Asus PQ321Q review - eyes-on with the first 4K PC display

Eurogamer:While the next generation of consoles are finally set to deliver 1080p gaming to the masses, the consumer electronics industry is rapidly gearing up for a full-scale push towards 4K - the next standard in high definition viewing. 4K, or 3840x2160 Ultra High Definition as it is officially called, delivers four times the resolution contained in the current standard of 1080p, approaching the maximum amount of video information resolved in a high-quality 35mm film print. The result is not only the potential for a staggering increase in detail, but also a smoother image and the complete elimination of the screen door effect visible when sitting closely to large HDTVs and PC monitors.

[MadLad]

The difference is definitely there, but with few gamers even taking advantage of 2560x1440 due to the cost of even those monitors, let alone the cost of hardware to really take advantage of it, this won't be for gaming for some time.
Definitely see it for movies before anything, and that will only be with the drop in cost of televisions that would support it.

[Bolts]

1440p is definitely worth every penny and it's a logical step up from 1080p which is a bit too boring these days. While the performance requirement is considerable, once you start playing games in 1440p its hard to drop down to 1080p.

4K however should only be used for TV since web browsing in 4K is hilariously bad. The internet simply isn't formatted for this resolution.

[MadLad]

Been using 1440 for a couple months now. I agree that it is worth the cost. With people finding proper 1080p monitors in the $150 range though . . . it's not surprising that are still aren't too many adopters.

[Eonjay]

You too can own a 4k monitor for the low low price of...

[FlyingFoxy]

1080p 120hz is actually pretty nice for performance. you see the difference in fluidity at 120fps, not as big as from 30->60 but it is there.

1440p though is literally the max to go if you want performance, higher makes the frame rate too low.

4k might look sharper, but its only double full HD anyway. the difference from 1440p to 4k would look even smaller.

[mewhy32]

4k looks amazing but did you read the amount of GPU that was needed to get good framerates??? Wow.

[CyrusLemont]

@FlyingFoxy, 4K is actually double the amount of pixels on 1440p monitors, and quadruple the amount on 1080p monitors. But yes, I do believe it's not really viable at this stage unless you want to pay through the roof. It will probably be a waste as well when you'll be able to spend less in a year from now on the next gen GTX and AMD cards.

[B-radical]

Good thing is though when 4k is ready for gaming the monitors will be cheaper

[Drekken]

I was shopping for a monitor that did over 1080p for my PC and the cheapest you can find is about $700.00 and I refuse to pay that much for a computer monitor.

[JsonHenry]

My nvidia certified 3D acer monitor cost me about $600 and it is only 1080p. It is 27inches but still. I can only imagine what this monitor will cost.

[Hassassin]

@drekken my 1440p monitor costed U$350... more than a year ago.
(IPS panel is also a plus)

[DarkZane]

Most gamers don't even have a 2560x1440 monitor. 4K isn't gonna be used for PC gaming anytime soon. I'd say 6-7 years.

[Letros]

It's used now...you just need a pretty beefy GPU, but every 6 months GPUs drop in price.

[steve30x]

1080p Is still a lot more common than 2560 x 1440 because those monitors are still very high in price

This is the cheapest one I can find http://www.dabs.ie/products...

[Letros]

So you're saying because 1080p is popular, no one will game at 4k? The ones that can afford it will..

[MidnytRain]

steve30x

This one is way cheaper. Practically half the price. Not cheap, but much cheaper.

http://www.newegg.com/Produ...

[Pandamobile]

It's like Steve doesn't realize that 1080p used to be an exotic resolution.

Remember when we were all using 4:3 1280 x 1024 monitors?

[MidnytRain]

Whoops, for some reason I thought that link you posted was in pounds, but the one I linked to is still a lot cheaper.

[Hassassin]

@steve30x & midnytRain

http://www.ebay.com/itm/New...

[steve30x]

@ Hassassin : That catleap monitor is no good to me because it only has DVI input. I use my computer and Xbox 360 on my monitor.

@ MidnytRain : Newegg doesnt ship to Ireland. That's no good to me

@ Pandamobile : I do realise 1080P used to be an exotic resolution. I remember very well the headaches I used to get from using a 60Hz CRT monitor that was 1024 x 800 for years. What has that got to do with the fact that 1080P is more common than 2560 x 1440 at the moment.

@ those who disagreed. You guys are living in some type of fantasy world if you think 2560 x 1440 isn't less common than 1080P monitors right now. The price of those 2560 x 1440 monitors will eventually go low enough for everybody.

[MidnytRain]

steve30x

Well, it's not like there's reason to concern yourself with a 4k monitor for a 360 anyway...

Also, what graphics card are you using that's capable of 4k but doesn't have a DVI output?

