You aint getting "ultra high" on the next crysis killer with a 4K display with a single gpu card of today. I agree, scaling is key, the display needs to scale well to meet my requirements. (but the idea of 4K desktop space gives me a nerdgasm).
But you probably can play at something between medium and high at least with a much sharper image.
It would be unnecessary futureproofing. Just because the RAM is there for 4k, doesn't mean the performance is of todays cards..
Right. It is pretty simple, you'd need the horsepowe, to power a 4K display, about the same as to drive a four display 1080p eyefinity setup. Bet noone is runing Crysis3 Ultra on a single GPU card on 4 of those.
4K is just another setting, in terms of IQ. It is all a trade off. Some want that 4k quality, others don't.Yes, and if you're in that niche, then good on you . I am not however. On the gaming front, the single reason I invest in the latest GPU and game tech is to be baffled on the next gen graphics / ai / submersion. For my profile I would certainly not be purchasing a 4K display to run BF5 on medium.
Oh and on a "ps" note.. I am so much more hyped over the occulus rift than 4K "regular" screens.... Just saying.
http://www.amazon.com/Seiki-Digital-.../dp/B00DOPGO2G
4k for $499 damn...some great reviews on it both online, and on youtube. I might grab one, this seems like too good of a deal to pass up.
http://www.amazon.com/Seiki-Digital-.../dp/B00DOPGO2G
4k for $499 damn...some great reviews on it both online, and on youtube. I might grab one, this seems like too good of a deal to pass up.
"you really won't need AA at 4k resolutions, or much less of it"
Hmmm, looks like its intended more so for a TV, and that those reviewing it as a gaming or desktop monitor state its got some issues with the technology and some quality control concerns.
Def a step in the right direction though. Shows it can be done rather inexpensively if your willing to take a gamble on some fly by night foreign manufacturer and early consumer priced designs.
There are a TON of 4K videos on this channel - ThirtyIR
How do those videos appear on your Dell UP2414Q @ 4K?
What I take away is Sohaltang will not accept anything but the settings pegged on max. It is a common way of thought, but the reality is, games are only slightly less good looking at reduced settings. People spend tons of money trying to make 1080p games play at ulra maxed out on things like The Witcher 2, because they are unwilling to turn off Ubersampling.
I personally think this mentality is not meant for PC gaming. PC games are not intended to be played at maxed out settings. The recommended PC spec's for most games, cannot net you maxed out settings. PC settings are simply a set of possible choices to allow the user to self optimize the game. Some settings give hardly any visual improvements at huge costs to FPS. You pick and choose, and some choose higher resolutions as their choice of settings. Others choose super FPS, while others choose to turn on DoF, Ubersampling and what ever else they desire.
4k gives you an improvement that is not given with maxed out settings on a 1080p screen. That resolution may be better than Ubersampling is to them (and likely to anyone, in this case).
It is a person choice.
I personally will not be going to 4k, because I require 80+ FPS in most games to be content. I also wonder if G-sync might help with that. I'll likely end up going for a 1440p 120hz G-sync monitor my next purchase, but most people don't require 80+ FPS. Most people don't require to see maxed out in the video settings either. I've learned that modern games look better at high settings than Ultra, because I can hardly see a difference in visuals, but high gives me smoother frames, which matter more to me.
MSAA is not a comparison to supersampling. MSAA only applies to borders of objects, supersampling and higher resolutions, apply to everything. Use SSAA to compare to 4k to be a little more accurate.This whole topic could have been described in two numbers, framerate before and after. There is only one catch, because 4K equates to super sampling four pixels to one, you can drop it as density increases. Battlefield uses MSAA a kind of economical super sampling that cuts framerate by about 25%. It works like this:
Framerate@FullHD(4xMSAA)-->100
Framerate@FullHD(no MSAA)->133.3
Framerate@4K (no MSAA)---->133.3 / Scaling factor = between 33 and 44 FPS
Performance doesn't doesn't quite scale linearly with resolution, so a quadrupling or pixels leaves one with something more than a quarter of the initial framerate. A quarter to a third, I reckon, somewhere between 33-44 FPS, this would require some testing to confirm!
However it's still a scary drop from 100 even adjusting for AA.
90% of gamers don't use $500+ video cards. I'm not spending as much on my whole PC as some posters in this thread spend just on video cards. They're far from normal in doing so. Today, 60FPS is barely possible with <$250 cards, pulling typically <150W, at 1080P, for quite a few games. I don't even want to be in the same room with a 200W+ video card, either. So, how is 4K supposed to play out with, say, an R9 270, or GTX 760, or something even cheaper? The option to play with maxed settings is typically unreasonable, or depending on game, may even not work.I personally think it's ridiculous that PC Gamers have this insane mentality that "If I don't put every setting at the absolute maximum then it's low image quality!!!!" I've always made sure to read an image quality guide on a game before playing it so I can get the FPS to Image quality ratio possible. There are certain features that you turn on that drop FPS by 33% but give no visible image quality boost.
Yet PC Gamers INSIST on turning on this setting or else "I'm not running the game at Max!!!!!"
A setting can have a .5% image quality boost for a 33% FPS hit and PC Gamers still will turn the setting on. I used to think PC Gamers were much more intelligent than console gamers and used more reasoning in their decisions but after reading VC forums for awhile now, I realize this is definitely not true and a LOT of PC Gamers make decisions based on emotion rather than pure facts.
I do think 4K is most likely playable at acceptable levels for 90%+ of gamers. It's only hardcore "I Need 120 FPS or the game isn't playable!" type gamers that it won't be good for.
I don't think they are holding back speed. The only thing that may have changed is Nvidia would have had 2-way surround sooner, and cards with more VRAM. That's about all that would have changed.I do, however, have a legitimate fear that 4k may be too powerful for the next couple of card architectures. I think what happened is the gpu devs became too comfy with the long past due life of 1080p and are just now realizing 4k is coming hard and fast and more affordable sooner than thought.
So we may not see cards that can sustain framerates like they can on today's resolutions for a good couple of years, especially with msaa and ubersampling.
And for those in the entry level and mainstream card class price range... at least 4 years before they can even be playable at 4k.
MSAA is not a comparison to supersampling. MSAA only applies to borders of objects, supersampling and higher resolutions, apply to everything. Use SSAA to compare to 4k to be a little more accurate.
And any form of AA is not the same as actually having the pixels. AA is a way to smooth out aliasing by averaging the color between an object and the background it is on. That is not the same as having more pixels.
90% of gamers don't use $500+ video cards. I'm not spending as much on my whole PC as some posters in this thread spend just on video cards. They're far from normal in doing so. Today, 60FPS is barely possible with <$250 cards, pulling typically <150W, at 1080P, for quite a few games. I don't even want to be in the same room with a 200W+ video card, either. So, how is 4K supposed to play out with, say, an R9 270, or GTX 760, or something even cheaper? The option to play with maxed settings is typically unreasonable, or depending on game, may even not work.
If a single 780 Ti can do it, and you find value in that, cool. Really, I got no problem with that. JHH always needs new jackets . But 90% of PC gamers aren't spending that much on a video card, and won't be any time soon. Even thinking of 10% as spending that much I think is quite optimistic.
For those 90% of PC gamers, I would be much more interested in quality scaling algorithms, more than just making pixels fuzzy or quadrupling the same pixels (HQ2X, for 1080P@4K, FI), even going as far as integrating shader AA into a scaling filter, to handle 4K well.