Does anyone else think 4k isn't high enough.

[Prastupok]

-snip-

 

I mean: At the time in question, with the newest single card, it should be able to run maxed out for any of those currently (at said time) released games. We aren't there yet.

[Nexxus]

Im so sick of the resolution war I just want to hit that threshold where its totally pointless to go higher from the standpoint of how sharp the image is.

[TheRagingGamer]

Im so sick of the resolution war I just want to hit that threshold where its totally pointless to go higher from the standpoint of how sharp the image is.

that will never happen and you know it. 

[Prastupok]

that will never happen and you know it. 

 

Actually it will. Once it makes it past what the eye can see, there will be no need for increase. And by that point, LCDs probably won't be the technology of choice.

[TheRagingGamer]

Actually it will. Once it makes it past what the eye can see, there will be no need for increase. And by that point, LCDs probably won't be the technology of choice.

that will probably be when we can have a billion pixels on a 22 inch screen 

[Cyrus]

First things first, phone panels are smaller. Higher than 4k resolution monitors exist but there is no

purpose to buy one when nothing is optimized for it.

[othertomperson]

I mean: At the time in question, with the newest single card, it should be able to run maxed out for any of those currently (at said time) released games. We aren't there yet.

And we are never going to be. It took until the gtx 580 was released before the original Crysis could be maxed out at 1080p and even then you needed two for there to be no fps drops at all. There are always going to be games that oush the envelope of what their contemporary hardware is capable of, just look at dying light.

[moderategamer]

All we need to do is find a way to rapidly develop 70MM film reel like 120 frame developments per second then we can play on our £million IMAX projectors at 16K resolution... problem solved.  

[Guest Strangerbob]

be happy that you get anything above the disgusting 1080p 60hz TN garbage at all... 

[Andrewf]

You're all mislead. 4k is useless as a monitor at less than 32" and useless as a living room TV smaller than 55" roughly. It all depends on how close you're sitting. Any higher than 4k as a monitor will likely be a complete waste. Yes they are making an 8k laptop, but that's more or less just to show off. 

 

Before you jump all over me, no the Dell and the iMac 5k displays aren't a compete waste. They're for content creators, for instance, if I'm using photoshop, I'm going to expect to look closely and analyze that pixel right there.

 

Gaming is completely different thing. 4k is starting to be the stopping point, as a monitor for gaming. With things like triple monitor setups, it will take 5 years before GPU technology can handle say, 3x4k displays with full AA. Besides you're not supposed to stare a game and analyze every little detail, the immersion comes as you play the game, not as you revel in it's detail.

 

Technologies like Gsync/Freesync are the best step-forward for gaming (monitors) I've ever seen. I will spend more money on a good (no-lag) IPS with G-sync @ 1080p or 1440p than I would a 4k TN panel. 

 

Even if I had 4-way SLI GTX 980Ti, I wouldn't care for 4k much. Definitely not for gaming.

 

If you're already wanting more than 4k for gaming, then you're doing it wrong. Enjoy the game, not the pixels.

[Fate]

You're all mislead. 4k is useless as a monitor at less than 32" and useless as a living room TV smaller than 55" roughly. It all depends on how close you're sitting. Any higher than 4k as a monitor will likely be a complete waste. Yes they are making an 8k laptop, but that's more or less just to show off. 

 

Before you jump all over me, no the Dell and the iMac 5k displays aren't a compete waste. They're for content creators, for instance, if I'm using photoshop, I'm going to expect to look closely and analyze that pixel right there.

 

Gaming is completely different thing. 4k is starting to be the stopping point, as a monitor for gaming. With things like triple monitor setups, it will take 5 years before GPU technology can handle say, 3x4k displays with full AA. Besides you're not supposed to stare a game and analyze every little detail, the immersion comes as you play the game, not as you revel in it's detail.

 

Technologies like Gsync/Freesync are the best step-forward for gaming (monitors) I've ever seen. I will spend more money on a good (no-lag) IPS with G-sync @ 1080p or 1440p than I would a 4k TN panel. 

 

Even if I had 4-way SLI GTX 980Ti, I wouldn't care for 4k much. Definitely not for gaming.

 

If you're already wanting more than 4k for gaming, then you're doing it wrong. Enjoy the game, not the pixels.

I love it when people talk down about new technology when they haven't even tried it. 

