"But the better image quality isn't down to the increased resolution"
Sure it is. Its no different then going from 480p to 1080p.
Look guys, we get it.
But don't try to tell us it looks that much better in all situations. It flat out doesn't.
With the right size and the right distance there is a difference. Its nowhere near the difference from 480 to 1080 though. Thats just crap. Just because you say it is, does not dispute the evidence to the contrary.
But to come down to the basic point here, you definitely need more horsepower in your rig to run the games, plus it probably won't help with lag in an MMO. Single player different story.
I also think anti aliasing takes care of most of the jaggies these days anyway. It might not be as much detail but 1080p is pretty darn detailed already. The question is it worth the extra money spent and the extra power consumed. To me I can't say yes to this just yet. Maybe one day it will be. I remember playing on standard black and white 13 inch CRT TVs when I was a kid. The picture was often fuzzy due to using a coaxial cable and Antenna. My first computer was monochrome and my second one was like 16 colors. Going from 16 colors to 16000ish and then 32 million ish made a huge difference. Going from 640x480 to 1024x768 made a huge difference. I don't think going from 1080p to 4k is a huge difference. It is just so good already it's hard to complain. Everything is super sharp.
I just liken it to high end audio or things of that nature. At a certain point the price you pay for for incrementally smaller increases in quality becomes the issue.
How much are you willing to pay for the small increase.
In the case of 4 k, you need better hardware, a better and bigger monitor, and most likely you will have to trade off some game performance as well.
If all that is worth it it to you then hey knock yourselves out. In fact it is the early adopters of new technology that pave the way for the rest of us. And we thank you for that.
Pardon us if we wait a bit though.
FFA Nonconsentual Full Loot PvP ...You know you want it!!
I got totally lost when the OP stated that 4K gaming is pointless because 4k streaming video lags.
I can remember back when 640x480 was more or less standard. Going up to 800x600 was a big deal.
We've been at 1080 for a while, I think we've hit the point of diminishing returns, but I still think there is a case for higher resolution. Being stuck at lower resolution was most of the reason that Anti-aliasing was invented, after all, and the more resolution you can throw at the screen, the less digitized it will look, and the less need for technologies such as Antialiasing.
i recently bought a 4K Samsung U28D590D, as there was a special offer for around 330€'s, and i have a TOTAL Blast when playing Games in 4k now. Everyone with "normal" eyes can tell the difference. I play TESO in 4k with somewhat around 30 frames, on Ultra Settings, with my 760GTX. After i have watched it, it was clear that i need a new GFX Card and perhaps a new CPU as well. I went first for the GFX Card which will arrive today; GTX980 Super Jetstream. I will see what i get out of this and then ramp up from there if needed.
Sad thing is that most Games out there will not scale correctly, means the UI will stay (very) tiny. TESO is optimized very well for the 4K so you have everything as it should be. Also the upcomming WoWS is very nice to see/to play in 4k even that their UI does alo not Scale. GW2 is a nother Story and you can choose which UI Scale you want to use. But i cant see "much" difference with GW2, but this is the only Game where i was not able to spot "much" better stuff. H1Z1 only becomes slighty better in 4K. Marvel Heroes does only give you the option for 2k but then you dont AA anymore which does look so dam nice, especially the costumes/Heroes.
The thing is; you NEED to have a Displayport Cable 1.2 and NOT an HDMI cable to get the 60Hz for Games and whatnot. With a normal HDMI you stick to 30Hz and that might give you a bad visual. After expierence it by myself, 4K Gaming for me, besides from Oculus Rift, is the Future. I you seen that just one freaking time, you are Sold. And honestly, that counts for all my Friends so far which i could show them 4K in Action.
"But the better image quality isn't down to the increased resolution"
Sure it is. Its no different then going from 480p to 1080p.
Look guys, we get it.
But don't try to tell us it looks that much better in all situations. It flat out doesn't.
With the right size and the right distance there is a difference. Its nowhere near the difference from 480 to 1080 though. Thats just crap. Just because you say it is, does not dispute the evidence to the contrary.
But to come down to the basic point here, you definitely need more horsepower in your rig to run the games, plus it probably won't help with lag in an MMO. Single player different story.
Cool you believe what you want and I'll believe my eyes. Watching something in 4k then going back to 1080p is like going from 1080p to 480p. It flat out does.
Its not crap what so ever. Its that sharp. The evidence to the contrary is someone stating it and you believe it but you don't believe some one who owns one and uses it on a daily basis lol got it.. I'm stating that they're full of shit.
We are all very happy for you! Enjoy your games.
FFA Nonconsentual Full Loot PvP ...You know you want it!!
i recently bought a 4K Samsung U28D590D, as there was a special offer for around 330€'s, and i have a TOTAL Blast when playing Games in 4k now. Everyone with "normal" eyes can tell the difference. I play TESO in 4k with somewhat around 30 frames, on Ultra Settings, with my 760GTX. After i have watched it, it was clear that i need a new GFX Card and perhaps a new CPU as well. I went first for the GFX Card which will arrive today; GTX980 Super Jetstream. I will see what i get out of this and then ramp up from there if needed.
