4K (4096x2160) Displays - any available for us USA end-users?

[Snowshredder102]

I would much rather have the resolution there for my windows desktop and just run games at half resolution. Pixel doubling by running a 4096x2160 monitor at 2048x1080 (odd aspect ratio...) would look just fine. I had a 30" monitor for a little while that I ended up returning. The 2560x1600 resolution was too high for my video card, 1280x800 looked surprisingly OK in games while maintaining the excellent desktop area of 2560x1600.

I guess we are at different ends. I have a U3011 and feel that going in 1920x1200 on the 30" looks terrible for both browsing and games. If I was going to do that I might as well just get a TV. To be honest I think a 36" would be too big for me seeing as I almost have to move my head to see things on my monitor as it is. Unless you're photo/video editor I would not see a point in wanting a super high resolution monitor if you're not going to use it in games. Seeing as the 2560x1600 is more than adequate in pixels.

 

[soccerballtux]

Can you zoom out with the vertically oriented displays? I only have 1080 pixels to work with at work so I zoom out two levels and can fit more text.

 

[Idontcare]

Does Eyefinity support an upside-down T shaped configuration for video games? Like ▄█▄?

Yep.

 

[mnewsham]

Yep.

That would be a 3x1 eyefinity "screen" then a 2nd display on top that displays something else (not the game, and not part of the eyefinity "screen")

Or am i understanding that wrong?

 

[LokutusofBorg]

I too really want to see displays like this come down in price. It's sort of absurd how pixel density has remained roughly the same for ages on desktop PCs but tablets and phones have raced ahead. You can get a 4.5" phone with the same resolution as a 13" Macbook!

I'm waiting for that 4096x2160 resolution to show up in a 24" panel... and for Windows and OS X to implement resolution-independent UI sizing.

At least OS X seems to be making some progress in this direction; 10.6 added the capabilities for some resizing, 10.7 expanded on it, even 10.7.3 added some higher resolution cursors than can be displayed on current Mac LCD panels. None of it is really used right now, mind you, but I'm still holding out for the "Retina display" Macbook Pro refresh that's been rumoured.

This (EIZO) makes me want to scream. The aspect ratio is 16:8!!! Argh!

 

[dma0991]

This (EIZO) makes me want to scream. The aspect ratio is 16:8!!! Argh!

Now that you mentioned it, the EIZO doesn't seem to be so good. I would have preferred if it had a little bit more vertical length like 16:10 ratio. Amazingly it still has more vertical pixels than horizontal pixels on my monitor and the price tag.

In landscape mode, the extra vertical pixels is quite useful for analyzing long text(codes) with another window side by side. Otherwise I would just use my Dell U2311H in portrait mode whenever I find the need for extra vertical space.

 

[LokutusofBorg]

16:10 ratio would be 4096 by 2560 instead of the 2160 vertical that it has. The widescreen trend is getting even worse. So frustrating.

 

[IlllI]

maybe you could find an old ibm t221 on ebay or something

 

[iCyborg]

I believe the GTX 580 can do 4K, not sure about the corresponding AMD competition.

69xx/79xx can too. And they should be able to do it at 60p, since you need DP 1.2 for that. GTX 580 will max out at 24p with 4K. OK for movies, but for a PC desktop, dunno, 24 Hz is rather low, especially given the amount of money involved.
Maybe Kepler will bring DP 1.2, although it's not exactly like these 4K monitors will be flying off the shelves in the near future...
And I assume these monitors also support 60Hz at 4K, EIZO should based on its horizontal scan rate.

 

[TidusZ]

I guess we are at different ends. I have a U3011 and feel that going in 1920x1200 on the 30" looks terrible for both browsing and games. If I was going to do that I might as well just get a TV. To be honest I think a 36" would be too big for me seeing as I almost have to move my head to see things on my monitor as it is. Unless you're photo/video editor I would not see a point in wanting a super high resolution monitor if you're not going to use it in games. Seeing as the 2560x1600 is more than adequate in pixels.

Ya, it took me a couple days to get used to 30" and frankly I think bigger would not necessarily be better for gaming. Higher resolution than 1600p at 30" would be alright but not really necessary. You would need to crank up the DPI to even read text if it were significantly higher resolution.

 

[TidusZ]

I guess we are at different ends. I have a U3011 and feel that going in 1920x1200 on the 30" looks terrible for both browsing and games. If I was going to do that I might as well just get a TV. To be honest I think a 36" would be too big for me seeing as I almost have to move my head to see things on my monitor as it is. Unless you're photo/video editor I would not see a point in wanting a super high resolution monitor if you're not going to use it in games. Seeing as the 2560x1600 is more than adequate in pixels.

Ya, it took me a couple days to get used to 30" and frankly I think bigger would not necessarily be better for gaming. Higher resolution than 1600p at 30" would be alright but not really necessary. You would need to crank up the DPI to even read text if it were significantly higher resolution.

Unlike processors and video cards I think the usefulness of higher resolution and bigger screens sorta tops out and you would need to have more powerful eyeball hardware to make use of it. It is really more significant for tv's that are huge and still look good from several feet away.