Intel and Samsung teaming up for lower-cost 4K monitors

This is exactly my point

I run a 27" HD monitor on my computer, and while things like games and video are fine, it is simply horrible for reading text or doing any kind of editing work, especially fine granular work that you need for audio and photo editing. I would absolutely love to have a screen that is 30" 4K 60Hz with a decent color pallet (any color pallet is going to be better than my current monitor). Anything under $750 would be acceptable in my book for such a monitor, but I would like to wait for non-tiled displays to become normal before jumping in. Which is fine to wait for as my GPU is certainly going to need an upgrade when I eventuially make the move anyways, so we are looking at well over $1000 in hardware between the GPU and screen. But if it is what you do all day every day, then having a nice screen is absolutely worth the money.

Oh, and I doubt that 8K is going to get a whole lot of traction for home use. Monitors and TVs are things that you look at from a distance, unlike portable devices which you occasionally hold close to your face. With that kind of distance 8K becomes so impractically large that it goes beyond your periphrial vision. That may become a thing for video where content is more easily centered, but for computers where the GUI is often pushed to the edges this is not a good mix. 6K may become a thing for high end users, but 8K and beyond truly do go beyond the point of practicality and will start to be met with some upgrade opposition. Don't get me wrong... it is going to happen eventually simply because they will need something new to sell, but there is a true practical and visible difference (especially on static images) between HD and 4K. Going beyond that there is going to be a fall-off until we get augmented eye implants... but that may be a thing down the road too.

I agree about 8K. Doesn't seem practical except for PC monitors which could start yielding phone-like dpis at up to 30 inches. At TV viewing distances there is no difference. hopefully the dimishing returns will focus them on stuff that matters like refresh rate, color accuracy, and even curved screens.

The point for me is to have a 32" qhd screen able to split into 4 16" quadrants. Beats the heck out of a stand with four smaller screens.

Give me a 30" IPS and I will be a happy panda.

graphics, coders, and anybody who works on a screen for a living outght to try a 1440p screen. But 4K would be a dream.

LOL I'm a coder and i work on a 1440p, its perfect for me

good for you. I'll send you a picture of my 4K monitor once these puppies are out.

4K doesn't seem to be there quite yet. It requires scaling at reasonable monitor sizes and desktop programs are very hit and miss in this regard. 1440p seems like the sweet spot for now, but they are comparatively expensive and may never go mainstream.

Having used surface pro 2 for quite some time, I've tried 150% and 125% scaling with little issue. Only older apps suffer a small degradation as they don't properly read the DPI api values therefore windows will auto-scale them. I'm actually looking forward to scaling on the external screens because most ultrabooks, laptops and 2-in-1 tablets have the scale set to 150% or 125%. Meaning apps with scaling issues are something you just have to deal with for going to 100% isn't practical. However if you apply even scaling across all screens in order to reduce the artifacts of windows trying to render two scales, you end up with the external display being overly scaled up.   Ultimately the solution is for external displays to catch up to device resolution. we've lagged in this area and the trend, as you can see, will be away from 1080p.

I will buy one in a few years when you get IPS for the same price. ´TN panels just look too bad if you got a IPS panel next to it

Just make sure its touch screen please. Non touch monitors are legacy tech.

Depends on the purpose though...

I wouldn't pay extra money for a touch screen. Don't need it, don't want it. And most of all I don't want finger prints on my screen.

I would pay for touch.

Same here. When I switch from mt surface to my work laptop, I almost always try to touch the screen to scroll smh

i would also pay if it doesnt cost too much, hope this tech arrives on WP soon as well.

Not on a desktop. To make a touchscreen useful on a desktop, the monitor would require a stand that would make it easy to position flat near you. When a monitor is in a normal vertical position and sitting like 2 feet away, the touchscreen is pointless. On laptops, it is very useful since the screen is inches away from your hand when it is resting in its normal typing position.

What it have to do with windows phone...Are these people trying to be like Verge..Then change its name from WP central to something like TechySavy

So you're new here? Haven't seen the Windows 8 related coverage on WPC in the past...long time?

Windows Phone Central > Windows > Monitors > Samsung Monitor. You're very welcome!

Lol keep in mind they also report about basketball as well lol. At least this actually sort of relates directly to Microsoft :)

The basketball artice was related to Steve Ballmer who was CEO of Microsoft. So, the article  fall into the six degree of windows phone. So, it's 3 degrees of windows phone. Ballmer bought the clippers. Ballmer was ceo of Microsoft. Microsoft makes the WP OS.