[steve30x]

@ MidnytRain : I really don't know where you are getting the Idea that I want a 4K monitor. I am just saying that 1080P is more common than 2560 x 1440.

[MidnytRain]

steve30x

Oh, you posted a link for the cheapest one you could find, and then said another link was no good because it didn't ship to Ireland, so I just thought you were looking...

[steve30x]

Yes I do want a2560 x 1440 monitor and thats 2.5K not 4K and I want a 2.5K monitor for playing PC games on. I will be using the monitor for my Xbox 360 too

[WarThunder]

Awesome looking monitor!

Higher res means less aliasing, this way games will not require Anti aliasing. But $3000! very expansive...

[digger18]

I've been using these for awhile now (3 at work/ 1 at home).

They are ok, but at 60Hz they hurt my eyes a little.

[plmkoh]

For £3000 you can get a whole 55" 4K TV from any of the biggest brands: Sony, Samsung, LG, Hisense.

[ExCest]

But TVs aren't monitors.

They have crazy high latency compared to a PC monitor.

[plmkoh]

Your point being?

The Asus PQ321Q has a response of 33ms, you won't be 'pro-gaming' either way.

The average LCD TV when engaged in 'game-mode' has around 45-55ms of input latency. Given the closeness, there is little value added benefit because you wanted a 'monitor'.

Edit - Mind you my 2 year old 55" TV has response time of 30-32ms when motion enhancers are turned off.

So where does the £3000 price tag sit?

Don't generalise.

[Ducky]

^ Isn't that a 30 to 60% difference?
Pretty significant if you ask me.

[creized1]

I would love it but at the moment I do not have almost £3.000 to spend on a monitor. I rather upgrade my PC hardware, buy my PS4 with games ect...

Of course ones the price drops I will pick this up or maybe if something better has come out with around the same price.

[Volkama]

I'm targeting 4k gaming in about 2 years time. I can't really justify replacing the TV I got a year ago until then, even though I really want to. New consoles will hopefully keep me entertained until then :)

[weirdo]

xmas 2014 will offer affordable 4K tv's, in a variety of smaller sizes e.g. 40"+

i'll adopt then, especially for 4K Mastered Blu-rays!

[strigoi814]

im good with 1080p for now..maybe 3-4 years from now i go with 4k if the price is right

[FlyingFoxy]

4k is just not playable really, even the r9 290x card can only manage 30fps or so at that resolution as shown in recent benchmarks. For me that's too slow, it may not be for a few people but once you play at 60+ you don't want to go to 30.

1080p or 1440p is the best for 60+fps, or even 120hz 1080p for 120fps max.. but if performance is your thing, you shouldn't go higher than 1440p.

4k is only double HD anyway, simply not worth the performance loss and low FPS.. you'd literally need to upgrade to a new graphics card, or i should say 2x cards minimum every 1 or 2 years just to keep a "playable" framerate in newer games.

Plus becuase of the way monitors work since they went away from CRT, dropping lower than native resolution especially from 4k would look like crap.. and you'd be forced to do that often with that resolution. Too many downsides.

[KontryBoy706]

I'm so glad this is coming out and more to come..... now 1440p monitors can go down in price :p

[FlyingFoxy]

This article writer is clueless, 4k is not four times the resolution of full HD 1080p, its 2x.. 1920x1080 x2 = 3840x2160

are people really getting confused because its called 4k? its just double the resolution, not a huge 4x increase that people seem to think for some reason.

Movies, good, games, not worth the performance loss.. 1080p and 1440p aren't going anywhere and don't look much worse anyway, in game detail settings count more towards quality.

[Hassassin]

Do you even know what those "x" you put mean?

1920x1080x2=4147200
3840x2160=8294400

[FlyingFoxy]

Eh? that's how resolutions are typed.. either way what i said is still true, 4k IS 2 x (two times) 1920x1080 (Full HD) not 4 x (four times)

[Hassassin]

http://www.rtings.com/image...

...see how you can tile up to 4 FHD rectangles on the 4K one?

FHD means 1920x1080 pixels (not just "how resolutions are typed").

edit: what I do agree on is that the 4k name is misleading (should be 2k, as in 2000 vertical pixels)

[CyrusLemont]

I think I'll wait for 4K 120hz 2ms monitors. That will be off the chain! Plus by then, graphics card will most likely support 60fps gaming at that resolution with ease.

[ATi_Elite]

4K is Brilliant and makes games look SUPER Crisp and will not require so much AA.

4K monitors are still expensive but prices seem to be getting closer (slowly) to the range that Gamers will start breaking out Credit Cards.

$800 for a 30 incher and I may bite.

But right now my 30" 1600P HP is good enough.
1440p monitors are dropping in price kinda fast now.