How far away for 4K PC monitors, and affordable ?

Zorachus

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Dec 17, 2006
Messages
9,968
I can only imagine future 4K PC Monitors :D I think my Dell U3011 is awesome to game on, imagine a 36" 4K display for gaming :eek:

4K is 3840 x 2160 ? Now to keep the same size pixels and DPI of a 30" we have now @ 2560 x 1600, a 4K monitor at approx 42" would do it ?

I will take a single 36" to 42" 4K Monitor @ 3840 x 2160 res, any day over triple screens. How far away are 4K PC Monitors for consumers ? And not that 32" Sharp model, that stupid to be only 32", I know it will be Ultra detailed, but at 4K res, we can still go larger, but still keep it in the PC useful size. I know there will be a boatload of 4K HDTV's down the road, at 60" and larger for home theaters. But I would love to see a 4K PC Monitor around 36" or so.

I know gaming at 4K 3840 x 2160 res, will be very demanding in games, and hardware, but not much more than 3 x 24" now @ 5760x1200, and far less demanding than 3 x 30" @ 7860x1600.
 

EvilWays

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Apr 9, 2006
Messages
1,507
Got a while. I think only two companies have come out with 4k TVs and they are hella expensive right now (5 figure expensive).
 

Zorachus

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Dec 17, 2006
Messages
9,968
I think the next big monitor release, will be the next generation 30" from Dell, due out in March. Curious what the difference will be between the new U3014 and current U3011 ?
 

undermined

Limp Gawd
Joined
Nov 16, 2008
Messages
423
already down to roughly $5500 for a Sharp 32" QuadHD 3840x2160:

http://www.engadget.com/2012/11/27/sharp-pn-k321-4k-igzo-lcd-monitor/

launch after CES.

all things considered $550 for a 32" 4K display isn't too bad if a 30" 2560x1600 panels are around $1200 and the only other desktop sized panel up to this point was a 36" EZIO that was $36,000

http://www.eizo.com/global/products/duravision/fdh3601/index.html

I commented on this before already too:

http://hardforum.com/showthread.php?p=1039393570
 

evilsofa

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jan 1, 2007
Messages
10,078
I predict that in mid-to-late 2013, Apple will release a 21.5" 3840x2160 iMac. Yes, that's right, a 21.5" 4K display. Futhermore, I anticipate that Apple will also release a 27" 5120x2880 display.
 

Zorachus

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Dec 17, 2006
Messages
9,968
I predict that in mid-to-late 2013, Apple will release a 21.5" 3840x2160 iMac. Yes, that's right, a 21.5" 4K display. Futhermore, I anticipate that Apple will also release a 27" 5120x2880 display.

LOL, then you woke up :p

A 21" monitor with a resolution of 3840 x 2160. Ha, yeah ok. And due out next year too, LOL.
 
Joined
Jul 8, 2006
Messages
763
Apple has little reason to make a desktop display with that resolution.

A display being "Retina" is a function of the closest normal use case(distance eye->screen) and the pixel size at that display the human eye can distinguish.

A 27" 2560x1440 display is borderline "retina" already if you are sitting 30~inches away. If they did release a 5120x2880 display that would pretty much be game over, resolution would never need to increase again.
 

Ruahrc

Limp Gawd
Joined
Mar 8, 2009
Messages
451
Haha funny funny and all that but seriously, how many of you actually thought even 1-2 years ago that there would be 13 and 15" laptops out there with 2560x1600 and 2880x1800 IPS screens? Tablets with 2048x1536? Especially when the standard of the day was 1366x768 TN, that resolution even being seen in 15" and above laptops?

Just sayin', it may not be as far fetched as you think.
 
Joined
Jul 8, 2006
Messages
763
Haha funny funny and all that but seriously, how many of you actually thought even 1-2 years ago that there would be 13 and 15" laptops out there with 2560x1600 and 2880x1800 IPS screens? Tablets with 2048x1536? Especially when the standard of the day was 1366x768 TN, that resolution even being seen in 15" and above laptops?

Just sayin', it may not be as far fetched as you think.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPhone_4
First released GSM model (black): June 24, 2010

So yes, Apple's branding is inevitable. But Apple only pushes one thing at a time, the next step is a retina ipad mini. Displays aren't cheap enough for them to sell a retina desktop monitor to ANYONE so it's not gonna happen any time soon.
 

genkifd

Limp Gawd
Joined
May 26, 2012
Messages
149
wouldnt be surprised that Apple is trying to get LG to make the next retina display for their 30" displays. Pitty Apple wont have the gpu power to play games in such high resolution to its full benefits.

By the way Apply is suing everyone competing company they might not have LG supporting them for much longer. As its only time Apple will sure LG as well.
 

dmanstasiu

Weaksauce
Joined
Nov 26, 2012
Messages
96
While the pricerange for 4k displays is slowly growing affordable, we still need the GPU power to power these displays...
 

Godmachine

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Apr 7, 2003
Messages
10,472
While the pricerange for 4k displays is slowly growing affordable, we still need the GPU power to power these displays...

I don't think that'll be the issue with getting them into the mainstream. More like actually being able to mass produce them on the cheap. It took 1080p a pretty short amount of time to become standard once the display's supporting them where cheap enough.

4k will be a nice boon for PC gaming though , it'll drive up competition among Nvidia/AMD for GPU's and that can only be a good thing for us. Plus the prospect of playing games at 4k is just .. orgasmic.
 

Whoisthisreally

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Feb 14, 2009
Messages
1,143
How far away for 4K PC monitors, and affordable ?
It is supposed to be now. If a 27" 4K panel isn't manufacturable on the existing 100 PPI equipment then we are really stuck until oxide TFT capacity is available. Most of the 4K discussion is related to big 70" panels which need to be driven at 240 Hz. 150 PPI 60 Hz desktop panels aren't even discussed.
 
Last edited:

Snowdog

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Apr 22, 2006
Messages
11,267
I predict that in mid-to-late 2013, Apple will release a 21.5" 3840x2160 iMac. Yes, that's right, a 21.5" 4K display. Futhermore, I anticipate that Apple will also release a 27" 5120x2880 display.

Doubtful.

A lot more likely Apple will release a 27" 3840x2160 as a special premium iMac. 166 dpi will be retina at 20" distance by Apples definition, which is about as close as typical monitor usage gets. So this is all they need to do.
Not only that but LG showed future lineup contain a panel this size/resolution.

The 21" might just get 2560x1600 if/when they do a "retina" version.
 

Zorachus

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Dec 17, 2006
Messages
9,968
For large HDTV's, 4K is a must have. I hate these huge 80" TV's by Sharp, but running low res of 1080p :rolleyes: I think I read, that true videophiles like 55" HDTV's for the best picture clarity,

But what's the deal with Samsung's OLED TV technology ? Will that come in 4K resolution too ?

I would guess, we see HDTV's come out at 4K first, then down the road PC Monitors. But like I said, give me a 36" 4K monitor, and I will be a very happy man.
 

Whoisthisreally

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Feb 14, 2009
Messages
1,143
But what's the deal with Samsung's OLED TV technology ? Will that come in 4K resolution too ?

The whole OLED thing is stuffed for the moment. LGD can't get yields for its RGBW panels and has pushed out the date by over a year. And RGBW OLED was supposed to improve yield over RGB. Meanwhile, high performance LCD TV including 4K continues to improve.

Not to mention manufacturers being crushed in a saturated industry facing falling demand.

I would guess, we see HDTV's come out at 4K first, then down the road PC Monitors. But like I said, give me a 36" 4K monitor, and I will be a very happy man.

