8K A Great Challenge: NVIDIA and AMD

[newconroer]

" and somehow treat the single display as four Ultra HD displays. " This is the concerning part... and 4k faced it already until I think Iiyama figured out a resolution ..

Funny, I'm sure these arguments were had over 1080 a few years ago in here. Eventually 4k will be the norm, and further down the line 8k. I'm still pissed over the 1200p thing, why wasn't that the norm? Video cards will catch up, 4k monitors will become standard, and we'll all be laughing at the old days when we only had 1080p. Let's allow advancement, so it will become the norm.......

Well quite a few of us have been laughing at 1080p for a long time now. The computer graphics and monitor market is to the audio visual industry what Formula 1 is to the automaker industry. All of the cutting edge stuff has an influence on what becomes common in the marketplace.

The problem with 1080p is that it's out lived it's welcome and would have been replaced by 1440p/1600p, if television manufacturers and broadcast networks weren't so lazy or behind the times. It also doesn't help that the popular console systems have only now just gotten 1080p.

1080p needs to die, and die quick.

 

[nexus_a]

" and somehow treat the single display as four Ultra HD displays. " This is the concerning part... and 4k faced it already until I think Iiyama figured out a resolution ..




Well quite a few of us have been laughing at 1080p for a long time now. The computer graphics and monitor market is to the audio visual industry what Formula 1 is to the automaker industry. All of the cutting edge stuff has an influence on what becomes common in the marketplace.

The problem with 1080p is that it's out lived it's welcome and would have been replaced by 1440p/1600p, if television manufacturers and broadcast networks weren't so lazy or behind the times. It also doesn't help that the popular console systems have only now just gotten 1080p.

1080p needs to die, and die quick.

1080p is like XP, it will be lingering around for the next 10 years. Sadly.

 

[xenocide]

Funny, I'm sure these arguments were had over 1080 a few years ago in here. Eventually 4k will be the norm, and further down the line 8k. I'm still pissed over the 1200p thing, why wasn't that the norm? Video cards will catch up, 4k monitors will become standard, and we'll all be laughing at the old days when we only had 1080p. Let's allow advancement, so it will become the norm.......

There were 2560x1600 CRT's if I recall correctly. 1080p was never really new for PC monitors like it was for Televisions (which used to be 640x480 essentially). What was a huge jump for televisions was actually a massive stagnation for PC resolutions. The introduction of LCD's had a lot of problems for the PC world. We had shitty TN Panels for quite a while and they are just barely catching up to where CRTs left off. With 4k we're not talking about a slight bump, we're talking about a massive increase in the amount of power needed (I think going from 1080p to 4K is like a 4x increase in the number of pixels), going to 8K is another gigantic leap forward.

 

[ZeDestructor]

1080p is like XP, it will be lingering around for the next 10 years. Sadly.

1280x???? is still around for a lot of people, and that is at least 10 years old.

 

[Frick]

1080p needs to die, and die quick.

Naah, it's 1440/1600p that needs to be adopted. 1080p is fine on 24 inch monitors. 1440p on those and most people would have to mess with scaling, and Windows 7 doesn't do that very good. Many programs suck at it too.

 

[jihadjoe]

I look forward to 8K. With 8K we can finally get rid of subpixel text rendering (and its resultant color fringing) and anti-aliasing.

This!

A producer at the BBC actually wanted to skip 4k and have us go directly to 8k, because 8k was "retina" for large screens. No more FSAA required. I believe the same producer was behind the BBC/NHK SHV broadcast of the 2012 London Olympics.

SHV = 8k video + 22.2 audio

 

[newconroer]

Naah, it's 1440/1600p that needs to be adopted. 1080p is fine on 24 inch monitors. 1440p on those and most people would have to mess with scaling, and Windows 7 doesn't do that very good. Many programs suck at it too.

Under normal circumstances and growth cycles, you'd be correct, but it seems like 1080p is just holding progress back and this point.
I'm not certain we can increase 1440/1600 AND continue to foster 1080p.


Either way it's good we're talking about it.

 

[ZeDestructor]

Under normal circumstances and growth cycles, you'd be correct, but it seems like 1080p is just holding progress back and this point.
I'm not certain we can increase 1440/1600 AND continue to foster 1080p.


Either way it's good we're talking about it.

1080p will move down to the mid-range, so the GTX *60 and Radeon **70 will take over for high-quality, single-screen 1080p, while the high end moves gradually to 8K. GPU makers are aware of where the high-end is going, and are working on it, but it takes time to build new archs and get new nodes.

 

[DayKnight]

I would jump to 1440p but lol, no monitor in my country above 1080p.

4k should become a norm pretty soon. 8k will take 4k's place (wow factor) in a year or two, IMO.

 

[xenocide]

4k should become a norm pretty soon. 8k will take 4k's place (wow factor) in a year or two, IMO.

You're insane if you believe that.

 

[DayKnight]

You're insane if you believe that.

I am?. Which part you dont agree with?.

The way technology moves, I DO think 4k will become a norm. Already, so many GPU's support 4k.

 

[xenocide]

I am?. Which part you dont agree with?.

The way technology moves, I DO think 4k will become a norm. Already, so many GPU's support 4k.

4K has been in the works for 3-5 years already, and is probably 3 more years from legitimate adoption. As it stands now it's prohibitively expensive, and there isn't the hardware available to make it shine (I don't consider $1200-1500 worth of GPU's for decent performance acceptable). It probably won't be on par for 1080p until 2018ish, and won't see wide spread acceptance until 2020ish. So when all is said and done it will have taken at least 10 years for 4K to really catch on, and you think jumping to 8K will only take 1-2 years after that?

There's a massive difference between it being supported and it being viable. Hardware has supported Ray Tracing and Voxels for decades now, but it's only in recent years it has been usable and even then in very niche scenarios.

 

[DayKnight]

4K has been in the works for 3-5 years already, and is probably 3 more years from legitimate adoption. As it stands now it's prohibitively expensive, and there isn't the hardware available to make it shine (I don't consider $1200-1500 worth of GPU's for decent performance acceptable). It probably won't be on par for 1080p until 2018ish, and won't see wide spread acceptance until 2020ish. So when all is said and done it will have taken at least 10 years for 4K to really catch on, and you think jumping to 8K will only take 1-2 years after that?

Lets wait and watch then.

Edit: Please stop exaggerating. 2xGTX 980=1100$. 2xGTX 970= 700$.

 

[Prima.Vera]

.., but it seems like 1080p is just holding progress back and this point.
I'm not certain we can increase 1440/1600 AND continue to foster 1080p.

Actually is not entirely monitor maker's fault but the GPU makers also. Right now you can barelly play on 1440p with the top video cards, therefore the request is very low for 1440p monitors. Until we have the same or better performance on 1440p resolution compared to the 1080p, we wont see any changes hapening soon...

 

[xenocide]

Edit: Please stop exaggerating. 2xGTX 980=1100$. 2xGTX 970= 700$.

GTX 980's in SLi still push under 60fps in a modern game like Battlefield 4 at 4K--without Anti-Aliasing and at highish settings. There's also the issues of microstutter and frame times when using SLi setups. You would need something like 3 GTX 970's or 980's to play at a steady 60fps at 4K.

 

[DOA]

I LOL when people lust after 1440, 4K is what to buy now.
You can pay a LOT more by making this two steps and buying two monitors to get to 4K or you can just realize TV resolutions drive the monitor market and buy 4K now. Asus makes a great 60Hz 4K monitor that plays well at lower resolutions until your GPU(s) catch up to 4K. Some may see the difference between 60Hz and higher frequencies (the only reason to buy 1440 instead of 4K), I cannot.
As for 8K - probably not a desktop resolution for a long time. 4K is noticeably better on a 30 inch monitor at 2 ft than 1080P or even 1440. From 4K to 5K and above is not noticeable. Perhaps larger monitors or full 360 view headsets will be the norm in the distant future and 8K will be needed.
Rich boys toys? Why are you here if you are not willing to prioritize your computing power?
BTW, two 290X with mild OC pushed 4K quite nicely.

 

[Steevo]

I LOL when people lust after 1440, 4K is what to buy now.
You can pay a LOT more by making this two steps and buying two monitors to get to 4K or you can just realize TV resolutions drive the monitor market and buy 4K now. Asus makes a great 60Hz 4K monitor that plays well at lower resolutions until your GPU(s) catch up to 4K. Some may see the difference between 60Hz and higher frequencies (the only reason to buy 1440 instead of 4K), I cannot.
As for 8K - probably not a desktop resolution for a long time. 4K is noticeably better on a 30 inch monitor at 2 ft than 1080P or even 1440. From 4K to 5K and above is not noticeable. Perhaps larger monitors or full 360 view headsets will be the norm in the distant future and 8K will be needed.
Rich boys toys? Why are you here if you are not willing to prioritize your computing power?
BTW, two 290X with mild OC pushed 4K quite nicely.

Its been more about getting the quality of display we are looking for. a cheap 4K offers much worse color reproduction, and tiled display gives it a chance for the timings to be slightly off resulting in tearing, topped off with mediocre frame rates as the refresh rates of many displays were too low, and the lack of support from games, so the resulting image stretch done by the display results in artifacts, or more GPU power requirements to scale it correctly.

We went through much of the same issues moving from great quality CRT's to LCD displays, I had a tough time justifying a LCD for use when I had a nice CRT that had great color, scaling without artifacts, view angle, and 85Hz refresh rate without ghosting.

 

[DOA]

I agree Steevo, those were problems until Asus put out its gamer 4K, 1ms grey to grey and to my eyes the color is perfect.
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/asus-pb287q-4k-monitor,3832.html
I still go back to 1080P for Counterstrike so I get a constant 60 Hz, but all other games I play at 4K.

 

[ZeDestructor]

Its been more about getting the quality of display we are looking for. a cheap 4K offers much worse color reproduction, and tiled display gives it a chance for the timings to be slightly off resulting in tearing, topped off with mediocre frame rates as the refresh rates of many displays were too low, and the lack of support from games, so the resulting image stretch done by the display results in artifacts, or more GPU power requirements to scale it correctly.

We went through much of the same issues moving from great quality CRT's to LCD displays, I had a tough time justifying a LCD for use when I had a nice CRT that had great color, scaling without artifacts, view angle, and 85Hz refresh rate without ghosting.

Give it a few more months. We'll see the single-tile 4K wide-gamut IPS then