Intel and Samsung team up to launch $399 4K monitors

High resolution is all the rage these days. Smartphones and tablets seem to be cramming insane amounts of pixels into tiny spaces, but regular monitors have fallen behind due to high prices. Now Intel and Samsung are teaming up to fix this.

On stage at Computex, Intel announced it is partnering up with Samsung, and together they’ll slash the price of 4K monitors and make them widely available. Currently a 4K display can be a serious drag on your finances with prices in the range of $1000.

But through this new collaboration, the chip maker claims they’ll bring down prices to half of what these panels cost today. Working with Samsung’s display division, Intel says display manufacturers will soon be able to sell 4K displays for just $399. This opens up the door for future AIO PCs as well as laptops and convertibles which may feature UHD display in the near future.

And despite their low prices, Intel assures us that these displays won’t skimp when it comes to quality. They’ll supposedly have 60Hz refresh rates and 100% sRGB color gamut. Of course the true test will come once they hit markets.

The companies haven’t announced an actual timeframe, but we’re all hoping this partnership will start to bear fruit soon.

Source and Images: The Inquirer

Report a problem with article
Previous Story

Xbox One and 360 June update available starting today

Next Story

Is the Motorola Moto 360 larger than advertised?

49 Comments

Commenting is disabled on this article.

The day a sub-1000$ FreeSync or GSync 4K monitor with 100hz+ refresh rate comes out is the day I upgrade from my Benq xl2720t. I'm sort of tempted by ASUS GSync QHD monitor coming out this summer, but it's not enough of an upgrade to justify it IMO.

A 4K monitor is definitely in my future, hopefully to replace my current setup (three 24" 1920x1200 monitors), but that'll have to be at least 30"...otherwise it's just too damned small. Scaling, IMO, is just wasting additional pixels to show the same amount of information.

Oh heck, I was all excited for this till I saw it say 24" screens on the slide.

Hopefully we'll see 28" 4K monitors for $499 or less too. On a 24" screen, programs that don't scale properly (glares at Chrome and Photoshop, amongst others) just begin to look comically small or end up with major issues when scaled.

At 28" (157ppi), Windows, IE, Office, and lots of well-coded programs (and all the modern stuff) scale perfectly fine at 125% and programs that don't scale well can just be set to 100% so there's no scaling issues and they're not so small that they can't easily be used with mouse or pen.

Speaking of, hope some of these monitors come with touch and pen options...

Chrome gets pixel-stretched. At 200% it will just look like it looks at 100% on a low DPI screen.

Photoshop incorrectly claims it is DPI aware but renders everything at 100%. There is a workaround to make it pixel-stretch manually. Adobe said Photoshop would be updated soon and they have a beta build they showed on the Surface Pro 3 reveal.

24" is actually not a bad size to run at 4K first because 200% scaling works so well for running older DPI-unaware programs.

All true, though Photoshop will require you using it on a Creative Cloud subscription.

Still, those who have used and reviewed the current 24" 4K monitors have all complained about Photoshop and Chrome so I don't think it's as smooth as a simple pixel double due to whatever dark magicks Adobe and Google used to cook up their interface! ;)

prettyconfusd said,
All true, though Photoshop will require you using it on a Creative Cloud subscription.

Still, those who have used and reviewed the current 24" 4K monitors have all complained about Photoshop and Chrome so I don't think it's as smooth as a simple pixel double due to whatever dark magicks Adobe and Google used to cook up their interface! ;)

Chrome is pixel stretched by default. If you disable DPI scaling it will render at 100%. There WAS a chrome://flags setting that enabled experimental highDPI support but it was removed a couple weeks ago for some reason. If you're fine with using it pixel doubled then you don't need to do anything.

Photoshop will render at 100% by default no matter your DPI setting. There is a hacking workaround to make it pixel-stretch that involves modifying the exe manifest. Yes, you'll almost definitely need the latest version of Photoshop when they finally get it to be DPI aware, I doubt they'll be backporting that.