The problem is that I don't know what additional level of equipment precision is needed to go from 100 to 150 PPI on a-Si. If re-tooling is required then someone needs to explain to me how a 4K 27" product is feasible. The 250 PPI MBP panels are apparently a-Si but they are small size and reportedly the 13" panel is having yield issues.
 
Joined
Jul 8, 2006
Messages
763
OLED is also going to be hard to sell, the main advantage is near infinite ANSI contrast ratios but something like that isn't obvious to a normal consumer looking at it next to an LCD under thousands of watts of lighting in a B&M store.

Plus, you know, as with plasma and CRT, OLED does have burn-in. Maybe one day white OLEDs will become bright enough to have a hybrid LCD with OLED back-lighting for per pixel local dimming? I dunno, just a thought. I don't know if an all white OLED has as fast of a decay as straight blue OLEDs.
 
Last edited:

Snowdog

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Apr 22, 2006
Messages
11,267
Maybe one day white OLEDs will become bright enough to have a hybrid LCD with OLED back-lighting for per pixel local dimming? I dunno, just a thought.

That makes no sense at all. The only real downside of OLED is burn in (excluding cost).

If you combine local dimming LCD, with OLED you would still have the burn in issue, but now you add poor viewing angles and reduce viewing angles and drastically reduce efficiency.

OLED is really a pipe dream for monitors at this time. Wait until they sell a couple million TVs first, then we can start dreaming of OLED monitors.
 

amagus

n00b
Joined
Jul 25, 2011
Messages
8
Doubtful.

A lot more likely Apple will release a 27" 3840x2160 as a special premium iMac. 166 dpi will be retina at 20" distance by Apples definition, which is about as close as typical monitor usage gets. So this is all they need to do.
Not only that but LG showed future lineup contain a panel this size/resolution.

The 21" might just get 2560x1600 if/when they do a "retina" version.

This is my guess as well (27" 4K). Apple would make a 1920x1080 pixel doubled "sharp" resolution the default, and support up to a scaled resolution of 2560x1440 for those who want more usable screen real estate (hiding real 3840x2160 support).

They do the exact same thing on their retina MacBooks, ie the 15" is 2880x1800 native but it only supports up to a scaled 1920x1200 resolution, and defaults to 1440x900 pixel doubled "sharp" resolution. You have to hack it to unlock native 2880x1800 support, which IMO makes everything too tiny to be usable anyway.

Normally I would be disgusted with non integer multiple scaled resolutions, but I've changed my mind a bit after seeing 1920x1200 on the 15" Retina MacBook, which is really good and almost looks native. Scaling quality apparently has come a long way.
 
Joined
Oct 25, 2008
Messages
882
Well. Westington is pushing 4K in 50", 55", 65", and godly 110". Panel will be from TCL, which is also used by Samsung on their large display models. They promised "affordable." Let's see how that plays out.
westinghouse_D55QX1_610x407.jpg

http://reviews.cnet.com/8301-33199_7-57462308-221/westinghouse-shows-off-4k-tv/
 

Zorachus

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Dec 17, 2006
Messages
9,968
So a 48" 4K monitor would have same DPI and pixel count as a 24" LCD @ 1920 x 1200 ?

I could see a 48" 4K become a very popular and affordable size in the future. And gaming at that res, wouldn't be much worse than Eyefinity 3 X 24. a good SLI or Crossfire system could run that no problem.
 

gan7114

Limp Gawd
Joined
Dec 14, 2012
Messages
275
Apple produces nothing when it comes to panels. That would be LG for iMacs and a combination of LG/Samsung for the MacBook Pros. 4K monitor panels will come when the tech is ready. The only reason we've seen high PPI displays for iPads and MacBooks is because Apple has considerable leverage in those markets. Not so in the desktop/monitor markets.

