Intel Senior Exec Predicts 4K Monitors Will Drop Below $400 Before 2015

20

Comments

+ Add a Comment
avatar

Peanut Fox

Do 4K and monitors of the like mean the end of 16:10?

avatar

RUSENSITIVESWEETNESS

But you will need $3,000 worth of video power to game at 4K....

avatar

Jacob Stanbery

*plays Skyrim at 30hz on a 1600x900 laptop*
Hell, I'd flip just to get 1440p. I think I can hold off on 4k.

avatar

JosephColt

4k monitor = I don't need AA. 4k 60hz, I can live with, but I want a 4k 120hz asap.

avatar

FrancesTheMute

4K with GSync will work for me until the refresh rates can be ramped up.

avatar

jgottberg

I'd rather have a 4k, 60" or 65" LCD in my living room. I can live without the ultra high-res on my desktop. As far as I know, there isn't a single game now or on the horizon that is going to take advantage of 4k resolutions anyway.

avatar

Granite

Screw the 4K monitors.

Give me a 27" TOUCH SCREEN monitor...of ANY kind...for less than $400 and I'll be happy.

avatar

Warrior017

Well, my thought is that I wish there were monitors that worked with Wacom (or other tablet brands) pens. Or maybe it exists and I just haven't heard about it?

Because I want to move from drawing on paper to drawing digitally, but I just can't get used to not seeing where my pen is. And why spend money on a monitor, and then another 500-1000 on a tablet with a built in screen? (I know of tablets with a sort of screen on them that let you preview what you're drawing, better emulating drawing on paper.)

EDIT: It wouldn't need to be under 400 bucks or be 4k. If I could find a standard 1080p (or higher) touch screen with that sort of digitizer, I'd be happy to settle for one under a grand.

avatar

LatiosXT

Why do you need a touch screen monitor?

avatar

Granite

So I can make full use of my Win8.1 OS.

And, because I want to get a third monitor for my desktop system.

avatar

LatiosXT

If you don't spend a lot of your time in Metro land, there's really no point in a touch screen monitor. Because otherwise, the touch screen just substitutes mouse commands.

avatar

Granite

I use touch controls on my tablet. For everything that I don't use voice controls for. I feel limited on my desktop by being restricted to a mouse and keyboard. My OS has the capability, but my monitors don't. I can't afford to pay $700+ for a useful, touch screen monitor.

But...for some, unexplained reason, monitor makers are spending their time with this 4K junk. I don't know...maybe they think they can make more money with that thing.

All I want is affordable touch screen.

avatar

Baer

He has long arms :-)
As for me, I will not give up my three monitor surround (as well as three monitor productivity) and running three 4K monitors in surround is barely in the realm of three very high end GPU's.
I did see NVIDIA do it at CES but it is still out of the reach of 99% of us.

avatar

LatiosXT

Here's what I don't get...

A lot of people seem to be on some parade that if you get a 4K monitor, you MUST game at 4K. What's wrong with me just gaming at 1080p? If it's the same size as any other 1080p monitor, then I'm not really losing any pixel clarity, per se and 1080p divvies nicely into 4K.

Running a desktop at 4K is laughably easy on pretty much any modern GPU. That kind of space would come in handy.

Can we think beyond applications other than gaming? That's what MPC's sister magazine PC Gamer is for.

avatar

tetris42

You say "1080p divvies up nicely into 4k" but does it really? I mean of course ON PAPER it would because it divides evenly, but monitors usually upscale images using bilinear filtering, which adds a blur effect, even on resolutions that SHOULD fit perfect. You would have to have nearest-neighbor scaling, something I don't know if the monitor would do or not (Nvidia cards sure as hell don't do it on the GPU).

I've run into this issue trying to run old 800x600 games at 1600x1200 on my 1920x1200 monitor. It blurs the image anyway, it doesn't care that it divides evenly.

avatar

LatiosXT

Okay, but at a higher DPI would this be a bother? In motion would this be a bother?

Screenshots and stills cannot encapsulate what you experience. And again, is there a NEED to run games at your native resolution?

avatar

tetris42

Yes, the dpi wouldn't matter because it's the actual scaling algorithm that's introducing the blur, not a lack of pixels. If you want a good picture, it's basically run your native resolution or go home.

And no, you don't NEED to run it at native resolution, but only if you don't want a somewhat blurry picture.

avatar

vrmlbasic

Yes, Yes and Yes.

For me, a bigger issue would be that the "ideal" resolution for playing under native does seem to be 1080 and that is much too low for me. Additionally, running at 1080 would require intensive levels of AA, defeating one of the points of 4K.

One of the advantages of 4K is that we can't as easily "see the pixels" vs a lower-res monitor. Even if we can't see the individual pixel structure on the monitor if we make every pixel-to-be-rendered 4 times larger then we've recreated much of the problem that 4K otherwise solves.

avatar

LatiosXT

Except most game developers have moved away from using MSAA and to pixel shader based techniques since they're really cheap, can produce similar quality, they work with any rendering technique, and they don't impact VRAM as much.

Also the "need to game at native resolution" is a jab at what is going on now, not in the future. Get a 4K monitor now, enjoy the benefits of it in a desktop environment, worry about gaming performance later. With say a 24" 4K monitor, 1080p won't look as ugly as on a 32" monitor. Yes it'll be blurred, but if you're going to be that much of a snob about your gaming resolution, then go ahead, wait until GPU performance catches up.

avatar

vrmlbasic

I was thinking along the same lines as I've played games @ 720 on my 1440 monitor and it is far blurrier than it should be, much moreso than a native 720 screen.