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
runevirage
Thank goodness, we've been stuck on the 1080p glass ceiling for nearly forever. Anything above a $200 24" is somehow immediately $2,000. About time we got some new technology in here. Maybe this will pick up the slacking graphics cards companies too.
Posted on Reply
#2
Benetanegia
hellrazor said:
I wish we had a resident optometrist so he can tell you WTF is wrong with your vision, next you're gonna tell me we can't tell the difference between 30 and 60 FPS.
We can't. One can only tell the difference between the first 30 FPS or so, the other 30 FPS are just crappy COD clones, indistinguisable from one another and boring as hell. :D
Posted on Reply
#3
xenocide
hellrazor said:
I wish we had a resident optometrist so he can tell you WTF is wrong with your vision, next you're gonna tell me we can't tell the difference between 30 and 60 FPS.
I never understood that argument. It seems to be rooted in old studies that said the human eye couldn't see more than 30-60hz, but I sure as hell notice the difference betwwen, 30, 60, 75, 85, 100, and 120hz.
Posted on Reply
#4
Kantastic
2560x1440 monitors are pretty much a standard in Korea, OEM 27" LG 1440P panels under different names sell for ~$250 US.
Posted on Reply
#5
xenocide
Kantastic said:
2560x1440 monitors are pretty much a standard in Korea, OEM 27" LG 1440P panels under different names sell for ~$250 US.
:mad:

Monitors like that in the US sell for like $400+ easily...
Posted on Reply
#6
Kantastic
xenocide said:
:mad:

Monitors like that in the US sell for like $400+ easily...
I'm talking IPS panels too. You can get them on eBay for under $330 shipped to the US. Not sure if I'm allowed to link to eBay in this subforum, but search Achieva Shimian Q270 on eBay.
Posted on Reply
#7
Benetanegia
xenocide said:
I never understood that argument. It seems to be rooted in old studies that said the human eye couldn't see more than 30-60hz, but I sure as hell notice the difference betwwen, 30, 60, 75, 85, 100, and 120hz.
There's a difference between Hz and fps. The human eye can see minor/overall changes like refresh rates or a sudden change on one thing (i.e a screen changing from red to green in your pheripheral view or something) at a much faster rate than it can actually see with detail, such as a frame in a movie where the brain will generally try on getting as much information as posible.

There's also a difference between what we can see (if we try) and what we need or is sufficient for a sense of fluid motion. This is from where most arguments come from. I think it's beyond proven that for the grand mayority of people, 24 fps and 72 Hz is enough to be "satisfactory", since that's what films are played on. Of course more is better, but there's probably a point not much higher where it becomes irrelevant to go higher.

But that is for motion pictures, on games it's vastly different, because while you game, your brain is not concentrated on the entire picture, it's trained to be focused on some select details like the enemy, so the rate at which it can "see" changes on those select areas is higher. Also low frame rate goes hand in hand with slow response time and bad mouse control and that can be more easily sensed by our brain too.

So high framerates are necesary and desirable for gaming, but usually people is wrong when they say they can "see" at very high frame rates. Most of people who claim that, if presented with a movie playing at 48 fps or 96 fps changing back and forth would not see the difference if they were watching the film.
Posted on Reply
#8
xenocide
Benetanegia said:
Wall of Accuracy
I shouldn't have mixed FPS and Hertz, but people tend to claim either one, that the human eye can't distinguish the difference over a certain level, and I think that's just not true. As with most things, I think it varies greatly between the person percieving them. I can definitely notice a difference between games that run at 30fps on my computer, and games that run at 100fps on my computer.
Posted on Reply
#9
n-ster
I don't care if I don't SEE the difference in detail, I FEEL the difference. :) (talking about fps and Hz)

it also depends on every individual... A fighter pilot is gunna see much more than Bob from California
Posted on Reply
#10
Benetanegia
xenocide said:
I can definitely notice a difference between games that run at 30fps on my computer, and games that run at 100fps on my computer.
Of course definitely. But now you used the correct expression. You can notice the difference between a game at 60 fps and 100 fps. But in essence that's very different from being able to actually see the difference between 60 fps and 100 fps, for all the things I said (+ microsttutering/uneven framerate). As long as you focus on something in particular you can see much more of it, you also see a lot less of everything else, this is what illusionists use to their advantage. In a game you usually focus on certain things, a low number of things, like the crosshair, the enemy, a door from where an enemy can show up, etc. You are very sensitive to changes on those things.

In amovie your brain is more open to all the info that comes at each frame, thus less frames are not as harmful, though I'm sure everyone has noticed that the low framerate of movies is far far more evident on fast paced scenes with low details, such as a flying object with a completely blurred background.

Now to add to the topic, although I'd like these high resolutions I'd probably prefer good color at below $500 and faster response times and higher refresh rates, in that order, before higher resolution.
Posted on Reply
#11
DaveK
Change is good. It's nice to see it happening in the PC world, mobile devices have been vastly improving yet PCs have remained pretty much the same. And when this change happens I still won't be able to afford 2 1080p monitors :laugh:
Posted on Reply
#12
Aquinus
Resident Wat-man
DaveK said:
Change is good. It's nice to see it happening in the PC world, mobile devices have been vastly improving yet PCs have remained pretty much the same. And when this change happens I still won't be able to afford 2 1080p monitors :laugh:
You still need the hardware to drive these new displays. Buying two new displays is only the beginning. ;)
Posted on Reply
#13
fullhd99
i hope intel push lcd manufacture to use 4K 3840x2160 resolution for 24-30" with
affordable price where nvidia Kepler,intel ivy bridge has support 4K resolution
for now 2560x1600/1440 still the greatest resolution for LCD at an affordable price
for 27-30"
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment