Intel: Higher Resolution Displays Coming 2013

[EzioAs]

This is a good move by Intel. By setting a new higher standard, even if we don't achieve it by 2013, there will still be a huge leap in pixel density and display resolution and let's face it, for gamers, they'll probably not move to 3840x2160, that is like 2560x1600 at this point in time which is not what 99% of gamers run their game at.

Most gamers will probably move to 2560x1440 which will hopefully be more mainstream in 2013 to replace 1080p. 4k is more suitable for professional use and certain field which requires such display. I'm just sad to see if by 2013, console(ps4, xbox) still won't run at 1080p, they really need to start putting much more horsepower to the console.

 

[jprahman]

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.

 

[Guest]

[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]
This. So much of this.

That's why I'm getting Dell U2312HM or U2412M.

 

[Sgt Moo]

16:9 screen ratio...no thanks, I'm stickin to my 24" 16:10's for as long as possible, why the hell would I want to downgrade?

 

[alidan]

[citation][nom]icepick314[/nom]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]

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.

 

[del35]

Dont want one until streaming content like movies can make use of it. I would favor improvement of current LCD technology not focusing on extreme pixel density.

 

[bludragon]

Great they are finally going to bring back the resolution in 2015 that my sony monitor had in 2000! Now if they can match color and black! Put that all in a 16 : 10 3d display that would be nice to see before I go blind.

 

[pedro_mann]

Cool, so Ivy Bridge can support an 11" Screen according to the chart. Big Deal. All sarcasm aside, it is nice to see Intel pushing for higher res displays. I guess this means I need to wait to get my super awesome triple monitor IPS display setup, since the higher res displays will obsolete my plans rather quickly, and oh yeah, power it by AMD graphics

 

[__-_-_-__]

who cares about that much resolution? what about improving image quality?
just make Transparent Amorphous Oxide Semiconductor Thin Film Displays. that will sure be a huge leap.

 

[belardo]

[citation][nom]RaptorHunter[/nom]You only need to run native resolutions when the pixels are distinguishable. ~ The main benefit of retina displays isn't gaming. It's making 2d text look extra sharp on the screen.[/citation]
Agreed on the first part. Somewhat true on gaming - just like FPS, there comes a point you can't tell the difference (I'm kick ass because I get 659FPS in QUAKE3). But also, higher PPI is great when looking at photos... they look like photos, not pixel-lated images. on the 9.7" screen, in 1024x768, photos look quite nice - but they look stunning on the iPad3.

This is why I *HATE* todays LCD picture frames. Typical 8"~10" displays are 800x600/800 x 480 and the pixels are EASILY noticeable. My 2yr old 4" Samsung Galaxy has higher rez. The 7" frames are a horrible 480 x 234! This is bottom end crap and even high end SONY... same low res. (SONY will have more accurate color, better interface and features).

Its like, what kind of IDIOTS who make these things, for looking at photos - think this low-res crap is acceptable?!

So yeah, Apple has RAISED the bar for the industry... eventually these high rez displays will make it into everything.

 

[fkr]

HTC Rezound: 4.3″ Super LCD HD (1280×720 resolution) – 342ppi
Display size: 3.75" × 2.11" (9.52cm × 5.35cm) = 341.54 PPI, 0.0744mm dot pitch, 116647 PPI²

highest ppi of any cell phone, yes even better than the iphone. SLCD still produces the best colors on a cell phone. great screen even up close when I read my news to help me sleep at night. MLB games streamed over 4G look good. netflix is good, although it is a waste to watch on such a small screen. Don't know if it really gets much better on a small screen.

 

[Guest]

LCDs have been pretty stagnent for the last 6 years now. Really disappointing.

Sure, price has come down, and you can get more screen size for less money.....but that's about it...

Response time hasn't improved, contrast, spatial uniformity, etc havn't really improved at all.

LCDs are still inferior to CRTs, don't get me wrong, i would never buy a CRT anymore, but still its extremely disappointing that they have not surpassed CRTs yet....

Smaller pixels without sacrificing performance in other areas would be nice.

 

[halcyon]

I at least have moved to IPS panels. 2 x 27" and 1 x 30" ...no major complaints. Some people don't like the glass covered Apple Cinema Displays but I really like them and the Dell U3011? ...more than adequate for my uses.

 

[alyoshka]

I wonder what is the actual resolution that the human retina can decipher. If there was a scale, would anyone be kind enough to let us know....

 

[belardo]

[citation][nom]tonycova[/nom] 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]
"Retina" display on the iphone is pretty good (I prefer the contrast of OLED of course) so all hat is needed is High res OLED.

There isn't anything technically wrong with TN panels. Are they the best? No, but they are low-cost and have very good quality for the price. By all means, feel free to compare todays 24" to a 2000 display or even Samsung's first 24" consumer display (which a client of mine bought back in 03') which was heavy and costs $3000+. My $400 2009 TN monitor blows it away. My son's $100 20" 2011 monitor is better than mine (contrast/color).

Who is keeping YOU from buying an IPS display? And yes, I will be in hog even once/if OLED displays get down to affordable levels.

Monitors, like other products come in different quality/price points. Consumer, Pro-sumer, Professional grades.

Over 90% of the computers do not/will not care that they are using a TN display. Also, not all TNs are made the same. Some are quite good, some are garbage.

- - - - -
4800x3700?! Wow... Yep, video cards will need to step up their game for that. Imagine what the games would look like on a 28" display with such rez? That is 3 years away... We'll be in the GeForce 900 series and ATI HD11000 series cards GPUs should be X2 the performance of what we have today... should not be a problem.

The next gen game consoles will be 1080... so the PC will actually have a real advantage over consoles until the next next console gen around 2020.

"1080P"? The "P" is no longer needed for displays as that applied to TUBE TVs. Flat panels are all P. Computer monitors are not interlace.

 

[warezme]

[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]
Ye of little knowledge, the PC world has had the GPU horsepower for a long time already. A single 590GTX or 680 can handle 90 of games at highest settings at this resolution. I pretty sure by 2013 that resolution should be nor problem for even midrange GPU's without any need for SLI, of course unless you want to run multiple monitors, just like folks that do it today. That is the beauty of technology advancements.

 

[dreadlokz]

wait 2015 for reasonable prices! By then, 8k will be around the corner ;p

 

[warezme]

blasted, were is my spell check and edit button...

 

[hannibal]

2015 seems guite early for mainstream 4K, given prices today. Maybe upper mainstream users that are willing to pay 600-1200$ for monitor, but highend users will easily get 4k monitors in 2013. 2000-3000$ is nothing to them!
Low end resolutions seems to remain really low. So there is resolution allso for Intel HD5000 that it can run at reasonable fast in low setings

 

[rebel1280]

mmmm is it weird that i want to see what original Half-Life would look like at 4800x2700...can it even play a that res? or even BF3 for that matter, drooool

 

[jessterman21]

2015 seems guite early for mainstream 4K, given prices today.

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."

 

[foxmulder_ms]

I am down!

 

[frank_drebin]

Integrated Intel graphics has a long way to go

 

[murdoc]

[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]

That's about 3-4 years later when the GTX1380 and Radeon HD1490 is out. This is an opportunity for AMD and Nvidia to sell you more powerful products

 

[ProDigit10]

it seems to me they want to keep netbooks from ever going HD, keeping their resolution at sub 720p levels until 2015!