You CAN Game at 8K… but DON’T! (SPONSORED)

[IPD]

8 hours ago, pApA^LeGBa said:

 

Nope. It´s still 1080p. Steam survey shows that 67% still play on 1080p.

 

I mean if you watch tech channels you would think otherwise. But they all are too far away from reality.. Especially now, where the living costs everywhere are skyrocketing, 1080p will stay the most used for a longer time. A lot of people right now struggle to pay for gas and electricity. Upgrading your monitor and GPU is not something most people will think about this christmas.

 

It´s so far away from reality to call 8K gaming a bandwagon it isn´t even funny if told as a joke. It wouldn´t even be funny to call 4K gaming a bandwagon.

 I'm guessing the reason for this is because people would rather add an 11th, 1080p monitor to their setup (that they don't really need) rather than getting 1 or 2 higher resolution monitors that they would be better served by.

[dogwitch]

1 hour ago, IPD said:

 I'm guessing the reason for this is because people would rather add an 11th, 1080p monitor to their setup (that they don't really need) rather than getting 1 or 2 higher resolution monitors that they would be better served by.

kind of. not alot of software correct box display in half.(i e a large display show 3 different images/box content)

[Quackers101]

On 10/30/2022 at 5:51 PM, Ultraforce said:

Maybe I'm weird but I personally really don't understand the push for 4k or 8k gaming to begin with. It might be because I don't have perfect vision but even between 1080p and 1440 p while it's noticeable, the difference isn't at a level where I stopped using my 1080p monitor.

 It's really been the case as far as I'm concerned, at least that since the 7th generation resolution matters less than art style.

Better quality, but sadly some higher stuff doesn't offer a lot of quality.

If it's about motion, visuals, textures, sharpness, etc. Also why some might want higher resolution VR instead, to its field of view, like micro LED and OLED.

Also that higher resolution screens often don't offer all the things to improve the visuals execpt only the pixel count. Some are just a blurry mess, which takes away from the higher resolution where you don't want to just use all your FPS on higher resolution and "garbage" visuals that takes away from the experience. To HDR that is talked about in the video.

 

So about getting spoiled by higher resolution and what you use it for, skip a bit to each section of the videos.

How, "Dawid Does Tech Stuff" feel about using 4K (kinda feel the same with less strain).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f82bII8fTOg

Optimum Tech

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pZi2V5C40_w

 

I hear a lot from people that are used to 4K screens, that going back to 1080p just becomes blurry or causes more eye strain to try and focus on details that gets bigger with an higher resolution like 4K. if you are stuck with 1080 or 1440, its totally fine, although 1440 is a weird inbetween and some 1080p content can look worse. then also the size of the display etc. to FPS issues, frame rate, frame timing, stutters, high FPS but "low quality frames" that you see, upscaling, the % of low frames. The more load higher resolution hits the system with shaders, details, processing etc, some we could hope, could get a bit "fixed" with shader reordering.

 

different issues with the video, but I assume they knew these problems was an issue and stuff they already have dealt with before.

[IPD]

If you can see "screen door" at 1440p at 27" (like your first link said^), that pretty much solidifies my point about 8k displays need to be a thing.  Because 4k at 27" is the same PPI as 8k, 55"--as I stated earlier.

 

Shocking that they're still recommending 1080p panels to buy for gaming.  IMHO, if you are on a budget, then there's no point in buying a 1080p panel new.  Literally any old used 1080p panel should be your focus.  Spend $50 or whatnot--and save your $$$ for a better display in the future.  Spending $200 on a dead tech like 1080p just seems like a sadistic recommendation.

 

The point of budget gaming isn't to get "high refresh rate".  That's a bougie red herring.  Most any 1080p panel will do 60hz--and if you're insisting on having higher, then you're not really in the budget gaming realm.  At that point--there's virtually 0 reason to go 1080p over 1440p based on the price.

[Motifator]

On 10/30/2022 at 4:37 AM, LeapFrogMasterRace said:

At this rate 1440p will be king for another 6 years if it takes a 4090 to run games at 4k without DLSS. 

