Forget Anti Aliasing - Where is PPI

[lehtv]

Lol, 4k on a 27"? On a Mac maybe.

Wait, Macs are monitors? I thought Macs were computers.

 

[JAG87]

A single 7970 can run 3x1080p without AA on high settings. So why cant it run 4k in a 24" monitor??

a 690 GTX could run 4k in a 24" monitor without AA with ease.

Your right though its the lack of monitors thats the issue and windows limitations

The problem is lack of GPU power, not lack of monitors.

Who the hell buys a GTX 690? The 0.01% of PC gamers, which is the 0.01% of PC users? You think they are going to make a monitor just for that market? That's exactly why they are pushing Surround and EyeFinity, because you can get people to spend outrageous amounts of money on GPUs without the need for a manufacturer to release a 4K 24" monitor for that tiny market. Plus common people have always preferred perceived quantity over quality (i.e. 3x 24" 1080p monitors vs 1x 4K).

Rest assured though that in the next couple of years we will see retina quality displays in the PC market. Look at HD4000, it's already fast enough to drive 2D and easy 3D, give it a few more years and it will be able to play demanding games decently at 1440p. And high end cards will breeze through games at that resolution like they do at 1080p right now.

But I don't want to scale... What's the point of higher res if the space available to me stays the same? Just more strain on the components.

Lol, right.

I mean why take an 18MP photograph vs a 2MP photograph when the FOV is the same...

Rofl.

 

[Fx1]

This was already answered. It works because the operating system enlarges the fonts to hyper stupid proportions to make it usable. You can do the same thing in windows 8. If you want to use 450% extra large fonts, it might be usable.

23 inches at 2560x1600 in a desktop monitor will not happen. We can revisit this in a year and I guarantee you, it will not happen. You can pay for a 30" or you can just stick with 1080p , and this does not change the fact that AA has a smaller performance penalty than does 2560x1600 (which is nearly double the pixel count of 1080p). This was your original argument and you were wrong - AA has less of a performance hit (especially FXAA) than doubling the pixel count.

Also, all panels for PCs are produced by samsung and LG. They are not producing 2560x1600 in anything less than 30 inches for a desktop monitor form factor - and like I mentioned numerous times, that resolution is not usable at 23 inches unless the OS uses gigantic fonts. You can view their product plans for the next year, again, NOT HAPPENING. Only by using a tablet operating system with hyper enlarged fonts is it usable, which is what apple does.

It honestly sounds like you want 2560x1600 on a 23" because you're cheap. You also complained about 8x MSAA when you're using a GTX 460. If you want more pixels, prepare to pay for it with a 30". If you want 8x MSAA upgrade your cheap video card. Panel makers have no plans for producing that resolution outside of 7-10 inch tablet screens, again - in this context that resolution works because android and iOS allow you to enlarge fonts to stupid proportions.

Lastly, most people agree that for home theater or immersive gaming, bigger is better. For gaming purposes nobody takes a mac seriously and most people don't want to game on a crap 22" inch panel. I'd much rather game on a 60" big screen or a 30" PC monitor. I don't think your opinion of getting a tiny screen for gaming is representative of what most gamers want - games want bigger and better. Not smaller.

Seriously you have no idea what you are talking about. i have no idea where the crap you spout comes from. You have issues.

i want 2560x1600 on 23" because im cheap? Seriously your such an idiot i cant even begin to explain. i run 460 GTX in SLI which were £189 when i got them which is more than a 680 GTX today.

You have no idea what your talking about. You have an overactive imagination and seriously bad reading skills. You have some kind of problem where you read 10 words and in your mind you actually read 100 and the other 90 came from your broken mind.

This is how irritating it is responding to you. How you have 3000+ posts on this forum and no one has tracked you down to your moms basement where you spout out this crap i have no idea.

Please leave my thread because your the only idiot whos posting thats talking complete tripe. I dont want your opinion. Please move on.

