

iPad 3 leaked photos  (Source:











Sources: MacRumors, MacRumors, BGR

Comments     Threshold


RE: Screen resolution
By B3an on 2/20/2012 10:41:28 AM , Rating: 3
If someone can afford a 30" 2560x1600 they can afford the GPU's to run it.

I can also see the pixels on my 30" monitors and my eyesight isn't even perfect. Yet on a phone with around 960x540 it's harder to see the pixels even with the phone about 8 inches away - already closer than you'd normally hold a phone. As for 1280x720 phones you could probably have them 4" away.

The pair of 6970's i have cope with literally 99.99% of all PC games at 2560x1600 with 4x AA + 16x AF, which is why i haven't bothered getting some 7970's.

If i had a 4K monitor (4096x2160) then i'm sure a couple of 7970's would also handle 99.99% of all games. AMD showed some 7970's driving a 4K display and running a pretty impressive demo at that res too.

As for 3D, thats a useless gimmick so i dont know why you even mentioned it.

RE: Screen resolution
By invidious on 2/20/2012 12:42:59 PM , Rating: 2

Most people forget that there is always a demographic with an essentially unlimited budget. Someone with a $20,000 sound system doesn't make budget decisions the same way we do. For those of you not familiar with the dying breed of audiophiles, such systems are not nearly as uncommon as you might think, and that isn't even close to the highest end of home sound systems, I have seen people order two $120,000 systems.

Catering to such a market is obviously very profitable especially in the home theater business. So just because "we" can't afford it doesn't mean they shouldn't build it.

RE: Screen resolution
By TSS on 2/20/2012 7:40:16 PM , Rating: 2
Actually don't rule out 3D yet. I've got an LG monitor with passive 3D, and one of things that seem off is the resolution, which gets halved vertically (playing at 1920x540..yay).

If you'd make a 4096x2160 monitor and cut the resolution horizontally however, running 3D at 2048x2160 should be so much better.

I agree it's crap for now and needs some work both as a technology and with support (2D interfaces in games are hella annoying when looking at a 3D world). But it'll only get more interesting with higher resolutions, not less.

I'll also agree that actually running a game at that resolution in 3D won't be much of a problem. Battlefield 3 still runs with ~40 FPS with everything on high on my 275 GTX. Games haven't exactly been taxing on hardware these past few years.

RE: Screen resolution
By someguy123 on 2/20/2012 11:12:15 PM , Rating: 2
The reason there isn't a move to higher densities is because there is very little demand, yet there would be a substantial increase to performance requirements to maintain those densities, even on a 2D desktop. Portable devices are often held near your face, so they benefit greatly, though I personally believe 2k is a bit overkill and a battery drain for a device ipad's size.

I think the people who're really confused about the situation have no sense of perspective and base everything on their hobby of building computers. You increase the amount of pixels to be drawn exponentially. Doubling current standards would mean bumping up pixel count from 2 million to 8 million. Even your 6970 crossfire struggles with that kind of density in games, much less John Q's low end or integrated. So you add quite a substantial amount of stress (something like a 4 monitor eyefinity setup vs 1080p) on desktop, additional software scaling or expensive internal scalers for video, likely an overall increase to response times with more pixels to account for when running voltage, and higher prices per panel, all for the sake of "increased workspace", or warding off pixel edges if you're sitting a bit close.

It's really not worth it at all. I'd much rather have advancements to panel quality overall, like OLED, rather than upping density, at least until hardware standards increase and/or HEVC.

