4K Gaming

[prolemur]

What kind of graphics card would we need for gaming on a $K resolution (8 million pixels)

For reference about two 2560x1600 monitors.

[AMICLG]

4 Titans. Paul from newegg did a benchmark at 7680x1600 with 4 Titans idk if the results were released. 

[Andi]

you can game with many GPUs on 4k, its just a question of how high you want your settings :D

[Beefy547]

With high resolutions VRAM is important. A GTX Titan will do great, if you don't have a budget two or more of them in SLI should do great.

[911^NEmeSis]

[t0wer]

for newer games I find my single 7970 passable at 2560x1600.

 

I'd probably say to play everything now, 2 titans would probably do it. for 1 4k screen.

[tabuburn]

Yeah. Titan is pretty much the only graphics card out there that has enough VRAM to handle 4K. The problem with 4K is that it exceeds the current bandwidth of many display options. HDMI and DVI-D currently can't handle 4K running at 60Hz. Ryan Shrout from http://www.pcper.com was able to run a 4K TV but had was capped at a 30Hz refresh rate (i.e. 30fps cap). I'd wait and see if Nvidia or AMD will release a driver that will allow 2 display outs to one monitor/TV to handle that much bandwidth. Although, Thunderbolt is more than capable of handling 4K resolutions but it's pretty much stuck to motherboards with the appropriate chispets and won't be in graphics cards for the foreseeable future. At least, DP has been updated for 4K.

[JAKEBAB]

the good thing with 4k is u can play at 1080p and not have to use any aa even 2560x1440/1600 im guessing which will make gaming alot less demanding and still look great but obviously going all out running at 4k would just look amazing and ridiculous i cant wait lol

[tabuburn]

the good thing with 4k is u can play at 1080p and not have to use any aa even 2560x1440/1600 im guessing which will make gaming alot less demanding and still look great but obviously going all out running at 4k would just look amazing and ridiculous i cant wait lol

Actually using 1080p on a 4K display will give you a worse image than if it was on a 1080p display. Projecting that 1080p onto a 4K display is like stretching that image to fill the entire display. It's like watching a 360p video on a 1080p display. I can confirm this since 1080p videos and games look terrible on my 1440p monitor. The images get "pixelated".

[JAKEBAB]

Actually using 1080p on a 4K display will give you a worse image than if it was on a 1080p display. Projecting that 1080p onto a 4K display is like stretching that image to fill the entire display. It's like watching a 360p video on a 1080p display. I can confirm this since 1080p videos and games look terrible on my 1440p monitor. The images get "pixelated".

near 100% sure linus said 1080p gaming is great on 1440p because the pixel density is so high u dont need aa.

[tabuburn]

near 100% sure linus said 1080p gaming is great on 1440p because the pixel density is so high u dont need aa.

What he said was gaming on a 1440p display @ 1440 resolution was good to the point that you don't need as high an AA or even AA at all.

[Glenwing]

Actually using 1080p on a 4K display will give you a worse image than if it was on a 1080p display. Projecting that 1080p onto a 4K display is like stretching that image to fill the entire display. It's like watching a 360p video on a 1080p display. I can confirm this since 1080p videos and games look terrible on my 1440p monitor. The images get "pixelated".

Not really, because 4K is exactly double horizontal and vertical resolution of 1080p, so the pixels can line up exactly.  Every 1080p pixel would take up 4 pixels exactly on a 4K display, unlike 1080 pixels being stretched over 1440p, where it doesn't match evenly.

[tabuburn]

Not really, because 4K is exactly double horizontal and vertical resolution of 1080p, so the pixels can line up exactly.  Every 1080p pixel would take up 4 pixels exactly on a 4K display, unlike 1080 pixels being stretched over 1440p, where it doesn't match evenly.

But you are still maintaining the same aspect ratio going from 1080p to 1440p. Even with a 4K display's pixel density you are still viewing content meant for a 1080 display so what the 4K display does is blow up the 1080p image to fill up the entire screen. It's not much of a problem if you view it in Windowed mode since it is keeping the the image at it's native resolution but once you go Fullscreen you are stretching that image.

[Glenwing]

But you are still maintaining the same aspect ratio going from 1080p to 1440p. Even with a 4K display's pixel density you are still viewing content meant for a 1080 display so what the 4K display does is blow up the 1080p image to fill up the entire screen. It's not much of a problem if you view it in Windowed mode since it is keeping the the image at it's native resolution but once you go Fullscreen you are stretching that image.

The issue isn't about aspect ratio, it's the fact that 1080 doesn't fit evenly into 1440, so when you stretch a 1080 image to a 1440 image the image is not the same; it is processed and what you see is an approximation of what it would look like if it were 1440.  1080 fits exactly evenly into 2160 so there is no approximation made.

 

Think of it in simpler terms.  If you have a 2x2 image, say the top half is white and the bottom half is black.  If you display that on a 3x3 screen it doesn't divide evenly, so the top 3 pixels will be white, the bottom 3 will be black, but the middle row will probably be grey.  Whereas if you displayed it on a 4x4 screen it would look exactly the same because it fits evenly.

 

You can test this with a MacBook Pro with retina display; if you set it to display at 1440x900 (rather than 2880x1800, which is double that) and you compare it to a normal MacBook Pro 15" with a 1440x900 display, it will look exactly the same.  The issues with image scaling only occur when the resolutions aren't exactly double each way.

