4K

Looks very interesting and fun. Me and other people will play it. It will be remembered fondly.

Marginal benefits over 1080p on desktop monitors and TVs under 40 inch

Perfect for my Xbox one X™

Pitiful.

It's shit tbh.

Sorry. There was a name name.
The name is the "X Xbox X One X"

Who needs high resolutions and anti-aliasing when you have bad eye sight and can just take off your glasses?

From what's shown so far it already looks as good as the PS2 games.

Get on my level scrub

dell.com/en-us/shop/dell-ultrasharp-32-8k-monitor-up3218k/apd/210-alez/monitors-monitor-accessories

We don't have hardware powerful enough for 4k to be worth it yet. 100fps+ gsync on good looking settings for the majority of vidya is more important than more pickles and the hardware to make that a reality doesn't exist yet (multi-GPU is a meme, it doesn't work like you'd expect). 1440p is as high as I'd go right now, and I'd have stuck with 1080p if there had been good monitors for it (IPS + 144hz + gsync).

AMOLED 4K @ 144HZ WHEN.

I'll tell you what I think about 4k when I can consistently get 60fps at 1080/1050. I'm forever two full generations behind, and this gap is likely to grow, as modern games SUCK MY GODDAMN ASS, new hardware has gaping holes in it, and Windows 10 is for complete retards.

You're doing it wrong. AA is for cheating resolution you nitwit.

benis

Yeah 4K is nice but having more people get into IPS and higher hz is more important.

4K as a format and display resolution has been pushed out too early. There's all sorts of bullshit involving pumping out light, HDR, and even metadata that needs to be ironed out for 4K to reach its full potential.

Regardless of the general market, it won't be relevant to me until 144HZ 4K is available.

How should I be able to tell? I can't see shit.

Look at something 720p with AA and something 1080p with no AA

This board is going to hell. Traffic is basically dead, and every thread that isn't a general is sage-bombed because of anons' "eternal summer" paranoia.

I don't have any problems with 4k on PC's. I do have a problem with consoles reaching for 4k, they should at least get most games running at 60fps at 1080p or 1440p before moving on to 4k. It's also the problem of 4k being a very niche audience because of the money investment, like VR. It will probably be another year or two year until 4k becomes the standard for games.

We've had to deal with this shit since 2015, the problem is there's no where else to go.

Leaving this place and finding an alternative is bittersweet. On one hand, you'll have better quality posting (No faggots who keep trying to turn Holla Forums into /vg/, lower paranoia), but on the other hand, the traffic will be even lower.
When Hotwheels revealed himself as the traitorous kike that he is and sold out, I was really considering leaving Holla Forums, but as you said, there was nowhere else to go.

Fucking this.
I am so fucking sick of hearing Sony and MS brag about the latest, bleeding edge resolutions when they still can't do last gen's resolutions properly outside of a handful of games. Seriously, the only game I have on PS4 that runs at 1080p at a solid 60fps and isn't another god damn Vita port is Four Goddesses Online, and that's probably because the game uses PS2 tier textures.

Every attempt at having a new Holla Forums has failed. Off the top of my head there was /vvv/, /strictv/, 8ch.pl. and endchan. There's no way for us to go back to 2014 Holla Forums unless there's a full site exodus like with gamergate and Holla Forums, which is probably not going to happen in a long time. sage for off topic

I remember there where a few games on PS4 Pro that ran at 4k 60fps like the new Wipeout collection, Thumper, Rez Infinite, Resogun, and the Kingdom Hearts collection. There's also games that run at 4k with dynamic resolution scaling so it stays at 60fps. The games I listed thought where remakes or games with little going on in them so it's easier to run at native 4k.

We have Kikewheels to thank for that. He made sure that his personal friends stayed at the top of the board list.

Bought it. Play on it with 144hz. Looks better. Movies too.

Both are still a blurry mess without my glasses.

None of them were popular due to drowning in rules in an effort to keep shitposters out (doesn't work), not being already here and already fast (a horrid catch-22 that applies to every board you try to migrate this Holla Forums to, "I'M NOT USING IT BECAUSE IT'S NOT FAST BECAUSE NOBODY'S USING IT"), and allegedly because Mark himself would send shitposters to raid alternative Holla Forumss.

