That's not how resolution works, I.E 100x100 is double the resolution of 50x50, despite being 4x the area.
-
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.
Frame Rating: High End GPUs Benchmarked at 4K Resolutions
- Thread starter Final8y
- Start date
That's not how resolution works, I.E 100x100 is double the resolution of 50x50, despite being 4x the area.
Associate
- Joined
- 1 Mar 2013
- Posts
- 286
- Location
- Ealing, London, U.K.
On a slight tangent, do any of you reckon there will be 3840x2400 mainstream screens available or is 16:10 likely to die out when it comes to 4K?
yes realistically it is 2160p but for some reason they have decided to call it 4k.
4K Ultra high definition television 3840 × 2160 1.78:1 8,294,400
Digital Cinema Initiatives 4k 4096 × 2160 1.90:1 8,847,360
DCI 4K (CinemaScope cropped) 4096 × 1714 2.39:1 7,020,544
Personally i would be more interested in cinemascope as ubersonic said.You bashed him for no good reason in favour of more vertical height hah.Seriously 16:9 on some displays (u3011) is more akin to 4:3! It is not wide enough but then again ubersonics display does lack a little height but in saying that he gets a more cinematic feel and surround vision.
4096 × 2160 1.90:1 is the res i would be looking for but they have went with the less wide version in tv's.4096 × 1714 2.39:1 would actually be a great monitor.Less taxing on the GPU but with a cinema ultra wide screen format.
Also how the hell do you power 4k res at over 60FPS? Anyone else think there is going to be a tug of war between 60hz 4k and 120hz? Framerating video just proves to me that 120hz is needed as sleeping dogs even at 60fps with no vsync still has judder when panning.Thats a rock solid 16.7ms frametime as well.No doubt it might be 6 years before someone launches a 120hz 4096 × 1714 Cinemascope display.
Digital Cinema Initiatives 4k 4096 × 2160 1.90:1 8,847,360
DCI 4K (CinemaScope cropped) 4096 × 1714 2.39:1 7,020,544
Personally i would be more interested in cinemascope as ubersonic said.You bashed him for no good reason in favour of more vertical height hah.Seriously 16:9 on some displays (u3011) is more akin to 4:3! It is not wide enough but then again ubersonics display does lack a little height but in saying that he gets a more cinematic feel and surround vision.
4096 × 2160 1.90:1 is the res i would be looking for but they have went with the less wide version in tv's.4096 × 1714 2.39:1 would actually be a great monitor.Less taxing on the GPU but with a cinema ultra wide screen format.
Also how the hell do you power 4k res at over 60FPS? Anyone else think there is going to be a tug of war between 60hz 4k and 120hz? Framerating video just proves to me that 120hz is needed as sleeping dogs even at 60fps with no vsync still has judder when panning.Thats a rock solid 16.7ms frametime as well.No doubt it might be 6 years before someone launches a 120hz 4096 × 1714 Cinemascope display.
Last edited:
I'm taking this with a pinch of salt, this is the same reviewers that only a week ago were saying dual 7970's on 13.5b was essentially a stuttering mess. The prototype driver does sound promising however.
By all means they can send me a 4k display to do my own testing
+1
Skeptical of the whole thing to be honest.
Sounds to me like another PAL vs NTSC (where PAL was higher res but NTSC was higher Hz). IMO It would be cool if somebody released a "best of both worlds" screen at a reasonable price, I.E a 3840*2160@60Hz screen that could also do 1920*1080@120Hz that would be a nice bridge until we can get 4K 120Hz screens for a reasonable price, and its easily doable as running an LCD panel at half res avoids the blur you normally get from not having a 1-1 pixel map as it maps 2x2-1.
Yup but no kidding i would seriously have to look at them if they came in at around £2000.
I think a 21:9 120hz 4k screen would actually provide 2 grands worth of value.Considering you could probably use it to view movies shot in 48p or higher at 4k res.Not to mention NO BLACK BARS!
Sadly HMDI 2.0 needs to come first.
I think a 21:9 120hz 4k screen would actually provide 2 grands worth of value.Considering you could probably use it to view movies shot in 48p or higher at 4k res.Not to mention NO BLACK BARS!
Sadly HMDI 2.0 needs to come first.
Would Displayport not be up to the task?
Last edited:
That is a confusing way of thinking about it.
"Area" should be the same. Take a 30 inch 1080p and 30inch 2160p (4K).
Each pixel on the 1080p screen is now represented by 4 on the new screen, so there is 4times as much detail, hence "4x the resolution".
Think of it that way.
It really is a massive leap. Considerably bigger than 720p -> 1080, which is 'only' 2.25x.