If you get a chance, take a look at Dragon Age: Inquisition. The game just blew me away. The Speedtree technology they use shows what 4K really can do. You never seen trees this realistic and detailed. The rest fo the game also looks amazing, from textures to water to distant objects being sharp and defined.
The thing is; you NEED to have a Displayport Cable 1.2 and NOT an HDMI cable to get the 60Hz for Games and whatnot. With a normal HDMI you stick to 30Hz and that might give you a bad visual. After expierence it by myself, 4K Gaming for me, besides from Oculus Rift, is the Future. I you seen that just one freaking time, you are Sold. And honestly, that counts for all my Friends so far which i could show them 4K in Action.
Very true, i suspect some of the people here saying they can not see a difference probably looked at a 4K TV setup with HDMI and/or running 1080p content. No wonder they see no difference.
Next year around this time people will be all over 4k and the nay-sayers will sing it from the rooftops.
i recently bought a 4K Samsung U28D590D, as there was a special offer for around 330€'s, and i have a TOTAL Blast when playing Games in 4k now. Everyone with "normal" eyes can tell the difference. I play TESO in 4k with somewhat around 30 frames, on Ultra Settings, with my 760GTX. After i have watched it, it was clear that i need a new GFX Card and perhaps a new CPU as well. I went first for the GFX Card which will arrive today; GTX980 Super Jetstream. I will see what i get out of this and then ramp up from there if needed.
If you get a chance, take a look at Dragon Age: Inquisition. The game just blew me away. The Speedtree technology they use shows what 4K really can do. You never seen trees this realistic and detailed. The rest fo the game also looks amazing, from textures to water to distant objects being sharp and defined.
The thing is; you NEED to have a Displayport Cable 1.2 and NOT an HDMI cable to get the 60Hz for Games and whatnot. With a normal HDMI you stick to 30Hz and that might give you a bad visual. After expierence it by myself, 4K Gaming for me, besides from Oculus Rift, is the Future. I you seen that just one freaking time, you are Sold. And honestly, that counts for all my Friends so far which i could show them 4K in Action.
Very true, i suspect some of the people here saying they can not see a difference probably looked at a 4K TV setup with HDMI and/or running 1080p content. No wonder they see no difference.
Next year around this time people will be all over 4k and the nay-sayers will sing it from the rooftops.
"I can see clearly now the rain has gone!! "
Climbs down the ladder.
FFA Nonconsentual Full Loot PvP ...You know you want it!!
Next year around this time people will be all over 4k and the nay-sayers will sing it from the rooftops.
You mean like what happened to 3D?
/sarcasm off
Comparing 3D to 4K shows your knowledge on the subject matter. 3D was always a gimmick, 4K is not. You are probably one of those people that said 720p is more than enough we don't need 1080p, you can barely see a difference.
Next year around this time people will be all over 4k and the nay-sayers will sing it from the rooftops.
You mean like what happened to 3D?
/sarcasm off
Comparing 3D to 4K shows your knowledge on the subject matter. 3D was always a gimmick, 4K is not. You are probably one of those people that said 720p is more than enough we don't need 1080p, you can barely see a difference.
And again you show your lack of knowledge. You are correct that 3D is a poor comparison though.
However, you seem to avoid the fact that as you go up on resolution there is a diminishing benefit. 480 to 720 or 1080 was a huge benefit because 480 was in the lower end of what resolution our eyes can perceive at a distance.
But to follow you logic, or at least the way you and Best seem to want to present it, is that the improvement is linear. Next you will be here telling us that 16k is a massive difference over 4k. It just doesn't work that way.
We have conceded that there will be times when 4k is an improvement. Games are obviously one of those times. And also there is enough improvement that companies feel they can now sell you brand new TV's with the promise of better picture.
But all of this 1080 looks like crap compared to 4k is just that. Crap. 1080 looks good and 4 k looks good. How much better depends on a lot more than just the two of you telling us.
FFA Nonconsentual Full Loot PvP ...You know you want it!!
One big catch with 4k is that more pixels without more inches makes everything smaller if there isn't appropriate UI scaling, and that can cause problems in a lot of programs, not just games. It is very possible to build a UI that scales well to whatever resolution and many programs already do. But some don't. That's the biggest reason why I doubt I'll get a 4K monitor anytime soon.
