Originally Posted by Jpmboy
Everything is wrong with that "logic". First, 3 1080p monitors is only 2/3 the pixels at 4k; second, anyone commenting here without ACTUALLY having seen a 4k display is just BSing without any actual experience/knowledge; third, having dabbled in gaming on my 50 inch 4k monitor at 30Hz.... I can tell you that there is no gaming market until we get >= 60Hz with a single cable (next year at best). So if you do is game, i'd wait for the signal trans tech to catch up to the panel tech.
Frankly, multiple 1080p monitors is yesterday. It wont be long until we're talking about multiple 4k capabilities.
1: You can already preorder a $3,500 asus 4k monitor that does 60hz. This is fact.
2: 3x 1920x1080 is 75% of 4k resolution. Not 66%. Due to the fun and interesting way percentage work, 4k is also 33% more than 3x1920x1080 which is 75% of it. Cuz you are adding 1/3 of what you have, hence 33%. Its a 33% increase of the base resolution.
3: seen, played with, drooled on, want.
Looking forward to it.
But yes, multiple 1080p monitors is yesterday. And for me, tomorrow, and the next day... and so on until asus drops the 39" unit.
All you need is 2x hdmi, or DP 1.2 with MST. Asus uses both of these options, its in their manual for the 31.5" which is available on the website. I think it is safe to assume the 39" will follow suit.
DP works fine single cable, but you need to run it as two half screens. Nvidia is supposedly implementing 2 monitor surround for exactly this reason - 4k displays.
And there is no way the 39" monitor will be more than $1,000. Maybe at absolute most $1,100. I am calling it now. Feel free to prove me wrong, but if that is the case... I wont be buying one. The 39" isn't an IGZO panel, it has no reason to cost more than $1k.