Super-High 4096 x 4096 Display From An IGP? The Upcoming Ivy Bridge Can Do It

[purefun65]

No, everything that uses high resolution (read: CT and MRI scans) also needs substantial computational power. IGPs are simply not powerful enough to render dozens of slices in real-time without a serious GPU.

ok I get that. So what is the significance of this resolution other than still pictures?

 

[Completely Bonkers]

2Kx2K is the "standard" in Air Traffic Control. And has been for a long time.

4Kx4K is about improving the pixel density to show more information, more clearly.

As newtekie said, it's all about 2D environment. Desktop publishers would love this, finance industry would love this, photo editing would love this, people who like looking at maps would love this.

Remember that a regular A4 or Letter PRINTER is delivering (at 300dpi) circa 3Kx4K, so this resolution will allow you to see and read much more clearly.

99% of current medical imaging is NOT in 3D, but what the regular doctor or specialist is looking at.

 

[purefun65]

2Kx2K is the "standard" in Air Traffic Control. And has been for a long time.

4Kx4K is about improving the pixel density to show more information, more clearly.

As newtekie said, it's all about 2D environment. Desktop publishers would love this, finance industry would love this, photo editing would love this, people who like looking at maps would love this.

Remember that a regular A4 or Letter PRINTER is delivering (at 300dpi) circa 3Kx4K, so this resolution will allow you to see and read much more clearly.

99% of current medical imaging is NOT in 3D, but what the regular doctor or specialist is looking at.

oh I see. This is good thing for those applications where a powerful gpu wouldn't be needed. so this is welcome by not having to purchase a gpu. I understand now. thanks guys for clarifying.

 

[purefun65]

so If I understand this is quite a big deal for company's that would not require a gpu to do this?

 

[Derek12]

How many RAM would need to render such high resolution?

Indeed very impressive for an IGP (Mine begins to slowdown when rendering 1280x1024 ), but we will see the performance.

 

[m4gicfour]

That was not a troll post. I was kinda serious.

And HDMI "B" is nothing special. It was just a revision designation. When they update 1.4a it will become 1.4b. If they change something major or there is a planned upgrade in bandwidth or performance, it will be 1.5.

No, not HDMI 1.4b

If you were serious, then you were just plain wrong (misinformed or misinterpreting my post, that is)

I'm talking about HDMI Connector B

Spoiler: Explanation

What we see now is HDMI connector A with Specification revision 1.0, 1.1, 1.3, 1.4(a,b, etc etc)


HDMI B is a 29-pin connector. It requires a completely different cable, as it has 10 more pins than HDMI A. It is the HDMI equivalent of DL-DVI functionality. HDMI "A", "C", and "D" are cable/connector systems designed for Consumer use (HD resolutions), most likely designed mainly with cost and flexibility in mind. HDMI B is designed for HD and beyond. Functionally, all HDMI B provides is more TMDS data links and therefore more bandwidth. Again, no devices using this connector currently exist

link
Connectors
An HDMI type A receptacle connector on a device with the words HDMI IN below it.
HDMI type A receptacle connector
A close up image of the end of an HDMI type A plug connector.
HDMI type A plug connector

There are five HDMI connector types. Type A/B are defined in the HDMI 1.0 specification, type C is defined in the HDMI 1.3 specification, and type D/E are defined in the HDMI 1.4 specification.

Type A
Nineteen pins, with bandwidth to support all SDTV, EDTV and HDTV modes.[4] The plug (male) connector outside dimensions are 13.9 mm × 4.45 mm and the receptacle (female) connector inside dimensions are 14 mm × 4.55 mm.[47] Type A is electrically compatible with single-link DVI-D.[48]

Type B
This connector (21.2 mm × 4.45 mm) has 29 pins and can carry double the video bandwidth of type A, for use with very high-resolution future displays such as WQUXGA (3,840×2,400).[48][49] Type B is electrically compatible with dual-link DVI-D, but has not yet been used in any products.[48][50]

Type C
A Mini connector defined in the HDMI 1.3 specification, it is intended for portable devices.[1][51][52] It is smaller than the type A plug connector (10.42 mm × 2.42 mm) but has the same 19-pin configuration.[51][53] The differences are that all positive signals of the differential pairs are swapped with their corresponding shield, the DDC/CEC Ground is assigned to pin 13 instead of pin 17, the CEC is assigned to pin 14 instead of pin 13, and the reserved pin is 17 instead of pin 14.[54] The type C Mini connector can be connected to a type A connector using a type A-to-type C cable.[51][52]