My plan had been to get three 1080p monitors in portrait mode for eyefinity. Now I'm considering getting a single 2560x1440 monitor for gaming and the two 1080p monitors on the side of it. I'm not sure what exactly I'll get; it depends some on which particular monitors show up, as I can't buy products that don't exist. And I definitely want adaptive sync in whatever monitors I get, as that's a huge deal for gaming. G-sync is Nvidia's proprietary version of the same thing, but a VESA-blessed industry standard is all but guaranteed to win out over a proprietary version of the same thing, and I don't trust Nvidia to keep supporting G-sync in drivers five or ten years from now (my main monitor is now eight years old), and don't want to be tied to an Nvidia GPU five years from now in case they're way behind and/or stupidly overpriced as the were the last time I bought a new video card (October 2009).
Right now, I'm still using two 1280x1024 monitors. I'm not impressed with 1080p and never have been. As compared to 1280x1024, it mostly just adds extra pixels off to the side where those pixels are useless in most programs. (For example, look at the web browser you're using right now. Few sites use the extra width for anything more useful than showing you more ads.) Vertical pixels, not horizontal pixels, are the limiting factor in most (but not all) computer programs. And going from 1024 pixels in height to 1080 just wasn't much of an upgrade--and definitely not enough to compensate for the awkward positioning of having wider monitors with useless space on the edges.
One big catch with 4k is that more pixels without more inches makes everything smaller if there isn't appropriate UI scaling, and that can cause problems in a lot of programs, not just games. It is very possible to build a UI that scales well to whatever resolution and many programs already do. But some don't. That's the biggest reason why I doubt I'll get a 4K monitor anytime soon.
My plan had been to get three 1080p monitors in portrait mode for eyefinity. Now I'm considering getting a single 2560x1440 monitor for gaming and the two 1080p monitors on the side of it. I'm not sure what exactly I'll get; it depends some on which particular monitors show up, as I can't buy products that don't exist. And I definitely want adaptive sync in whatever monitors I get, as that's a huge deal for gaming. G-sync is Nvidia's proprietary version of the same thing, but a VESA-blessed industry standard is all but guaranteed to win out over a proprietary version of the same thing, and I don't trust Nvidia to keep supporting G-sync in drivers five or ten years from now (my main monitor is now eight years old), and don't want to be tied to an Nvidia GPU five years from now in case they're way behind and/or stupidly overpriced as the were the last time I bought a new video card (October 2009).
Right now, I'm still using two 1280x1024 monitors. I'm not impressed with 1080p and never have been. As compared to 1280x1024, it mostly just adds extra pixels off to the side where those pixels are useless in most programs. (For example, look at the web browser you're using right now. Few sites use the extra width for anything more useful than showing you more ads.) Vertical pixels, not horizontal pixels, are the limiting factor in most (but not all) computer programs. And going from 1024 pixels in height to 1080 just wasn't much of an upgrade--and definitely not enough to compensate for the awkward positioning of having wider monitors with useless space on the edges.
Well 1080 was meant for the TV industry standard of a 16:9 picture ratio I believe. As is the 4K resolution. I don't think they were considering games at that time. I guess they just assumed games would conform to the same standard or did not care.
Always enjoy your informed posts tho Quizz! Not that I understand half of them, but they do make me think.
FFA Nonconsentual Full Loot PvP ...You know you want it!!
Well 1080 was meant for the TV industry standard of a 16:9 picture ratio I believe. As is the 4K resolution. I don't think they were considering games at that time. I guess they just assumed games would conform to the same standard or did not care.
I agree that 16:9 makes a ton of sense for television. But not for computer monitors. If it were ubiquitous that programs put toolbars and such on the side while leaving the full vertical height for the main window area, then 16:9 might make some sense. Maybe. But I've never seen a program that did that. Ever. Toolbars at the top and bottom are ubiquitous and probably have been for as long as GUIs have existed. The nearest I've seen is IDEs such as Eclipse that have some hefty sidebars, in addition to bars at the top and bottom.
My theory is that the push toward shorter, wider resolutions is driven by cost of production. Monitor sizes are quoted in diagonal length, not area, though the latter is much more strongly correlated with the cost of production. So a hypothetical 24" x 7" monitor and 20" x 15" monitor would both be listed as 25" monitors, but the former is only 168 square inches while the latter is 300. So of course monitor manufacturers would rather sell the former if the prices are even close, as it's vastly cheaper to build. More generally, further from square is less area and hence cheaper for a given diagonal length.
That said, a 4K monitor resolution does get you 2160 vertical pixels, and that's nothing to sneeze at. Unless the pixels are so small that you can't read the text in the program you're using.
Well 1080 was meant for the TV industry standard of a 16:9 picture ratio I believe. As is the 4K resolution. I don't think they were considering games at that time. I guess they just assumed games would conform to the same standard or did not care.
I agree that 16:9 makes a ton of sense for television. But not for computer monitors. If it were ubiquitous that programs put toolbars and such on the side while leaving the full vertical height for the main window area, then 16:9 might make some sense. Maybe. But I've never seen a program that did that. Ever. Toolbars at the top and bottom are ubiquitous and probably have been for as long as GUIs have existed. The nearest I've seen is IDEs such as Eclipse that have some hefty sidebars, in addition to bars at the top and bottom.