Soldato
- Joined
- 30 Nov 2011
- Posts
- 11,522
it is convention though
as confusing as it may be, the generally accepted terminology in relation to resolution is that it relates to the square root of the sizing, not the straight dimensions
but then it is just like how everything previously has been called by the height (720p, 1080p) and now with 4K they are using the width when it should be 2160p
as confusing as it may be, the generally accepted terminology in relation to resolution is that it relates to the square root of the sizing, not the straight dimensions
but then it is just like how everything previously has been called by the height (720p, 1080p) and now with 4K they are using the width when it should be 2160p
The reason why it's "4K" is because it's not been standardised yet. There's multiple resolutions that make up what is considered 4K at the moment.
2160P is 2160P but not necessarily what will end up as the standarised "4K".
How can you say it's pedantry but ignore your arguments as being pedantic?
Yes, there are four times as many pixels on the screen, but it's still double the resolution.
It's the way it works, double the size of a 42" TV and you have an 84" TV, which is also four times the size, not a TV whose screen is twice the surface area.
You're basically confusing an increase in surface area with scaled increase.
Assuming the horizontal resolution as 3840, the vertical would be 1646.
So 3840x1646, (this is also exactly 3x the pixels of a single 1080P display) you would require 18.2Gb/s of bandwidth based on a 24bit colour depth:
24bits x 3840x1646 x 120(fps/Hz) = 18203443200 bits per second or 18.2Gb/s
Displayport 1.2's maximum bandwidth is 17.28Gb/s, so is just short of being able to drive such a display.
4K is over-rated for gaming.
VERY large screens for video content shot in 4K = Hell yes.
VERY large screens to game at 4K while sitting at a desktop computer = What in the hell?
Very large screens suck for any serious gaming and are aimed at slow time titles or console gaming where you sit a good few feet away with a controller.
I personally think anything more than 24-27" at a desk at normal desktop computing seating is totally overkill and past the point of being able to take in all of the screen. 4k on anything sub 40" seems like a total waste of time.
VERY large screens for video content shot in 4K = Hell yes.
VERY large screens to game at 4K while sitting at a desktop computer = What in the hell?
Very large screens suck for any serious gaming and are aimed at slow time titles or console gaming where you sit a good few feet away with a controller.
I personally think anything more than 24-27" at a desk at normal desktop computing seating is totally overkill and past the point of being able to take in all of the screen. 4k on anything sub 40" seems like a total waste of time.
4K isn't over-rated, and I don't think you quite get what over rated actually means.
4K on a TV is not as useful as say 4K on a projector projecting a 120" screen, for example.
But 4K on a monitor makes more sense than it does on a say 42-50" TV.
Factually, it's not past the point of being able to resolve detail (4K on a monitor from half a metre away), which is something more applicable to it being on a TV where you're sat 2-3 metres away from.
Computer monitors is where "4K" will be best. You can appreciate the increase of detail, clarity and sharpness much more. I have 2560x1440 displays and there was/is quite a large difference between the sharpness of them compared to my old 24" 1080P displays, and despite not having the best eyesight, I can still make out pixelation very easily. I'd imagine it'd still be somewhat noticeable on a 4K display as well, just nowhere near as much.
This has a positive impact on games, as the smaller the pixels, the less need for AA there is, which actually means that the performance drops from going to higher resolutions isn't actually that high if you're increasing resolution but reducing AA.
4K on a TV is not as useful as say 4K on a projector projecting a 120" screen, for example.
But 4K on a monitor makes more sense than it does on a say 42-50" TV.
Factually, it's not past the point of being able to resolve detail (4K on a monitor from half a metre away), which is something more applicable to it being on a TV where you're sat 2-3 metres away from.
Computer monitors is where "4K" will be best. You can appreciate the increase of detail, clarity and sharpness much more. I have 2560x1440 displays and there was/is quite a large difference between the sharpness of them compared to my old 24" 1080P displays, and despite not having the best eyesight, I can still make out pixelation very easily. I'd imagine it'd still be somewhat noticeable on a 4K display as well, just nowhere near as much.
This has a positive impact on games, as the smaller the pixels, the less need for AA there is, which actually means that the performance drops from going to higher resolutions isn't actually that high if you're increasing resolution but reducing AA.
Last edited:
Why did you fail to read what I posted?
I did not say 4K was over-rated. I said 4K for gaming use is over-rated, and it is. You still need to apply AA, anyone who says you do not need AA at 4K resolutions is simply dreaming. Nobody will be able to drive 4K reolutions at playable frame rates with AA applied without stupidly exotic GPU configurations.
I did not say 4K was over-rated. I said 4K for gaming use is over-rated, and it is. You still need to apply AA, anyone who says you do not need AA at 4K resolutions is simply dreaming. Nobody will be able to drive 4K reolutions at playable frame rates with AA applied without stupidly exotic GPU configurations.
It would be brilliant for eve online - being able to run 3-4 clients tiled at once on the same monitor (within your FOV) would be a lot more convenient than spread over multiple monitors.
Absolutely brilliant, I agree. But a very niche usage.