Intel's Ivy Bridge to support 4K resolutions!

[unknownuser200]

http://www.tweaktown.com/news/20822/intel_s_ivy_bridge_to_support_4k_resolutions/index.html

^source

Well, well, Ivy Bridge. Not only are you going to be a shrunken master of silicon joy when compared to your predecessor, but you'll support resolutions in excess of 4K (maxing out at 4096 x 4096). This is a giant leap from the current limitation of Sandy Bridge's GPU which is 2560 x 1600. This would mean discrete GPUs would no longer be needed if you had a super-size-me display capable of 4K resolutions.

so this makes me wonder if higher resolution monitiors are finnally coming this way?

http://vr-zone.com/articles/post-idf-bites-ivy-bridge-gpu-to-support-4kx4k-displays-/13584.html

http://www.engadget.com/2011/09/19/intel-ivy-bridge-gpu-to-support-4k-resolutions/

^there sources

also one would assume nvidia and amd will have this ability in there upcoming video cards as they would now want to be bested by onboard video imho. hmmm back to the vram problem as 2gb and 3gb are finnally becoming standard for these resolutions its going to be not enough again im afraid lol..

 

[Solidarity]

Are there even 4k monitors that aren't stupidly expensive.

 

[unknownuser200]

not yet.. i think the cheapest is the eizo 36" and thats 36000 usd... but if intel is doing this native they must know something we dont.. higher resolutions must be becoming cheaper to make

 

[Solidarity]

not yet.. i think the cheapest is the eizo 36" and thats 36000 usd... but if intel is doing this native they must know something we dont.. higher resolutions must be becoming cheaper to make

They could just be putting it in there, just as something to boast about. I don't see $36 000 dropping down to anything near an acceptable level for years. I know when it comes to television and films there's not really many cameras that can record 4k resolutions. The only one I know of is the Red One Camera. Basically all super HD stuff is stupidly expensive.

 

[yassarikhan786]

I read about this earlier today. 2560 x 1600 gaming pushes current cards to their limits, so I wonder how powerful the cards will need to be to run games smoothly at such high resolutions.

Personally I would never go above 1920 x 1200.

 

[Youngie1337]

 

[fcb]

I read about this earlier today. 2560 x 1600 gaming pushes current cards to their limits, so I wonder how powerful the cards will need to be to run games smoothly at such high resolutions.

Personally I would never go above 1920 x 1200.

Yup, I think you're right. Do we really need to go above 1920 x 1200? Are there really any benefits to us?

 

[unknownuser200]

i run 2560 x 1600 and yes it does make a world of difference, try it sometimes and see what i mean

 

[fcb]

i run 2560 x 1600 and yes it does make a world of difference, try it sometimes and see what i mean

I wish I could, but my LCD maxes out at 1080P.

 

[yassarikhan786]

2560 X 1600 is just too demanding when Gaming and requires a Monster Rig if you want smooth game play in all of the latest titles.

 

[Scoob]

Hi,

Thing is, when we talk the built-in GPU of both Sandy and Ivy Bridge, we'd generally not be considering it for gaming would we? Well, other than a bit of light browser-based stuff or some legacy titles.

In theory this additional resolution would mean that IB could support multiple spanned monitors for those who just need the extra real-estate for work or whatever particular hobby they may enjoy. The real question is, will a motherboard maker ever produce a board with multiple video outputs? Have they already? My Z68 has DVI and HDMI outputs, but it's an either/or I'm sure.

I think it must be something like this that Intel were considering, after all, even todays power-house descrete GPU's would likely have a little trouble at 4k x 4k and the IB-GPU isn't even in the same league.

If not it's a little meaningless really...I mean, implementing a feature that the GPU would not acutally be powerful enough to make work.

2560x1600 is already a demanding resolution - it takes a bit more power to throw that number of pixels around - over 50% more pixels that the more common 1920x1200 - most cards can cope with the pure number of pixels, but things such as textures AA and AF applied to this really sap a GPU's power. That's why such a high-res only makes sense for a huge desktop for an IB-GPU, at least to me.

Not sure what Intel are thinking here really...but then I'm a little fuzzy today after not much sleep.

I'm thinking it's more aimed at video decoding stuff, a demonstration of the power of the IB-GPU at video tasks, rather than overall desktop resolution on its own...

Scoob.

Ok, who else wants to see a 4k x 4k monitor now? Lol.

Hmm, can tell I'm not with it as I started writing this last night, forgot about it, and just finished the post now lol. Guess what little sleep I had didn't help much!