The first real 4k monitor, nice indeed.

It looks ok, nothing amazing in terms of bezel design. Let's hope we get some early reviews so we can see if it can really perform better than it looks...

The first real 4k monitor, nice indeed.

How is this more "real" than the ASUS PQ321Q? Same size. Same resolution. Same panel.

nothing amazing in terms of bezel design

People judge monitors by bezel designs?

Look good, i just fear the price ( > 4000$ ) .. maybe for work. Bezel look ok lol, aluminium + black, lightly rounded, solid. Dont forget the side of the screen, 32" ... thats big.. really big ( i have a 32" LED TV here for a room, so i got it under my eyes rightg now, its really big ) No need of small bezel as you will not use this one for Eyefinity or Surround . ( and for work on 2 multile display spaces, i dont think its is a problem ). Photos dont really give him justice.. Feet and back of the monitor look good too ( dark grey, mat paints ) . http://img802.imageshack.us/img802/2196/5us3.jpg

People judge monitors by bezel designs?

Bezels distract, so we want thin ones 🙂 Especially if you want more than 1 screen. Although, 3x 32" might be a bit much.

Want!

Don't want! 😉 I watched several PC Perspective videos of 4K displays on YouTube last night and I was not impressed at all. Not with the image quality or video playback as obviously I cannot judge that even from a well-compressed 1080p video stream. No, what didn't impress me was the poor quality drivers that meant just getting an image to display correctly seemed like too much hassle and then the games themselves, because they were running effectively at the resolution of four 1920x1200 displays, were very laggy and jerky unless the settings were lowered or two or more graphics cards were used to power it. Even then having 30-40 fps in Crysis 3 is hardly impressive although I might change my mind if I saw the image quality in the flesh. I'm sure the price tag associated with such a set up would soon sober me up though. Seems to me that 4K is being pushed out too soon as the hardware is simply not there yet, certainly not for games on a reasonable budget. It's clearly being marketed more for movies where 30 Hz panels, which cost less, are likely to appeal to more people. Even then there's no real 4K content to make it worthwhile buying now even if you can afford it. It's like 3D IMO which even now has so few BD releases and so few TV broadcasts then I doubt anyone in their right mind would upgrade their TV for that. 3D was certainly a fad and even now it is slowly decreasing in popularity (the BBC have stopped all their 3D broadcasts for example and Sky no longer promote it like they used to). 4K will hit mass market but I'm just not convinced the world needs it right now or even any time in the next five years. It's like the industry is trying to run before it can walk, constantly pushing out new display technology to 'encourage' people to upgrade even though they don't need or even want to. 1080p HDTVs have only been around 8 years or so and standard definition 480p has been around for decades before that. I think personally that 2560x1440 might have been a better target now for HDTVs as that is 'doable' on many high end PCs even with single GPUs. Maybe that wouldn't be seen as a sufficient improvement over 1920x1080 though? Meh, sorry, I just find it hard to get excited about tech that I know means I'd have to sacrifice settings for to play games on it without spending thousands of pounds more for multi-GPU setups (which I'm not really a big fan of anyway due to driver issues).

Seems like a nice monitor though for me the Dell 3014 monitor looks like the ideal upgrade at the moment but probably something like this after that though that's several years down the line. 🙂

nice but that way to big for monitor as i have 32"hdtv why would i want o 32" monitor too. Though I am really interested in the response time of this "ultra" hd monitor even if 90% of all video cards wont handle them for anything other then web browsing and videos gaming can forget about unless you have one them titan card and or sli

nice but that way to big for monitor as i have 32"hdtv why would i want o 32" monitor too.

http://images3.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20130413124059/cso/images/3/32/Facepalm.jpg

People judge monitors by bezel designs?

You'd be surprised at the amount of bezel freaks out there..

I'm just hoping the Ultra Sharp 30" goes down some more in price with this release 😉

http://images3.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20130413124059/cso/images/3/32/Facepalm.jpg

face palm your self, not every one want 32" of screen less then 2 feet from there face.

