4k skepticism

[Allepic259]

Okay everyone I want your Opinion on 4K resolution, personally I don't feel our hardware is ready to drive this resolution and make it standard for at least the next five years look this is ridiculous resolution in terms of fidelity and sharpness but I don't know if we can run 4K confidently enough to make it the standard any faster what do you think? Do you think that we should be focusing more on an experience like VR at 1080 P versus 4K or augmented reality or finding a new way to interface with our technology then this amazing resolution, do you think that we could be allocating our resources in something else to make technology more immersive? Please tell me.

[skullbringer]

EVERYTHING PROGRESS ALWAYS NOW!

[MegaDave91]

Hardware (graphics cards) is very much capable and ready to power 4k; 290 XFire/780 SLI are (the lowest I would recommend) capable for the more demanding AAA titles. As you can see from Linus' video, a $1000 rig can play the more popular games at 4k too.

[Fate]

4k is miles ahead of 1080p for gaming, it's actually ridiculous. 

I thought I didn't need 4k, but then I bought one. Holy crap it's so much better.

 

I don't think the technology isn't here argument is valid as the majority of the most popular games can be ran at 4k with a R9 270, and AAA titles only need $500 in graphics cards (two 290's) to be near maxed out. 

A few years ago x70 nvidia cards were what, $400+? People bought that for 1080p all day long and never complained.

[Guest Kloaked]

Okay everyone I want your Opinion on 4K resolution, personally I don't feel our hardware is ready to drive this resolution and make it standard for at least the next five years look this is ridiculous resolution in terms of fidelity and sharpness but I don't know if we can run 4K confidently enough to make it the standard any faster what do you think?

We already have hardware that can push 4k gaming. No, it won't be the standard for quite some time.

 

Do you think that we should be focusing more on an experience like VR at 1080 P versus 4K or augmented reality or finding a new way to interface with our technology then this amazing resolution, do you think that we could be allocating our resources in something else to make technology more immersive? Please tell me.

Our resources?

[Allepic259]

We already have hardware that can push 4k gaming. No, it won't be the standard for quite some time.

 

Our resources?

Resources meaning companies and consumers time and money

[Hatsune Miku 「 」]

Resources meaning companies and consumers time and money

Already investing in something else, Japan shall have it by 2020 before the rest of the world. :3

 

And technically already made it. Just need to make consumer versions.

[Allepic259]

Already investing in something else, Japan shall have it by 2020 before the rest of the world. :3

 

And technically already made it. Just need to make consumer versions.

Lucky bastards

[Hatsune Miku 「 」]

Lucky bastards

Now I can finally never buy another screen because of it.  Who needs 8k, we have real life resolution.

[Allepic259]

Now I can finally never buy another screen because of it.  Who needs 8k, we have real life resolution.

Nice man

[Dabombinable]

4K offers very little improvements over 1080p on small screens. Its best suited to screens aimed at home theaters. (Though I'd probably go with a 4K projector over a 4K screen-price point)

[Hatsune Miku 「 」]

Nice man

sayonara 4k.

[typographie]

My problem with 4K is that there's still too much reliance on SLI or Crossfire just to get to 60 FPS in most recent demanding games. It's not uncommon for SLI and Crossfire to be partially or completely unsupported, and when that happens you're going to be gaming at 30 FPS on a rig you spent thousands for.

 

When a single card can get us to 60 FPS at 4K at high/max settings in contemporary triple-A games, that'll be when I'm more interested in 4K.

 

By my standards, 1440p is at that point now. A single high-end card can do well at 1440p, and dual card setups still have their place at 120/144 Hz. It's a great time to get into 1440p, less so for 4K.

[Allepic259]

Now the OSs need to scale there icons up in there you why to make up for the new resolution as well as resource management and other optimization and bug fixes to

[Fate]

4K offers very little improvements over 1080p on small screens. Its best suited to screens aimed at home theaters. (Though I'd probably go with a 4K projector over a 4K screen-price point)

28" 4k is miles ahead of 28" 1080p, I would never recommend someone get a 27-28" 1080p monitor, they're horrible imo.

Monitors are actually the best for 4k as with TV's, you'll likely be sitting so far away from them that you'll see little, if any, improvement.

