Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...
Niswendel

Hypothetical 8k Content

Recommended Posts

Posted · Original PosterOP

Hey,
This is totally hypothetical. Say that you were to game on an 8k tv at 60hz on max settings. What would you need? GPU, CPU, EX.

 

Thanks,

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Niswendel said:

Hey,
This is totally hypothetical. Say that you were to game on an 8k tv at 60hz on max settings. What would you need? GPU, CPU, EX.

 

Thanks,

 

I9 10900k @5.2 ghz and sli rtx Titans. 
 
 

if the game even supports 8k


-it’s scuff Gang btw, I hated the name and needed a change
Quote me for a reply, React if I was helpful, informative, or funny

 

AMD blackout rig

 

cpu: ryzen 5 3600 @4.4ghz @1.35v

gpu: rx580 @1.45ghz mem=2100mhz

ram: vengeance lpx c15 @3800mhz

mobo: Asus b450f

psu: cooler master mwe 650w

case: masterbox mbx520

fans:Noctua industrial 3000rpm x6

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Letgomyleghoe said:

I9 10900k @5.2 ghz and sli rtx Titans. 
 
 

if the game even supports 8k

CPU doesn't really matter in this instance but yes on the RTX Titans.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, schwellmo92 said:

CPU doesn't really matter in this instance but yes on the RTX Titans.

but you’re gonna need some cpu and a good clock speed will have a decent amount of performance gain.


-it’s scuff Gang btw, I hated the name and needed a change
Quote me for a reply, React if I was helpful, informative, or funny

 

AMD blackout rig

 

cpu: ryzen 5 3600 @4.4ghz @1.35v

gpu: rx580 @1.45ghz mem=2100mhz

ram: vengeance lpx c15 @3800mhz

mobo: Asus b450f

psu: cooler master mwe 650w

case: masterbox mbx520

fans:Noctua industrial 3000rpm x6

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, Letgomyleghoe said:

but you’re gonna need some cpu and a good clock speed will have a decent amount of performance gain.

Yes but resolution isn't as dependent on the CPU as FPS is.


QUOTE ME IN A REPLY SO I CAN SEE THE NOTIFICATION!

When there is no danger of failure there is no pleasure in success.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You would need hardware that doesn't exist yet. Even titans wouldn't be able to push 8k@60. 

 

 

 


Judge the product by it's own merits, not by the Company that created it.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, Letgomyleghoe said:

but you’re gonna need some cpu and a good clock speed will have a decent amount of performance gain.

It'd be <60 FPS, you don't need a good CPU. The performance of a 10900K and a 2600K would be exactly the same.

Link to post
Share on other sites

More importantly why would you be on 8K? 4K monitors are pointless for gaming and 4K TVs are pointless below like 45”


Dirty Windows Peasants :P ?

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Lord Vile said:

More importantly why would you be on 8K? 4K monitors are pointless for gaming and 4K TVs are pointless below like 45”

4k monitors are not pointless at all for gaming. Coming from one that have a 32" 4k monitor.

 

If you get a 32" monitor, I would consider 4k the minimum I reccomend.

(While 27", 1440p would be the minimum).


“Remember to look up at the stars and not down at your feet. Try to make sense of what you see and wonder about what makes the universe exist. Be curious. And however difficult life may seem, there is always something you can do and succeed at. 
It matters that you don't just give up.”

-Stephen Hawking

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well maybe in a few years even lower end GPUs will be able to render 8K games 

due to Nvidia‘s DLSS which can upscale content from a low resolution to a higher 

but only time will tell how much it’ll improve 


Hi

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Mihle said:

4k monitors are not pointless at all for gaming. Coming from one that have a 32" 4k monitor.

 

If you get a 32" monitor, I would consider 4k the minimum I reccomend.

(While 27", 1440p would be the minimum).

Why would you have a 32” monitor? That that point an UW would be significantly better.


Dirty Windows Peasants :P ?

Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Lord Vile said:

Why would you have a 32” monitor? That that point an UW would be significantly better.

For immersion, its nice.
I dont like UW at all, they are way to short height wise compared to width.
16:9 is a good aspect ratio to me compared to my field of view.

Also photography too but still would not get UW.
To me UW are for those that dont have the space height wise or want the width but just want something that is easier to run.

I think UW is very overhyped compared to just a larger screen.
But thats my opinion, others might be different, yours apparently are. Your comment of "significantly better" is just 100% opinion.

 

That said, something in between 16:9 and what UW usually is would maybe be nice, for example 18:9 or something, but 21:9 is just way to small height wise compared to width for me, tho I havent tried 18:9 becuase it dont exist in monitors as far as I know...


“Remember to look up at the stars and not down at your feet. Try to make sense of what you see and wonder about what makes the universe exist. Be curious. And however difficult life may seem, there is always something you can do and succeed at. 
It matters that you don't just give up.”

-Stephen Hawking

Link to post
Share on other sites

8K is actually 4x4K. Considering even top of the line modern GPUs struggle with 4K @ 60+ fps, I don't think you're going to be seeing 8K gaming for a *long* time.

