Intel: 'Retina'-quality displays coming to laptops, desktops soon

By on April 12, 2012, 4:19 PM

Can't tolerate your laptop's paltry resolution after using one of Apple's "retina" displays? Pretty soon you won't have to, according to Intel slides published by Liliputing. The chipmaker believes devices with high pixel densities will wash ashore as early as next year, offering 220-300 PPI on virtually every display-bearing gadget in your arsenal.

It's predicted that handheld devices with viewing distances of 12 to 16 inches will have a pixel density of about 300 PPI, which works out to 1280x800 on 5-inch smartphones and 2560x1440 on 10-inch tablets. For reference, the iPhone 4 and 4S have a resolution of 960x640 (326 PPI) and the third-gen iPad's screen is 2048x1536 (264 PPI).

Systems typically viewed at 16 to 24 inches will supposedly offer a pixel density of around 250 PPI. This will include 11-inch Ultrabooks with a resolution of 2560x1440 and 13-inch Ultrabooks with 2800x1800 screens. Meanwhile, 15-inch notebooks and 21-inch all-in-ones viewed from 24 to 30 inches away will have a resolution of 3840x2160.

Intel doesn't just want to crank up resolutions, however. As part of the increasing demand for higher quality displays, the company believes it's necessary to address all aspects of the technology, including good viewing angles, a high color gamut, cheaper touchscreens, improved power efficiency, as well as thinner and lighter panels.

Liliputing notes that increasing pixel densities is partly hinged on support from Windows and other OSes. Cramming 3840x2160 pixels into a 15-inch screen would make things like text too small for comfortable viewing. To fix that, you'd have to adjust your platform's DPI, but that often produces subpar graphics -- at least on current versions of Windows, anyway. Windows 8 is expected to scale better, especially in the touch-oriented Metro interface.




User Comments: 21

Got something to say? Post a comment
Guest said:

What in the world is a retina quality display? Isn't that just some marketing term they made up? It's just the same old backlit LCD we've had for decades with higher pixel count.

And I thought Samsung and LG built all the screens anyway

captainawesome captainawesome said:

One things for sure - these 1366 x 768 displays are making me nauseous and for one reason: the friggen viewing angle. Take two identical dell laptops models and order one with the 1080p screen and one with the stock. No IPS or anything funny and take a look at the difference in viewing angle. It is so horrendous on the 768p screens it actually makes me want to gag. And it hurts my eyes while gaming on my laptop.

That said, i think my iphone4 looks most beautiful from the side coz you just marvel at the stunning colour preservation at the slanted angle

Staff
Rick Rick, TechSpot Staff, said:

Guest said:

What in the world is a retina quality display? Isn't that just some marketing term they made up? It's just the same old backlit LCD we've had for decades with higher pixel count.

And I thought Samsung and LG built all the screens anyway

"Retina" is a marketing term, but the underlying technology is something I'd like to see in notebooks and desktop displays VERY much.

You don't realize what you're missing out on until you see a screen with a +250 pixel density. I think it would be stunning on a large display.

Ultraman1966 said:

And how will GPUs progress to match these resolutions? We're talking a fairly substantial increase and for games that can mean a huge difference...

KG363 KG363 said:

I don't need 4k resolutions. I need AFFORDABLE 2560x1600

veLa veLa said:

Guest said:

What in the world is a retina quality display? Isn't that just some marketing term they made up? It's just the same old backlit LCD we've had for decades with higher pixel count.

And I thought Samsung and LG built all the screens anyway

What I'm waiting for is laptops with Super AMOLED Plus displays. So crisp and vivid.

hahahanoobs hahahanoobs said:

Guest said:

What in the world is a retina quality display? Isn't that just some marketing term they made up? It's just the same old backlit LCD we've had for decades with higher pixel count.

And I thought Samsung and LG built all the screens anyway

This is a joke right?

Lionvibez said:

Ultraman1966 said:

And how will GPUs progress to match these resolutions? We're talking a fairly substantial increase and for games that can mean a huge difference...

This!!!!

Lionvibez said:

kg363 said:

I don't need 4k resolutions. I need AFFORDABLE 2560x1600

Double this!!!!

inventix1136 said:

The manufacturers are not going to go high pixel count on devices if they can get away with it because that costs money. Just look at the ultraportables where even the $1300 ones have a 1366x768 display with most manufacturers not even offering 1080p options. Truth be told, most laptops had their resolutions DECREASED in comparison to even 5 years ago so chances of them going retina are pretty minimal.