Bezels distract, so we want thin ones 🙂 Especially if you want more than 1 screen. Although, 3x 32" might be a bit much.

I would gladly do 3x 60" FHD Plasma/LED's with thin bezels.. 😀

I would gladly do 3x 60" FHD Plasma/LED's with thin bezels.. 😀

What's even funnier is that you can buy 3 60" Plasma TVs for less than that monitor will cost. Bargain 😉 But in all seriousness, this monitor is just part of the investment for gaming, you're going to need 3 or 4 Titans to drive it and that's just not practical given SLI's diminishing returns once you are using more than 2 cards (and especially on the fourth). Very nice monitor but considering that even after all that money invested, you will likely have to turn some eye candy off to get constantly acceptable FPS, not really an option for the moment. And then you look at stupid companies like Relic that favor snow effects over multi GPU support and you know that the dream of 4K gaming is still a few years away. I also read that fast panning is still a problem on 4K monitors, with many manufacturers purposefully avoiding it in demos - another caveat for gamers. It's tempting to be sure, but for the moment at least, it's very much in it's infancy and I'm going to wait and see how it develops before making an investment.

face palm your self, not every one want 32" of screen less then 2 feet from there face.

Then put it 3 feet from your face. Wonder how long till we see 24" 4K monitors we still haven't seen alot of 21.5" 2560x1440's (this I would love to see).

face palm your self, not every one want 32" of screen less then 2 feet from there face.

You said

nice but that way to big for monitor as i have 32"hdtv why would i want o 32" monitor too.

Comparing an "HDTV" to this screen based on it's dimensions being the same is plainly ridiculous. Also it's clearly going to look very different from your "HDTV" 2 feet from your face with that resolution, kind of the point.

What's even funnier is that you can buy 3 60" Plasma TVs for less than that monitor will cost. Bargain 😉 But in all seriousness, this monitor is just part of the investment for gaming, you're going to need 3 or 4 Titans to drive it and that's just not practical given SLI's diminishing returns once you are using more than 2 cards (and especially on the fourth). Very nice monitor but considering that even after all that money invested, you will likely have to turn some eye candy off to get constantly acceptable FPS, not really an option for the moment. And then you look at stupid companies like Relic that favor snow effects over multi GPU support and you know that the dream of 4K gaming is still a few years away. I also read that fast panning is still a problem on 4K monitors, with many manufacturers purposefully avoiding it in demos - another caveat for gamers. It's tempting to be sure but I suspect, for the moment at least, it's very much in it's infancy and I'm going to wait and see how it develops before making an investment.

Some good points in there and I also want add that many say a lot of things about 4K. Also don't forget the upcoming revision of HDMI 2.0. As its been said before, the 4K Res is the new 1080p/1600P. Like when we were playing at 1366x768/1440x900 and we were struggling if we even could play most (hot?) games @1080p on full quality and it was mostly reserved for SLI/CF Rigs for having playable frames at those times. So until hardware catches up and 4K becomes way more mainstream, gaming on 4K although immpressive(with HDMI 2.0, not 1.4) is still far off since its requires 2 TItans/3x SLI/CF. Browsing, content creation and video watching of course its an entirely different subject. I can see that happening already on a 51" Seiko or other 4K screens. :P

Some good points in there and I also want add that many say a lot of things about 4K. Also don't forget the upcoming revision of HDMI 2.0. As its been said before, the 4K Res is the new 1080p/1600P. Like when we were playing at 1366x768/1440x900 and we were struggling if we even could lay most games @1080p on full quality and it was mostly reserved for SLI/CF Rigs for having playable frames at those times. So until hardware catches up and 4K because way more mainstream, gaming on 4K although immpressive(with HDMI 2.0, not 1.4) is still far off since its requires 2 TItans/3x SLI/CF. Browsing and video watching of course its an entirely different subject. I can see that on a 51 Seiko. :P

Yah, very important to clarify that I was talking about gaming and not other applications, it definitely does have immediate advantages, such as much more screen real estate etc. Cheers 🙂