My theory is that the push toward shorter, wider resolutions is driven by cost of production. Monitor sizes are quoted in diagonal length, not area, though the latter is much more strongly correlated with the cost of production. So a hypothetical 24" x 7" monitor and 20" x 15" monitor would both be listed as 25" monitors, but the former is only 168 square inches while the latter is 300. So of course monitor manufacturers would rather sell the former if the prices are even close, as it's vastly cheaper to build. More generally, further from square is less area and hence cheaper for a given diagonal length.
That said, a 4K monitor resolution does get you 2160 vertical pixels, and that's nothing to sneeze at. Unless the pixels are so small that you can't read the text in the program you're using.
In my place of work everyone likes 4:3 monitors. They also like 16:10 monitors to an extent. 16:9 monitors seem best for watching movies and possible playing games. Personally I never had a major issue with 4:3 monitors. The only reason I use a 16:10 is because 4:3 isn't always supported properly in games anymore. I think it's just another gimmick to try and make money. Past a certain point there is less and less reason to upgrade. I think we are reaching that point. Now they are trying to push 4K monitors since they can't figure out any other way to get people to upgrade. It's the same with desktop computers. Most people are content with theirs and don't want to upgrade to a new one. Even tablets are getting to the point where they are good enough for what they were designed for.
Next year around this time people will be all over 4k and the nay-sayers will sing it from the rooftops.
You mean like what happened to 3D?
/sarcasm off
Comparing 3D to 4K shows your knowledge on the subject matter. 3D was always a gimmick, 4K is not. You are probably one of those people that said 720p is more than enough we don't need 1080p, you can barely see a difference.
And again you show your lack of knowledge. You are correct that 3D is a poor comparison though.
However, you seem to avoid the fact that as you go up on resolution there is a diminishing benefit. 480 to 720 or 1080 was a huge benefit because 480 was in the lower end of what resolution our eyes can perceive at a distance.
But to follow you logic, or at least the way you and Best seem to want to present it, is that the improvement is linear. Next you will be here telling us that 16k is a massive difference over 4k. It just doesn't work that way.
We have conceded that there will be times when 4k is an improvement. Games are obviously one of those times. And also there is enough improvement that companies feel they can now sell you brand new TV's with the promise of better picture.
But all of this 1080 looks like crap compared to 4k is just that. Crap. 1080 looks good and 4 k looks good. How much better depends on a lot more than just the two of you telling us.
I agree, there is a diminishing benefit unless you increase the screen size beyond what is usable in a home environment. Going to 16k is indeed stupid unless you talk about Video Walls.
In fact, before ASUS sent me the preview sample of their new 4K gaming monitor i was skeptical about the improvement just like most people here. I had a hard time adjusting from my old monitor, i could not work with the new monitor for more than 2h before my eyes started to get tired because i was not used to the high contrast and detail. It took about a week to get used to the new setup but boy is it worth the pain.
4K is clearly visible in a standard computer setup. It is not only visible, it is a real improvement both for games and productivity. If you ever tried editing a 1080p video on a 1080p monitor then you know that a real preview is only possible in full screen or on a second monitor. With 4K this 1080p video sits snuggly in your top right corner in FULL resolution with all the detail while you still got 3/4th of the screen for your editing software, an amazing improvement for productivity.
I have tried almost all of my games in 1080p and 4K and i have not found a single one released within the last 10 years that does not look absolutely stunning in 4K. The added depth due to the clear detail in textures and in the background of games is simply amazing. Try it yourself if you can.
For Video you need a 4K source and most people here have not seen a 4K video source run on a 4K monitor with a v1.2 display port connection. If they had they would not say they can not see the difference. Most stores hook up their 4K with HDMI and even show 1080p blurays which of cause look like 1080p with a little better color/contrast.
My final advise, try it with a good setup and see for yourself before you dismiss it.
”In typical setups with reasonably-sized television screens and comfortable viewing distances, increasing the resolution from 1080p to 4K bringsno visible improvement.“
Unlike the random online people saying "I can see 4k"...this person has a PHD in electronical engineering and wrote papers about computer displays.
If the reverse actually happened, and a company said
"We can lower the resolution by 4, but retain almost all detail, and quadruple your framerate"
people would be going crazy about how awesome the technology is
that's how stupid 4k is
how people can defend a technology that drops your framerate by 60-70%, for a "benefit" that researchers are saying you can't even see, is beyond me
Again you are talking about things you have no experience in. Why don't you just let it go because next year around this time i will necro these posts of you and we will all have a good laugh.
I suspect the real problem is that you can't afford a 4K system even though a good gaming rig can run most games in 4K with 30+ FPS.
If the reverse actually happened, and a company said
"We can lower the resolution by 4, but retain almost all detail, and quadruple your framerate"
people would be going crazy about how awesome the technology is
that's how stupid 4k is
how people can defend a technology that drops your framerate by 60-70%, for a "benefit" that researchers are saying you can't even see, is beyond me
and you could say that about, 1080P to 720P. 1024x768 to 640x480. I'm sure games that run decent at 1080P would have amazing frames at 640x480. And yet the response to the higher rez is "hell yeah! bring on more pixels!"
Now I do agree with you that there is a theoretical limit to this "more pixels!" thing. But I don't think 1080P to 4K is that limit, particularly regarding larger computer monitors. TV's 42" and smaller? Yeah, it's getting there. the focus should be on color, contrast, brightness, etc.
Next year around this time people will be all over 4k and the nay-sayers will sing it from the rooftops.
You mean like what happened to 3D?
/sarcasm off
Comparing 3D to 4K shows your knowledge on the subject matter. 3D was always a gimmick, 4K is not. You are probably one of those people that said 720p is more than enough we don't need 1080p, you can barely see a difference.
And again you show your lack of knowledge. You are correct that 3D is a poor comparison though.
However, you seem to avoid the fact that as you go up on resolution there is a diminishing benefit. 480 to 720 or 1080 was a huge benefit because 480 was in the lower end of what resolution our eyes can perceive at a distance.
But to follow you logic, or at least the way you and Best seem to want to present it, is that the improvement is linear. Next you will be here telling us that 16k is a massive difference over 4k. It just doesn't work that way.
We have conceded that there will be times when 4k is an improvement. Games are obviously one of those times. And also there is enough improvement that companies feel they can now sell you brand new TV's with the promise of better picture.
But all of this 1080 looks like crap compared to 4k is just that. Crap. 1080 looks good and 4 k looks good. How much better depends on a lot more than just the two of you telling us.
I agree, there is a diminishing benefit unless you increase the screen size beyond what is usable in a home environment. Going to 16k is indeed stupid unless you talk about Video Walls.
In fact, before ASUS sent me the preview sample of their new 4K gaming monitor i was skeptical about the improvement just like most people here. I had a hard time adjusting from my old monitor, i could not work with the new monitor for more than 2h before my eyes started to get tired because i was not used to the high contrast and detail. It took about a week to get used to the new setup but boy is it worth the pain.
4K is clearly visible in a standard computer setup. It is not only visible, it is a real improvement both for games and productivity. If you ever tried editing a 1080p video on a 1080p monitor then you know that a real preview is only possible in full screen or on a second monitor. With 4K this 1080p video sits snuggly in your top right corner in FULL resolution with all the detail while you still got 3/4th of the screen for your editing software, an amazing improvement for productivity.
I have tried almost all of my games in 1080p and 4K and i have not found a single one released within the last 10 years that does not look absolutely stunning in 4K. The added depth due to the clear detail in textures and in the background of games is simply amazing. Try it yourself if you can.
For Video you need a 4K source and most people here have not seen a 4K video source run on a 4K monitor with a v1.2 display port connection. If they had they would not say they can not see the difference. Most stores hook up their 4K with HDMI and even show 1080p blurays which of cause look like 1080p with a little better color/contrast.
My final advise, try it with a good setup and see for yourself before you dismiss it.
I am not dismissing it at all. I would love to be sitting in front of at least 32 " monitor with 4K. (presently 24") I did play some games on a 40 inch Sony TV but I found at the distance I normally sit, it was like sitting in the front row of a theater. You can't see the entire screen in a glance.
As I said, before there are benefits in the right situations. I really compare it to upgrading a piece of stereo gear. You have to look at the costs and the tradeoffs before you make that decision. I haven't even looked to see what a 4K monitor at 32inches would cost me, but the simple fact that at present I am quite content with what I have now, does not put it high on my gaming upgrade list. Perhaps later, but not now.
And I think that is how many here feel. Its great that you guys have it and enjoy it. And its great that you find it a big improvement. I have been through a lot of AV upgrades in my many years and generally I am the one that waits until it is practically the norm, or has at least made the price worth the upgrade. ( and that differs for everyone of course)
Just not there yet.
FFA Nonconsentual Full Loot PvP ...You know you want it!!
So the backgrounds in moves and games aren't sharper and my eye are just playing tricks on me?
No, I believe when people are saying that the 4k TV / monitor looks better, that is actually true.
But I strongly doubt it's the resolution doing it. Contrast and color uniformity are much better on 4k TV than on older TV.
If you play the same game on 1080p, then on 4k, and notice a large difference in quality, by all means, I'm not going to tell you you're wrong, I don't know what you're seeing.
But I find it weird that studies and people intimately up to date with this tech, are saying there's none to almost no perceivable difference, and then some people on forums say "it's a large difference". Something doesn't add up.
I don't think anyone is jealous, the issue for gaming has to do with the large tradeoffs you're making.
You're trading in quite a few things if you want to play on 4k.
