Say Hello To A 27-Inch 8K 120Hz Monitor

Image: PC Watch

Buying a monitor that supports 4K natively is already pretty pricey. So does anyone want to take a guess at how much this 8K 120Hz monitor from Sharp would cost?

Most people are starting to get to grips with playing things in 4K. But Sharp produced the first 8K TV this time last year, and so it's no surprise at this year's CEATEC (Combined Exhibition of Advanced Technologies) the company showed off a rather fancy 8K monitor.

According to the specifications listed on the convention floor, the prototype (spotted by Japanese site, PC Watch) uses a IGZO IPS panel that's capable of outputting images at 8K (7680x4320) at 120Hz and with high-dynamic range support (HDR) to boot.

It's no wonder the back of the monitor has eight separate DisplayPort cables, then:

Image: PC Watch

15GB/second. That's how much data the monitor would be pushing out just to support an image at that rate and quality. Bloody hell.

By the time 8K displays become more common, something as gargantuan as Sharp's prototype probably won't be necessary. What was shown off at CEATEC is running off the 1.4 specification for DisplayPort, which supports a maximum resolution of 8K at 60Hz with a colour depth of 24 bits per pixel. That standard was only published in March this year, so we're a little while away before DP 1.5 or DP 2.0 becomes available with more bandwidth and support for even higher resolutions and frame rates.

Of course, then you have to deal with the misery of actually displaying something other than still images and wildlife video at that resolution. Hell, a single GTX 1080 struggles to render most games at 60fps consistently unless you turn the detail down. So the world of 8K is still some ways off.


Comments

    Which region anywhere in the world would be able to fluidly pump such a fast speed through its pipes anyway? I'd need NBN 8.0 wouldn't I?

    I mean, aren't we reaching the point of diminishing returns?

      8K is redundant on a screen so small, but as a step towards larger screens its needed. You're talking about 100" screens before 8K shines through, and thats going to mean full media walls. We're heading that way, but its still a while off yet.

      But they have to start somewhere, no reason why gaming shouldnt be that starting point. Makes sense given the typically smaller screen size needed.

      The 15 Gb/s data is also only from the PC to the monitor, not the raw data from streaming. There is a processing level in between that slows things up a lot.

        I dunno that 100" would be really necessary. I find 4k looks great on my 28", so I'd imagine 8k on something double that would be just about perfect too! I can't imagine trying to work with 8k on 28 though. You'd need scaling for sure to even be able to read text!

          More talking about TV's with that being where 8K would really do its job. You're talking about something 8 1/2 ft by 4 ft which isnt leaving a lot of space around it to use.

          For monitors, its a different story, because you're dealing with things so much closer, but 8K would really be up there in what the eye could typically process, particularly on a 27" monitor.

          Debatable topic but 300 PPI is typically the maximum you can process with 20/20 vision. Read up on it though, theres no real clear consensus.

            Yeah for a monitor it's different.
            I've got a high quality 27" running @ 2560x1440 and it's much to low res really. I mean you get use to it, but higher res would be so much nicer. Around double (5k) would be nice for the size.

            A 35" Ultrawide would need to be around 8k (wide) to be on par with a normal 27" at 5k though - and that is what I really really want. pls - Ultrawide 8k IPS @ 120hz with G-Sync.

            Of course I want it to run smooth...
            the 5k iMac I tried was struggling and somewhat 'laggy' :O
            Also, I think more games need to include tricks - ie., render at 50% of screen res, upscale, Apply AA, etc. :)

            I think higher PPI could potentially have some other benefits too, besides not being able to see individual pixels. But at this stage I wouldn't call that an important goal. For now, I think something like 300 PPI is pretty important.

            Last edited 06/10/16 4:25 pm

              Yeah, fair enough, I can see that. 300 PPI is a good basis to determine is something is too much or just right. Frankly, while it is visable, more is a waste.

              The 'laggy' comment is a relevant one as well. Right now (and for the last couple of years) GPU and CPU capabilities have kind of plateaued so if this (and VR) drive a fresh round of improvements, then its not all bad.

                Yeah I tend to use the 300 PPI guage mark aswell as I've heard it's supposed to be the 'sweet spot' (at about 18" ? from your eyes).

                You're right about a TV not needing more though. :)

                My phone has a PPI of 577 and looks super sharp at about 7" from my eyes (about as close as I can still focus). So, half the PPI at around 2.5-3 times the distance (which is about how far I sit from my monitor) makes sense. for VR though even at 577, it's very pixelated; but I suppose there is far more to it than that. I've seen a replacement iPhone screen that had the same res as the standard Apple ones, yet it looked really bad because the gap between horizontal rows was much bigger.

                Although, I just checked my monitors screen dimensions, which are;
                Preset Display Area (H X V):
                596.74 mm x 335.66 mm (23.49 x 13.21 inches)

                To hit 300 PPI, my 27" monitor would actually need to run 7,047 x 3,963
                Which is more than I thought it would need (by guessing). So a 35" Ultrawide would probably need to be more like 9-10k :(

                Still. can't wait till I can get one, and a computer capable of running it! :D

    Hello

      Never change Jimu! You are the best Jimu that ever Jimu'd! ;)

        I keep trying to reply & ....well....take a look below

    Hell, a single GTX 1080 struggles to render most games at 60fps consistently unless you turn the detail down. So the world of 8K is still some ways off.

    Let's be honest though... the kind of people that are going to fork out for an 8k monitor like this would have no qualms about chaining two (maybe four?) 1080's together.

      Nvidia is no longer supporting GPU configurations above 2 way SLI. You can still buy them but most applications wont support it.

        Ah, I was unaware of this. Then again, that's totally a rich person problem, so not one I'm likely to run into any time soon!

    4 way SLI isn't possible with Nvidia's Pascal GPUs, 2 way SLI is the maximum. 2 way SLI with the Titan X (Pascal) will probably handle it. LinusTechTips Has made a video, gaming on 8k resolution, but it is currently only on vessel. Here is a link if you are interested: https://www.vessel.com/videos/XQV_G3jV5

    You know what? 1080p is just fine. I'm happy with it. Hell, I probably couldn't tell the difference between 720p and 1080p on TVs for quite a while.

    Now if I could just get these damn kids off my lawn...

Join the discussion!

Trending Stories Right Now