Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Closed

Intel: Higher Resolution Displays Coming 2013

Last response: in News comments
Share
April 19, 2012 6:29:25 PM

"but it will need consumers to make the final push in the desire to purchase displays with such high resolutions, which will likely cost a pretty penny."

Simple - "The all new Retina Display Ultrabook!!" (Apple-lawsuit pending).
Score
10
April 19, 2012 6:30:45 PM

4800 x 2700??!! You are going to need some serious graphics horse power to drive that many pixels. CrossFire and SLI will become mandatory in no time!
Score
21
Related resources
April 19, 2012 6:33:55 PM

Waiting for obilgatory Crysis reference.



Oh wait.....
Score
-10
April 19, 2012 6:35:30 PM

I highly doubt those resolution won't reach till well past 2020...

the battery technology haven't kept up with the display technology and I can't imagine how much more drain it would be for portable devices...

as for home displays, there aren't enough content creators that uses ultra high resolution recording devices...not to mention the cost...till more and more devices and contents come out, those resolution will be more of rare treat...
Score
-6
April 19, 2012 6:36:31 PM

RipperjackAU4800 x 2700??!! You are going to need some serious graphics horse power to drive that many pixels. CrossFire and SLI will become mandatory in no time!


I believe that's why they're purportedly focusing on Haswell's graphics component.
Score
9
Anonymous
April 19, 2012 6:48:56 PM

It's about damn time! I just think it's a disgrace to Dell, HP, other vendors, and Microsoft that it's tablets and phones leading the way. The fact that an iPad has a higher screen resolution than a top of the line Dell XPS laptop shows to me how little interest they have in actually innovating.
Score
21
April 19, 2012 6:50:16 PM

DroKingThats cool how Intel are pushing for better stuff for us but I still refuse to buy anything Intel outright anyway. So go ahead keep pushing for better tech then Ill buy from your competition not your greedy ass.


you might find yourself in the middle of a technological "dark age" if you refuse to buy anything but AMD CPUs before long
Score
16
April 19, 2012 6:50:37 PM

5760x1080 contains 6,220,800 pixels (eyefinity), 4800x2700 contains... 12,960,000...
Yeah, Crossfire may indeed be necessary if we don't have some large performance leaps in the next generation or two of GPU's.
Score
22
April 19, 2012 6:51:11 PM

Amazing... Apple once again, causes the rest of the computer industry to follow.

Its been sucky that todays notebooks have these horrible 1200x720 rez (or so).
Score
4
April 19, 2012 6:51:37 PM

DroKingThats cool how Intel are pushing for better stuff for us but I still refuse to buy anything Intel outright anyway. So go ahead keep pushing for better tech then Ill buy from your competition not your greedy ass.


Can you point a finger at one company who isn't "greedy"?
Score
21
April 19, 2012 6:51:55 PM

Quote:
4800 x 2700??!! You are going to need some serious graphics horse power to drive that many pixels. CrossFire and SLI will become mandatory in no time!


Anti aliasing won't be needed when running at retina dpi, because you won't be able to distinguish pixels. And don't forget that not everyone is a gamer. This will benefit professionals in 2D.
Score
32
April 19, 2012 6:54:24 PM

DroKingThats cool how Intel are pushing for better stuff for us but I still refuse to buy anything Intel outright anyway. So go ahead keep pushing for better tech then Ill buy from your competition not your greedy ass.

Thank you for your sacrifice.
Score
19
April 19, 2012 6:54:35 PM

Its about bloody time a company stuck its head out on the matter, who better than Intel. 1080p is lacking and underwhelming resolution. I have been waiting for higher resolutions like 4k tech since I first heard about it, but I wasn't holding my breath and expected a LONG wait..... for obvious reasons like price, production availability, and how long it takes for the tech to become mainstream. And yes I know of the Dell Ultrasharp's and a few other companies with hi-res options, but no I was not will to hand $1249 for a monitor. But I am willing to buy whatever graphics horsepower needed to power such monitors. Also nice way to drive GPU development further.
Score
15
April 19, 2012 7:01:34 PM

A 27" 3840x2160 display sounds pretty damn good to me.
Score
21
April 19, 2012 7:07:13 PM

