Future iPhones Could Support 4K Graphics and Much Faster Gaming With PowerVR Furian

[mjsmith1568]

Call me crazy, but usually when a company makes a claim like this, Apple is thinking about dropping them. Kind of reminds me when Gorilla Glass was touting their new version.

 

[nviz22]

Can support =/= will support.

Just because we have graphics potential does not mean Apple will put a 4k screen on an iPhone. We are far away from the possibility of that happening because based off Apple's trajectories since they haven't even offered QHD on the iPhone.

 

[diegov12]

LOL, and the Apple TV can't even do 4k yet... but the iPhone might? Hahaha.. you gotta laugh at Apple's incompetence and illogic.

The ATV's chip can handle 4k just fine, what it doesn't have is 4k output, which no apple device, including the iPhone, do.
A bit misleading, wouldn't you agree?

 

[MH01]

Soon they will outperform MacBook pros
[doublepost=1489007792][/doublepost]

LOL, and the Apple TV can't even do 4k yet... but the iPhone might? Hahaha.. you gotta laugh at Apple's incompetence and illogic.

It's not incompetence or illogic, it's a planned decision to maximise profits. It's not customer first , it's profits first

 

[macduke]

Duke gets it right. Here's a link to a very helpful calculator which illustrates his point. https://www.pointsinfocus.com/tools/minimum-resolution-calculator/

Yeah, I've used calculators like that before. Not sure if any of them let me take it to a max of 20/10 vision, which is interesting. So let's play around with this…

At 20/20 and viewed from only a foot away, the iPhone Plus only needs to be 1378 x 775. At 20/15, which is about the best vision that you could expect from someone, you only need 1723 x 969. And if you're a superhuman freak at 20/10, you would need 2750 x 1547. The Plus is currently 1920x1080, and if Apple went to full @3X, that would be 2,208 x 1242. Anyone here who says they needs more than @3X is either one of three things: a liar, a superhuman, or an idiot who holds their phone entirely too close to their face and is only making their vision worse—which negates their argument even further.

The calculator you linked is for print, which is very similar to digital, but a little different. In print, colors tend to bleed into each other, filling in gaps. In digital displays, there is a "screen door effect" between pixels. However, newer display processes have been eliminating this issue, and I'm not even sure if it can be argued that it's much of a problem on the newest devices. And most display calculators I've used have numbers that are quite similar to these, so this is a pretty decent source for people who want to see for themselves what they can't see.

 

[Plutonius]

Wow, imagine pokemon go with these graphics.

/s

 

[furtive]

I see no need for 4K in a phone because human eyes cannot resolve it.

Have you tried Google Cardboard with an iPhone in it? You can clearly see the pixels. 4K on mobile devices will come.

 

[twolf2919]

Have you tried Google Cardboard with an iPhone in it? You can clearly see the pixels. 4K on mobile devices will come.

If you read the rest of his comment, you'd note that he addresses VR separately. In my own comment, I also mention VR as the only possible reason to go to 4k - and say that it would be utterly foolish for Apple to build a hundred million phones - just so a couple thousand guys can attach their phone to their forehead and do VR with them. I'm willing to bet that Apple goes int AR - which doesn't require the same resolution - before they ever make their phones VR ready.

 

[macduke]

Have you tried Google Cardboard with an iPhone in it? You can clearly see the pixels. 4K on mobile devices will come.

Someone didn't read anything I wrote—aside from the above sentence.

 

[SSDGUY]

I see no need for 4K in a phone because human eyes cannot resolve it. As the article mentions, it would be best for VR that uses lenses to change the focal plane in such a way that it magnifies the pixels displayed to each eye. But otherwise it's useless and only serves to needlessly consume battery life. I think true @3X is a good place to stop for phones, as from typical viewing distance someone with perfect vision can no longer resolve individual pixels.