For the most part 4K is pretty irrelevant to most people. They either have too small a display or sit too far from their display to perceive the full benefits. Furthermore, there is so little content available in 4K right now. You likely will be stuck up scaling, or having to repurchase your entire Bluray collection.

Content is a serious problem for this. DVD is still a dominant market force. It took a long time for people to accept Bluray, and I still know people that think it's a "gimmick". I doubt many will want to purchase the 4K ultra Bluray (yet) to properly take advantage of their new TV. Online streaming for it is a pretty fucked deal too. Most places don't have unlimited data that is needed for it, and those that do likely lack the bandwidth to actually stream smoothly.

Everyone else in this thread has covered the gaming side of house. Consoles can't reliably get 60FPS 1080p. PCs to get 60FPS 4K are stupid expensive.

4k is a meme

8k isn't.

You don't need to be able to perceive the full benefits to be able to perceive the benefits. I don't know why everyone misunderstands that chart, "Benefit of 4k starts to become noticeable" is a labeled range.

I bought a TV that can do either 4K/60 or 1080p/120HZ natively, and I've been happy with it. I appreciate the 4K desktop space for productivity and the ability to flip over to 120HZ when playing games where responsiveness is a potential issue.
I have to say I can't imagine ever going over 4K, or buying 4K at less than 40 inches or so, and that's if you're going to be right up next to it. Maybe I'm just blind, but gamingwise I hardly notice the difference in resolutions apart from slightly less aliasing.

I understand the chart. It's just in my eyes that, at current prices, 4K is probably only worth it if you are experiencing the full benefits.

I bought a 4k Freesync monitor last Black Friday for $200.

Most people are sitting 5-10ft from their TV with a set around 60 inches. 4k's generally a waste for TV.

Now that 4k is reaching the public you will get these typical responses like this

But joke is on them because 16k is the real deal

The big problem hit with Bluray now is that streaming hit it big, which has the benefit of not requiring a physical copy– a benefit very befitting for long-running television shows, even if they are in HD. A lot of the bonus content fans gravitated to DVD for (multiple languages, commentaries, extras, cut footage, interviews, etc.) aren't as prevalent now and aren't seen as content most of the public demands. Of course, streaming 4K is going to be a major hassle with pipelines and net service providers holding the choke chain, but again the demand isn't there for 4K streaming on a high scale.

Being Australian is suffering. These are the only 4K monitors on offer from Australia's largest electronics retailer.

To be fair most of those "cheap" 4K monitors i have seen in my friends homes have terrible image quality, washed out colors, terrible lightbleed or lots of dead pixels, i haven't got one yet, i will wait until 4K can be done without needing two fucking flagship videocards and a 700W PSU.

It's stupid. The panels are still the same garbage LCD's we've been using for 20 years. Research should be put into making picture quality better, not higher resolutions.
Also it's too soon anyway, GPUs need a few more years of catching up before we can properly game at 4k.

That must be a piece of garbage if it was that cheap. What brand is it?

Samsung. Colors were a little ugly out of the box but it looks pretty good now that it's calibrated.

Pointless unless you're a richfag because cheap 4k monitors are garbage.

A horrible fucking idea. Video games were a mistake.

Gta V runs at 60FPS on 7970GHz edition. You are speaking out of your ass

60fps is too low. Doubling the frame rate is a way better experience than doubling the pixels. 60fps is a lower frame rate than we had on PC 20 years ago.

You are retarded to even think that.

4k has quadruple the pixels of hd. And games look much better even on low settings.

Sounds like you're too poor to have experienced >100fps. It's a hell of a lot more important than more pixels.

This, and I'm a poorfag. 144hz is just….AWWWGH, my eye testicles. My god

I am still playing games that are fucking 4:3 and have maximum resolution of 1024x768, because video gaming industry goes to shit.
Why the fuck i need 4K? To see a shitty shooter in outstanding resolution that's all about cinematic experience and boring as fuck gameplay?

Even 1080p is overkill for some games.

just a reminder that lcd was the worst solution for display technology and only appealed to mobile fags, and eco autists

The human eye can't even see higher than 1440p dude ;)

Joking aside, I remember reading there is a usable resolution limit because resolutions too high actually start becoming blurry for people with 20/20 vision at a certain distance. This is beyond 4k AFAIK however.

