CES 2014: New era of inexpensive 4K monitors from Asus, Dell, Lenovo and Seiki ushered in

With the new Mac Pro capable of powering three 4k displays, new MacBook Pros with Thunderbolt 2 and 4K HDMI 1.4 in many hands and Apple taking its sweet time to release its own monitor, an affordable 4k display is something many people are searching out right now. ASUS, at the Consumer Electronics Show, has just unveiled a new 28-inch 4k monitor that will retail for just $799. Currently, ASUS’ 31.5-inch 4k offering comes in at over $3,000, and while the price difference between the two is major, there doesn’t appear to be a gap in features (via Engadget).

ASUS’s 28-inch 4k monitor will pack a resolution of 3,840 x 2,160, just like its larger sibling. As far as ports go, we’re looking at one DisplayPort and one MHL-capable HDMI port. The monitor has a fully rotatable design, as well as a quick 1ms response time.

Seiki has also announced a new 4k monitor option. We reviewed the company’s 39-inch model last month and were very fond of it, especially its affordable price. We even told you how to build a Hackintosh capable of powering it. Now, Seiki says its new 28-inch monitor will be even cheaper than its 39-inch option, which currently goes for $499.99 on Amazon. Seiki’s 28-inch model will pack three HDMI ports, one VGA input, and a composite input. Seiki hasn’t officially announced a release date, though they told us sometime in the first half of this year.

dell-p2815q-4k-monitor-100224242-large

As it teased last year, Dell is also showing off its budget 4k monitor at CES this year. Also coming in at 28-inches, Dell says the monitor will run just $699, making it cheaper than both Asus’ and Lenovo’s offerings. It’s also going to beat both to market with a release date of January 23rd.

Finally, Lenovo is also showing off a 4k monitor that is also 28-inches and will run $799. Shipments for it will begin in April.

CES coverage brought to you by Belkin

FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links. More.

You’re reading 9to5Mac — experts who break news about Apple and its surrounding ecosystem, day after day. Be sure to check out our homepage for all the latest news, and follow 9to5Mac on Twitter, Facebook, and LinkedIn to stay in the loop. Don’t know where to start? Check out our exclusive stories, reviews, how-tos, and subscribe to our YouTube channel

Comments

  1. Does it make any sense to spend money on an iMac? Or is it better to wait for a higher resolution PC?

    • Prowl Home - 9 years ago

      Do you mean wait for a higher resolution iMac? or just a windows PC… cos they are very different things.

      there will be a 4K iMac at some point this year I am guessing.

    • Alborz Heydaryan - 9 years ago

      a 27″ iMac has close to 4K resolution. Much higher than 1080p.
      I’m using one right now.
      It depends on what you need. why do you need the higher resolution? video/photo editing? then you should probably wait for the next iMac. (or updated thunderbolt displays)
      gaming? buy a PC and don’t wait.
      does it make sense to buy a 27″ iMac right now? totally! a 23″ one? (I’d go with MacBook Air unless you need the screen real state) but again, totally makes sense!
      so see what you need.
      there will always be better things to buy. get something that full fills your needs and don’t worry what comes next.

      • zacksilverman11 - 9 years ago

        4K Resolution: 3,840 X 2,160 = 8.3million pixels

        Current 27 inch iMac resolution: 2,560 X 1,440 = 3.7 million pixels

        1080P: 1920 X 1080 = 2.1 million pixels

        PLEASE, do not misinform readers with statements like “27” iMac has close to 4K resolution” In what world is 3.7 million pixels close to 8.3 million pixels?

        27″ iMac is much closer to 1080P resolution than it is to 4K as illustrated by the numbers above.

      • Ziegel (@Ziegel_MK2) - 9 years ago

        iMac 27″ = 2k.

        And still 4K is a misleading term to. Because only cinema’s uses real 4K (4096 x 2160) or (4096 x 1714)

        Those “4K” Screens are 3840 x 2160 missing a lot of pixels!

        So yeah the market is also misleading us with information.

        Its called 4K not 3.8k so you expect a minimal 4k wide pixels.

    • Tim Jr. - 9 years ago

      Unless you have immediate need for 4k, the current 2560 x 1440 27″ iMac is a very beautiful machine and much better than your average 1920×1080 screen. Unless you’re into heavy video or photo editing, imo, 4k is mostly just ‘bling’.

      Plus, 4k on anything smaller than a 32″ is really hard to read right now. It doesn’t scale like a Retina Macbook Pro does to 1440×900 on it’s 2880×1800 screen does. It’s a limitation of current monitor support.

      Of course, refresh rate limitations currently only push 30MHz refresh rates on most 4k screens.. in a world where most computers are ‘MINIMUM’ 60, you’re going to see a lot of ghosting on games.

      4k is in it’s infancy and my honest recommendation is wait at least a year for next generation Apple and PC products to come out.. don’t get caught up in the hype yet..

    • wut o-o - 9 years ago

      If you are gaming, there is absolutely no point in getting a mac, if you aren’t gaming, knock yourself out, there is really no point getting a higher resolution over 1440p since what other thing besides gaming uses more than that many pixles

  2. Shaun G - 9 years ago

    A 28″ 4K monitor for $799. Wow, even if Apple does release their own 4K display there is no way they’ll be able to match that pricing. Even the current non-4K Apple display costs more than that. On the upside an 800 dollar 4K display makes the Mac Pro look a whole lot more attractive than the 4 grand Sharp display they are trying to sell.

    • hmurchison - 9 years ago

      Of course Apple’s not going to sell a $799 4K display. Apple’s display only use the top grade panels. The B grade stuff ends up in products (read off brands)

      • Nathaniel Soria (@hevix) - 9 years ago

        Off brands like Lenovo, Asus and Dell?? Not sure about this comment..

      • drtyrell969 - 9 years ago

        The days of Apple having some alien drop on technology, especially when it comes to monitors is over. The most wealthy video game companies on Earth have long ceased paying $4k for Apple monitors for virtually any average equivalent. I run a 30″ Apple monitor right next to a $600 DELL monitor…the discernible difference is size.

  3. All these cheap 4K monitors use inferior TN LCD panels panels. You don’t want these, trust me. Lenovo, Dell, and Asus are basically trying to exploit the hype around 4K to sell cheap monitors, even though 4K is supposed to represent the high-end segment.

    Real 4K monitors with IPS LCD panels (similar to those in Apple’s Retina displays) are still relatively expensive. Apple would never release a pro monitor with a TN LCD panel, and they shouldn’t.

    • Johnny Kenth - 9 years ago

      This is exactly the point so many are missing! You can’t do more TN to an IPS panel; the difference is night and day! TheDell UltraSharp 32,- UP3214Q is an example of a 4k monitorwith IPS, it costs 2k🔚

Author

Avatar for Chance Miller Chance Miller

Chance is an editor for the entire 9to5 network and covers the latest Apple news for 9to5Mac.

Tips, questions, typos to chance@9to5mac.com