• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Maybe Quad-SLI is not overkill...

i doubt you could tell the difference between 1080p and 4096x2160 on a ~50" screen or lower screen. however, a 100-200 inch screen at 4096x2160 = :Q:Q:Q:Q:Q
 
yeah i am runnin crysis 2 on my 212" 4096p DLP monitor with my quad core Athlon 64 x4 6000+, 4 gigs o RAM, dual Ageia PhysX in SLI, and 4 Geforce 8950gx2's in Octo SLI at 4096x2160 with 64AA and 48AF. I did have to turn shadows down some cuz it slows it down a little plus they look ****** anyway. Crytek should really work on shadow quality. I mean they were great in Crysis 1 but they suck now, i cant even see the individual shadows from strands of hair. Anyone else noticed this problem? Apparantly i should have gone Quadfire cuz those lucky fvckers that went that route instead arnt having this problem.

Morgash
 
pssh 4k horizontal res is so last year -- try 7680×4320

evidently the resolution was so high that people were getting physically sick when standing besides the screens, they felt disoriented by the lack of biofeedback -- things like low frequency noise and air displacement are obviously not there so seeing a motorcyle speeding towards you but stopping right in front of you caused people to jump out of the way of the bike.
 
Topic Title: Maybe Quad-SLI is not overkill...
Topic Summary: 4096x2160

Intelligent response: Who the hell needs 4096x2160?!?!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

😉
 
Originally posted by: dug777
Topic Title: Maybe Quad-SLI is not overkill...
Topic Summary: 4096x2160

Intelligent response: Who the hell needs 4096x2160?!?!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

😉
Click to expand...

I do, just so I can view the dos prompt
 
stupid, we're not going to simply skip over 1080p. Once its the standard for about a decade, then maybe we'll see some major push to bring about and upgrade. By then, onboard graphics will be able to render it instead of quad SLI 😛

(BTW, I can't wait for smellovision)
 
Originally posted by: morgash
yeah i am runnin crysis 2 on my 212" 4096p DLP monitor with my quad core Athlon 64 x4 6000+, 4 gigs o RAM, dual Ageia PhysX in SLI, and 4 Geforce 8950gx2's in Octo SLI at 4096x2160 with 64AA and 48AF. I did have to turn shadows down some cuz it slows it down a little plus they look ****** anyway. Crytek should really work on shadow quality. I mean they were great in Crysis 1 but they suck now, i cant even see the individual shadows from strands of hair. Anyone else noticed this problem? Apparantly i should have gone Quadfire cuz those lucky fvckers that went that route instead arnt having this problem.

Morgash
Click to expand...

i think your slow down is caused by 4gb ram. why won't ppl conform to the crytek 2 recommend spec of 300 gb ram.
 
Originally posted by: morgash
yeah i am runnin crysis 2 on my 212" 4096p DLP monitor with my quad core Athlon 64 x4 6000+, 4 gigs o RAM, dual Ageia PhysX in SLI, and 4 Geforce 8950gx2's in Octo SLI at 4096x2160 with 64AA and 48AF. I did have to turn shadows down some cuz it slows it down a little plus they look ****** anyway. Crytek should really work on shadow quality. I mean they were great in Crysis 1 but they suck now, i cant even see the individual shadows from strands of hair. Anyone else noticed this problem? Apparantly i should have gone Quadfire cuz those lucky fvckers that went that route instead arnt having this problem.

Morgash
Click to expand...

Tsk Tsk, you silly goose. You forgot this.
 
Originally posted by: Wreckage
http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=34288

Some crazy company is trying to push the 4K standard even though 1080P has yet to mature.

This brings us to a 4096x2160 resolution.

It can be as much as 50MB for each frame
Click to expand...

Looks like those 200GB Blu-ray discs may not even be enough.
Click to expand...

Ok, forget about CPU power and GPU power, what freakin' hard drive can transfer 50MB x 29 (FPS)? We'll need a FAST solid state solution if we ever want to see this take off. So yeah, don't hold your breath for this to take over 1080p anytime soon. I'd say at LEAST by the year 2020.
 
Originally posted by: wizboy11
Originally posted by: hans030390
Originally posted by: Wreckage
Originally posted by: bunnyfubbles
(BTW, I can't wait for smellovision)
Click to expand...
That should make pr0n better.
Click to expand...

Uhhh.....😕
Click to expand...

lol
Anyway, even at 4096x2048 or whatever the fsck the resolution is, I STILL WANY MY AA 🙂 and AF.

Can't do AA/AF, it ain't worth it.
Click to expand...

:laugh: Crysis at 4096x2160 with 8xS AA and 16x AF.
 
Originally posted by: JackBurton
Originally posted by: Wreckage
http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=34288

Some crazy company is trying to push the 4K standard even though 1080P has yet to mature.

This brings us to a 4096x2160 resolution.

It can be as much as 50MB for each frame
Click to expand...

Looks like those 200GB Blu-ray discs may not even be enough.
Click to expand...

Ok, forget about CPU power and GPU power, what freakin' hard drive can transfer 50MB x 29 (FPS)? We'll need a FAST solid state solution if we ever want to see this take off. So yeah, don't hold your breath for this to take over 1080p anytime soon. I'd say at LEAST by the year 2020.
Click to expand...

Has nothing to do with hard drive speed dude. the video card generates the frame and displays it. Videocards now have 2 GHz 256 (or 512) bit memory buses. That way exceeds the interface of a HDD

Wait nm, you're talking about video playback, yeah I see your point lol. Still, it could be compressed and then uncompressed on the fly - and the more processing power you have, the better it could be compressed. Biggest reason H.264 is so much higher fidelity is not the higher file sizes, mainy it has way better compression than DVD - enabled by more processing power nowadays.

Oh yeah, and to answer the original post: quad SLI IS overkill, and that friggin resolution is definitely overkill!! 😀 😀
 
50 MB per frame seems a little large. A little math tells us current DVDs are only about 50 KB per frame 😉 I hope I did my math right.

120 min * 60 = 7200 sec
7200 sec * 24 fps = 172,800 frames
8.5 GB DVD / 172,800 frames = 51.6 KB

Even a little less to fit the sound tracks and other data. So proportionally a frame of a 4096x2160 video would be about 1.3 MB. I don't think we'll see 8 megapixel videos any time soon.
 
Originally posted by: SonicIce
50 MB per frame seems a little large. A little math tells us current DVDs are only about 50 KB per frame 😉 I hope I did my math right.

120 min * 60 = 7200 sec
7200 sec * 24 fps = 172,800 frames
8.5 GB DVD / 172,800 frames = 51.6 KB

Even a little less to fit the sound tracks and other data. So proportionally a frame of a 4096x2160 video would be about 1.3 MB. I don't think we'll see 8 megapixel videos any time soon.
Click to expand...

With DVD's isn't in the streaming data rate /s that really matters and arn't DVD's in MB/s when it comes to that?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top