At 8k resolution you will need a screen size significantly larger than what anyone would even want in their house to see pixels at a reasonable viewing distance, so it seems as though 8k is the resolution limit, at least the practical resolution limit. After 8k companies will then need to fix other problems and slap on new marketing buzzwords for them. Like higher dynamic ranges and shit.

For a small screen size, like 20 inches, you are better off investing in higher refresh rates than resolution. A 120hz 20 inch 1080p screen sounds like a significantly smarter investment to me than a 20 inch 60hz 4k display. A screen size that small really doesn't warrant that high of a resolution above 1080p, and the lower resolution is less taxing on the GPU meaning you'll be able to easily reach that 120fps your screen can drive. I'm talking gaming specifically of course.

You are special kind of retarded to think that machine that can pump out [email protected]/* */, can't pump out 144Hz at FHD.

I have tried it and pick 4k over FHD any time of the day.

144HZ FHD is for poorfags that can't purchase 27" 4k IPS goodness.

Muh Fps TN panel is and always will be shit.

go back to play runescape

Buy me one

You are correct. There are no benefits from one point onwards aside from loading up your gpu for no reason.

Videos in 4k are absolutely stunning and FHD doesn't even come close.

FHD ended at around 20 inches.
4k is good from 27 inches onwards to about 32
8k is from 32 to 40

You can always drop res on your 4k, but you can't raise it on your FHD:)

LCD was a lot clearer which appealed to office workers, and allowed for smaller cubicle sizes which appealed to their bosses. Was an apocalypse for gaming, though. HDTVs and their incredibly shit contrast/blacks were the second impact.

doesn't it make it look grainy and ugly as shit like when you drop 1080p to 900p and scale?
Unless you want to use only a small as fuck area of your screen

Personally for me, I think you can easily get away with 1080p up to 32 inches. Beyond 32 inches is really pushing it though for FHD. As far as 4k goes I think the limit there is 50 inches and anything higher than that you'll need 8k.

it only appealed to keyboard clacking wage slaves and nobody in any other industry that used professional displays. they're still used to this day to achieve color reproduction because the highest quality phosphors are still more accurate than the highest quality OLED panels.

They're largely gone. Almost all high-end displays that require reasonably accurate color like for film work are now LCD/OLED and made by specialty companies like Flanders Scientific.

I think 4k resolution is an irrelevant waste of money that only idiots and graphicsfags invest in. As long as games have good performance and don't look like jagged piles of shit, then I don't really care. Gaming in general is shit right now, e-sports and E3 should be proof enough of that.

I wouldnt blame esports too hard. In fact esports helps in many ways by forcing devs to adhere to strict 60 fps guidelines (ie fighting games) and focus on gameplay rather than shitty story or graphics.

At some point, your resolution is too much for the size of your screen. To really see anything at all on an 8K monitor you'd need to be at least 50 inches. You can even see it in Linus' video, where he boots the fucking game up at 8K and he can't effectively click the menus anymore because surprise surprise, nobody ever designed a menu for their game to scale to 8K. Imagine trying to play Doom 3 at that resolution, the in-game computer menus would be nightmarish. It's like trying to build a ship in a bottle.

Even 4K resolution is hard to read/use at 30 inches or less, my monitor is 27 inches and if I use 4K resolution everything gets too small for me to be able to use it. Now here's the thing… Considering how much horsepower it takes to render games at 4K, is 4K even usable for your typical player? Probably not.

There are cards meant for your typical consumer (the 1050 and 1060), as opposed to your enthusiast (1070) and extremist (1080) cards. If you really want to get the 4K experience then the Titan series exists specifically for 4K gaming. But that's the thing, it exists for 4K gaming. 4K is more than 4x bigger than 1080p. 8K is more than 4x bigger than 4K.

Hardware is still trying to catch up to 4K, and now people are talking about playing games at 8K. Multi-GPU setups are pretty much required, and until either DX12 or Vulkan finally get some actual love, only SLI/Crossfire builds or $1200 video cards (which is basically the equivalent cost of multiple cards anyway…), even 4K is somewhat prohibitive.