[Deletive]

Well productivity it's already possible, content creation it's already possible, content consumption it's already possible. It's already dropping in price for monitors, and TV's. Consoles and gamers are left behind because it's hard to drive these things (it's possible with Cloud rendering for some things). 

Then there is the big one of internet speed and the size of content. 
 

 

Now the OSs need to scale there icons up in there you why to make up for the new resolution as well as resource management and other optimization and bug fixes to

 

Really just Windows... most consumers don't use linux so thats less of an issue.

Mac already has 5k with nice scaling.

[MegaDave91]

4K offers very little improvements over 1080p on small screens. Its best suited to screens aimed at home theaters. (Though I'd probably go with a 4K projector over a 4K screen-price point)

Approximately speaking, a 21" 1080p monitor shares the same PPI as a 27" 1440p monitor - so this gives you an idea of the comparison between that same 21" 1080p monitor and a  28" 4k monitor.

[Fate]

My problem with 4K is that there's still too much reliance on SLI or Crossfire just to get to 60 FPS in most recent demanding games. It's not uncommon for SLI and Crossfire to be poorly supported or completely unsupported, and when that happens you're going to be gaming at 30 FPS on a rig you spent thousands for.

 

When a single card can get us to 60 FPS at 4K in contemporary games, that'll be when I'm more interested in 4K.

To be fair, most games that don't support SLI/Crossfire will likely run at 60fps maxed out with a single 290 as they are probably not AAA graphically demanding games. 

Unless of course you include Ubisoft lol.

[JoshM]

4k is miles ahead of 1080p for gaming, it's actually ridiculous. 

I thought I didn't need 4k, but then I bought one. Holy crap it's so much better.

 

I don't think the technology isn't here argument is valid as the majority of the most popular games can be ran at 4k with a R9 270, and AAA titles only need $500 in graphics cards (two 290's) to be near maxed out. 

A few years ago x70 nvidia cards were what, $400+? People bought that for 1080p all day long and never complained.

You play at 4k on a 270? What kinds of games do you play and what settings/fps do you get? 

I know linus did a video with a think a 260x but that was for light gaming. 

[Fate]

You play at 4k on a 270? What kinds of games do you play and what settings/fps do you get? 

I know linus did a video with a think a 260x but that was for light gaming. 

Mostly racing games and some MMO's lately, I can generally get medium-ultra in those games 50-60+fps but AAA games like BF4 I generally turn it down to 1440p high (no AA). 

I haven't encountered a single game that I have to play at 1080p yet, but then again I don't play that many.

 

edit: Linus' AMD video had a 285 for 4k gaming

[JoshM]

Mostly racing games and some MMO's lately, I can generally get medium-ultra in those games 50-60+fps but AAA games like BF4 I generally turn it down to 1440p high (no AA). 

I haven't encountered a single game that I have to play at 1080p yet, but then again I don't play that many.

 

edit: Linus' AMD video had a 285 for 4k gaming

Oh my bad, and cool as man!

[Dabombinable]

28" 4k is miles ahead of 28" 1080p, I would never recommend someone get a 27-28" 1080p monitor, they're horrible imo.

Monitors are actually the best for 4k as with TV's, you'll likely be sitting so far away from them that you'll see little, if any, improvement.

I'm talking in regards to computer screens. It may be 'miles ahead' technologically speaking, but unless you have a screen big enough to make full use of the resolution, the difference in image quality isn't that great.

[Fate]

the difference in image quality isn't that great.

I'm assuming you haven't used a 4k monitor?

[typographie]

edit: Linus' AMD video had a 285 for 4k gaming

 

The important caveat there is that that R9 285 system was for gaming at 4K with some very specific, low-demand games: Starcraft 2, LoL, WoW, etc. If you were to build such a machine you'd be limiting yourself to those games, or to running more demanding titles scaled up from 1080p.

[Fate]

The important caveat there is that that R9 285 system was for gaming at 4K with some very specific, low-demand games: Starcraft 2, LoL, WoW, etc. If you were to build such a machine you'd be limiting yourself to those games, or to running more demanding titles scaled up from 1080p.

Yes, but those are the type of games most people, including myself, play.

But like you said, if you wanted to play more demanding titles, you'd be limited. This is why I recommend a minimum of a 290 if you want to get into 4k gaming so at least you can play those more demanding games on medium-sometimes high instead of having to play at 1080p/1440p and upscaling (which actually isn't that bad on my monitor at least).