Intel, Samsung working to push 4K monitor prices as low as $399

Intel, Samsung working to push 4K monitor prices as low as $399

Summary: The companies are working with hardware partners to deliver 23.6-inch displays for under $400 and Intel Core-based all-in-one 4K PCs for $999 by the holiday shopping season.

TOPICS: Hardware, Intel, Samsung

At the same time Intel was busy introducing new processors and SSDs at Computex last week, it was also unveiling a plan it's developed with Samsung to quicken the pace of 4K display adoption. The two tech giants are working with hardware partners to slash the price of ultra-high-resolution monitors and all-in-one (AIO) PCs in time for the busy holiday shopping season.

In particular, the hope is that firms like MSI and Viewsonic will introduce 23.6-inch 4K monitors for as little as $399 and similar-sized 4K AIOs using Intel's Core processors for $999. The target monitor price would be much less than what the cheapest 4K displays go for today — the new 28-inch Asus PB287Q 4K monitor, for instance, sells for $649.

Both companies have something to gain from the program, of course. Samsung would be the manufacturer of the panels used in the monitors and PCs, while Intel can cash in on its new processors' ability to handle 4K graphics. But increased 4K penetration in the PC market could also benefit the likes of AMD and Nvidia, both of whom sell graphics cards that can handle games making use of the ultra high resolution.

While the plan to cut the price of 4K displays sounds good in theory, there are a few monkey wrenches that need to be addressed. Most notably, there is limited content that makes use of all those extra pixels, especially once you leave the gaming realm. While more videos are being created and released in 4K versions with every passing day, it's still such a small percentage that non-gamers won't be clamoring to have Ultra HD.

In addition, a 24-inch screen doesn't truly provide the optimal viewing experience for 4K content, much in the same way that smaller sized HDTVs (32 inches and under) were never optimal for 1080p content. At least a $600-and-change 4K TV like the one from Seiko has 50 inches of screen size to display the 8.3 megapixels of Ultra HD. (Seiko also sells a 39-inch 4K HDTV for under $400, but that might not be an ideal size, either.)

We still have a few months to wait to see if any of Intel and Samsung's partners can make good on the cheaper 4K plan. Would you be interested in buying a 23.6-inch 4K monitor for $400 or a 4K AIO PC for $999? Let us know in the Talkback section below.

Topics: Hardware, Intel, Samsung

Kick off your day with ZDNet's daily email newsletter. It's the freshest tech news and opinion, served hot. Get it.


Log in or register to join the discussion
  • This madness has to end at some point.

    I have a 42" HDTV, and no room for anything larger. I do not live in either a movie theatre or a mall.

    Whatever next? Will there be 16K screens with a minimum practical size of 100", and would even that not be big enough for some people?

    Does all this stop before or after the optimal viewing distance becomes "in low Earth orbit"?

      Absolutely! Back in my day we had a dozen pixels and we shared them among our coworkers!

      But seriously just because you can't find a use for more space on your screen doesn't mean other people can't. I use a 14" laptop screen set to 1920x1080, I could certainly use a 23" monitor set to 4K and utilize the screen space.

      My guess is you are one of the many people with vision issues who need to crank down the resolution on any screen you use in order to read the text, in your case I can see why you wouldn't see any usefulness. But that doesn't mean everyone shares your vision. ;)
      Koopa Troopa
    • Resolutions

      The article is about bringing 4k resolutions to monitors, not TV's. In fact with resolution it is basically the opposite of your point, while you are arguing screen size's are too big. The fact is monitors are used for viewing from close distances, where you are closer to the screen and see more pixels. The picture from viewing the difference in a monitor that is let say 30" that is 4k, will have a way better picture than a monitor that is 30" at 1080p.
    • Perfectly usable for reading..

      When I got my 1st gen iPad, I thought the screen resolution was more than adequate. Finally, after years of wanting one, I had a great device for reading my PDF books. Then the higher definition ones came out and I saw how much better they were for reading books. Less eye strain, just much more pleasant to read.

      I also read a lot on my 1900x1200 24" monitors, but now my new 8" tablet packs in more pixels than that and is a much nicer device to read on.

      If we have the technology now and the prices are reasonable, I think it's definitely time to move on to the next generation of monitors. 4k is not excessive if you like to read on your computer.
  • There was 3D...Now 4K

    Remember 7.1 surround sound? I had a home theater with it audiophile speakers in 7.1. When I moved and built my next one, I got 5.1. Why? Exceptionally few titles come with 7.1. A few more with 6.1. Almost all are in 5.1. Been there. Done that. Very little value added.

    Remember 9.1 and 11.1 speaker systems? Width and height channels? Never caught on. Just gimmickry to sell new products to those who want "the best."

    Remember 3D? It was going to sweep the nation. Fissle. I saw Avatar in 3D. I have a 72" THX-certified plasma (2D) and Avatar looks awesome on it in 2D. I don't feel I'm missing anything. Another gimmick.

    Now 4K. I have 2 x 24" monitors before me. Video looks awesome. I have abundant detail. Do I really need 4 times more pixels to have a "Retina Display"? I can just barely make out one pixel to the next now, so I certainly don't need any more smoothing. I also don't need my objects on the screen to be 1/4 the size so I can get 4 times more stuff on it. I also don't have the space to swap out my 2 x 24" monitors into one 48" 4K monitor (nor would I want to).

    So who is 4K for? The tiny market segment who wants the "latest and greatest." Like 11.1 surround sound, and 3D. I predict the masses don't embrace 4K, and it goes the way of 3D.
    • Correction...

      That's a 65" THX-certified plasma. 72" was my previous home theater. Typo. Wish "Edit" was available.
  • Freedom of choice

    Let everyone buy and watch the monitor or TV they want, we all have different perceptions and needs. For me, the 46" in my lounge is getting long in the tooth (or rather my eyes are) and reading script on the screen will soon require 65"+ at our preferred viewing distance. My 24" desk monitor (1920x1080) will likely serve well for some time to come.
    But I feel that the greater resolution of 4K will only have benefits at around 50" and over. As curved screens will likely only have benefits at very large screen sizes.
  • Asus pricing is a sick joke!!!

    Whatever the price they quote in dollars it will be far more in the UK.

    Currently the exchange rate is £0.60 to the dollar, Your quote for the Asus monitor is $599.99 which at the exchange rate becomes £389.40. The actual cost of this monitor in the UK is £599.99 which equates to just over $1000! I would like Asus to explain this.
    • I'll give you ...

      ... two reasons:

      1) Import Duty
      2) Limited-volume shipping costs

      And if you're buying as a private citizen (as opposed to a business), you can add 20% sales tax too (compared to ~9% in most states in the US).
  • 4K would be great at 24"

    for computing purposes. I have been sad that monitor resolutions have been stuck to 1080p for quite some time. It is hard to find other resolutions and they cost more than the 1080p.
  • Seiki 39" 4k

    Not seiko. I've owned that and it's a bad screen but for pro photography the mid 30" is a good pixel pitch. Otherwise, with 24" you have to be quite close to see any resolution advantage.