My estimate is at least 5 (yes, 5) years before we start seeing 4K panels being manufactured for the 21.5" - 30" monitor market. What I think will definitely happen in the interim is we'll see the current resolutions for 27" (2560x1440) and 30" (2560x1600) adapted to the 21.5"/23" and 24" sizes. The PPI for these is right around 150, and for desktop monitors, do you really need any better when sitting 1.5'-2' away? At that distance the panel would appear retina anyway, and would be much less taxing on GPUs than 4K panels would be.
 

Zorachus

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Dec 17, 2006
Messages
9,968
So what's the new player coming for 4K monitors ?

Platinum-Ray or Diamond-Ray ? Will the upcoming PlayStation IV include a 4K player ?
 

CrazyRob

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Aug 26, 2004
Messages
1,273
So what's the new player coming for 4K monitors ?

Platinum-Ray or Diamond-Ray ? Will the upcoming PlayStation IV include a 4K player ?

Probably BD-XL if media needs more than 50GB of storage.

Alternatively, my interest in 4k displays is for passive 3d. After the halving of resolution caused by interlacing, you'd end up with 1080p. So you wouldn't need new media or an upscaler to benefit from 4k (in the home theater environment).
 

elvn

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
May 5, 2006
Messages
4,346
The 4k, "retina" , and QFHD (quad-full-hd 3840x2160) type displays are welcomed advances. Anything much over $1200 - $2k is still way too high for my taste though, especially with korean 2560x1440 's around for $350 which still look beautiful on stills/desktop use.
.
For gaming, everything I've seen of these higher rez displays is 60hz input in the back and high response times, so won't have the increased "smoothness" from increased motion tracking of higher (120hz/120hz+) hz combined with very high fps. They also will be twice as blurry as a 120hz input gaming display during FoV movement(the entire scene blurs) and object movement (the objects blur across the still-standing player's viewpoint). For those following the 1ms lightboost2 backlight strobing threads, there is a 1080p lcd monitor capable of crt motion clarity (i.e. no blurring/smearing of the original high detail objects, textures, depth via bump mapping and other shaders during movement). So, while I would love a very high resolution display for desktop stuff, it is in the opposite direction of anything I would be interested in for gaming. By opposite direction I mean this:
we have 60hz motion blurr-mess, 120hz with increased motion tracking/more recent action per hz and around 1/2 as much blur, and finally something new, a 120hz + 1ms lightboost2 backlight strobing lcd with essentially zero blur. (The only other thing with essentially zero blur like that is a fw900 crt with its own considerable tradeoffs).
.
I saw an ipad3 over the holidays. My sister brought one to my parents. It did look beautiful at 264ppi. (2048-by-1536 at 9.7") By comparison, my droid x2 phone is around 256ppi. In its small form factor (4.3") it really demands high ppi though. Perceived ppi (as well as perceived screen size) is of course relative to viewing distance.


I'll have to update this pixel density list with some of the newer models and things showcased and rumored, but I'm pasting it here as a general reference.


Pixel densities

4.3"....................960 x 540.........256.15 ppi.....0.0992 mm <- droid x2 phone
..
(LG Quad full HD)
26.5"................3840 x 2160.......166.26 ppi ....0.1528 mm <-- 166ppi quoted resolves to 26.5"
27"...................3840 x 2160.......163.18 ppi.....0.1557 mm <-- may not be viewable size if ppi quote is accurate

10.1"................1280 x 800.........146.55 ppi....0.1783 mm <- 10.1" android tablet
17"...................1920 x 1080.......129.58 ppi....0.1960 mm <-- laptop

22.5" (24")........2304 x 1440.......118.13 ppi....0.2150 mm <--- FW900 widescreen CRT max rez 22.5" viewable (80hz) ..
27"...................2560 x 1440.......108.8 ppi....0.2335 mm
30"...................2560 x 1600.......100.6 ppi....0.2524 mm

22"...................1920 x 1080........100.132 ppi..0.2530 mm
20.1"................1680 x 1050..........98.4 ppi ..0.258 mm