 

[Fx1]

The problem is lack of GPU power, not lack of monitors.

Who the hell buys a GTX 690? The 0.01% of PC gamers, which is the 0.01% of PC users? You think they are going to make a monitor just for that market? That's exactly why they are pushing Surround and EyeFinity, because you can get people to spend outrageous amounts of money on GPUs without the need for a manufacturer to release a 4K 24" monitor for that tiny market. Plus common people have always preferred perceived quantity over quality (i.e. 3x 24" 1080p monitors vs 1x 4K).

Rest assured though that in the next couple of years we will see retina quality displays in the PC market. Look at HD4000, it's already fast enough to drive 2D and easy 3D, give it a few more years and it will be able to play demanding games decently at 1440p. And high end cards will breeze through games at that resolution like they do at 1080p right now.





Lol, right.

I mean why take an 18MP photograph vs a 2MP photograph when the FOV is the same...

Rofl.

Lots of people run SLI and CF and even a 660 GTX SLI would be easily enough powerful to run that resolution.

 

[JAG87]

This was already answered. It works because the operating system enlarges the fonts to hyper stupid proportions to make it usable. You can do the same thing in windows 8. If you want to use 450% extra large fonts, it might be usable.

Then please explain why the font on the right is not 4x smaller than the one on the left, and what is the problem with how iOS/OSX handles higher PPI.

Lots of people run SLI and CF and even a 660 GTX SLI would be easily enough powerful to run that resolution.

Come on dude, define "lots of people". 5% of gamers? which is 0.05% of the total PC market?

 

[Fx1]

Then please explain why the font on the right is not 4x smaller than the one on the left, and what is the problem with how iOS/OSX handles higher PPI.

Come on dude, define "lots of people". 5% of gamers? which is 0.05% of the total PC market?

How about the photography market? they need the resolutions and dont need to game. How about the 4k Film industry which is round the corner?

Gamers are 1 part of a market which could use high PPI screens.

Why does the Retina Pro have a 1880p Screen in a 15" laptop? Why will the Macbook Air and the iMac also get them?

Why does an iPad have 1600p screen? What about the Nexus 10?

Dont get my started on 1080p 5" phones.

There is a reason to produce them and lots of people would use them even for just web browsing. Text is 10x sharper as you point out above.

Gamers are just one group of consumers who will benefit.

 

[kache]

Wait, Macs are monitors? I thought Macs were computers.

As in, a monitor usable only in OSX environment.

 

[kache]

Lol, right.

I mean why take an 18MP photograph vs a 2MP photograph when the FOV is the same...

Rofl.

As if I could see the difference with that high of a DPI at 1m+ distance from the monitor...
I can see the difference on my cellphone, but that's because my cellphone is most of the time 10cm away from my eyes...

 

[Fx1]

As if I could see the difference with that high of a DPI at 1m+ distance from the monitor...
I can see the difference on my cellphone, but that's because my cellphone is most of the time 10cm away from my eyes...

i have put a rMBP next to my MBP and the difference is obvious.

Seriously this is like trying to convince people the world isnt flat. Do people really need to try and sail you off the end to help you understand?

I dont understand why people choose to disbelieve until they have the proof in front of their eyes.

 

[Eureka]

What's the argument anymore? High-res screens are going to come. It'll take a while for the tech to seep down... until then, we have to deal with AA as a catch all solution.

Not only that, but once 4k screens come out, your GPU budget is going to explode.

 

[Fx1]

What's the argument anymore? High-res screens are going to come. It'll take a while for the tech to seep down... until then, we have to deal with AA as a catch all solution.

Not only that, but once 4k screens come out, your GPU budget is going to explode.

Its not a problem.

i used to pay nearly £2k for a gaming setup and now you can do it for half that.

