• 10K gaming at 120Hz will be possible with HDMI 2.1—but not for a while
    36 replies, posted
[url]http://www.pcgamer.com/10k-gaming-at-120hz-will-be-possible-with-hdmi-21but-not-for-a-while[/url]
LinusTechTips did an 8k gaming video. They had 4 4k monitors setup 2x2. They opened Crysis 3 at 1080 and it was just a tiny window in the corner of one monitor. But they set it for 8k and took off playing They used 2 Titan XP's and it ran playable. Ish 10k gaming is a long ass ways off. Probably not even on anyone's radar
This is going to be one of those things that might be feasible in 10 years kinda like how 10 years ago 4k wasn't that feasible. EDIT: This is a weirdly phrased post. I'm assuming it makes sense.
Pocket change tbh
[QUOTE=TheTalon;52930773]LinusTechTips did an 8k gaming video. They had 4 4k monitors setup 2x2. They opened Crysis 3 at 1080 and it was just a tiny window in the corner of one monitor. But they set it for 8k and took off playing They used 2 Titan XP's and it ran playable. Ish 10k gaming is a long ass ways off. Probably not even on anyone's radar[/QUOTE] Fuck that, they did a 16K video, dat shit was crazy.
tbh at my screen size of 27 inch I'd never go above 5k really. 4k already virtually eliminates aliasing BUT, I'd sooo use higher resolutions for desktop use, just for the fun of it
Forgive my ignorance, but why? Like what is the point of 10k def? If 1080 is already crystal clear I mean
[QUOTE=ZakkShock;52932582]Forgive my ignorance, but why? Like what is the point of 10k def? If 1080 is already crystal clear I mean[/QUOTE] You haven't used higher resolution if that's what you think.
[QUOTE=ZakkShock;52932582]Forgive my ignorance, but why? Like what is the point of 10k def? If 1080 is already crystal clear I mean[/QUOTE] 1080p crystal clear Oh my god what [editline]29th November 2017[/editline] More pixels mean more clarity and it makes it sharper and cleaner
[QUOTE=GHOST!!!!;52931657]Fuck that, they did a 16K video, dat shit was crazy.[/QUOTE] Life size Lara Croft
[QUOTE=ZakkShock;52932582]Forgive my ignorance, but why? Like what is the point of 10k def? If 1080 is already crystal clear I mean[/QUOTE] Unless you're specifically talking about small phone screens or viewing TV from a distance, 1080p is nowhere near crystal clear. I think 10k would be right around the point where a large screen/VR headset that fills your entire field of view would look "crystal clear" without you being able to distinguish individual pixels.
[QUOTE=pebkac;52932861]Unless you're specifically talking about small phone screens or viewing TV from a distance, 1080p is nowhere near crystal clear. I think 10k would be right around the point where a large screen/VR headset that fills your entire field of view would look "crystal clear" without you being able to distinguish individual pixels.[/QUOTE] I'm sitting here two feet from a 21" 1920x1200 monitor which fills my FoV and I can't distinguish any pixels. Are you guys wearing binoculars while gaming or someting?!
[QUOTE=TestECull;52934841]I'm sitting here [B]two feet from a 21"[/B] 1920x1200 monitor which [B]fills my FoV[/B] and I can't distinguish any pixels. Are you guys wearing binoculars while gaming or someting?![/QUOTE] Excuse me, but are [I]you[/I] looking through binoculars by any chance? Cause that's not what filling your [B]entire[/B] FOV means. Alright so let's make it easy for you: [img]https://i.imgur.com/e4bS5S5.png[/img] You should be able to tell that that's a pattern of alternating bright and dark pixels, right? If you can't, you should get your eyes checked out. Now move away from your screen until it merges into a solid gray blob and you can't notice any patterns in the image as you move around. That's how small pixels need to be to match the resolution of your eye. By the way, have you ever noticed just how much crisper text looks when you view it on a small smartphone screen compared to your computer monitor? You might not consciously realize that you're able to tell apart the individual pixels, but the increased pixel density makes a hell of a big difference in that case.
