Intel: Higher Resolution Displays Coming 2013

Page 4 - Seeking answers? Join the Tom's Hardware community: where nearly two million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
Status
Not open for further replies.
[citation][nom]alidan[/nom]the major drain in a display is the lighting of it, the display itself is relativity cheap (watt wise) now, on to something else. 1) i do not want any monitor that isnt 16:10, haveing used 4:3 and 16:9, both of which are lacking, but 16:10.... i dont know why, but once you use it, its the perfect display size. 2) we do not need those insane amounts of resolution, yea, we need more, but really, do we needs a 30 inch 180+ ppi display? i did math a while back, and about 70-100 dpi is the ideal for a desktop, or even a laptop solution. it allows you to keep all the default setting because most people can read the small text give, and it is not so big that you need more space for things. what people tend to forget is that with a monitor, you are reading information, its not a media hub like a tv is where its only goal is to display a picture. a 30 inch 4800x2700 you would have to enlarge everything by 2-4 times to make it readable for most people anyway, so what is the point of haveing the large screen. currently, a 2560x1600 30 inch, is the high end of ideal, at 100 dpi. i just guess i will never understand why people blindly push something forward without ever remembering to much of a good thing can be bad.[/citation]

Agreed. I gave my mom a 22" 1680x1050 monitor and she had to turn up the DPI cause it was "too small". Increasing pixel density too much will strain people's eyes more or will cause them to increase the DPI to compensate hence, defeating the purpose of making things look finer and sharper.

I think this idea probably came from some guy who thought we should apply Steve Job's brilliant idea everywhere and sell it for more cash without knowing everything there is to font size and such.

The problem with font being too small on large monitors is well known. Most older people tend to notice this problem as soon as they get bumped from a 17" monitor to the new 22" monitors. I've done installations for my school and I've seen this phenomenon happen repeatedly for all the staff members.
 
[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 highly doubt that , i am quite sure that single gpu cards will catch up in speed by that time. besides the main stream users wont care about maintaining an expensive series of gpus most places in this world , if you just go with a "set it up and leave it " mentallity , as many main streamers do, you'll have gpu's burning up inside a month from dust cloggage, in a multi card set up. I myself have to clean dust from my computer parts every month (though i admit i do live in a really dusty town in south central texas), but even in a city dust can build up on fans and heat sinks after a year and this can cause heating issues in high end SLi/cross fire set ups.

so some kind of low end solution will likely exsist when resolutions pick up that high.
 
[citation][nom]jessterman21[/nom]That's my thought - A decent 23-inch 1080 TN monitor can be purchased for less than $200 right now, when will 1440, 1600, or 4K drop to those prices? 2018? Intel is severely overestimating the "mainstream" segment... Unless a $200 1080 monitor is now widely-considered "entry."[/citation]


that depends on what dumba-- PC gamer geek you ask , seems many of my brethren think we all have gold growing out our a--es like grass grows on our front lawns. here's a funny bit of story for you .. my brother , never plays games , doesn't really like computers but uses them to chat to folks online , he bought a 22" 1080p monitor last year for about $250. I play games all the time , i got to school for game art design , my monitor is a 20' (19.8 viewable) that maxes res at 1600x900 , it costed me 169 bucks last year. ask me my 19 inch is well beyound entry , an entry monitor in my mind is a 15 inch that at most does 720p (thats 1280x720) and cost about 100-110 bucks at most.

you ask many pc gamers i've seen post on tom's before ,They'll say my brothers 22" 1080p at 250$ is entry ... again these guys all think we s--t gold and piss platnium. so i found your post quite funny and refreshing a PC dude like myself at toms that thinks that a throw down of 200 dollars for a monitor is a bit rich .
 
[citation][nom]demonhorde665[/nom]that depends on what dumba-- PC gamer geek you ask , seems many of my brethren think we all have gold growing out our a--es like grass grows on our front lawns. here's a funny bit of story for you .. my brother , never plays games , doesn't really like computers but uses them to chat to folks online , he bought a 22" 1080p monitor last year for about $250. I play games all the time , i got to school for game art design , my monitor is a 20' (19.8 viewable) that maxes res at 1600x900 , it costed me 169 bucks last year. ask me my 19 inch is well beyound entry , an entry monitor in my mind is a 15 inch that at most does 720p (thats 1280x720) and cost about 100-110 bucks at most. you ask many pc gamers i've seen post on tom's before ,They'll say my brothers 22" 1080p at 250$ is entry ... again these guys all think we s--t gold and piss platnium. so i found your post quite funny and refreshing a PC dude like myself at toms that thinks that a throw down of 200 dollars for a monitor is a bit rich .[/citation]
Looking at what is out there today, it's really hard to find 15" monitors. That was entry level about 20 years ago, when they were CRT's. Reality is entry level is somewhere in between. Perhaps 17", but today, I'd say it's closer to 19". You can buy 19" LCD's for just over $100.
 
In 5 years everyone will have 4K displays for TV and monitirs, otherwise the industry will stagnate and they will have nothing to sell to us. Once everyone has a 1080P HDTV that can do 3D are you seriously expecting the display makers to sit back and go "hey ho, I wonder how many $30,000 displays we will sell this month" the price will drop to the magic figures we have today and the mass market will boom again. By the time my baby boy is old enoughto have a TV in his bedroom it will be a 4K set with glasses free 3D, guaranteed.
...
Then less than 10 years later it will all start again with Holodecks :)
 
[citation][nom]back_by_demand[/nom]In 5 years everyone will have 4K displays for TV and monitirs, otherwise the industry will stagnate and they will have nothing to sell to us. Once everyone has a 1080P HDTV that can do 3D are you seriously expecting the display makers to sit back and go "hey ho, I wonder how many $30,000 displays we will sell this month" the price will drop to the magic figures we have today and the mass market will boom again. By the time my baby boy is old enoughto have a TV in his bedroom it will be a 4K set with glasses free 3D, guaranteed....Then less than 10 years later it will all start again with Holodecks[/citation]

Only in US/developed countries. Rest of the world will take time to reach that kind of demand.
 