Guest said:

Ten years ago it was simple and easy to find a notebook from any major manufacturer with a 14.1" 1600x1200 screen.

Five years ago it was fairly common to find either a 14" 1440x900 screen or a 15" 1680x1050 screen.

Today, you're lucky to find anything better than a smeary, washed-out garbage 1366x768 panel with horrible viewing angles. And then PC manufacturers moan and complain that the can't compete with Apple. Kudos to Intel if they can somehow magically reverse the trend.

Guest said:

Release a 3840x2400 120Hz 2ms 27' LED Monitor and I wouldn't hesitate paying $1500 for it, even more. Heck if the bezel was slim enough, I'd buy two.

Jibberish18 said:

I can't stand the displays they put into 99% of todays laptops. Even if I wanted to get a new laptop today, my options would be VERY limited because A)The resolutions used are laughable (for heavens sakes Mobile Phones use 720p!) and B)The screens themselves are TERRIBLE quality (viewing angles, colors, contrast, etc.). Anandtech have been advocates of better screen technology for quite some time now and bless them for it but really we have no one but ourselves (the consumers) to blame. Consumers LOVE a $499 laptop, even if it does have a screen that becomes washed out as soon as you move your neck.

Jibberish18 said:

Oh and for Friggs SAKE what is up with all the super thick bezels on laptops and phones?!?!?

madboyv1, TechSpot Paladin, said:

I look at all these comments, and I think to myself, I've been thinking of most of this stuff for years. ESPECIALLY the comment by the Guest@8:55 PM. We're not seeing any real upgrades or innovations to screen technology aside from LED backlighting* actually making it into the main stream notebook market. If anything We're going backwards.

*Which in itself has it's disadvantages...

Guest said:

Those resolutions are bloody huge. How the hell... What? How the heck is 2800x1800 gunna be affordable at all, especially in a laptop where battery constraints and poor GPU's are commonplace. I'm sorry, but 2560x1440 panels are still an absolute fortune and rarity for most people atm, there's going to have to be some ENORMOUS shakeups for them to become tablet standard. I would love a huge resolution monitor, but I honestly don't see it happening, although I hope I'm wrong :) Would finally force AMD and Nvidia to pull their finger out so they can provide a decent card to game on my ridiculously massive screen of the future! :D

amstech amstech, TechSpot Enthusiast, said:

Finally.

I bought my 2560 X 1600 U3011 years ago and I hate going back normal LCD/LED screens.

1920 X 1200 is barely enough for my workstation.

For gaming, once you play at 1440p/1600p it stinks going back to 1080p/1200p.

MilwaukeeMike said:

Guest @11:13 finally mentioned it... Battery life. If you keep increasing the processing etc, something has to give to keep up battery life. screen resolution is it, since most laptop users only care for text, FB and youtube. who cares what your screen res is if the video you're watching is 320p anyway?

we need a good boost to battery tech and all this stuff will follow

amstech amstech, TechSpot Enthusiast, said:

milwaukeemike, the new Sandy Bridge/Ivy Bridge mobile CPU's are very good on power. It doesn't take a lot of CPU power to run basic programs at a high resolution anyways.

Your comments about screen resolution are comical. 720p is way too small and doesn't even fully show most webpages. My GF's 15.6" laptop with a 1366 X 768 resolution drives me nuts.

Anything less then 1600 X 900 on a laptop can be small and difficult to deal with at times.

It's time to move the industry forward, 1080p should be the new standard, the only reason its not on laptops goes back to rule #1. Make money by strangleholding what people can buy.

Well the people have had enough.

Its time to get ripped off on the next generation of tech by the power players.

SNGX1275 SNGX1275, TS Forces Special, said:

A big issue with this is the OS needs to be able to scale.

Back in about 2000 I had a Philips 107p? 17" CRT monitor. It was capable of 19something by something else (1900x1600? - it was a long time ago - I forget) resolution. Unfortunately that was also only at 60Hz which looks terrible on a CRT. Anyway, at that resolution, the text in things is too small to easily read. I've been reading on and off for years now about how OSes are making scalable interfaces, maybe they finally are now. But until I see it in person, I don't care if my monitor has 300dpi if I can't read anything.

DKRON said:

thats the end of casual gaming buying cheap graphics cards if they have to run it at near 4K res

Load all comments...

Add New Comment

TechSpot Members
Login or sign up for free,
it takes about 30 seconds.
You may also...
Get complete access to the TechSpot community. Join thousands of technology enthusiasts that contribute and share knowledge in our forum. Get a private inbox, upload your own photo gallery and more.