Some might compare what I've just said to quotes such as "640K is more memory than anyone will ever need." But this is different as it relates directly to a physical limitation of the human body. I think they will improve display quality, color reproduction, bit depth, etc—but resolution is arriving at an end point for phones, and will hit these so-called limits on larger and larger devices in the coming years. If nobody has named it, I'll call it Duke's Law, as I've been talking about this for many years and most people still don't understand and consider it just another "spec" that will keep getting better, even though it's useless.

You see, eventually you cross a threshold of diminishing returns—the intersection of cost, GPU speed, power consumption, and human eye resolution. Why put in the effort to develop a display with pixels smaller than anyone would ever be able to see? And again, the lone exception to this right now is a wearable VR/AR headset display that allows the display to sit closer to the human eye and remain in focus via optics. On the GPU end of things, it's nice to support 4K as it means you could output that resolution to an external display large enough to resolve the image effectively. And something like that could also be seen in a future Apple TV 5. But even then, from a typical couch distance of 8-10ft, most people who have 4K TVs smaller than 70-80" don't actually see any benefit over 1080p. Now sometimes 4K packs the pixels in tighter, which results in an overall increase in quality of picture and uniform brightness (at least that's something I've noticed). But I think the only legitimate reasons to have a 4K display is if it's huge (can resolve the pixels from the couch), you sit close to your TV, or you use it as a computer display (aka you sit close to it).

Makes sense, unless of course at some point we start using phones to drive larger 4K display for movies and such. I think one day we won't have Apple TV-type boxes, laptops, desktops etc. but instead a host device (a phone) that connects to whatever peripheral we need for a certain application, i.e. a real keyboard, larger display, movie screen, etc.

 

[Santabean2000]

Is there a dumber idea than a 4k display on a phone?

As in, why would you do that when you could just save power with a regular display?

The way I see it, you're right - and wrong.

4K is overkill in the display itself for most people in most situations.

But, what if we're talking about a device that could dock in and then power external displays at 4K+.

I'm sure you can start to see potential to do some other more interesting things then.

 

[jamescobalt]

PowerVR chips! Now we can play Dreamcast games. ;-)

 

[macduke]

If you read the rest of his comment, you'd note that he addresses VR separately. In my own comment, I also mention VR as the only possible reason to go to 4k - and say that it would be utterly foolish for Apple to build a hundred million phones - just so a couple thousand guys can attach their phone to their forehead and do VR with them. I'm willing to bet that Apple goes int AR - which doesn't require the same resolution - before they ever make their phones VR ready.

Exactly this. There is nothing stylish or cool about wearing a VR helmet in public. There's no reason to kill the battery life on the iPhone and increase materials cost with a tiny 4K display for those few thousand people who are nerdy enough to use it and care about VR pixel resolution. And even though these devices could potentially output 4K resolution, the quality of the lighting, textures, physics, etc isn't going to be that great on a mobile device for many more years for any sort of VR gaming. Just because you can draw 4K to a display doesn't mean it's good looking 4K. I feel like a lot of people are starting to realize this with things such as the PlayStation 4 Pro.

I don't really see head mounted phones being very popular. I don't think AR/VR will really take off mainstream until it's built into regular glasses, contact lenses, or perhaps streamed directly into the visual cortex. And the interface to control it has to be seamless—no awkward hand gestures, or blinking/twitching/whatever other crap I've seen. There is still a lot of work to be done, and likely involves components and software that won't even be invented for several more years, much less tested and produced into a complete working product.
[doublepost=1489009848][/doublepost]

Makes sense, unless of course at some point we start using phones to drive larger 4K display for movies and such. I think one day we won't have Apple TV-type boxes, laptops, desktops etc. but instead a host device (a phone) that connects to whatever peripheral we need for a certain application, i.e. a real keyboard, larger display, movie screen, etc.

I've been saying that for years, and yet it hasn't arrived. Microsoft has tried, but there are a lot of tradeoffs—namely poor battery life, poor processing speed when undocked, and clumsy interfaces. This may eventually be the case, but I did say that it has merits in driving out 4K content to external displays. Please re-read what I wrote.