Type D
A Micro connector defined in the HDMI 1.4 specification[52][55] keeps the standard 19 pins of types A and C but shrinks the connector size to something resembling a micro-USB connector.[56] The type D connector is 2.8 mm × 6.4 mm, whereas the type C connector is 2.42 mm × 10.42 mm;[57] for comparison, a micro-USB connector is 2.94 mm × 7.8 mm and USB Type A is 11.5 mm × 4.5 mm.

Type E
Automotive Connection System defined in HDMI 1.4 specification.

It most likely is, but only over very short distances. Digital Display Working Group thought about cable lengths and signal quality when they introduced the DVI standard; the HDMI Founders did not. DVI has more than double the data wires than HDMI and the quality of said cables is much, much greater (better isolation, thicker, etc.). DVI, therefore, should be able to push at least double the bandwidth over the same distance but, as TheLaughingMan pointed out, DVI is no longer being expanded because of DisplayPort.

Sure they did, HDMI just intended theirs for consumer application whereas DDWG was more aimed at computer/professional use. They had different targets. Home users aren't usually willing to screw their interconnects into a tv and all those rectangular plugs start to look the same if the pins are big enough to see (and hence look "computery")

DVI has double the wires as HDMI, again, because the connector profile being used (A) is single-link. They achieve the ability to run at these resolutions and the ability to carry audio and DRM data solely by sending the clockrate through the roof (and likely by tweaking the protocol, I suppose)

If a theoretical HDMI B device existed at 1.4 spec, it would easily surpass DVI for bandwidth. HDMI A is basically matching single-link DVI while also carrying Audio and DRM. HDMI A at 1.4 spec supports 4096×2160p24 at a clock rate of 340. Imagine an HDMI B device (with 29 pins as opposed to HDMI A's 19) running at 340. That could just as easily be achieved by cranking the clock rate on DVI. Again, this is all hypothetical as DVI is abandoned, and no HDMI B devices exist.

 

[tomkaten]

There are 4k videos being showcased on YT right now. Check this one out:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=piCvq4hc5BU&feature=feedf

Let it buffer if it can't handle it in real time and then watch. In "original" resolution, of course.

Do we need that resolution, even if our current monitors can't support it ?

Short answer: yes. Long answer: yeeeeeeeeeeeees.

1080p is crap compared to that, even on normal displays.

 

[Completely Bonkers]

4K video really is amazing. But the bandwidth needed to support that is well beyond what current consumer infrastructure can provide. But 4K monitors can be used NOW. I would like it just for MS office (print quality WYSIWYG), for google maps, and for photo editing.

At 4K it is becoming obvious that jpeg is out of date. We need something that is more efficient for CPU processing and scaling. Scalable or fractal graphics files, and also "multiple entry points" to the graphics file so that the separate CPU cores can parallelize/multi-thread the work more easily.

 

[FordGT90Concept]

Sure they did, HDMI just intended theirs for consumer application whereas DDWG was more aimed at computer/professional use. They had different targets. Home users aren't usually willing to screw their interconnects into a tv and all those rectangular plugs start to look the same if the pins are big enough to see (and hence look "computery")

This is why you need a booster to get 1920x1200 on an HDMI cable at 16 feet... DVI single-link is required to do exactly that and DVI dual-link is required to do 2560x1600, unboosted, to 16 feet.

 

[m4gicfour]

This is why you need a booster to get 1920x1200 on an HDMI cable at 16 feet... DVI single-link is required to do exactly that and DVI dual-link is required to do 2560x1600, unboosted, to 16 feet.

Yup. But isn't it nice that there aren't all those cables back there anymore and that nasty thick one with they screw things is gone?

Then again, if you tried to run DVI at higher frequencies, the connector itself may become an obstacle. Hence why Cat6 is so stringent on how much of the pairs can be untwisted inside the connector. DVI may or may not limit the potential MHz just by the pin position. I guess we'll never know.

