Hmh... That's like TV without tuners.

This thing will cost you a kidney 🤓

The most impressive 2160P monitor to date, but with all those features, likely to come with a high price tag. Having tried 2160P with 3 Titans, I can say that we just aren't there yet when the investment to get even close to ~60FPS gaming across the board is easily into $4k. A fantastic looking monitor for productivity though and an impressive feature set 😀 ~$2000 USD if this article is anything to go by: http://www.engadget.com/2014/06/02/asus-PA328Q-4k-monitor/ (At the end of the article)

2 x 295X2 handles 4k easily.

2 x 295X2 handles 4k easily.

No, they don't and again you are talking about a ~$5000.00 (or more) PC that still won't maintain 60FPS and is entirely dependent on CF working to get even remotely acceptable frame rates (it's no different with Nvidia and SLI to be fair). I went through all this and ditched 2160P for gaming pretty quickly. http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/radeon-r9-295x2-crossfire-performance,3808-6.html http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/radeon-r9-295x2-crossfire-performance,3808-3.html http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/radeon-r9-295x2-crossfire-performance,3808-7.html If that's what you call 'handled easily' then that's fine, our ideas about acceptable performance after spending upwards of $5K are very, very different Hopefully the next gen will be a little better although single GPU UHD is probably 2 years away.

No, they don't and again you are talking about a ~$5000.00 PC that still won't maintain 60FPS and is entirely dependent on CF working to get even remotely acceptable frame rates. I went through all this and ditched 4K for gaming pretty quickly. http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/radeon-r9-295x2-crossfire-performance,3808-6.html http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/radeon-r9-295x2-crossfire-performance,3808-3.html http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/radeon-r9-295x2-crossfire-performance,3808-7.html If that's what you call 'handled easily' then that's fine. Our ideas about acceptable performance after spending upwards of $5K are very, very different Hopefully the next gen will be a little better although single card 4K is probably 2 years away.

This monitor is not 4K, it's UHD4K, in other words 2160P... 4K gaming is totally pointless until the textures are 4,096x4,096, instead of 2,048x2,048 (MAXIMUM) or the more likely 1,024x1,024. Then you got polygon counts and a whole plethora of other stuff which is not graphically 4,096 pixels capable...so, like, why is 4K gaming so important? Answer is: it isn't and unless gamers are going to be happy with 200 GB installs, in won't ever be anywhere nearing the word or term "relevant". It's no different than putting a Ferrari engine into a Mini...I would go so far as to say it borders on reverse snobbery.

This monitor is not 4K, it's UHD4K, in other words 2160P... 4K gaming is totally pointless until the textures are 4,096x4,096, instead of 2,048x2,048 (MAXIMUM) or the more likely 1,024x1,024. Then you got polygon counts and a whole plethora of other stuff which is not graphically 4,096 pixels capable...so, like, why is 4K gaming so important? Answer is: it isn't and unless gamers are going to be happy with 200 GB installs, in won't ever be anywhere nearing the word or term "relevant". It's no different than putting a Ferrari engine into a Mini...I would go so far as to say it borders on reverse snobbery.

K, you seem to be in a nitpicking mood today with your grammar policing etc 😉 UHD is years away in terms of gaming (and we are more likely looking at 8K+), the monitors are great for other things though and I may well pick one of these up to replace the Sammy.

K, you seem to be in a nitpicking mood today with your grammar policing etc 😉 UHD is years away in terms of gaming (and we are more likely looking at 8K+), the monitors are great for other things though and I may well pick one of these up to replace the Sammy.

It was spelling, not grammar :evil: I guess my point is: there is no point to any K above 2K for desktops. Projectors, televisions etc; totally. Not desktops. We got really good resolutions and dot pitches right now and increasing these without any benefit to the user is pointless. For gaming, I'd rather have perfect graphics (Star Trek holodeck quality) at 650x480 than shoddy DX11 graphics at 8K.

It was spelling, not grammar :evil: I guess my point is: there is no point to any K above 2K for desktops. Projectors, televisions etc; totally. Not desktops. We got really good resolutions and dot pitches right now and increasing these without any benefit to the user is pointless. For gaming, I'd rather have perfect graphics (Star Trek holodeck quality) at 650x480 than shoddy DX11 graphics at 8K.

What are you talking about.

I wouldn't get a new DisplayPort monitor untill it supports Adaptive Sync.

Yea that is the bad part. Else this monitor is frikkin amaziiiiiiing 😀 I want such a thing NOW. I do not care I can play on medium!

What are you talking about.

I think my post was clear, unlike the need for anything above 2K at the desktop currently. If you think I'm off in some way, please let me know where and how.

I think my post was clear, unlike the need for anything above 2K at the desktop currently. If you think I'm off in some way, please let me know where and how.

This display is like godlike for graphics designers and the like. For gaming 2K might not be needed but that is rather limited view.

