

ASUS PQ321Q 4k 32" Monitor first look - zdw
http://www.anandtech.com/show/7145/asus-pq321q-first-look

======
Amadou
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/](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.

~~~
nitrogen
_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.

~~~
DiabloD3
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](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uXBu9nxLN78)

~~~
clicks
The video review does not have favourable things to say about it (flickering
issues, lighting issues, etc.). I wonder though if the 39' Seiki 4K TV (going
for $699) contains any sort of upgrade improving on the issues found in the
50' Seiki TV: [http://www.amazon.com/Seiki-Digital-SE39UY04-39-Inch-
Ultra/d...](http://www.amazon.com/Seiki-Digital-SE39UY04-39-Inch-
Ultra/dp/B00DOPGO2G/ref=sr_1_2?s=electronics&ie=UTF8&qid=1373836572&sr=1-2&keywords=seiki+4k)

------
joaomsa
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?

~~~
Stratoscope
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
> 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.

~~~
qwerta
maybe drivers? I had lot of problems with 4 screens and proprietary AMD
drivers. Open source drivers solved all problems.

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

------
jimmcslim
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?

------
superuser2
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.

~~~
jmillikin
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.

~~~
superuser2
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.

~~~
jmillikin

      > Is there a consumer Windows laptop available at Best Buy or similar 
    

You will not find good deals at Best Buy, on any product. Their business is
selling low-value junk at hugely inflated prices, to customers who are
unwilling or unable to purchase via the Internet.

    
    
      > Most of them oppose Macs because they believe they'd
      > be paying extra just for prestige
    

This may have been true ten years ago, but Apple's relentless optimization of
their supply and manufacturing pipelines mean that their hardware is often
less expensive than spec-equivalent competitors[1]. If you want a laptop as
good as a Macbook, you'll be paying a price similar to a Macbook.

If you want a laptop with a decent screen and solid-state disk, there's a hard
price floor imposed by the component manufacturing costs. Your best option if
price is a strong constraint is to keep an eye on the manufacturers' sites for
refurbished devices. See
[http://store.apple.com/us/browse/home/specialdeals/mac](http://store.apple.com/us/browse/home/specialdeals/mac)
or [http://outlet.lenovo.com/](http://outlet.lenovo.com/) as examples.

[1] Excluding accessories such as RAM, which are often marked up by 200-300%
compared to high-quality third party products.

~~~
superuser2
I understand all of this, but the people who ask me for laptop recommendations
don't want to hear it.

Refurbs are a good point that I had forgotten about. Often, though, only
higher-end machines are available (for the same price as a new low-end
machine) and the base-level models don't come down in price much.

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

------
adamnemecek
Time to sell a kidney I guess.

------
sciurus
$3,500. Ouch.

~~~
zanny
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.

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

[http://www.ebay.com/itm/New-QNIX-QX2710-LED-
Evolution-27-256...](http://www.ebay.com/itm/New-QNIX-QX2710-LED-
Evolution-27-2560x1440-WQHD-PLS-Computer-Monitor-
Matte-/121117252582?pt=Computer_Monitors&hash=item1c33269be6)

~~~
uncoder0
I've had two failures out of three of these we ordered. RMA is a huge pain as
well.

~~~
s_baby
A)Your experience isn't typical.

B)You can spend an extra ~$30 for a "pixel perfect" unit.

~~~
DiabloD3
Actually, the pixel perfect units are not any different. Go read:
[http://www.overclock.net/t/1384767/official-the-korean-
pls-m...](http://www.overclock.net/t/1384767/official-the-korean-pls-monitor-
club-qnix-x-star)

~~~
s_baby
They're exactly the same, except the seller turned it on beforehand to check
for defects.