If you're a heavy photoshop user and do not want to upgrade to the latest version then you'll never be able to use a 4K screen.

If you aren't a heavy photoshop user you can use a different web browser than Chrome, FF and IE work great on HiDPI. Seriously everything works pretty great. Pretty much the only other program than those two that I use that isn't DPI-aware is 7-zip. But it scales fine, the manifest just says it isn't DPI aware. If you disable DPI scaling it will be the right size and work great.

Anyone here actually use w7 with 4k? From what I'm hearing the scaling issues are horrendous...I still have problems with many things on w7 simply by using 125% scaling at 1080.

Windows scales fine, even 7. It's third-party programs which aren't DPI aware that will get pixel-stretched. If the 4K screens are 23" or 24" you can run them at 200% scaling then the pixel-stretching won't make them look terrible. If it's not run at 200% then you will definitely have the pixelated stretched out DPI-unaware programs.

Windows 8.1 added some support for multiple screens with different DPI settings. It doesn't work that well yet though, needs another year or two.

mrp04 said,
.....

Actually it doesn't.

There's a great TechEd video on channel9 talking about how to make your apps DPI aware and tell you to embed multiple resolution assets into your app.

They use RDP / VM to test up to 500% scaling in Win8.1.

Everything before 8.1 handles DPI in a less than optimum fashion.

Even in the TechEd demo, they found a DPI scaling bug in Windows and the presenter said something like, see, we still have a ways to go.

Problem is 4K is that the Windows Desktop UI becomes so tiny that you've to squint. Raising DPI makes everything ugly and has scaling issues. Metro scales nicely but it's Metro!! :p

UXGaurav said,
Problem is 4K is that the Windows Desktop UI becomes so tiny that you've to squint. Raising DPI makes everything ugly and has scaling issues. Metro scales nicely but it's Metro!! :p

8.1 update 1 improves things a lot. But apps need to catch up.

It improves nothing besides different scaling for multi-monitors. For single monitor, it removes the global option to disable DPI virtualization for all apps.

Windows scales just fine. If you have multiple screens with different DPIs it's still iffy but with just one (or on your primary) it looks great. The Microsoft programs (other than Skype) are all DPI-aware.

Google is tasking their sweet time making Chrome DPI aware so just use IE or FF.

Adobe is also being slow but is committed to making Photoshop DPI aware. Acrobat/Adobe reader both are now and some others of their major programs are.

UXGaurav said,
Problem is 4K is that the Windows Desktop UI becomes so tiny that you've to squint. Raising DPI makes everything ugly and has scaling issues. Metro scales nicely but it's Metro!! :p


Apps that properly support dpi scaling don't go ugly. Apps that are old or badly programmed look bad.

This is a good thing. Its weird to be on my desktop with a 23 inch with only 1080p resolution when my macbook pro and lumia 925 has over 220ppi.

Well 1080p is ideal for a 23 inch screen. Also, how do you like the combo of the MacBook Pro and Microsoft phone? Best of both worlds I guess?

Why is 1080p ideal for a 23 inch screen ?

if it was games and fonts wouldn't need anti aliasing and smoothing making them blurry now would they.

HawkMan said,
Why is 1080p ideal for a 23 inch screen ?

if it was games and fonts wouldn't need anti aliasing and smoothing making them blurry now would they.

Because anything bigger is just plain wrong. Ever seen a 27inch monitor at 1080p? Let me re-word my original comment: 23inch and under is ideal for 1080p. Personally, I prefer 1920x1200.

Nah 24 inches need higher DPI/PPI so we can avoid visible aliasing, and get sharp fonts without blurring.

bigger monitors need even bigger resolution. You can still barely get monitors with the resolution my old 21 inch CRT used to have with 1600 vertical. to get anything comparable in resolution you need to go up to 27 and 30 inch monitors and even then it'snot truly comparable, and it's like 15 years later.

What happened, why did flat panels stop the increased resolution on monitors and even go way way down, when flat panels need higher resolution more than any CRT ever did.

