New in OS X: Get MacRumors Push Notifications on your Mac

Resubscribe Now Close

More Affordable 4K Displays Introduced at CES 2014

A number of companies introduced new 4K display options at CES this week, and, though some 4K monitors have seen early teething pains with the new Mac Pro, the new displays are expected to be compatible with Apple's new pro machine.

4K displays saw significant price drops in 2013 with a number of models introduced in recent months but these new options are, for the most part, significantly cheaper than currently available 4K monitors.

Asus pb287q
Lenovo debuted its ThinkVision Pro2840m, a 28" 4K display aimed at professionals with a 3840x2160 resolution. The monitor should be available in April for $800.

Asus also has a 3840x2160 display available, a 28-inch panel called the PB287Q, priced at $800. It will be available in the second quarter of 2014.

Finally, Seiki confirmed to MacRumors that it will announce a new 28" 4K display tomorrow, likely a budget-option as the company currently has a 39-inch 4K television available for just $500, significantly cheaper than similar alternatives.

LG widescreen 31 inch 4k 2013 12 17 01
LG's new ultra-widescreen non-4K displays

LG previously announced a 4K display, the 31-inch 31MU95, that is wider than most other options using a 19:10 ratio widescreen panel at 4096x2160, whereas the most other 4K displays use a 16:9 ratio. LG will also offer 34-inch and 29-inch options with much wider 21:9 screens at lower, non-4K resolutions. Those panels should be announced later this week at CES.

Related roundup: Thunderbolt Display

Top Rated Comments

(View all)

10 months ago

It's going to be 2020+ before one of these have enough content to justify buying. Hell, I don't think any cable companies even broadcast 1080p yet.

Don't know what the Blu-Ray adoption will look like.


it's not a TV
Rating: 10 Votes
10 months ago
Why do so many manufacturers ruin the aesthetic of their display so pointlessly by putting a list of features on the FRONT of the unit?

Can't they at least put them on the back? Or on a piece of paper seperatly?
It's not like you're gonna forget your display has HDMI or something....
Rating: 8 Votes
10 months ago
Am I the only one that noticed these aren't 4k TVs? These are Ultra HD resolutions not 4k resolutions.
Rating: 6 Votes
10 months ago
Now the Apple thunderbolt one is REALLY expensive.
Rating: 5 Votes
10 months ago

It's a 4k monitor but only goes to 3840? Am I missing something?


Exactly! These aren't 4k. 3840 x 2160 is Ultra HD, 4096 x 2560 is 4k.
Rating: 5 Votes
10 months ago
And, unsurprisingly, Apple's only monitor offering remains a 2+ year old display.

#angrymacuser
Rating: 4 Votes
10 months ago
It's a 4k monitor but only goes to 3840? Am I missing something?
Rating: 4 Votes
10 months ago

I am sure there are, but do you really want to watch those shows?


Are you seriously implying that the aspect ratio of the programming has anything to do with whether it's worth watching?

Anyways, I like that ultra wide screen, but the numbers don't add up.

4096:2160 = 17:9, not 21:9. 17x9 wouldn't be all that different from 16x9, but that screen looks really wide compared to a 16x9, so I don't doubt the claim that it's 21:9.

Either the pixels are stretched (Ew, why the heck would you do that?) or the resolution dimensions are wrong… maybe it's actually 5040 x 2160?
Rating: 4 Votes
10 months ago

exactly...ow can they market it as a 4k display with less than 4,000 pixels?


Because 3,8K is harder to say ^^

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/4K_resolution

As you can see, there are many standardized 4K resolutions, even if their horizontal resolution might not even reach 4,000 the naming convention is there. I guess the truly correct term is UHD, Ultra High Defition for what most companies will sell as "4K".
Rating: 3 Votes
10 months ago

It's a 4k monitor but only goes to 3840? Am I missing something?


Yes, I believe you are. 1080p/i at 16:9 works out at 3840x2160 if you double the number of pixels in both directions. People need to stop getting hung up on this - they call it 4k because it sounds a lot better than 3.84k and depending on your aspect ratio the monitor will be there or thereabouts. The point of the standard was to double pixels in both directions - why, because its a lot easier to scale your content if you say "let's double everything in both directions" than "let's use a scale factor of 2.1 in both directions" because pixels don't come in .1 denominations and that's just awkward. Personally I think it should have been marketed as 2k and we keep to the standard of quoting vertical pixels but apparently the marketing boys got to it before common sense did.

Can you imagine explaining to someone who barely understands 720 or 1080 the concept of 4k? its confusing and stupid.

At any rate, tl;dr get over it. If it bothers you that much then wait for someone to bring out a non 16:9 monitor, but with all tech companies moving towards full screen apps and therefore no control bar to squeeze in at the top or bottom you won't see those aspect ratios in anything but the truly professional 4k monitors, all video content is 16:9 so most users don't need anything else.
Rating: 3 Votes

[ Read All Comments ]