3 ms·

A card with 6 outputs costs a few bucks. The Intel HD4000 I believe has support for 2x2560x1600 I believe. Note that you're also comparing components with vast

A card with 6 outputs costs a few bucks. The Intel HD4000 I believe has support for 2x2560x1600 I believe. Note that you're also comparing components with vastly differing prices. Maybe the market for $2000 monitors just isn't big enough. EDIT: Eizo offers 30" displays with 4096 x 2560 resolution. However, they are not exactly cheap. About $20-$30K. Meanwhile a 27" 2560x1440 display goes for $600, or as an import from Korea even for $300.

masklinn 14y ago
There were two components to my comment: the first one was that there were high-DPI desktop screens back in 2001 which could be driven with 2D accelerators released in 1998, and thus a modern IGP would have no trouble driving these, and thus that "cheaper graphic units" wouldn't be overwhelmed with "anything over 2560x1600". And the second part was modern mid- and high-end dedicated (but still consumer) GPUs being able to drive much, much higher resolutions than that without breaking a sweat.
- aristidb 14y ago
  Nobody would accept 2D-only these days. And in a world where people buy $500 PCs, you can't expect a $250 GPU to be the norm.
  - masklinn 14y ago
    I have to confess I am flabbergasted by your ability to misunderstand (willfully?) what I think to be plain and clear english. 1. I never said anything about people having to accept 2D-only (and the G200 was not 2D-only, by the way), I pointed out that GPUs nearing 15 years old were already able to produce resolution you consider "overwhelming" and that a modern IGP would thus have more than enough power to handle it 2. The dedicated GPU note was to point out just how far beyond those resolutions you consider "overwhelming" a "modern" (Evergreen — and the first Eyefinity release — is 3 years old) dedicated GPU goes
    - aristidb 14y ago
      I understand fully well that it is not _difficult_ to drive a lot of pixels if you want. Many modern cheap cards and IGPs however cannot, for whatever reasons: they physically have no support for dual-link DVI. Maybe they saved 50 cents on some connector that way, or whatever. Note that I never said anything about overwhelming a dedicated GPU. That point was about cheap IGPs, specifically from Intel. (EDIT: OK I didn't explicitly say it, my fault.) Ultimately I guess it boils down to priorities. PCs have gotten a lot cheaper, and some of that has been done by making things worse. Personally I would like high-dpi as much as anybody here - although for now I think I'd first want a lot of screen estate (13" is a bit limiting at times), but I probably use my computer for reading a lot more than other people.
      - com2kid 14y ago
        > Many modern cheap cards and IGPs however cannot A $50 AMD card will get you at least 3 1920x1200 outputs. I am not sure if the HDMI port on them can be driven any higher, it possibly can though. I am not sure what the max resolution on AMD's Trinity line is if they have Display Link or HDMI. Again, it may very well be up to the max Display Link or HDMI supports, which is pretty damn high. Edit: Turns out Intel also supports 2560 x 1600 over Display Port. http://software.intel.com/en-us/articles/quick-reference-guide-to-intel-processor-graphics/ http://software.intel.com/en-us/articles/quick-reference-gui... Scroll down to "Display and Audio Features Comparison"
        masklinn 14y ago
        > I am not sure if the HDMI port on them can be driven any higher, it possibly can though. HDMI itself can (from 1.3 onwards), but the card may not allow that for whatever reason. > I am not sure what the max resolution on AMD's Trinity line is if they have Display Link or HDMI I can't find anything on AMD's website, but the Asus F2A85-M Pro[0] is specced at: - 1920 x 1080 over HDMI - 1920 x 1600 over RGB - 2560 x 1600 over DVI - 4096 x 2160 over DisplayPort [0] http://www.asus.com/Motherboards/AMD_Socket_FM2/F2A85M_PRO/#specifications http://www.asus.com/Motherboards/AMD_Socket_FM2/F2A85M_PRO/#...

masklinn 14y ago

There were two components to my comment: the first one was that there were high-DPI desktop screens back in 2001 which could be driven with 2D accelerators released in 1998, and thus a modern IGP would have no trouble driving these, and thus that "cheaper graphic units" wouldn't be overwhelmed with "anything over 2560x1600". And the second part was modern mid- and high-end dedicated (but still consumer) GPUs being able to drive much, much higher resolutions than that without breaking a sweat.

aristidb 14y ago
Nobody would accept 2D-only these days. And in a world where people buy $500 PCs, you can't expect a $250 GPU to be the norm.
- masklinn 14y ago
  I have to confess I am flabbergasted by your ability to misunderstand (willfully?) what I think to be plain and clear english. 1. I never said anything about people having to accept 2D-only (and the G200 was not 2D-only, by the way), I pointed out that GPUs nearing 15 years old were already able to produce resolution you consider "overwhelming" and that a modern IGP would thus have more than enough power to handle it 2. The dedicated GPU note was to point out just how far beyond those resolutions you consider "overwhelming" a "modern" (Evergreen — and the first Eyefinity release — is 3 years old) dedicated GPU goes
  - aristidb 14y ago
    I understand fully well that it is not _difficult_ to drive a lot of pixels if you want. Many modern cheap cards and IGPs however cannot, for whatever reasons: they physically have no support for dual-link DVI. Maybe they saved 50 cents on some connector that way, or whatever. Note that I never said anything about overwhelming a dedicated GPU. That point was about cheap IGPs, specifically from Intel. (EDIT: OK I didn't explicitly say it, my fault.) Ultimately I guess it boils down to priorities. PCs have gotten a lot cheaper, and some of that has been done by making things worse. Personally I would like high-dpi as much as anybody here - although for now I think I'd first want a lot of screen estate (13" is a bit limiting at times), but I probably use my computer for reading a lot more than other people.
    - com2kid 14y ago
      > Many modern cheap cards and IGPs however cannot A $50 AMD card will get you at least 3 1920x1200 outputs. I am not sure if the HDMI port on them can be driven any higher, it possibly can though. I am not sure what the max resolution on AMD's Trinity line is if they have Display Link or HDMI. Again, it may very well be up to the max Display Link or HDMI supports, which is pretty damn high. Edit: Turns out Intel also supports 2560 x 1600 over Display Port. http://software.intel.com/en-us/articles/quick-reference-guide-to-intel-processor-graphics/ http://software.intel.com/en-us/articles/quick-reference-gui... Scroll down to "Display and Audio Features Comparison"
      - masklinn 14y ago
        > I am not sure if the HDMI port on them can be driven any higher, it possibly can though. HDMI itself can (from 1.3 onwards), but the card may not allow that for whatever reason. > I am not sure what the max resolution on AMD's Trinity line is if they have Display Link or HDMI I can't find anything on AMD's website, but the Asus F2A85-M Pro[0] is specced at: - 1920 x 1080 over HDMI - 1920 x 1600 over RGB - 2560 x 1600 over DVI - 4096 x 2160 over DisplayPort [0] http://www.asus.com/Motherboards/AMD_Socket_FM2/F2A85M_PRO/#specifications http://www.asus.com/Motherboards/AMD_Socket_FM2/F2A85M_PRO/#...