NVIDIA Volta with GDDR6 in early 2018?

[TheRealDeal]

I don't doubt that it will become an industry standard but a fair number of people don't see it the same as previous jumps in resolution - I show people my displays when they are thinking of upgrading and a lot more go for 1440p or 1440p ultra-wide subsequently than 4K - look at some of the older threads in the monitor sub-section for 4K monitors and ask what those people are on now and quite a lot have gone from 4K to 1440p UW - while some of that is driven by performance or refresh rate is isn't the only story.

I agree on what you are saying. It doesn't make as much sense as 1080p did. I am looking into a new monitor at some point this year and don't know whether i want 1440p/wide or 4k. I get the feeling that 4k 120hz will be out of my price range but want a higher refresh. With 1080p it just made a lot more sense to buy a decent 60hz at the time.

 

[Seanspeed]

I don't doubt that it will become an industry standard but a fair number of people don't see it the same as previous jumps in resolution - I show people my displays when they are thinking of upgrading and a lot more go for 1440p or 1440p ultra-wide subsequently than 4K - look at some of the older threads in the monitor sub-section for 4K monitors and ask what those people are on now and quite a lot have gone from 4K to 1440p UW - while some of that is driven by performance or refresh rate is isn't the only story.

Going from 4k to 1440p ultrawide is arguing 21:9 vs 16:9, not 4k vs 1440p.

There will be 21:9 4k monitors eventually, too.

You're also talking to people in a time where doing native 4k rendering is only really possible with a very top line GPU. When that kind of power becomes more affordable, people's choices will absolutely change. Wont be that long before 4k monitors are sold like 1080p monitors are now. It wont be an 'enthusiast' choice.

 

[hyperseven]

You're right, it's a MUCH bigger deal for people with monitors at a desk. 4k makes an even bigger difference.

It's already very difficult to find a new TV that isn't 4k, so that whole market is on its way and there's no turning back.

1440p may be 'trending upwards', but it's not even remotely close to 'overtaking' 1080p. And it NEVER WILL. It is a dead end. It is a stop gap for those who want something better than 1080p, but obviously the power wasn't there before to power 4k. This is changing and will change quickly over the next couple of generations of GPU's. 4k displays will become more numerous and 4k-capable GPU's will become more affordable.

You're also treating the scaling issue on Windows as something that will be ever-present. Should the userbase become sizeable enough, I guarantee Microsoft will address this. They are not a software supergiant for nothing.


I mean, PS4 Pro is already built specifically for 4k TV owners, and Scorpio will be out this year which is designed *specifically* for 4k native rendering.

So I have no idea what you're talking about. Next-gen consoles will undoubtedly be running 4k as a their 'target' resolution just like 1080p is the target today. Obviously there will likely be games dipping a bit under as is normal every generation, but 4k is going to be the target and the power will be there to do it.

You guys are living in a bubble. Soon enough, that bubble will pop and you're going to realize reality is very different to what you thought it was.

Nah, stop getting carried away now

 

[Rroff]

Going from 4k to 1440p ultrawide is arguing 21:9 vs 16:9, not 4k vs 1440p.

There will be 21:9 4k monitors eventually, too.

Not so much - unlike say Android where the UI for the most part scales beautifully and makes use of the extra pixels to make everything sharper and cleaner with smooth arcs, etc. and you are interfacing via touch and so on Windows and a lot of games are still very steeped in interacting on a per pixel level and for a not insignificant number of people all those extra pixels is actually too much.

 

[Seanspeed]

Nah, stop getting carried away now

Ok, it's not 'difficult', but 1080p is being pretty quickly eliminated from TV lineups.

Even Sony, which is still pushing 1080p more than most dont offer a 1080p TV above 49" in their 2017 range.

 

[Rroff]

We are already seeing monitors below 1080p disappear - its likely before too long the new budget option (which has been driving up 1080p) will likely be 1440p.

 

[tyler_jrb]

Having had 4K @ 60hz, 60hz is not really ideal for gaming anymore and most including myself would take a lower resolution and a higher framerate.