This display is like godlike for graphics designers and the like. For gaming 2K might not be needed but that is rather limited view.

I think you need to quantify that.

Just about every 4k thread has looby in it, lol. IT IS NOT REALLY 4K, IT IS USELESS!!! Are you really going to argue the benefits of a good "4k" monitor for certain productivity/work related tasks? Are there benefits yes, are there some downsides, yes--it goes both ways. I agree with you, for pc gaming the technology is not quite "there" yet. But it does have other uses on the desktop space. I don't understand why you're such a "4k" "hater?"

It was spelling, not grammar :evil: I guess my point is: there is no point to any K above 2K for desktops. Projectors, televisions etc; totally. Not desktops. We got really good resolutions and dot pitches right now and increasing these without any benefit to the user is pointless. For gaming, I'd rather have perfect graphics (Star Trek holodeck quality) at 650x480 than shoddy DX11 graphics at 8K.

uh, 2k is 1080p, how exactly do you backup the statement that there is no point with anything above 1080p? example: 1440p (and the various other resolutions) is quite an improvement and no where near as hard on your system as 4k...soo......? Unless you mean 1440p by 2K (which i'm still unsure as to how 2560 × 1440 and 2560 × 1600 are considered 2K aside from the fact that they are not yet 3K...) reality is using the term "2K" doesn't mean much unless you actually are saying what you mean, so what resolution are you talking about? and if you are talking about 2048 × 1080 or 2048 × 858 (or whatever many different versions of "2K" there is), still, explain what resolution you are actually talking about.

I think you need to quantify that.

4K 32" P-IPS 10bit panel has loads of real estate. It makes for a really good art, 3d designing, workspace display. And not to mention 1.07 billion colors with accurate reproduction so it is really good for artists. It has good qualities for work and I would love it even for my programming job lol, I got 29" 21:9 screen at work now. Not so much for gaming cause there is not enough power available in gpu side of things.

uh, 2k is 1080p, how exactly do you backup the statement that there is no point with anything above 1080p? example: 1440p (and the various other resolutions) is quite an improvement and no where near as hard on your system as 4k...soo......? Unless you mean 1440p by 2K (which i'm still unsure as to how 2560 × 1440 and 2560 × 1600 are considered 2K aside from the fact that they are not yet 3K...) reality is using the term "2K" doesn't mean much unless you actually are saying what you mean, so what resolution are you talking about? and if you are talking about 2048 × 1080 or 2048 × 858 (or whatever many different versions of "2K" there is), still, explain what resolution you are actually talking about.

A horizontal resolution of 2048 or higher, and I use the nK measurement, using multiples of 1024, so "2K" is 2,048 and "4K" is 4,096. It's not a case of no point so much as no benefit, as indicated in my post by distance to screen and dot pitch - then there are gaming concerns I have which fall outside of this thread for consumer usage. Prosumer usage, yeah, this screen has more real estate but to what end? Users needing to increase font size so they can read the menus is one relevant example you read about. In addition to this, people creating content for people...people who are using 1080P...so what's the point in having all that real estate for content creation when the content you are creating is going to be used on a 1080P screen, or a 2K tablet - max. As I said, if you are using a projector or large format display for your content to display, or as a reference monitor then 4K has merit. At the desktop it's very hard to justify and will remain extremely good tech, but extremely niche tech for many years. This is not opinion, it is belief - and apologies for imposing my beliefs but they are very strong and sometimes it is hard for me to differentiate without appearing to dictate. This is a quality monitor, but falls outside a lot of tickboxes for most and there are alternative ways of working in a content creation environment which are already being used.

A horizontal resolution of 2048 or higher, and I use the nK measurement, using multiples of 1024, so "2K" is 2,048 and "4K" is 4,096. It's not a case of no point so much as no benefit, as indicated in my post by distance to screen and dot pitch - then there are gaming concerns I have which fall outside of this thread for consumer usage. Prosumer usage, yeah, this screen has more real estate but to what end? Users needing to increase font size so they can read the menus is one relevant example you read about. In addition to this, people creating content for people...people who are using 1080P...so what's the point in having all that real estate for content creation when the content you are creating is going to be used on a 1080P screen, or a 2K tablet - max. As I said, if you are using a projector or large format display for your content to display, or as a reference monitor then 4K has merit. At the desktop it's very hard to justify and will remain extremely good tech, but extremely niche tech for many years. This is not opinion, it is belief - and apologies for imposing my beliefs but they are very strong and sometimes it is hard for me to differentiate without appearing to dictate. This is a quality monitor, but falls outside a lot of tickboxes for most and there are alternative ways of working in a content creation environment which are already being used.

I can see your point of view (beliefs). Ye as I stated mine too 🙂 It is a niche market that is a fact, till sometime. being 32 incher it decreases the need to make those fonts larger tho 😀 Imagine using 4k res on a 22" screen oh.