A 1080p TV/monitor/projector can only display 1080p no amount of upscaling can change the amount of pixels they can display..Am loving gaming at 1080p and letting my projector upscale to 4k and I cant tell the difference
Last edited:
-
Competitor rules
Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.
4K - When will it be mainstream?
- Thread starter OverDrive
- Start date
Associate
- Joined
- 15 Oct 2014
- Posts
- 21
- Location
- South England
Perhaps eventually, but for a long time it'll be the "how many pixels can we fit in here" response. They would just slap some futuristic name on it with a flashy title that'll sell like hot cakes for them regardless it would seem. All they need is one sheep and the heard will follow; perhaps we are being held back by something as many claim hologram is the way forward
Compression techniques could be improved like h.265 so on, perhaps that'll help contribute in some way or form
The future is interesting to say the least
4k mainstream gaming is around 4 to 5 years away at least.
Who buys a 4k TV when there is no 4k content?
It is daft and a gimmick, just like 3D TV just wait and see. Thats what am doing anyway.
Having seen how bad 1080p looks on a 4K monitor, there is no $%^&*() way that I am going to buy a 4K TV and end up with a worse picture.
With constraints on silicon about to hit graphics cards as well, I think 4K+ is unlikely to hold many enthusiasts (as currently it requires a rather extreme setup).
As GPU power increases towards the likely soft-wall at 14nm (too expensive to go beyond), it might cope for a small amount of time, but developers will still be taking 1080p as a standard...so.
Mainstream in terms of any joe/jane owning one, of course.
Mainstream in terms of actually doing some serious gaming on it?...no not without a massive leap in replacements for silicon or GPU's doing the same thing as CPU's currently...more cores? (prohibitively expensive for most anyway)
As GPU power increases towards the likely soft-wall at 14nm (too expensive to go beyond), it might cope for a small amount of time, but developers will still be taking 1080p as a standard...so.
Mainstream in terms of any joe/jane owning one, of course.
Mainstream in terms of actually doing some serious gaming on it?...no not without a massive leap in replacements for silicon or GPU's doing the same thing as CPU's currently...more cores? (prohibitively expensive for most anyway)
Associate
- Joined
- 16 Apr 2011
- Posts
- 1,069
- Location
- South Wales
The more cores GPU is probably a good shout. I think a drive towards stutter free CF / SLI on single PCBs will be most effective in the short term.
I do laugh when I see people saying they can't wait to jump on 4K and lamenting its lack of mainstream implementation when they are still at 1080p and haven't even tried 1440p or a 21:9 monitor... both of which offer very noticeable improvements, and certainly in the case of 21:9, a far more immersive experience. Yet all people want to talk about is 4K? It's like driving around in a Ford Focus and wondering when they can get their Ferrari, forgetting everything in-between lol!
Last edited:
I'm not too sure about this to be honest, I can only assume that the scalers being used on the monitors are not up to much ( not sure whether most of the work is done by the GPU driver or the monitors scaler). I base this on the picture quality from my 4k TV and even though some people told me how stupid I was for buying the one I did. But seeing as it was a replacement for my previously damaged plasma, I cannot say I'm sorry about the purchase. Anyway I digress the picture quality, even from the up scaled SKY 1080i input in fantastic, cannot fault it at all.
I do laugh when I see people saying they can't wait to jump on 4K and lamenting its lack of mainstream implementation when they are still at 1080p and haven't even tried 1440p or a 21:9 monitor... both of which offer very noticeable improvements, and certainly in the case of 21:9, a far more immersive experience. Yet all people want to talk about is 4K? It's like driving around in a Ford Focus and wondering when they can get their Ferrari, forgetting everything in-between lol!
What shocks me is people paying absurd amounts for a 4K setup that scrapes 40-50FPS with medium settings and then using Windows with 50% scaling...for less money you could be getting solid 60FPS at 1440p on high/ultra and unless you've got great vision or a massive monitor 4K won't even look that much sharper anyway.