 

[FordGT90Concept]

HDMI is just DVI without analog support in a smaller connector with updated micro-packet support for audio. In short, there's nothing HDMI can do that DVI couldn't do if the DVI specifications were updated.

I've done a lot of work with sheilded CAT6 and your average DVI cable is far more impressive (it's like many CAT6 cables rolled into one).

The screws are awesome, especially when dealing with KVMs. Never, ever do I have to worry about something coming undone unless I want it undone.

 

[m4gicfour]

HDMI is just DVI without analog support in a smaller connector with updated micro-packet support for audio. In short, there's nothing HDMI can do that DVI couldn't do if the DVI specifications were updated.

I've done a lot of work with sheilded CAT6 and your average DVI cable is far more impressive (it's like many CAT6 cables rolled into one).

The screws are awesome, especially when dealing with KVMs. Never, ever do I have to worry about something coming undone unless I want it undone.

100% agree on all points.

1: Yup.

2: It's more the connector itself. Really good quality signal meters can tell down to within ~1" how far down a cable any given connector may be, that's how much signal interference connectors create on high-frequency signals. As signal frequency goes up, so does the impact that connectors have on signals. I'm not an electrician, but I have talked at length with one or two who've done commercial high-frequency signalling installs as well as what I've read... I was just speculating that the decreased spacing between pins, and hence between any one signal wire and its paired ground on an HDMI cable may give it an advantage on obscenely high frequencies over short distances(although of course the DVI connector was never intended for any really high frequency and HDMI has poorer cabling)

3: Again, I agree. Unfortunately Joe Average doesn't. I can't describe to you how many times I've seen a nest of USB A to Micro B cables labelled like "mp3 player", "camera", "Flash drive", etc. Hey guys... They're all the same cable; the "U" stands for universal :shadedshu Generally, consumers like simple, easy, small, cheap, and stylish. If it were you and I running the world, I have a feeling that the current auto-tune craze in "popular" music wouldn't be the norm either.


Anywho </offtopic>

 

[Steve-007UK]

4096x4096 Does this mean we are going back to a square screen

 

[m4gicfour]

No. 4:3 was the norm before for TV, and 5:4 was PC monitors. 4Kx4K is 1:1 (an actually square screen).

This won't be used for anything but ultra high-end monitors for photo editing and the like. 4Kx4K is just a max anyways. It'll still handle all the standard form factors (so any res that's a multiple of 4:3, 5:4, 16:9 which our monitors can display)

 

[Completely Bonkers]

4096x4096 Does this mean we are going back to a square screen

I really hope so! (For workstation use).

But in practical terms, it will be 4Kx2K for the consumer, and 4Kx4K for the workstation user. Unforunately, the TFT industry is YEARS away from providing us with these displays. YES, there is a 2K by 2K for the airline and mapping industry, at $10,000 per unit at volume quantities, and there is a 4Kx3K monitor for the medical industry at $35,000 per unit. I would be happy with either, but no way can I afford something like that.

So... we are at least 5 years away from 4Kx2K at affordable prices.

"HD" and y1080 took us off the path to 4K. I bought my first 1600x1200 nearly 10 years ago. TFT have some down in price, and quality has improved, but resolutions and pixel densities have not. (Except the iPad and iPhone, but they are small screens)

 

[FordGT90Concept]

2: It's more the connector itself. Really good quality signal meters can tell down to within ~1" how far down a cable any given connector may be, that's how much signal interference connectors create on high-frequency signals.

The reason for strict standards in CAT6 is because twisted or untwisted, the wires are always right next to each other making crosstalk likely. They're far more spread out inside the DVI connector minimizing the crosstalk. Just compare the surface area of HDMI to DVI--DVI has a lot more and thats a good thing when dealing with signal integrity.

3: Again, I agree. Unfortunately Joe Average doesn't. I can't describe to you how many times I've seen a nest of USB A to Micro B cables labelled like "mp3 player", "camera", "Flash drive", etc. Hey guys... They're all the same cable; the "U" stands for universal :shadedshu Generally, consumers like simple, easy, small, cheap, and stylish. If it were you and I running the world, I have a feeling that the current auto-tune craze in "popular" music wouldn't be the norm either.

