Originally Posted by wedge
Everyone can forget about trying to drive that many pixels (on a single screen) with any currently existing technology. The problem is not rendering power, it's the transport.
HDMI and DVI don't support resolutions anywhere near that high.
Even current DisplayPort/Thunderbolt implementations won't go so high as that. For example, current Thunderbolt spec is around 10 Gbit/s for the display interface at best can do 2560Ã—1600@60 Hz. DisplayPort will be about the same. At least DisplayPort/Thunderbolt is scale-able. There is no theoretical limit, it is only limited by the amount of available bandwidth. So they will be able to do it in the future, but you're going to have to upgrade.
Well, simple math off the top of my head with windows calc open.
7680 Ã— 4320 = 33,177,600
each pixel would be 24 bits I guess? 8 Red, 8 Green, 8 Blue
33,177,600 X 24 = 796,262,400
Presuming you demand a refresh rate of 60
796,262,400 X 60 = 47,775,744,000
47.8 Gigabit/s would be needed at the absolute least.
Thunderbolt has five wires in a copper environment:
1 management, 1 wire pair for In, 1 wire pair for out
Presuming that you have no protocol overhead (CRC check and whatnot) and no compression, then that wire pair would have to be capable of sending signals at 47.8 GHZ (Might be totally bogus here)
Thunderbolt is spec'ed at 40 gigabit/s I think now from a quick look at Wikipedia. I am sure that once they go optical instead of copper it can rise much more. But yeah, I am rather sure that VGA and DVI can't do anything near such a resolution. Specifically because in DVI you have that pixel clock going way way above what it was intended to.
HDMI, same thing (HDMI is basically DVI and audio in one cable).