# Intel to Push for Higher Resolution PC Displays, Arrive in 2013



## btarunr (Apr 13, 2012)

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.



 

 



*View at TechPowerUp Main Site*


----------



## btarunr (Apr 13, 2012)

Many Thanks to NHKS for the tip.


----------



## hhumas (Apr 13, 2012)

good news ........


----------



## hardcore_gamer (Apr 13, 2012)

Bring in 4K displays  !!!!!


----------



## btarunr (Apr 13, 2012)

This opens floodgates of pee on EIZO's $35,000 4K monitor media event at NAB'12. Let's hope by 2013, Intel has an IGP that's capable of smooth 4K (four TMDS links) video playback.


----------



## Damn_Smooth (Apr 13, 2012)

Shouldn't they figure out a VGA solution that could accommodate that themselves first?


----------



## BarbaricSoul (Apr 13, 2012)

Damn_Smooth said:


> Shouldn't they figure out a VGA solution that could accommodate that themselves first?



why? don't know about the lesser hardware's cpabilities, but intel's 1155 socket and up are hdmi equipped


----------



## Damn_Smooth (Apr 13, 2012)

BarbaricSoul said:


> why? don't know about the lesser hardware's cpabilities, but intel's 1155 socket and up are hdmi equipped



And you can play ? game with that resolution? At low settings with their current IGP?


----------



## dj-electric (Apr 13, 2012)

Ill be happy with "just" 2160P on my 24-26" monitor.


----------



## Millenia (Apr 13, 2012)

Finally! Been stuck on 1920x1200 on my 24" for far too long.

I just hope they bring high res monitors with 16:10 since it's far superior to 16:9 imo.


----------



## DarkOCean (Apr 13, 2012)

Many pixels you are welcome!


----------



## ensabrenoir (Apr 13, 2012)

Damn_Smooth said:


> Shouldn't they figure out a VGA solution that could accommodate that themselves first?



My thoughts exactly.......as always with intel this is only part of of a larger move so gonna have to wait and see on this one........ Who knows they might have found a fix for old Larrabee.


----------



## AlienIsGOD (Apr 13, 2012)

Damn_Smooth said:


> And you can play ? game with that resolution? At low settings with their current IGP?



Umm Intel isnt trying to usher this in for gaming, they want it for general use obviously.


----------



## Aquinus (Apr 13, 2012)

hardcore_gamer said:


> Bring in 4K displays  !!!!!



A lot of hardware already supports 4k video playback, we just need the hardware.


----------



## alienstorexxx (Apr 13, 2012)

first of all.. we need a graphic card on the >200usd range that can run smoothly all games on 1080p.. then we will be avaible to talk about a higher resolution, like 2560. it's gonna be a long way to the 4k.


----------



## NHKS (Apr 13, 2012)

Damn_Smooth said:


> And you can play ? game with that resolution? At low settings with their current IGP?



for PC gaming yes.. Intel's IGP(even some GPUs) falls short with higher res... 
but for professional/workstation & studio design & media editing, the IGP seems to be on track and higher res 'might' not be a problem..


----------



## BarbaricSoul (Apr 13, 2012)

alienstorexxx said:


> first of all.. we need a graphic card on the >200usd range that can run smoothly all games on 1080p.. then we will be avaible to talk about a higher resolution, like 2560. it's gonna be a long way to the 4k.



this is not about gaming people, computers are used for more than just games(heh, go figure.)


----------



## NC37 (Apr 13, 2012)

BarbaricSoul said:


> this is not about gaming people, computers are used for more than just games(heh, go figure.)



You mean glorified internet porno viewers and eroge players? 

Seriously, the only ones who would really care about high resolutions are gamers and professionals. Regular users don't know the difference between 720 and 1080 other than that one is a higher number than the other.

I don't mind an effort by the industry to boost resolutions, but coming from Intel it means nothing unless they can supply an IGP that can at least compete in the midrange segment.


----------



## Damn_Smooth (Apr 13, 2012)

AlienIsGOD said:


> Umm Intel isnt trying to usher this in for gaming, they want it for general use obviously.



None of my interest. Sorry.