 

[moonbogg]

This image beautifully illustrates exactly why 4k monitors won't do anything at all for gaming
Those who are saying that gaming won't look better until we have more polygons, better rendering etc need to stare at the above image, without stopping, until 4k monitors hit Newegg.
If we had 4k monitors for TODAYS games, they would look absolutely silk bitchin badass clean and clear. Mmmk?

 

[lehtv]

As in, a monitor usable only in OSX environment.

Apple uses proprietary display interfaces now?

If we had 4k monitors for TODAYS games, they would look absolutely silk bitchin badass clean and clear. Mmmk?

No. A game with much improved textures, effects and models on 1080p would look better than any current game on 4K resolution.

 

[moonbogg]

Apple uses proprietary display interfaces now?


No. A game with much improved textures, effects and models on 1080p would look better than any current game on 4K resolution.

WUT? You wanna go to war with the Bogg? Do you want to go to WAR!!!!!??! :twisted::twisted:

 

[f1sherman]

Apple uses proprietary display interfaces now?


No. A game with much improved textures, effects and models on 1080p would look better than any current game on 4K resolution.

AA vs graphics is a matter of personal taste, but I would settle for somewhat better textures, effects and models, with radically better AA on 25x16 23''.

Someone mentioned Macs before. It was Apple, that has been the driving force behind adoption of higher resolution through last 10 years,
and seems that this trend continues with Retina

 

[badb0y]

Higher PPI screens are pretty much guaranteed in the next few years especially once Apple starts pushing out "Retina" displays on their desktops.

EDIT: And yes higher PPI screens looks beautiful.

 

[moonbogg]

Higher PPI screens are pretty much guaranteed in the next few years especially once Apple starts pushing out "Retina" displays on their desktops.

EDIT: And yes higher PPI screens looks beautiful.

Yep, I'd have to agree. Apple's innovation is what will give us the next great era of PC gaming. Think about it. Once Apple releases Retina displays for the PC, anyone who doesn't have one will suddenly realize that they are still using a low res monitor. They pushed big wide screens with their 23" cinema displays years ago. I remember seeing them in Fry's and they were the expensive envy of me and my friends as we continued to play on our CRTs. Same thing will happen.

 

[lavaheadache]

This image beautifully illustrates exactly why 4k monitors won't do anything at all for gaming
Those who are saying that gaming won't look better until we have more polygons, better rendering etc need to stare at the above image, without stopping, until 4k monitors hit Newegg.
If we had 4k monitors for TODAYS games, they would look absolutely silk bitchin badass clean and clear. Mmmk?

that picture is all win

 

[kache]

i have put a rMBP next to my MBP and the difference is obvious.

Seriously this is like trying to convince people the world isnt flat. Do people really need to try and sail you off the end to help you understand?

I dont understand why people choose to disbelieve until they have the proof in front of their eyes.

I tried a rMBP myself, you know...
There is definitely a difference, but at MY viewing distance it's too little to be worth the increased strain on the hardware. For my use I'd prefer a monitor with the same resolution but double the size, so I could actually make use of all that space completely in windows environment.
I was never a real fan of high DPI settings.

 

[Fx1]

I tried a rMBP myself, you know...
There is definitely a difference, but at MY viewing distance it's too little to be worth the increased strain on the hardware. For my use I'd prefer a monitor with the same resolution but double the size, so I could actually make use of all that space completely in windows environment.
I was never a real fan of high DPI settings.

you can already get 30" 2560x1600 monitors. thats about as big as they need to be on a desk.

Increased strain? Seriously i thought this was an enthusiasts forum.

 

[JAG87]

How about the photography market? they need the resolutions and dont need to game. How about the 4k Film industry which is round the corner?

Gamers are 1 part of a market which could use high PPI screens.

Why does the Retina Pro have a 1880p Screen in a 15" laptop? Why will the Macbook Air and the iMac also get them?

Why does an iPad have 1600p screen? What about the Nexus 10?

Dont get my started on 1080p 5" phones.

There is a reason to produce them and lots of people would use them even for just web browsing. Text is 10x sharper as you point out above.

