Frame Rating: High End GPUs Benchmarked at 4K Resolutions

[spoffle]

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 read it, I just hadn't finished.

And no, you're not correct about being able to drive 4K resolutions either.

There's plenty of games that I could play on a single 6950 (stock clocks, no unlocked shaders) across 3x 2560x1440 displays, which is a greater resolution overall than 4K.

I'm not talking about the latest and greatest games, but older games make up the vast majority of games that will be played anyway. In my example, I played a load of Fallout 3 and New Vegas as well as some other games with playable framerates.

 

[Sin_Chase]

I did read it, I just hadn't finished.

And no, you're not correct about being able to drive 4K resolutions either.

There's plenty of games that I could play on a single 6950 (stock clocks, no unlocked shaders) across 3x 2560x1440 displays, which is a greater resolution overall than 4K.

I'm not talking about the latest and greatest games, but older games make up the vast majority of games that will be played anyway. In my example, I played a load of Fallout 3 and New Vegas as well as some other games with playable framerates.

Games that are years old, at lowered details. Please do not kid yourself, even the best single GPU solutions could not drive a current AAA title at 4K with good details settings at acceptable frame rates.

I'm not sure why you can see pixels. I cannot discern pixels on a 24" 16:9 1920x1080 monitor unless I sit a few centimetres away from the panel.

 

[spoffle]

Games that are years old, at lowered details. Please do not kid yourself, even the best single GPU solutions could not drive a current AAA title at 4K with good details settings at acceptable frame rates.

But you didn't say current AAA titles. People play more than just the latest AAA game.

And no, the games I played weren't at lowered details. I'm not "Kidding" myself, it's a test I carried out with the games maxed out.

Also, doubling the effective pixel count doesn't cut performance in half, more often than not the performance hit is around 30%.

So there's plenty of recent "AAA" games that you could actually get playable performance on with say a 7970GE, and even better if overclocked.

Both my 7950s do 1300Mhz on the core which should give about the same performance as a 7970 at 1200Mhz, which would be enough for 40-60FPS on a lot of recent games with maximum settings bar AA, which isn't as necessary at higher resolutions.

I'm not sure why you can see pixels. I cannot discern pixels on a 24" 16:9 1920x1080 monitor unless I sit a few centimetres away from the panel.

It sounds like crap eyesight to me? Or you're confusing being able to see the black lines between pixels as being the same as being able to to see pixelation.

Basically if turning AA on makes a difference for you, then you can see the pixels on the display.

 

[Sin_Chase]

It sounds like crap eyesight to me? Or you're confusing being able to see the black lines between pixels as being the same as being able to to see pixelation.

I have 20-20. Black lines between pixels, what are you on about?!

AA makes a difference on 4K as it does on 1920x1080. End of. AA will always be required in some degree.

I will happily call it now, 4K will be a niche market for gaming. It will never be mainstream for such use.

Video content, yes - 4K will make huge progression as the next '1080p' and in the living room 4K will become more popular. Not for gaming though, I imagine VR will become more mainstream than 4K ever will.

 

[spoffle]

I have 20-20. Black lines between pixels, what are you on about?!

Oh lawd, are you serious? *facepalm* there are black lines between pixels on displays...

Come on, everyone knows that.

AA makes a difference on 4K as it does on 1920x1080. End of. AA will always be required in some degree.

End of what? Has someone been saying that AA isn't needed for 4K and I'm not seeing it, or are you responding to something no one said?

I will happily call it now, 4K will be a niche market for gaming. It will never be mainstream for such use.

1080P is mainstream...

It was a niche until the displays were cheap enough that 1080P screens were inexpensive.

That's how it works. You can't really be suggesting that the mainstream resolution will never increase beyond 1920x1080? That's just a joke, I can hear circus music in my head whilst reading your post.

Video content, yes - 4K will make huge progression as the next '1080p' and in the living room 4K will become more popular. Not for gaming though, I imagine VR will become more mainstream than 4K ever will.

The circus music is getting louder now. Are you seriously saying that "VR" will become mainstream and yet mainstream displays will be stuck at 1080P?

Is this real life? Oh wait I know what it is, it's someone trying to educate people on stuff they don't understand again.

 

[Sin_Chase]

Yeah, you are clearly clueless.

Resolutions above 1920x1080 have existed for years and years and years and years. Are they mainstream? No.

End of discussion.

 

[Gregster]

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.

Agreed with this.

As much as I would like to see 4K gaming, it isn't beneficial on anything as small as a monitor and I am not keen on having a 40+inch monitor 3 feet away from me.

