$700.00 for an 28 inch 4K monitor shows that the prices for 4k monitors is getting more reasonable.

Yea man, can't wait for that! I could have afforded one a month ago damn, but then i would have had a crappy PC now tho haha. And it wouldn't run 4K good at all...

I'm gonna say this for the people in the cheap seats: that's not 4K, that's quad HD. It's more like 4xHD, because last time I checked 3840 lines does not equal 4 thousand. This: link is 4K. You can tell, because the resolution is 4096 × 2160 nice monitor though...

4k Yes it is a called 4k screen. Just because its not running the cinemascope aspect ratio used in theaters, doesn't change that. One of the reasons why sony calls there tvs 4k UltraHD, to separate them from the 4k resolution in theaters. Doubt it is a native/one panel screen, they still go for around 2500-3000$. And what is samsung doing 4k wise, besides making panels. They dont shoot 4k nor have they any other background with it, but claiming to be the leader?! Like apple trying to sell me a car. Not gonna happen...

For those who are going "awww yiss" now, remember that this is a 28" TN panel. Want 4K urgently and can put up with TN at huge sizes? Sure.

Actually 3840x2160 is 4K! It retains the 16:9 aspect ratio, 4096x2160 does not. The term '4K' doesn't explicitly imply 4096x2160, it's just an imprecise marketing term. For HD (1920x1080), you don't really go around saying 2K do you? Yet, if you look at just the term 2K and 4K, it would suggest to people that didn't know any better that 3840x2160 is only twice as high of a resolute as 1920x1080, where in fact it is four times the resolution.

Um, aspect ratios have nothing to do with resolution. It's either: 2160P, Quad HD, Ultra HD - take your pick tv manufacturers, but don't come at me with 4K or I'll spend every day in your shops telling your staff they are wrong, or play dumb and say it doesn't make sense. Repeatably. Over and over again. Whilst shaking my head...and using a calculator and showing it to your staff. Maybe I'll roll my eyes and mumble/mutter under my breath.

Aren't these panels using some kind of IPS panel? It's a weird name, i can't remember, i've heard the Asus has it and has 1ms response time.

For those who are going "awww yiss" now, remember that this is a 28" TN panel. Want 4K urgently and can put up with TN at huge sizes? Sure.

If it does use TN, it won't look good with that size.

You couldn't be more wrong, 4K originated from cinema and film, UHD is for consumers. Aspect ratios have nothing to do with it, in fact cinema always had a different aspect ratio than consumer appliances: 16:9 (1.78:1) vs 2.35:1. 4k content is 4096x not 3840x. Here, educate yourself a bit.

Why did you tell him to educate himself when he posted exactly what was in the article?

In monitor sense, 4K is 3840x2160, it retains 16:9.

Don't take this the wrong way, but I must be missing something you are not saying about aspect ratios and resolution. 1920x1080 is a television resolution that migrated to computer screens because it's cheaper to bulk purchase that resolution from the panel manufacturers of LCD tech. The actual computer/monitor resolution is 1920x1200...so what we got here is history repeating itself with the first monitors using the panel tech available for televisions. And...if you divide 16 by 9, you get the actual aspect ratio; 1.78:1

http://forums.overclockers.co.uk/showthread.php?t=18590039

Its a TN here you go> http://www.samsung.com/levant/consumer/computers-peripherals/monitors/led-monitor/LU28D590DS/ZN-spec

Ah thanks, well then it's not worth the money imo. Colors/blacks will look pretty bad with that kind of size.

Don't take this the wrong way, but I must be missing something you are not saying about aspect ratios and resolution. 1920x1080 is a television resolution that migrated to computer screens because it's cheaper to bulk purchase that resolution from the panel manufacturers of LCD tech. The actual computer/monitor resolution is 1920x1200...so what we got here is history repeating itself with the first monitors using the panel tech available for televisions. And...if you divide 16 by 9, you get the actual aspect ratio; 1.78:1

16:10 is rather dead physical aspect ratio (I also got rather annoyed since some games even forced black bars). It was quite common when first 1920x1xx0 monitors popped up but these days they are rather uncommon. I am quite sure that we will barely see those screens any more. As far as I can see, history is not repeating itself. It is more like the opposite. On PC resolution equals aspect ratio mainly because screen that does not do pixel perfect output would be rather useless in many situations. For TV's it does not matter much.

Don't take this the wrong way, but I must be missing something you are not saying about aspect ratios and resolution. 1920x1080 is a television resolution that migrated to computer screens because it's cheaper to bulk purchase that resolution from the panel manufacturers of LCD tech. The actual computer/monitor resolution is 1920x1200...so what we got here is history repeating itself with the first monitors using the panel tech available for televisions. And...if you divide 16 by 9, you get the actual aspect ratio; 1.78:1

