VESA's new DisplayPort standard will enable ultra-res 8K displays, improve battery life

Posted:
in Future Apple Hardware edited February 2015
The latest Embedded DisplayPort standard will help pave the way for future ultra-high resolution displays and better battery life when it adds support for 8K screens starting in 2016.




The new Embedded DisplayPort Standard version 1.4a was announced by the Video Electronics Standards Association this week, enabling higher video data transfer rates, greater color depth, and higher refresh rates.

The new DisplayPort standard will support embedded panels with up to an 8K resolution of 7,680 by 4,320 pixels. Devices using the new eDP 1.4a standard are expected to hit the market by 2016.

In addition to support for 8K-resolution screens, eDP 1.4a will also feature "Multi-SST Operation" to support a new type of display architecture dubbed "Segmented Panel Display." According to VESA, this will enable thinner, lighter, and lower-cost panels that use less power.

That means that even though 8K displays are unlikely to hit the market in laptops anytime soon, the new eDP 1.4a standard could still benefit high-resolution screens like the Retina displays featured in Apple's MacBook Pro lineup.

Finally, eDP 1.4a will also further refine upon the "partial update" capability of the Panel Self Refresh feature introduced in eDP 1.4. This partial update function allows the system to save power by only updating a portion of the display that has changed since the video frame update.
«13

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 43
    sflocalsflocal Posts: 6,096member
    Forget that... I'm waiting for 16K displays for my future 2027 MBA. 8K is so 2016's for me... :/
  • Reply 2 of 43
    sflocal wrote: »
    Forget that... I'm waiting for 16K displays for my future 2027 MBA. 8K is so 2016's for me... :/

    If Apple wants to double the resolution of their 5K iMac they will have to wait for 16K to support 58,982,400 pixels.
  • Reply 3 of 43
    MacProMacPro Posts: 19,728member
    sflocal wrote: »
    Forget that... I'm waiting for 16K displays for my future 2027 MBA. 8K is so 2016's for me... :/

    Oh come on, you know fine well 64K will be here by then! ;)
  • Reply 4 of 43
    tmaytmay Posts: 6,342member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by SolipsismY View Post





    If Apple wants to double the resolution of their 5K iMac they will have to wait for 16K to support 58,982,400 pixels.

    I just want Intel to support 8K with the next generation Thunderbolt...

     

    Then, Apple can update the Mac Pro, and I'll dig up the money to buy one, but with dual 5K monitors.

  • Reply 5 of 43
    apple ][apple ][ Posts: 9,233member

    And I thought that 5k was pretty decent and sufficient. I guess not.

     

    Soon there will be 8k displays on iPhones, and all apps and games will of course require more CPU and GPU power to run, and also more RAM of course, not to mention battery life.

     

    And what will people be doing with their 8k displays? They will be downloading the latest vintage pixelated retro game, in order to take full advantage of their beautiful new, super sharp 8k display.

  • Reply 6 of 43
    iqatedoiqatedo Posts: 1,823member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by digitalclips View Post





    Oh come on, you know fine well 64K will be here by then! image



    ...and self-driving cars. :)

  • Reply 7 of 43
    tmay wrote: »
    I just want Intel to support 8K with the next generation Thunderbolt...

    Then, Apple can update the Mac Pro, and I'll dig up the money to buy one, but with dual 5K monitors.

    1) Both TB and DP support 5K at this point. I suspect we'll get the Apple display right when at least one Mac is good to go.

    2) I think you can use a 5K display on the current Mac Pro by using 2x TB ports on different TB chips.
  • Reply 8 of 43
    apple ][ wrote: »
    And I thought that 5k was pretty decent and sufficient. I guess not.

    Soon there will be 8k displays on iPhones, and all apps and games will of course require more CPU and GPU power to run, and also more RAM of course, not to mention battery life.

    And what will people be doing with their 8k displays? They will be downloading the latest vintage pixelated retro game, in order to take full advantage of their beautiful new, super sharp 8k display.

    And how close will one's eyes need to be to the display in order to make out each individual pixel? 1mm?

    I guess we better start sandpapering our noses, as Steve Jobs might have said.
  • Reply 9 of 43
    sflocalsflocal Posts: 6,096member
    iqatedo wrote: »

    ...and self-driving cars.

    Self-driving FLYING cars... :)
  • Reply 10 of 43
    mstonemstone Posts: 11,510member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by SolipsismY View Post

     
    If Apple wants to double the resolution of their 5K iMac they will have to wait for 16K to support 58,982,400 pixels.