For films though, I am interested.

 

[spoffle]

Yeah, you are clearly clueless.

Resolutions above 1920x1080 have existed for years and years and years and years. Are they mainstream? No.

End of discussion.

I'm clueless? You have no idea what you're talking about at all.

Before 1080P was mainstream, something lower resolution was, and guess what, resolutions above that had existed for years and years and years and years, are they mainstream now? No.

You've been able to get monitors around 2304x1440 for what, the last 15 years or so? So resolutions above 1080P have been available for a significant amount of time before 1080P became what you could call mainstream.

Surely you understand where this is going? You claimed 4K would never be mainstream.

So you are really (like for real?) suggesting that the mainstream resolution of monitors will NEVER go beyond 1080P? What planet are you living on?

Herp de derp de herp derp.

It isn't beneficial on anything as small as a monitor.

How sure of this are you?

From an objective point of view, you're quite incorrect.

I know you have 27" 1080P displays, a 2560x1440 display would be a massive upgrade in image quality and sharpness, and the pixels are only around 30% smaller.

Have you viewed such a display next to your own displays to see how different they look?

I'm guessing you haven't, but it's something that becomes very apparent when you see them side by side.

If I hold my phone against my monitor and view the Google Chrome icon side by side on my monitor and on my phone (both at the same distance) the chrome icon looks significantly sharper.

My monitors have a pixel density of 108 pixels per inch, my phone has a pixel density of 284 pixels per inch.

A 4K display at 27" only has a pixel density of 163 pixels per inch. 4K isn't even close to being high resolution enough to be close to the limit at which our eyes can resolve detail from 50cm away.

 

[Gregster]

Maybe. Time will tell and I hope you are right.

No need for the rudeness in your posts though.

 

[spoffle]

Maybe. Time will tell and I hope you are right.

No need for the rudeness in your posts though.

Rudeness is subjective. I'm being blunt because Sinchase is talking rubbish.

 

[Tonester0011]

4k on something like 27 or 30" would be pretty special, still slightly too large a screen for me though (got a 27" 2560x1440, yes and no - mainly no )

Considering 2560x1440/1600 screens don't seem to want to shrink down to 24" i doubt 4k is going to come down into the comfortable realm of usable monitor sizes.

 

[Sin_Chase]

spoffle you are talking rubbish and clearly INCAPABLE of comprehending.

You seem to want to omit VERY important words simply to somehow advance the point (You do not have).

Nobody cares about PPI, "resolvable detail". The sheer truth is that 1920x1080 is only very popular now because the High Definition video content made it so. 4K will eventually become the mainstream High Def format for very large displays, but it's very unlikely that 4K will be adopted as a mainstream gaming resolution.

It WILL eventually become mainstream for VIDEO content, but not GAMING content.

1200, 1440 and above are very very niche in a gaming context. Why? Because they provide very little benefit over 1080 for gaming, 1080 is detailed enough, good enough on a REASONABLY sized screen for desktop usage and can be driven by non-exotic GPU configurations.

 

[spoffle]

Photobucket is compressing my photo too much, but even in this one you can see a massive difference.

It was taken about 50CM away, and I have made sure

Here's a 100% crop of the photo:

You can clearly see that from 2560x1440 to "4K" isn't going to get to the level shown on my phone's display.

 

[Tonester0011]

1200, 1440 and above are very very niche in a gaming context. Why? Because they provide very little benefit over 1080 for gaming, 1080 is detailed enough, good enough on a REASONABLY sized screen for desktop usage and can be driven by non-exotic GPU configurations.

The only reason i currently game on a 1080 screen is because of the faster panel (120hz, TN etc etc) suits my games i play better.

The detail, the colours are night and day different compared to even a cheaper HD+ monitor. They're niche because they're still relatively expensive, they're still quite large. The actual grunt required isn't that much more compared to 1080 gaming to be fair (30-40% more for same graphic detail, not discounting AA)

 

[Sin_Chase]

Phone screens are so far away from PC monitors it is not even worth comparing.

They are exceptionally high PPI, VERY small dimensioned LED (for the best part) displays. They do not scale up to 24 inches, the cost involved and low yield is not attainable.

To attain the same level as a 1280x720 4.3" mobile screen on a 24" PC monitor you would need to display far more than a 4K resolution. I do not even know why you are using a mobile display for comparison, it's ridiculous.

 

[spoffle]

spoffle you are talking rubbish and clearly INCAPABLE of comprehending.

