This is a split board - You can return to the Split List for other boards.

When 4K is the Standard for PC, is there Any Reason to Go Higher with Res..?

#21ShadowGomamonPosted 10/14/2013 2:01:19 AM
Three 8k monitors in nvidia surround. Come at me.
#22Combo MasterPosted 10/14/2013 2:30:44 AM(edited)
At what point will 8k res at 120 frames a second be standard for pc gaming, 2040? There probably will never be a need to go higher than 8k. You would need a 120 inch tv or bigger which will always cost a fortune to probably notice a good enough difference over 4k.

I think 8k will be the limit and we have no need to go higher. If we do it would cost way to much for the minimal difference and HUGE screen you would need go any higher than 8k.

I mean how long is it going to be for a 120 inch 8k OLED tv to be 10 k or under? Most of us I think will probably be dead before that happens.




---
Combo Master
#23DarkZV2BetaPosted 10/14/2013 2:29:18 AM
Probably not. 60hz peasants are dead set on halting progress.
I'd say maybe 2045ish you'd see that kind of setup become affordable on the higher end of the display spectrum.
---
Want that Shield!
Ball and Cup on ps mobile has framerate issues. -stargazer64
#24fuzzymanPosted 10/14/2013 5:43:19 AM
half a billion pixels per second
---
http://i.imgur.com/hOjV6w3.jpg
#25Born LuckyPosted 10/14/2013 5:54:50 AM
4K is useless for TVs, and unless you sit less than 18 inches from your monitor, it's useless for PC as well.

4K is a marketing ploy used to fool the easily manipulated into parting with their money.
---
I was talking to the parrot - Poirot
#26NicodimusPosted 10/14/2013 5:59:11 AM
Born Lucky posted...
unless you sit less than 18 inches from your monitor, it's useless for PC as well.


A couple of thoughts.

-You can't just throw out a viewing distance without a screen size. They're two variables in the same equation.

-There are a lot of people that probably do sit 18 inches or less from their monitors.

-I think it will look nice for bigger TVs, however most people sit way too far back from their TVs and can't even discern the difference between 720p and 1080p as a result. Why would they drop more money on 2160p unless they had their viewing environment set up properly?
---
Intel i5 4670K | Corsair 16GB DDR3 | Gigabyte GTX 770 4GB | ASUS 27" 1440p
Corsair 480GB SSD | WD 4TB HDD | Fractal Design R4 | Corsair 750MX | Win7Ult 64
#27fuzzymanPosted 10/14/2013 6:05:36 AM
better off coding a new display language after 8k

the industry will take a decade to get 2 billion pixels /per sec on regular hardware
---
http://i.imgur.com/hOjV6w3.jpg
#28ZeroRaiderPosted 10/14/2013 7:09:07 AM
Born Lucky posted...
4K is useless for TVs, and unless you sit less than 18 inches from your monitor, it's useless for PC as well.

4K is a marketing ploy used to fool the easily manipulated into parting with their money.


what_blind_people_actually_believe.txt
#29JudgmenlPosted 10/14/2013 7:13:42 AM(edited)
idk 1920x1080 on a 23'' display already has enough pixel density for me, so 10 years down the line I could totally see some weird crap like 16000x9000.
---
http://i.imgur.com/sUtdyzN.png - Popularity =/= Quality.
http://puu.sh/4AoGC.png - Opinions =/= Truth.
#30schadowPosted 10/14/2013 8:27:28 AM
Judgmenl posted...
idk 1920x1080 on a 23'' display already has enough pixel density for me


That's what you may think, but once you look at something really big with many many many pixels, such as the 15" rMBP, you get all fuzzy inside and wonder why your 1080p text is equally fuzzy..
---
MageofBlood391 posted...
GameFAQs: Because if all else fails, you can always argue semantics.