4K gaming tested at Hexus

[bystander36]

Except 4x the resolution isn't 4x the workload. Everyone knows this. 1600P is double the pixels that 1080p is, but your FPS doesn't halve when you move from 1080p to 1600P

This is quite true.

I might also add that we don't have to use max settings either. You get a choice between higher settings or higher resolution.

 

[Borealis7]

I imagine AA will have less of an impact at that resolution so reduce AA settings for better performance and now you only need 2 Titans

 

[3DVagabond]

I should of had my PQ321 by now but Amazon.com said I should expect duties/brokerage fees on top of the taxes they charged me because it would be coming UPS ground... Cancelled my preorder from them because that would of been an additional $500 or more with the rape UPS lays down on customs fees.

Once it shows up on amazon.ca or newegg.ca I am getting one. I think two Titans is going to handle it just fine other than in games like Metro:LL, Crysis 3 etc, where I expect disabling AA will still allow me to run the games maxed out. Looking forward to posting some results. :biggrin:

Drag every IQ slider all the way to the right and it'll tank. Be sensible though and you will likely be able to push some excellent looking settings just fine. Some people, not you, just don't seem to get that there are settings that make very little difference in visual quality and make performance bottom out for no good reason. You'll also need far less AA with the pixel density offered.

 

[hjalti8]

Once I got to the part about the panel costing $3,500 I quit reading.

There is already a 39" 30hz 4k panel out for 700$. Asus are also making a 60hz version which will hopefully sell for under 1000$.

 

[BrightCandle]

In theory at least there should be no need for AA at all at these PPD as the eye can't resolve the differences. This is the only reason to go this high in resolution for the space. We technically can't see smaller text but smaller pixels will remove the problem we have with seeing the individual pixels and that causing us problems.

4K could very well be the last jump for monitors of this form, in essence we have no reason to want higher density pixels than what it should bring us.

 

[UaVaj]

given the 2' viewing distance for desk top placement.

at 0.25ppi (bascially 22" 1k resolution). AA makes a noticeable difference.

32" 4k resolution has a 0.185ppi. due to the finer ppi and the same viewing distance. less AA should be necessary to achieve the same image quality.

----

for the minority of you that paid attention to details. you do can stop reading further. chances are you already seen this.

for the majority of you that does not pay attention to details. here is the ez link for your view pleasure.

0x aa http://img.hexus.net/v2/monitors/4K/0x.png
2x aa http://img.hexus.net/v2/monitors/4K/2x.png
4x aa http://img.hexus.net/v2/monitors/4K/4x.png

see a difference ???

 

[looper]

Once I got to the part about the panel costing $3,500 I quit reading.

FUNNY, that's exactly what I did as well....

 

[bystander36]

given the 2' viewing distance for desk top placement.

at 0.25ppi (bascially 22" 1k resolution). AA makes a noticeable difference.

32" 4k resolution has a 0.185ppi. due to the finer ppi and the same viewing distance. less AA should be necessary to achieve the same image quality.

----

for the minority of you that paid attention to details. you do can stop reading further. chances are you already seen this.

for the majority of you that does not pay attention to details. here is the ez link for your view pleasure.

0x aa http://img.hexus.net/v2/monitors/4K/0x.png
2x aa http://img.hexus.net/v2/monitors/4K/2x.png
4x aa http://img.hexus.net/v2/monitors/4K/4x.png

see a difference ???

Since I'm viewing those images on a 1080p monitor, pixels are much larger than if I had a 4k monitor, so it really doesn't tell me much.

 

[UaVaj]

those three images are ONLY to show if 4k resolution still needs AA.

as for if 4k is better than 1k or vice versa. that is another discussion in regards to viewing distance and ppi. those three image does not apply.

as long as you are running at native resolution on your monitor and viewing the image at full resolution. it "WILL BE" pixel per pixel. hence you have to scroll around. so the image quality will "NOT BE" lost.

after viewing those three image and still unable to tell the difference.
if viewing in 1080p and unable to tell. chances are you do not need AA at 1080p.
if viewing in 1440p and unable to tell. chances are you do not need AA at 1600p.
if viewing in 2160p and unable to tell. chances are you do not need AA at 2100p.

