Intel Partners with Samsung for Cheaper 4K Monitors

Status
Not open for further replies.

InvalidError

Titan
Moderator
Displays are not Intel's core business so Intel does not care too much if prices drop in that market. On the other hand, driving 4k displays would require faster CPUs, faster IGPs, faster display links, etc. and Intel has stakes in many of those areas.
 

Au_equus

Distinguished
Mar 31, 2011
810
0
19,060
45
With standard phones and tablets pushing resolutions quite a bit beyond 1080p, Intel's saying it's time the PC plays catch-up for once.
WHAT?!?!?! :ouch:
They actually listen to consumers? :bounce:
But yeah... higher resolutions require more cpu/gpu power. AMD/Nvidia should be jumping on this bandwagon too.
 

vipboy28

Distinguished
Jan 24, 2007
184
0
18,690
4
Im glad we have partnerships to better accommodate our technology and drive the prices down as time progresses. Nothing sucks more than when the technology is ready from mass consumption yet the price is to high for average Joe
 
Seiki is making 39" 4K screens for $399 already. The Intel goal should be $199 for a 24" screen.

Sure the Seiki is considered a TV but the only difference between a TV and Monitor are the number and type of connectors in the back, quality of speakers and TVs have a stronger backlight. So just swap out the connectors for Displayport and HDMI 2.0 then dim the backlight and you have a $399 4K monitor that is 39".
 

Fokissed

Distinguished
Feb 10, 2010
392
0
18,810
13
Seiki is making 39" 4K screens for $399 already. The Intel goal should be $199 for a 24" screen.

Sure the Seiki is considered a TV but the only difference between a TV and Monitor are the number and type of connectors in the back, quality of speakers and TVs have a stronger backlight. So just swap out the connectors for Displayport and HDMI 2.0 then dim the backlight and you have a $399 4K monitor that is 39".
TVs also have horrendous input lag and tend to overscan HDMI connections into oblivion.
 
@velocityg4:

Please tell me you're kidding, dude. TV's have to deal with input lag up the ying yang, with interpolation, poor color gamuts, horrible pixel density, and a HOST of other problems.

It sounds like you think a TV is as good as a monitor - it's not. Far from it.

On top of that, you expect a 24", 4k panel for $200? I don't even...

First of all, you can't buy a top quality 1080p screen for $200!

Second, you do understand how pixel density works, yes? It is far, FAR easier to make a 37", 4k screen than a 24" one... which means that the monitor is going to be expensive. $400 is more than reasonable, when a good quality 1440p monitor is $600.
 

InvalidError

Titan
Moderator

Average Joe does not care that new technology is "ready for mass-consumption" if it brings little to no clear benefit over what he already had. Failing that, Average Joes usually do not fix stuff that is not broken.
 

icemunk

Distinguished
Aug 1, 2009
628
0
18,990
2
Now if we could only convince people to stop spending $700-800 on those 2560 x 1080 overpriced monitors. They're not worth that much!!
 
the biggest obstacles are odms themselves with their panel price fixing. next are the ongoing standards war, o.s. incapability to scale well on a high res. high ppi display. if these are solved, the stagnated pc display sector will start moving forward again.
 

InvalidError

Titan
Moderator

Before complaining about the lag and trying to use that as a justification not to use them as PC displays, you need to take a pause to think about why that lag is there: extra image processing to try improving the signal sources usually connected to TVs.

Many actual PC monitors do some of their own image enhancement processing and that is where you get displays with 50-100ms of in-to-out latency.

The "lag" thing is not exclusive to TVs. Many half-decent TVs have special modes to disable some or all of that extra processing just as PC monitors sometimes do.
 

boju

Champion
InvalidError made a good point about image processing but seems TV's have more than monitors do, or at least in LCD technology anyway.

I like my display big, seems to be more immersive in games for me. I use a Panasonic plasma large display (Not sure if all brands are the same) and the picture is crisp, text and HDMI scanning is normal (With either Nvidia and AMD as ive had both) and also concerning input lag, i have literally none. Look it up if curious, the response is just as good if not better then your fastest monitor at less than 1ms.

Plasmas do have image retention a little but it washes away and don't notice any abnormalities while gaming, although i dont play games several hours straight and the tv does have game mode which says it helps by rotating pixels.

