2015 looking to be an exciting year.

[Phynaz]

Why are people posting about 2010 in a thread about 2015? :\

 

[Kippa]

With the shift to 4K capable gpus, the need for video ram is going to increase. There is only so much physical real estate to put the chips on the gfx card. How much video ram could be theoretically added to a gfx card with the space given on the gfx cards? Are there going to be problems trying to fit very large amounts of video ram in the newer gfx cards when going above 8gb+ and beyond?

 

[SimianR]

I don't think adding more VRAM is an issue besides maybe other than the cost increase. There is an R9 290 Sapphire Vapor model out there that is 8GB.

 

[wand3r3r]

I assume you are referring to the gpu front and not displays, right?

Yes.

I just got 4k and it's everything I have been waiting for. Perhaps the most meaningful upgrade I've had in years!

 

[Black Octagon]

Could we realistically have a single gpu card that can handle 4K gaming alright by the end of 2015?

If people would just get over their fixation with running games 'MAXXED out' they would realise that this capability is already here. Start by forgetting AA. At these resolutions, I consider any AA at all to be already past the point of diminishing returns.

 

[Enigmoid]

If people would just get over their fixation with running games 'MAXXED out' they would realise that this capability is already here. Start by forgetting AA. At these resolutions, I consider any AA at all to be already past the point of diminishing returns.

+1

As I said before a 15.6" 1080p monitor has the same pixel density as a 31" 4K monitor. AA is hardly necessary for me though 2x MSAA can be seen, anything over that is largely unnoticeable.

 

[AtenRa]

Personally i dont give a flying fart for 4K or higher resolutions than 1080p. What i would like to have is real time Ray Tracing at 1080p with a single or dual GPU. Forget about higher resolutions, demand higher image quality and better lighting. PC gaming graphics has come a long way but they are still cartoonish, even at 720p we can have more life like graphics than what we have today. I dont want higher resolutions, i want more real life looking graphics.

 

[biostud]

Personally i dont give a flying fart for 4K or higher resolutions than 1080p. What i would like to have is real time Ray Tracing at 1080p with a single or dual GPU. Forget about higher resolutions, demand higher image quality and better lighting. PC gaming graphics has come a long way but they are still cartoonish, even at 720p we can have more life like graphics than what we have today. I dont want higher resolutions, i want more real life looking graphics.

I agree to some degree. I would not like to work at lower resolution than 2560x1440, but I could game fine on 1920x1080. "Low" resolutions is really not the problem in game graphics quality. Better lightning, high resolution textures and high polygon models is something I would want more of in games. (If we're purely talking about better graphics)

 

[AtenRa]

I agree to some degree. I would not like to work at lower resolution than 2560x1440, but I could game fine on 1920x1080. "Low" resolutions is really not the problem in game graphics quality. Better lightning, high resolution textures and high polygon models is something I would want more of in games. (If we're purely talking about better graphics)

Yea im talking about gaming and graphics, for a desktop we could have higher resolutions but 4k for gaming gives me nothing more than 1080p in relationship to more life like graphics.

 

[CakeMonster]

Well what we should have is an agreed upon target for game makers and chip makers. This target should of course expand with time, but right now I think it would make sense to have it at 1080/60fps, which even new consoles have problems with. Then I imagine we could move on to 1080/120fps after that, and eventually 4K/120fps some day.

 

[RussianSensation]

I agree to some degree. I would not like to work at lower resolution than 2560x1440, but I could game fine on 1920x1080. "Low" resolutions is really not the problem in game graphics quality. Better lightning, high resolution textures and high polygon models is something I would want more of in games. (If we're purely talking about better graphics)

That's key. A real next gen game in 3-4 years from now at 1080p or 1440p would look better than Crysis 3 at 4K. Resolution is a nice bonus and it's the easy way out since you can just place a 4K monitor and up the resolution but the problem is the fundamental aspects of the game engine, physics, AI and the underlying complexity hasn't changed.

I think 4K is going to take off though because at some point the price premium between 1080p/1440p/1600p and 4K will become small enough for most to consider moving to 4K. When you are keeping the monitor for 6-10 years, the extra $300-400 upfront is not a lot. Right now it's not possible to pay just $400 extra for a 32" 4K LCD vs. a 1080p/1440p equivalent.

 

[Erenhardt]

I think 4K is going to take off though because at some point the price premium between 1080p/1440p/1600p and 4K will become small enough for most to consider moving to 4K. When you are keeping the monitor for 6-10 years, the extra $300-400 upfront is not a lot. Right now it's not possible to pay just $400 extra for a 32" 4K LCD vs. a 1080p/1440p equivalent.

Not so fast! 2014 was a big year for me, I upgraded to 1080p display!

4K is like eternity away!

 

[Insomniator]

I agree to some degree. I would not like to work at lower resolution than 2560x1440, but I could game fine on 1920x1080. "Low" resolutions is really not the problem in game graphics quality. Better lightning, high resolution textures and high polygon models is something I would want more of in games. (If we're purely talking about better graphics)

Exactly this. I don't give a crap about 3 screens and I don't care about 4k. That seems to be the only point of new, multiple high end cards for the past few years. I know my single 780 is capable of more than Crysis 3 (not that its ugly at all) on my single screen.

Make the games look better @ 1080p or 1440p. More detail, better lighting, better interaction with the environments. What will Crysis 4 look like? Is it going to be the same graphics as Crysis 2 but now support 6 screens and some random new form of AA that doesn't make a difference?

 

[wand3r3r]

I guess most of you haven't even seen 4k games. Going back to 1080p would be pixelated after trying 4k. 4k looks great, someday you'll agree when you see it.

 

[krumme]

I guess most of you haven't even seen 4k games. Going back to 1080p would be pixelated after trying 4k. 4k looks great, someday you'll agree when you see it.

What screen do you have?

Edit: forget it saw hour other thread

 

[Grooveriding]

Exactly this. I don't give a crap about 3 screens and I don't care about 4k. That seems to be the only point of new, multiple high end cards for the past few years. I know my single 780 is capable of more than Crysis 3 (not that its ugly at all) on my single screen.

Make the games look better @ 1080p or 1440p. More detail, better lighting, better interaction with the environments. What will Crysis 4 look like? Is it going to be the same graphics as Crysis 2 but now support 6 screens and some random new form of AA that doesn't make a difference?

I don't think there will be a Crysis 4 since Crytek has gone belly up.

I've never been a fan of multiple monitor setups because of bezels and not sitting in front of all the screens directly, but 4K is stunning. Higher resolutions increase fidelity significantly. The difference between a 30" 2560x1600 and 32" 4K screen was incredible in games. It's all about the PPI.

 

[RussianSensation]

I guess most of you haven't even seen 4k games. Going back to 1080p would be pixelated after trying 4k. 4k looks great, someday you'll agree when you see it.

Of course 4K would look better than 1080p or even 1600p. The point is you can force the GPU to shade 4x as many current gen pixels/polygons OR apply 4x the complexity to a 1080p scene. Think about applying 4K to PS3 games - they are still never going to look as good as Uncharted 4 on PS4 at 1080P. 4K is just the easy way out to force GPU upgrades and sell monitors because 4K (Ultra HD) sounds better than Full HD. Imagine for a second if 4K didn't exist and we jumped straight to 5K or even 8K. You would say ya, it looks amazing compared to my 1080P screen. But then what if someone made game with 16X (8K) the graphical complexity of Crysis 3. At 1080P such game would blow your mind!

My point is if technology was there and it was cheap enough, you can bet the industry would be pushing 8K. And once they ride the 4K train, they will tell us 4K is now old and not cool anymore and that the "next big thing" is 8K!

Moving from 1080P to 4K to 8K doesn't actually improve graphics per say - you are just getting more sharpness from the same graphics due to less aliasing. The game itself looks 99.9% the same.

1920x1080 with FXAA

3840x2160 DSR Maxwell

Sure, there is a difference but it's hardly worth 4x the GPU horsepower. Slapping 4K on a current gen game doesn't make it next gen at all. Another way to look at it is Crysis 1 at 1280x1024 maxed visuals with no AA looked better than any game at 2560x1440 maxed out with SSAA when Crysis 1 came out. That's because Crysis 1 was a truly next gen game amid a sea of console ports.

 

[Insomniator]

Of course 4K would look better than 1080p or even 1600p. The point is you can force the GPU to shade 4x as many current gen pixels/polygons OR apply 4x the complexity to a 1080p scene. Think about applying 4K to PS3 games - they are still never going to look as good as Uncharted 4 on PS4 at 1080P. 4K is just the easy way out to force GPU upgrades and sell monitors because 4K (Ultra HD) sounds better than Full HD. Imagine for a second if 4K didn't exist and we jumped straight to 5K or even 8K. You would say ya, it looks amazing compared to my 1080P screen. But then what if someone made game with 16X (8K) the graphical complexity of Crysis 3. At 1080P such game would blow your mind!

My point is if technology was there and it was cheap enough, you can bet the industry would be pushing 8K. And once they ride the 4K train, they will tell us 4K is now old and not cool anymore and that the "next big thing" is 8K!

Moving from 1080P to 4K to 8K doesn't actually improve graphics per say - you are just getting more sharpness from the same graphics due to less aliasing. The game itself looks 99.9% the same.