1440p at ultra settings absolutely destroys 4K at medium imo.
What shocks me is people paying absurd amounts for a 4K setup that scrapes 40-50FPS with medium settings and then using Windows with 50% scaling...for less money you could be getting solid 60FPS at 1440p on high/ultra and unless you've got great vision or a massive monitor 4K won't even look that much sharper anyway.
1440p at ultra settings absolutely destroys 4K at medium imo.
Ran @4K maxed and it looks a lot better than 1080p too.
Well done for rrpeating exactly what I said about consoles, but even so it heavily relies on peope wanting larger tv' s which isnt always the case
It could be argued that 1080p quality has been needed for years so this was in some sense natural progression. This cannot be said for 4k in the sense that this res only becomes wothwhile at larger screen sizes ( in relation to tv's) where a lot of the population just dont have the physical room and hence the law of dimminishing returns come into play.
I also mentioned whether developers will actually want to pay for that kind of natural detail or will use some fakery for upscaling ( which therefore isnt really actual 4k), until there are a huge amount more 4k tv's being bought Sony / Microsoft wont even consider releasing a console capable.
You don't seem to realise that smart phones already offer 1440P, do you know how small phones are?
Read up on pixel density. It may burst your bubble to know that 4k tv's, or monitors, don't have to be huge. They can be, or they can be far smaller but have greater pixel density.
Soldato
- Joined
- 30 Nov 2011
- Posts
- 11,524
Look up the word "benefit"
At 32-42 inches at 3 meters there is no benefit to having a 4K TV, so most people wont buy one, not until 4K becomes a free feature that all TV's have
Phones are pushing pixel density because you hold them inches from your face and because phone marketeers are struggling to find real features to differentiate so lets just push pixel density and ignore thenfact that we dont have the processing power to run apps at native resolution
Which is all tangential to the actual thread topic as the OP asked about Pc gaming, not consoles and tv's
At 32-42 inches at 3 meters there is no benefit to having a 4K TV, so most people wont buy one, not until 4K becomes a free feature that all TV's have
Phones are pushing pixel density because you hold them inches from your face and because phone marketeers are struggling to find real features to differentiate so lets just push pixel density and ignore thenfact that we dont have the processing power to run apps at native resolution
Which is all tangential to the actual thread topic as the OP asked about Pc gaming, not consoles and tv's
Associate
- Joined
- 25 Jul 2014
- Posts
- 413
- Location
- Leicester
Ok to get back on thread then I think we need to get an idea of what "mainstream" means.
What sort of prices are considered "accessible" to mainstream gamers? Are we talking £150 for a GPU, and £250 for a monitor? If so then really it won't be until 2020 that we see 4k gaming be mainstream.
http://www.techradar.com/news/video/why-the-hell-should-i-pay-more-for-4k--1272320
The above article is mostly a dig at Netflix but the principle and issues do overlap with gaming.
What sort of prices are considered "accessible" to mainstream gamers? Are we talking £150 for a GPU, and £250 for a monitor? If so then really it won't be until 2020 that we see 4k gaming be mainstream.
http://www.techradar.com/news/video/why-the-hell-should-i-pay-more-for-4k--1272320
The above article is mostly a dig at Netflix but the principle and issues do overlap with gaming.
Ran @4K maxed and it looks a lot better than 1080p too.
Well...fair enough! But I wouldn't like to guess how much that rig cost though
Soldato
- Joined
- 6 Jan 2013
- Posts
- 22,360
- Location
- Rollergirl
IMO, "mainstream" would mean a single GPU running the latest titles @60 fps on ultra settings @4k. That GPU would cost £300 maximum, and the monitor displaying it should cost roughly the same. Also, a console should exist that can produce 4k at roughly the same cost as the GPU.
Anything else is "enthusiast".
Regardless of what Ubisoft's psy-ops division are currently attempting, I don't think consolers will settle for 30fps much longer. So a £300 console doing 4K60 would have to be heavily subsidized if you have to spend that much on one component in the PC to get the same.