yeah, but in 10k resolution, assuming its a 10,080 x 4320 resolution (21:9 ultra widescreen), either the frame rate or the color bit depth and or color sampling is compromise.
Which means you get 10k but limited to 30 fps instead of 60 fps or 120 fps. in 10k @ 30fps (aka 10k30), you probably do get full color sampling of 4:4:4 but limited to 8 bit per a channel of color depth.
or you can get 10k @ 60 fps (aka 10k60), but the color sampling will be limited to 4:2:0 at 8 bit per channel instead of the full 4:4:4 8 bit sampling.
i believe that is the limit the 48 Gbps can offer which is still awesomely great though.
in comparison, in 4k, the 48 Gbps speed can support up to 120 fps or 4k120 in 12 bit color depth in full 4:4:4 color sampling. so which means by using lower resolution of 4k instead of 8k or 10k, you get ultra smooth motion, higher bit depth, and full color sampling.
oh yeah, don't forget that in 10k or in 8k resolution, since it will be limited to 8 bit color depth, it won't support hdr (high dynamic range), so you will only be able to watch 10k in sdr (standard dynamic range) instead. you need at least 10 bit color depth in order for it to support hdr. that is the limit of the 48 gbps. still awesome but still infancy for 8k or 10k though but incredible for 4k displays and sources.
edited: i just did the math for 8k, i think its possible that 8k60 can support 12 bit color depth but at 4:2:0 Y:Cb:Cr sampling. so that means, it possible for 8k to support hdr. but 10k, especially 10k60 is out of the question i think.
the hdmi 2.1 is much more awesome than the hdmi 2.0. the hdmi 2.1 max speed is 48 gbps while the hdmi 2.0 is 18 gpbs. the current hdmi 2.0 only supports up to 4k60 @ 12 bit 4:2:2 sampling or so i was told. 60fps is very smooth but 120 fps is ultra smooth. i think in the nearby future like in a year or two from now, newer 4k display with hdmi 2.1 connections will support and display native 120fps/hz sources.