Why 1080p+ monitors are still so rare? Where are the "retina" monitors?

[nibunnoichi]

I pre-apologize for this rant.

I just got myself a new Nexus 7, with its stunning resolution of 1920 x 1200 in a 7" screen, for less than $250.

I compare it my PC monitor, with a old standard 27" 1680 X 1050 resolution, and it looks ancient and pixelated in comparison.

The current monitor standard seems to be 27" 1920x1080, but even this seems so low compared to a screen that I can hold in one hand.

I am aware that there is a higher-rez standard 27" 2560 x 1440 that is becoming more common, but that's still a far cry from the pixel density of current-gen tablets and smartphones, and they start at $600+.

So I'm trying to understand why? Why didn't computer monitors up their resolution in recent years, like smartphone/tablet tech? If manufacturers can fit so many pixels in a small screen, why can't they bring that tech to monitor screens?

I'm looking to upgrade my old Dell monitor, but I'm looking for a significant leap in resolution and quality, otherwise it just wouldn't be worth it. I suppose I would need to get a 2560 x 1440 monitor cuz that's the best that is currently reasonable. But honestly, I expect 4K resolution to be the standard by now. (A 27" 4K monitor would just about match the PPI resolution of the Nexus 7).

So what's the hold up?

 

[Remobz]

My asus 23 inch IPS monitor at 1920 x 1080p looks perfect to me.

 

[Blain]

I am aware that there is a higher-rez standard 27" 2560 x 1440 that is becoming more common, but that's still a far cry from the pixel density of current-gen tablets and smartphones, and they start at $600+.

Are you shopping within the US?
If so, there are plenty less than $600.

 

[Mr. Pedantic]

I agree.


That is all.

 

[WildW]

We see mass-market devices and get used to the idea that things are cheap, when most things really aren't. You can buy a 22 inch monitor at 1920x1080 for super cheap because that's the one size they make the most of. They make thousands if not millions of phones and tablets and so the screens for those become cheap to manufacture. Economies of scale are that important.

The moment you want something even slightly different things get expensive really fast. - expensive to develop, to manufacture, to sell. They _could_ do all sorts of things, but unless there is a huge market that they know will buy these things at the price it would cost to make them, they don't.

Any colour you like so long as its black.

 

[SKORPI0]

I
Why didn't computer monitors up their resolution in recent years, like smartphone/tablet tech? If manufacturers can fit so many pixels in a small screen, why can't they bring that tech to monitor screens?

So what's the hold up?

Imagine a 28" monitor having the same pixel density as that 7" screen (1920x1080), you'll need graphics card with lots of memory/higher bit-rate to control each of those 33 million pixels on/off at 60Hz/120Hz. Plus manufacturing them, might not give a high yield at this point. Cost would be very prohibitive too to the average consumer. They could manufacture them, but the demand won't be there. No profit for them.
And no 7680x4320 video. But who knows, maybe we'll all be laughing at those people with obsolete 1080p monitors in 5-7 years?

Related posts..

http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2265840
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/8K_resolution#Resolutions

 

[fixbsod]

I believe the reason why the computer has stagnated so much is BECAUSE of the Smartphone.

I personally was stuck in the Ice Ages with a Pentium 4 and old dumb flip phone and updated both in the past 2 years. I got a i7-2700k with all the trimmings and a Galaxy S3. Guess which one is more impressive? Hands down the Galaxy. And no I'm not trying to talk up that specific phone or andriod vs iphone or any of that jazz.

The phone is touch sensitive with an awesome screen cramming 720p into a 4 inch display. I get 1080p in a 24" on my computer and save the Korean screens which seem too much hassle (and I don't have the gpu power to do 1400p@ 96/120 fps) most 1440p monitors are $500+. The viewsonic I'm eyeing is $720+ (vp-2770).

