HP has introduced its new display for offices that combines large dimensions and a relatively low price. The EliteDisplay E324q is a 31.5-inch QHD monitor that costs less than $450 and is designed primarily for productivity applications. Apart from its price and size, an important feature of the LCD are its thin bezels making it easier to work in multi-monitor configurations.

HP’s EliteDisplay E324q relies on a panel featuring a 2560x1440 resolution as well as standard contrast and brightness. The monitor has a DisplayPort, HDMI, and USB-C input. In addition, it has a dual-port USB 3.0 Type-A hub. Meanwhile, the display comes with a stand that can adjust height, tilt, and swivel. Besides, the monitor can be rotated by 90 degrees.

HP notes that thin bezels on three sides of the EliteDisplay E324q make it more comfortable to use it in dual display configuration to boost workers’ efficiency.

HP plans to start sales of its EliteDisplay E324q in June for a price of $429. Unfortunately HP has not provided any other specifications on the display.

Related Reading

Source: HP

Comments Locked


View All Comments

  • shabby - Wednesday, April 17, 2019 - link

    This 16:9 ratio needs to die on PC's.
  • Rookierookie - Wednesday, April 17, 2019 - link

    While I think it's a shame they don't make 1600x1200 anymore, I almost always have two windows side by side at all times, and 16:9 works just fine for that purpose.
  • 3DoubleD - Wednesday, April 17, 2019 - link

    Fortunately this is at least 1440p. But I agree, for a productivity monitor I'd prefer an even wider aspect ratio so long as they at least keep the 1440p vertical resolution. For a laptop, I'd prefer 3:2. So yes, 16:9 should probably die everywhere but TVs and perhaps gaming oriented monitors.

    How will they handle burn-in. Productivity monitors have to be the worst for this. The task bar will be burned in in no time.
  • rocky12345 - Wednesday, April 17, 2019 - link

    Yep agree 1440p is the selling feature here for sure. I do not agree about the 16:9 should die though I think there are room for both regular 16:9 and ultra wide's in the market. If a person does not the Ultra wide they can go 16:9 win win for everyone.
  • Flunk - Wednesday, April 17, 2019 - link

    Ultra short monitors are the most impractical.
  • siuol11 - Friday, April 19, 2019 - link

    It's not an OLED panel, there is zero burn-in.
  • rocky12345 - Wednesday, April 17, 2019 - link

    Why should just because you don't want to use it there are millions of people that do what to use 16:9 displays. I'm thinking you are slightly out numbered here.
  • drothgery - Wednesday, April 17, 2019 - link

    Millions of people want to use 16:9 displays *for television* (and don't mind it for movies). Nobody wants 16:9 for laptops or PC monitors, but not many people are willing to pay a large premium for something else.
  • qap - Wednesday, April 17, 2019 - link

    As a person who uses 30" monitor for almost 15 years, I really think that with such large size 16:9 or even something close to 2:1 for 40" is good aspect ratio for work. Mine is 16:10 and it's height is not very useful.
    If you would limit your "I hate 16:9" speech to laptops, I would mostly agree. Definitely not for PC displays as they are getting beyond 30".
  • darkswordsman17 - Wednesday, April 17, 2019 - link

    Sorry but people use laptops and PCs for watching movies too so saying no one wants it is ridiculously absurd (aside from nerds I don't even hear people complain about aspect ratios of PCs; they used to complain about black bars from widescreen on old 4:3 TVs, and some still do about ultrawide formats on 16:9). If its that much of a hassle on PC/laptop they'll have an external monitor that they can rotate since working on laptop sized displays is honestly kinda terrible for a lot of stuff anyway). Plus with lots of software you can put menus and toolbars and the like to the left or right on 16:9 or wider. I do think there's more ideal resolution and size that 1080p (that is being used all over) is not currently meeting (24-27" 1440p is much better, wish we'd have 3200x1800 displays in the 32" range, and then larger than that 4K).

    After using a Surface Book for about a year, I personally didn't feel like the 3:2 display was better for my uses (which included sketching and some general productivity stuff). Plus I think it was worse for that product as the height exacertbated the weight imbalance to make it less useful in your lap than if it was wider (but that's an issue for how they did the Surface Book and not most laptops).

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now