Kind of correct, this is partly why the new super duper LG OLED ultrawides are going to be ultrawide QHD even at 45 inches... both the LG 240 Hz version and the fully bendable Corsair. The focus on the high echelon monitors is OLED and color clarity, not a crap metric ton of pixels now.
 

On 10/30/2022 at 7:53 PM, Needfuldoer said:

Every display is "retina" if you're far enough away.

Retina display is nothing more than marketing meme Apple started using with FHD IPS displays on their products, it realistically on a technical level, means nothing. Any display going by their pointless standards can be named "Retina", a QHD or a FHD display, doesn't matter. They don't even have Retina levels like Retina 2.0, 3.0 etc. They're all Retina displays with different resolutions. It's a cluster of mess if you look at it technically.

Gaming at 8k? Sure, you can do it even with FSR 1.0. There are custom settings in Warzone, specialized patches that get you superb sharpness and level of detail, even above that of any DLSS when you get it right. It might trigger an anti-cheat ban, but is possible and people have done so with 6900 XT's. 

I'd suspect a 7900 XTX with fine-tuned FSR will render Warzone at 8k just fine even well above 60 FPS.

[pApA^LeGBa]

12 hours ago, IPD said:

 I'm guessing the reason for this is because people would rather add an 11th, 1080p monitor to their setup (that they don't really need) rather than getting 1 or 2 higher resolution monitors that they would be better served by.

 

You think 2 monitors or more is normal? Nope. Not for the average gamer. Money is the reason. Most people simply can´t afford GPU`s good enough for higher resolution. The most used GPU on steam is the GTX1060. 

 

I witnessed this in several PC Forums that you can easily get lost in a bubble of other enthusiasts, youtubers and streamers, and there 1440p is the sweetspot and the lowest must. But the majority of gamers isn´t even tech savy. Even on PC.From my experience on a lot of gaming forums over years, i would say 50% of pc gamers would struggle to get a 2nd monitor running properly

[Man]

8K is stupid, period. 

 

After all, you're asking your poor little GPU to push 33.2 megapixels. For comparison, 4K is "only" 8.3MP while 1440p and 1080p stand at 3.6MP and 2.0MP respectively.

 

There are only so many pixels your GPU's ROP (Render Output Units) can push before bottlenecking the shader cores and vRAM. 

 

Personally, I sit at a distance of just over 2 feet from my monitor, so I try to aim for around 100 DPI. That means 22" for 1080p, 29" for 1440p and lastly, 44" for 2160p. And frankly, from two feet 100 DPI looks and 'feels' perfectly serviceable. 

 

Go beyond 125 DPI and you're kidding yourself... as far as I'm concerned. 

[IPD]

^Wholeheartedly disagree there.  Acceptable PPI for me is WAY, WAY above 100--and I think the vast majority of users on here would agree with me that DPI diminishing returns sets in well north of 100 PPI.

[Stahlmann]

On 11/1/2022 at 10:46 AM, Man said:

8K is stupid, period.

Saying something is stupid period is stupid, period. (you see the irony here?)

 

Every resolution has it's use, no matter how small or high it is. It's completely dependant on the display's size. While 8K might be stupid on a 27" monitor, it will absolutely make a difference on a 40"+ monitor. The bigger you go, the bigger the advantage of 8K gets.

 

A 55" 4K display is will not look any better than a 27" 1080p display when sitting at the same distance. Why? The pixel density is the same.

 

For that reason dpi is always something you have to look at, not just resolution or size.

 

On 11/1/2022 at 10:46 AM, Man said:

After all, you're asking your poor little GPU to push 33.2 megapixels. For comparison, 4K is "only" 8.3MP while 1440p and 1080p stand at 3.6MP and 2.0MP respectively.

 

There are only so many pixels your GPU's ROP (Render Output Units) can push before bottlenecking the shader cores and vRAM. 

