Both Nvidia and AMD are preparing for 8K: “for the human eye that resolution is close to perfection” - Sensationalist Headlines

[QUOTE=Lordgeorge16;46080685]I'd rather that they work on making 4K the new, viable standard before they jump the gun and move on to 8K. When each side is able to produce an affordable graphics card that doesn't need to be SLI'd/CFX'd to max out games at a 4K resolution and stay at a stable framerate throughout the process, then I'll be satisfied.[/QUOTE] Is 4K really standard? From everything I've read you shouldn't expect anything more than 30 frame per second on a 4K with a singular video card.

[QUOTE=Swilly;46083883]Is 4K really standard? From everything I've read you shouldn't expect anything more than 30 frame per second on a 4K with a singular video card.[/QUOTE] For the 980/970 Single card 4k gaming is completely viable just not max settings.

[QUOTE=Swilly;46083883]Is 4K really standard? From everything I've read you shouldn't expect anything more than 30 frame per second on a 4K with a singular video card.[/QUOTE] I didn't say it was already a standard, I said efforts need to be made to make it the standard before we start thinking about 8K. Nvidia's new GTX 900 cards can do 4K on their own, just not at >30FPS unless you turn your settings down to medium or low. It's certainly more than what the 700 series and the AMD 200 cards could do without SLI/CFX.

[QUOTE=Midas22;46080630]I've found that 4K is still too expensive so how will 8K rake in the money?[/QUOTE] We're talking over the next decade. None of this will be practical within two years for the average consumer. Look at how hard indirect lighting and tessellation were pushed, and I can literally think of only a handful of titles that RELY on them for gameplay and not just eye candy. [editline]26th September 2014[/editline] [QUOTE=Lordgeorge16;46084616]I didn't say it was already a standard, I said efforts need to be made to make it the standard before we start thinking about 8K. Nvidia's new GTX 900 cards can do 4K on their own, just not at >30FPS unless you turn your settings down to medium or low. It's certainly more than what the 700 series and the AMD 200 cards could do without SLI/CFX.[/QUOTE] Titan and 780 TI can do 4K as easily as the 980 can, the only difference is max heat and power usage. Practical 4K@120 hz won't be a thing until Maxwell's third and probably final gen. [editline]26th September 2014[/editline] [QUOTE=kimr120;46082211]Imagine how hard a computer would shit itself if it did 8K at 2x2 SSAA.[/QUOTE] 8K under 50" renders any aliasing scheme redundant.

too bad modern game quality isn't nearly as good as modern graphics and image quality

Man I just upgraded to a 1080p LED Monitor from a 8 year 1440x900 Monitor ;A;

I doubt we'll see 8k for gaming (Actual gaming, not Facebook Farmville crap) for a long time. And even though it's probably fine for regular ol PC use, it seems like it would be expensive for no reason, with 4K there and being more than sufficient for regular ol' PC use

[QUOTE=Cold;46082020]You only need like 30-40mbit to stream/watch 4k.[/QUOTE] Literally 3 times my internet speeds. Thanks Comcast! [editline]26th September 2014[/editline] Fuck I can't into math I guess. Also editing is broken. I meant 10 times.

[QUOTE=Lordgeorge16;46080685]I'd rather that they work on making 4K the new, viable standard before they jump the gun and move on to 8K. When each side is able to produce an affordable graphics card that doesn't need to be SLI'd/CFX'd to max out games at a 4K resolution and stay at a stable framerate throughout the process, then I'll be satisfied.[/QUOTE] They're talking about tech that's still 5-10 years out at this point, which makes perfect sense when you consider that they're planning their roadmap. 4K hardware will be quite mature before we get 8K screens (Look how long it's taken us to get 4K screens, even ignoring the monitor stagnation around 1080p we've been stuck on similar resolutions for nearly 15 years)

I see ya'll upgrading to 970's-980's while they the first gen in maxwell and rift CV1 isnt out yet, Neither is 4K to soon to heavy even with those cards. I remember nvidia promised us double performance with maxwell. Now that didnt happen with their first gen maybe the next in series will blow the 9xxx series in the water. If you actaully looked at the specs these cards were a downgrade in some ways over my 780ti. while being faster. this is not it people!

They do have double the performance per watt so they didn't exactly lie. :v:

[QUOTE=TheTalon;46087078]I doubt we'll see 8k for gaming (Actual gaming, not Facebook Farmville crap) for a long time. And even though it's probably fine for regular ol PC use, it seems like it would be expensive for no reason, with 4K there and being more than sufficient for regular ol' PC use[/QUOTE] 8K will be for VR headsets, there's no way normal monitors will ever need that much.

[QUOTE=Orkel;46090060]8K will be for VR headsets, there's no way normal monitors will ever need that much.[/QUOTE] yes huh

I have the fucking central thing at my street and I get 3 mb/s

[QUOTE=Brt5470;46084330]For the 980/970 Single card 4k gaming is completely viable just not max settings.[/QUOTE] Yeah, but how much is it? If you wanna make 4K standard you need to bring down costs a lot more before mid range and lower end PC gaming users even give a flying fuck about it.

The card or the monitor? 4k is for enthusiasts right now anyways, just give it time to trickle down to every one else. Once more manufacturers make 4k displays, and improve them, the prices will fall and keep on falling.

Ironically, I'm probably going to play Doom on a 8K monitor/tv if i ever got one.

[QUOTE=Swilly;46092442]Yeah, but how much is it? If you wanna make 4K standard you need to bring down costs a lot more before mid range and lower end PC gaming users even give a flying fuck about it.[/QUOTE] Well yeah, that's happened with every other previous jump in resolution. The jump from 1280x1024 to 1920x1080 required me to upgrade my graphics card to get a good framerate, now that's standard.

[QUOTE=Swilly;46092442]Yeah, but how much is it? If you wanna make 4K standard you need to bring down costs a lot more before mid range and lower end PC gaming users even give a flying fuck about it.[/QUOTE] Well for a 980... 500 dollars. A 4k monitor might be like 600 dollars. Samsung's 28" 4k monitor is like 590 or something.

Most of the "cheap" 4K monitors aren't that impressive, the ones I saw all wanted HDMI (Being basically TVs) and were limited to 30fps. They're also quite large, which is certainly ok for the resolution (A 28" 4K monitor is something like 144ppi) but I prefer a physical size of around 24" because it fits my desk better (And it's close enough to 192ppi so that you can just run everything at 2x scale). Luckily for me Dell have already released a 24" 4K "60fps" monitor, unluckily it's $1,100.

[QUOTE=TheDecryptor;46093956]Most of the "cheap" 4K monitors aren't that impressive, the ones I saw all wanted HDMI (Being basically TVs) and were limited to 30fps. They're also quite large, which is certainly ok for the resolution (A 28" 4K monitor is something like 144ppi) but I prefer a physical size of around 24" because it fits my desk better (And it's close enough to 192ppi so that you can just run everything at 2x scale). Luckily for me Dell have already released a 24" 4K "60fps" monitor, unluckily it's $1,100.[/QUOTE] Nah, you can get 60Hz 4K screens for about ~$750 here in Denmark. It's not really all that expensive (relatively speaking of course), and personally I'd love one just for the work space. And then of course gaming old games with a UI that doesn't scale beyond 1080p which means it'll look small as shit (medieval II total war would be fantastic on such a screen, though).