-on many games the UI won't scale properly
-it requires a lot of expensive hardware
-you're using a lot of power playing game stressing your hardware at max
-many 4k monitors and GPU don't output anything over 30hz, even with HDMI 2.0, some monitors that claim they can output 60hz, arent. 1080p on the other hand easily does 120hz
-you're trading in FPS and image detail in many games
They're very large tradeoffs for diminishing returns many say are close to 0.
It's not like this technology only makes the experience better, you're trading in FPS, power and screen refresh rates, if you're trading all that in, it better actually make a difference, and many say it doesn't make a difference. Which means you only lose with 4k and gained nothing.
Aren't even make those tradeoffs, the tradeoffs for gaming in 4k are much larger than the tradeoffs for movies and TV. You don't have Hz / FPS or UI scaling issues on TV.
But even for TV, when test subjects are asked if they think 4k is worth it, they all said no it's not.
Comments
I just liken it to high end audio or things of that nature. At a certain point the price you pay for for incrementally smaller increases in quality becomes the issue.
How much are you willing to pay for the small increase.
In the case of 4 k, you need better hardware, a better and bigger monitor, and most likely you will have to trade off some game performance as well.
If all that is worth it it to you then hey knock yourselves out. In fact it is the early adopters of new technology that pave the way for the rest of us. And we thank you for that.
Pardon us if we wait a bit though.
FFA Nonconsentual Full Loot PvP ...You know you want it!!
I got totally lost when the OP stated that 4K gaming is pointless because 4k streaming video lags.
I can remember back when 640x480 was more or less standard. Going up to 800x600 was a big deal.
We've been at 1080 for a while, I think we've hit the point of diminishing returns, but I still think there is a case for higher resolution. Being stuck at lower resolution was most of the reason that Anti-aliasing was invented, after all, and the more resolution you can throw at the screen, the less digitized it will look, and the less need for technologies such as Antialiasing.
Hi there,
i recently bought a 4K Samsung U28D590D, as there was a special offer for around 330€'s, and i have a TOTAL Blast when playing Games in 4k now. Everyone with "normal" eyes can tell the difference. I play TESO in 4k with somewhat around 30 frames, on Ultra Settings, with my 760GTX. After i have watched it, it was clear that i need a new GFX Card and perhaps a new CPU as well. I went first for the GFX Card which will arrive today; GTX980 Super Jetstream. I will see what i get out of this and then ramp up from there if needed.
Sad thing is that most Games out there will not scale correctly, means the UI will stay (very) tiny. TESO is optimized very well for the 4K so you have everything as it should be. Also the upcomming WoWS is very nice to see/to play in 4k even that their UI does alo not Scale. GW2 is a nother Story and you can choose which UI Scale you want to use. But i cant see "much" difference with GW2, but this is the only Game where i was not able to spot "much" better stuff. H1Z1 only becomes slighty better in 4K. Marvel Heroes does only give you the option for 2k but then you dont AA anymore which does look so dam nice, especially the costumes/Heroes.
The thing is; you NEED to have a Displayport Cable 1.2 and NOT an HDMI cable to get the 60Hz for Games and whatnot. With a normal HDMI you stick to 30Hz and that might give you a bad visual. After expierence it by myself, 4K Gaming for me, besides from Oculus Rift, is the Future. I you seen that just one freaking time, you are Sold. And honestly, that counts for all my Friends so far which i could show them 4K in Action.
Aerowyn's Video Compilation of ALL things Guild Wars 2
We are all very happy for you! Enjoy your games.
FFA Nonconsentual Full Loot PvP ...You know you want it!!
Next year around this time people will be all over 4k and the nay-sayers will sing it from the rooftops.
"I can see clearly now the rain has gone!! "
Climbs down the ladder.
FFA Nonconsentual Full Loot PvP ...You know you want it!!
You mean like what happened to 3D?
/sarcasm off
Comparing 3D to 4K shows your knowledge on the subject matter. 3D was always a gimmick, 4K is not. You are probably one of those people that said 720p is more than enough we don't need 1080p, you can barely see a difference.
And again you show your lack of knowledge. You are correct that 3D is a poor comparison though.
However, you seem to avoid the fact that as you go up on resolution there is a diminishing benefit. 480 to 720 or 1080 was a huge benefit because 480 was in the lower end of what resolution our eyes can perceive at a distance.
But to follow you logic, or at least the way you and Best seem to want to present it, is that the improvement is linear. Next you will be here telling us that 16k is a massive difference over 4k. It just doesn't work that way.
We have conceded that there will be times when 4k is an improvement. Games are obviously one of those times. And also there is enough improvement that companies feel they can now sell you brand new TV's with the promise of better picture.
But all of this 1080 looks like crap compared to 4k is just that. Crap. 1080 looks good and 4 k looks good. How much better depends on a lot more than just the two of you telling us.
FFA Nonconsentual Full Loot PvP ...You know you want it!!
