High Res Home Monitors (Intel Timeframe) ?

[essential]

Was reading this article this morning:

http://www.electronista.com/articles/12/04/12/intel.braces.for.very.high.resolution.computers/

So here’s what Intel sees happening in the computer space over the next few years:

- Phones and media players with 5 inch, 1280 x 800 pixel displays (this is already happening)
- Tablets with 10 inch, 2560 x 1440 pixel displays
- Ultrabooks with 11 inch, 2560 x 1440 pixel displays
- Ultrabooks with 13 inch, 2800 x 1800 pixel displays
- Laptops with 15 inch, 3840 x 2160 pixel displays
- All-in-one desktops with 3840 x 2160 pixel displays

I was wondering if anyone has any ideas/guesses as to how long before consumer level affordable monitors with resolutions matching the above specs are available (2013, 2014, 2015)? I've read rumors prior to this article, but this is the first thing I read coming from Intel.

The cheapest high resolution monitor on Newegg is a $680 27" (2560 x 1440) whereas you can get 24" 1920x1200/1080 monitors for around or under $200 these days.

I guess even though I had read rumors over the last year or so, I always assumed these future high res monitors would be luxury items like they are today, but based on that article it seems like they will be consumer level products, which means they should be affordable.

 

[aaksheytalwar]

38x21 27" monitors under $400 will take a minimum of 4-6+ years IMO if the present pace of development in monitor technology can be used as a benchmark

 

[PrincessFrosty]

Going by the current prices of the decent 30" panels i'd say demand for ultra high resolution displays is probably going to be small and prices likely to be high for a very long time, unless they're inventing some kind of new panel technology to power these higher resolutions that happens to be cheaper.

Still the increase in resolution would be welcomed, something like 38x21 at reasonably sized screen like 27" will be a huge increase in PPI and really help image quality in things like games which can make use of resolutions that high.

 

[randomlinh]

Am I the only one who wants to see more (cheaper) high quality IPS/IPS like displays first before high res? Not to mention OS support. Not sure on the OS X front, but Win7 isn't exactly grand at scaling.

 

[chrisheinonen]

I'm going to guess that it's something we will see from Apple before other vendors for a couple of reasons:

- Control over the OS as well as the hardware
- With so few display options, and therefore buying in huge quantities for their notebooks compared to other vendors, more quantity of scale to reduce the price
- More margin available to take a small hit to that if they really want to include it

I'll happily replace my 11.6" MacBook Air with one that does 2560x1440 resolution if they make one, though I'm sure I'll take a weight hit in order to support a larger battery for that.

 

[bunnyfubbles]

Going by the current prices of the decent 30" panels i'd say demand for ultra high resolution displays is probably going to be small and prices likely to be high for a very long time, unless they're inventing some kind of new panel technology to power these higher resolutions that happens to be cheaper.

Still the increase in resolution would be welcomed, something like 38x21 at reasonably sized screen like 27" will be a huge increase in PPI and really help image quality in things like games which can make use of resolutions that high.

games are one of the last things we'll want ultra high resolutions for as it will absolutely murder our frame rates, a single 3840x2160 monitor has 33% more pixels vs. a surround sound 1920x1080 setup, which already all but requires at least two of the fastest GPUs if you plan on playing the latest games without slide show frame rates (that is without turning settings way way down)

really the biggest plus side for ultra high pixel density monitors for gaming will be the reduced penalty for changing resolution as entire groups of pixels can be used to simulate a larger pixel without looking terrible because the actual pixels are so small.

ultimately these ultra high PPI monitors are going to be best for resolution independent OSes and apps in helping with print quality images an sharp as sharp can be text.

 

[imaheadcase]

Not unless they are cheap, a HUGE difference in making desktop monitors and all the others listed. A reason you see the market flooded with 1900x1080 23-27inch monitors. Its cheap cheap cheap to make.

 

[Binky]

"Retina display" is a marketing term. In respect of forum rules, I can't say what I think about people who use the term.

High res displays cause a massive bump in the data and hardware required to feed the display. Just because it's possible doesn't mean it should be done for everybody. The Spruce Goose comes to mind. The vast majority of consumers are also major cheap-asses, so expensive tech will always lose out (in quantity) to cheap tech. Vizio is a perfect example - crappy but cheap, and now dominant in their niche.

 

[darkewaffle]

The amount of DPI that's desirable is relative to the distance from the screen. Phone and tablets benefit from high density screens the most because they're kept so close to your eyes; the need isn't there (or is at least substantially muted) on a desktop because you simply aren't close enough to notice a difference in so many cases. It's the same reasoning behind small TVs being 720 instead of 1080.

So while it's probably on it's way eventually, I wouldn't expect progression or adoption to be all that fast.

