-
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.
NVIDIA GEFORCE RTX 2080 TI SUB £900 & INCLUDES COD: MODERN WARFARE !!!
- Thread starter Gibbo
- Start date
Remember kids, "4K" is just a resolution (that is not 4000+ pixels in any direction, but lets ignore the retarded UHD marketing that they ripped from the 4096 × 2160 DCI res). It's just a number of pixels, what matters more is what and how graphics are rendered at this resolution.
Last edited:
probery personal preference but most games I play on pc feel better with higher FPS playing games like dark souls 3 etc that’s locked to 60 FPS quite jarring tbh
4K to me is just a number I’ve never seen a 4k game and thought wow over my 1440p setup and until high refresh 4K gaming monitors comes to a reasonable price and I have the hardware to power it 4k will just stay a number
Yes and more pixels in this case equals better image quality
Last time I had a lower resolution monitor next to one of my 4K monitors I tried Resident Evil 7 and there was a very visible difference to me.
Could be because you was playing with kb&m maybe. Seems plenty smooth with a controller.
Sure 4K is a number, don't get why people say this though. More pixels in this case means better image quality, simple as that. Some will prefer a lower image quality and a more smooth experience. But for me for the type of games I play there is diminishing returns after 60fps personally, so I choose more pixels.
I would go 8K or more also, but we can just about keep up with running 4K at 60fps as games get better graphically with time, so I will not be touching 8K until that changes.
Yes and more pixels in this case equals better image quality
So long as the content is the same, yes. However, render crap out at a higher resolution is just polishing a poo.
ie. Terrible shadows, lack of tessellation, low-res textures and filtering, low GI, reflection, fog, draw distance etc but it's okay apparently because it's churned out at "4K" 60fps and they can market the hell out it.
That's why it's almost pointless comparing PC to consoles, as there will be varying levels of detail between them. Apples vs oranges.
Last edited:
Thing about resolution is, it's totally dependent on screen size. I don't feel like at 4k 55" the scene complexity is much better than 24" 1080p (or 29" UW). But being able to scale the image quality to an ever bigger sized display is exactly the point. It also changes how a lot of the settings are perceived, some things stand out a lot more than others and some weakness that aren't otherwise apparent are really obvious (an egregious example is lod models in open world games; there's a harsher contrast between the lod models in AC Odyssey playing at 4K max vs 1800p with AA low, and that's because you have some elements of the scene be crystalline sharpness and unbelievable details, then 2/3rds of the screen is covered in ****** lod models that look like jpegs from the dial-up era. this makes the difference be much more jarring than having the game run at lower settings & that's why ps4 pro/xbox one x seems to have so much praise, because everything gets blurred together and if you sit far enough from the TV it gives a really good impression - only problem is I sit like 1.1m away from mine so it's obvious it's crap).
All that being said, the problem for me is not so much that I can't live without a really big screen but rather that overall quality of monitors is garbage compared to high end TVs even when we compare the highly priced models. Maybe if there were some OLED options for a 34'' UW that wouldn't be the case but in general it's just so bad. So, at the end of the day it just doesn't make sense to go for a monitor (worse IQ, just as expensive if not more so, less flexibility etc) unless you simply can't/don't want to fit a TV in your space. Especially when imo the biggest graphical advancement of them all, far above any ray tracing or other such non-sense, is HDR. When done right it's a totally jaw dropping experience, and the HDR performance on TVs is just unparalleled.
All that being said, the problem for me is not so much that I can't live without a really big screen but rather that overall quality of monitors is garbage compared to high end TVs even when we compare the highly priced models. Maybe if there were some OLED options for a 34'' UW that wouldn't be the case but in general it's just so bad. So, at the end of the day it just doesn't make sense to go for a monitor (worse IQ, just as expensive if not more so, less flexibility etc) unless you simply can't/don't want to fit a TV in your space. Especially when imo the biggest graphical advancement of them all, far above any ray tracing or other such non-sense, is HDR. When done right it's a totally jaw dropping experience, and the HDR performance on TVs is just unparalleled.
I like the polish. Better than a bunch of frames I don't need. There are other benefits I get by being happy at 60fps such as low CPU utilisation, lower power usage overall and depending on the game lower GPU utilisation also where the GPU barely brakes a sweat and runs with fans of or super low
How many pixels is real life?
16K?
Must admit, the anti-aliasing is good, I don't notice many jaggies.