Now it is clear why GK 104 has so much muscle power, being mid-high range code name. For displays with such high resolution to be main stream consumer device, graphics card should keep up as well. Of course price of both such display and graphics card should be the same level of today's main stream.
Score
3
April 19, 2012 7:11:10 PM

Unless Operating Systems increase the amount of pixels used by text and icons, no one will be able to see anything. I know most operating systems allow you to change icon and text sizes, but many programs ignore these settings.
Score
16
April 19, 2012 7:12:55 PM

4K and 5K displays that near in the future? I doubt it. I mean, bring em on, along with single-GPUs to drive games at that res. Because even the GTX 680 still struggles at 1600p.
Score
12
April 19, 2012 7:14:49 PM

Anyone remember the XKCD comic about how his friend's HDTV was "over *twice* the horizontal resolution of my smartphone"? Pretty soon "full High Definition" is going to be barely better *at all* than your smartphone.

Yeah, it's time for some *way* better resolutions!
Score
9
April 19, 2012 7:22:42 PM

LordConradUnless Operating Systems increase the amount of pixels used by text and icons, no one will be able to see anything. I know most operating systems allow you to change icon and text sizes, but many programs ignore these settings.


LOL thank god someone else has taken notice to this. I thought I was the only one that got frustrated how every time I increased my resolution the text and icons would shrink huge amounts. One of the reasons I, and I assume a lot of people out there, are running at less than 1080p HD resolutions at the minimum. It's going to take a major push from Microsoft to get the ball rolling and do so now to build compatibility later on.
Score
13
April 19, 2012 7:29:23 PM

RipperjackAU4800 x 2700??!! You are going to need some serious graphics horse power to drive that many pixels. CrossFire and SLI will become mandatory in no time!


At that resolution you don't need antialising crap anymore, at 2D you don't need much power at all, the only issues lies on 3D games, even so an alternative to OLD, UNDATED, and VERY SLOW DirectX is expected to come out, it will have near the power equivalent found on video games today (per possible GPU power equivalent).
Score
-5
April 19, 2012 7:59:48 PM

I can't wait to see the Metro start screen take up an entire 3840x2160 screen just so that I could start Notepad.
Score
7
April 19, 2012 8:01:05 PM

I hope Intel HD 5000 isn't the usual crap.
Score
6
Anonymous
April 19, 2012 8:07:15 PM

Way to go out on a limb there Intel.

In other news, I predict there will be unrest in the Middle East during 2013-Forever
Score
9
April 19, 2012 8:15:10 PM

bison88LOL thank god someone else has taken notice to this. I thought I was the only one that got frustrated how every time I increased my resolution the text and icons would shrink huge amounts. One of the reasons I, and I assume a lot of people out there, are running at less than 1080p HD resolutions at the minimum. It's going to take a major push from Microsoft to get the ball rolling and do so now to build compatibility later on.

Microsoft already supports a modern (2006'ish) technology for building Windows applications called Windows Presentation Foundation. It allows for resolution independent applications with little or no effort from the programmer.

The only thing that does not scale is raster graphics. I bet SVG icons become popular in the future.
Score
5
April 19, 2012 8:16:57 PM

gradius2At that resolution you don't need antialising crap anymore


You actually would still see benefit from anti-aliasing I believe, but it would be nowhere near as significant or important as it is today; though at those resolutions it could turn into something akin to extreme oversampling in audio, where to the vast majority of people it doesn't matter, but a select few claim to perceive a difference.

At any rate, when you consider that 3840x2160 is the size of a scene being rendered for a 1080p display with 2x AA enabled (or is it 1x?), it really isn't that extreme of a jump in processing power; if you reduce your AA settings by one level it would actually require less horse power because it doesn't need to blend as many pixels together.
Score
1
April 19, 2012 8:21:11 PM

So, we NEED higher resolutions.
High enough so we don't need AA
No need for AA = can't see individual pixels
Am I the inly one that sees where this is going?

My 2c
Score
1
April 19, 2012 8:52:01 PM

my graphic card will cough and die
Score
5
April 19, 2012 8:56:29 PM

Personaly I don't see the point of going over 1080p for a 24inch monitor. Well maybe for some hard core player vs player gamers (so you have a wider view). But for eye appealing purpose I wouldn't go for it personaly. Everything will just be so tiny, I don't care about my character details if he is going to be 2inch tall in my screen I won't be able to notice it. In some games the wrighting characters are already pretty small on a 24inch screen in 1080p on many game. Going any further and I couldn't read them.

Its even worst for shorter monitor. My mother got a 22inch monitor and 1080p is just ridiculous. Reading website is a pita so lets think about 3840x 2160p.
Score
-10
April 19, 2012 8:59:56 PM

Consumers should be demanding better performing LCD displays. What's the use in having a "retina" display if it has poor contrast/color performance? Going to a higher res won't fix that. Display makers need to stop making cheap TN panels and start making more of the better performing IPS or keep developing OLED or other technologies. Improve the picture first, then worry about pixel density.
Score
11
April 19, 2012 9:03:22 PM

Makes sense and it's about time.
Score
8
April 19, 2012 9:07:29 PM

DroKingThats cool how Intel are pushing for better stuff for us but I still refuse to buy anything Intel outright anyway. So go ahead keep pushing for better tech then Ill buy from your competition not your greedy ass.

You do know that Intel builds it's factories in the USA, rather than shipping them over seas. That seems like they are less greedy to me.
Score
2
April 19, 2012 9:10:03 PM

DjScribblesYou actually would still see benefit from anti-aliasing I believe, but it would be nowhere near as significant or important as it is today; though at those resolutions it could turn into something akin to extreme oversampling in audio, where to the vast majority of people it doesn't matter, but a select few claim to perceive a difference.At any rate, when you consider that 3840x2160 is the size of a scene being rendered for a 1080p display with 2x AA enabled (or is it 1x?), it really isn't that extreme of a jump in processing power; if you reduce your AA settings by one level it would actually require less horse power because it doesn't need to blend as many pixels together.

I believe you are thinking about SSAA, which is rarely used because it is so demanding. MSAA, which is the most popular form of AA, does not double the resolution at all, it just smooths out edges around the boarders of objects.
Score
4
April 19, 2012 9:16:26 PM

LordConradUnless Operating Systems increase the amount of pixels used by text and icons, no one will be able to see anything. I know most operating systems allow you to change icon and text sizes, but many programs ignore these settings.

One word: Scaling

There's an iPad App called Air Display that allows you to turn an iPad into a wireless monitor for a Mac on the same wireless network...it works damn near flawlessly. Really. Macs can scale up the display so that, on the new iPad, text and graphics look normal size but are ultra sharp and, therefore, ultra beautiful. Apple has had this functionality built into OS X for years but before the new iPad there was no reason to use it. Now you've taught me that Apple has copied and stole everything so I'd imagine that Windows already has this feature as well.
Score
1
April 19, 2012 9:17:17 PM

RipperjackAU said:
4800 x 2700??!! You are going to need some serious graphics horse power to drive that many pixels. CrossFire and SLI will become mandatory in no time!


You only need to run native resolutions when the pixels are distinguishable. At higher resolutions, you can just render at an intermediate resolution of 1080p and then have the card upscale it to whatever. That's how the ipad 3 does games.

The main benefit of retina displays isn't gaming. It's making 2d text look extra sharp on the screen.
Score
1
April 19, 2012 9:19:42 PM

2015.... more like 2020.
Score
2
April 19, 2012 9:25:34 PM

RaptorHunterYou only need to run native resolutions when the pixels are distinguishable. At higher resolutions, you can just render at an intermediate resolution of 1080p and then have the card upscale it to whatever. That's how the ipad 3 does games.The main benefit of retina displays isn't gaming. It's making 2d text look extra sharp on the screen.

I was wondering if they did that. That's a lot like how consoles handle 1080p. Makes good sense.
Score
0
April 19, 2012 10:06:21 PM

Hoping the new set of consoles are ready for these screens.
Also that they support displayport/thunderbolt for chaining displays.
Score
0
April 19, 2012 10:08:28 PM

drwho12015.... more like 2020.


No. Hopefully by 2020 NHK and BBC will be ready with 8K which they've been working on for years already.

Super HiVision
Score
0
April 19, 2012 10:14:32 PM

The tech that produces these screen is fascinating. To produce and LCD with that many flawless pixels is an accomplishment to me. I only have Apple's new iPad display to go by but the display is really a treat and I look forward to this kind of screen beeping the norm. 1280x800 just is not cutting it any more.
Score
1
April 19, 2012 10:17:49 PM

jessterman214K and 5K displays that near in the future? I doubt it. I mean, bring em on, along with single-GPUs to drive games at that res. Because even the GTX 680 still struggles at 1600p.


