Friday, April 13th 2012

Intel to Push for Higher Resolution PC Displays, Arrive in 2013

Come 2013, and PC consumers could finally break the shackles of regressive PC resolution "standards" such as 1366x768 and 1920x1080, if Intel has its way. At a presentation at IDF Beijing, Intel expressed its desire to see much higher resolution displays for all computing devices, not just PCs, which could in true terms be "retina-matched" display resolutions. At an optimal (comfortable) viewing distance, the resolution of a computing device's screen should match that of your eyes.

If Intel has its way, a 21" all-in-one desktop PC, and a 15" notebook PC screen will have a resolution of 3840x2160 pixels; a 13" Ultrabook PC could have a resolution of 2800x1800 pixels, a 11" Ultrabook and 10" tablet with 2560x1440, and 5" handheld/smartphone with 1280x800. Compare these to the $500+ 27" 1920x1080 monitors that are still sold in the market! A very bold proposal, but one only a company with the industry prominence of Intel can pull off.

Source: Liliputing
Add your own comment

88 Comments on Intel to Push for Higher Resolution PC Displays, Arrive in 2013

#1
xenocide
Kreij said:
Why does anyone need more than 800x600? :p :roll:

This is good news. I'll stay on the bleeding edge of res if the monitors are affordable.
That's the resolution I play Counter-Strike at still. Old habits die hard.
Posted on Reply
#4
n-ster
Why not 4K instead of quad-1080p? 4096x2304 would be a much better res IMO

10~13" don't have to be more than 2K though (2048x1152) and 15" 2560x1440
Posted on Reply
#5
Jizzler
It is about damn time! We would have been here years ago if trends had continued. But no, we had to buddy up with the norms and their 1920x1080 and lower resolution. But better late than never.

Would have liked a push back to 16:10 as well... though at resolutions > 1920x1200, this is less of a concern for me.
Posted on Reply
#6
OhNoesMyOreos
That's more chances for dead pixels in my book, I just upgraded to a 2560x1440 monitor and I had to send it back for dead pixels as soon as I opened the box -.-'

The thing is, with current dead pixel policies of monitor companies (which suck hard), it's going to become more and more difficult to get a decently priced monitor that'll last you 5-6 years without any pixels issues. Being a pet peeves of mine, I'm not sure I'm liking this. Don't get me wrong though I love high resolution displays, not the problems that come with em' ... :)

I guess I'll just have to do more research about which companies pays the big bucks for perfect pixel matrix when I'm ready to buy my next monitor :]
Posted on Reply
#7
araditus
OhNoesMyOreos said:
That's more chances for dead pixels in my book, I just upgraded to a 2560x1440 monitor and I had to send it back for dead pixels as soon as I opened the box -.-'

The thing is, with current dead pixel policies of monitor companies (which suck hard), it's going to become more and more difficult to get a decently priced monitor that'll last you 5-6 years without any pixels issues. Being a pet peeves of mine, I'm not sure I'm liking this. Don't get me wrong though I love high resolution displays, not the problems that come with em' ... :)

I guess I'll just have to do more research about which companies pays the big bucks for perfect pixel matrix when I'm ready to buy my next monitor :]
http://www.techpowerup.com/forums/showthread.php?t=163980

There is your big bucks. Research done :) **hint**you can reserve one now!
Posted on Reply
#8
ensabrenoir
Even amd gotta go YEEEEAAAH for INTEL on,this one
Posted on Reply
#9
OhNoesMyOreos
araditus said:
http://www.techpowerup.com/forums/showthread.php?t=163980

There is your big bucks. Research done :) **hint**you can reserve one now!
Doesn't mean they pay to have the perfect pixel matrix from the manufacturers though. Just means they're the first to bring 4K to market and are trying to get rich people to shell out cash for an unproven technology ;) Plus I don't know this company all that much, and wouldn't buy any monitor before I would've seen their dead pixel policy.
Posted on Reply
#10
MikeMurphy
For those who recall, Intel capped out screen sizes and resolutions on computers with Atom CPUs so that they could make an extra buck on full-speed CPUs. For a very long time the only resolution available was 1024x600.