 

[magomago]

'retina display' may be a marketing term, but it pushed attention high resolution displays in a way that wouldn't have happened for a long time.

200ppi screens are awesome regardless of your actual working distance. The iphone was the first major breakthrough, and now the ipad is the next. This recent ipad is truly the ultimate game changer because it has a resolution multiple times larger than computer screens over twice its size.

all the discussion and push to make these high res displays is because of Apple's actions --> if it was truly a timing coincidence, then these things would be ready to go really soon as planning for it has to be done very very early in the process. (of course, maybe it is I just don't know).

When no one else has it, and its not something that'll come out soon, you know the rest of the industry is playing catchup as companies hope to strike a deal with the supplier making those high res screens (and Apple probably has their business locked down not just in contract, but also in sucking up every panel that is made), and as other suppliers try to ramp up and build the similar panels of high resolution to sell to consumer device companies.

Sure it puts much higher demands on hardware and software, especially in data transfer...but that is how you get progress--> have a problem and solve it. And it looks like Apple seems to cope well with it in the ipad so far.

 

[Ferzerp]

Higher resolution that what is currently available won't really benefit gaming in the least.

Right now, if you have a 30" monitor, which granted, is expensive, you need very expensive video cards to play games on it. If suddenly you got similar resolutions with a $300 20" monitor, you'd still need about $1100 of video cards to be able to play it with eye candy, or deal with non-native resolutions (which look like garbage even on the best displays).

 

[Concillian]

The cheapest high resolution monitor on Newegg is a $680 27" (2560 x 1440) whereas you can get 24" 1920x1200/1080 monitors for around or under $200 these days.

2560x1440 on a 27" is not high resolution. On a 15" monitor, sure high resolution.

2560x1440 on a 27" is big at ~the same resolution as most other monitors.
A "retina" display is about pixel size. Resolution is pixels per unit of area.

Making a monitor bigger and using the same pixel size and calling it higher resolution is one of those great marketing decisions. That isn't high resolution, that's more pixels.

The displays being talked about in the quote you mention are true high resolution displays, and I'd be pretty surprised to see usable standalone displays at this kind of resolution within the next 3 years.

It's funny how people were hook line and sinker into digital cameras that were 6, 10, 12, 14 megapixel, then using 2 megapixel monitors to look at the pictures those cameras took... Now that apple has pushed high resolution, NOW the general populace wants to follow. About time, I've been wanting something affordably high res for about a decade or so.

 

[Snowshredder102]

games are one of the last things we'll want ultra high resolutions for as it will absolutely murder our frame rates, a single 3840x2160 monitor has 33% more pixels vs. a surround sound 1920x1080 setup, which already all but requires at least two of the fastest GPUs if you plan on playing the latest games without slide show frame rates (that is without turning settings way way down)

really the biggest plus side for ultra high pixel density monitors for gaming will be the reduced penalty for changing resolution as entire groups of pixels can be used to simulate a larger pixel without looking terrible because the actual pixels are so small.

ultimately these ultra high PPI monitors are going to be best for resolution independent OSes and apps in helping with print quality images an sharp as sharp can be text.

This, I like how people talk about needing a cheap market for 4k monitors for gaming when we don't have the GPU's to back them up. At 2560x1600 I can't even have all the eye candy with CF 6970's on current gen games like BF3, Metro 2033, Crysis.

 

[IlllI]

wish people would drop the 'retina' gimmick word.

 

[Arzachel]

This, I like how people talk about needing a cheap market for 4k monitors for gaming when we don't have the GPU's to back them up. At 2560x1600 I can't even have all the eye candy with CF 6970's on current gen games like BF3, Metro 2033, Crysis.

This is a silly reasoning. You don't even need crossfire/sli nor the latest and greatest to get 95% IQ without absolutely murdering your frame rates, just disable the single effect that's only there to sell GPU's. Why would you use MSAA instead of FXAA in BF3 when it doesn't even work on most of the geometry? Is DOF in Metro really worth halving your fps for? Do you enjoy invisible sub-pixel tessellation in Crysis 2 (to be fair, I don't think you can limit tessellation on Nvidia's drivers)? I know I'd rather skip AA and go for a higher resolution.

wish people would drop the 'retina' gimmick word.

Also, this.

 

[Pia]

Higher resolution that what is currently available won't really benefit gaming in the least.

Right now, if you have a 30" monitor, which granted, is expensive, you need very expensive video cards to play games on it. If suddenly you got similar resolutions with a $300 20" monitor, you'd still need about $1100 of video cards to be able to play it with eye candy, or deal with non-native resolutions (which look like garbage even on the best displays).

But that's exactly why I'd like a quad HD display - I could use the full resolution on desktop, yet run my games in 1080p with perfect scaling and avoid the need for monster GPUs.

