Intel: Higher Resolution Displays Coming 2013

  • Thread starter Thread starter Guest
  • Start date Start date
Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
Status
Not open for further replies.
"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).
 
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!
 
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...
 
[citation][nom]RipperjackAU[/nom]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![/citation]

I believe that's why they're purportedly focusing on Haswell's graphics component.
 
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.
 
[citation][nom]DroKing[/nom]Thats 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.[/citation]

you might find yourself in the middle of a technological "dark age" if you refuse to buy anything but AMD CPUs before long
 
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.
 
[citation][nom]DroKing[/nom]Thats 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.[/citation]

Can you point a finger at one company who isn't "greedy"?
 
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!
Click to expand...

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.
 
[citation][nom]DroKing[/nom]Thats 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.[/citation]
Thank you for your sacrifice.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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!
 
[citation][nom]LordConrad[/nom]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.[/citation]

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.
 
[citation][nom]RipperjackAU[/nom]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![/citation]

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).
 
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
 
[citation][nom]bison88[/nom]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.[/citation]
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.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom