Time to buy 8K

[Capt Spack Jarrow]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sXb98mIeutg

[Dryspace]

There's no reason for 8K unless you want a High FoV Gaming setup. But even then, there is no GPU powerful enough to render 8K and true antialiasing, which you'll need if you go with a high enough FoV.

There isn't even a GPU powerful enough to render 8K @ 60 fps period. And the 5090 won't, either. DLSS/FSR is garbage.

[Andrius227]

Nah. 4k, maybe. At 60hz. With slightly reduced graphics settings or fsr/dlss. Which is basically like running 1440p anyway.

I went from gtx1080>gtx1080ti>rtx2080S>rtx3090>rtx4080 just to be able to run 1440p properly… RTX4080 is the first gpu that actually managed it.

[skOsH♥]

If I did 8k, I probably would only do it when it is Q-LED, at 500Hz, ultrawide

And that's like, four or five generations down the line

[Zefar]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1y5jEK-72JQ

It's not worth it. You can barely tell.

Diposting pertama kali oleh Dryspace:

There's no reason for 8K unless you want a High FoV Gaming setup. But even then, there is no GPU powerful enough to render 8K and true antialiasing, which you'll need if you go with a high enough FoV.

There isn't even a GPU powerful enough to render 8K @ 60 fps period. And the 5090 won't, either. DLSS/FLS is garbage.

The 4090 is as shown in the video above. You're just limited to some older games.

[NapalmDest54]

Diposting pertama kali oleh Andrius227:

Nah. 4k, maybe. At 60hz. With slightly reduced graphics settings or fsr/dlss. Which is basically like running 1440p anyway.

I went from gtx1080>gtx1080ti>rtx2080S>rtx3090>rtx4080 just to be able to run 1440p properly… RTX4080 is the first gpu that actually managed it.

Strange upgrade cycle you went through.

[Dutchgamer1982]

no.

to play in 4k you need a good monitor of 40 inch or larger
good = ips or oled, below 1ms responcetime, with gsync and freesync, and with 100hz or better.
and ofcourse in 16:9 as wider is crap.. 4:3 was preferable but thats no longer made.

only since 2 years monitors that can do that excist.. but they are still 4000+ euro.

ofcourse anyhting below 100 fps in unacceptable too.. and only with the 4090 we got the first and the ONLY card that can run 4k above that line, no other card can.. but it is pricy at 2100 euro.

so only NOW 4k is feasable for those with 10000 euro computers.
before it was not.

It be a while before 4k becomes mainstream...

8k is 4 times more pixels as 4k.. it would need the calculation power to go up 4x as well.
that will be quite a while... thats about the gap between 1xxx and 4xxx series if not 9xx to 4xxx series.. so expect that to take 6 years.

as for 8k monitors.. they likely will be even further ahead.. it is pointless to increase pixels without increasing screen size.. 40 inch is already quite the beefy size.. for 8k you would need closer to 70 inch.. at that size it becomes unpractical for a p monitor.. you have to sit so far away you would be missing all the details.

4k on a large 40-55 inch monitor is the sweet spot..

[Rod]

Have you ever looked at a youtube video and saw how easy it is to spot the difference between resolution? Well fire up a game in 8k and take screenshots.


Ill guarantee minute detail appears. The best case scenario for this i found is chain mail armor. You can see the individual O rings that links togeather to form the suit of armor. You see less of that info at lower res fact. You dont need to keep increasing screen size because people who harp on about theres no benefit below a 32-40 inch screen are misinformed.


This is the new "the human eye can only see 24fps" now its "8k is pointless below 55"".

[Dutchgamer1982]

Diposting pertama kali oleh Rod:

Have you ever looked at a youtube video and saw how easy it is to spot the difference between resolution? Well fire up a game in 8k and take screenshots.


Ill guarantee minute detail appears. The best case scenario for this i found is chain mail armor. You can see the individual O rings that links togeather to form the suit of armor. You see less of that info at lower res fact. You dont need to keep increasing screen size because people who harp on about theres no benefit below a 32-40 inch screen are misinformed.


This is the new "the human eye can only see 24fps" now its "8k is pointless below 55"".

the human eye can see 100hz,,. (some of us can) but around 160hz is the peak.

as for pixels.. it depends how far you are from your screen.

as a strategy player more pixels means more of the map I can see without scrolling, giving a competive edge.
but when things become to tiny.. than the benefit drops as it's hard to spot them and that time is lost.. negating any benefit.

since the old days of 480p.. pixeldensity has remaained the same.. I'd say we found the optimal density for the human eye.


to properly see things with higher density you will have to place your screen closer to you.. this will make a smaller screen fill more of your field of vieuw and make things apear larger.. but it is REALLY unhealthy for your eyesight to place a monitor that close to your face.. you want it at armslenght or a bit more bout 40-80cm from your face..

having a larger monitor to keep the dpi the same, means at the same healthy distance things look the same size, you just see more at the same time.
it does the same thing as bringing the monitor closer WITHOUT costing you your eyesight.


a 27 inch monitor does not fill your full vieuw at that distance... a 55 inch would.. but it is pushing it.
the 16:9 is already not ideal... it is to wide for your field of vieuw... the old 4:3 fitted it better.
its why I have 2 27 inch monitors turned in pagemode side by side to closer get this.

so the human eye needs a certain distance from screen. anything past a certain dpi gets immposible to spot.. so if you compared to 1440p increase number of pixels 4 fold.. you also need to increase surface area 4 fold.