 

Aside from that, it's not just an issue of being able to render that many pixels, but developers would need to start providing 8K texture assets, which would absolutely explode game sizes. You could easily see things like 1TB installs. Even today, many people don't have more than 2-4TB of storage across their entire system. Not to mention downloads, and bandwidth caps. I'm hoping we see then end of those in this post COVID-19 world, but this is the same reason even 4K video hasn't really taken off yet. It's just too much data to transfer under most circumstances.

Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, Mihle said:

For immersion, its nice.
I dont like UW at all, they are way to short height wise compared to width.
16:9 is a good aspect ratio to me compared to my field of view.

Also photography too but still would not get UW.
To me UW are for those that dont have the space height wise or want the width but just want something that is easier to run.

I think UW is very overhyped compared to just a larger screen.
But thats my opinion, others might be different, yours apparently are. Your comment of "significantly better" is just 100% opinion.

 

That said, something in between 16:9 and what UW usually is would maybe be nice, for example 18:9 or something, but 21:9 is just way to small height wise compared to width for me, tho I havent tried 18:9 becuase it dont exist in monitors as far as I know...

UW is better for immersion as it gives you a wider FOV especially when curved. Really good for racing in particular. 
 

 


Dirty Windows Peasants :P ?

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Lord Vile said:

UW is better for immersion as it gives you a wider FOV especially when curved. Really good for racing in particular. 
 

 

False really, it does not give better horizontal FOV if its the same width as 16:9 monitor, it then just gives less vertical FOV.

In reality, FOV is based on the size of the monitor compared to the distance from your face (and if game settings is correct based on that)

And if a game dont let you put in wide enough FOV on a 16:9 monitor, then its something wrong with the game and not the monitor.

There is also curved 16:9 monitors, just less of them.

 

It depens how you look at it 😛


“Remember to look up at the stars and not down at your feet. Try to make sense of what you see and wonder about what makes the universe exist. Be curious. And however difficult life may seem, there is always something you can do and succeed at. 
It matters that you don't just give up.”

-Stephen Hawking

Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, Mihle said:

False really, it does not give better horizontal FOV if its the same width as 16:9 monitor, it then just gives less vertical FOV.

In reality, FOV is based on the size of the monitor compared to the distance from your face (and if game settings is correct based on that)

And if a game dont let you put in wide enough FOV on a 16:9 monitor, then its something wrong with the game and not the monitor.

There is also curved 16:9 monitors, just less of them.

 

It depens how you look at it 😛

Um... it's 21:9... You get more horizontal and the same vertical so the FOV is bigger. otherwise it would just be a 16:9 monitor...


Dirty Windows Peasants :P ?

Link to post
Share on other sites

My issue with 8k is that games don't support 4k very well now. That my change with the new consoles.

 

The only games that really benefit from my 4k setup are my modded games that use 4 and 8k textures. You can't even see all the detail in these textures at 1440p.

 

Most games I have played lately don't benefit from 4k so I play them a 1440p 120hz. These are game like Metro Exodus and Control.

Games that have wide expanses like RDR 2 and AC:O I played on my 21:9 ultrawide setup.

What is left for 4k are my modded and building games.

 

My 2080 tis are good for about 75fps on the highest setting at 4k on a average game like SOTTR without ray tracing. But with a game like RDR 2 I can only do 60.  At the resolution of my ultra wide(3840 X 1600) I can get most frames over the refresh rate of my monitor and that is how I played it.

 

There are games that I probably could play at 8k like GTA 5 since I can play it now on Ultra at 4k using about 64% of the GPU and there are older CPU games like Oblivion that have the 2080 ti at idle while playing even with 250 mods at 4k. 

 

It won't be any time soon that I will find out since I have only started using 4k TVs in 2019 and have still one more to buy to replace all the 1080p TVs in the house.

    

 

 


RIG#1 CPU: Intel i9 10900k | Motherboard: ASUS ROG Maximus XII Hero | RAM: G.SKILL Ripjaws V Series 32GB DDR4 3600 | GPU: EVGA  RTX 2080 ti FTW3 ULTRA | PSU: Corsair EVGA 1300 G2 | Case: Cooler Master H500M | Cooler: SilverStone PF360 | SSD: Crucial P1 1TB | Monitor: LG 38" 3840 x 1600 75hz


RIG#2 CPU: Intel i7 8086k | Motherboard: ASUS ROG Maximus X Hero | RAM: G.SKILL Ripjaws V Series 16GB DDR4 3200 | GPU: EVGA RTX 2080 ti FTW3 ULTRA | PSU: Corsair RMx1000W | Case: Cooler Master HAF X | Cooler: Noctua NH-D15 | SSD#1: Crucial MX300 2.5" 1TB | SSD#2: Crucial MX500 2.5" 1TB | Monitor: LG 55" 4k B9 OLED TV

 

RIG#3 CPU: Intel i7 8086k | Motherboard: ASUS ROG Maximus X Hero | RAM: G.SKILL Ripjaws V Series 32GB DDR4 3200 | GPU: EVGA GTX 1080 ti SC | PSU: Corsair RM850x | Case: Streacom BC1.1S | Cooler: Noctua NH-D15 | SSD: Samsung 970 EVO 2TB | Monitor: LG 32" 4k 60hz  

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Lord Vile said:

Um... it's 21:9... You get more horizontal and the same vertical so the FOV is bigger. otherwise it would just be a 16:9 monitor...