Got a few floaters though, I think my GPU is on the way out.
the human eyes are equal to 576 mega pixels. 16k is only 132 megapixels - so some ways to still go. 4K which is the current standard for gaming is 8 megapixels.
Though I would imagine that once we reach 16k it will be close enough that your brain would think it's real even though it's not quite the same as real life, it's probably close enough.
but what hardware is going to drive it lmao!
You would need 17 RTX 2080ti GPU in parallel to drive a 16k display.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 31,187
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 31,187
Agreed, that's much more important. 1440p at 27in with high-hz tends to be the sweet spot imo but 4K will come into its own in time (with cheaper high-hz panels).
There seems to be a big immersion push. We're seen youtube reviewers and hardware geeks swap out their small panels for big ones and even TV's. Smaller screens will become the domain of office workers and e-sports players who need to see everything easily. While for those who are more entertainment focused - the market is moving towards large screens (32 to 65 inches)
Its called overselling bro, Its a old capitalist tactic to fool sheep into buying things they never need. Just make sure the influencers and steamers have one and stop production of smaller panels. There you go now you are making 32inch mainstream alongside 27 even though neither fit on any common pc desks. For 25 years 24 inch was about the most you could get, Now 27inch 4k would be cool but 32 inch LOL. You see if you take a 15% margin on a 24 inch at £500 versus a 32inch at £990 the profit margin is much bigger. So overselling is basically another tool of revenue growth.
They can SHOVE THEM where the sun never shines because the premium from 24 to 27 or even 32 is outrageous. They clearly are gouging massive amounts of money. And to top it all off apart from 4k they share mostly the same PPI per inch as a 24 inch 1080p anyways. They must be laughing thier socks off at how stupid and gullable the monitor market is to play. Lets give these people the same ppi, Make it two incher larger and add double the cost.
To be honest it's more about filling your field of view with screen rather than what PPI the screen is. I never understand why PPI is always brought up - I've certainly never based a decision on it.
the reason for years screens were small is because for most of the time they used CRT panels which were gigantic - even just a 23 inch would take up half your desk surface space.
I don't see it as overselling tech - it seems like a natural evolution for entertainment. If your PC is used for work, you probably want to keep the small screen so you can nice and close - but if I'm watching a movie or playing a game I'd rather sit back a bit and have my field of view immersed.
you are 100% about prices though - PC monitors are way overpriced, every single one of them.
the reason for years screens were small is because for most of the time they used CRT panels which were gigantic - even just a 23 inch would take up half your desk surface space.
I don't see it as overselling tech - it seems like a natural evolution for entertainment. If your PC is used for work, you probably want to keep the small screen so you can nice and close - but if I'm watching a movie or playing a game I'd rather sit back a bit and have my field of view immersed.
you are 100% about prices though - PC monitors are way overpriced, every single one of them.
Have to agree with most people on here the price now days has gotten ridiculous. The more people seem to justify the high price of the top end cards the more it’s driving the price of lower end cards so it’s got more expensive all round.
Soldato
- Joined
- 20 Apr 2004
- Posts
- 4,410
- Location
- Rugby
That all depends on Intel Xe and AMD to offer some high end competition after what will be 4 years in 2020
Call me old (I'm 37) but I just dont notice the difference above ~90Hz. Anything about 90Hz looks silky smooth to me. I would much rather play at 100Hz 4K than *insert stupidly high Hz here and 1440p. But Im not entering CSGO tournaments. Mind you... neither are the vast majority of people who think they "need" 240Hz etc.
For me 100Hz 4K 32inch IPS display will be the sweet spot and look utterly stunning with modern titles. Can't wait. My reactions are far too slow now that going from 100/144/240hz would make any difference.
For me 100Hz 4K 32inch IPS display will be the sweet spot and look utterly stunning with modern titles. Can't wait. My reactions are far too slow now that going from 100/144/240hz would make any difference.
Keep 16:9 ratio anything it's completely backwards once you try UW aspect ratios 21:9 and above.
There are limitations to human vision you can't simply transplant theoretical human resolution to a monitor and aspire to match it to give the best outcome.
Human fidelity drops off pretty quickly within a few feet, try it next time you're looking at some grass in a field, the point at which individual blades are no longer discernable is closer than you might think or expect.
There are limitations to human vision you can't simply transplant theoretical human resolution to a monitor and aspire to match it to give the best outcome.
Human fidelity drops off pretty quickly within a few feet, try it next time you're looking at some grass in a field, the point at which individual blades are no longer discernable is closer than you might think or expect.