23"...................1920 x 1080.........95.78 ppi....0.2652 mm <-- 60hz/120hz
24"...................1920 x 1200.........94.3 ppi....0.2692 mm

24"...................1920 x 1080..........91.8 ppi....0.2767 mm
19"...................1440 x 900...........89.37 ppi....0.2842 mm
27.5"(28")........1920 x 1200..........82.33 ppi....0.3085 mm
27"...................1920 x 1080.........81.59 ppi....0.3113 mm <-- 60hz / 120hz panels

---Too Large for a Desk imo, greater viewing distances suggested ----
36.4"................4096 x 2160.......127.22 ppi...0.1997 mm <--- Eizo FDH3601 4K2K 16:9
42"...................3840 x 2160.......104.9 ppi....0.2421 mm <----LG Quad Full HD IPS, 42" tv version
85 "...................7680 x 4320......103.67 ppi...0.245 mm <--- Sharp 85" 8Kx4K VA
30"...................1920 x 1080.........73.43 ppi...0.345 mm
32"...................1920 x 1080.........68.84 ppi...0.368 mm
37"...................1920 x 1080.........59.54 ppi..0.4266 mm
40"...................1920 x 1080.........55.07 ppi...0.4612 mm
42"...................1920 x 1080.........52.45 ppi...0.4843 mm
 
Last edited:

enkay

n00b
Joined
Apr 6, 2010
Messages
19
So what's the new player coming for 4K monitors ?

Platinum-Ray or Diamond-Ray ? Will the upcoming PlayStation IV include a 4K player ?

Probably BD-XL if media needs more than 50GB of storage.

Alternatively, my interest in 4k displays is for passive 3d. After the halving of resolution caused by interlacing, you'd end up with 1080p. So you wouldn't need new media or an upscaler to benefit from 4k (in the home theater environment).

It's not blu-ray its RED RAY

http://www.red.com/products/redray

This should work well since half of the movies now and days are being shot in digital (hobbit, skyfall, prometheus and on and on...) and they are shot with RED camera's. So getting the edited 4k footage from the final copy should not be that hard at all.
 

elvn

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
May 5, 2006
Messages
4,346
Since you mentioned 4k movies.. for movies, unless some new display tech is included in these, VA panel would be the best thing outside of plasma for black levels and detail in blacks which IPS and TN are much inferior to.. VA typically are another set of bad tradeoffs in regard to gaming though: trailing/ghosting, view angle shift, and usually bad input lag in most models(with a few rare exceptions lag wise).
.
Lack of 120hz input combined with poor pixel response times (more than 1ms - 5ms.. and likely a lack of aggressive response time compensation), no lightboost2 backlight strobing or equivalent backlight scanning tech, most likely a VA panel (at least I'd hope so if you want any decent blacklevels and detail-in-blacks in movies) with its corresponding tradeoffs. If any motion interpolation tech is included, that usually adds a lot of input lag too and can't always be turned off completely even in "game modes" if even available. Having a scaler also introduces added input lag.
.
I can't find enough details on these so most of this is assumptions other than the hz. Let me know if you find more info.
.
For 4k movie watching , I'd consider a 4k panel in a few years when prices dip a little. I think all of the higher rez display types are inferior for gaming though from what I've seen, especially for pc gaming.
 

XTF

Gawd
Joined
Oct 11, 2011
Messages
591
It's not like console gaming will benefit from more than 1080p any time soon. For movies I don't see the benefit either.
 

Zorachus

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Dec 17, 2006
Messages
9,968
So for Home Theater use, are we looking at approx 5 years from now that 4k HDTV's will be the norm, and affordable as high end Plasmas today ? I bought a brand new top of the line Samsung 65" Plasma HDTV last year, from Best Buy on sale for $2250, sticker was $4500. How long until 65" 4K TV's in the $3000 range ? And then how long until we see real 4K content from Cable providers, like sports games broadcast in 4K ?