NHKS said:


> for PC gaming yes.. Intel's IGP(even some GPUs) falls short with higher res...
> but for professional/workstation & studio design & media editing, the IGP seems to be on track and higher res 'might' not be a problem..
> http://www.xbitlabs.com/images/news/2011-08/intel_graphics_roadmap.png



Thanks for showing me that, but if it doesn't concern gaming, I don't care.

I'm not trying to be an ass but I have my priorities. I'll just chalk this up to a loss for my concerns.


----------



## craigo (Apr 13, 2012)

The new virtu software is doing amazing things for high resolutions.


----------



## xenocide (Apr 13, 2012)

About damn time.  Considering stupid iPads are up to 2048x1536, you'd think dedicated monitors would be up to at least 2560x1440 as a standard, with upwards of 4K being offered for additional costs...


----------



## ZoneDymo (Apr 13, 2012)

YES YES YES
thank you intel


----------



## Benetanegia (Apr 13, 2012)

You could always play at 1080p in a 3840x2160 display no problem. Hell even many non-native resolutions in the middle would work on such a high resolution display, unlike in a 1080p or 1200p display where anything but native looks awful. 

Also game developers and/or AMD/Nvidia could work out a feature similar to MLAA or FXAA where the input is 1080p and the output is 2160p, performing anti-aliasing a lot better than they do now while keeping all the details that are now lost with those algorithms. Or color/textures could be sampled at 2160p, while lighting/shaders are calculated at lower res (many game engines already do this anyway) or many other techniques that would allow for 2160p on current gen cards no problem.


----------



## nINJAkECIL (Apr 13, 2012)

I wouldn't mind at all,because I'd never bought it.
I'm comfortable enjoying my dvd and bluray movie on both 720p and 1080p display.
Playing a dvd or 720p movie on 3k res=eye cancer.
but if this gigantic res could push the standard HD video to match the res,I'd be glad to jump ship.


----------



## Kreij (Apr 13, 2012)

Why does anyone need more than 800x600?  

This is good news. I'll stay on the bleeding edge of res if the monitors are affordable.


----------



## sanadanosa (Apr 13, 2012)

oh God, my graphics card become rubbish soon.


----------



## xenocide (Apr 13, 2012)

Kreij said:


> Why does anyone need more than 800x600?
> 
> This is good news. I'll stay on the bleeding edge of res if the monitors are affordable.



That's the resolution I play Counter-Strike at still.  Old habits die hard.


----------



## Assimilator (Apr 13, 2012)

About damn time!


----------



## phanbuey (Apr 13, 2012)

Finally...


----------



## n-ster (Apr 13, 2012)

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


----------



## Disparia (Apr 13, 2012)

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.


----------



## OhNoesMyOreos (Apr 13, 2012)

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 :]


----------



## araditus (Apr 13, 2012)

OhNoesMyOreos said:


> 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 :]




http://www.techpowerup.com/forums/showthread.php?t=163980

There is your big bucks. Research done  **hint**you can reserve one now!


----------



## ensabrenoir (Apr 13, 2012)

Even amd gotta go YEEEEAAAH  for INTEL on,this one


----------



## OhNoesMyOreos (Apr 13, 2012)

araditus said:


> http://www.techpowerup.com/forums/showthread.php?t=163980
> 
> There is your big bucks. Research done  **hint**you can reserve one now!



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.


----------



## MikeMurphy (Apr 13, 2012)

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.


----------



## Delta6326 (Apr 13, 2012)

This would be sweet.


----------



## Disparia (Apr 13, 2012)

OhNoesMyOreos said:


> 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.



First? More like, after 8 years, we're finally getting 4K back! 

Though I suppose your point still stands - little experience with such screens.


----------



## newtekie1 (Apr 13, 2012)

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.


----------



## Vulpesveritas (Apr 13, 2012)

Thank you Intel!
Now gaming has to catch up to monitor hardware again XD


----------



## Spaceman Spiff (Apr 13, 2012)

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..


----------



## eidairaman1 (Apr 13, 2012)

How about LCD/LEDs that are as adaptable as CRTs back in the day


----------



## Vulpesveritas (Apr 13, 2012)

eidairaman1 said:


> 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?


----------



## Mistral (Apr 13, 2012)

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.


----------



## Inceptor (Apr 13, 2012)

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.


----------



## BarbaricSoul (Apr 13, 2012)

Mistral said:


> 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.



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.


----------



## Disparia (Apr 13, 2012)

Inceptor said:


> Higher resolutions would be nice to see, but think about the collateral effects;  higher resolutions means higher definition playback



I will not think about it, because I don't agree with it


----------



## Mega-Japan (Apr 13, 2012)

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 .


----------



## baggpipes (Apr 13, 2012)

So this is awesome... Maybe this will get video card manufacturers to increase the tech without much price increase....


----------



## NinkobEi (Apr 13, 2012)

Damn_Smooth said:


> Shouldn't they figure out a VGA solution that could accommodate that themselves first?



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.


----------



## Completely Bonkers (Apr 13, 2012)

+1 that Intel is finally driving standards so that "PC" OEMs will keep up with Apple products.

Using a PC for reading text and DTP and viewing pictures will improve significantly with High resolution displays. Hell, 12 years ago IBM did this with the T210 display. Display: 20.8-inch TFT LCD with CCFL Backlight and Fan, Resolution: 2048 x 1536, Aspect Ratio: 4:3, Connectivity: VGA, DVI, S-Video, Composite.  FINALLY, we will get consumer products at this resolution and better.


----------



## Maban (Apr 13, 2012)

3840x2400 in a 30-36 inch please.


----------



## techtard (Apr 13, 2012)

Gimme a projector that displays directly into my eyeballs.


----------



## NHKS (Apr 13, 2012)

realistic roadmap from Intel?






Courtesy:3Dcenter


----------



## ensabrenoir (Apr 13, 2012)

techtard said:


> Gimme a projector that displays directly into my eyeballs.



Google already working on it  sorta......


----------



## Mega-Japan (Apr 13, 2012)

Is it me or is the whole 3D hype dying? I know most folks here consider it to be gimmick blah blah, but I thought that 3D everything was to become standard at some point, no?


----------



## Fourstaff (Apr 13, 2012)

Intel pushing HDD to 5mm they are fucking bastards, Intel pushing for higher res they are geniuses. Regardless, all forms of tech advancement (drive to widespread adoption or something else) should be welcomed.


----------



## ensabrenoir (Apr 13, 2012)

Mega-Japan said:


> Is it me or is the whole 3D hype dying? I know most folks here consider it to be gimmick blah blah, but I thought that 3D everything was to become standard at some point, no?



If they can do it without the glasses and economically then I believe it will spread


----------



## Benetanegia (Apr 14, 2012)

ensabrenoir said:


> If they can do it without the glasses and economically then I believe it will spread



I don't think it's ever going to be posible without glasses unless you can live with 0º viewing angles.


----------



## Mega-Japan (Apr 14, 2012)

Benetanegia said:


> I don't think it's ever going to be posible without glasses unless you can live with 0º viewing angles.



If angles is the concern, then display should be switched to 2D. But I thought eventually displays with 2D/3D option would become mainstream. Those who not like it can simply keep it off.


----------



## mastrdrver (Apr 14, 2012)

btarunr said:


> This opens floodgates of pee on EIZO's $35,000 4K monitor media event at NAB'12. Let's hope by 2013, Intel has an IGP that's capable of smooth 4K (four TMDS links) video playback.





Oh wait! Your serious.................................................................


----------



## Kaleid (Apr 14, 2012)

baggpipes said:


> So this is awesome... Maybe this will get video card manufacturers to increase the tech without much price increase....



LOL, that's funny.


----------



## acerace (Apr 14, 2012)

What? I'm not even out of my 1280x1024 res yet.


----------



## dj-electric (Apr 14, 2012)

NHKS said:


> realistic roadmap from Intel?
> http://www.3dcenter.org/dateien/abbildungen/Intel-Roadmap-to-4K.vorschau2.png
> 
> Courtesy:3Dcenter



If ill have a 24" 4800X2700 monitor, I think ill puke rainbows to death...


----------



## Aquinus (Apr 14, 2012)

The current revision of DisplayPort is rated to run at a maximum of 3840 × 2160 × 30 bpp @ 60 Hz.


----------



## NHKS (Apr 14, 2012)

Dj-ElectriC said:


> If ill have a 24" 4800X2700 monitor, I think ill puke rainbows to death...



quite!.. 
but it will be in 2015 at earliest & of course in the premium segment.. as for me i will be content if good quality 2560x1440 monitors(like this) come down to mainstream prices next year, as my monitor upgrade is loong overdue!... keeping my fingers(or eyes  ) crossed until then


----------



## n-ster (Apr 14, 2012)

OMG I JUST THOUGHT OF SOMETHING!

imagine these monitors in.... EYEFINITY


----------



## NHKS (Apr 14, 2012)

n-ster said:


> OMG I JUST THOUGHT OF SOMETHING!
> 
> imagine these monitors in.... EYEFINITY



& running something like Metro 2033...


----------



## n-ster (Apr 14, 2012)

NHKS said:


> & running something like Metro 2033...



6 screen eyefinity and 32x SSAA for good measure

Would have to measure by frames per minute or hour


----------



## ensabrenoir (Apr 14, 2012)

n-ster said:


> OMG I JUST THOUGHT OF SOMETHING!
> 
> imagine these monitors in.... EYEFINITY



Total brain damage from the coolness.....and slippery floors from all the drool


----------



## semantics (Apr 15, 2012)

Ill take more pixel density then just more pixels on a larger screen, i don't think i need anything larger then 26" when i'm only sitting a foot or so away from the screen.


----------



## Deleted member 67555 (Apr 15, 2012)

I really wish we had a resident Optometrist so he could explain why this is pointless...

Fuck 4k as the human eye can't distinguish the difference somewhere between 1080p and before 4k..

Give me Holographic displays or fuck off!


----------



## n-ster (Apr 15, 2012)

jmcslob said:


> I really wish we had a resident Optometrist so he could explain why this is pointless...
> 
> Fuck 4k as the human eye can't distinguish the difference somewhere between 1080p and before 4k..
> 
> Give me Holographic displays or fuck off!



Dude, even true 4K (4096x2304) only gives 174 PPI @ 27"

For comparision the 3.2" 320x480 Galaxy Gio is 180 PPI. The Sony X1 has a 3" 800x480 (312 PPI) display. If you can't distinguish between the 2 of those, well, you need glasses man


----------



## Frick (Apr 15, 2012)

Soon I can replace my monitors then.


----------



## hellrazor (Apr 15, 2012)

jmcslob said:


> I really wish we had a resident Optometrist so he could explain why this is pointless...
> 
> Fuck 4k as the human eye can't distinguish the difference somewhere between 1080p and before 4k..
> 
> Give me Holographic displays or fuck off!



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.


----------



## Frick (Apr 15, 2012)

I hope the market for 7" monitors will get bigger. At least I want monitors of that size running a res equal or bigger than 1280x800.


----------



## runevirage (Apr 15, 2012)

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.


----------



## Benetanegia (Apr 15, 2012)

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.


----------



## xenocide (Apr 16, 2012)

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.


----------



## Kantastic (Apr 16, 2012)

2560x1440 monitors are pretty much a standard in Korea, OEM 27" LG 1440P panels under different names sell for ~$250 US.


----------



## xenocide (Apr 16, 2012)

Kantastic said:


> 2560x1440 monitors are pretty much a standard in Korea, OEM 27" LG 1440P panels under different names sell for ~$250 US.





Monitors like that in the US sell for like $400+ easily...


----------



## Kantastic (Apr 16, 2012)

xenocide said:


> 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.


----------



## Benetanegia (Apr 16, 2012)

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.


----------



## xenocide (Apr 16, 2012)

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.


----------



## n-ster (Apr 16, 2012)

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


----------



## Benetanegia (Apr 16, 2012)

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.


----------



## DaveK (Apr 16, 2012)

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


----------



## Aquinus (Apr 16, 2012)

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



You still need the hardware to drive these new displays. Buying two new displays is only the beginning.


----------



## fullhd99 (Apr 19, 2012)

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"


----------

