4K gaming: MOAR RAM NEEDED!!

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

boxleitnerb

Platinum Member
Nov 1, 2011
2,601
2
81
Bear in mind that full SSAA was mentioned, which if I'm not mistaken is the old fashioned Super-Sampled Anti-Aliasing that either doubles or quadruples the actual resolution then brings it back down to the actual resolution eliminating most jaggies.

Now that SMAA has come out there is no longer the need to do use SSAA and the huge memory footprint it needs, you can make use of all those extra shader cores to get pretty much the same quality.

Watch the 2nd half of the video I linked to and you'll see what I mean.

SMAA sucks in motion (as do FXAA, MLAA...). It is galaxies away from the quality of SSAA.

As for 4K:
I've said it already and I'll say it again - 4K is useless for gaming right now. Give us way better graphics first with all those fine details, and then eventually 4K. The visual difference between 4K and 1080p is negligible, and the performance could be spent for so much better graphics via better illumination, massive tessellation, particle physics. Those visual effects would stand out 100x times more than 4K.
 
Last edited:

UaVaj

Golden Member
Nov 16, 2012
1,546
0
76
Are you the designated comedian for this thread?

looks like you are simply working hard at increasing your post count, you obviously do not have a clue about sharpness of image quality.

CNFS. carry on.

OTOH. do accept my apology if you happen to have bionic eyeballs.
 

TemjinGold

Diamond Member
Dec 16, 2006
3,050
65
91
Could the market largely skip 1600p/1440p and go directly from 1080p to 4K, with the help of 4K hype? I won't mind it but I doubt it.

If the market switches to mass production of 4K TVs, yes. The reason those other resolutions never caught on price-wise is because we don't make TVs that way.
 

Meghan54

Lifer
Oct 18, 2009
11,573
5,096
136
If the market switches to mass production of 4K TVs, yes. The reason those other resolutions never caught on price-wise is because we don't make TVs that way.


So true, and I'd be willing to wager this is exactly what'll happen over the next couple of years. 3D looks to me like it's flopped so something else is needed to spur a new wave of TV replacements. 4K is probably the next step in that cycle. Do have to admit, a 4K set really does look damned fine with an appropriate source. Watched part of a movie at one of the ATL Fry's while eating lunch and the picture was stunning.
 

spat55

Senior member
Jul 2, 2013
539
5
76
I game on a 1440p monitor with a HD 7850 2GB, and it can handle BF3 on 64 player maps on Medium-High mix at 60FPS easily. I honestly do not think that 4k will be around until at least the next decade, when you think about it, 1080p on TV still isn't a main thing, like people still buy themselves DVD' as they are cheaper. Also consider the amount of bandwidth it would take on the internet to download games, films etc, and the amount of GPU power it will take to game at such a high resolution!

EDIT: It will be around very soon, but I do not think it will be mainstream until the next decade.
 

UaVaj

Golden Member
Nov 16, 2012
1,546
0
76
if 3D failed to take off. 4k will be epic fail. perhap hologram will be the next thing.
 

guskline

Diamond Member
Apr 17, 2006
5,338
476
126
Interesting article. Always glad to see new limits in monitors. I'm thrilled to have "upgraded" to an Achieva Shimian 2560 x 1440. I think the posters who mentioned the 4k move to TVs are spot on. The few PC enthusiasts who can right now afford a 4k monitor aren't going to affect the market significantly. You really promote 4k for TV watching and it takes off and look out. BTW, will the upcoming X-Box and Sony gaming consoles be able to use the power of a 4k monitor?
 

PrincessFrosty

Platinum Member
Feb 13, 2008
2,301
68
91
www.frostyhacks.blogspot.com
Higher display resolutions have higher demands on vRAM especially when running anti-aliasing, this isn't news.

If you want to run super high resolutions then buy video cards with more RAM on them, simple.

The 4k res is about 8Mpix, which would be the equivalent of running 4x 1080p screens, not that outlandish as many people have 3x1080p for surround which works very well, some people even drive 3x 2560x1600 screens which is actually 12Mpix way bigger than a single 4k screen, so again do-able with the right hardware.

Is it cost effective? No. The high end never is, again this isn't news.
 

PrincessFrosty

Platinum Member
Feb 13, 2008
2,301
68
91
www.frostyhacks.blogspot.com
if 3D failed to take off. 4k will be epic fail. perhap hologram will be the next thing.

Rubbish.

4k is just one screen resolution standard in a very long line of increasing screen resolutions over the years, I don't believe there's any examples in the history of computing where people have failed to adopt to a new, higher screen resolution, it just takes time for the consumer hardware to drop in price and become affordable for the masses.

It's the stupid marketing that's applied like "HD" and "4k", it's total nonsense. What we really mean is 1920x1080, or 3840x2160, when seen in the context of screen resolutions evoloving over the years it makes more sense.

640x480
800x600
1024x768
1152x864
1280x720
1280x768
1280x960
1360x768
1366x768
1400x1050
1440x900
1600x900
1600x1200
1680x1050
1920x1080
1920x1200
2048x1152
2048x1536
2560x1440
2560x1600

Just to name a few over the years.