Imagine my surprise booting up my computer to still see the same old flipping Award style BIOS bootup that I have seen since for like ** 20 YEARS **. (aside--UEFI was later added to my mobo but I have not bothered as it works fine. don't fix what aint broke). Even the BIOS is a MESS with a TON TON TON of gobblidy beloved patriot settings that make no sense. Even my 486 board had a gui bios with mouse support. And all the technological advances in computers are still crippled with the shite read speed of spindle hard drives. SSDs are still wickedly expensive and have reliability issues.

Perhaps once smartphones mature some of the engineers and energy will return to computers.

 

[nibunnoichi]

Imagine a 28" monitor having the same pixel density as that 7" screen (1920x1080), you'll need graphics card with lots of memory/higher bit-rate to control each of those 33 million pixels on/off at 60Hz/120Hz. Plus manufacturing them, might not give a high yield at this point. Cost would be very prohibitive too to the average consumer. They could manufacture them, but the demand won't be there. No profit for them.
And no 7680x4320 video. But who knows, maybe we'll all be laughing at those people with obsolete 1080p monitors in 5-7 years?

Related posts..

http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2265840
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/8K_resolution#Resolutions

I understand the bottle-neck being demand/yield/profit, but not tech. The components that can push 1920 x 1200 on a 7" screen all fit inside an enclosure the size of, well the new Nexus - less than a cm thin and most of the space is taken up by battery.

You're telling me that with all the space inside a standard ATX tower, and the monitor itself (which doesn't have any thinness restrictions as a tablet), that they can't scale up the tech to push at least 3,840 x 2,160?

Side note: 3,840 x 2,160 so-called-4K monitors are here, but it cost $3500
http://www.engadget.com/2013/08/02/asus-pq321-4k-monitor-gets-reviewed/

 

[nibunnoichi]

Are you shopping within the US?
If so, there are plenty less than $600.

Yes I'm in US, and the Dell U2713HM seems to be most popular 2560 x 1440 monitor curently:
http://www.amazon.com/Dell-U2713HM-I.../dp/B009H0XQQY

I do understand if I wait and look for deals, these kinds of monitors can be had for around $500

 

[Anubis]

you can get them from ebay for ~300 US shipped from SK. there is some risk. and then generally only have 1 DL-DVI input, but many have done it myself included I have 2 and im perfectly happy with them

monoprice and Amazon also sell one in the 400$ range

 

[imagoon]

Are you shopping within the US?
If so, there are plenty less than $600.

Same, Dell 2560x1600 was $449 shipped.

 

[Sheep221]

why are people so obsessed with HD resolutions, I have 1680x1050 and I'm really happy with it, doesn't matter if you game, if you watch movies etc, switching to 1920x1080 won't do anything better for you

the arguments that phone or tablet screen which feature full HD is better to watch than 27" despite having lesser pixels are so unreal

 

[imagoon]

Main reason the 1080p monitors are cheap is because they are the same panels used in the TVs so they get mass produced. What is funny is 1080p is a step backward in the computer world, 1600x1200 monitors were common in the years before the push for TV 1080p which drilled the idea that 1080p = high def so when they get a laptop / monitor they want a "high def" monitor that is actually lower resolution than monitors that preceded it. But hey, IT'S HD!

 

[imagoon]

why are people so obsessed with HD resolutions

I prefer screen space (specifically vertical even though horizontal is nice for side by side windows) over size. I can fit multiple server RDP session on a 2560x1600 display easily where is the x1050 are simply to tight.

 

[TheThirdMan]

I prefer screen space (specifically vertical even though horizontal is nice for side by side windows) over size. I can fit multiple server RDP session on a 2560x1600 display easily where is the x1050 are simply to tight.

Ditto, but for 3ds max. Dozens of buttons and menus mean any extra vertical resolution is great.

I wonder if/when 2560x1440 panels will be as cheap as 1080 monitors are now.

 

[Throckmorton]

I understand the bottle-neck being demand/yield/profit, but not tech. The components that can push 1920 x 1200 on a 7" screen all fit inside an enclosure the size of, well the new Nexus - less than a cm thin and most of the space is taken up by battery.

You're telling me that with all the space inside a standard ATX tower, and the monitor itself (which doesn't have any thinness restrictions as a tablet), that they can't scale up the tech to push at least 3,840 x 2,160?