I'm going to start writing ridiculous things at the bottom of my posts to see if people read them because I've been having this problem lately. Hitler is a jelly bean.

 

[cmichaelb]

LOL, and the Apple TV can't even do 4k yet... but the iPhone might? Hahaha.. you gotta laugh at Apple's incompetence and illogic.

If you only look at the surface a rumor than, yes, it may be laughable.

The big picture is quite clear and Apple knows exactly what they are doing. They grew the tv market with the last update and now 4k will be the next big feature in the next generation.

tv 4k is coming in the next iteration. Apple will do a big push with the new tv 4k alongside Apple produced content and 4k movie rentals from iTunes.

Illogical? Incompetent? Far from it.

 

[jamisonbaines]

Yes, Apple has definitely dropped the ball on a highly-refined user interface, and developers have capitalized on that with their own versions of the interface, creating a mixed bag experience across Mac apps. Not liking it.

As for iOS 10 feeling slow on your 6S, that sounds like you may have some misbehaving or outdated apps. The OS runs super fast on my SE and my girlfriend's 6S. No sluggishness anywhere. Do you quit apps periodically or leave everything running in the background?

I don't think you understand the context of the post you quoted. He's saying the hardware progression has outpaced that of the UI, not bemoaning the lack of *snappiness* within iOS 10.

 

[cmichaelb]

I see no need for 4K in a phone because human eyes cannot resolve it. As the article mentions, it would be best for VR that uses lenses to change the focal plane in such a way that it magnifies the pixels displayed to each eye. But otherwise it's useless and only serves to needlessly consume battery life. I think true @3X is a good place to stop for phones, as from typical viewing distance someone with perfect vision can no longer resolve individual pixels.

Some might compare what I've just said to quotes such as "640K is more memory than anyone will ever need." But this is different as it relates directly to a physical limitation of the human body. I think they will improve display quality, color reproduction, bit depth, etc—but resolution is arriving at an end point for phones, and will hit these so-called limits on larger and larger devices in the coming years. If nobody has named it, I'll call it Duke's Law, as I've been talking about this for many years and most people still don't understand and consider it just another "spec" that will keep getting better, even though it's useless.

You see, eventually you cross a threshold of diminishing returns—the intersection of cost, GPU speed, power consumption, and human eye resolution. Why put in the effort to develop a display with pixels smaller than anyone would ever be able to see? And again, the lone exception to this right now is a wearable VR/AR headset display that allows the display to sit closer to the human eye and remain in focus via optics. On the GPU end of things, it's nice to support 4K as it means you could output that resolution to an external display large enough to resolve the image effectively. And something like that could also be seen in a future Apple TV 5. But even then, from a typical couch distance of 8-10ft, most people who have 4K TVs smaller than 70-80" don't actually see any benefit over 1080p. Now sometimes 4K packs the pixels in tighter, which results in an overall increase in quality of picture and uniform brightness (at least that's something I've noticed). But I think the only legitimate reasons to have a 4K display is if it's huge (can resolve the pixels from the couch), you sit close to your TV, or you use it as a computer display (aka you sit close to it).

I have a 55" 4k tv and the difference is noticeable even at that size.

 

[Juicy Box]

How about a better iOS UI instead?

iOS10 on my 6S feels like what MacOS9 felt like on my TiBook. Great hardware... lagging software. (And I actually liked MacOS9, unlike iOS10)

Thanks for this.
I was thinking of installing iOS 10 on my 6s Plus, and after reading your comment, I am staying with iOS 9.

I regretfully installed iOS 10 on my iPad Mini, and it runs like a turd, especially in safari which is the most used app on it.

After expressing my thoughts on the forum about iOS 10, and how I was worried to install it on my iPhone 6s Plus, many people on the forum responded with how well iOS 10 runs on their 6 and 6s iPhones.

After reading your comment, I am staying away from iOS 10.