I would take 1080p 144hz over 4K 60hz to be honest.

Scorpio, nah. Sure it might be 4K native in some games with OK settings it's going to be far from ideal in others which are using a lot of GPU power. Pretty much an rx580 in that regard so can be easily compared as to what it will do.

 

[Seanspeed]

Not so much - unlike say Android where the UI for the most part scales beautifully and makes use of the extra pixels to make everything sharper and cleaner with smooth arcs, etc. and you are interfacing via touch and so on Windows and a lot of games are still very steeped in interacting on a per pixel level and for a not insignificant number of people all those extra pixels is actually too much.

Well I can see that you're going to continually ignore the possibility that scaling is a solvable issue in Windows. And most major games nowadays do have arbitrary resolution support with a separately scaled layer for the UI.

As for needing to interact on a per-pixel level, we're talking VERY few super competitive games, where a lot of the super high level players are playing with sub 1080p displays. These people are not going to want a 1440p display, either. And make up a very small minority of users. You're pulling out some very reaching arguments at this point.

21:9 vs 16:9 can also be the exact same pixel density, so your whole response doesn't make any sense anyways.

 

[Seanspeed]

Having had 4K @ 60hz, 60hz is not really ideal for gaming anymore and most including myself would take a lower resolution and a higher framerate.

Yes, today. Because powering 4k takes a ton of horsepower and that costs a lot of money. I shouldn't have to point out to somebody on this board that this WILL CHANGE.

I would take 1080p 144hz over 4K 60hz to be honest.

I'm not talking about what somebody on a PC hardware enthusiast board would prefer.

This is like, my entire point. People living in a bubble thinking their own preferences are somehow representative of the market at large.

Scorpio, nah. Sure it might be 4K native in some games with OK settings it's going to be far from ideal in others which are using a lot of GPU power. Pretty much an rx580 in that regard so can be easily compared as to what it will do.

Well no, it cant be easily compared. We're heading to almost the 4th year of the consoles and developers are MUCH better with the hardware at this point. Scorpio has some very specific features built for high resolution gaming, including a 384-bit bus.

I know this is a PC board so many here are going to have a very dim view towards consoles, but they are honestly more capable than their on-paper specs, though it does take time for this to come out. Also keep in mind many of the most demanding titles only target 30fps on consoles. It's gonna be more capable than you think.

 

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

Consoles do upscaling and variable resolutions on the fly - sometimes I wish this could be introduced into PC ports too as an option,since that would help as many gamers simply don't have very high end cards,but higher resolution monitors are starting to drop in price.

 

[Rroff]

I'm not talking about what somebody on a PC hardware enthusiast board would prefer.

This is like, my entire point. People living in a bubble thinking their own preferences are somehow representative of the market at large.

In this area though those PC hardware enthusiasts often drive the bigger trends - ok they will be buying from a different segment of the market, etc. but what they are buying will tend to define the upper end of the market and I don't think you will find people are embracing 4K in the enthusiast space anything like you think - for reasons beyond just refresh rate.

(I've personally sunk about 6 grand into monitors over the last 2-3 years so it ain't me being defensive having sunk a lot of money into a 1440p panel - albeit some have been sold on to or given to friends/family if I've decided I don't have a use for them).

EDIT: Its a little longer than 2-3 years actually - several were purchased in 2013 but still - I spent quite a bit of money trying to find and failing to find a setup I liked for multi-boxing Eve Online.

 

[Mei]

in a few years 120hz 4k will be pretty cheap
so i dont see why people cant have both
maybe gfx cards might slow down if there isnt competition but displays should keep going

 

[AllBodies]

in a few years 120hz 4k will be pretty cheap
so i dont see why people cant have both
maybe gfx cards might slow down if there isnt competition but displays should keep going

Could be as early as next year, as they're already well priced.

Almost all current 4K TVs have true 120 Hz panels (check in depth reviews), but you just can't take advantage of it without HDMI 2.1.

Next year we'll get a new generation of TVs, plus HDMI 2.1, so wouldn't surprise me if you could get a semi-premium 32" 4K 120 Hz TV as a monitor for £400-500.