Sure, there is a difference but it's hardly worth 4x the GPU horsepower. Slapping 4K on a current gen game doesn't make it next gen at all. Another way to look at it is Crysis 1 at 1280x1024 maxed visuals with no AA looked better than any game at 2560x1440 maxed out with SSAA when Crysis 1 came out. That's because Crysis 1 was a truly next gen game amid a sea of console ports.

bingo.

 

[wand3r3r]

Of course 4K would look better than 1080p or even 1600p. The point is you can force the GPU to shade 4x as many current gen pixels/polygons OR apply 4x the complexity to a 1080p scene. Think about applying 4K to PS3 games - they are still never going to look as good as Uncharted 4 on PS4 at 1080P. 4K is just the easy way out to force GPU upgrades and sell monitors because 4K (Ultra HD) sounds better than Full HD. Imagine for a second if 4K didn't exist and we jumped straight to 5K or even 8K. You would say ya, it looks amazing compared to my 1080P screen. But then what if someone made game with 16X (8K) the graphical complexity of Crysis 3. At 1080P such game would blow your mind!

My point is if technology was there and it was cheap enough, you can bet the industry would be pushing 8K. And once they ride the 4K train, they will tell us 4K is now old and not cool anymore and that the "next big thing" is 8K!

Moving from 1080P to 4K to 8K doesn't actually improve graphics per say - you are just getting more sharpness from the same graphics due to less aliasing. The game itself looks 99.9% the same.

1920x1080 with FXAA


3840x2160 DSR Maxwell


Sure, there is a difference but it's hardly worth 4x the GPU horsepower. Slapping 4K on a current gen game doesn't make it next gen at all. Another way to look at it is Crysis 1 at 1280x1024 maxed visuals with no AA looked better than any game at 2560x1440 maxed out with SSAA when Crysis 1 came out. That's because Crysis 1 was a truly next gen game amid a sea of console ports.

Yes that is true. I just find 4k to be a huge jump although I agree with the fundamental that the advanced processing would bring a more lifelike image.

 

[TrulyUncouth]

I think all of you have missed the really big thing of 2015- Virtual Reality.

Forget "does this look really next gen on my 4k or 1080p screen?" The real question is if you want to exist inside the game instead of just looking at a little window into it. VR is unbelievably amazing. Forget AMD or NV whoever has the highest performance part out when the consumer oculus rift drops will make a fortune.

If you haven't tried VR yet, you cannot understand how big it is going to be.

 

[Qwertilot]

Not sure about 2015 for that, 2017 maybe?

It won't be for everything of course. Lots of classes of games simply won't make any sense in VR

 

[TrulyUncouth]

Not sure about 2015 for that, 2017 maybe?

It won't be for everything of course. Lots of classes of games simply won't make any sense in VR

They have all but confirmed launch next year on the consumer version of the rift and honestly I think people will choose games around what works with VR- it is that compelling. Also, many genres people thought wouldn't work are being figured out.

Look at the recent release of Alien Isolation. They left rift compatibility in the game and it can be enabled with just 2 basic edits to a text file. It is a game type that was expected to cause issues but all reports point to it achieving basic levels of "presence"(The mind forgetting its in a fake world).

I have basically never played a single racing game as I find them quite boring. However, once I got the DK1 of the rift I spent over 40 hours playing ETS2 a game that would have put me to sleep on a monitor kept me riveted in VR. And that was at less than 720p resolution. The DK2 is twice the res and the consumer version is going to be atleast 4 times that not to mention hitting 50% higher refresh rate.

Sorry to gush about this, I just think until everyone gets to dip their toe into this they don't realize how game-changing it is going to be. Bring on the future

 

[SirPauly]

1920x1080 with FXAA

3840x2160 DSR Maxwell

Sure, there is a difference but it's hardly worth 4x the GPU horsepower. Slapping 4K on a current gen game doesn't make it next gen at all.

It may indeed be worth it for some when one may consider a moving environment:

From the TechReport article:

Although the difference is apparent in screenshots, it's even more dramatic in motion.'

 

[lehtv]

It may indeed be worth it for some when one may consider a moving environment:

From the TechReport article:

But the same person who values the smoother, more lifelike motion of 4K, would much rather have a game with 4x more detailed models, 4x higher texture resolution, 4x more complex lighting, 4x better volumetric effects... etc

 

[Kippa]

If people would just get over their fixation with running games 'MAXXED out' they would realise that this capability is already here. Start by forgetting AA. At these resolutions, I consider any AA at all to be already past the point of diminishing returns.

I have a single Nvidia Titan gfx card. In your opinion, if I got a 4K monitor, turned off AA and MSAA then do you think it would run games alright? I don't know whether to get a 4K monitor now, or wait for a Titan II and get it then. I am quite happy to play 4K without AA or MSAA. I am honest, I really don't know if the Titan could handle it. Do you think with MSAA and AA off that I'd be able to get 30fps+ or greater on BF4?