You realize that following that logic you could end up reviewing panties, right?

Its really anything Microsoft here. Which I like because all my products are Microsoft. Holy crap im a real Microsoft fanboy aren't i. 1520, Xbox one, surface pro, surface wedge mouse... Getting a little ridiculous haha (as I plan to get the surface 3, and surface Miracast dongle)

let's face it, WP isn't that interesting to be all this site is about :)

He said something bad about WP!!!1!! burn himmmm

Interesting

I don't need any 4K monitor, really. I don't even need 4K TVs. In a time when things like films and games are barely decent 1080p, I doubt 4K will really catch on. Still find it just a gimmick to sell stuff. So no, not interested.

You doubt 4k will catch on? Strange thing to say. Thats like saying its fine, lets not bother innovating now, everything is good enough. Its the next natural step up from 1080p, it may not happen soon but it WILL happen in one form or another.

You really are a cynic in its purest form lol. I respect you although we share opposite views concerning Nokia and well this topic. It's not a gimmick. It's just early tech. Ppl also called microwaves a gimmick and electric cars a gimmick. I find the dream of an OLED super thin tv more alluring than 4k tvs. But im not gonna lie and say im not interested in higher resolutions. In about 2 years ill be ready for a new tv and ill shell out for a 4k OLED tv

feel free not to buy it.

I think the nicest part of 4k tvs is they have a much better color space. sRGB color space is just tiny. I am hoping that computer monitors are the same way.

I would definitely utilise it for gaming, would be nice if they released one of these in a cinema ratio though, so that you can benefit from the real estate of two screens in one.

It will catch on if it's cheap. If you have a choice of buying a 1080p TV and a 4K TV and the price difference is $100-$200, many people will buy the 4k TV just to be future proof and the it is more likely the 4k tv will have a few other features to entice you. When enough people have 4k TV, you will start getting a lot more 4k content. At that point the remaining hold outs will start buying it. I'm not saying 4K is actually needed, but if it reached a price point that is pretty close to 1080p TVs, it will catch on.

If it was in the 40"-50" range, with a slight curve, it could just replace 4 separate 1920x1080p screens.

Haha well that's a tv

good point. I suppose it could. Although MSFT would have to start adding support for better snapping (in quarters) because the current half and half on the desktop and vertical only on store apps is defintively not going to help you.  

Very good news.

Wow 4k.. I'm dreaming about 2k..

Really? Monitors have already well surpassed 2k.

I'm in the market for a new monitor in the next six months so this is great news! I've been looking at the current "cheap" 4K monitors, in particularly the one from Samsung that's 28" for £599 so if they're able to half that price by Christmas I'll be very happy! 28" is I think the ideal size compromise for my purposes. 32" monitors are too large for my work area and any smaller then programs that don't scale become comically small and unuseable. A 28" 4K monitor works out at 157ppi so Windows (plus IE, Office, a lot of well written programs, and all modern stuff) will scale perfectly at 125% whereas programs that don't scale well (glares at Photoshop and Chrome) are still readable and useable at 100% so long as you're using a mouse or pen. Speaking of, I hope some of these include touch screens and pen capabilities, those features would cost more than $399, sure, but I'd be happy to pay. Really don't want to be without touch on any device I buy from now on, even if I'll use it less on a large monitor. As for pen input, I'm just still lusting after a drawing tablet larger than the Surface Pro. 28" would give me so much space to work with *drool*. Hopefully we'll start to get some more information sooner rather than later. :) As for those people saying they don't need it. You probably don't! Some people (like my parents) are perfectly happy running 1366x768 on 15" laptops because they don't really need more and wouldn't appreciate it all that much if they did (anything more and I'd have to scale everything up for them). For those who use these things professionally though, monitor specs have been stagnant for a loooong time now with only the prices coming down (on 1080p models anyway, anything more is still astronomically expensive) so to finally see the things that enable real work and productivity get some real improvement at a cost that's more reasonable to most, is long overdue and great to see!

I spent $350 on a quad HD monitor, so yes, I'd spend$400 on a 4k monitor!!!

The real problem with current monitors is not resolution, though more is good, but color space. sRGB for photo editing is awful! A minimum would be full RGB or even better Pro RGB. Yet they can cost thousands. If they made a 4K unit that covered 100% of RGB for less than $600 I might be interested.

Nope. Already been proven we can't tell difference. Hell I compared 4k to 1080p in Best Buy and you only know they're different because you're standing 4 inches away. Just give me a high refresh 1080p screen.