As far as PC Monitors in 4K resolution, no way I would just go for a 32", at that high of a resolution, I want to see like a 42" monitor. Right now my Dell U3011 30" @ 2560 x 1600 resolution, is very nice. With that same pixel size and DPI as my 30" Monitor, what would be the equivalent in 3840 x 2160 resolution ?
 

zurv

Limp Gawd
Joined
May 2, 2008
Messages
203
I doubt the prices will drop to quickly. I got the dell 30" right when I came out years ago... I don't *think* it is that much cheaper now. (of course i'm getting old and I forget things). I think it was under 2k.

I think the "mass market" for screens like this would be fore gaming (vs the office users) - but even 30" @ 1k are to much for most ppl now. Then there is the 2-3k that one needs spend on video cards to power it :p

do I don't think mass needed to get good production scale will be hit to lower the close of making the screen. But hopefully that isn't the case :) amd/NVidia should want ppl to get screens like this :)

sharp is only make 1500 of their monitors a month. That isn't very many.
 

Zorachus

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Dec 17, 2006
Messages
9,968
Off topic, but what does Dell have in store for us in regards to the upcoming Dell U3014 brand new 30" Display ? I think it is due out in March ? Will it be LED ? Still 2560 x 1600 resolution ?
 

elvn

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
May 5, 2006
Messages
4,346
As far as PC Monitors in 4K resolution, no way I would just go for a 32", at that high of a resolution, I want to see like a 42" monitor. Right now my Dell U3011 30" @ 2560 x 1600 resolution, is very nice. With that same pixel size and DPI as my 30" Monitor, what would be the equivalent in 3840 x 2160 resolution ?

I know what you are saying but regardless of resolution, the scene would be pushed into your periphery at desk distances and the scene objects and elements all made "jumbo" sized even if detailed.

I disagree. Imo any primary gaming space much over 27" - 30" at a desk is too big. Literally eye-bending to the periphery. I had a 37" 1080p lcd at my desk for a short period. I soon moved it back around 4' on its own pillar until I could sell it because bending my gaze to the perimeter got old really fast. Unless games start to allow you to define a virtual primary gaming monitor space in the middle (like a window with invisible borders) - with all the extents outside of that virtual space additional FoV , larger monitors will continue to just be the same scene made jumbo and oversize with the extents outside of your focal gaze. The only way I could see using a "TV-sized" monitor at a desk would be on its own stand much further away than desktop monitor distances, to essentially shrink it (and appreciably its ppi as well) in relation to your viewpoint.
.
.. This differs from landscape x3 eyefinity (LLL). In landscape eyefinity the sides are peripheral by design, and games that support it properly keep all HUD, notifications, pointers, chats, etc within the primary monitor's extents. The sides are like "blinders" to block out your actual view of your room and fill it with extended game-world space , fooling your brain into feeling more immersed in the scene.
.
http://www.web-cyb.org/images/lcds/eyefinity_config-aspects-visualized_sm.jpg
.
Currently all high ppi monitors will blur badly. Some of the 4k ones will be VA panels for blacklevels since they are geared to movie watching.. the QFHD ones will be ips 60hz with high response times most likely. .
 

elvn

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
May 5, 2006
Messages
4,346
So for Home Theater use, are we looking at approx 5 years from now that 4k HDTV's will be the norm, and affordable as high end Plasmas today ? I bought a brand new top of the line Samsung 65" Plasma HDTV last year, from Best Buy on sale for $2250, sticker was $4500. How long until 65" 4K TV's in the $3000 range ? And then how long until we see real 4K content from Cable providers, like sports games broadcast in 4K ?