Thanks for pulling your collective heads out of your asses, Intel. Now, go get stuffed. I hope ARM wipes the floor with you and your shitty practices.
Posted on Reply
#12
Jizzler
OhNoesMyOreos said:
Doesn't mean they pay to have the perfect pixel matrix from the manufacturers though. Just means they're the first to bring 4K to market and are trying to get rich people to shell out cash for an unproven technology ;) Plus I don't know this company all that much, and wouldn't buy any monitor before I would've seen their dead pixel policy.
First? More like, after 8 years, we're finally getting 4K back! :D

Though I suppose your point still stands - little experience with such screens.
Posted on Reply
#13
newtekie1
Semi-Retired Folder
My eyes already hurt...

For this to work Microsoft has to figure out their DPI scaling issues, otherwise most people will buy these and run lower resolutions.
Posted on Reply
#14
Vulpesveritas
Thank you Intel!
Now gaming has to catch up to monitor hardware again XD
Posted on Reply
#15
Spaceman Spiff
My dell lappy from '05 has a 17 inch 1920x1200. Fantastic IQ from the pixel pitch. I'm still mad at my monitor for only being 1080 at 24" but the 120hz is way worth it to me.

Why can't we get something like 1600p at 22-24 inches? I don't want a 30"+ since I lug my desktop around quite a bit and I dislike large pixels. Though I guess the market for something like that isn't too large..
Posted on Reply
#16
eidairaman1
How about LCD/LEDs that are as adaptable as CRTs back in the day
Posted on Reply
#17
Vulpesveritas
eidairaman1 said:
How about LCD/LEDs that are as adaptable as CRTs back in the day
How about AMOLEDs that are just around the corner being said adaptable. I vote we ditch this LCD/LED and move onto the more environmentally friendly technology which also has better picture quality, more uses, and should be cheaper in the long run do to using less and less expensive resources for the most part?
Posted on Reply
#18
Mistral
After trying 2560x1440 it's hard to go back.
It's a darn shame that it takes all that time and someone like Intel to push this.
Posted on Reply
#19
Inceptor
Higher resolutions would be nice to see, but think about the collateral effects; higher resolutions means higher definition playback, which requires more data, which eventually, requires larger local storage and higher bandwidth for streaming. Somehow, I doubt we'll be seeing 3840x2160 resolutions very soon, possibly on professional grade monitors but it'll be a while before mainstream (aka relatively cheap) monitors in that resolution make their way into the retail market.
Posted on Reply
#20
BarbaricSoul
Mistral said:
After trying 2560x1440 it's hard to go back.
It's a darn shame that it takes all that time and someone like Intel to push this.
Tell me about it. My Samsung is giving me problems, and until I can get it fixed(there is a fix for my problem), I'm back to my 1920*1200 24". But then again, 1920*1200 isn't exactly bad.
Posted on Reply
#21
Jizzler
Inceptor said:
Higher resolutions would be nice to see, but think about the collateral effects; higher resolutions means higher definition playback
I will not think about it, because I don't agree with it ;)
Posted on Reply
#22
Mega-Japan
YES!!! FINALLY it seems like the monitor industry is taking a step! How long have we been stuck at 1080p? The couple of 1440p and 1600p monitors have been too expensive to even come close to mainstream, not to mention they usually lack features found in 1080p displays. I'm really, really happy to hear this, and I usually don't like Intel :roll:.
Posted on Reply
#23
baggpipes
So this is awesome... Maybe this will get video card manufacturers to increase the tech without much price increase....
Posted on Reply
#24
NinkobEi
Damn_Smooth said:
Shouldn't they figure out a VGA solution that could accommodate that themselves first?
Maybe ATI/NVidia are sitting on that video system already, there's just no reason to release it because they can milk current-gen for another few years. If anything, this move will push out a boat load of new high-memory cards.
Posted on Reply
#25
Completely Bonkers
+1 that Intel is finally driving standards so that "PC" OEMs will keep up with Apple products.

Using a PC for reading text and DTP and viewing pictures will improve significantly with High resolution displays. Hell, 12 years ago IBM did this with the T210 display. Display: 20.8-inch TFT LCD with CCFL Backlight and Fan, Resolution: 2048 x 1536, Aspect Ratio: 4:3, Connectivity: VGA, DVI, S-Video, Composite. FINALLY, we will get consumer products at this resolution and better.
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment