POST A COMMENT

32 Comments

Back to Article

  • Metaluna - Monday, September 19, 2011 - link

    I believe 4K x 4K is fairly standard for high-res medical imaging (e.g. x-rays, cat scans, etc.). So it could be that there are some high-end medical displays that could benefit from this. Reply
  • ImSpartacus - Tuesday, September 20, 2011 - link

    Nah, they can use specialized hardware.

    I think this is a sign that we will see monitors with higher resolution in the near future.

    Otherwise, support like this would be pointless. Intel knows something we don't.
    Reply
  • sigmatau - Monday, September 19, 2011 - link

    .... at up to 1 FPS. Reply
  • TypeS - Monday, September 19, 2011 - link

    I know that was probably a joke but still, gaming is such a small portion of the market. Reply
  • formulav8 - Tuesday, September 20, 2011 - link

    Not even able to move the mouse at 1 fps either. Reply
  • n0b0dykn0ws - Monday, September 19, 2011 - link

    How about 1920x1080@23.976 with UAC on?

    n0b0dykn0ws
    Reply
  • gevorg - Monday, September 19, 2011 - link

    Exactly! Intel better get 23.976fps right this time. Reply
  • rs2 - Tuesday, September 20, 2011 - link

    Or maybe we could just stop using insane numbers for our framerates and just stick to integers. Wouldn't that be something? Reply
  • repoman27 - Monday, September 19, 2011 - link

    And like the EIZO you referenced, 4096x2160 are the standard dimensions, but the refresh rate is usually only 24 or 48 Hz, being for movies and all. At 24 bit color and 60 Hz with CVT-R that would work out to 13.6 Gbps.

    DisplayPort 1.2 can actually only provide 17.28 Gbps of bandwidth to the protocol layer due to 8b/10b encoding, but I only come up with 14.5 Gbps for 4096x2304 @ 60 Hz and 24 bpp. You might wanna check your math there. I also only come up with 25.8 Gbps for 4096x4096 @ 60 Hz and 24 bpp.
    Reply
  • Kristian Vättö - Monday, September 19, 2011 - link

    I used the following calculator for the calculations: http://www.emsai.net/projects/widescreen/bandwidth...

    I guess your figures are the raw, mathematical ones (I was able to come up with similar ones) but the overhead is the issue (I don't think there is a certain number for the overhead, so it's kind of guessing). Or the overhead might refer to the 8b/10b overhead as well, with some added overhead for latency etc though.

    The main point is, 4096x2304 is supported by DP 1.2, whereas 4096x4096 is not ;-)

    Just to confirm, it's (pixels*refresh rate*bit depth) and then divide that by 10^9 to get the bandwidth in Gigabits? I always forget the exact equation, hence I use the calculator :)
    Reply
  • repoman27 - Tuesday, September 20, 2011 - link

    Your formula is correct, but to reiterate: (horizontal pixels*vertical lines*vertical scan frame rate*color bits per pixel)/10^9 = the raw bandwidth required before any protocol overhead in Gb/s.

    The tricky part is figuring out how many horizontal pixels and vertical lines are actually required for a given screen resolution and frame rate. I was using a Coordinated Video Timing generator that I downloaded from the VESA website. I also used the Reduced Blanking option for LCD displays at 60 Hz.

    I also took the 8b/10b encoding out of the equation right from the start, because it applies across the board. The only reason for including it would be to make the numbers larger for marketing purposes. I imagine there is additional protocol overhead from the likes of framing symbols and other such things that I didn't take into account. Your numbers might be including all that stuff.
    Reply
  • Kristian Vättö - Monday, September 19, 2011 - link

    Technically Radeon 6000 series already supports 4Kx2K due to DisplayPort 1.2

    http://www.anandtech.com/show/3987/amds-radeon-687...
    Reply
  • GullLars - Monday, September 19, 2011 - link

    Actually, the radeon 5xxx series and on support Eyefinity, and can run at 7680x3200, though that's split over 6 monitors of 2560x1600 in a 3x2 configuration.
    I'm wondering if we'll se a "McGuyver"-style display of 5760x2400 of 6 1920x1200 panels in a 3x2 with bezels only around the outer side of the screen, and 6 DP ports on the back (or 2 DP 2.1 with internal daisy-chaining?).
    Reply
  • GullLars - Monday, September 19, 2011 - link

    I meant DP 1.2, not 2.1.
    ANANDTECH NEEDS AN EDIT BUTTON on article comments.
    Reply
  • Kristian Vättö - Monday, September 19, 2011 - link

    That is true too, though you need DP 1.2 to support 4Kx2K on a single monitor through a single cable. 6x 1920x1200 sounds pretty epic though, a wall of screens :P

    Personally I'm getting two Dell U2311Hs with my new PC soon. Pretty excited, and six of them would be even better.

