CES 2014 brings 4K PC monitor prices down to as low as $699

CES 2014 was predicted by many people to be the event where 4K televisions and displays would come into their own, and for PC owners who are looking to upgrade their monitors, this week brought some very good news. At least three major PC makers announced plans during the trade show to launch 4K monitors that will be sold for as low as $699. All of them are 28-inch displays with a top resolution of 3840x2160.

Dell announced this week they will be first out of the gate with its P2815Q Ultra HD Monitor, which will go on sale later this month for just $699. However, The Verge has confirmed it will only have a refresh rate of 30Hz while images are displayed in 4K which will not be as good for playing games.

ASUS has the 4K PB287Q monitor coming later this spring for just $799.

If you are willing to wait a few months, two more 4K monitors are due for release that are priced at $799 but have a better 60Hz refresh rate; Asus will release the PB287Q monitor sometime in the second quarter of 2014. It will have a 1ms response time and a special blue light filter that is supposed to reduce flicker on the screen. Lenovo's ThinkVision Pro2840m will go on sale in April and the company claims it will have "a stunning image that is vibrant, sharp and detailed and color reproduction is second to none."

Any way you look at it, the age of 4K monitors for the masses is soon to arrive and we would expect that more such displays will be released later in 2014, perhaps with even lower prices.

Source: Dell, Asus and Lenovo via The Verge | Image via Asus

Report a problem with article
Previous Story

Valve 'days away' from releasing virtual reality software development kits

Next Story

Nokia launches Lumia Black update worldwide, comes with folders and lots of new features

32 Comments

Commenting is disabled on this article.

You can have content if you have a good pc setup, games run actually on single videocard, not maxed out and not at 60fps, but still runs, at console level framerate. And in a year or two, they'll run test at 4k more commonly. For video, netflix and YouTube are already on the case

Is there any technique or utility to simulate 30hz on a 60hz monitor? I'm no gamer so I want to see how much this matters?

Win 8.1 on Intel HD5000 BTW.

Yeah but i dont think there is any games currently out that has a 4K native resolution but i suppose even when they do come out i guess it will have big hardware reqs at first so need to play to the guys who can only afford 1 GPU, never said it wasnt bad and i think there is tearing you just cant tell with your eyes so i spose you could say no tearing

acido00 said,
30hz? really? I will wait for another 2 years until I get a 4K monitor... hopefully they improve it by then

the article says that Asus will have a 60Hz model coming out in the spring...

There is barely 4K content for TVs. Manufacturers should focus on affordable OLED instead of 4K or stupendously curved screens that make no sense as there is no curvely recorded content.

But the biggest fail is that there are no 16:10 4K monitors at CES.

It makes sense to view your desktop at high DPI, just as it makes sense to view a webpage on a retina display (iPad, MacBook). Text looks really nice.

16:9 4K monitors are pointless unless you're watching movies on them. But you can't as there is barely 4K content.

Manufacturers: we want 16:10 4K monitors!

bytejammer said,
There is barely 4K content for TVs. Manufacturers should focus on affordable OLED instead of 4K or stupendously curved screens that make no sense as there is no curvely recorded content.

I'll provide my own content--that is, my desktop. I have three 24" 1920x1200 monitors, and just one of these, in terms of number of pixels, could take their place.

However, I would want something a little bigger than 28". Otherwise, without rescaling everything, we're just talking smaller fonts.

bytejammer said,
There is barely 4K content for TVs. Manufacturers should focus on affordable OLED instead of 4K or stupendously curved screens that make no sense as there is no curvely recorded content.

this happens with EVERY generation of new tech. there's barely any content for the new tech.
- Look at blu-ray or HD-DVD availability when it first came out.

- how many channels were broadcasting HD when HDTV's first went on sale? (back in the 90s, mind you)

- look at how many video games are release for new systems. i still dont own a PS4 game!

at some point new tech has to be released in order to drive content creation. it cant be the other way around. imagine having 15000 movies on blu-ray with no blu-ray player to watch them. the same is true for UHD!

bytejammer said,
Manufacturers: we want 16:10 4K monitors!

Speak for yourself. 16:10 is a waste, when all the content is produced at 16:9.
Only in PC games you have an option for 16:10, but many of them still give you black borders when you select it.

_dandy_ said,

I'll provide my own content--that is, my desktop. I have three 24" 1920x1200 monitors, and just one of these, in terms of number of pixels, could take their place.

