Another PS4. 4K Noooooooooooo

beachBOYken said:
Not bothered one bit, don't own a 4k TV anyway and 99% of console owners don't either yet so I'm not sure what all the fuss is about.

My next TV may be 4k if 4k is the norm but I'm not purchasing another TV for at least 4 years, only just got my Sony W905.
Click to expand...

likewise, only just got my Sony W series 48 inch and to me that this was a huge step up and from my sitting distance looks bloody fantastic, even ac unity at 900 p on my ps4 looked amazing...

I'm a big fan of pc gaming, I have spent thousands upon thousands in the past on high end pc kit, got a high end gaming laptop and even pricing and spec up a new desktop gaming rig at the moment. but I will say, a ps4 hooked up to a decent low lag 1080p screen is simply amazing imo. no need for 4k imo at the moment..
 
It is hard to go back from 4K, a lot of it will depend on how far away you are from the screen and how big the screen is though.

It is very noticeable going from 4K PC gaming to the PS4 in 1080p for me. I fired up the PS3 a couple of months ago and played a game that was 720p and it looked terribad! I mean really properly awful.
 
ic1male said:
I have a question about 4K gaming. When we eventually get there - PS6 anyone? - will the sheer number of pixels eliminate the need for costly anti-aliasing?
Click to expand...

That will depend upon the pixel density. A 48" 4K monitor will have the same PPI as a 24" and have the same need, but a 24" 4K will have a much higher PPI and so have less need.
 
Quartz said:
Seems to be working reasonably well here with my 780 Ti. And consoles don't have the many layers of overhead that PCs do.
Click to expand...

Are you talking about proper 4k (3840 x 2160) or 1440p res? Because I'm sure if you want to play anything with a decent frame rate you need AT LEAST TWO 980's or R9 290x series. And with the size of those cards, it will be years before we get any of those to a reasonable console size for a living room.

On the note of playback, hardly anyone has a 4K TV. And the ones that do, you are having laugh if you think your TV is future proof for 4K while still using HDMI when you really need Displayport.

Only way we can get any form of 4K content is through streaming and most people's internet connections are 5mb and below. That can barely deal with 1080 streaming without constant buffering. Never mind 4K so that will still rule out 99.9% of people before even purchasing a 4K TV. Console manufactures have already thought about this.

I'm all good with my 60inch TV, PS4 and Xbox one looks great on it. No need for 4K anytime soon :)
 
Last edited:
malachi said:
Are you talking about proper 4k (3840 x 2160) or 1440p res?
Click to expand...

Proper 4K / UHD. See the rig in my sig.

Because I'm sure if you want to play anything with a decent frame rate you need AT LEAST TWO 980's or R9 290x series.
Click to expand...

That is simply not the case. If you want ultra-quality graphics on modern games, then yes, you do need 2x 8 GB 290x cards or 2x 6 GB 780 (4 GB VRAM is NOT enough), but I'm gaming quite happily at 4K at medium+ quality levels depending on the game and can max out older games like Borderlands 2.

It's a pity that the 8 GB 290X cards don't have three DP 1.2 ports and are so noisy and power-hungry, else I'd have bought a pair. It's a pity no one released 8 GB GTX 970 or 980 cards last year, else I'd have purchased a pair. But now, I'm content to wait and see what AMD's 3xx cards will do and see Nvidia's riposte.
 
slick rick said:
I do and its pretty good for gaming to be honest, what makes you say they are not, input lag?

I think you will be waiting along time for 8K to be viable.
Click to expand...

last time i checked they were 30fps.

have they brought out 60hz versions?

after being used to 100hz+ screens i just couldn't drop down that low.

is it a monitor or tv you are using?
 
Psycho Sonny said:
last time i checked they were 30fps.

have they brought out 60hz versions?

after being used to 100hz+ screens i just couldn't drop down that low.

is it a monitor or tv you are using?
Click to expand...

Yes HDMI 2.0 and DisplayPort 1.2 supports 4K @ 60hz :)

It is a Panasonic TV and I am using DispalyPort to connect it the PC.

DP 1.3 will support 4K @ 120hz and 8K @ 60hz when it becomes available!:eek:
 
Last edited:
Quartz said:
Proper 4K / UHD. See the rig in my sig.



That is simply not the case. If you want ultra-quality graphics on modern games, then yes, you do need 2x 8 GB 290x cards or 2x 6 GB 780 (4 GB VRAM is NOT enough), but I'm gaming quite happily at 4K at medium+ quality levels depending on the game and can max out older games like Borderlands 2.

It's a pity that the 8 GB 290X cards don't have three DP 1.2 ports and are so noisy and power-hungry, else I'd have bought a pair. It's a pity no one released 8 GB GTX 970 or 980 cards last year, else I'd have purchased a pair. But now, I'm content to wait and see what AMD's 3xx cards will do and see Nvidia's riposte.
Click to expand...

I see what's going on over the next few months. Dont need a 4K TV but I need a 4K monitor. But with no DP 1.2 as you said my 290's in crossfire may not cut it.
 
slick rick said:
Yes HDMI 2.0 and DisplayPort 1.2 supports 4K @ 60hz :)

It is a Panasonic TV and I am using DispalyPort to connect it the PC.

DP 1.3 will support 4K @ 120hz and 8K @ 60hz when it becomes available!:eek:
Click to expand...

If your tv supports 60hz then they are moving in the right direction, still not enough to make me want to change from my GT50 (reference class panasonic plasma panel)
 
Plainsong said:
I love my panny plasma. Gonna do me for a long while yet.
Click to expand...

They are superb panels. Their LCD technology is catching up, my Panny 4K panel is very good, but still can not touch their high end plasma's. Maybe when they start producing OLED TV's they will catch up and possibly surpass the amazing plasma's they once produced.
 
I'm not fussed either way as I'm not rushing out to buy a 4k tv.

I adopted full hd as soon as it was available and was then frustrated for years with lack of content and companies like Sky using it to gouge more money out of their customers.

If content providers can't even make full HD the current standard then what hope has 4k got?
 
Meths said:
I'm not fussed either way as I'm not rushing out to buy a 4k tv.

I adopted full hd as soon as it was available and was then frustrated for years with lack of content and companies like Sky using it to gouge more money out of their customers.

If content providers can't even make full HD the current standard then what hope has 4k got?
Click to expand...

Yeah, I personally think that the X360 and PS3 being HD was a good driving force behind the HD standard, the current consoles not supporting 4K is not doing any favours in 4K adoption (this is just my opinion).

Yes the fact that Sky and Virgin only sport a select few channels in HD and are not even full HD does not bode well for 4K broadcast, even though x265 compression is very efficient compared to x264. I just don't think Sky want to pay for more transponder bandwidth on the Astra satellites. :rolleyes:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom