Laptops aren’t the only devices getting crazy high-resolution displays this year. Asus has just unveiled a new desktop monitor with a 4K display.

The Asus PQ321 is a 31.5 inch monitor that has just as many pixels as 4 different 1080p screens out together.

pq321

In other words, if your computer’s video card can handle it, you could theoretically plug in the Asus PQ321 and watch four 1920 x 1080 pixel movies at the same time.

The screen has a 3840 x 2160 pixel display IGZO display which makes it easier to pack a lot of pixels tightly together — although to be honest, there are plenty of phones, tablets and laptops with higher pixel density. The Asus PQ321 features just 140 pixels per inch — but since the monitor will likely be further away from your eyes than a smartphone or tablet screen, you’d probably be hard pressed to tell the difference in sharpness.

Asus says the LED-backlit display has 176-degree viewing angles, features built-in 2W stereo speakers, two HDMI inputs, and DisplayPort.

Unfortunately one thing Asus hasn’t said is how much this display will cost. My guess is: a lot.

via SlashGear

Support Liliputing

Liliputing's primary sources of revenue are advertising and affiliate links (if you click the "Shop" button at the top of the page and buy something on Amazon, for example, we'll get a small commission).

But there are several ways you can support the site directly even if you're using an ad blocker* and hate online shopping.

Contribute to our Patreon campaign

or...

Contribute via PayPal

* If you are using an ad blocker like uBlock Origin and seeing a pop-up message at the bottom of the screen, we have a guide that may help you disable it.

13 replies on “Asus PQ321 monitor features a 3840 x 2160 pixel IGZO display”

  1. Stop saying you cannot see the difference. You can. I can and I wear glasses. We need to get all monitors past 200 ppi

  2. This is great news, it means that soon there will be plenty of these monitors with high resolution, cant wait to get one, it will take some while tho, they are most likely to be priced at premium levels and all this crap only due to marketing, not manufacturing costs, meh!

  3. Can someone explain where the hell they came up with a 4x pixel density over 1920×1080? It’s only 2x.

      1. Whoops. Friday beer getting into my brain. Carry on, ignore me please, everyone!

  4. Progress is good. Before long, this 4K resolution will be the “HD” standard just as 1920 x 1080 is now. (720p isn’t really HD in my opinion)

    1. And how long has 2560×1600 resolution been around? Is it standard yet?

      Let’s not kid ourselves, the screen industry advances at a snail pace compared to the rest of the electronics world.

      Besides, we would need 4K content to make use of it anyway and we’re a long way from developing that as well!

      Right now these extremely high resolution screens are mainly for bragging rights… Though put into tablets they could be of some use…

      While for large screens, they’re still too expensive…

      1. First off, I don’t disagree about the snails pace of advances in display technology, though things seem to finally be making strides. Hence my “progress is good” comment.

        Difference is 2560X1600 is “just another” resolution mode. Whereas, 3840×2160 is exactly double 1920X1080, which is already a “standard” called “Full HD”, and 3840×2160 is becoming a standard called “Ultra HD” or “4K”. 2560×1600 doesn’t have a “market friendly” nickname.

        As for content, why can’t all existing 1920X1080 content (images, fonts, etc) simply be rendered at double the resolution?

        Regardless, as long as Adobe can take full advantage for displaying PDF files, I already have at least one use for this.

        1. Standards mean nothing if no one is using them and marketing is just marketing until it gets results!

          Like I said, there isn’t even much of any content available in 4k and until that changes there won’t be any real push for 4K resolution!

          And scaling doesn’t count! They tried that when HD first got introduced… didn’t help then and it won’t help now because scaling isn’t true quality and that defeats the purpose of having a higher resolution!

          Besides, these aren’t exact ranges… don’t forget there is still debate on which aspect ratio to push going forward.

          Some full HD screens are 1920×1200 for example for closer to 16:10 ratio than 16:9…

          Similarly, 4K has some leeway on it’s ratio pixel count as well!

          While the human eye has finite perception, 4K on small screens are total overkill and big screens are still too expensive.

          They will also have to go mainstream for TV’s first to get costs down and 84″ TV’s are a long way from becoming common!

          Then there’s graphical performance, running a game for example… the resource load can go up almost geometrically the higher the resolution you go and even high end discrete graphic cards can have difficulty running a high end game at 4K right now.

          Remember that 4K also means 4 times the number of pixels the system would have to handle!

          So the industry also needs to really improve performance they can offer before they can fully embrace 4K… Never mind the standard also pushes for 8K for the new HD vs full HD range…

          1. Agreed. GPU performance needs to keep pace. And yes, scaling is bogus. I used the term “rendering” which hopefully is the correct term for true utilization of the available resolution.

            I have perhaps a slightly less negative view of the advent of much greater screen resolution because I’m hoping it finally puts an end to the need for anti-aliasing (AKA font smoothing) technology in which (disastrous) attempts are made to simulate higher resolution than actually exists.

  5. So I could watch an entire 13-episode season in three hours. That’s awesome.

Comments are closed.