[LinusTech]

This is one of the reasons 1920x1600 was so awesome. 1600*1200 mapped 1:1 with bars and 800*600 was perfect as well for legacy games

[tabuburn]

The issue isn't about aspect ratio, it's the fact that 1080 doesn't fit evenly into 1440, so when you stretch a 1080 image to a 1440 image the image is not the same; it is processed and what you see is an approximation of what it would look like if it were 1440.  1080 fits exactly evenly into 2160 so there is no approximation made.

 

Think of it in simpler terms.  If you have a 2x2 image, say the top half is white and the bottom half is black.  If you display that on a 3x3 screen it doesn't divide evenly, so the top 3 pixels will be white, the bottom 3 will be black, but the middle row will probably be grey.  Whereas if you displayed it on a 4x4 screen it would look exactly the same because it fits evenly.

 

You can test this with a MacBook Pro with retina display; if you set it to display at 1440x900 (rather than 2880x1800, which is double that) and you compare it to a normal MacBook Pro 15" with a 1440x900 display, it will look exactly the same.  The issues with image scaling only occur when the resolutions aren't exactly double each way.

Hm...I'll test this out using a custom resolution of 1280x720 on my 2560x1440 monitor.

But what concerns me is how about on images with rounded edges/corners or at differing angles. A square/rectangular can easily remain the same no matter what resolution you are at. Not to mention on games which use 1080p resolution textures. Won't putting them on a 4K display make those textures more pixelated ?

[Glenwing]

You mean 1920x1200 right? :P

Yeah I love 16:10... :'(

Plus it's the golden ratio which makes it automatically 1.6x cooler...

[Glenwing]

Hm...I'll test this out using a custom resolution of 1280x720 on my 2560x1440 monitor.

But what concerns me is how about on images with rounded edges/corners or at differing angles. A square/rectangular can easily remain the same no matter what resolution you are at. Not to mention on games which use 1080p resolution textures. Won't putting them on a 4K display make those textures more pixelated ?

If you display 1080p content on a 4K display, every single pixel of your 1080p image will just become 4 pixels of the same color on your 4K display, so it will look exactly the same.

[tabuburn]

If you display 1080p content on a 4K display, every single pixel of your 1080p image will just become 4 pixels of the same color on your 4K display, so it will look exactly the same.

Ah, I see. Sounds like if this is done on a let's say 30" 4K display then it would look okay due to the high pixel density but on something like a 40-50" screen then this is probably where image quality starts to degrade but only when viewed closer. Would have loved to get a 30" 1600p monitor instead of my 27" 1440p one but they are all but impossible to get where I'm from and importing one is just unfeasibly expensive.

On another note, I just noticed when typing 4K on a keyboard you get $K which pretty much sums up 4K monitor prices currently.

[Glenwing]

Ah, I see. Sounds like if this is done on a let's say 30" 4K display then it would look okay due to the high pixel density but on something like a 40-50" screen then this is probably where image quality starts to degrade but only when viewed closer. Would have loved to get a 30" 1600p monitor instead of my 27" 1440p one but they are all but impossible to get where I'm from and importing one is just unfeasibly expensive.

On another note, I just noticed when typing 4K on a keyboard you get $K which pretty much sums up 4K monitor prices currently.

 

Yeah basically.  Although on a 50" display it should be viewed from TV distance and will be an improvement over 1080p 50" displays :P

 

I made a visual to better explain it, showing a potential curve made of pixels.  Since 4K is exactly double in each direction 1080p content would look exactly the same :)  while 4K-optimized content might look sharper because it takes advantage of the extra pixels.  I think you got it now but for those who might not :) (plus I spent a few minutes on this so I can't not show it :D)

 

[tabuburn]

Yeah basically.  Although on a 50" display it should be viewed from TV distance and will be an improvement over 1080p 50" displays :P

 

I made a visual to better explain it, showing a potential curve made of pixels.  Since 4K is exactly double in each direction 1080p content would look exactly the same :)  while 4K-optimized content might look sharper because it takes advantage of the extra pixels.  I think you got it now but for those who might not :) (plus I spent a few minutes on this so I can't not show it :D)

 

Looks like AA will still be needed on 4K displays. Hehehe.

[tabuburn]

I'd kill for a 30" monitor with the pixel density of the HTC One or Samsung Galaxy S4. The closest thing we have it Sharp's 30" 4K monitor with a whopping price tag of $5.5k which is like 5 Titans plus change. I'd buy one or a couple if it were around $1.5k.

[Glenwing]

Yup.  Might as well wait for a 4K OLED monitor though, both technologies seem to be coming along nicely (if you can call higher pixel density a new technology ;)) :)

[tabuburn]

Yup.  Might as well wait for a 4K OLED monitor though, both technologies seem to be coming along nicely (if you can call higher pixel density a new technology ;)) :)

4K OLED? Nerdvana right there if the price is right. I'd love it even more if the next DisplayPort update allows 4K @ 120Hz since OLED's have almost no response time delay. So basically, it would be like an Ultra High Resolution, energy efficient CRT.

[kuddlesworth9419]

SO there is no difference from 1080p on 1080p from 1080p on 4k.