However, I would want something a little bigger than 28". Otherwise, without rescaling everything, we're just talking smaller fonts.

It's good to see someone else likes 1920x1200

Pupik said,

Speak for yourself. 16:10 is a waste, when all the content is produced at 16:9.
Only in PC games you have an option for 16:10, but many of them still give you black borders when you select it.

If you have ONE monitor, 16:9 is ideal (as you say, because of games and movies). However, if you have THREE monitors, 16:10 is far superior to 16:9, because 3 x 16:9 monitors that are 28" or greater just take up too much horizontal space and not enough vertical space.

Secondly, many people who have 3 monitor setups don't just use it for games. If you do software development or video/image editing, having 1200 vertical pixels allows you to display 1080 vertical pixels, plus some menus, while keeping the image at the original 1:1 pixel size.

Finally, for any given diagonal size, the closer to a square, the more total screen real estate there is. For example, at 28", 4:3 gives you more square inches than 16:10, which gives you more square inches than 16:9.

I'm not saying any particular size is superior (I certainly don't want a 4:3 monitor on my desktop...), but 16:10 is a nice aspect ratio for multimonitor.

bytejammer said,
There is barely 4K content for TVs. Manufacturers should focus on affordable OLED instead of 4K or stupendously curved screens that make no sense as there is no curvely recorded content.

But the biggest fail is that there are no 16:10 4K monitors at CES.

It makes sense to view your desktop at high DPI, just as it makes sense to view a webpage on a retina display (iPad, MacBook). Text looks really nice.

16:9 4K monitors are pointless unless you're watching movies on them. But you can't as there is barely 4K content.

Manufacturers: we want 16:10 4K monitors!

In 2 years time star citizen (a game) will be out and its designed for 4K and below so hopefully there will be some decent monitors out hoping a 120/144hz 4K monitor would be nice with 1ms response time

Pupik said,

Speak for yourself. 16:10 is a waste, when all the content is produced at 16:9.
Only in PC games you have an option for 16:10, but many of them still give you black borders when you select it.

Amen. Thank goodness the 16:10 era was short lived and never became the dominant ratio.

Pupik said,

Speak for yourself. 16:10 is a waste, when all the content is produced at 16:9.
Only in PC games you have an option for 16:10, but many of them still give you black borders when you select it.

16:9 is only used in television and even then many movies are wider aspect ratio. For anything else, the extra vertical space of 16:10 is more useful.

Pupik said,

Speak for yourself. 16:10 is a waste, when all the content is produced at 16:9.
Only in PC games you have an option for 16:10, but many of them still give you black borders when you select it.

I dont play games or view movies. I browse the web, read PDFs, write documents, spreadsheets and do lots of programming (eclipse, Visual Studio).
I also think 16:9 stinks for smartphones and tablets as you can barely view a webpage on it: in portrait its to narrow and in landscape its not tall enough.
IMHO, 16:9 is a TV resolution, not suitable for internet or work.

Lord Method Man said,
Amen. Thank goodness the 16:10 era was short lived and never became the dominant ratio.

What a shortsighted statement.

My three monitors are 16:10 (1920x1200). 16:9 is 1920x1080. Why are you "thanking goodness" that all we can find nowadays are monitors with 120 less pixels horizontally?

More pixels = more real estate, which is what I'm primarily after. If I'm gonna watch a movie on my 16:10 monitor, I don't care if there's black bars--I'm not one of those "FILL MY SCREEN, DAMNIT!" people . I'm one of those "MORE PIXELS, DAMNIT" people.

And for that, I welcome 4K...

Edited by _dandy_, Jan 9 2014, 9:13pm :

_dandy_ said,

What a shortsighted statement.

My three monitors are 16:10 (1920x1200). 16:9 is 1920x1080. Why are you "thanking goodness" that all we can find nowadays are monitors with 120 less pixels horizontally?

Couldn't agree more - all our devs have 1920x1200 monitors it's far more usable in a working environment and I have that same at home for gaming (and love it).

While 16x9 might be good for kids who focus on games and movies, I like 16x10 for more adult-type activities such as autocad, video & photo editing and multi-screen spreadsheets. Movies are best watched on a larger home-theater setup and smart TV.

yeah a 30hz refresh rate is a massive no no for gaming, its pointless to even make the thing. Hopefully when i upgrade in a cpl years there will be 120hz 4k monitor for about £500 or less

I'd be careful with the Dell one, the 30hz is a huge deal breaker for a lot of people. The extra $100 is WELL worth it