Gamers are just one group of consumers who will benefit.

But dude, you started this thread with "forget AA"... that's for games is it not?


Obviously there are benefits to higher resolution displays in other markets, and that's why such displays exist and have existed for a while in the professional market. Just not for the consumer.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_T220/T221_LCD_monitors

 

[blackened23]

Seriously you have no idea what you are talking about. i have no idea where the crap you spout comes from. You have issues.

i want 2560x1600 on 23" because im cheap?

Let's review:

1) FX1 complains about 8x MSAA causing a performance loss.

2) FX1 then suggests that "higher PPI" and 2560x1600 would have less performance loss than 8x MSAA.

Reading these first 2 ridiculous arguments presented by you should clue anyone in as to who's "spouting crap". Argument #2 is not remotely close to being accurate.

Let's keep going:

FX1 then apparently wants a 23 inch monitor crafted just for himself, because, you know, he wants a 23 inch 2560x1600 screen so that he won't notice aliasing 2560x1600 is great! but it can't be 30 because then he will notice aliasing. And his 460s can't handle AA.

FX1 goes on to state that the gaming industry wants smaller screens. Guess what. That isn't true. The next gen consoles are all using 1080p @ 30 fps with higher detail. Furthermore, high resolution screens are great, i'm all for it. But suggesting that this is where gaming is headed is just lunacy because that is not the case.

 

[JAG87]

By the way, higher resolution doesn't eliminate aliasing (anyone who has used a 2560x1600 screen will testify to this, obviously YOU haven't used a u3011 or anything of the like)

FFS, how many times does one have to tell you that we're talking about increasing resolution while keeping size constant? PPI on a 30" 2560x1600 monitor is no better than on a 23" 1080p monitor, so no shit Sherlock of course it still shows aliasing.

Try 5120x3200 on a 30" display, and that's like playing at 2560x1600 with 4x SSAA. I dare you to spot any aliasing on a setup like that.

 

[twjr]

http://sharp-world.com/corporate/news/121128.html

4K is already here. Sure it is niche and expensive but if you want to see what current generation games and hardware can do at high resolutions you do have the option.

While I think they would look better than at 1080p I don't think it would suddenly remove the need for AA. Nor do I think it would suddenly make the images closer to "reality". As others have already said just look at a good 1080p video now and you already can see what current resolutions are capable of.

Until hardware is capable of pushing the polygons and textures seen in current animated movies in real time we aren't going to see a massive improvement in image quality. Until that hardware is available in consoles we aren't going to see game developers push such innovation. I can't see this scenario happening soon either. People are simply too price sensitive. Sure there might be 5%, 1% or 0.01% of the market that might want a screen as shown above but companies don't often cater for that and when they do they make you pay for it.

 

[blackened23]

FFS, how many times does one have to tell you that we're talking about increasing resolution while keeping size constant? PPI on a 30" 2560x1600 monitor is no better than on a 23" 1080p monitor, so no shit Sherlock of course it still shows aliasing.

Try 5120x3200 on a 30" display, and that's like playing at 2560x1600 with 4x SSAA. I dare you to spot any aliasing on a setup like that.

Actually, I did mention this. The PPI may be similar but 2560x1600 has double the pixels so the detail is signifigantly better. I guess you have to see it to appreciate it. Again, 2560x1600 on a 23 inch screen is a fantasy and is not happening anytime soon for desktop monitors, feel free to look at LG and samsung's lineup for 2013. You can argue about how great iOS is but the fact of the matter is, that resolution is not usable for windows environments at that size, period.

I SUPPOSE you can make it usable in windows 8 with 7 inch by 7 inch tiles, but it is completely unusable in any windows version prior to that. Since windows 8 isn't liked by the vast majority of desktop users, you can see why panel makers would be hesitant to create such a product. Nevermind the fact that 99% of users don't have a GPU capable of supporting 2560x1600.