About Mac OS, if you don't like the experience with a new Mac OS, you can easily downgrade using a backup from before you upgraded. With the iOS, you are stuck with it with no options to downgrade. Apple's iOS downgrade options suck more than a crack head mother at the end of the month.

 

[5105973]

Exactly this. There is nothing stylish or cool about wearing a VR helmet in public. There's no reason to kill the battery life on the iPhone and increase materials cost with a tiny 4K display for those few thousand people who are nerdy enough to use it and care about VR pixel resolution. And even though these devices could potentially output 4K resolution, the quality of the lighting, textures, physics, etc isn't going to be that great on a mobile device for many more years for any sort of VR gaming. Just because you can draw 4K to a display doesn't mean it's good looking 4K. I feel like a lot of people are starting to realize this with things such as the PlayStation 4 Pro.

I don't really see head mounted phones being very popular. I don't think AR/VR will really take off mainstream until it's built into regular glasses, contact lenses, or perhaps streamed directly into the visual cortex. And the interface to control it has to be seamless—no awkward hand gestures, or blinking/twitching/whatever other crap I've seen. There is still a lot of work to be done, and likely involves components and software that won't even be invented for several more years, much less tested and produced into a complete working product.
[doublepost=1489009848][/doublepost]
I've been saying that for years, and yet it hasn't arrived. Microsoft has tried, but there are a lot of tradeoffs—namely poor battery life, poor processing speed when undocked, and clumsy interfaces. This may eventually be the case, but I did say that it has merits in driving out 4K content to external displays. Please re-read what I wrote.

I'm going to start writing ridiculous things at the bottom of my posts to see if people read them because I've been having this problem lately. Hitler is a jelly bean.

Hitler was a jelly bean? Who knew!

Maybe Apple is further along than we think, and these AR and VR goodies and a super core computing iPhone that can drive all sorts of accessories are what Tim has been referencing when he talks about "the pipeline".

Samsung has cast its lot in without VR and when it's not trying to melt my S7 into a glass puddle, it's actually a very entertaining experience. And there are rumors they are working on releasing their own system similar to Continuum http://www.valuewalk.com/2017/01/galaxy-s8-continuum-desktop-experience/

I wonder if Apple feels it is safe to leave all these markets to Samsung. Samsung has long been rumored to be working on bringing 4K to its phones for VR.

 

[travelsheep]

Can't wait for Week Cal and Address Book in 4K

 

[blackcrayon]

....Apple has been in the lead in adopting PowerVR GPU's for the last 6 years, at least.

Not to mention leading in their performance/design of the CPUs, and as of late they've been customizing the PowerVR GPUs they use. There are areas to complain about regarding Apple, but their CPU & GPU hardware and performance isn't one of them.

 

[WhatdoIkn0w4now]

Is there a dumber idea than a 4k display on a phone?

As in, why would you do that when you could just save power with a regular display?

Hey I'm not saying there aren't other features which would offer more to a consumer, but as we use our iPhones for mobile AR/VR it could have a purpose. When you put the phone into a headset, you can use the 4K display panel to provide a better VR experience. Also perhaps outputting to 4k is the goal of the 4k support on the GPU and not to display 4k images directly on a phones display.

 

[grennis]

Apple is not known for building the most powerful hardware these days. Why does anybody think they would use this?

 

[NoNothing]

Why "England-based" ? Generally, we refer to our nation as the UK.

Isn't Hertfordshire in England? In someways it is like saying Apple, Based in California.

 

[NT1440]

Not to mention leading in their performance/design of the CPUs, and as of late they've been customizing the PowerVR GPUs they use. There are areas to complain about regarding Apple, but their CPU & GPU hardware and performance isn't one of them.

Exactly, for the hemming and hawing all over this site about "innovation", no one seems to give a damn that in terms of performance Apple's A series remains ahead of the entire rest industry.

 

[jlc1978]

Why "England-based" ? Generally, we refer to our nation as the UK.

Planning for Brexit...
[doublepost=1489013471][/doublepost]

jelly bean

So was Stalin