 

[notty22]

'retina display' may be a marketing term, but it pushed attention high resolution displays in a way that wouldn't have happened for a long time.

200ppi screens are awesome regardless of your actual working distance. The iphone was the first major breakthrough, and now the ipad is the next. This recent ipad is truly the ultimate game changer because it has a resolution multiple times larger than computer screens over twice its size.

all the discussion and push to make these high res displays is because of Apple's actions --> if it was truly a timing coincidence, then these things would be ready to go really soon as planning for it has to be done very very early in the process. (of course, maybe it is I just don't know).

When no one else has it, and its not something that'll come out soon, you know the rest of the industry is playing catchup as companies hope to strike a deal with the supplier making those high res screens (and Apple probably has their business locked down not just in contract, but also in sucking up every panel that is made), and as other suppliers try to ramp up and build the similar panels of high resolution to sell to consumer device companies.

Sure it puts much higher demands on hardware and software, especially in data transfer...but that is how you get progress--> have a problem and solve it. And it looks like Apple seems to cope well with it in the ipad so far.

I agree. Forget that it's not readily affordable/available in the PC market. Let's agree this is a nice/positive/upgrade/ we want in the gadgets we use today/tomorrow. Then it might suddenly become integrated, because consumers won't upgrade unless they get 'that'.
I was convinced instantly one holiday when my niece , showed me a video she just took of the kids at a horse farm. On the newest Iphone. The detail was incredible. I could not put to words the quality of that video.
It's why as a owner of a Ipdad2, I want to see the NEW Ipad in person. My local Best Buy still does not even have one on display, can you imagine that ? They said Apple pays for the display table, and currently there is no reason to put one on display for everyone that comes in to the store, it is sold in minutes.
Consumers do care. And in volume ,we would get better PC monitors.

 

[OVerLoRDI]

GPUs are going to have to get a lot faster to handle these higher resolutions.

 

[Pia]

GPUs are going to have to get a lot faster to handle these higher resolutions.

But gaming in non-native res will be more popular than ever.

 

[Binky]

I'm gonna slap the next person that says "retina display." Don't provoke me!

 

[iCyborg]

2560x1440 on a 27" is not high resolution. On a 15" monitor, sure high resolution.

2560x1440 on a 27" is big at ~the same resolution as most other monitors.
A "retina" display is about pixel size. Resolution is pixels per unit of area.

Making a monitor bigger and using the same pixel size and calling it higher resolution is one of those great marketing decisions. That isn't high resolution, that's more pixels.

While it makes sense to look at it that way, this is not how the term high resolution is used when referring to displays, the convention is just width X height:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Display_resolution
The display resolution of a digital television or display device is the number of distinct pixels in each dimension that can be displayed.

When you say VGA, SVGA, UXGA resolutions, it doesn't depend on the physical size.

 

[Ferzerp]

Correct iCyborg. A picture that is 640x480 is the same *resolution* regardless of what size screen you display it on.

Resolution refers specifically to the number of pixels and not the size of the pixel.

What Concillian is talking about it pitch. (dot pitch, pixel pitch, etc). He wants lower dot pitch, and he's confusing that with high resolution.

 

[Bateluer]

GPUs are going to have to get a lot faster to handle these higher resolutions.

QFT. None of the current IGPs are capable of driving anything more than a simple desktop at those resolutions. Gaming in any practical sense at those resolutions requires a pretty beefy GPU. I'd love a 2500x1440 display in my 11in ultrabook, but I don't want to see my desktop become a slide show either.

 

[Concillian]

wish people would drop the 'retina' gimmick word.

What should people call it? High resolution already has a commonly accepted meaning that's wrong.

Since people have embraced high resolution to mean more pixels at ~the same resolution, now we need a new word that actually means high resolution. Retina is as good a word as any for this new word. It's got to be something... well something other than high resolution since people have been using that word wrong for a decade or two.

 

[essential]

There you go Binky, title shouldn't annoy you now. I originally read this article on macrumors, which is probably why I put the word that shall not be named in the title.

Also, Concillian, I've had a 1920x1200 24" monitor for at least 5 or 6 years now, and I paid a lot for it, I don't necessarily need a larger size monitor, but I would love a higher resolution/ppi, so 2560x1440 no matter what size the monitor would give me more on-screen real estate. My next step is multiple monitors, but I don't really have the desk space.

I knew the content of the article was likely years away for consumer monitors, but most of the time people on this forum know much more about a topic than me, so I figured I'd ask. The new/coming MacBook Pro's (13" and 15") are rumored to support some of the higher res/ppi screen and they are coming within months, so overall I wasn't sure how far off for some other products, but I understand consumer monitors is a different story. There was some good information in this thread though, thank you.