ARFInnovation can't be driven by pure corporate greed, you should help by explaining to everyone around you to move to higher resolutions - crisper, higher quality images, much improved ergonomics, etc..

Why? There is hardly content for it besides gaming. You keep projecting your wants on a market that doesnt really care. Commerce is ALREADY pushing on higher res and the adoption rate is slow. Consumers only buy new stuff if old stuff breaks (like a TV). Meanwhile, the majority uses that 4K panel to watch or drive content at lower (render) res. Cable still provides 1080i, if you are lucky you get compressed 4K over ondemand services.

Vayra86Why? There is hardly content for it besides gaming. You keep projecting your wants on a market that doesnt really care. Commerce is ALREADY pushing on higher res and the adoption rate is slow. Consumers only buy new stuff if old stuff breaks (like a TV). Meanwhile, the majority uses that 4K panel to watch or drive content at lower (render) res. Cable still provides 1080i, if you are lucky you get compressed 4K over ondemand services.

Well, YouTube is full with 4K and now 8K videos, if you don't have a proper screen, you can't even see the whole beauty in it.
It is not gaming that drives the higher resolutions, but as I said ergonomics - Full HD is a very old resolution dating back to the 90s.

HDTV as is known today first started official broadcasting in 1989 in Japan

High-definition television - Wikipedia

ARFInnovation can't be driven by pure corporate greed, you should help by explaining to everyone around you to move to higher resolutions - crisper, higher quality images, much improved ergonomics, etc..

If you were talking medical innovation, I'd agree. For everything consumer oriented, corporate greed is probably the best means to determine where to cut spending.

In this particular case, I've been experiencing increasingly higher resolutions since I started using my ZX Spectrum clone. I have never thought of that as a problem.

Vayra86You keep projecting your wants on a market that doesnt really care.

Actually the market does care but does something different. Abandons the PC area and instead buys new high-PPI and high-screen-quality smartphones that are then used for the same thing - browsing the web, watching YouTube, sending emails, etc...

ARFWell, YouTube is full with 4K and now 8K videos, if you don't have a proper screen, you can't even see the whole beauty in it.
It is not gaming that drives the higher resolutions, but as I said ergonomics - Full HD is a very old resolution dating back to the 90s.


High-definition television - Wikipedia

I think you are forgetting that a large portion of the population can't tell the difference between SD and HD for standard content on something smaller than 32-inch. I remember several years ago going to visit older folks, and they watched everything on the SD channels when all the channels were available in HD, and they had an HDTV. Now that I'm getting on in years, I honestly don't see the reason for 4K on anything smaller than maybe a 60-inch TV. I can certainly enjoy and see the difference of 4K versus Full HD on my 65-inch TV in the living room, but on my 27-inch gaming monitor, no way. My eyes are getting old, the extra resolution just isn't apparent. Hell, I have a 32-inch 1440p monitor that I run at 1080p because my work laptop can't do more than one screen at over 1080p/60. It makes almost no difference to me. Sure, I can fit more crap on the screen at 1440p, but that doesn't matter if I need to crank the scaling up so that I can read the text. My point is that most of the market doesn't want or need 4K. The insane prices of graphics cards is enough of a reason to slum it at 1080p anyway. I can afford to spend $2K on a graphics card if I want to, but I down right refuse to. I don't see the value in it. I'd rather spend $400-500 on a card and put the other $1500 towards retiring a little earlier, a nicer house or a better car. Hell, I'd rather donate the extra money to a good charity than give more to these greedy companies.

ZareekI think you are forgetting that a large portion of the population can't tell the difference between SD and HD for standard content on something smaller than 32-inch. I remember several years ago going to visit older folks, and they watched everything on the SD channels when all the channels were available in HD, and they had an HDTV. Now that I'm getting on in years, I honestly don't see the reason for 4K on anything smaller than maybe a 60-inch TV. I can certainly enjoy and see the difference of 4K versus Full HD on my 65-inch TV in the living room, but on my 27-inch gaming monitor, no way. My eyes are getting old, the extra resolution just isn't apparent. Hell, I have a 32-inch 1440p monitor that I run at 1080p because my work laptop can't do more than one screen at over 1080p/60. It makes almost no difference to me. Sure, I can fit more crap on the screen at 1440p, but that doesn't matter if I need to crank the scaling up so that I can read the text. My point is that most of the market doesn't want or need 4K. The insane prices of graphics cards is enough of a reason to slum it at 1080p anyway. I can afford to spend $2K on a graphics card if I want to, but I down right refuse to. I don't see the value in it. I'd rather spend $400-500 on a card and put the other $1500 towards retiring a little earlier, a nicer house or a better car. Hell, I'd rather donate the extra money to a good charity than give more to these greedy companies.

