News Gigabyte boasts of motherboards' 4K capabilities

[Gareth Halfacree]

Dual-Thunderbolt boards drive Ultra HD displays.
http://www.bit-tech.net/news/hardwar.../gigabyte-4k/1

[scuppy]

chops?

[Gareth Halfacree]

Originally Posted by scuppy

chops?

To "test your chops" means to prove one's skills. It's a pretty common colloquialism.

[Griffter]

big balls / bollocks / big cahonees :-) prove their strength

[kenco_uk]

Originally Posted by scuppy

chops?

First I've heard of it as well! Chops = mouth/mouth area.

[Griffter]

u guys maybe not British or country with British influences like me in SA

[blacko]

am i right in thinking the 2012 Olympics were filmed in the Ultra HD 4K resolution?

[GoodBytes]

Sadly, the Intel graphic solution can't handle this resolution. Already people are saying how nothing is smooth with the MacBook Pro with retina display especial if they play a video and do something else.

[Guinevere]

Originally Posted by GoodBytes

Already people are saying how nothing is smooth with the MacBook Pro with retina display especial if they play a video and do something else.

What people?

But why bring up the retina macbook (Which one?) as an example of how weak integrated graphics are when one of the machines is basically an 'ultrabook' and the other is in a different league spec wise?

My retina macbook is smooth no matter what I'm doing, and I'm driving 10 million pixels of display (That's 1.7 million more than a 4K display for those who are counting). I can certainly tell you that your "Nothing is smooth" if I "Play a video or do something else" is factually incorrect.

How can this be? Because it has a dedicated GPU, like so many other machines. And shock horror a Kepler class GPU is a pretty capable chunk of silcone and even able to perform the impossible of "Smooth scrolling while watching a video".

Of course Intel integrated graphics are going to be choppy when pushed too far, and it's for that reason why any decent spec laptop will have a discrete GPU as well... even Macs.

But I'll give you a nod that you have a point about Intel graphics when driving a high res screen. If I force my retina to use the integrated graphics (Using an app or hack) and change my res to 1920x1200 then OSX will actually be working at a resolution of 3840x2400 and scaling it down to 2880x1800

You're still wrong that 'nothing is smooth' when playing a video or doing something else, but yes the integrated graphics are not as competent at driving and rescaling a 4k screen resolution than the dedicated GPU.

[Tyinsar]

Meh, been running at almost 4K resolutions for five years and I started with a 7950GX2 under XP. It was only using one of the GPUs but it still ran Guild Wars at full resolution just fine & medium-high details - though my HD5870 is smoother. 2D was tested on a 6600GT and was smooth. I never had any 4K movie content to test it with though.

[GoodBytes]

Originally Posted by Guinevere

What people?

reviewers, me, and comments on articles and forums.

But why bring up the retina macbook (Which one?) as an example of how weak integrated graphics are when one of the machines is basically an 'ultrabook' and the other is in a different league spec wise?

Video output on Thunderbolt on the Gigabyte boards uses the Intel GPU. My point is if Intel can't handle properly Apple MacBook Pro "retina" displays, than it will be very bad on 4Kx2K resolution.

My retina macbook is smooth no matter what I'm doing, and I'm driving 10 million pixels of display (That's 1.7 million more than a 4K display for those who are counting). I can certainly tell you that your "Nothing is smooth" if I "Play a video or do something else" is factually incorrect.

You probably have the 15inch version which features Nvidia GPU, not the 13inch which only has the Intel GPU.

Of course Intel integrated graphics are going to be choppy when pushed too far, and it's for that reason why any decent spec laptop will have a discrete GPU as well... even Macs.

Intel GPU's uses drivers that are highly optimized for todays content based on a list they make of popular software. Once you go out this list with newer or different software, you risk in having a terrible or not even working experience. That is the main problem with Intel graphic solution.. but this is a different topic (AMD/Nvidia GPU vs Intel integrated graphic solution)
Intel GPU plays nice up to 1920x1200, anything higher the Intel GPU has trouble, and needs to work at max performance and as soon as you try to do something fancy, like play an HD video, and do something else, like move window or Windows flip 3D or something that uses the GPU in some fashion, it will be quiet choppy. While, an Nvidia or AMD GPU, will have no problem, even a low end model, like a GT 640, or equivalent from AMD, and possibly lower models too.

But I'll give you a nod that you have a point about Intel graphics when driving a high res screen. If I force my retina to use the integrated graphics (Using an app or hack) and change my res to 1920x1200 then OSX will actually be working at a resolution of 3840x2400 and scaling it down to 2880x1800

Yup, that is what i was trying to say.

You're still wrong that 'nothing is smooth' when playing a video or doing something else, but yes the integrated graphics are not as competent at driving and rescaling a 4k screen resolution than the dedicated GPU.

For me it was not smooth from what I saw. MacOS is very animated OS, so you can see the frame rate drop. I guess if you play an SD video or something ultra crappy is fine, but I doubt you'll watch such content on such high resolution display (assuming also you set the screen resolution to native)

[play_boy_2000]

I fail to see what the point of this is.... If you spend more than $500 (or tens of thousands), on a monitor you're not going to skimp out and try to run it on intel integrated graphics. The entire ATI 7000 series (non-rebadged parts) supports 4k over a single HDMI 1.4 or DP 1.2 cable, with the cheapest part (7750) starting at under $100; not exactly a budget breaker.

[GoodBytes]

My point is say that this is not news worthy. What Gigabyte has done is just silly. I would agree if thunderbolt was on Nvidia or AMD graphic card... now we are talking.... but then again DisplayPort does already support all of that. So dual thunderbolt, or DisplayPort.

[Gradius]

I see no problem with 2D content, the problem lies on games (3D). Now we hope manufactures start to releasing 4K monitors with REAL price on that (not fantasy price!).

[GoodBytes]

Originally Posted by Gradius

I see no problem with 2D content, the problem lies on games (3D). Now we hope manufactures start to releasing 4K monitors with REAL price on that (not fantasy price!).

36k U.S is not fantasy price :P Then again, the EIZO monitor does display 278 trillion colors, and not 1.67 million.

[Makasu]

Originally Posted by blacko

am i right in thinking the 2012 Olympics were filmed in the Ultra HD 4K resolution?

Some of the Olympics was filmed in an even higher resolution, 8K at 60fps. I was fortunate enough to see it at the bbc studios.

[Star*Dagger]

Three 4K monitors for PC gaming!

[MSHunter]

New 4k monitors you say?

Dusts off 3 year old U3011

2560*1600=4.096.000

But having at a lower price is great news, but hardly a "breakthrough"."

[Gareth Halfacree]

Originally Posted by MSHunter

New 4k monitors you say? Dusts off 3 year old U3011. 2560*1600=4.096.000

Unfortunately, that's not 4K resolution - or even close. 4K resolution refers, typically, to 3840×2160 = 8,294,400 pixels. That's twice the number of pixels available on your U3011. There's more information on Pikiwedia.

[HourBeforeDawn]

UltraHD and 4k is NOT the same, thats why they made the term UltraHD, because the TVs being advertised as 4k were in fact not the 4k standard so yeah... every computer running current gen graphics can handle UltraHD resolution just fine.