One big catch with 4k is that more pixels without more inches makes everything smaller if there isn't appropriate UI scaling, and that can cause problems in a lot of programs, not just games. It is very possible to build a UI that scales well to whatever resolution and many programs already do. But some don't. That's the biggest reason why I doubt I'll get a 4K monitor anytime soon.
My plan had been to get three 1080p monitors in portrait mode for eyefinity. Now I'm considering getting a single 2560x1440 monitor for gaming and the two 1080p monitors on the side of it. I'm not sure what exactly I'll get; it depends some on which particular monitors show up, as I can't buy products that don't exist. And I definitely want adaptive sync in whatever monitors I get, as that's a huge deal for gaming. G-sync is Nvidia's proprietary version of the same thing, but a VESA-blessed industry standard is all but guaranteed to win out over a proprietary version of the same thing, and I don't trust Nvidia to keep supporting G-sync in drivers five or ten years from now (my main monitor is now eight years old), and don't want to be tied to an Nvidia GPU five years from now in case they're way behind and/or stupidly overpriced as the were the last time I bought a new video card (October 2009).
Right now, I'm still using two 1280x1024 monitors. I'm not impressed with 1080p and never have been. As compared to 1280x1024, it mostly just adds extra pixels off to the side where those pixels are useless in most programs. (For example, look at the web browser you're using right now. Few sites use the extra width for anything more useful than showing you more ads.) Vertical pixels, not horizontal pixels, are the limiting factor in most (but not all) computer programs. And going from 1024 pixels in height to 1080 just wasn't much of an upgrade--and definitely not enough to compensate for the awkward positioning of having wider monitors with useless space on the edges.
Well 1080 was meant for the TV industry standard of a 16:9 picture ratio I believe. As is the 4K resolution. I don't think they were considering games at that time. I guess they just assumed games would conform to the same standard or did not care.
Always enjoy your informed posts tho Quizz! Not that I understand half of them, but they do make me think.
FFA Nonconsentual Full Loot PvP ...You know you want it!!
I agree that 16:9 makes a ton of sense for television. But not for computer monitors. If it were ubiquitous that programs put toolbars and such on the side while leaving the full vertical height for the main window area, then 16:9 might make some sense. Maybe. But I've never seen a program that did that. Ever. Toolbars at the top and bottom are ubiquitous and probably have been for as long as GUIs have existed. The nearest I've seen is IDEs such as Eclipse that have some hefty sidebars, in addition to bars at the top and bottom.
My theory is that the push toward shorter, wider resolutions is driven by cost of production. Monitor sizes are quoted in diagonal length, not area, though the latter is much more strongly correlated with the cost of production. So a hypothetical 24" x 7" monitor and 20" x 15" monitor would both be listed as 25" monitors, but the former is only 168 square inches while the latter is 300. So of course monitor manufacturers would rather sell the former if the prices are even close, as it's vastly cheaper to build. More generally, further from square is less area and hence cheaper for a given diagonal length.
That said, a 4K monitor resolution does get you 2160 vertical pixels, and that's nothing to sneeze at. Unless the pixels are so small that you can't read the text in the program you're using.
In my place of work everyone likes 4:3 monitors. They also like 16:10 monitors to an extent. 16:9 monitors seem best for watching movies and possible playing games. Personally I never had a major issue with 4:3 monitors. The only reason I use a 16:10 is because 4:3 isn't always supported properly in games anymore. I think it's just another gimmick to try and make money. Past a certain point there is less and less reason to upgrade. I think we are reaching that point. Now they are trying to push 4K monitors since they can't figure out any other way to get people to upgrade. It's the same with desktop computers. Most people are content with theirs and don't want to upgrade to a new one. Even tablets are getting to the point where they are good enough for what they were designed for.
I agree, there is a diminishing benefit unless you increase the screen size beyond what is usable in a home environment. Going to 16k is indeed stupid unless you talk about Video Walls.
In fact, before ASUS sent me the preview sample of their new 4K gaming monitor i was skeptical about the improvement just like most people here. I had a hard time adjusting from my old monitor, i could not work with the new monitor for more than 2h before my eyes started to get tired because i was not used to the high contrast and detail. It took about a week to get used to the new setup but boy is it worth the pain.
4K is clearly visible in a standard computer setup. It is not only visible, it is a real improvement both for games and productivity. If you ever tried editing a 1080p video on a 1080p monitor then you know that a real preview is only possible in full screen or on a second monitor. With 4K this 1080p video sits snuggly in your top right corner in FULL resolution with all the detail while you still got 3/4th of the screen for your editing software, an amazing improvement for productivity.
I have tried almost all of my games in 1080p and 4K and i have not found a single one released within the last 10 years that does not look absolutely stunning in 4K. The added depth due to the clear detail in textures and in the background of games is simply amazing. Try it yourself if you can.