But yeah, one newer higher resolution is going to fail, sure.
 

UaVaj

Golden Member
Nov 16, 2012
1,546
0
76
perhap "fail" was a wrong choice of word.

since tri titan can bearly render 4k resolution with all the eye candy. ps4/xbox supporting 4k is definitely low/fair setting. if that is your cup of tea. definitely more power to you.

"long" is the corrected word. it will be a long long long while before 4k (3840x2160) become the standard in gaming.

per steam
http://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey

2% is above 1920x1080
32% is 1920x1080
66% is below 1920x1080 (15% of this group is ~1600x900, ~25% is 1366x768, 16% is below)
 
Last edited:

tential

Diamond Member
May 13, 2008
7,355
642
121
SMAA sucks in motion (as do FXAA, MLAA...). It is galaxies away from the quality of SSAA.

As for 4K:
I've said it already and I'll say it again - 4K is useless for gaming right now. Give us way better graphics first with all those fine details, and then eventually 4K. The visual difference between 4K and 1080p is negligible, and the performance could be spent for so much better graphics via better illumination, massive tessellation, particle physics. Those visual effects would stand out 100x times more than 4K.

I've posted the data a ton of times as well so I agree with you. quadrupling the resolution will not add the same effects as other things we could do in games. All it does is provide a massive toll on the GPU.

CNET was also upset about the 4K display rise. Instead of getting displays with better contrast, brightness, black levels, motion, etc. we're getting 4 times the resolution, which is negligible at best to 1080p. I agree, we needed the other resolution jumps, but this one is hitting a point where it will be extremely hard to notice and will bring GPUs to their knees.

However, 4K displays will help NVidia and AMD push enthusiasts to spend more on GPUs to power them so I am guessing the industry will power ahead to ensure this is in games.

"Purchase 3 "Titan 2" in SLI configuration and run Crysis 4 at 4K resolution! Starting as a bundle deal for only $4,000" - Nvidia

So true, and I'd be willing to wager this is exactly what'll happen over the next couple of years. 3D looks to me like it's flopped so something else is needed to spur a new wave of TV replacements. 4K is probably the next step in that cycle. Do have to admit, a 4K set really does look damned fine with an appropriate source. Watched part of a movie at one of the ATL Fry's while eating lunch and the picture was stunning.

Clearly not too much a HDTV whore but uh, there are TONS of things they could add to "spur" people to purchase TVs. There is always a new "tech term". They just chose 4K. They could have chosen OLED, or OLED + Curved screens. 4K or UltraHD though probably sounded the best though.

A lot of it has to do with how things can be marketed/sold to the public. LED doesn't produce a superior picture quality to Plasma, but LED is brighter, stands out better in a showroom, and is thus easier to sell. This is straight from employees at Best Buy since I was having a chat with them while picking up my TV.

Out of all available innovations, 4K has been proven to show that it isn't discernible to the naked eye in the average users use of a TV. You'd have to be sitting extremely close, to an extremely large TV, to notice the benefits (6 feet to a 70-80 inch HDTV). Since very few people do this (I sit about 7-8 feet), it's just a marketing ploy. But it'll work so that's what we will see.
 
Last edited:

Keysplayr

Elite Member
Jan 16, 2003
21,209
50
91
Rubbish.

4k is just one screen resolution standard in a very long line of increasing screen resolutions over the years, I don't believe there's any examples in the history of computing where people have failed to adopt to a new, higher screen resolution, it just takes time for the consumer hardware to drop in price and become affordable for the masses.

It's the stupid marketing that's applied like "HD" and "4k", it's total nonsense. What we really mean is 1920x1080, or 3840x2160, when seen in the context of screen resolutions evoloving over the years it makes more sense.

640x480
800x600
1024x768
1152x864
1280x720
1280x768
1280x960
1360x768
1366x768
1400x1050
1440x900
1600x900
1600x1200
1680x1050
1920x1080
1920x1200
2048x1152
2048x1536
2560x1440
2560x1600

Just to name a few over the years.

But yeah, one newer higher resolution is going to fail, sure.

This is a bit different as the jump to 3840x2160 is an epic one in comparison to any previous jump. Likewise, in the far future, the jump from 4k to 8k will be far greater than the jump to 4k.
 

UaVaj

Golden Member
Nov 16, 2012
1,546
0
76
Apples and oranges. 3D sucks is why it failed.

actually 3d is pretty nice when done properly. as in the developer took the time to produce the media to fully support 3d (avatar or league of legend). sadly most 3d media are an after thought and the application is piss poor (immortal or sc2).

as for 4k. the same principle will apply. require proper infrasture support.

movie developers will need full 4k recording - not 1080p (HD) extrapolated. pc developers will need full 4k textures and gpu manufacturer will need to introduce super titan.
 