    24 bit RGB colors 16,777,216

      

    4K 3840 x 2160 pixels 8,294,400

     

    5K 5120 x 2880 pixels 14,745,600

     

    8K 7680 x 4320 pixels 33,177,600 

     

    Since 4K and 5K have fewer pixels than there are 24 bit color values, every pixel on the screen could potentially be a different RGB value, however once you get to 8K then interpolation will occur by a factor of 2.

  • Reply 11 of 43
    19831983 Posts: 1,225member

    Hopefully this resolution race will stop at 8k - that is 33MP after all, more than high enough for commercial cinema, large high-res printouts and displays viewed from a couple of feet away. You already can't make out the pixels on current large screen 4k TV's viewed at normal sitting room distances. I watched a 4k TV demoed at an airport electronics store recently, and had to put my face right up close to that screen to make out those pixels. 

  • Reply 12 of 43
    mstonemstone Posts: 11,510member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by 1983 View Post

     

    Hopefully this resolution race will stop at 8k - that is 33MP after all, more than high enough for commercial cinema, large high-res printouts and displays viewed from a couple of feet away. You already can't make out the pixels on current large screen 4k TV's viewed at normal sitting room distances. I watched a 4k TV demoed at an airport electronics store recently, and had to put my face right up close to the screen to make out those pixels. 


    If your pixels exceed the number of available color values there will be little to no improvement in photographic quality although solid color text on a giant outdoor monitor will always look sharper with higher resolution. My question is what kind of computer will you need to push that many pixels at say 30/60 fps?

  • Reply 13 of 43
    haggarhaggar Posts: 1,568member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by 1983 View Post

     

    Hopefully this resolution race will stop at 8k - that is 33MP after all, more than high enough for commercial cinema, large high-res printouts and displays viewed from a couple of feet away. You already can't make out the pixels on current large screen 4k TV's viewed at normal sitting room distances. I watched a 4k TV demoed at an airport electronics store recently, and had to put my face right up close to that screen to make out those pixels. 




    Is there an advantage to being able to view digital camera photos at full resolution?

  • Reply 14 of 43
    mstone wrote: »
    ...every pixel on the screen could potentially be a different RGB value...

    Can you write a really small program to do that?
  • Reply 15 of 43
    tmaytmay Posts: 6,342member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by SolipsismY View Post





    1) Both TB and DP support 5K at this point. I suspect we'll get the Apple display right when at least one Mac is good to go.



    2) I think you can use a 5K display on the current Mac Pro by using 2x TB ports on different TB chips.

    You are correct.

     

    I'd just prefer that Apple support 5K without kludges, which will surely happen, and 8K/TB port would future proof a Mac Pro purchase for more than a few years. Truth be told, I'd rather have HDR support at 4K than more pixels, but that's asking too much.

     

    All this should happen by first half of 2016, but earlier would be appreciated.

  • Reply 16 of 43
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by sflocal View Post



    Forget that... I'm waiting for 16K displays for my future 2027 MBA. 8K is so 2016's for me... :/



    Just more vaporware announcements from VESA - after all, everything and their proverbial dog depend on the fabled "Skylake" crap from Intel.

     

    So why bother at this point if all people will say is: "uh, no Mac Pros, no xMacs and no iMacs with such cutting edge support until 2017"?

  • Reply 17 of 43
    19831983 Posts: 1,225member



    Blunder...

  • Reply 18 of 43
    mstonemstone Posts: 11,510member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by SolipsismY View Post

     
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by mstone View Post



    ...every pixel on the screen could potentially be a different RGB value...




    Can you write a really small program to do that?

    Yes. I can work on it later. Kind of busy at the moment.

  • Reply 19 of 43
    19831983 Posts: 1,225member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Haggar View Post

     



    Is there an advantage to being able to view digital camera photos at full resolution?


    Not really, unless you're a stickler for detail...but maybe there would be an advantage when viewing large prints in an environment like an art gallery.

  • Reply 20 of 43
    19831983 Posts: 1,225member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by mstone View Post

     

    If your pixels exceed the number of available color values there will be little to no improvement in photographic quality although solid color text on a giant outdoor monitor will always look sharper with higher resolution. My question is what kind of computer will you need to push that many pixels at say 30/60 fps?




    That's my point, a ridiculously powerful one for little or no advantage...even 8k is overkill in many situations.

Sign In or Register to comment.