I am sorry to say this but our graphics controllers support Color depth on 32bpp only.
As there are so many references in the datasheet that infer better color depth, I posted a more specific question in the processor section.
Below are some references from the desktop [socket 1150] datasheet  that might have to be taken in context, yet it seems puzzling to me that Intel would have gone to the effort to make such a good sink & interface if the graphics core was not up to it. Also 10bpc is not so demanding, especially without the transparency. So until one can point me to the page(s) in the datasheet that evidence that the 4600 graphics cannot produce over 8bpc for the sink, or some more detailed documentation, I don't want to jump the gun :
page 27 :
Superior image quality with sharper, more colorful images
page 29 :
The 2D registers consists of original VGA registers and others to support graphics
modes that have color depths, resolutions, and hardware acceleration features that go
beyond the original VGA standard.
The HDMI* interface supports HDMI with 3D, 4K, Deep Color, and x.v.Color. The
DisplayPort* interface supports the VESA DisplayPort* Standard Version 1,
The processor HDMI interface is designed in accordance with the High-Definition
Multimedia Interface with 3D, 4K, Deep Color, and x.v.Color.
Why would one bother mentioning the above if the processor is unable to use the features ?
I apologize for this delay. This is escalated and the information is in the process of being corrected. More information will be posted soon.
Thanks, Kevin -
Hopefully all the driver developers will be able to give some input, as to why they constrained the user interface in CustomModeApp.exe to 8, 16 & 32bpp, and for instance not 30bpp.
It would be great to have clarifications in the datasheets (or specification updates) showing all the paths and decoders & mux capabilities, so that customers don't need to reinvent the wheel, and maybe at least the achievable payload data rate across the igp. HDMI or DP specifications are meaningless, as they are voluntary, and at least the customer would be better of knowing if the Intel processor can handle for instance a 17.28 Gps payload before buying a $400 motherboard that will only give them 11.94Gbps because of poor trace design, when a $900 motherboard might come on the market two weeks later with 17Gbps capability.
(At least less suffering during our transition from 4K to 8K ecosystems, at which point Intel with MXC coupled with Corning VSDN might ressucitate the PC/NUC as the energy efficient mature computing platform).
There are probably many confused audiences out there, like photographers or artists who want deep color with low frame rate, movie buffs that sacralize 24Hz frame rates, or even 1080p users hoping to do deep color, low latency, with 4th Gen Core and do away with discrete graphic cards.
Last June, I contacted Intel about the fact that Datasheets did not have color-depth qualified specifications ,so I was told that this might be a function of the motherboard implementation. This is understandable, as some traces might be longer, solder joints to HDMI/DP/TB connectors might vary in quality, ringing, phase jitter and other signal integrity issues might result in differences from one board to another, so I contacted manufacturers and now they are starting to get back to me. I already found that Shark Bay was capable of 36bpp at 1080p on certain motherboards, and I am in touch with certification labs like Allion to verify all the test results and in fact I am contemplating suggesting that color depth testing results at maximum HDMI/DP/TB/TB2 resolutions would be on their sites in case manufacturers "forget" to include them in instruction manuals or specifications, based on Intel's suggestion. At least they do it for validated memory and processors.....
Meanwhile version 3257 of the Windows configuration utility still does not offer more than 32bpp when at 1080p, going through DisplayPort or HDMI to a 12bpc-capable monitor with relevant EDID 1.3 and VSD strings showing the deep color capability.
I am afraid to say that at this moment deep color is not supported on 4k resolutions with HDMI. It is also important to mention that the documentation is going to be updated.
Thanks, Kevin -
I am sure we are all afraid of section 6.2.4 of HDMI 1.3a since 2006 because of the 12bpc requirement and the 4K repercussions, even though the human eye can barely discern 10bpc in any color space, yet the fact that DisplayPort (royalty free) is offered by 4th Generation Intel Core graphics is the best thing since sliced bread because there are 4K displays with DisplayPort, and also v2 DP to HDMI adapters and EDID manipulations that can help our civilization as much as gfx 7.5
From a history perspective, 8k was demonstrated in 2005, about a year before BluRay was finalized at 8bpc with no DeepColor possibility (and then 3 days after that, HDMI 1.3 finalized Deep Color at 1080p, just in case someone was not happy with BluRay and had a good color 1080p source). So now as we are probably transitioning fast from 4k to 8k, with $496 4k displays like Seiki, the 10bpc 4K capability is of the essence, and if it can work without the 10:10:10:2 scanout girations, the 4th Generation marketing people can rest for a while, once the datasheet vol 1 is updated. If not, the renderer girations and recompiling of Windows/OS-X/Xmir/Wayland are being prepared, as a subculture that caters to the graphics-savvy, from photographers to artists, not to mention the 92% who are not color-blind and don't like that banding in the sky.
So once the specs are available, either some will roll their sleeves, or some will buy Intel stock like there is no tomorrow.....