..... i'm sorry, but to say that they switched to 1920x1080 from 1920x1200 because it's "cheaper to bulk purchase" makes me even more skeptical of every comment you've made here. To start with, saying that aspect ratio has nothing to do with resolution is kind of odd.... 1920x1200 = 16:10 (1.6:1).... 1920x1080 = 16:9 (1.78:1). Aspect ratio technically has EVERYTHING to do with the resolution. With that being said, the main reason there aren't very many, if any, TRUE 4K TV's, is because ultra-wide TV's aren't really the biggest sellers. How many of those... what were they.... LG CinemaWide displays do you think they probably sold? Probably not too many, since the whole idea of those didn't seem to last long. Anyway... back to my original point. HDTV's were expensive as hell when they first came out, and to get a 1080p TV was even more drastically expensive. Take for instance the 50" Samsung plasma TV my parents have in the living room. Was purchased quite a few years ago.... think it cost like $3,000-5,000.... only 720p. Now you can get like 80" LED-baclit LCD's for that much. On top of that.... the reason it's ridiculous to say that PC monitors made the transition because it was cheaper to purchase in bulk is because, quite simply, there was absolutely NO market for a SMALL 1080p TV for quite some time. Even now, they're not all that sought after. Take, for example, every flatscreen TV on Bestbuy.com..... 75 TV's total that are 27" or smaller..... 33 of those are 1080p. 86 TV's 28"-32" in size.... 23 of which are 1080p The numbers only start to tip heavily in 1080p's favor once you get above 32". 30 TV's 33"-39".... 28 are 1080p. 51 TV's 40"-45".... 45 are 1080p. 63 TV's 46"-49".... all are 1080p. So how exactly is it cheaper for manufacturers to buy sub-30" panels... even by today's standards for consumer demand.... if significantly less than half of the TV's in that segment are even using 1080p panels? On top of this... monitor still probably won't be worth the money, because it will still probably be just like every other budget "4K" monitor. Supports the resolution, but only at 30hz. Darkshadow: Yea... they reveal a 31" true 4K monitor... and still have no details on pricing or availability. Any bets that it probably never sees a store/e-tailer shelf?

..... i'm sorry, but to say that they switched to 1920x1080 from 1920x1200 because it's "cheaper to bulk purchase" makes me even more skeptical of every comment you've made here.

The reduction in resolution (even by a small amount) resulted in a reduction at the manufacturing level by the panel manufacturers, not the monitor producers. Their production lines were configured more for 1080p than the larger 1200p because the demand for 1080p was higher than the demand for 1200p. We can start pointing fingers as to the why, but my money is on the broadcast standards people and entertainment content providers.

To start with, saying that aspect ratio has nothing to do with resolution is kind of odd.... 1920x1200 = 16:10 (1.6:1).... 1920x1080 = 16:9 (1.78:1). Aspect ratio technically has EVERYTHING to do with the resolution.

My comment is in reference to a comment that poster made - I still do not know what 4K has to do with 16:9 in reference to their reference

With that being said, the main reason there aren't very many, if any, TRUE 4K TV's, is because ultra-wide TV's aren't really the biggest sellers. How many of those... what were they.... LG CinemaWide displays do you think they probably sold? Probably not too many, since the whole idea of those didn't seem to last long.

Genuine 4096 lines would not require the aspect ratio to be 2.35:1, and LG has announced a 105 Inch 4K tv - although I suspect that it's really for Hotels, exhibitions, departure lounges etc.

Anyway... back to my original point. HDTV's were expensive as hell when they first came out, and to get a 1080p TV was even more drastically expensive. Take for instance the 50" Samsung plasma TV my parents have in the living room. Was purchased quite a few years ago.... think it cost like $3,000-5,000.... only 720p. Now you can get like 80" LED-baclit LCD's for that much.

This is LCD tech, not Plasma, although I kinda get your point.

On top of that.... the reason it's ridiculous to say that PC monitors made the transition because it was cheaper to purchase in bulk is because, quite simply, there was absolutely NO market for a SMALL 1080p TV for quite some time. Even now, they're not all that sought after. Take, for example, every flatscreen TV on Bestbuy.com..... 75 TV's total that are 27" or smaller..... 33 of those are 1080p. 86 TV's 28"-32" in size.... 23 of which are 1080p The numbers only start to tip heavily in 1080p's favor once you get above 32". 30 TV's 33"-39".... 28 are 1080p. 51 TV's 40"-45".... 45 are 1080p. 63 TV's 46"-49".... all are 1080p. So how exactly is it cheaper for manufacturers to buy sub-30" panels... even by today's standards for consumer demand.... if significantly less than half of the TV's in that segment are even using 1080p panels?

As mentioned, it's about the panel production lines and a lower cost of manufacture due to the reduction in pixels required to make the tech.

On top of this... monitor still probably won't be worth the money, because it will still probably be just like every other budget "4K" monitor. Supports the resolution, but only at 30hz. Darkshadow: Yea... they reveal a 31" true 4K monitor... and still have no details on pricing or availability. Any bets that it probably never sees a store/e-tailer shelf?

HDMI 2.0 is either available as a firmware upgrade or simply a new cable - then you got 60Hz. btw to all: Dell call their monitor range Ultra HD Press Link

Heh TN, it should be banned.

Knowing the power needed to run 1440p properly, 4k scares me. I'd want highend Maxwell in SLI (or AMD Crossfire equivalent) before I'd think about upgrading from my u2711. Nice to see the tech advancing though.

That's your argument? Because they didn't announce pricing it's an irrelevant actual 4K display:funny:. I remember back in 2011 (or was it 2012..)when LG announced their OLED tv's without any pricing or availability either, I guess those never made it to stores either right? In fact, every single piece of hardware LG has ever brought to CES has made it into consumer hands one way or another.

Yea.... and look how long it took for those to be available, too. I was actually at Best Buy the other week drooling over that 55" curved OLED TV LG has. Not so much over the $6,000 price tag, though. That's the point i'm getting at. Generally if no pricing is announced, it means there isn't really any availability date in sight. And there's also a good chance that if no price is known, you wouldn't really WANT to know the price.

Guys, NOBODY cares if it's called 4K or UltraHD. Unless you're buying cinemas and getting confused.

I don't know why you are going on about this, when it becomes available or what it's price is going to be is completely irrelvant, what matters is that it's an actual 4K screen and everything else isn't. Judging by LG's track record, we'll prolly see it in a year or maybe 2, and judging by the size it will probably be around ~3k$; can you afford it? Maybe not, but others will. The point being that's its a 4K screen, everything else is UHD.

I like the term QuadHD, which is way more accurate - in fact it's so accurate it's true.

Nice monitor but not for me i stick to 21:9 with 3440x1440 ips 75hz oc.