Side note: 3,840 x 2,160 so-called-4K monitors are here, but it cost $3500
http://www.engadget.com/2013/08/02/asus-pq321-4k-monitor-gets-reviewed/

Most computers can't even output higher than 1920x1200 because they're saddled with HDMI instead of DP

 

[nibunnoichi]

Same, Dell 2560x1600 was $449 shipped.

Show me a link and I'll get such a monitor right NOW.

 

[imagoon]

Show me a link and I'll get such a monitor right NOW.

Can't coupon is expired. Dell 2713h was on sale dirt cheap also got one of those also.

 

[fixbsod]

Because the higher the resolution (assuming same ppi or better) the greater the viewing experience period. Resolution will continue to go up as it always has CGA --> EGA --> VGA --> SVGA --> etc etc etc etc. This whole "good enough" attitude is why we're in a stagnation.

edit: And FYI movies will most definitely make a big difference as with HD movies 1080p will look best on a 1080p screen (or something with the same higher multiple, so not 1440p but 2k). If it's not it has to scale and quality will suffer. Period. Gaming is typically no prob as it's handled by the game engine and meant for multiple rez's, but movies? No way jose.

why are people so obsessed with HD resolutions, I have 1680x1050 and I'm really happy with it, doesn't matter if you game, if you watch movies etc, switching to 1920x1080 won't do anything better for you

the arguments that phone or tablet screen which feature full HD is better to watch than 27" despite having lesser pixels are so unreal

 

[dstevod]

Main reason the 1080p monitors are cheap is because they are the same panels used in the TVs so they get mass produced. What is funny is 1080p is a step backward in the computer world, 1600x1200 monitors were common in the years before the push for TV 1080p which drilled the idea that 1080p = high def so when they get a laptop / monitor they want a "high def" monitor that is actually lower resolution than monitors that preceded it. But hey, IT'S HD!

I think mass production is the key. Retina MacBooks are mass produced, and apple has their weight behind them as a product.

I'm not sure anybody else is really in a position to do something like that with a key component in the supply chain such as a display panel.

S

 

[imagoon]

I think mass production is the key. Retina MacBooks are mass produced, and apple has their weight behind them as a product.

I'm not sure anybody else is really in a position to do something like that with a key component in the supply chain such as a display panel.

S

Apple is small fry in the screen business. I am not sure the retina panel is something I would call a true mass produced panel like the 1080 panels for TVs.

 

[KeithP]

Most computer users simply don't care about or need super high resolution monitors. I doubt that will change until desktop operating systems become truly resolution independent and applications are updated to take advantage of such a feature.

-KeithP

 

[dstevod]

Apple is small fry in the screen business. I am not sure the retina panel is something I would call a true mass produced panel like the 1080 panels for TVs.

True. I was thinking relatively mass-produced in the computer market, TVs being generally a lot bigger.

 

[taq8ojh]

Most computer users simply don't care about or need super high resolution monitors. I doubt that will change until desktop operating systems become truly resolution independent and applications are updated to take advantage of such a feature.
-KeithP

Most users don't even know what resolution is, and come to a store asking for whatever amount of inches monitor, because Pete said it was good, and he must know what he talks about, because he is a pro since he installed them this Hello Kitty screensaver.

 

[amitkher]

In addition to what is already posted here, you can blame Microsoft for it. As usual.

Windows upto XP doesn't work well with very high resolution even if high DPI fonts are used. 7 and above can be made to run well with high resolution, but need manual intervention. Old programs written for windows at times still don't work well, and windows as an operating system is powerless in making them behave. Monitor manufacturers are wary of customer anger from people unable to configure their PCs to run well with high resolution screens.

Then there is this problem of cables - nexus has to send video data from its SOC to the screen over a distance of millimeters. At 60 Hz refresh rate, it is gigabytes per second. The problem of sending data at such high rates quickly becomes tough as distances increase. So the problem is 100 times harder to solve for computer monitor cables which need to be about a metre long.
This problem would get solved if windows and legacy software were not playing spoilsport.