Anyway simple put;

Monitor LCD is much better then LCD TV & and if it wasn't for Plasma's drawbacks (which with a little care isnt much of a problem) this display type might have been more popular.

OLED was meant to be the better of both worlds and hoping it or something else more feasible comes a long.
 

BoredSysAdmin

Distinguished
Apr 28, 2008
33
0
18,540
1
Before making 4k cheap, how about making 1080p cheap - I still cringe to see new mid-tier laptops with 720p displays and while there - How about fix scaling issues in Windows apps
 

Mitchell Marvin

Honorable
Jul 7, 2013
5
0
10,520
1
Seiki is making 39" 4K screens for $399 already. The Intel goal should be $199 for a 24" screen.

Sure the Seiki is considered a TV but the only difference between a TV and Monitor are the number and type of connectors in the back, quality of speakers and TVs have a stronger backlight. So just swap out the connectors for Displayport and HDMI 2.0 then dim the backlight and you have a $399 4K monitor that is 39".
$199 seems very low for such a thing to be of any quality... BUT this guy does knows what hes talking about regarding the Seiki. I have the 50 inch and it runs at a native 4k 30hz which feels plenty smooth once you edit the windows registry to make the DWM service run the GUI at 30fps instead of 60. But when productivity time is over and you want to game this same set can be run at 1080p 120hz or 720p 240hz practically eliminating most input lag. It even feels faster than my Asus144hz monitor. http://hardforum.com/showthread.php?s=7f9dfabf7d868f84b24c031b693bab1c&p=1040518697#post1040518697
 

therealduckofdeath

Honorable
May 10, 2012
783
0
11,160
70
Before making 4k cheap, how about making 1080p cheap - I still cringe to see new mid-tier laptops with 720p displays and while there - How about fix scaling issues in Windows apps
Tell the 3rd party devs to fix their apps, the API's are right there. And you have to buy pretty poorly in 2014 to buy a 720p midrange laptop. Or stretch what you call mid-range really far down the scale.
 

TerryFawkes

Honorable
Dec 18, 2013
114
0
10,690
2
as long as they are stated that the base configuration is following the real official UHD-1 10bitpp/12bitpp 16:9 Rec2020 3840x2160 pixels. Frame rate: 50fps "full UHD" then fine, im interested.

if its more of the pseudocolor 8bitpp "UHD ready" CRAP forget it, they might make it ,im not buying though.
 

Tanquen

Distinguished
Oct 20, 2008
226
0
18,680
0
"One of the biggest roadblocks thus far has been" No one really needs 4k PC display.

My 30" U3011 with 2560x1600 the DPI is small enough at desktop distances let alone further back. PC apps still do not handle font sizing well.

I don’t know how folks are going to use those 4k laptops. When we got 1920x1080 laptops at the office all I got was complaints that the fonts were too small and changing the font size messed up apps or only some of the fonts in the app would change and so on.

We need something like OLED or something with a better color, blacks, light balance across the screen, refresh rates and tiny bezels.

After 2560x1600 a res bump is at the bottom of my list.
 
Displays are not Intel's core business so Intel does not care too much if prices drop in that market. On the other hand, driving 4k displays would require faster CPUs, faster IGPs, faster display links, etc. and Intel has stakes in many of those areas.
However, you do NOT need a fast CPU for a high-resolution display. Only the graphics portion. If you are not gaming then any iGPU capable of 4K should be fine, and if you are you would be buying an AMD or NVidia card.

It's probably more about the other chips in the displays, though I don't have a complete picture of the business plan obviously.
 

InvalidError

Titan
Moderator

You might be surprised at how CPU-intensive a full-UI redraw from resizing mundane desktop applications' windows can be.

Try continuously drag-resizing windows while looking at CPU usage in Task Manager. You will have to keep drag-resizing the window for a few seconds before TM's CPU usage for whatever window you are resizing updates and stabilizes. Most applications will actually end up CPU-bound with the UI thread eating a whole CPU core.
 


?
I tried doing what you suggest but I can't see any obvious difference. I have Firefox, IE, and several Windows Explorer pages open and my CPU (i5-4670K) just toggles between 3% and 15% usage all the time. If I shutdown the browsers I'm generally under 5% and can't get above that even when dragging and min/maxing or drag/resizing various programs.

That's at 2560x1440.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ASK THE COMMUNITY