.. same would apply to 8k only than to stay in your field of vieuw the monitor needs to get so large it needs to be placed like 2 meter away from you.. that will make things apear too small similair as having to much pixels on a smaller screen.. so i'd say 4k 55inch is the sweet spot.. anything more is useless..

that does not mean there is no use for extra gflops past that point.. first 4k and monitors that size in plasma or oled must become affordable.
->
and after that.. we are far from looking like real life... there is a lot of more detailed rendering that can be done.. that will need a lot of tflops but does not increase fps or dpi.

[C1REX]

You don’t need to play at native 8K to take advantage of an 8K screen - you can simply upscale from whatever resolution to 8K.

An 8K screen will also handle non-native resolutions extremely well, even better than a 4K screen.

People don’t even play at native 1440p anymore when DLSS looks so good and gives such a huge performance boost, but nobody says that 1440p is stupid and 960p monitors are better.

[Capt Spack Jarrow]

Diposting pertama kali oleh C1REX:

You don’t need to play at native 8K to take advantage of an 8K screen - you can simply upscale from whatever resolution to 8K.

An 8K screen will also handle non-native resolutions extremely well, even better than a 4K screen.

People don’t even play at native 1440p anymore when DLSS looks so good and gives such a huge performance boost, but nobody says that 1440p is stupid and 960p monitors are better.

The lower framerate sucks as a high-refresh gamer, but 8K looks absolutely stunning even on the lowest FSR preset, FSR also does not suffer from any of the known issues the higher the base resolution is. It also removes all disadvantages of using any type of shader based AA.

[C1REX]

Diposting pertama kali oleh Capt Spack Jarrow:

The lower framerate sucks as a high-refresh gamer, but 8K looks absolutely stunning even on the lowest FSR preset

FSR/DLSS performance at 4K upscales from 1080.
FSR/DLSS quality at 1440p upscales from lower - 960p.

I think people discredit 4K without even trying it. It’s the best resolution even for low end systems like GeForce 2060 or Playstation 4 in my opinion.

[Dutchgamer1982]

Diposting pertama kali oleh C1REX:

Diposting pertama kali oleh Capt Spack Jarrow:

The lower framerate sucks as a high-refresh gamer, but 8K looks absolutely stunning even on the lowest FSR preset

FSR/DLSS performance at 4K upscales from 1080.
FSR/DLSS quality at 1440p upscales from lower - 960p.

I think people discredit 4K without even trying it. It’s the best resolution even for low end systems like GeForce 2060 or Playstation 4 in my opinion.

anything below 100fps is unplayable.

and what goo is a higher resolution if you don't max out all settings.

4090 fps at 1080p ultra settings : 150fps
4090 fps at 1440 p ultra : 140 fps
4090 fps at 4k ultra : 115 fps

a bloody 2060 is not even suited for 1440p
(only 40ps at 1440p ultra)
let ALONE 4k.
a 2060 does barely make 100fps at 1080p which is where it should stay.

[C1REX]

Diposting pertama kali oleh Dutchgamer1982:

a 2060 does barely make 100fps at 1080p which is where it should stay.

And why are you against DLSS?

[Dutchgamer1982]

Diposting pertama kali oleh C1REX:

Diposting pertama kali oleh Dutchgamer1982:

a 2060 does barely make 100fps at 1080p which is where it should stay.

And why are you against DLSS?

like voodoo back in the day.. and games made for it running PHENOMONAL..
but it never catching on.

1 there are very few games using it (and non that I personally play)
2 I doubt it will ever become used broadly by most titles.. meaning for well over 95% of all you play you don't benefit from it
3 I like windows 7.. who does not support RTX (I have not used it on my 2080ti even once)
and the DLSS won't be released by NVIDIA on newer itles at all for win 7
->
even when it did.. it is not the same as truelly rendering an immage..

DLSS is to me at best "when you have crap hardware and want to force it to run"
but I prefer REAL 1440p over DLSS 4k.

my next pc likely will be 4k.. if the 5xxx series has a card thats not 2100 euro and with 4090 like performance..

[C1REX]

Diposting pertama kali oleh Dutchgamer1982:

DLSS is to me at best "when you have crap hardware and want to force it to run"
but I prefer REAL 1440p over DLSS 4k.

Nobody can question what you prefer but people tend to prefer 1440p with DLSS quality over REAL 960p.
People don’t prefer 4K yet because very few have tried it.
You can upscale any resolution to 4K from drivers level and new games without DLSS/FSR are becoming very rare.