[QUOTE=pebkac;52934908]Excuse me, but are [I]you[/I] looking through binoculars by any chance? Cause that's not what filling your [B]entire[/B] FOV means.[/quote] My entire FOV being taken up by my monitor = my FOV being filled. There isn't any other possible definition of the term. And when I'm sitting that close it's literally 'the bezels are on the very periphery of my vision'. As in, 'If I sit any closer I have to turn my whole head to look at the edges of the screen'. [quote] Alright so let's make it easy for you: [img]https://i.imgur.com/e4bS5S5.png[/img] You should be able to tell that that's a pattern of alternating bright and dark pixels, right? [/quote] Ahh, yes, a test pattern designed to make them stand out as clear as day. Yah, I can see them. [I]In that image.[/I] But not anything around that image. The picture is otherwise crystal clear, no jaggies, no dots, no visible pixels. Sure, sure, if I smash my face right up into the screen I can see 'em, in fact if I have my nose about six inches from the screen I can distinguish the three colors in each pixel. My eyes are fine. But under normal operation? No, no I cannot. And as far as I'm concerned, if I can't see them in normal operation, if I can't see them unless I'm staring at a test pattern designed specifically to make visible a bunch of dots [I]I effectively can't see the pixels.[/I] My point stands. You guys using binos to stare at your screens or something? Wearing jeweller's loupes? Something's gotta be magnifying the pixels for ya'll to be seeing them. Or maybe your monitors are just too big, physically, for the resolution and the seating arrangements? 27" VS 21" does mean a drastically higher DPI on my screen, given the resolutions are more or less the same(I'm not going to split hairs over another 120 pixels in one way). I avoided a larger monitor when I had to replace my old CRT(I do miss 2048x1536x70hz but the backlight got so dim I couldn't see anything at all so it had to be retired) specifically because I knew I'd see pixels if I got one much larger than this. [quote] By the way, have you ever noticed just how much crisper text looks when you view it on a small smartphone screen compared to your computer monitor?[/quote] Except it isn't. That may be due to the hilariously cracked screen on my phone, maybe the zoom I need to use to view sites that don't have mobile versions at all, or it may be due to the gaudy look of mobile versions of websites, but I honestly find text to be crisper when I'm on my desktop and blurrier/fuzzier/worse on my phone. As for video...I honestly wouldn't know, my phone's battery is such a piece of shit that I don't even really bother trying to watch anything on it.
Alright, now you're just deliberately being obtuse. [QUOTE=TestECull;52934924]My entire FOV being taken up by my monitor = my FOV being filled. There isn't any other possible definition of the term. And when I'm sitting that close it's literally 'the bezels are on the very periphery of my vision'. As in, 'If I sit any closer I have to turn my whole head to look at the edges of the screen[/QUOTE] I'm talking full immersion, literally everything you can see being the screen. Not "when I'm focusing on the content I kinda tunnel vision so I don't really notice the stuff that's going on around the screen". Which is why I specifically mentioned VR headsets as an example to make my point as clear as possible. [QUOTE=TestECull;52934924] Ahh, yes, a test pattern designed to make them stand out as clear as day. [/QUOTE] That's the entire fucking point, it shows that the resolution of your eye is in fact much higher than the resolution of your monitor. [QUOTE=TestECull;52934924] Yah, I can see them. [I]In that image.[/I] But not anything around that image. The picture is otherwise crystal clear, no jaggies, no dots, no visible pixels.[/QUOTE] Of course you can't notice any jaggies because the text in your browser is being rendered with painstakingly designed and tweaked algorithms that are meant to make it look as sharp and aliasing-free as possible. Chances are, it's using subpixel rendering just to squeeze that extra bit of sharpness out of the otherwise inadequate display. However, just because it "looks fine" to you doesn't mean it's perfect and it couldn't possibly look even sharper. Seriously, try setting your zoom level to 200% and sit back twice the distance from your monitor, then try telling me that the text doesn't look sharper and easier on the eyes that way.
I feel like we've hit a "limit," honestly. Maybe for people who want huge home theatres and want a 10K television, but I feel like it starts to teeter off to you either: A) It [I]does[/I] looks loads better, but now you just have a huge, silly monitor or B) The monitors stay a reasonable size, but you can't really see much difference when compared to a smaller resolution. I say we've already hit that point with phones. 1080p on a phone is as much as you'd ever need, and anything higher I feel is wasted budget. I can't say for sure we've hit that with monitors yet, but we're getting there.
IMO anything beyond 4K is diminishing returns on a normal sized pc screen for gaming. 8k is absolute maximum you could argue for anything outside of specialist industrial use. On VR though those numbers would be 16k and 32k respectively.
Wow, lets make 4k standard before we jump the gun.
