new 4K monitors @ CES: Will it become the next PC standard?

As long as 1080p can be scaled perfectly without any scaling artifacts (nearest neighbour), I'm ready. Otherwise, I'll pass. It's not worth the loss in performance for newer games.

Exactly this, if i will be able to scale it from 1080p without image quality loss, i'm in, otherwise sorry, but FPS is more important in the end for me. I love downscaling, but not in cost of framerate.
 
It might, but not for another ten or twenty years. It's not worth buying the hardware you need to drive 4k with solid framerates right now. You'd be better off with 3D or 120Hz.
 
It might, but not for another ten or twenty years. It's not worth buying the hardware you need to drive 4k with solid framerates right now. You'd be better off with 3D or 120Hz.

"Better off", isn't that kind of subjective. 120hz or 3D doesn't improve my image quality.
 
For me, 16:9 is just over the verge of being too flat. 16:10 covers my eyesight perfectly.

Exactly, losing orientation and having to turn head kills multitasking and fast scroll reading. I am very fast user, i hate crap software design and lag.
 
More like, the higher the PPI, the less need for AA. Which of course is also affected by display size and seating distance. Resolution alone isn't a good determination of needing AA or not

Edit: All this crazy res talk and in two years I'll probably still be gaming on a 720p display. Heh.
exactly. Which is why games running at 1080p look sharper on a 21" display than they do on a 27" display.

16:10 is the closest to the golden ratio. 16:9 is absolutely horseshit for any PC use, it's too wide.
I much prefer 16:9, and I have a 16:10 monitor.
 
If I had one, I'd run the desktop at the higher resolution for clearer fonts and more raw desktop space, but I'd still game at 1920x1080.
 
You can't be serious.

I am so ready for 4k.
Well, your name used to be Dennis4k. But that's about how much people would spend on upgrades trying to keep up with that res over the next decade, unless they made huge compromises on framerates or settings. And I consider anything under 60 locked to be a huge compromise.
 
Would the human eye be able to appreciate 8k?

Well, I dont know at what resolution a 20/20 eye sight operate, but you can really see details in stuff. Like insane. A human eye can look at sand, and see each separate grain of sand.
I wonder if we will ever get that resolution.
 
They might as well just push 4K Projectors. Very few people sit close enough to their TVs that they can discern the difference between 1080P and 720P, and it would be financial suicide to make content catered to 2160P.

The enthusiast market might be overjoyed, but if that segment actually bought enough hardware to be relevant stuff like the Vita would be selling better.
 
So .....

You think PS5 and Xbox 1440 will have GPU's capable of 4k ?

I'm just thinking because, these monitors/TVs aren't going to be affordable anytime soon.
 
So .....

You think PS5 and Xbox 1440 will have GPU's capable of 4k ?

I'm just thinking because, these monitors/TVs aren't going to be affordable anytime soon.

I'd say it's a given. By the time those consoles are out prices will be at mainstream level. Look how fast the prices on 1080p displays dropped going from the start of this gen.
 
They might as well just push 4K Projectors. Very few people sit close enough to their TVs that they can discern the difference between 1080P and 720P, and it would be financial suicide to make content catered to 2160P.

The enthusiast market might be overjoyed, but if that segment actually bought enough hardware to be relevant stuff like the Vita would be selling better.

But this is about PC monitors and at the usual distance when using a computer the difference between 720p and 2160p is insane.
 
Well, your name used to be Dennis4k. But that's about how much people would spend on upgrades trying to keep up with that res over the next decade, unless they made huge compromises on framerates or settings. And I consider anything under 60 locked to be a huge compromise.

They're going to spend every 5-10 years when the bulb burns out or the caps go or the kid chucks a Wiimote through it or they just feel like treating themselves. 4k sets are already $6500ish for a 55-inch in Japan; (yield-based?) issues with an overseas launch aside, in a couple years they're going to be a standard premium product, and by the end of the next console gen 1080p and 1440p is going to be like 720p now--you're going to be hard-pressed to find it in anything but low-end laptops and TVs that come in a plain cardboard box labeled "TV".

As for what exactly new consoles do, 4k is likely to be MORE useful if they cling to 720p+effects; a big advantage of 4k sets is that they can display 720p pixel-tripled and 1080p pixel-doubled, rather than the terrible vaseline effect you get from consoles now where the console scales from 3/2 anamorphic 540p to 720p and then your TV scales from 720p to 768p or 1080p.
 
They might as well just push 4K Projectors. Very few people sit close enough to their TVs that they can discern the difference between 1080P and 720P, and it would be financial suicide to make content catered to 2160P.

The enthusiast market might be overjoyed, but if that segment actually bought enough hardware to be relevant stuff like the Vita would be selling better.
The real benefits of 4k seem to be for desktop. Especially for coders.
 
Coders? Why? Do they really need a smooth edge on a and <?
I would think its more for gamers or designers

More text, easier to stare at for 812-14 hours at a time, more detail per character allows for easier distinction between i.e. O and 0, ( { and [, . and ,, : and ;, 1 and l, and all the other tiny bugs that eat so much time.
 
Higher resolution, duh. That higher res allows for more text on the screen lol

Well I dont know about that, there is a bare minimum at which you can see the actual text. If you have a bigger resolution but the same size of text, its pretty useless because all you have is text using more pixels.

But yeah, I agree that having more readable text by screen can help a lot.
 
Well I dont know about that, there is a bare minimum at which you can see the actual text. If you have a bigger resolution but the same size of text, its pretty useless because all you have is text using more pixels.

True, but it depends on the size of the monitor too and the person viewing it. I can stare a really tiny text and read it with no problem as long as it's clear, some others can't.
 
They're going to spend every 5-10 years when the bulb burns out or the caps go or the kid chucks a Wiimote through it or they just feel like treating themselves. 4k sets are already $6500ish for a 55-inch in Japan; (yield-based?) issues with an overseas launch aside, in a couple years they're going to be a standard premium product, and by the end of the next console gen 1080p and 1440p is going to be like 720p now--you're going to be hard-pressed to find it in anything but low-end laptops and TVs that come in a plain cardboard box labeled "TV".

As for what exactly new consoles do, 4k is likely to be MORE useful if they cling to 720p+effects; a big advantage of 4k sets is that they can display 720p pixel-tripled and 1080p pixel-doubled, rather than the terrible vaseline effect you get from consoles now where the console scales from 3/2 anamorphic 540p to 720p and then your TV scales from 720p to 768p or 1080p.
The living room is a whole different subject. I don't think PC gamers will be that eager to jump in, considering how bad the upscaling is on LCD monitors. $4k is also on the low end for trying to maintain a high end PC for ten years. $4k on GPUs alone would be a conservative estimate unless there's some major breakthrough.

Plus, on the whole desktops are decreasing in popularity and notebooks are gaining ground. Those are definitely in no shape to drive 4k and a lot of them are still 720p. A good 70% of people in the Steam hardware survey are under 1080p, and there is little to no growth at 1080p and over.
 
Wouldn't the push for PC 4k standardization have a somewhat negative impact for the next few years, until GPU's are massively more powerful than today's best? Also, even as these cards are notably increasing in power with every new model, RAM speed and memory bandwidth aren't necessarily advancing at the same pace. That'll be a real issue that may take quite a while to solve if targeting 4k.

It's like everything top developers & middleware vendors were just recently boasting about - with their new engines and stuff - will be pretty much impossible at those crazy resolutions, while still maintaining the performance and features/FX that they were planning to wow everyone with.

Things were just now starting to get very exciting in the world of GPU performance and where graphics are going. I don't see many developers trading in all that just for a resolution bump.

Then there's the practical side to it all. While there's no argument that 4k on PC will allow more vivid IQ, it's just not going to be as noticeable as on very large screen TVs, which currently have worst dpi than PC screens. Given all that, it's asking developers to displace a heck of a lot of GPU power, for such little gain.

I think 4k PC standard(for everything besides games) could be another 2 years away. For games, however, I don't even want to imagine when.
 
A 4k monitor has to have 120hz and 0 input lag and great scaling for me to consider it for gaming. If even one of those are missing then it is not even worth it for gaming for me as it will be somewhat of a downgrade in user experience. For gaming i need fast response, smooth motion and great image quality before any bump in resolution is considered.
 
I would need to see a 4k monitor next to a traditional 1080p one just to judge it. I'd love to see the actual difference that is discernable.
 
Top Bottom