16 bit colours on a pair of 8K screens is the best part of half a gigabyte per frame...

I assume sir will be wanting 60 or 120 FPS as well?

:-)

Foveated rendering will cut that in half or more.

For some purposes.

There's still 72 raw megapixels in the two displays. Even if you "cheat" and run rendered output for the edges in 4K or 1080p, something still has to drive each RGD emitter for each of those pixels, even if you're painting blocks of 4 or 16 of them all the same colour...

802.11ay can hit that at 15fps theoretically, and if apple culls peripheral video, it may need way less bandwidth!

VR at 15fps would make you feel sick.

wifi is a horrid idea, any retransmissions/interference would cause an immediate/noticeable latency. The distance for full speed is low and any object between the antenas, e.g. a human, would have noticeable effects.

7680x4320x2pixels x2 bytes/pixel ~ 127 MBytes/frame.

Ahhh, right. I'd misinterpreted that "16 bit colour" as wanting 16 bits per colour 6 byte pixels, not 2 byte pixels.

I read it the same way. I guess the phrasing ("I would be willing") should have made it clear, but it's an understandable misunderstanding: it's used both ways:

https://www.photoshopessentials.com/essentials/16-bit/

https://www.computerhope.com/issues/ch001557.htm

Yeah, but even at 100 MByte/frame, we talk enormous bitrates for sensible frame rates.

I wonder if a little bit of dithering would be enough to compensate for that at that high a resolution. The actual area of our eyes that can resolve colour is quite small, so it might work.