[QUOTE=pebkac;52934908] Alright so let's make it easy for you: [img]https://i.imgur.com/e4bS5S5.png[/img] You should be able to tell that that's a pattern of alternating bright and dark pixels, right? [B]If you can't, you should get your eyes checked out. [/B]Now move away from your screen until it merges into a solid gray blob and you can't notice any patterns in the image as you move around. That's how small pixels need to be to match the resolution of your eye. By the way, have you ever noticed just how much crisper text looks when you view it on a small smartphone screen compared to your computer monitor? You might not consciously realize that you're able to tell apart the individual pixels, but the increased pixel density makes a hell of a big difference in that case.[/QUOTE] My sight is nearly prefect according to medical tests I underwent a couple of months ago, and from where I sit in from on my computer this just looks like a gray square on my 1920x1200 monitor as well. Your move, I guess?
Even 1080p with 4x DSR is objectively insignificant compared to 2160p 4k is such an immediate and positive difference. Everything is far cleaner looking and easier to look at. Meanwhile on my S8+ 720p is fine enough, I don't see that much of a difference because its not only tiny but far away usually. [editline]30th November 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=WhyNott;52935691]My sight is nearly prefect according to medical tests I underwent a couple of months ago, and from where I sit in from on my computer this just looks like a gray square on my 1920x1200 monitor as well. Your move, I guess?[/QUOTE] It looks like a grey square because your resolution doesn't have the pixel density to view it properly. Or at least I assume? I have no idea, close up I can see the dots fine. At my viewing distance at 4k I can see it as well, its more than just a grey box.
[QUOTE=WhyNott;52935691]My sight is nearly prefect according to medical tests I underwent a couple of months ago, and from where I sit in from on my computer this just looks like a gray square on my 1920x1200 monitor as well. Your move, I guess?[/QUOTE] Make sure to view it at 100% size, any sort of interpolation will completely screw it up. Also, it does kind of look gray at a first glance, but if you look closer you should be able to clearly see the pattern. Alternatively, here's an image with 1px wide lines, should be more obvious than the checkerboard pattern: [img]https://i.imgur.com/JxkEkWi.png[/img]
Okay, this one you can obviously see the lines (especially the vertical one hurts my eyes)
[QUOTE=Richardroth;52935645]Wow, lets make 4k standard before we jump the gun.[/QUOTE] We're still struggling to make 1080p the standard tbh. If we can't get 1080p to 60FPS, don't keep going forward, [I]get 60 FPS.[/I]
Since the hardware prices (and my wealth) have turned to absolute bullshit over the past years I think I will stay with 1080p thank you very much
[QUOTE=LegndNikko;52939037]We're still struggling to make 1080p the standard tbh. If we can't get 1080p to 60FPS, don't keep going forward, [I]get 60 FPS.[/I][/QUOTE] But going forward is what gets us what we want. I don't understand the "you don't need 4k/8k etc" argument. On a philosophical level you don't really need much, but if it's affordable, why not get it?
[QUOTE=Gogeta SS4;52945749]But going forward is what gets us what we want. I don't understand the "you don't need 4k/8k etc" argument. On a philosophical level you don't really need much, but if it's affordable, why not get it?[/QUOTE] Why buy a 4k monitor when you can get a nicer 1080p monitor for the same price. Like, right now I prefer to use my 1080p 144hz monitor over my 4k monitor due to how responsive and crisp it is. Also, 4k for computers doesn't really work well, and for games even less so.
[QUOTE=Stiffy360;52946020]Why buy a 4k monitor when you can get a nicer 1080p monitor for the same price. Like, right now I prefer to use my 1080p 144hz monitor over my 4k monitor due to how responsive and crisp it is. Also, 4k for computers doesn't really work well, and for games even less so.[/QUOTE] But the thing is that resolution and hz are two totally different things, you're saying 'why by this over this' over something that's totally subjective to you. I greatly prefer 4k over 144hz because to me it feels way nicer. Higher resolution means its going to look far crisper and cleaner, you'll see a much higher amount of detail in less. It also works perfectly well for computers, and in games I've had no issues with 4k monitors, even more games seem to support it really. higher Hz means its going to look smoother and feel incredibly responsive. You're better off using this for games that require response time and have a lot of movement because it will make it feel tight. [editline]4th December 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=LegndNikko;52939037]We're still struggling to make 1080p the standard tbh. If we can't get 1080p to 60FPS, don't keep going forward, [I]get 60 FPS.[/I][/QUOTE] We're only struggling on consoles. On PC we are having no issue, 4k and 144hz being a standard is only a matter of price lowering. Consoles are always going to be behind, that's how it is for them. But on PC there are few games I can't play in 4k if not at least slightly lower than that if I really need to.
