The next gen of GPU is all about 4k

[Zat0ichi]

But who owns a 4k monitor? (not TV)

 

[dfsgsfa]

is there even 720p monitor?

my memories only have 768p

[Kisai]

2 minutes ago, Zat0ichi said:

But who owns a 4k monitor? (not TV)

 

I do MG24UQ, but it's not HDR. I had to urgently replace the previous monitor at the time because the image retention had gotten to the point where I could see the background wallpaper and start menu lines on a completely white screen. There were no HDR monitors available at the time, and I suspect there still aren't any affordable ones, I mean the one sold as a 4K UHD gaming monitor is the PG27UQ and is like $3000USD, compared to everything else which is around $800 and skimps on the HDR support.

 

[XAIXER]

I have a 2160p monitor. I want a bigger one down the line.

[Chris Pratt]

40 minutes ago, Zat0ichi said:

But who owns a 4k monitor? (not TV)

 

Lots of people? I mean they exist, and I'm sure people buy them. Not much point to a 4K computer monitor, honestly, but that doesn't mean there aren't tons of people with them.

[Chris Pratt]

34 minutes ago, dfsgsfa said:

is there even 720p monitor?

my memories only have 768p

None of these terms technically apply to computer monitors, or really even things like LED TVs honestly. It's a measure of scan lines, which aren't even a thing any more, since it applies mostly to CRT. Instead, it's become shorthand for the vertical resolution, which doesn't necessarily need to be spot on to count. So, 768px vertical resolution is roughly equivalent to 720p, and might be referred to as 720p, because marketing and people don't know what pixels are. Not that they know what "p" means either, but that's a different discussion.

[xg32]

3 hours ago, Zat0ichi said:

But who owns a 4k monitor? (not TV)

 

ull run into them if you ask that question in the monitor section, all the media will gravitate toward 2160p, consoles, streaming, gpu power,1440p will still be the sweet spot, keep the pixel density high, sit closer and there's no difference.

 

HDR still isn't optimized, i'm hoping consoles change that.

 

I'm not gonna give next gen gpus too much credit, they'll still be too weak to drive 2160p/120/144hz consistently.

[Mihle]

I have LG 32UD89.

[Zat0ichi]

I wrote this post wondering about the market to drive next gen GPUS. 

Theres no point in going next gen as a mainstream gamer unless you're trying to drive a 4k monitor native (DSLR is a thing I know)

How many PC users have upgraded the monitor? 

Because if you're going to spend £500+ on next gen GPU and you need to then pay at least £200 for a monitor its going to reduce the market a bit.

My gut feeling is that next gen GPUs with cost 30% more than similar tier cards from the current gen.

 

I've found my 1440p sweet spot with a 5700xt. That me happy for a few years until games start routinely using raytracing.

[SolarNova]

Currently a 42" 1080p Plasma.

 

Once i get a HDMI 2.1 GPU later this year ill be upgrading to 4k 120hz OLED (48").

[circeseye]

you might as well say 4k tv's also..a lot of them out now have really low response time. hell if i remember right some as low as 8ms. more then adequate for gaming

[MadPistol]

I mean, I have a 4k120hz TV with my LG CX OLED that I use as my monitor. It can go toe-to-toe with the best monitors out there, so I'm not sure why it shouldn't be considered.

It does 120hz, HDR 1000, GSYNC, FreeSync, VRR and Black Frame Insertion. This thing is a more complete computer monitor that most computer monitors out there.

I bought this TV for next gen consoles and GPUs.

[SparkiTom]

I'm surprised that most of the votes are 4k so far, considering that according to Steam almost all gamers are still playing on 1080p screens and even a lot of gamers across the internet are boasting about and bigging-up 1080p even after 10 years of it being the standard res for gaming, also considering that LTT basically attracts the PC noobs of all things PC gaming.

I voted 2k, even though I have a 4k monitor among my triple screen setup. My main/middle screen is 3440x1440 100Hz, with a cheapo/office 2k monitor to the left, a cheapo 4k monitor to the right of 60Hz.

 

I've recently pre-ordered the HP Reverb G2 VR headset.

 

Ready Player One for the win!

Too bad I'll be dead or too old by then.

[SolarNova]

11 hours ago, SparkiTom said:

I'm surprised that most of the votes are 4k so far, considering that according to Steam almost all gamers are still playing on 1080p screens and even a lot of gamers across the internet are boasting about and bigging-up 1080p even after 10 years of it being the standard res for gaming, also considering that LTT basically attracts the PC noobs of all things PC gaming.

I voted 2k, even though I have a 4k monitor among my triple screen setup. My main/middle screen is 3440x1440 100Hz, with a cheapo/office 2k monitor to the left, a cheapo 4k monitor to the right of 60Hz.

 

I've recently pre-ordered the HP Reverb G2 VR headset.

 

Ready Player One for the win!

Too bad I'll be dead or too old by then.

 

Not surprising tbh, stick around the steam community hubs for a while, check the tech support section and such, and ull see the makeup of the community. You wont find many tech savy people there, and its almost certainly down to the fact that among all steam users, PC enthusiasts ..or even the basic tech 'savy' people, are the small minority amongst a majority of 'normy' PC users running budget prebuilds.

[e22big]

On 8/9/2020 at 5:49 AM, Zat0ichi said:

But who owns a 4k monitor? (not TV)

 

Me, 4k actually great for everything other than gaming. Text become sharper and so easier to work with (I am a pro linguist) and you also see more detail when watching youtube due to less compression. I have never see as many pores on Linus face until I got this 4k monitor.

 

4k also vastly suprior in 32inch monitor, I tried one in 1440p before and it suck so bad even at 144hz

[Zat0ichi]

On 8/10/2020 at 6:21 PM, e22big said:

Me, 4k actually great for everything other than gaming. Text become sharper and so easier to work with (I am a pro linguist) and you also see more detail when watching youtube due to less compression. I have never see as many pores on Linus face until I got this 4k monitor.

 

4k also vastly suprior in 32inch monitor, I tried one in 1440p before and it suck so bad even at 144hz

Professional necessity.

Did you spend in excess of 1000 for your last GPU?

Do you value gaming that much?

 

I don't know any of the people nor can I imagine the volumes of people that have the spare cash to by this stuff in such volume. Well I know of a couple of people but they did gaming for a bit and bought 1 of everything including a gaming rig.

To maximise the use of this gen of cards you have to be gaming at 4k. People tend not to have a 4k TV within cable distance of their PC unless they are kids spending parents money.

So gamers need to by a GPU AND A monitor.

 

Sponsorship? 

 

The business model behind this is leaving a bad taste in my mouth after almost 30 years of gaming. (Pcmr for life only ever owned 1 console)

 

Which brings me to Nvidia bashing.

 

They split from silicon graphics to serve the main stream gamer but now are just gouging us to recoup r&d costs on their data centre tech.

 

AMD Im sure are no saints but they enabled me to build a rig that allows me to game in such away as to enjoy AAA titles with all details in a smooth way for less than I guess nvidia are going to charge for their midrange offering. 

(I did have storage, PSU and case already)

 

This poll was to supplement known steam statistics but did not get enough response to offer meaningful analysis.

 

Woops. Rant. I'm clicking post anyway as I did this one my phone and I'm not making my thumbs sore for nothing

[LyondellBasell]

1 hour ago, Zat0ichi said:

Professional necessity.

Did you spend in excess of 1000 for your last GPU?

Do you value gaming that much?

 

I don't know any of the people nor can I imagine the volumes of people that have the spare cash to by this stuff in such volume.

I've seen the Steam survey and some of the 3rd party breakdowns and I share your initial astonishment that there are enough buyers out there to not only keep Nvidia's high-end market afloat, but thriving.

 

We are out here, though. Speaking purely anecdotally, I and the majority of my Discord friends have all dipped into the Turing market during the last two years. Most of these are young professionals who have access to enough spare resources and place a high enough value on gaming/PC hardware that they have no problem securing a 2070 Super or better for their daily drivers.

 

Percentage wise, this is a small number. However, I think this belies the total number of people with high-end hardware. Consider the expansion of the total size of the gaming market over the past 10 years. Between the rise in popularity of streaming, the fact that big-name gaming stars have more visibility than ever, and the further democratization of personal computing, there are alot of people buying the more common prebuilts and budget-focused hardware (or at least, being gifted it) and this is "diluting" the survey numbers.

