Hypothetical 8k Content

[Niswendel]

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,

 

[Letgomyleghoe]

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

[schwellmo92]

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.

[Letgomyleghoe]

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.

[Samfisher]

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.

[schwellmo92]

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.

[Mihle]

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).

[Drama Lama]

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 

[Mihle]

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...

[Chris Pratt]

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.

[Mihle]

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

[jones177]

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.

    

 

 

[Mihle]

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.

 

[Tan3l6]

 

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...

[PlayStation 2]

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.

[Boomwebsearch]

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/

 

 

[Mihle]

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.

[Origami Cactus]

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.

[Mihle]

1 hour 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?

You are just a plain up UW fanboy that cant see other views than yourself on it at this point.

As I said, it depends what standpoint you look at it just get that in to your head!

If you look just at the paper and resolutions and numbers then yes, but it doesnt really matter much at all.
There is two ways too look at UW monitors and BOTH ARE CORRECT! its just opinion what you choose.

 

These are the two ways, well, 3 ways but two that is more logical when choosing between the two
1. You want a monitor that have X height, when comparing UW and standard, then yes UW is wider.
2. You want a monitor that is X width, when comparing UW and standard, then UW is standard with top and bottom chopped off.

(3. Just look at total area, then standard is taller and UW is wider)

None of those ways to look at it is totally wrong, it just depends how you look at it. Its all subjective. I do it in another way than you.

Also a point I have seen some places is movies is usually UW, but to to that I have two points:
1. TV series is standard/16:9
2. There are movies where black bottom and top is "included" (dont know how many tho) and then you will get black bars on all 4 sides.

If you still dont understand, then I give up replying to you.

[Mihle]

58 minutes ago, Lord Vile said:

 

 

Youe eyes have more horizontal FOV than vertical 

Yes, but not to the degree of UW. 16:9 is wider than its tall and to me it feels more like what the eyes are.

[The1Dickens]

1 hour 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. 

Just to clarify: A 32- or 34-Inch monitor is not 32 or 34 inches wide. It is 32 or 34 inches diagonal measurement. 21:9 is just an aspect ratio, as is 16:9, or 4:3, or 16:10. Those aren't direct measurements. A 32-inch monitor at 16:9 aspect ration (for example, the 32UD60-B) has measurements of 28.7" x 16.7" x 2.0", and a 34-inch monitor (the 34WL750-B) has measurements of 32.7" x 15" x 1.9". While the ultrawide is wider (28.7 vs. 32.7) it is also shorter (15 vs. 16.7).

 

As for pixel resolutions, it is a matter of perspective. Having 2 images of the same horizontal resolution (2560), a 21:9 Ultrawide image is 1080 tall, and a 16:9 is 1440 tall. Granted, if you lock the vertical resolution to 1080, the 21:9 ultrawide has a width of 2560, whereas the 16:9 is only 1920.

 

31 minutes ago, Lord Vile said:

Or it's a normal monitor with the sides extended? 

You'd be cropping it a lot which is why when you watch 21:9 content it's letterboxed so you lose less.

I've never even seen content produced at native 21:9 ratio. When I had an ultrawide, if I set anything to full screen to match height, it cut off the sides, or stretches it. If it went to width, it cuts off the top and bottom, or squishes it. It's why many games had to have "Ultrawide" patches.