I do the same with power, network, and antenna cables. Power is good to know for power cycling and is required to know for plugging into surge or battery. Network because how else are you going to know what goes where without spending half an hour trying to figure it out? Antenna is the same as network. Case in point: if you by a new web camera, you have to unplug the old one so you can remove it. If it is labeled, it only takes so much as looking at the label to figure it out. If it isn't labeled, you have to tug and jiggle cables until you find it. That is a matter of practicality and has nothing to do with DVI screws.

 

[Steve-007UK]

I really hope so! (For workstation use).

But in practical terms, it will be 4Kx2K for the consumer, and 4Kx4K for the workstation user. Unforunately, the TFT industry is YEARS away from providing us with these displays. YES, there is a 2K by 2K for the airline and mapping industry, at $10,000 per unit at volume quantities, and there is a 4Kx3K monitor for the medical industry at $35,000 per unit. I would be happy with either, but no way can I afford something like that.

So... we are at least 5 years away from 4Kx2K at affordable prices.

"HD" and y1080 took us off the path to 4K. I bought my first 1600x1200 nearly 10 years ago. TFT have some down in price, and quality has improved, but resolutions and pixel densities have not. (Except the iPad and iPhone, but they are small screens)

I've never been a fan of wide screen since it first apeared years ago and im still not a fan today, I realy love the screen i have its an NEC MultiSync LCD2190UXp 4.3 1600/1200 res.

Would my screeen be classed as HD? The reason i mention it is because i have more hight than 1080 but as my screen aint wide screen i dont need 1920 pixels so to me it says my screen is still HD lol.

 

[wiak]

dont nvidia already decode 4k content? and that DisplayPort already support 4k
and that amd has heavy invested in displayport, due it to its high bandwidth support
so there is no reason why amd and nvidia cant support it at this moment

to get 4K, you will need DisplayPort, there is no way around that, HDMI/DVI/VGA is horrible outdated when it comes to RAW bandwidth to push 4k x 4k

dont amd eyefinity support something like 8k x 8k that is double that of intel ivy bridge

 

[MikeMurphy]

Give me a connector with some sort of optical component that can grow in bandwidth and technology advances. I'm sick and tired of bullshit half-steps like DVI to HDMI.

Give me packets.
Give me flexibility.

 

[[H]@RD5TUFF]

I'll believe it when I see it, but if this is true this is a serious affront to AMD's APU.

 

[simlariver]

This astonishing capability is far better than any of the top-end discreet graphics cards such as the NVIDIA GTX 590 or AMD HD 6990 via a single monitor port.

Every new generation of Intel IGP bring more bullshit hype and they never fail to deliver less than stellar performance after release. This kind of press release is not intended to computer enthusiasts but rather targeted at shareholders concerned about Intel's lack of presence in the high end GPU market.

 

[TheLaughingMan]

I'll believe it when I see it, but if this is true this is a serious affront to AMD's APU.

No it won't. Like I said at first, this is a fluff news post from Intel. They are bragging about something that we have all pointed out is completely impractical and not possible for 99.999% of all computer users. Its just like bragging about a GPU outputting 2560 x 1600. Does anyone here even know a guy that knows a guy that using that resolution? For the 1 person here that does, I assume that guy is a professional graphical artist and uses this for still shots.

This "ability" is either impossible (due to limitations of all the other hardware involved) or pointless. As for real performance, I would expect better than current APUs by a small margin (still limited by memory speed) and APUs due out with Ivy Bridge is released will be just as good or better in real world performance.

 

[jpierce55]

Like everybody else, I am positive this is hype. It is Intel trying to discredit the APU's

 

[qubit]

Every new generation of Intel IGP bring more bullshit hype and they never fail to deliver less than stellar performance after release. This kind of press release is not intended to computer enthusiasts but rather targeted at shareholders concerned about Intel's lack of presence in the high end GPU market.

This one is markedly different, due to the very high resolution being touted. I would personally reserve judgement until the product is released.

 

[Athlonite]

The reason for strict standards in CAT6 is because twisted or untwisted, the wires are always right next to each other making crosstalk likely. They're far more spread out inside the DVI connector minimizing the crosstalk. Just compare the surface area of HDMI to DVI--DVI has a lot more and thats a good thing when dealing with signal integrity.

not quite right there is STP CAT6 (shielded twisted pair) where each pair is covered with it's own shielding