The point of 4k for me is that, with all the compression employed by streaming services, 4k content now looks like FHD was supposed to look like years ago.
HDR is far more important (and noticeable) than 4k, but for some reason, creators decided HDR and FHD do not go together so you need 4k for HDR anyway :wtf:

ZareekI think you are forgetting that a large portion of the population can't tell the difference between SD and HD for standard content on something smaller than 32-inch. I remember several years ago going to visit older folks, and they watched everything on the SD channels when all the channels were available in HD, and they had an HDTV. Now that I'm getting on in years, I honestly don't see the reason for 4K on anything smaller than maybe a 60-inch TV. I can certainly enjoy and see the difference of 4K versus Full HD on my 65-inch TV in the living room, but on my 27-inch gaming monitor, no way. My eyes are getting old, the extra resolution just isn't apparent. Hell, I have a 32-inch 1440p monitor that I run at 1080p because my work laptop can't do more than one screen at over 1080p/60. It makes almost no difference to me. Sure, I can fit more crap on the screen at 1440p, but that doesn't matter if I need to crank the scaling up so that I can read the text. My point is that most of the market doesn't want or need 4K. The insane prices of graphics cards is enough of a reason to slum it at 1080p anyway. I can afford to spend $2K on a graphics card if I want to, but I down right refuse to. I don't see the value in it. I'd rather spend $400-500 on a card and put the other $1500 towards retiring a little earlier, a nicer house or a better car. Hell, I'd rather donate the extra money to a good charity than give more to these greedy companies.

There is absolutely no need to spend two grand on a nvidia card when you can spend 850 euro for the Radeon RX 6800 XT 16 GB.
4K is perfectly fine for all screen sizes, including 40-inch, 43-inch, 50-inch.

If you don't see the difference, that is another topic for discussion.

And yes, people don't care to switch to the HD channels, sometimes they are either used to the SD numbers on their remote control, or they simply don't know about the higher-res channels.
You can delete the SD channels and leave the HD channels.

ARFActually the market does care but does something different. Abandons the PC area and instead buys new high-PPI and high-screen-quality smartphones that are then used for the same thing - browsing the web, watching YouTube, sending emails, etc...

Yeah, right, they buy a smaller screen to see more pixels, and that is certainly the reason they abandoned the PC. No way that the phone actually is a bit more portable than a PC, that's just an afterthought. I remember back in the day everyone carried their CRT on their back! Man, those were the days, PC gaming was huge back then!

Oh wait... nope. It never was. Gaming evolved, like gaming evolved... irrespective of resolutions and/or devices you could run it on. Even today people happily play low res content - on their phones - and whatever they play today is not low res, but rather low poly count. Mobile games are of a different, more simplified nature in every possible way. But yeah, they run in '4K'... that nobody really notices or even cares about. Phones haven't ever sold on the basis of pixel count. Even Apple's Retina displays didn't.

You're really not connecting the right dots mate, this is devolving into nonsense.

And eh... 850 eur for a late-in-gen 2021 GPU to run something I can run with a 2016 500 eur GPU on 1440p... surely you see the problem here that is 'the price of 4K', right? That's a massive gap for playing the exact same games in much the same quality. 4K will never lose this gap compared to a more sensible resolution. You seem to want to ignore that this 850 eur 6800XT will also have trouble running 4K in two years time, while I'm still content running medium settings on 1440p with that same 2016 GPU. Its really that simple. Chasing top resolutions means chasing the top end GPUs all the time. There are no '4K GPUs'. And let's not even start about high refresh, which for gaming is arguably a bigger win than more pixels.

There is pre-empting a mainstream resolution and there is trailing it. The bottom line: one is overpriced and early adopting, the other is cheap and effective gaming. To each their own, but the market will never start early adopting en masse, as it never has.

ARFThere is absolutely no need to spend two grand on a nvidia card when you can spend 850 euro for the Radeon RX 6800 XT 16 GB.
4K is perfectly fine for all screen sizes, including 40-inch, 43-inch, 50-inch.

If you don't see the difference, that is another topic for discussion.

And yes, people don't care to switch to the HD channels, sometimes they are either used to the SD numbers on their remote control, or they simply don't know about the higher-res channels.
You can delete the SD channels and leave the HD channels.