4800 x 2700 is a lot, but that's in 2015. Two to three years are several GPU generations where the mid-end is last generation's high-end.
 
I hope this happens. I've had a 2560x1600 monitor for going on 7 years now. It's strange to me that it still represents the best you can buy after all that time.
 
Of course Intel wants to increase system CPU (and lesser, GPU) requirements. Already they are shipping chips that most people never fully use, and could replace with lower-priced ARMs if SW were available. That trend gets worse as time passes, so Intel is searching for ways to stop the trend, in this case by predicting more-processor-demanding systems.

I use a 24" 19x12 at ~3' viewing distance. I can just make out the pixels, and with standard DPI, I can just read the normal font size. There would be nearly zero benefit to me to double the PPI and keep the screen the same size; I wouldn't be able to fit any more legible content on the display. The improvement in image quality and legibility would not offset any cost increase or performance reduction. The only thing that would make business sense for me is to increase the size of the display and keep PPI constant.

One thing that irritates me about the "trend" (projection?) table in the article is that Intel talks about device resolution, but they don't talk about external resolutions supported by each device. If I have even just a smart phone, I want to be able to connect a projector or flat-screen and output an image or video at at-least 1080p60 (or better,19x12). Just because it's a smart phone doesn't mean I shouldn't be able to BT a keyboard and mouse and use Word on it.
 
I see Intel is talking about how we'll have 1280x800 resolution 5" smartphones in the future. My current 5" smartphone has a resolution of 1920x1080, which is apparently supposed to be happening around 2015.

And then they talk about how this stuff is supposed to cost more. I got my phone at a verizon store for $150 with the usual 2 year contract.

Droid DNA: The phone of the future, apparently.
 
[citation][nom]voodoobunny[/nom]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]

Pretty soon? It has already happened. My Droid DNA smartphone has a resolution of 1920 x 1080. So, yeah, my phone does in fact have the same resolution as my big screen tv.
 
[citation][nom]compwiz17[/nom]I see Intel is talking about how we'll have 1280x800 resolution 5" smartphones in the future. My current 5" smartphone has a resolution of 1920x1080, which is apparently supposed to be happening around 2015. And then they talk about how this stuff is supposed to cost more. I got my phone at a verizon store for $150 with the usual 2 year contract. Droid DNA: The phone of the future, apparently.[/citation]

that is a heavily subsidised price, that phone was probably in the 600-800$ range off contract.

 
[citation][nom]tonycova[/nom]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.[/citation]
i totally agree i think we should push for stuff like Pls panels while where at it
 
[citation][nom]jprahman[/nom]All this talk about the need for more processing power to drive higher resolution panels is pretty hilarious consider that charlie d. from neveraccurate.com just went on a rant today that modern CPU and GPUs are more than powerful enough for just about everyone.[/citation]

Another way of looking at it is that Charlie has a good point, at least as things stand now. Applications aren't driving the need for processor power anything like they used to. Likewise the OS, eg. Windows 8 doesn't need upgraded hardware. Intel has just come up with a splendid rationalisation for more processing demand. It's not so much about giving us the displays that we'd like, it's about justifying the next few iterations of Intel chippery.

And when that's all dealt with Intel will have another brainwave such as the AIUI (Artificial Intelligence User Interface, needs a better name and acronym!) to augment/replace the GUI. That should need a few GBs and GHz.

Bottom line, Intel needs us to need them.
 
[citation][nom]alidan[/nom]that is a heavily subsidised price, that phone was probably in the 600-800$ range off contract.[/citation]

$600, and that's pretty normal for a smartphone off contract. The iPhone 5 16GB phone is $650 off contract, and that has a lower pixel density, and sub-720p resolutoin. The Samsung Galaxy S3 is also $650 off contract, with a 720p screen.

So, it seems that the Droid DNA is cheap for a smartphone, not just cheap for a 1080p phone.
 
what kind of graphics card would we need to play Crysis 3 / Farcry 3 at QuadHD/4K resolution at ULTRA?

That's 4 times the data of 1080p. It would take at least another 2 generations of graphics card before we can play a game like Crysis 3 at 4K res with just a single card. Maybe we still need to put GTX 880 on SLI by then.

 
Anyone who says that current resolutions are "good enough" for the majority of consumers has just gotten used to looking at crappy rendering. Try taking any printed output (say like a business card with lots of detail printed at 600/1200 dpi on good stock) and put it up to your monitor. Don't notice a difference? You're blind. Look around at how sharp small things look in the "real" world.

Why should you expect less clarity from your display?
 
Bahahaha I hope Intel are investing heavily in R & D for their rubbish graphics solutions.... Should have bought Nvidia... *cough*
 
Wow.... Looks like I won't be able too keep this BRAND F***ING NEW 7870 for long... At least not at 4800x2700p. I'd like to see how long it would YouTube to buffer at that resolution 😛
 
Unless the prices drop, then nobody will be able to afford them, there is a recession on around the world now, and unless they can make them cheapish then the only people that can afford them is the minority of the rich which is about 1%.
 
hmm.. haswell 4930mx TBR in june 2013.. apple already on the ball.. at the rate their going I predict no 'displays by intel other than redina actually worth buying until well... intel gets their head out of their arse and gets to work, otherwise apple will have the lead until at least mid-2014..
just my 2c
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom