Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in

Intel: Higher Resolution Displays Coming 2013

By - Source: techpowerup | B 99 comments

Intel foresees ultra-dense resolutions coming to a wide-range of mainstream displays by the year 2013.

According to a presentation caught by Liliputing, Intel has made it abundantly clear that current resolutions lack the necessary pixels-per-inch (PPI) to efficiently complete everyday media tasks. To solve this problem, Intel is supporting plans for “Retina”-like displays in the near future. The company specifically expects 5-inch Smartphones at a resolution of 1280x800, 10-inch Tablet devices at a resolution of 2560x1440, 11-inch and 13-inch Ultrabooks at 2560x1440 and 2800x1800 respectively, and 15-inch Notebooks and 21-inch All-in-one desktops at a resolution of 3840x2160.

During the Intel Developer Forum presentation, Kirk Skaugen, Vice President and General Manager of PC Client Group stated that Ivy Bridge is “Retina display capable”. A “Retina” display is a screen with such densely populated pixels that the human retina cannot discern one pixel from another at a typical viewing distance. One major obstacle when it comes to mainstreaming Retina technology is the need for adequate processing power. Intel overcame this obstacle with its upcoming Ivy Bridge processor line, bringing integrated graphics capable of powering 2560x1600 resolution displays.

It's nice to see Intel making a push in the advancement of screen technology, 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.

For a more detailed look of the future Intel predicts, check out this road map:

Display 99 Comments.
This thread is closed for comments
Top Comments
  • 32 Hide
    grizzlebee , April 19, 2012 6:51 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.
  • 22 Hide
    omega21xx , April 19, 2012 6:50 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.
  • 21 Hide
    RipperjackAU , April 19, 2012 6:30 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!
Other Comments
  • 10 Hide
    doron , April 19, 2012 6:29 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).
  • 21 Hide
    RipperjackAU , April 19, 2012 6:30 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!
  • -6 Hide
    icepick314 , April 19, 2012 6:35 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...
  • 9 Hide
    doron , April 19, 2012 6:36 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.
  • 21 Hide
    Anonymous , April 19, 2012 6:48 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.
  • 16 Hide
    rb420 , April 19, 2012 6:50 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
  • 22 Hide
    omega21xx , April 19, 2012 6:50 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.
  • 4 Hide
    belardo , April 19, 2012 6:51 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).
  • 21 Hide
    doron , April 19, 2012 6:51 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"?
  • 32 Hide
    grizzlebee , April 19, 2012 6:51 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.
  • 19 Hide
    Blandge , April 19, 2012 6:54 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.
  • 15 Hide
    thechief73 , April 19, 2012 6:54 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.
  • 21 Hide
    dragonsqrrl , April 19, 2012 7:01 PM
    A 27" 3840x2160 display sounds pretty damn good to me.
  • 3 Hide
    MKBL , April 19, 2012 7:07 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.
  • 16 Hide
    LordConrad , April 19, 2012 7:11 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.
  • 12 Hide
    jessterman21 , April 19, 2012 7:12 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.
  • 9 Hide
    voodoobunny , April 19, 2012 7:14 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!
  • 13 Hide
    bison88 , April 19, 2012 7:22 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.
  • -5 Hide
    gradius2 , April 19, 2012 7:29 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).
Display more comments