WOAH! Time for NG-GPU FAST!

vhx

Golden Member
Jul 19, 2006
1,151
0
0
Lol I bet that's going to vaporize the wallet. How are you going to run 3840x2160, when Dual-Link DVI only supports a max of 2560x1600?
 

defiantsf

Member
Oct 23, 2005
132
0
0
Hence... the DisplayPort instead of DVI.

The $$$ we pay for the next everything - Vista for DX10, etc.

Edit: Looking at the picture closer, it looks like the panel comes with a DVI to DisplayPort converter, but one of the two DVI ports is stubbed. Interesting.
 

swtethan

Diamond Member
Aug 5, 2005
9,071
0
0
Originally posted by: defiantsf
I hope you are right Swtethan!

...Step-up...tick tock tick tock... :D

I really dont care for my step up anymore, I get a 20%+ gain in performance thanks to my 630/2000 overclock on my card. It would have been sweet to spend $175 on a GTX, but I think its best to spend $266 on a Q6600 this july 22nd.
 

bunnyfubbles

Lifer
Sep 3, 2001
12,248
3
0
Ohhay, super slim/sleek LCD on the verge of OLED...

Not impressed. LCD still needs to perfect image quality / performance before they slim anything down.
 

rbV5

Lifer
Dec 10, 2000
12,632
0
0
Originally posted by: vhx
Lol I bet that's going to vaporize the wallet. How are you going to run 3840x2160, when Dual-Link DVI only supports a max of 2560x1600?

Actually, even single link DVI can support WQUXGA (3840 x 2400) with reduced blanking and reduced refresh rate. IBM had WQUXGA monitors that could be driven with 1,2 or 4 DVI links, the added links enabled increased refresh rates. Dual Link DVI is limited by the cable itself more than anything else.
 

Auric

Diamond Member
Oct 11, 1999
9,591
2
71
Dual Link is missing the point anyway as it comes from the necessity for two transmitters when their frequency (bandwidth) is insufficient. Higher frequency (and thus adequate) transmitters for higher resolutions are available but I suppose it will take awhile for mass adoption.