[TrainFan475]

I feel like one of the only ones here with 1080p

[SolarNova]

11 minutes ago, TrainFan2020 said:

I feel like one of the only ones here with 1080p

Thats ok.

 

The biggest 'upgrade' going from a 1080p display to a 4k display is the native rendering resolution, not the displays physical resolution.

 

Meaning, you, at 1080p can gain much of the visual fidelity increase that those people with a 4k display have, by simply increasing ur rendering resolution to 4k.

If u run a game at 1080p and think it looks 'blocky' (aliased), thats not the 1080p monitor doing that, thats the rendering resolution.

When u switch to a 4k display ur games will natively switch to 4k by default, reducing the aliasing, and that again isnt the monitor doing that, its predominantly the rendering.

 

By using DSR, ingame rendering multiplier , or other downsampling technique, u can gain much of the benefit of a 4k display without having to upgrade from a 1080p one.

 

Ofc thats not to say a 4k display doesnt have an effect, especially at larger sizes, but its not as big as the majority of people think.

[e22big]

13 hours ago, Zat0ichi said:

Professional necessity.

Did you spend in excess of 1000 for your last GPU?

Do you value gaming that much?

 

I don't know any of the people nor can I imagine the volumes of people that have the spare cash to by this stuff in such volume. Well I know of a couple of people but they did gaming for a bit and bought 1 of everything including a gaming rig.

To maximise the use of this gen of cards you have to be gaming at 4k. People tend not to have a 4k TV within cable distance of their PC unless they are kids spending parents money.

So gamers need to by a GPU AND A monitor.

 

Sponsorship? 

 

The business model behind this is leaving a bad taste in my mouth after almost 30 years of gaming. (Pcmr for life only ever owned 1 console)

 

Which brings me to Nvidia bashing.

 

They split from silicon graphics to serve the main stream gamer but now are just gouging us to recoup r&d costs on their data centre tech.

 

AMD Im sure are no saints but they enabled me to build a rig that allows me to game in such away as to enjoy AAA titles with all details in a smooth way for less than I guess nvidia are going to charge for their midrange offering. 

(I did have storage, PSU and case already)

 

This poll was to supplement known steam statistics but did not get enough response to offer meaningful analysis.

 

Woops. Rant. I'm clicking post anyway as I did this one my phone and I'm not making my thumbs sore for nothing

No I bought it myself, and actually not intend to use it for work all that much (my reasoning is that there are more content in 4k than in 1440p and so 4k monitor allows me to watch more stuff at higher resolution than 1080p more often than 1440) but since this pandemic cuase me to work primarily from home, it has been such a great asset for my work right now.

 

My GPU is 1070ti, and yes I do game and yes in 4k whenever I can but I will gladly play it at 1440p if needed. Ironically, I can actually game most of my library in 4k 60fps at high to max setting with some tweaks. Generally speaking though I am not a fan of multiplayer and especially not esport fps gaming so I value etxtra image fidelity over extra frame rate. 

[Sahl]

On 8/9/2020 at 1:29 AM, Chris Pratt said:

Lots of people? I mean they exist, and I'm sure people buy them. Not much point to a 4K computer monitor, honestly, but that doesn't mean there aren't tons of people with them.

Tbh. Very few people use 4k gaming monitor, even 1440p is actually a minority.

If you go by stats from places like ie steam, you will notice that around 65% use 1080p and 2,2% to use 4k.. 1440p is also only at 7.5% (if we take all 1440p variants)

I am not saying that people are not using 4k or that people don´t want too, but the majority of gamers do use 1080p still and I reckon in the next few years, you will see abit higher 1440p numbers, then 4k maybe.
Basically alot of people with 4k are people that are more techy and do alot of other stuff. I can´t say how much you gain from having 4k in 3d work etc.. but gaming is not really worth it anytime soon I think.

In many ways, 4k seems pretty useless to me ie. I am sitting an arm lenght from the monitor and I personally think 27" 1440p is the sweetspot. 4k would not give me anything, other than lower hz and worse experience (yes that is what they want to change) but I reckon it will be some time before we get proper quality. 4k for consoles however (due to TV) that makes perfect sense for me.

 

But to each his own ofc. It is like hz, I know people that can´t see the difference between 60 and 144hz.. I see it instantly.. so well..

 

Source

https://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey/Steam-Hardware-Software-Survey-Welcome-to-Steam 7