Linked by Thom Holwerda on Fri 31st May 2013 23:00 UTC
Hardware, Embedded Systems "Asus has just announced the cure for the common 20-something-inch 1080p display: a small TV-sized 31.5-inch monitor with a massive resolution of 3840x2160. Engadget reports that the Asus PQ321 display, which uses IGZO technology to reduce energy usage and thickness, includes DisplayPort and dual-HDMI input, integrated speakers, and an adjustable stand." The dread of 1366 and 1080p is being removed. Finally.
Thread beginning with comment 563387
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
The other problem
by ronaldst on Sat 1st Jun 2013 03:34 UTC
ronaldst
Member since:
2005-06-29

Now we need cheap video cards able to fill all those pixels. Preferably without fans.

I am still undecided between this monitor and the 21:9 from LG.

Reply Score: 2

RE: The other problem
by Kivada on Sat 1st Jun 2013 06:40 in reply to "The other problem"
Kivada Member since:
2010-07-07

Now we need cheap video cards able to fill all those pixels. Preferably without fans.


Been there for a while actually: http://www.pcper.com/reviews/Graphics-Cards/Frame-Rating-High-End-G...

Even Intel's HD Graphics decelerators can handle screens with a resolution as high as 4096x4096 and all AMD GPUs since the HD6000 series support resolutions up to 16000x16000.

All current high end cards from the last 2 generations will pull this resolution and still stay above 30FPS minimum no matter the game or settings since they are so powerful that the only way to max them out is to go to 5760x1920 at least. If you have trouble drop the anti-aliasing down, the higher DPI of the screen makes it less necessary to the point of irrelevance. anisotropic filtering though is very cheap and still makes a difference for objects in the distance so that they don't just blend together and become flat instead of having depth like real objects would.

These are the screens the top end cards have been waiting for.

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE[2]: The other problem
by WereCatf on Sat 1st Jun 2013 06:49 in reply to "RE: The other problem"
WereCatf Member since:
2006-02-15

Ars Technica (http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2013/05/asus-brings-4k-to-your-deskt...) says the following:

Not just any graphics hardware will be able to drive such a high-resolution display, however, and we'd like to clear up some of the misinformation out there that Asus' announcement has prompted. Most midrange and high-end cards from Nvidia's GeForce 600 family and AMD Radeon HD 6000 and 7000 series should support 4K resolutions over HDMI and DisplayPort, at least, owing to their support of HDMI 1.4 and DisplayPort 1.2. Both of these interfaces should provide sufficient bandwidth to drive a 4K display, though in some cases at a refresh rate of only 30Hz rather than the more common 60Hz.

Integrated graphics are a bit more complicated. Intel's current HD 4000 graphics can support 4K output with the most recent graphics drivers, but only on laptops and motherboards with a pair of DisplayPort outputs (a relative rarity in systems that rely on integrated graphics). AMD's Trinity APUs should theoretically be able to push these high-res displays, but AnandTech reports that they support neither 4K video decoding nor 4K video output. As such, you'll likely have to wait for the next generation of integrated GPUs to get good 4K support—the GPUs paired with Intel's Haswell CPUs will offer DisplayPort 1.2 support, and Intel is pushing its 4K prowess hard in its marketing materials.

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE[2]: The other problem
by gilboa on Sat 1st Jun 2013 07:31 in reply to "RE: The other problem"
gilboa Member since:
2005-07-06

If you can afford a 2000-5000$ 4K display, its very unlikely that you'll be stupid enough to connect it to a cheap IGP such as Intel HD / AMD IGP. I would imagine most most people will either buy a professional card or buy a high-end discrete card.

- Gilboa

Edited 2013-06-01 07:32 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 4