People said the same thing 10 years ago about 1080p.

The reality is that we have been stuck at 1080p for a relatively long time. Making this jump will be no more impressive than many jumps we have seen in the past.
Score
2
April 19, 2012 10:19:19 PM

And I should add that it is about damn time.
Score
0
April 19, 2012 10:34:27 PM

As a Graphic Designer I don't really see the need for 200ppi displays at normal screen sizes.
The display becomes really expensive as does the video card needed to drive it.
I do not see anybody mentioning how slow the web would become if every site had to stream 4k super HDTV images and video. And there is what I call 'the give a crap' factor. Often I find myself zooming in to edit microscopic details blown up to 800% on my monitor, but when you zoom out or view it on the average screen nobody can tell the difference. In a side by side comparison on a big screen 4k video will always look better than 1080p. But what are you willing to pay for it. I welcome the advent of better screens, but this seems like just another way to get us to buy new screens and toss the HDTV's we just bought.
Pearl Before Swine IMHO.
Score
6
April 19, 2012 11:02:00 PM

I know, I know, this will never happen, but...4096x2560? Proper 16x10? Make this the successor of the U2410, please (IPS, matte, wide gamut). At the very least, though, even if 16x10 is dead, make all the new desktop displays 4096 pixels wide instead of 3840. Why do manufacturers feel the need to standardize around resolutions that are just short of the standard 2K or 4K widths?

But seriously, I have an 11.6" laptop with a 1366x768 display and I very much doubt I'd notice the difference if it were 2560x1440, as long as all the screen elements were the same size. I won't complain if they gracefully up the resolution, but I care much more that the contrast ratio, viewing angles, and color gamut all increase. Also, keep it anti-glare. I won't buy a monitor or laptop that's not anti-glare.
Score
2
April 19, 2012 11:06:23 PM

FINALLY! I was wondering why they still haven't done that... On the other hand, why does Windows still have fairly poor dpi scaling that has to apply to all monitors on the system, not just one?
Score
0
April 19, 2012 11:20:58 PM

It's not going to happen anytime soon, not actual 4k resolution that is.. Everything you'll see on your 4k screen will be up-sampled, because most websites are still stuck on 1024 resolution and if they will move up it will be either 720p or 1080p -max! The higher the resolution the more work is required (and more expensive it is) to produce such a website, never mind the bandwidth required.. Bluray -would probably love this, they get to sell you the movies you bought few years ago all over again.. haha The sad part is you wont see much difference in detail, just more grain-noize. On the other hand they might not sell them, because that would kill the cinema theaters.. Also TV stations just recently moved (not even all of them yet) to 1080p, they had put a lot of money into infrastructure, work-flow, so they wont be going 4k anytime soon.. Besides I see perfectly fine on my 1080p monitor when I do graphics (if I need more space I have another monitor hooked-up), so I don't really see a need for a bigger screen, with more clutter, buttons and parameters..
Score
1
April 20, 2012 12:02:17 AM

doron"but it will need consumers to make the final push in the desire to purchase displays with such high resolutions, which will likely cost a pretty penny."Simple - "The all new Retina Display Ultrabook!!" (Apple-lawsuit pending).

correct me if im wrong but retina display is not patented. its also a sales gimmick that dumb ass apple fans fall for.
Score
0
Anonymous
April 20, 2012 12:36:16 AM

Higher resolutions have no real benefit on smaller screens. Its a marketing thing. The iPad has proven that higher resolution does nothing to improve a user experience. In fact it ate up any graphic speed improvements on the iPad 3 and actually reduced battery life. All for what? More pixels?
Score
2
April 20, 2012 12:59:58 AM

Can't wait for some ultra high resolution displays. It'll be nice for games, but honestly I think it'll be even better for normal desktop usage, and to work with stuff such as image processing...
Score
0
April 20, 2012 1:18:07 AM

cbrunnemcorrect me if im wrong but retina display is not patented. its also a sales gimmick that dumb ass apple fans fall for.


I'm no Apple lover, but you need to check out SEM pics of the retina display. It's not just a gimmick.
Score
0
!