[Andrewf]

I love it when people talk down about new technology when they haven't even tried it. 

I have tried it. I've seen it. I've used it. I don't crave it. I don't crave higher resolution. I love it when people talk about other people, when they don't have a clue who they are. What makes you think I don't have a 65" 4k TV sitting in my living room?

[Fate]

I have tried it. I've seen it. I've used it. I don't crave it. I don't crave higher resolution. Why would you assume such things? What makes you think I don't have a 65" 4k TV sitting in my living room?

What makes me think that? Because every single person on this forum that has 4k, to my knowledge at least, loves their 4k 27-28" displays. I might agree with you on the TV part as when you're sitting very far away as one might do, 4k will probably not be very noticeable, but for monitors, it's huge.

Also you said enjoy the game, not the pixels. So you may as well play at 1024x768 then? 4k is in my opinion the most important game setting to increase the overall in game graphics. Of course you may have a different opinion on that, but don't throw something out entirely just because YOU dislike it. 

[Andrewf]

What makes me think that? Because every single person on this forum that has 4k, to my knowledge at least, loves their 4k 27-28" displays. I might agree with you on the TV part as when you're sitting very far away as one might do, 4k will probably not be very noticeable, but for monitors, it's huge.

Also you said enjoy the game, not the pixels. So you may as well play at 1024x768 then? 4k is in my opinion the most important game setting to increase the overall in game graphics. Of course you may have a different opinion on that, but don't throw something out entirely just because YOU dislike it. 

I'm not throwing anything out. There's a certain point where people are caring too much about how many pixels they have, and not caring about other things like the true quality of it. When 4k first came out, the only affordable ones looked like garbage. I bet dollars to donuts that those pixel-crazed people bought them and were disappointed. In fact they were, I remember reading reviews. If you just focus on getting the best or most of one thing, then other things may suffer. Countless comparisons have proven that a console, and an equally priced PC display similar enough graphics and fps to not notice a difference unless you sit there staring at it, looking for the differences.

 

I'm speaking strictly about gaming too. No, don't play on 1024x768. Play on a display that 1. Your GPU can handle and give you the fps you desire. 2. Has good technology inside it allowing for good overall picture. and 3. A comfortable size for your desk or living room.

 

On a side note, check this out. This applies to monitors too, but take it with a grain of salt.

http://www.cnet.com/topics/tvs/buying-guide/ 

 

Personally, if they made a 1080p Monitor around 32" as an OLED, I would pay $1000 for it over a 1440p LED that costs $500. That's just me, picture quality > pixels.

[Footy]

i understand that i will not be playing games in that, but just for browsing and what not, i don't see why its not possible 

 

I think you are missing the point,

Games need 4x more power to go from 2k to 4k, and 4x again from 4k to 8k but as you said web browsing is not as intense as a game, however it is not practical on 4k.

 

Let me link some pictures for you.

 

http://imgur.com/a/O84Ry

 

There are 3 pictures here of your post

1x 1080

1x 4k

1x 4k 200% zoom

 

you will see the 4k version of the website looks silly and there is lots of wasted space.

also the title bars are really small and hard to click on, even on the zoomed in version. (why would you buy 4k just to zoom in so it looks like 1080?)

 

Yes windows offers scaling however this breaks some games quite badly.

A couple of examples of this are;

League of Legends, if you enable scaling then if you click in the bottom right corner it opens the start menu and ejects you from the game for 20-30 seconds till your managed to get back in.

SC2, WOW, suffer from tiny cursors so small that it is hard to see where they are at times and can cause critical mistakes while gaming.

Edit : LOL is so hard to play at high res I have to reduce my screen to 1080 in order to play it.

 

http://i.imgur.com/vzqrTCu.jpg - This is my computer setup

 

I am happy with my 4k monitors, however I also know the world is not ready for 4k let alone anything more until someone solves some of the key issues, like wasted space, tiny action bars, and cursor scaling.

 

 

Footy

[Badger906]

the limiting factor isn't screen technology it's the infestructure that powers it. 4k video streaming is currently avaliable but requires 8Mbps minimum and uses 7gb of data per hour.

not enough people have 4k screens and fast enough Internet to warrant the technology push.

8k tvs exist but there's zero need for them. and its going to get to the point where the pixel density won't be any benefit unless you've got a 400 inch screen.