 

Personally, I sit at a distance of just over 2 feet from my monitor, so I try to aim for around 100 DPI. That means 22" for 1080p, 29" for 1440p and lastly, 44" for 2160p. And frankly, from two feet 100 DPI looks and 'feels' perfectly serviceable.

"Serviceable" is something else than optimal. As a general rule of thumb you need around 160 ppi to get rid of the screen door effect when sitting at a normal distance from your monitor. So as long as you're not at that point there are improvements to be had.

 

I'm also using a 42" 4K monitor. It's perfectly useable. Still, i'd prefer a higher resolution. For gaming performance you can use 4K and probably don't even notice the lower resolution. And for everything else that isn't as intense on the GPU you can use 8K and get the advantage of increased clarity.

[Man]

9 hours ago, Stahlmann said:

The bigger you go, the bigger the advantage of 8K gets.

Well, I doubt many people would be willing to sit ~2 feet away from an 88" monitor. You've to stand back to look at the big picture, after all!

 

DPI matters less and less the farther you move away from your screen.

 

And yes, 8K is stupid. About as much as 240Hz displays, if you ask me. 

[Man]

On 11/2/2022 at 12:53 AM, IPD said:

^Wholeheartedly disagree there.  Acceptable PPI for me is WAY, WAY above 100--and I think the vast majority of users on here would agree with me that DPI diminishing returns sets in well north of 100 PPI.

As I said, you're kidding yourself if you think you need more than 125 DPI from a distance of at least 2 feet or more.

 

But if you prefer 8K @ 20FPS over 1440p @ 120FPS then... more power to you!

 

Enjoy the pixels, mate. It's a free world. 

[IPD]

1 hour ago, Man said:

As I said, you're kidding yourself if you think you need more than 125 DPI from a distance of at least 2 feet or more.

 

But if you prefer 8K @ 20FPS over 1440p @ 120FPS then... more power to you!

 

Enjoy the pixels, mate. It's a free world. 

I can tell the difference between 1080p and 3k on a 15.6" laptop screen.  Nor does it take an 88" display to showcase the benefits of 8k.

 

Your argument is invalid.

[dogwitch]

for ppi,content,rez etc

its not a 1 issue .

its multi thing that combine into one thing.

[Stahlmann]

13 hours ago, Man said:

As I said, you're kidding yourself if you think you need more than 125 DPI from a distance of at least 2 feet or more.

 

But if you prefer 8K @ 20FPS over 1440p @ 120FPS then... more power to you!

 

Enjoy the pixels, mate. It's a free world. 

You don't have to run everything at 8K just because you have an 8K screen. You can take advantage of 8K in less intense tasks and play your games at 4K. In a game you're less likely to notice the lower resolution either way. You can have the best of both worlds.

[Man]

17 hours ago, IPD said:

I can tell the difference between 1080p and 3k on a 15.6" laptop screen.  Nor does it take an 88" display to showcase the benefits of 8k.

 

Your argument is invalid.

Well, your counterargument is invalid because I don't think you're quite getting my point. 

 

On a smartphone screen, I can definitely tell the difference between, say, 100 and 200 DPI as the eyes are so close to the screen. Say what you will but I believe Jobs was right when he introduced the so called "Retina Display". From a distance of around 12 inches or less, you do actually need 300 DPI or more.

 

However, I was talking about 2 feet or more and I very much doubt you're using your 15.6" laptop from such a distance.

 

5 hours ago, Stahlmann said:

You don't have to run everything at 8K just because you have an 8K screen. You can take advantage of 8K in less intense tasks and play your games at 4K. In a game you're less likely to notice the lower resolution either way. You can have the best of both worlds.

So... why not just get a 4K display in the first place? Save yourself the money and, preferably, spend that money on better hardware? A 4K 120Hz display, for example. You may or may not be able to notice the pixels, but you'll most definitely going to notice the smoothness of 120Hz over 60Hz.

 

But regardless, it's pointless arguing over resolution. If you think that more pixels - that you may or may not be able to notice - makes you happy; just by knowing that they are there, then so be it!

Edited November 3, 2022 by Man