radrok Has 2560x1600 resolution ever become cheap? That's what boggles me, could take a lot more than we'd imagine to have cheap UHD monitors.

JDG1980 At a size of 39 inches, a 4K monitor would have a pixel density of just under 113 ppi. This means it might appeal to people who think better screens should be used to cram in more information, not get smoother text at the same virtual size. (For what it's worth, I'd rather get the smoother text - after using an iPad 4, the low ppi of a PC monitor is somewhat painful.) At 113 ppi, you could probably get away with leaving Windows on the standard 100% scaling factor if you have good eyesight.



To get 96 ppi (the Windows standard), you'd need a 46-inch 4K monitor - or, more likely, a 4K TV repurposed as a monitor. That would be the equivalent of having four bezel-less 1080p screens in one unit.

2560x1600 has never been marketed at anything other than graphics professionals. There has never been a push to generate content in that format or produce TVs in that format or basically do anything with that format other than market it to graphics professionals, so it has remained an expensive niche product.If they begin to develop content for 4k and market it in the TV world, it has potential to do what 1080p did and become mainstream. There are no technical reasons why 1440/1600p panels must have the crazy cost of entry that they do, and the same goes for 4k. It all depends who the consumer they target is going to be.I really like the ~110 PPI mark. It's about what I've got on my 27" 1440p screen and while I can still make out the pixels, they are small enough that I never notice unless I'm looking for it. That's why I really like the idea of a 40" 4k screen for gaming :)