I would think any of the new Display adapter that supports the amount of pixels that 4k HDTV display, has an HDMI port or a display port that supports 4K and has a supported GPU with required VRAM would work well. Many old Adapters do not support the requires amount of pixels like my Nvidia Quadro 4000 only supports up to 2560x1200 pixels where a Quadro K4000 supports up to 3840x2160 pixels on its DP 1.2 port. Which is best may depend on all the applications you want to support and your budget some of the high end adapters are very pricey, Nvidia Gforce Titan $1,000 and the Quadro K6000 $1,500 for example.
hmmm, ...yes, I've been thinking along those lines too. Right now, I need a monitor, my last one died and I'm thinking about something with bigger color gamut, like Adobe RGB, like
I would rather the 27" version but it's way too expensive. For now, I can wait on the graphics card, but when I do get it, I want it to be able to drive my (someday in the future) 4K 3D big screen TV. For now, I just want to see that the monitor can do 3D for when I get that graphics card.
Any other monitors you like?
Excellent choice, except for wide gamut you'll want the PA242 - note the A - and not the P242 which is standard gamut. The P version is still a great monitor and much preferable over comparably priced wide gamut models from other manufacturers. Wide gamut is nice, but basic quality parameters should always have priority.
The golden rule is always: If you're on a budget, go down in size, not quality. Panel size is the single biggest cost factor and where you can make a substantial saving.
What makes a good monitor is not the things you read in the specs. That's mostly empty marketspeak with little relevance to the real world. What you want is good and even tonal gradation from 0 to 255 without banding or visible steps, good separation into blacks and whites, and a perfectly uniform panel with no brightness or color variation from side to side or corner to corner (you'd be surprised what some manufacturers think they can get away with...)
You also want hardware calibration directly to an internal high-bit 3D LUT. This gives you a degree of control and precision you can't get with a "generic" video card calibrator, and also a lot more flexibility.
And as I've repeated ad nauseam here, only two manufacturers consistently deliver on all these counts: Eizo and NEC. If you're in the US, NEC is better value for the money, here in Europe it's a match (I have an Eizo CG246).
EDIT: Someone will probably say 4K is the future. No doubt it is, but we're not there yet. High-end 4K panels are on the horizon, but at the moment they're unreasonably expensive. The ones that aren't are just not up to standard. Same argument: Go down in pixels, not quality. A good 1920 x 1200 is still way better than a mediocre 4K.
There is no doubt that that is a good display. There are many IPS displays that are much cheaper and still good displays. My wish is for a smaller one with higher resolution. Those display panels seem to be available only on Tablets and Laptops. For some reason manufacturers seem to think desktop users want larger low resolution displays that are to big to fit on one's desk to me they need to be wall mounted.