    As for the edit button, we are aware of the comment system's limitations. I have complained about this same thing to Anand as well. He have discussed of improving the comment system as a whole but to be honest, I don't know how far that project is and what are the possible changes.
    Reply
  • Kristian Vättö - Monday, September 19, 2011 - link

    *We have discussed - LOL. The evil strikes again. Reply
  • DanNeely - Monday, September 19, 2011 - link

    Two vertical rows of screens has similar problems to two horizontal rows in many games, your cross-hair ends up on a bezel line instead of in the middle of a screen making aiming difficult. Some genre's like racing games are badly affected by this; but it hobbled many other efinity supporting games severely. The other caveat is that even with SLI/xFire modern GPUs struggle to run many games at native resolution at 3x1920x1080/1200. The GPU hardware to game on 6 screens isn't really here yet. The real beneficiaries of the 6 display mode are video wall makers with relatively simple graphics and daytraders/etc who run with a huge number of monitors running at once. Reply
  • Jingato - Monday, September 19, 2011 - link

    I want 8K x 4K !!!!!!!!!!!!! Reply
  • MGSsancho - Monday, September 19, 2011 - link

    that 36" 4K monitor is already $36,000 USD.. Reply
  • Slaimus - Monday, September 19, 2011 - link

    This reminded me of all the flak 3dfx received when it launched the Voodoo3 without support for 4096x4096 textures like the Nvidia Riva TNT2. 12 years later we may finally be able to display a 4096x4096 texture at full resolution. Reply
  • overzealot - Monday, September 19, 2011 - link

    The TNT2 had a max texture size of 2048x2048. The Voodoo3 had a max texture size of 256x256, and a max pixel depth of 16bit.
    It was well behind the feature curve.
    Reply
  • overzealot - Monday, September 19, 2011 - link

    Forgot, also didn't have Hardware TnL. Not that hardware was always faster, but you couldn't play games that required it. Kind of a deal-breaker for me. Reply
  • mac2j - Monday, September 19, 2011 - link

    I've been surprised and dissapointed at how stuck we seem to be at 1080p.

    I keep waiting for some LCD manufacturer to at least start pitching 1600p or 1440p even if its just as a gimmick but so far nada.

    new marginally better 3D blah blah blah... better internet streaming blah blah blah ... more Facebook features no one gives a ^&*^* about ... who seriously uses Facebook on their TV?
    Reply
  • Filiprino - Tuesday, September 20, 2011 - link

    It sucks how manufacturers add so much idiotic things to their TV sets when you only want good picture quality and high TV signal reception sensivity.
    Of course those add ons are crap and don't live up to their supposed purpose.
    Reply
  • Klimax - Tuesday, September 20, 2011 - link

    NIce. But first I'd need some good 4:3 display...
    (16:9 won't fit due to limited space of same resolution)
    Reply
  • OBLAMA2009 - Tuesday, September 20, 2011 - link

    when are there going to be monitors with these resolutions? are those anywhere near being available Reply
  • tipoo - Tuesday, September 20, 2011 - link

    Probably no time soon for consumers. Medical displays often have this resolution though. I think the bigger news is that IB will support three monitors. Reply
  • Spivonious - Tuesday, September 20, 2011 - link

    That's what high-end 1080i plasmas cost back in the day. Once TV starts broadcasting 4k video, prices on the TVs will come down. Reply
  • Darkstone - Tuesday, September 20, 2011 - link

    The samsung 2560*1600 display actually uses RGBW as pixel layout, counting every pixel rather than three at a time. The actual resolution is 1280*800x4, which is not really that impressive: only 33% more sub-pixels than what is currently in the asus transformer and zero percent more information you can fit on screen.

    Yea, marketing. Lets market 768p as 1366*2304 sub-pixels... that's what samsung does.
    Reply
  • anirudhs - Thursday, September 22, 2011 - link

    I use one monitor landscape @1920x1200 and 2nd monitor portrait @1200x1920. If both monitors are cable of 4096x2304, I can still use both monitors with the Ivy Bridge. Its not the question of whether the display can support 4096x4096, rather its how you want to orient your screen to suit your task. Reply
  • anirudhs - Thursday, September 22, 2011 - link

    sorry make that "capable" not "cable". Reply
  • nyran125 - Saturday, October 15, 2011 - link

    SO do we actually need higher resolutions than what we have now?

    in 3D youll go blind lol.
    Reply

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now