You don't understand what I mean, got it. 

If you have a 21:9 with the same width as 16:9 then it's less vertical space.

My point is that it depends how you look at it.

And that's how I look at it because I have a set width of monitor I had space for and wanted because how my eyes field of view is, so for me UW would mean same width but less tall.

 


“Remember to look up at the stars and not down at your feet. Try to make sense of what you see and wonder about what makes the universe exist. Be curious. And however difficult life may seem, there is always something you can do and succeed at. 
It matters that you don't just give up.”

-Stephen Hawking

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Quote

Nobody needs a monitor with bigger than 27"

"Bill Gates"

 

 

That's obviously a joke, but to my experience, for a traditional PC monitor 27" is the maximum optimal every-day-monitor.

Of course TV is better with higher diagonal...


... but I'm no expert

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Mihle said:

You don't understand what I mean, got it. 

If you have a 21:9 with the same width as 16:9 then it's less vertical space.

My point is that it depends how you look at it.

And that's how I look at it because I have a set width of monitor I had space for and wanted because how my eyes field of view is, so for me UW would mean same width but less tall.

 

But 21:9 monitors aren't the same width, instead of the usual 27 or 32 you get 29 and 34. 


Dirty Windows Peasants :P ?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Digital Foundry did a video on it a couple of years ago and they ran into problems with raw power using two 1080 Tis at a flat 8192x4320 (higher than what TV “8K” will be). 

This is incredibly game-dependent though; a single 1080 Ti could very well push something like Forza Horizon 4 at flat 8K at 30fps, but that’s not exactly what you’d desire. You’d need serious horsepower to ensure that your card just doesn’t choke up on driving raw pixels, anyways.


Local dickhead and VHS collector.

Volume / Normalized 100% / 100% (content loudness -0.1dB)

 

 

@handymanshandle x @pinksnowbirdie | Jake x Brendan :^

moo floof enthusiast, pm me moo rabbit pics

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Niswendel said:

Hey,
This is totally hypothetical. Say that you were to game on an 8k tv at 60hz on max settings. What would you need? GPU, CPU, EX.

 

Thanks,

 

 

It would depend on what game you are planning to play and the type/quantity of system resources that it would take, many games only go upto 4K, an 8K TV would scale it upto 8K with internal processing.

 

Also, 8K TVs are not that common currently and are expensive, the only 8K resolution TV that I know of is Samsung's 8K QLED series and the cheapest you could get in that lineup is their 55" Q900 8K TV which is last year's model and costs $2500 USD.

 

https://www.samsung.com/us/televisions-home-theater/tvs/qled-8k-tvs/55-class-q900-qled-smart-8k-uhd-tv-2019-qn55q900rbfxza/

 

 

image.thumb.png.dc0df75343c54a1acca1078c95c528cf.png

image.png


Hope this information post was helpful  ?,

        @Boomwebsearch 

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Lord Vile said:

But 21:9 monitors aren't the same width, instead of the usual 27 or 32 you get 29 and 34. 

So what?

It just depends on the way you think of it.

I think 16:9 is superior as it fits the field of my eyes vision better.

What you fail to understand time after time is that 16:9 or 21:9 is just a matter of taste and how you think about it. People like different things, and mine is that UW is overrated.

 

When I am, if I was to get a UW I would have to get a 29" one because the width, aka a smaller monitor than I did get.


“Remember to look up at the stars and not down at your feet. Try to make sense of what you see and wonder about what makes the universe exist. Be curious. And however difficult life may seem, there is always something you can do and succeed at. 
It matters that you don't just give up.”

-Stephen Hawking

Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Mihle said:

So what?

It just depends on the way you think of it.

I think 16:9 is superior as it fits the field of my eyes vision better.

What you fail to understand time after time is that 16:9 or 21:9 is just a matter of taste and how you think about it. People like different things, and mine is that UW is overrated.

 

When I am, if I was to get a UW I would have to get a 29" one because the width, aka a smaller monitor than I did get.

Point is the horizontal size for a 21:9 is always bigger than the 16:9 equivalent. 

 

Unless your eyes are recessed into your head by 6" you have the same field of view as everyone else

 

It is objectively better.

 

So you got one that's too big to sit at comfortably?


Dirty Windows Peasants :P ?

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Lord Vile said:

Point is the horizontal size for a 21:9 is always bigger than the 16:9 equivalent. 

 

Unless your eyes are recessed into your head by 6" you have the same field of view as everyone else

 

It is objectively better.

 

So you got one that's too big to sit at comfortably?

I agree with the other dude. Ultrawide is just a normal monitor with the top and bottom parts chopped off, it is objectively worse. If i wanted ultrawide FOV, i could just crop my normal monitor and have black bars on the top and bottom.

 

Imo having the extra vertical FOV is more natural.

 

There are use cases for both of the monitor types, some like the one, some like the other.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


×