Discussion in 'News' started by btarunr, Apr 13, 2012.
oh God, my graphics card become rubbish soon.
That's the resolution I play Counter-Strike at still. Old habits die hard.
About damn time!
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
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.
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 :]
There is your big bucks. Research done **hint**you can reserve one now!
Even amd gotta go YEEEEAAAH for INTEL on,this one
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.
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.
This would be sweet.
First? More like, after 8 years, we're finally getting 4K back!
Though I suppose your point still stands - little experience with such screens.
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.
Thank you Intel!
Now gaming has to catch up to monitor hardware again XD
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..
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?
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.
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.
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.
I will not think about it, because I don't agree with it
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 .
So this is awesome... Maybe this will get video card manufacturers to increase the tech without much price increase....
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.
Separate names with a comma.