversell of an otherwise interesting product, which would have been compelling without the MiB vs. MB vs 10^x type lie.

Re:almost 4K (2)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about a year ago | (#43879463)

It would be 2K if we kept using the vertical resolution that we have used since the beginning of TV. This move to horizontal resolution is pure marketing hype, and it sucks

4k Computer (5, Funny)

John Marter (3227) | about a year ago | (#43879225)

The monitor for my 4k computer (a TRS-80 Color Computer) was just an ordinary television.

Re:4k Computer (1)

MrBandersnatch (544818) | about a year ago | (#43879367)

The monitor for my 4GB media PC is just an ordinary (plasma) television but if VDUs had kept pace with computing power advancements we would be looking at 655360000p screens....

Of course it'll be tainted... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43879235)

with an anti-glare coating.

50" 4k costs 1/4 the price of the 32" (3, Interesting)

MSRedfox (1043112) | about a year ago | (#43879281)

Why spend $5,000 for a 32" when you can get a 50" 4k for under $1,500. http://www.tigerdirect.com/applications/SearchTools/item-details.asp?EdpNo=7674736 [tigerdirect.com] (groupon and a few other places have had it down to around $1,100 over the past few months) I know, some people probably find the 50" way too big. But it seems a bit silly that 32" is so more expensive.

Re:50" 4k costs 1/4 the price of the 32" (3, Insightful)

DragonWriter (970822) | about a year ago | (#43879339)

Why spend $5,000 for a 32" when you can get a 50" 4k for under $1,500.

Well, presumably, because your use case isn't appropriate for a 50" display.

Re:50" 4k costs 1/4 the price of the 32" (2)

MSRedfox (1043112) | about a year ago | (#43879415)

For some people it isn't. For me, I'd have no issue replacing my triple monitor eyefinity setup with a single 4k 50". It'd be about the same real estate side to side. And for photo editing and video work, it'd would be quite nice. But I'm probably just in a small niche of people that would find it useful.

Re:50" 4k costs 1/4 the price of the 32" (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43879437)

Why spend $5,000 for a 32" when you can get a 50" 4k for under $1,500.

Well, presumably, because your use case isn't appropriate for a 50" display.

Just sit further back then. If you're constrained by space, then it's probably because you're in an office environment, meaning they're targeting the enterprise with this size and price-point.

For home users, the 50" screen at a lower price-point makes way more sense.

Re:50" 4k costs 1/4 the price of the 32" (1)

DragonWriter (970822) | about a year ago | (#43879583)

If you're constrained by space, then it's probably because you're in an office environment, meaning they're targeting the enterprise with this size and price-point.

I don't see this, except taking "office" in the broadest possible sense; I mean I could just see moving from a 24" to a 32" monitor for the desktop in the extra bedroom that serves as my home office/library/miscellaneous storage room, but a 50" display would be enormous.

For home users, the 50" screen at a lower price-point makes way more sense.

For living room- (equivalently, conference room-) style use, I'd say 50" is better. For desktop-style use, 32" is better. Both styles are found both in "office" settings and "home" settings.

Re:50" 4k costs 1/4 the price of the 32" (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43879645)

Why spend $5,000 for a 32" when you can get a 50" 4k for under $1,500.

Well, presumably, because your use case isn't appropriate for a 50" display.

People said the same about 24" screens, and then again at 30".

A productive user such as someone working with photos, video and programming, can use as many pixels as a screen can cope with. Cunts like you that do nothing more than FB, twitter and reddit shite, obviously don't need more than a phone.

Re:50" 4k costs 1/4 the price of the 32" (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43879347)

Bad review by Consumer Report
http://consumerist.com/2013/05/29/consumer-reports-1500-ultra-hd-tv-is-just-a-mediocre-lcd-tv/

Re:50" 4k costs 1/4 the price of the 32" (2)

FrankSchwab (675585) | about a year ago | (#43879467)

Bad review because of a lack of "wifi, Internet connectivity, and 3D", and poor quality upconversion from 1080 content.

None of which applies to one used as a computer monitor. They did mention motion blur, so it might not be appropriate for the latest FPS games.

Re:50" 4k costs 1/4 the price of the 32" (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43879635)

Poor color accuracy and narrow viewing angle is a problem. Just like cameras, more pixels doesn't necessarily translate to better quality.

Re:50" 4k costs 1/4 the price of the 32" (1)

Nemyst (1383049) | about a year ago | (#43879689)

That TV has only HDMI, which limits full resolution to 30Hz. Sorry, that's an instant pass for me.

Re:50" 4k costs 1/4 the price of the 32" (2)

jtownatpunk.net (245670) | about a year ago | (#43879691)

Who wants to stare at 30Hz on their computer all day? Is this 1992? That's the last time I saw an interlaced display on a computer. That's the best you'll be able to do at 3840x2160 on the HDMI connection on that 50" Seiki. There's currently no way to run them at 60Hz using the available connections on the computer and display. At best, they'll get Nvidia and AMD to support using dual connections to treat the single monitor as dual monitors with no bezel correction.

Check the bandwidth of various video connections and you'll find that this is a hurdle that will need to be overcome before these monitors make significant inroads onto desktops. We need HDMI 2.0 and/or DisplayPort 2.0 to drive these things properly.

Re:50" 4k costs 1/4 the price of the 32" (2)

Jah-Wren Ryel (80510) | about a year ago | (#43879941)

> Who wants to stare at 30Hz on their computer all day? Is this 1992? That's the last time I saw an interlaced display on a computer.

30Hz is perfectly acceptable on a computer display - especially if you are staring at it all day. If you want to play video games, that is another issue, but for work like photo editing or software development or spread-sheets, word proceessing, email, or even just web browsing, 30hz is plenty. You won't even notice the difference.

I speak from experience, I used to have one of those Viewsonic 3840x2400 22" monitors. [amazon.com] The model I had could do about 32Hz at most and as long as I wasn't playing a video game, you'd never know the refresh rate was so low.

Re:50" 4k costs 1/4 the price of the 32" (1)

Z34107 (925136) | about a year ago | (#43879829)

With computer monitors, you're generally paying a premium for better input latencies, refresh rates, color reproduction, and ghosting. $5,000 is still on the high side, but I'd be extremely wary about replacing my monitor with a television, sight unseen.

Why? (1)

Sable Drakon (831800) | about a year ago | (#43879301)

What's the point of this? We won't have an effective way to properly drive these displays at a meaningful refresh rate. Yes, the graphics cards can support both levels of 4K. But HDMI has an upper limit of 44FPS and a realistic framerate of 30. Shouldn't we wait until we've got an interconnect that'll support 4K's bandwidth requirements at 60FPS at the very least?

Re:Why? (2)

JDG1980 (2438906) | about a year ago | (#43879377)

DisplayPort 1.2 can already do 4K @ 60 Hz. What's so special about HDMI?

Re:Why? (1)

Sable Drakon (831800) | about a year ago | (#43879479)

The fact that nowhere near enough devices or displays even support DisplayPort. Increase DP's adoption rate and the problem goes away, until then, it's a pretty big stumbling block against 4K for both PC users and home theater.

Re:Why? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43879593)

A 4k monitor will have a display port, as will any graphics card capable or driving it. So this is a non issue.

Re:Why? (1)

Sable Drakon (831800) | about a year ago | (#43879715)

Actually, it is an issue. I don't see DisplayPort on a GTX560 or HD6770 nor a lot of other recent graphics cards that can drive such resolution. So yeah, it's still an issue.

Re:Why? (1)

AHuxley (892839) | about a year ago | (#43879705)

Try a newegg search for 'DisplayPort' under the gpu and lcd sections. You will find many 10's++ of options, brands over many prices.
A ~100 seems a good count over 2013 stock.

Re:Why? (1)

DragonWriter (970822) | about a year ago | (#43879381)

What's the point of this? We won't have an effective way to properly drive these displays at a meaningful refresh rate.

Not every use case is gaming. There are plenty of uses where more resolution would be worth trading off refresh rate. Obviously, if you can have both together, that's better, but refresh rate isn't always the key feature.

Re: Why? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43879461)

Thunderbolt?

Re: Why? (1)

Sable Drakon (831800) | about a year ago | (#43879579)

I don't often respond to ACs, but this deserves an response. Thunderbolt suffers from the same problem as DisplayPort, only moreso. TB is a new standard, really really really new. Like DisplayPort, there aren't anywhere near enough devices that support it or offer it outside of the turtleneck kool-aid club (Apple). So again, once it has halfway decent adoption, we can consider it a solution since it carries DisplayPort as part of it's spec.

Re:Why? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43879565)

HDMI is obsolete. Has been obsolete for some time already.

Re:Why? (1)

Sable Drakon (831800) | about a year ago | (#43879641)

Obsolete, yes. But try telling that to the millions of people with HDMI capable hardware that'd have to upgrade to DisplayPort. Increase DisplayPort adoption before marking something to the masses as obsolete and give them a reason to upgrade their hardware.

Re:Why? (1)

ceoyoyo (59147) | about a year ago | (#43879885)

If you're buying a $5000 4k monitor, upgrading your video card to something that has a decent interconnect isn't going to bother you too much. Your point seems to be along the lines of "4k monitors are impractical because my POS video with HDMI out can't drive one!" So what? 4k monitors are obviously in early adopter territory currently, but display port and thunderbolt are already widely deployed, just on a platform you have some kind of emotional dislike of. You can buy Wintels with display port as well, of course. And if 4k catches on even your econobox will have one.

Re:Why? (1)

Sable Drakon (831800) | about a year ago | (#43879929)

No, DisplayPort and Thunderbolt aren't widely deployed. That's the problem. Sure, they're on most if not all Apple hardware. But DisplayPort and Thunderbolt aren't in common deployment on PCs or even in home theater setups. So great job for your assumptions.

Re:Why? (1, Interesting)

wiredlogic (135348) | about a year ago | (#43879629)

There is nothing wrong with plain old VGA. It could easily handle these resolutions on CRTs. It can do the same on today's flat panels.

Re:Why? (1)

blackraven14250 (902843) | about a year ago | (#43879735)

Yes, there is something wrong with plain old VGA. It looks terrible on LCDs compared to any of the digital connections - the quality degradation is unbearable to anyone who can see it, and it's really easy to see.

Re:Why? (1)

Sable Drakon (831800) | about a year ago | (#43879741)

No it can't. Not with the same clarity, color depth, and sound along for the ride. VGA being used on displays higher than a 1280*720 flat panel start looking muddier and muddier, lose color definition, and VGA doesn't carry audio.

About damn time! (1)

anthony_greer (2623521) | about a year ago | (#43879309)

It is sickening that an ipad can have a better resolution than a 27 inch display that costs about the same price - that is all.

Article is misleading and incomplete (2)

JDG1980 (2438906) | about a year ago | (#43879317)

First of all, the alleged price of $5000 is pure speculation. None of the other sources reporting on the Asus 4K monitor have mentioned it, and the Extreme Tech article describes the price as "our guess".

Secondly, the article is flat-out wrong when it says that Sharp's 4K monitor "doesnâ(TM)t seem to have been released" so far. In fact, the PN-K321 has been released and you can buy one on Amazon [amazon.com] for $4900. A few other online retailers have it, too, for slightly lower prices. There is one weird caveat; you currently need an AMD card for it to work properly, because it uses DisplayPort 1.2 with MST and basically shows up to the OS as two 1920x2160 monitors. You have to use Eyefinity to get the OS to treat it as one large screen. This Youtube video [youtube.com] (not mine - I only wish I could afford this thing!) shows how it's done.

The Sharp monitor isn't even the cheapest 4K device currently on the market. That distinction belongs to a 50 inch Seiki Digital TV [amazon.com] which costs $1,399.99 on Amazon. But this device can only take a 30 Hz input, due to the limitations of the HDMI protocol. I've also heard some criticisms of the panel quality.

What I and many others are hoping is that the Asus 4K monitor can lower the price point on this technology. If it sells for the same $5000 as the Sharp monitor, it's a non-event since it does nothing to advance the state of the art. But if they can get it down to $2500 or lower, then we'll start to see it show up in "extreme" gaming rigs and some professional workspaces, and maybe in a year or two they will be affordable for mainstream power users.

1080? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43879319)

How many computer monitors on the market have a 1080p resolution? Mine has a lot more and it's no $5000.

Re:1080? (1)

AAWood (918613) | about a year ago | (#43879497)

Are you kidding me? The market's flooded with 1080p monitors, and the price almost doubles the moment you go over 1920 x 1200. So come on, details; what monitor have you got, and how much did it cost you?

Meh (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43879349)

I don't want a pc monitor that big...

27-29 inch is perfect for all the desks i've worked at.

I'd rather have 2x or 3x of those instead of a '4k' one.

Not to mention the price for now.

Aspect Ratio (5, Insightful)

scarboni888 (1122993) | about a year ago | (#43879423)

On my computer monitor I need more height!! Please bring back 16:10 for computer monitors! 16:9 is for tv's only.

Re:Aspect Ratio (1)

wiredlogic (135348) | about a year ago | (#43879667)

Just treat it as two 8:9 screens. With a larger display, the usability of each half increases tremendously.

2160 (1)

dlowder (522948) | about a year ago | (#43879441)

I use 1900x1200 because it lets me see a few more lines of code over 1900x1080. So, going to 2160 sounds great. Most of my coworkers have dual screens. The question is, how long will it take for the price to be competitive with two 1900x1080 screens?

Re:2160 (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43879581)

I hate coders like you: split your code into meaningful sections that don't spread across more than a couple of screens, I think they are called functions or procedures or something. Yes I know Java and dotnet are prolix but even they can do this.

I'm sitting 24" away from my 24" monitor... (4, Insightful)

Gordo_1 (256312) | about a year ago | (#43879505)

And my eyes can barely make out the width of a pixel as it is. What is it going to do for me if you increase pixel density such that pixel are now a quarter the size they are now? Give us 40" or more, and it might start to get interesting, but then you're constantly bending your neck to read what's on different parts of the screen.

Re:I'm sitting 24" away from my 24" monitor... (1)

the eric conspiracy (20178) | about a year ago | (#43879823)

I recently purchased a Dell 30" screen with 2560x1600 resolution. It's really nice with IPS and the ability to display 12 bit color with the right software and graphics card.

I think the pixel density for text is about as high as I would want on a screen. For a 4K screen I'd want at least 40".

Re:I'm sitting 24" away from my 24" monitor... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43879911)

I did the math on this a couple of months ago. The cheap 50" TV is about the right size, maybe a little smaller would be better. A 48" 3840 x 2160 would be about 95 PPI, which is close to the 94 PPI of the 24" 1920 x 1200 that I'm using now. The mainstream operating systems don't have ubiquitous vector scaled graphics yet, so those ultra-high PPI monitors are of little interest to me. I have trouble reading stuff on those kinds of screens, even if I squint real hard.

Re:I'm sitting 24" away from my 24" monitor... (0)

caseih (160668) | about a year ago | (#43879865)

I should think it is obvious. You're getting more dpi so that letters and graphics will be crisp and clear. The difference is clear if you place an el cheapo android phone next to a nice high res amoled phone.

Contrast (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43879521)

Enough pixels, just give me more contrast.

the article is drivel (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43879525)

The author of the article obviously didn't even give a cursory glance at what is actually available in the marketplace.

27" 1920x1080 are cheap and commonplace around GBP220
2560x1080 or 2560x1440 are becoming commonplace at around GBP400-550

And at top consumer level 2560x1600 there is the Dell U3013 30" at GBP1000 and the OcUK. The Dell unit has been around for perhaps 5 years and is excellent but it makes my 2nd screen of 1920x1080 look teensy. Most people who see this monitor are awed by its resolution but horrified by its size. You need a decent gfx card to put 3D games up with medium to high settings.
I think what makes me laugh the most is that some people still want to fullscreen webpages on it. How wide do monitors have to get before people stop fullscreening text?

Fir5t (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43879553)

out how to ma4e the *BSD but FreeBSD TURNED OVER TO YEmT

Pixels and the real world (1)

BenJeremy (181303) | about a year ago | (#43879669)

Well, these make great monitors.. somebody has already mentioned the 50" sub-$1500 TV.

I would rather make the case that 4k, while great for PC monitors, are not compelling as consumer TVs. I realize there are charts that demonstrate, scientifically, that 4K is visibly better in a living room, with a large screen, over 1080p, but I don't buy it, at least not for motion video (games and shows). We are reaching the pivot point towards vastly diminishing returns.

I do that by dropping these pictures fro reference:

Pixel Fallacy example 1 [imgur.com]

Pixel Fallacy 2 [imgur.com]

The pictures explain as well as anything. I'd love the real estate for computer work, but games and video, not so much (at least, not to replace my 58" 1080p plasma)

Color gamut! (0)

femtobyte (710429) | about a year ago | (#43879731)

I'm much more excited by the vastly expanded color gamut of Rec. 2020 UHDTV standard that (should) come along with 4k displays. The extra pixels are nice, but having the Rec. 2020 color primaries will be a huge step forward.

Retnia design (1)

EmperorOfCanada (1332175) | about a year ago | (#43879773)

I would love one for doing retina destined design. Presently if I don't scale the iPad simulator on my screen it is 8 feet high. Doesn't quite give me the right sense of proportion. I suspect that more and more mobile devices are going to go with higher density displays and thus it would be nice to get into at least the same density ballpark on my desktop. The sad part is that most if not all of these monitors will be really BIG. Personally for development I don't like going much over 22" per monitor. I'd just like 4K crammed into that 22".
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...