 

[james.miller]

Ummm , Xbox Scorpio.

Educate yourself.

lol. scorpio. a £400 quid console with half the gpu throughput of one 1080i ti is going to have enough grunt to default to 4k60? 4k30 even? at anything like comparable levels of detail to the pc? educate yourself.

I mean, PS4 Pro is already built specifically for 4k TV owners, and Scorpio will be out this year which is designed *specifically* for 4k native rendering.

and how many native 4k games are available?

I dont understand your viewpoint on this. You know the raw power required to push 4k properly yet at the same time your trying to convince me that not only will the scorpio be enough but the ps4 pro is too??

 

[tyler_jrb]

Yes, today. Because powering 4k takes a ton of horsepower and that costs a lot of money. I shouldn't have to point out to somebody on this board that this WILL CHANGE.


I'm not talking about what somebody on a PC hardware enthusiast board would prefer.

This is like, my entire point. People living in a bubble thinking their own preferences are somehow representative of the market at large.

 

[silversurfer]

4k might be the thing just because of what could happen if TV technology merged paths with PC. I read of TV which will run 120hz if you half the res from 4k so all sides could be covered, because of how mass production works it'll likely go with the path serving the greatest number

 

[Rroff]

4k might be the thing just because of what could happen if TV technology merged paths with PC. I read of TV which will run 120hz if you half the res from 4k so all sides could be covered, because of how mass production works it'll likely go with the path serving the greatest number

That would be an interesting challenge - a display that could do 2560x1440p at 144+Hz and 3840x2160 at say 100Hz while using the entire display but without any stretching/uneven pixels or other scaling issue.

I'd definitely get me one of those.

 

[Mei]

Could be as early as next year, as they're already well priced.

Almost all current 4K TVs have true 120 Hz panels (check in depth reviews), but you just can't take advantage of it without HDMI 2.1.

Next year we'll get a new generation of TVs, plus HDMI 2.1, so wouldn't surprise me if you could get a semi-premium 32" 4K 120 Hz TV as a monitor for £400-500.

yeh i think so too, there will always be expensive screens, hdr was, next maybe the thinner ones & 5k, but i dont think 4k 120hz will have to be expensive

 

[Journey]

Why are you all yammering on about 4K like it's important, it's only a stop gap for 8K.

Oh and to anyone who thinks people who game on PC make up the majority of PC users, just no. The majority of PC monitors sold will be, 1080p for at least another 12-18 months, as they are cheap as chips to produce, then the norm with become 4K. Look how long it's taken most laptops to move to 1080p from the god awful 1366x768, Joe Bloggs doesn't a rats about screen resolution.

 

[thenoseknows]

There's nothing 'marmite' about 4k, anyways. I dont even know what that means. Preferring 1440p to 4k is like preferring 720p to 1080p. It's objectively inferior.

"Marmite" just means that it's controversial and there are people who dislike it on one side and like it on the other. I like to max out my games at 60FPS, and that means 1440p is a far more suitable resolution.

My reasoning is that higher resolution does not translate to better graphics. Take this 480p resolution picture of a snowstorm, for example: https://u.cubeupload.com/tnn21/storm480p.png Now compare it to a 4K resolution picture of a different snowstorm: https://u.cubeupload.com/tnn21/storm4K.png See how easily 480p beats 4K? Higher resolutions are not objectively (or, to use a more appropriate term, innately) superior. Only when all else is equal does higher resolution produce better graphics.

This is why it's actually a mistake for the Scorpio and the Pro to focus so much on 4K. They're spending what little processing power they have (the Scorpio's GPU is slower than the RX580, in terms of compute performance) to put more pixels on the screen without taking into account the sacrifice in graphics settings like higher draw distances, better textures, more realistic shadows/ambient occlusion, better antialiasing, and so on. Developers like Naughty Dog and Guerilla Games understand this and opted not to go for native 4K and still they've had to make sacrifices. Being fully owned by Sony, they obviously were not allowed to drop all the way down to 1080p because it would be bad PR. Nevertheless, it would actually allow them produce better-looking games.