 

[bystander36]

those three images are ONLY to show if 4k resolution still needs AA.

as for if 4k is better than 1k or vice versa. that is another discussion in regards to viewing distance and ppi. those three image does not apply.

as long as you are running at native resolution on your monitor and viewing the image at full resolution. it "WILL BE" pixel per pixel. hence you have to scroll around. so the image quality will "NOT BE" lost.

after viewing those three image and still unable to tell the difference.
if viewing in 1080p and unable to tell. chances are you do not need AA at 1080p.
if viewing in 1440p and unable to tell. chances are you do not need AA at 1600p.
if viewing in 2160p and unable to tell. chances are you do not need AA at 2100p.

Yes, and it will show jaggies, but when the PPI is much higher for a 4k screen, those pixels and jaggies become much smaller, as a result, we won't notice the jaggies as much.

This is why those pictures won't really tell us how noticeable it is unless we have a 4k monitor to view them on. It only shows that AA smooths out any sized image, which we should already know. It doesn't tell us how bad jaggies look on a 4k monitor.

 

[UaVaj]

do not mixing PPI and AA. those are two very different things that boths contribute to overall image quality. current discussion direction is AA.

as for PPI. without making the viewing distance a constant. and without making the screen size constant.
a 1k screen can be positioned to display a sharper image than a 4k screen.
example 1. ever see how clear how those lcd billboard screen are? clearly not 40k. (again 40k)
example 2. a smartphone which is clearly not 4k. much less even 1k. has crystal clear lines. try angry birds.

back to AA. that is manipulation of pixels to improve sharpness regardless of resolution. as long as the source is "pixel per pixel" - actual resolution does not matter. the same image with different levels of AA can be used to calibrate how much AA sensitive each individual is.

for me. 0x AA is jagged. 2x AA is night and day. 4x AA is suttle.
for other. 0x AA is plenty good. AA not neccessary.
for other. 4x AA is still not enough. 8x AA is needed.

-----

to further explain your senario. 4k 23" screen will definitely be sharper than 1k 23" screen. hence the 4k screen needing less AA.
keep in mind. viewing distance must be 2' constant.
keep in mind. screen size must be 23" constant.

 

[bystander36]

Dude, no one is saying that 4K resolutions fix jaggies. What people are saying is the increase in PPI reduces the need for AA, because the pixels are small enough that you don't noticed the jaggies as much.

The smaller the pixels, the smaller the jaggies, and the smaller the jaggies, the less we care to use AA. Looking at 4K images on a 1080p screen at the same distance you'd view a 4k screen, does nothing to help us see the difference.

 

[UaVaj]

you obviously cannot comprehend. pixel per pixel.

carry on. no need to make this thread any longer than necessary.

 

[bystander36]

you obviously cannot comprehend. pixel per pixel.

carry on. no need to make this thread any longer than necessary.

Yes, Pixel for pixel, but the pixel size on the 1080p monitor is much larger than the pixel on the 4k monitor. Something you can't comprehend, obviously. I suppose if you used a 16" 1080p monitor, and compared it to a 32" 4k monitor, then it would be a fair test.

 

[UaVaj]

nvm.

 

[futurefields]

Who cares about more pixels? I don't.

I care about image quality and performance. Give me more realistic lighting, shadowing, texture mapping before you force my GPU to pump out 2 million more unrealistically shaded pixels.

 

[UaVaj]

well said futurefields.

great minds think alike.

one thing for sure. that crystal clear 100'+ led billboard is definitely not 40k.
btw. anyone know the actual pixel count is? perhap 1920x1080?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tivK_105tGY
hint: @ 30sec

 

[bystander36]

If we get a 32" 4k monitor, we are planning on viewing it from about 2' from the screen, the same distance I view my 27" 1080 screen now. Maybe a couple inches further away due to the extra size. The idea is to actually to have 4 times smaller pixels to view.

A billboard is seen from a football field away, at those distances, the 1080p screen (or less) isn't that big a deal, but you are fooling yourself if you think people don't see the pixels quite clear (as you get closer to it), but it doesn't matter much when you are just advertising.

Frankly, I'm not all that excited about going to a super high resolution atm. I prefer 120hz and fluidity matters more to me than completely unrecognizable pixels.

 

[BrightCandle]

I am hoping for more normal sized monitors with 4K resolutions, 22/24" for example. These would represent a much better jump in PPD than going from a small 24" monitor to 32" in order to get 4k resolution. Its perfectly doable seeing as how we have that density of pixels in tablet screens today.

At that point when you starting using 4 times as many pixels as we do today for the same size image there is a real chance AA wont be necessary. Maybe 4x isn't enough but this to me is the entire point of going to ever higher pixel density, to further increase the image quality until the point where we can not distinguish between the individual pixels anymore so we can produce an accurate image without tricks.