3DVagabond

Lifer
Aug 10, 2009
11,951
204
106
actually 3d is pretty nice when done properly. as in the developer took the time to produce the media to fully support 3d (avatar or league of legend). sadly most 3d media are an after thought and the application is piss poor (immortal or sc2).

as for 4k. the same principle will apply. require proper infrasture support.

movie developers will need full 4k recording - not 1080p (HD) extrapolated. pc developers will need full 4k textures and gpu manufacturer will need to introduce super titan.

The thing is, 3D gaming is pretty awesome on a PC with a game and the hardware to support it. The problem is all the poor forms of 3D has poisoned many people minds.

I think the implementation sucks. The screen needs to be large enough to encompass your peripheral view and you need to be dead center in front of the screen. Add to that the viewing fatigue, head aches, and eye strain and it makes for a pretty poor over all experience. Most times when movie houses offer the same movie in both 2D and 3D the 2D screens draw better. The winners in 3D are the outliers. The exceptions to the norm.

Of course this is just IMHO.
 

taq8ojh

Golden Member
Mar 2, 2013
1,296
1
81
What the hell is 3D gaming anyway? All I can think of is that riduclous "virtual reality" phenomenon from early 90's
 

zebrax2

Senior member
Nov 18, 2007
972
62
91
I think we already have a partial solution to the performance problem in DirectX 11.2 namely "GPU overlay support". Unless I'm reading the description wrong with this we could say render the game UI in 4k while the rest of the game is rendered in 1080p essentially benefiting from 4k on minimal performance loss.
 

AnandThenMan

Diamond Member
Nov 11, 2004
3,949
504
126
How is running the game in 1080 benefiting you having a 4K display? You either render the pixels or you don't, there is no substitute.
 

epidemis

Senior member
Jun 6, 2007
796
0
0
perhap "fail" was a wrong choice of word.

since tri titan can bearly render 4k resolution with all the eye candy. ps4/xbox supporting 4k is definitely low/fair setting. if that is your cup of tea. definitely more power to you.


Of course it can. if you talking about crysis 3 60 fps rocksolid with extreme graphic settings, then it might not, but even today's midrange cards can pull 4k at decent settings in most games.

[
 
Last edited:

UaVaj

Golden Member
Nov 16, 2012
1,546
0
76
epidemis

did state that if such "setting" is acceptable to you - more power to you.

some of us like to keep avg fps above 60 and dips above 40 and with all the eye candy on - even at 4k.

imagine buying a ferrari (in comparison to a 4k display) which can only run 15mph (in comparison to low/fair setting). if that your cup of tea. super power to you.

some of us just like to run our ferrari at 65mph plus. :biggrin:

-----

btw - that link is not 4k. it is 1600p
 

epidemis

Senior member
Jun 6, 2007
796
0
0
I didn't see any 4K resolution examples at that link.
no, but point is, people have clamoring for some teeth to push their graphic card since graphic demand has hit a standstill due to consolititis
 
Last edited:
sale-70-410-exam    | Exam-200-125-pdf    | we-sale-70-410-exam    | hot-sale-70-410-exam    | Latest-exam-700-603-Dumps    | Dumps-98-363-exams-date    | Certs-200-125-date    | Dumps-300-075-exams-date    | hot-sale-book-C8010-726-book    | Hot-Sale-200-310-Exam    | Exam-Description-200-310-dumps?    | hot-sale-book-200-125-book    | Latest-Updated-300-209-Exam    | Dumps-210-260-exams-date    | Download-200-125-Exam-PDF    | Exam-Description-300-101-dumps    | Certs-300-101-date    | Hot-Sale-300-075-Exam    | Latest-exam-200-125-Dumps    | Exam-Description-200-125-dumps    | Latest-Updated-300-075-Exam    | hot-sale-book-210-260-book    | Dumps-200-901-exams-date    | Certs-200-901-date    | Latest-exam-1Z0-062-Dumps    | Hot-Sale-1Z0-062-Exam    | Certs-CSSLP-date    | 100%-Pass-70-383-Exams    | Latest-JN0-360-real-exam-questions    | 100%-Pass-4A0-100-Real-Exam-Questions    | Dumps-300-135-exams-date    | Passed-200-105-Tech-Exams    | Latest-Updated-200-310-Exam    | Download-300-070-Exam-PDF    | Hot-Sale-JN0-360-Exam    | 100%-Pass-JN0-360-Exams    | 100%-Pass-JN0-360-Real-Exam-Questions    | Dumps-JN0-360-exams-date    | Exam-Description-1Z0-876-dumps    | Latest-exam-1Z0-876-Dumps    | Dumps-HPE0-Y53-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-HPE0-Y53-Exam    | 100%-Pass-HPE0-Y53-Real-Exam-Questions    | Pass-4A0-100-Exam    | Latest-4A0-100-Questions    | Dumps-98-365-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-98-365-Exam    | 100%-Pass-VCS-254-Exams    | 2017-Latest-VCS-273-Exam    | Dumps-200-355-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-300-320-Exam    | Pass-300-101-Exam    | 100%-Pass-300-115-Exams    |
http://www.portvapes.co.uk/    | http://www.portvapes.co.uk/    |