Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

ASUS PQ321Q Monitor Brings Multi-Stream Tiled Displays Forward

Posted by timothy on from the eyestrain-be-gone dept.

Vigile writes "While 4K displays have been popping up all over the place recently with noticeably lower prices, one thing that kind of limits them all is a 30 Hz refresh rate panel. Sony is selling 4K consumer HDTVs for $5000 and new-comer SEIKI has a 50-in model going for under $1000 but they all share that trait — HDMI 1.4 supporting 3840x2160 at 30 Hz. The new ASUS PQ321Q monitor is a 31.5-in 4K display built on the same platform as the Sharp PN-K321 and utilizes a DisplayPort 1.2 connection capable of MST (multi-stream transport). This allows the screen to include two display heads internally, showing up as two independent monitors to some PCs that can then be merged into a single panel via AMD Eyefinity or NVIDIA Surround. Thus, with dual 1920x2160 60 Hz signals, the PQ321Q can offer 3840x2160 at 60 Hz for a much better viewing experience. PC Perspective got one of the monitors in for testing and review and found that the while there were some hurdles during initial setup (especially with NVIDIA hardware), the advantage of a higher refresh rate made the 4K resolution that much better."

15 of 94 comments (clear)

  1. Re:so how much is this sharp one? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    Newegg price for the ASUS monitor seems to be USD $3.5k

    For the Sharp, it seems to be USD $5.3k

  2. 39" 4K monitor - $700 by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 3, Informative

    FYI, Seiki also has a 39" version of their 4K monitor/tv for only $700 MSRP. It is limited to 30Hz at 4K but will do faster at lower resolutions. You might even be able to convince it to do passive 3D, I haven't paid close attention to the people hacking at that on the 50" version.

    http://www.amazon.com/dp/B00DOPGO2G/

    --
    When information is power, privacy is freedom.
    1. Re:39" 4K monitor - $700 by dfghjk · · Score: 3, Interesting

      If it is anything like their 50", which I'm sure it is, the 30Hz limitation will be the least of its awful problems. It may be passable as a TV but not as a monitor.

      Of course, many people's standards are low and they wouldn't know better anyway. If you think DSLRs exhibit grain, it's the product for you. You won't notice the horrific color problems anyway.

      At least the screen size is right. I don't get the 30" screen size for this resolution. 50" is too big for a desktop.

  3. Unusable aspect ratio by KiloByte · · Score: 2, Insightful

    16x9... pass.

    --
    The creatures outside looked from Alt-Right to Antifa; but already it was impossible to say which was which.
    1. Re:Unusable aspect ratio by epyT-R · · Score: 2

      vertical vs horizontal space... Those who do more with their computers than watch broadcast tv prefer it.

    2. Re:Unusable aspect ratio by NoMoreMrNiceGuy2 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      If you want vertical space, 9:16 is also available :)

    3. Re:Unusable aspect ratio by jon3k · · Score: 2

      Please name a 4:3 monitor with more vertical space, in either inches or pixels, than this monitor.

    4. Re:Unusable aspect ratio by Skrapion · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Actually, if you like square monitors, this one is even better than a 4:3 display.

      Since there's no display standard that can do 4k at 60Hz, this monitor works around that limitation by conceptually presenting itself as two 8:9 monitors side-by-side.

      So not only do you get two monitors in one, but 8:9 is closer to square than 4:3.

      --
      The details are trivial and useless; The reasons, as always, purely human ones.
    5. Re:Unusable aspect ratio by Blaskowicz · · Score: 2

      Worst thing about a 1080p monitor is web sites are annoyingly wide in a maximized web browser. Coupled with lousy panels and leaky lighting, on the cheap panels at least, that can make a rather bad browsing experience.
      You can size the window so it takes about three quarters of your display area, now you have other windows/desktop icons and the like showing, which is ugly and distracting. And not that much space left for other apps (what are you going to do in a width of 500 or 600 pixels?),

  4. Impact on Photography by negRo_slim · · Score: 2

    As these become more common it's going to be interesting to see how this affects SLR usage. I'm using a Nikon at 4928x3264 and it seems as screens approach that size I will at least lose some of my cropping range and also when you are viewing images close to 100% grain and other sometimes unavoidable artifacts become more apparent. I'm sure for people who do a lot of printing this will be a minimal issue but for sharing on Flickr and Google Plus this might force some wallets to open sooner rather than later!

    --
    On the Oregon Cost born and raised, On the beach is where I spent most of my days
    1. Re:Impact on Photography by dfghjk · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Grain?

      What does screen size have to do with your "cropping range"? You believe the purpose of a camera is to fill your screen?

      People whose goal is to share on "Flickr and Google Plus" don't need DSLRs or 4K displays. People who don't realize that grain is a film characteristic don't either.

    2. Re:Impact on Photography by walshy007 · · Score: 2

      People whose goal is to share on "Flickr and Google Plus" don't need DSLRs or 4K displays. People who don't realize that grain is a film characteristic don't either.

      He probably meant image noise

      When viewed at less than 100% multiple pixels are averaged resulting in lower image noise being shown for the pixels that are displayed.

      At 100% the image is also softer because of the bayer filter nature of colour imaging sensors used in dslrs.

      But at these resolutions it _really_ doesn't matter. If viewing fullscreen the screen will be higher resolution than most people can easily discern anyway,.

  5. Ah, now I understand the terminology by dbIII · · Score: 3, Funny

    It's looking as if 4k refers to the price more than the pixel width :(

  6. Re:Neat, but the standard is HDMI by dfghjk · · Score: 4, Informative

    It will take your TV box, your video camera, your surround sound receiver, and all the rest of your HDMI devices since it has HDMI inputs. Of course, those won't be 4K since none of your HDMI devices do 4K. The only devices that currently will use DisplayPort, thus that solution. So much for your complaint.

  7. Wait a bit. by tokiko · · Score: 2

    It'll come down to only $3840 pretty soon.