Most people would be buying "redray" movies or whatever format discs for serious home theater viewing. The only cable stuff would probably be the olympics and maybe the super bowl I'm guessing for any time soon, provider dependent. Off topic a bit, but Cable/Paid TV is crap anyway imo. Netflix is trying to get a format going that provides real 1080p HD content. The cable co's overcharge and provide inferior service (not to mention flooded with commercials and commercial overlays during shows on the non-premium channels). Unless you are a sports cultist I really see little reason to have cable tv since you can have an OTA antenna on your roof to get less compressed nbc-HD, cbs-HD, abc-HD, and pbs-HD (and perhaps a few misc SD chans) for free. Dropping paid tv, you'd save at least $30 - $40 a month on most providers even if your broadband cost increased out of package. That easily covers netflix (which includes many series like breaking bad, walking dead, and history channel and nat geo stuff now) and you can buy blurays on sale watching for deals on slickdeals and amazon, etc for $4.99 / $7.99.. and some good deals on boxed sets, etc. People need to drop hbo, etc to send them the message to provide a cheap streamed version like netflix, and at full HD.
https://signup.netflix.com/superhd
.
So back on topic, 4k tv's will be more about 4k disc versions of movies filmed in 4k or 8k imo. Having seen 75" and 70" 1080p tv's pretty regularly at a few venues, I can see where the extra resolution would come in handy on very large screens in modest sized rooms/viewing distance in regard to movies. However 1080p is barely distinguishable from 720p at a lot of common viewing distances in modest sized rooms on more common sized tvs( 46" - 60", movie viewing) so I don't really see the need for this right away for most people considering that percieved ppi is relative to viewing distance, and the lack of content available. On computer monitors is another matter, but as I outlined in my previous posts, these sound bad for gaming imo for a lot of reasons, and for desktop/apps/still-imagery they would be gorgeous but hard to justify when you can get one or more 108.8 ppi 26" 2560x1440 ips for $350 each which look pretty damn good.
 
Last edited:

xoleras

2[H]4U
Joined
Oct 11, 2011
Messages
3,551
wouldnt be surprised that Apple is trying to get LG to make the next retina display for their 30" displays. Pitty Apple wont have the gpu power to play games in such high resolution to its full benefits.

By the way Apply is suing everyone competing company they might not have LG supporting them for much longer. As its only time Apple will sure LG as well.

Apple does not, and hasn't produced a 30 inch screen in many years. The 30 inch cinema display they produced in the past has been EOL for quite a few years now.

Apple has little interest in desktops - the 2012 iMac is rumored to be the last iMac. With the number of rumor sites perpetuating that, I really don't see more iMac's coming. Additionally, 2560x1440 is pretty close to retina already - as someone else mentioned, the "retina" monkier is based on how far you view a screen. Anyway, Apple is really focused on mobile, which is where consumers are going as well. I would honestly be shocked if new iMacs were released in 2013, they barely produced 2012 iMacs.
 
Last edited:

xoleras

2[H]4U
Joined
Oct 11, 2011
Messages
3,551
Off topic, but what does Dell have in store for us in regards to the upcoming Dell U3014 brand new 30" Display ? I think it is due out in March ? Will it be LED ? Still 2560 x 1600 resolution ?

USB 3.0, smart card reader, LED backlit, and a much better AG coating.

All in all it's going to be a great improvement over the u3011. I'm sure Dell will produce 4k panels when the time comes, but unless you plan on shelling out 5000$ don't hedge your bets on getting a 4k panel. Most video cards don't even support 4k resolution - this is something to keep in mind. The GTX 600 series and AMD 7000 series do, but most prior generation video cards max out at 2560x1600.
 

kache

Gawd
Joined
Mar 21, 2010
Messages
723
LOL, then you woke up :p

A 21" monitor with a resolution of 3840 x 2160. Ha, yeah ok. And due out next year too, LOL.

Considering there are already tablets having 2560x1440 resolution, I'd say 4k res is not a real problem for a desktop computer...
The only real problem is the interconnect between the GPU and the screen, but Apple is, well, Apple. They will make a proprietary connector and use it.
 
Top