Oh lawd, It's embarrassing that you have no idea what you're talking about whilst claiming I don't.

You seem to want to omit VERY important words simply to somehow advance the point (You do not have).

NOPE. You're the one saying it'll never be mainstream.

Nobody cares about PPI, "resolvable detail". The sheer truth is that 1920x1080 is only very popular now because the High Definition video content made it so. 4K will eventually become the mainstream High Def format for very large displays, but it's very unlikely that 4K will be adopted as a mainstream gaming resolution.

If no one cares about resolveable detail, then what's the point in increasing resolution at all?

You're talking even more crap now. If 1080P video content is what pushed 1080P displays to be mainstream, why do you think it'll never happen for 4K video content and 4K displays?

It WILL eventually become mainstream for VIDEO content, but not GAMING content.

Why? Are monitors going to stop at 1080P for the mainstream and nothing higher resolution will ever be produced as the mainstream ever?

1200, 1440 and above are very very niche in a gaming context. Why? Because they provide very little benefit over 1080 for gaming, 1080 is detailed enough, good enough on a REASONABLY sized screen for desktop usage and can be driven by non-exotic GPU configurations.

Talking more rubbish. The reason why 1920x1080 took over 1920x1200 is because it's cheaper for manufacturers to produce 16:9 displays, they end up getting more displays out of a single LCD sheet with 1920x1080 than with 1920x1200.

The reason why 2560x1440/1600 isn't as popular is because they are very expensive and they don't fit in to a "standard". But mainly due to the price.

2560x1440 can be driven without exotic GPU configs, I've already pointed this out to you. Going from 1920x1080 to 2560x1440 brings a performance hit of around 30%. For any game that runs at 100FPS already, that means going to 2560x1440 will still result in good frame rates.

 

[Sin_Chase]

Says the person comparing a mobile display to a PC monitor.

 

[spoffle]

Phone screens are so far away from PC monitors it is not even worth comparing.

They are exceptionally high PPI, VERY small dimensioned LED (for the best part) displays. They do not scale up to 24 inches, the cost involved and low yield is not attainable.

To attain the same level as a 1280x720 4.3" mobile screen on a 24" PC monitor you would need to display far more than a 4K resolution. I do not even know why you are using a mobile display for comparison, it's ridiculous.

A 4K display at 27" only has a pixel density of 163 pixels per inch. 4K isn't even close to being high resolution enough to be close to the limit at which our eyes can resolve detail from 50cm away.

You do know why I'm comparing, I said it before. Seriously, stop talking crap, it's embarrassing.

You are making out as if there's very little difference in the pixel densities. 4K isn't even that high density, that's the point.

It's not ridiculous at all. Stop acting like the technology to produce such high resolution displays doesn't exist.

IBM brought out a 3840x2400 22" display 12 years ago, which is 204 pixels per inch. It's perfectly possible for companies to manufacture high density displays. Apple's having them made to shove in their laptops.

Also the screen I compared it to was a 5.3" screen, not 4.3, and yes it's an OLED display but OLED displays are difficult to manufacture at large sizes with high pixel densities, but I'm not talking about OLED.

LCD technology is extremely mature, and super high density displays are more than capable of being made.

You do realise that monitor displays are made in massive sheets and cut up in to invididual panel sizes, right?

That means very high density displays are already being produced, they're just not being configured as such.

Samsung who make the display for the Nexus 10 (2560x1600@10") could very easily produce a 30" 7680x4800 display at 300 pixels per inch.

You know, I don't know why I'm bothering though, you are clearly clueless if you don't know that there are black lines between pixels on displays.

 

[Sin_Chase]

The technology exists to scale up mobile displays to PC monitor sizing, it's just very low yield and not cost effective.

Again, it's absolutely stupid to compare a mobile display to a PC monitor shouting "LOOK 4K WILL BE AWESOMES!!!"

I cannot be bothered to engage with you any more. 4K will not be mainstream for gaming, end of. Feel free to argue with yourself however.

 

[james.miller]

That's not how resolution works, I.E 100x100 is double the resolution of 50x50, despite being 4x the area.

you mean Display resolution. Resolution itself is an ambiguous word and has different meaning dependent on how it's applied. IE, resolution can be given in DPI / PPI measurements. 'The display has a resolution of 441PPI', for example.

So you're all right. Or wrong. You decide.

4K isn't even that high density, that's the point.

Not sure how you can say that without using some context. Ie, the size of this imaginary 4k display would be a start