[QUOTE=J!NX;52946488]But the thing is that resolution and hz are two totally different things, you're saying 'why by this over this' over something that's totally subjective to you. I greatly prefer 4k over 144hz because to me it feels way nicer. Higher resolution means its going to look far crisper and cleaner, you'll see a much higher amount of detail in less. It also works perfectly well for computers, and in games I've had no issues with 4k monitors, even more games seem to support it really. higher Hz means its going to look smoother and feel incredibly responsive. You're better off using this for games that require response time and have a lot of movement because it will make it feel tight. [/QUOTE] Refresh rate is temporal resolution. :eng101:
[QUOTE=J!NX;52946488]But the thing is that resolution and hz are two totally different things, you're saying 'why by this over this' over something that's totally subjective to you. I greatly prefer 4k over 144hz because to me it feels way nicer. Higher resolution means its going to look far crisper and cleaner, you'll see a much higher amount of detail in less. It also works perfectly well for computers, and in games I've had no issues with 4k monitors, even more games seem to support it really.[/QUOTE] UI support for scaling isn't all that great, and at 4k, 100% is too small, and 200% is too large. You have to stick with 150% which ends up blurry. Also some applications can't scale properly and fuck up. Second, most modern games require too much processing power to get 4k with mid-to high range cards even. While you could reduce the settings, it would kind of defeat the point of having 4k when you have blurrier textures, lower poly models, etc. You could play older games, but those usually have much less graphical fidelity and again, that kind of defeats the point. [quote]higher Hz means its going to look smoother and feel incredibly responsive. You're better off using this for games that require response time and have a lot of movement because it will make it feel tight. [/QUOTE] Even browsing the internet feels really fast and responsive compared to 60hz. It's quite nice for general use.
[QUOTE=Stiffy360;52947798]UI support for scaling isn't all that great, and at 4k, 100% is too small, and 200% is too large. You have to stick with 150% which ends up blurry.[/QUOTE] I'm at 100% scaled and having no issues at all on a 27 inch monitor. Scaling up doesn't make anything blurry for me soooo I have no idea what the hell is happening on your PC but that don't happen here. i know it doesn't because I have 2 of the exact same monitors and one is scaled up 175% with literally no side effects outside of big ass text. Scaling seems perfectly fine to me. If a site is too small I zoom in which takes a microsecond. [QUOTE=Stiffy360;52947798] Second, most modern games require too much processing power to get 4k with mid-to high range cards even. While you could reduce the settings, it would kind of defeat the point of having 4k when you have blurrier textures, lower poly models, etc. You could play older games, but those usually have much less graphical fidelity and again, that kind of defeats the point.[/QUOTE] This is just objectively wrong. You can reduce useless settings like Anti-aliasing, SSAO, etc, and still get the desired effect. I do this with every game before I even run them, and I manage to get most games I play at 4k on max on my gtx1080. I know this because I do it. If you reduce a few settings you can still get the desired 60fps with not that much of a noticable issue, and if you REALLY needed to run it at 1440p. it's kind of dumb to point out the processing power needed to get 4k when 144hz doesn't even work on many games because of caps, and even then you have the issue of it getting to a stable framerate. You can easily run a game at only 100 fps and enjoy the benefits and you can easily run it in 1440p and enjoy the benefits. Both need a lot of proccessing power, don't pretend that 144hz is immune to that problem by bringing this up. [QUOTE=Stiffy360;52947798]And that's my point, even browsing the internet feels really fast and responsive compared to 60hz. It's quite nice for general use.[/QUOTE] That's a completely subjective matter really. With a higher resolution I can fit way more information on screen with far higher detail. I have literally no use in it feeling 'fast and responsive' when text doesn't fly around constantly. If I was playing Dusk or Doom though I'd choose 144hz any day, but for me choosing framerate for... looking at text is just massively redundant. Yeah its smoother, but at 1080p it also looks blurry as fuck compared to 4k. Reading text with a higher framerate is generally useless because it makes it look better while you're moving anything around, not when its stationary. Its a matter of looking better in motion VS looking better in detail. I'll totally agree that no doubt though 144hz is superior in many ways to anything that will be at 60hz, it's definitely waaaay cleaner when anything on screen is moving. [editline]5th December 2017[/editline] I've played GTA5 in 4k at a stable 60, I've played it with a high HZ monitor, I've played it with 1080p at a low framerate. I've played it with really all monitor set ups out there. I still preferred 4k because I want to see that nice crystal clean shit with no aliasing and crisp lines. I'd probably choose 1440p at 144hz over 4k however because that gives you both options and just objectively improves it both ways. [editline]5th December 2017[/editline] testing it at 350% scaling it still isn't blurry Must be a windows bug
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.