When I was growing up, I always considered framerate to be more important than resolution or pretty effects. If you're not running the game at 60+ FPS, then you should step it down because a sutter is going to be your end anyway.

it better have freesync
regardless, I've heard bad things about latency on 4k

this

I feel like the world has gone insane.
I don't understand why everyone is talking about 4K and ramming it down our throats as "the next logical step that has totally arrived you guys (please buy this TV from our sponsor)"
meanwhile PS4pro and Scorpio prove 4k is barely viable with their dynamic resolution scaling, checkerboarding and lol30fps on the mighty 6TFLOP gpu

The console industry wants it because >muh TV. Consoles are now a key part of a home entertainment system, more people are likely using them for netflix than vidya at this point, and Sony wants to sell its new TVs and license its codecs and formats. On PC, monitor makers want their big markups back that were lost due to 1080p monitors having flooded the market, and they can ride the wave being produced on the console side for 4k even if it doesn't make much sense yet.

Stop looking at the past with rose-tinted glasses, alright? Okay, CRTs had those wonderful colors and whatnot. But they were too bulky, insanely heavy, and hard to produce in larger sizes. So the typical TV screen was up to 29", anything bigger was a niche market for the very wealthy. Nowadays, though, even a 65" is pretty affordable.

Rather than 4k, i have bigger beef with hdr. You can't even calibrate that shit.

I sure love pixels the size of my head, thank god we can make them so big these days, and I gotta love that response time!

proven wrong and the market reflects it, there's tens of millions of more cheaper devices out there that can be used for netflix and shit. on consoles its just another feature, just like on PC, or should PC be only for spread sheets and facebook and your consoles just for video games?

Utterly pointless.
Utterly useless.

It's not superior 8k

Same as 1080p. An improvement that you won't notice until you use it, and then you'll always have to use it.

In theory it's nice to have more pixels and stuff but the reality is that it gets pushed hard as a buzzword in hopes to sell those monitors while the hardware still needs to catch up. The 1080Ti can barely maintain framerates around 60 at 4K.
The horespower would be much better used in games for physics and other interactive stuff and would yield an actual gameplay change if done right.

HERE COMES THE MICROSOFT EARTHQUAKE

I've been playing some games at 4K for a while now. The detail is nice especially on distance objects. I have a cheap Korean 40" 4K monitor. Two 980 Ti can't run everything in 4K though so I'll be using two 1080 Ti soon™ The monitor is not spectacular quality so I'm waiting for those new Gysync HDR 144Hz monitors to come out. I've seen HDR on my LG C6 OLED 4KTV and it's pretty impressive so it'll be nice when that is available in a PC monitor.

What are you, retarded? Just find them for free on craigslist.

Not even a single bit. As long as you stick to natural resolutions you are fine.

It looks about the same as on previous FHD screen.
I use 4k for browsing, 4k for games (you can always turn scaling to 25% for that FHD experience and keep the res)
and 2k for editing. Dpi settings suck and just trash browsers, text editors and similar things.

Besides the 60Hz 4k it can run 87Hz at FHD and 75Hz at 2k (Slightly overclocked)

Refresh rate improvement is slightly appreciated, tho, not terrible noticable.

4k at 27" is barely usable, go for 30" if you can.

FHD was unusable at 23". I hated the fact I could see pixels from distance.

ayy lmao

I always wondered, how do brain dead autists such as yourself get to have that kind of money to burn?

Been hearing this for ages already. May as well start giving Vega it's own NEVER EVER images at this point.

Gsync is a solution specifically tuned to the monitor's capabilities whereas Freesync tries to do it all at a driver level and winds up as an objectively inferior solution with ghosting. I already have enough ghosting on this cheap Korean panel. Not gonna be investing in Freesync that's just going to do the same thing.

The point of 4k+ resolutions in my mind is to not see pixels. Why do anons seem to think people want to see ridiculously detailed pixels? The point is to see a ridiculously detailed image.

The fuck you talking bout?

Bought a 4k monitor @ 28", immediately returned it and bought a 1440p monitor w/ a higher refresh rate and gsync. My 1080 was struggling to keep up with 4k and while it was playable, it's a much nicer experience at 1440. Probably at least two generations off from 4k being a viable daily driver for mid range gaming rigs.

It's icing, I can take it or leave it.

4k monitors don't have a higher DPI.

How is this monitor?

amazon.com/dp/B01BV1XB2K/?tag=dislag-20

Would rather have a QHD monitor at 144hz than a UHD monitor. Might even like one of those 240Hz 1080p monitors more. Haven't seen one in person yet though.

And on the subject, how come Displaylag still has monitors that are 9ms. I thought PC monitors had -1ms of input lag? What the fuck. Improve Hz and Inputlag first before 4K bullshit.

You need at least a 1080ti to play a 4k 60fps, on most games.

Decent bargain bin I guess.

Freesync sucks shit compared to G-Sync though (at least for the time being), and there's no consistency in Freesync performance between different models while G-Sync 'just werks'. At least if you buy a G-Sync monitor you know it's going to work as expected, while Freesync currently only really works in the 48-75hz range (the tech is supposed to technically support 9-240hz but most if not all Freesync monitors will still show tearing outside of that 48-75hz range, unlike G-Sync panels).

I'm sure Freesync will eventually become the standard, but not before AMD pull their shit in and make Freesync at least equal to G-Sync performance-wise (which probably isn't even possible with a purely driver-based solution).

misinformation. freesync performance varies widely per monitor, there are many which work, say, between 30-144Hz. any freesync monitor where the maximum refresh rate is 2.5x the minimum also supports LFC where it doubles frames if you fall below the range. (g-sync also does this)

amd.com/en-us/innovations/software-technologies/technologies-gaming/freesync
AMD's Freesync site lists the resolution and refresh rate range of most if not all freesync monitors

the issue with freesync is that it is just less consistently compatible; not that it doesn't work properly. some games, particularly older ones using DX9, will show weird behavior with freesync enabled. PSO2 is a prime example.

variable refresh rate tech is a meme anyway, it's good but >100Hz refresh and blur reduction (nvidia lightboost/ULMB, eizo turbo240, BenQ blur reduction, Samsung MPRT, and others) is so, so much better. Do you want to know more?

Source: I write for a major tech site and have 23 VRR monitors here

4k 144hz+ is the future, but our technology isn't quite there yet to fully support it. 1080p will be a thing of the past in 3-4 years.

at the same size they sure do, heh

nonsense, it depends on the game. plenty of games (real, 3D games) run just fine in 4K, on even older hardware. GTX 970-class and up are more than capable of 4K gaming. Hell, I have a buddy playing 4K60 Mirror's Edge right now on his R9 390X.

so much misinfo in this thread. the in-game SWF menus in Doom 3 are part of the rendered game world. they will not become smaller when you increase the resolution. Have you even played the game in 1080p nigger? you are going to make me get out of bed so I can actually type

Mirror's Edge isn't exactly a graphics intensive game. That's also why I said most. I didn't say all simple because if the game is a shitty port it doesn't matter what you have. You're not getting 4k60.

120+ hz > 4k anything

higher frame rate is WILL make you better at sniping with out fucking question.

Lurk more, faggot.

No. Getting good makes you better.

...

That's why we buy IPS [email protected]/* */ gsync monitors, poorfag. They're rather expensive, usually more than 4k monitors (I have two XB271HUs that were $800 each when purchased) but it's worth it for the quality and the frame rate.
If you throw all the money in the world at a 4k build you still can't expect a >100fps frame rate across games out of a single GPU build (multi-GPU is a mistake) so it's just not time for 4k, yet. Give it another couple years.
If you actually choose [email protected]/* */ over [email protected]/* */ having experienced both then you're simply retarded. High framerate doesn't just improve the look, it improves the feel.

If you cut your framerate in half you'd get worse at sniping, yes? So if instead you double your framerate… Think, user. I know it's hard.

Not a fucking chance

I don't particularly care for it. I'm content just playing at 1080p.

It's more viable than VR, at least. My housemate insists it's the best thing since sliced bread but I dont particularly see it, personally. Nor do I really care for finding out.

I mean, I'm excited that it'll be even easier and even more stable to game at 1080p in the future. But otherwise I couldn't give less of a fuck.

the best it gets is 1080p/1ms refresh rate.

still a joke compared to the 4μs it takes for a crt to refresh

Refresh rate is not input lag. Also that 1ms figure is horse shit made up by manufacturers. It's actually way higher than that.

Do CRT suffer from this?

Couldnt care less about it and all that marketing bullshit about muh 4K instead of some decent fucking performance and optimization makes sure I wont touch that crap for another decade at least.

it's shit, the human eye can only see at 1080p anyway