HawkMan said,
What happened, why did flat panels stop the increased resolution on monitors and even go way way down, when flat panels need higher resolution more than any CRT ever did.

simple: pleople just demanded better technology and not better image quality, so for some years we went back from 1440x900 as the "standard" for 19 inch LCDs and lower to 1366x768 or even 1280x720 because they could claim "HD" resolutions while saving money. (heck, they even did 21'' screens at 1366x768)

This in turn helped dampen the advancement of video cards, as we didn't have screens supporting more than 1080p for a while so card companies slowed down their developments (Nvidia having the 8800 renamed twice is a direct by-product of having no need to improve). Then the craze for multi screen started thanks to AMD, and cards advanced a little again, but they were typically built thinking in up to 3 1080p screens and they got good enough by the time of the 7x00 series from AMD and 5x0 series from Nvidia.

Today, 4K is the equivalent of 4 1080p screens, and no single GPU card is able to drive every game at 60fps on it. Neither AMD nor Nvidia were prepared for it, because as much as they try to convince you they are for enthusiasts, they actually cater to the mainstream. And the mainstream is stuck at 1080p or less, and even a lowly 260X/750Ti is able to drive almost anything at high quality.

So why didn't 4K become popular before? greed from panel manufacturers, and greed from GPU manufacturers that stopped pushing the performance boundaries. I bet the next generation of cards will be a giant leap in performance so that you can drive most games on a 4K screen on a 150W or lower power envelope. Nvidia seems to be on a good track with Maxwell, but we still need to see what AMD has in store for the next gen.

underpowered consoles such as the PS4, which lag several years behind PC master race will not be able to enjoy 4K. But Netflix already talks about 4K and off course youtube cat videos.

there are some 4K videos of gameplay online.

alwaysonacoffebreak said,

If it's iris pro then maybe. Hd4600, doubt it.

surface pro 2/3 uses the HD4400 and can drive an external 4K screen in addition to it's own 1440p or 1080p.

And if you have a discrete system then you've been able to run 4K for half a decade.

Every device with 1.4 HDMI can play 4K content. BUT only with 30 FPS!
For more you need a device with HDMI 2 the "new" standard.

neonspark said,

surface pro 2/3 uses the HD4400 and can drive an external 4K screen in addition to it's own 1440p or 1080p.

And if you have a discrete system then you've been able to run 4K for half a decade.

It can output 4K but when ever you'll try to actually do anything a little more graphics demanding it'll stutter like hell.

HOzwo said,
Every device with 1.4 HDMI can play 4K content. BUT only with 30 FPS!
For more you need a device with HDMI 2 the "new" standard.

Most video cards these days have DisplayPort 1.2 which supports 4K @60Hz.

100% sRGB is only something you should be boasting if the monitor itself is total crap, sRGB is modelled after a average CRT from 1995.

The Dell 4K monitor is 99% Adobe RGB, much better.

Realistic difference is minor. and only noticeable if you use Adobe RGB which you shouldn't anyway due to other issues(mainly weird compression artifacts). full sRGB means it has at least sRGB and more but when you use sRGB it can display the full range.

for gaming word and web, plus some codding, your adobe RGB means absolutely nothing. sRGB is the space of the web and unless you're working in graphics, ARGB will just prove pointless.

and clearly if you're a graphics pro, you don't want a 399 screen to being with silly.

The_Decryptor said,
100% sRGB is only something you should be boasting if the monitor itself is total crap, sRGB is modelled after a average CRT from 1995.

You know that most LCD on the market , are not able to reproduce the full sRGB space (especially TN panels ) ? Some old CRT offered better colors & contrast, than LCD available today (sony trinitron, was so great) . Unless you have a non-TN based LCD, I'm telling that it's your LCD that is crap.

HawkMan said,
bottom of the picture says "4k PLS 23.3'' 60hz"

so no.

If they really do sell a PLS 4K for just $400 I'd be the first to pre-order it on Amazon.