For Video you need a 4K source and most people here have not seen a 4K video source run on a 4K monitor with a v1.2 display port connection. If they had they would not say they can not see the difference. Most stores hook up their 4K with HDMI and even show 1080p blurays which of cause look like 1080p with a little better color/contrast.
My final advise, try it with a good setup and see for yourself before you dismiss it.
First time watching a 4k clip but it was only a slight difference on my laptop so didn't matter much.
Intel Core i7 4700HQ and Geforce GTX 765m on this laptop and i had no stutters at all, only my fan started to increase when watching that clip.
The diminishing returns together with the cost is the issue. The return on investment makes absolutely no sense.
It's like people arguing the benefit of SVG over icon fonts and bitmaps. It's not a benefit if it comes at a massive power cost.
The 4k tradeoff is completely out of wack. The power driving 4k should be spent on graphical improvements other than bumping up the resolution.
The tradeoff made sense when we went to HD, going to UltraHD and giving up two thirds of your framerate makes absolutely no sense.
If the reverse actually happened, and a company said
"We can lower the resolution by 4, but retain almost all detail, and quadruple your framerate"
people would be going crazy about how awesome the technology is
that's how stupid 4k is
how people can defend a technology that drops your framerate by 60-70%, for a "benefit" that researchers are saying you can't even see, is beyond me
More tests debunking that people can see 4k:
http://www.dr-lex.be/info-stuff/ultrahighdef.html
”In typical setups with reasonably-sized television screens and comfortable viewing distances, increasing the resolution from 1080p to 4K brings no visible improvement.“
Unlike the random online people saying "I can see 4k"...this person has a PHD in electronical engineering and wrote papers about computer displays.
Again you are talking about things you have no experience in. Why don't you just let it go because next year around this time i will necro these posts of you and we will all have a good laugh.
I suspect the real problem is that you can't afford a 4K system even though a good gaming rig can run most games in 4K with 30+ FPS.
and you could say that about, 1080P to 720P. 1024x768 to 640x480. I'm sure games that run decent at 1080P would have amazing frames at 640x480. And yet the response to the higher rez is "hell yeah! bring on more pixels!"
Now I do agree with you that there is a theoretical limit to this "more pixels!" thing. But I don't think 1080P to 4K is that limit, particularly regarding larger computer monitors. TV's 42" and smaller? Yeah, it's getting there. the focus should be on color, contrast, brightness, etc.
But a 27-32" monitor at 4K? Sign me up.
I am not dismissing it at all. I would love to be sitting in front of at least 32 " monitor with 4K. (presently 24") I did play some games on a 40 inch Sony TV but I found at the distance I normally sit, it was like sitting in the front row of a theater. You can't see the entire screen in a glance.
As I said, before there are benefits in the right situations. I really compare it to upgrading a piece of stereo gear. You have to look at the costs and the tradeoffs before you make that decision. I haven't even looked to see what a 4K monitor at 32inches would cost me, but the simple fact that at present I am quite content with what I have now, does not put it high on my gaming upgrade list. Perhaps later, but not now.
And I think that is how many here feel. Its great that you guys have it and enjoy it. And its great that you find it a big improvement. I have been through a lot of AV upgrades in my many years and generally I am the one that waits until it is practically the norm, or has at least made the price worth the upgrade. ( and that differs for everyone of course)
Just not there yet.
FFA Nonconsentual Full Loot PvP ...You know you want it!!
No, I believe when people are saying that the 4k TV / monitor looks better, that is actually true.
But I strongly doubt it's the resolution doing it. Contrast and color uniformity are much better on 4k TV than on older TV.
If you play the same game on 1080p, then on 4k, and notice a large difference in quality, by all means, I'm not going to tell you you're wrong, I don't know what you're seeing.
But I find it weird that studies and people intimately up to date with this tech, are saying there's none to almost no perceivable difference, and then some people on forums say "it's a large difference". Something doesn't add up.
I don't think anyone is jealous, the issue for gaming has to do with the large tradeoffs you're making.
You're trading in quite a few things if you want to play on 4k.
-on many games the UI won't scale properly
-it requires a lot of expensive hardware
-you're using a lot of power playing game stressing your hardware at max
-many 4k monitors and GPU don't output anything over 30hz, even with HDMI 2.0, some monitors that claim they can output 60hz, arent. 1080p on the other hand easily does 120hz
-you're trading in FPS and image detail in many games
They're very large tradeoffs for diminishing returns many say are close to 0.
It's not like this technology only makes the experience better, you're trading in FPS, power and screen refresh rates, if you're trading all that in, it better actually make a difference, and many say it doesn't make a difference. Which means you only lose with 4k and gained nothing.
The test subjects in the video that said 4k isn't worth it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pzw1D9dU6ts
Aren't even make those tradeoffs, the tradeoffs for gaming in 4k are much larger than the tradeoffs for movies and TV. You don't have Hz / FPS or UI scaling issues on TV.
But even for TV, when test subjects are asked if they think 4k is worth it, they all said no it's not.