I exclusively buy based on value for dollar and this round at the market prices at that time, Nvidia offered more for my dollar. Mostly because EVGA was still selling cards at MSRP. If I had my PC in the living room on the 65-inch TV I would care about 4K performance but like I said at 27-inches 1080p is perfect for me.

No, the people in question could literally not tell the difference on their size TV. I'm sure they would notice it if that had a 50-inch plus screen, but their 70-year-old eyes just couldn't discern the additional picture clarity of HD on their TV. I was flabbergasted at the time. I could see the difference, but they also would rather watch 4:3 content stretched than use letter boxing. Stretched content drives me bananas. Some people just don't see it. My wife thinks 4K is just marketing BS. She can't see the difference. I explained to her there were four times as many pixels and explained what pixels mean't, she didn't care. If the bigger 4K TV makes me happy, she is alright with it but she doesn't see the big deal. She is still in her thirties and doesn't require vision correction according to the eye professionals or the government. Some people can't see it, some people don't really care. I'm sure there are people who care and can see it that just can't afford it as well. $800 may sound like a deal for 6800XT to some people but for a lot of people that is way more than they can afford. I'm sure, like anything, the adoption of 4K for PC gaming is a combination of a lot of things.

ARFActually the market does care but does something different. Abandons the PC area and instead buys new high-PPI and high-screen-quality smartphones that are then used for the same thing - browsing the web, watching YouTube, sending emails, etc...

That has nothing to do with the quality of the screens. Most people again have no idea about PPI. Smartphone adoption is about convenience, plain and simple. A lot of people choose their phone based on what their friends suggest or what the salesman says. Sure, there are enthusiasts who care and of course there are the Apple zealots that care about whatever Apple tells them to care about. Ask someone who has an iPhone why they have an iPhone and most people will say something like oh I'm used to Apple phones or my daughter or son said I should get one or it's so easy to use. I've never had a person say, "well, this is the highest PPI screen I could find". On top of that, phones versus PC monitors is Apples and Oranges. People hold a phone 6 inches from their face. I sure as heck don't sit 6 inches from my monitor.

When we're talking about resolutions... I know that VR isn't even remotely relevant in the market, but it could really do with doubling, tripling of the graphics cards performance.

And about going with 30x0 cards if the 40x0 proves inefficient - remember the 20x0 release. In spring of 2018 we had a cryptomarket collapse, and used GTX 1080 Ti cards were plentiful in the summer (but prices in stores remained high, market was still drunk on success of cryptoboom). When the RTX 2080 was released in September 2018, the prices of used 1080 Ti actually shot up - because the new generation didn't bring any price / performance increase - you paid to be guinnea pig for new technologies like RT and DLSS which were only very slowly getting released.

BwazeWhen we're talking about resolutions... I know that VR isn't even remotely relevant in the market, but it could really do with doubling, tripling of the graphics cards performance.

And about going with 30x0 cards if the 40x0 proves inefficient - remember the 20x0 release. In spring of 2018 we had a cryptomarket collapse, and used GTX 1080 Ti cards were plentiful in the summer (but prices in stores remained high, market was still drunk on success of cryptoboom). When the RTX 2080 was released in September 2018, the prices of used 1080 Ti actually shot up - because the new generation didn't bring any price / performance increase - you paid to be guinnea pig for new technologies like RT and DLSS which were only very slowly getting released.

VR is yet another attempt to get people to buy into the top segments of PC hardware and play content that kills performance - and then some, because you also have the added expense of the HMD.

None of this is catching on as it should for widespread adoption. I reckon all of these options are also competing against each other, people can only spend money once.

Its not new either, as VR isn't - we've already seen past attempts at doing something along the lines of VR, and AR. I remember the Eye Toy :D And where did PSVR go? Not hearing a lot of it anymore.

Vayra86VR is yet another attempt to get people to buy into the top segments of PC hardware and play content that kills performance - and then some, because you also have the added expense of the HMD.

None of this is catching on as it should for widespread adoption. I reckon all of these options are also competing against each other, people can only spend money once.

Its not new either, as VR isn't - we've already seen past attempts at doing something along the lines of VR, and AR. I remember the Eye Toy :D And where did PSVR go? Not hearing a lot of it anymore.

Companies are not doing VR to sell you high-end hardware.
They simply do not know when VR will catch on and, whenever it looks like VR is coming back, they have to jump on the bandwagon, so they do not get left behind. This happens to 3D TV from time time and will happen to flying cars at some point.