2 ms·

Pfft. I run a 27" 2560x1440 display on Intel HD4000 all the time. I don't know where your comment is coming from, but in case you didn't read the post, the tech

Pfft. I run a 27" 2560x1440 display on Intel HD4000 all the time. I don't know where your comment is coming from, but in case you didn't read the post, the technology is here. The tablets, you know, with these 2560x1440 screens, have GPUs that power them. Meaning the technology is available and could (ought) to be in laptops as well.

ekianjo 14y ago
I dont know if you read MY comment but the capacity is not there. It will take years until you can supply this resolution for all standard displays on the market. It requires new lines and only Apple can do it now because they only make one model of everything so it helps them scale in volume. Get real. And try running games in that resolution with your crappy GPU and you ll have a nice slideshow that make you feel like you have a 286 playing Doom all over again.
brigade 14y ago
I really wonder about the people complaining about running 2560x1600 on a HD4000. Four years ago I was happily driving both an external 2560x1600 monitor and the built in 1440x900 panel with a 8600M, which was a good bit slower. People really underestimate how far Intel has come.
eertami 14y ago
I think comparing 2560x1440 on 27" and 13" is not fair, the pixel density is not the same, and in my experience is actually beyond any difference we can see, and I'm yet to see a double-blind study that proves otherwise.
- drivebyacct2 14y ago
  So? The smaller screen is more dense but it doesn't change the fact that 10" 2560x1440 displays exist. And they're not prohibitively expensive. (See: The Nexus 10, with that screen). I can tell you what, if I can go from 2560x1440 on a 27" and go back to my Macbook Air and want to rip my eyes out... we can stand to improve. Obviously, without scaling the UI, this resolution would be unusable on a 10" screen, you wouldn't be able to click much of anything. Linux is good at DPI scaling, Windows 8 is supposedly better.

ekianjo 14y ago

I dont know if you read MY comment but the capacity is not there. It will take years until you can supply this resolution for all standard displays on the market. It requires new lines and only Apple can do it now because they only make one model of everything so it helps them scale in volume. Get real. And try running games in that resolution with your crappy GPU and you ll have a nice slideshow that make you feel like you have a 286 playing Doom all over again.

brigade 14y ago

I really wonder about the people complaining about running 2560x1600 on a HD4000. Four years ago I was happily driving both an external 2560x1600 monitor and the built in 1440x900 panel with a 8600M, which was a good bit slower. People really underestimate how far Intel has come.

eertami 14y ago

I think comparing 2560x1440 on 27" and 13" is not fair, the pixel density is not the same, and in my experience is actually beyond any difference we can see, and I'm yet to see a double-blind study that proves otherwise.

drivebyacct2 14y ago
So? The smaller screen is more dense but it doesn't change the fact that 10" 2560x1440 displays exist. And they're not prohibitively expensive. (See: The Nexus 10, with that screen). I can tell you what, if I can go from 2560x1440 on a 27" and go back to my Macbook Air and want to rip my eyes out... we can stand to improve. Obviously, without scaling the UI, this resolution would be unusable on a 10" screen, you wouldn't be able to click much of anything. Linux is good at DPI scaling, Windows 8 is supposedly better.