[QUOTE=Midas22;46080630]I've found that 4K is still too expensive so how will 8K rake in the money?[/QUOTE] ??? Mate, 4k displays are already down in the affordable price ranges. AOC has one available for $375 [url]http://detail.tmall.com/item.htm?spm=a230r.1.14.3.KgITwn&id=41209751858[/url]

[QUOTE=Elspin;46081983]In addition to videogame concerns it's not like anybody has internet good enough to stream 4k, 8k would be a nightmare[/QUOTE] I guess there would be downsmapling,

[QUOTE=Brt5470;46093274]Well for a 980... 500 dollars. A 4k monitor might be like 600 dollars. Samsung's 28" 4k monitor is like 590 or something.[/QUOTE] That's not even close to bringing costs down. Mid range is 400 to 600 dollars. [editline]28th September 2014[/editline] [QUOTE=Del91;46092542]The card or the monitor? 4k is for enthusiasts right now anyways, just give it time to trickle down to every one else. Once more manufacturers make 4k displays, and improve them, the prices will fall and keep on falling.[/QUOTE] Exactly. This is why I hate the gaming industry because no one is going back and actually looking at game engines and actually trying to reduce the overhead from the effects and everything else being put on, no one is going back for optimization.

what.. I´ve had 50mbit internet for ages and I pay nex to nothing a month. In my office I have a 200mbit line for €55 a month, excluding 21% tax (which I dont have to pay since I'm a business client there). I love internet here.

[QUOTE=Swilly;46098677]That's not even close to bringing costs down. Mid range is 400 to 600 dollars. [editline]28th September 2014[/editline] Exactly. This is why I hate the gaming industry because no one is going back and actually looking at game engines and actually trying to reduce the overhead from the effects and everything else being put on, no one is going back for optimization.[/QUOTE] video games have hit a probably unsustainable peak of optimization in the late gen ps3 era compared to the mess in 2005-2007 with crysis and killzone 1 and the likes; if that crysis-esque trend had continued, video games really wouldn't be looking as good as it does right now given current hardware capabilities i.e.: [quote]Post processing is usually bandwidth bound ‣ Performance scales linearly with texture format size ‣ We switched from RGBA16F to smaller minifloat or integer formats ‣ Bloom downsample chain is 2x faster with R11G11B10 ‣ SSAO randomly sampled depth in FP32 ‣ Heavy cache trashing, FP16 gave us 2x speed improvement ‣ FXAA used RGBA16F as color input + luminance ‣ 2x speedup by switch to R11G11B10 for RGB and FP16 for luminance‣ We found out that it‟s beneficial to perform reads from the same texture in packs of 4 ‣ We‟re now partially unrolling our dynamic loops. ‣ Almost doubled performance of our reflection raytrace ‣ MRT blending performance seems to scale linearly with the number of targets. ‣ Blending in shader can be faster - better scheduling of reads. ‣ Saved 50% on our full screen dust shader.‣ Branching can be faster than a texture fetch hit ‣ We merged a lot of individual passes ‣ Saves read / write performance ‣ DoF Near & Far CoC is calculated once and output to MRT ‣ We have a “mega” post process composite pass ‣ Merges results of all effects with the full resolution scene image. ‣ Avoids alpha blending and re-reads from memory.‣ Quarter resolution ‣ Full resolution compute and point-sprite based version is not ported to PS4 yet. ‣ 13x13 (169 samples) gather kernel ‣ Uses texture to define the bokeh shape ‣ Runs twice - once for far DoF, once for near DoF ‣ Was one of our most expensive effects before the optimizations‣ We wanted to utilize branching to reduce the sample count for smaller CoC values ‣ The idea - split the loop and gather in „rings‟‣ But this is a gather filter ‣ We need to know the CoC of all neighbors affecting the current pixel to find the starting „ring‟ . ‣ Solution - create the max tree of CoC values ‣ 4 mips are enough for our 13x13 pixel filter, takes 0.05ms ‣ Also forces filtering to be coherent on tile granularity ‣ Construction cost is almost inmeasurable ‣ Average DoF cost went down to 1/8 th of the original cost ‣ Peak cost in demo – 1/4th of the original cost[/quote] of course it is dangerous to compromise too much in the name of optimization lest there be a lawsuit filed against you for 'not real 1080p', whatever that means