New Graphics Standard approved - 7680 x 4320 @120Hz

Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
B

bunnyfubbles

Lifer
Sep 3, 2001
12,248
3
0
I don't care about the extreme resolution nearly as much as I care about the 120fps standard :D

this is 7680x4320@120

gg

not even sure I want to think about the hardware its going to take to push that...
 
Last edited:
F

Ferzerp

Diamond Member
Oct 12, 1999
6,438
107
106
No one will game at that resolution for a very, very long time. That's 33M pixels. Right now, two top end cards can do 4-8M pixels depending on the game.

What would happen is you'd run it at 3840x2160, but even that is 8M pixels which right now we can't run satisfactorily. All in all, a monitor of that res would be poor for gaming at this time. Some games would work, but some games wouldn't. If you can't run it at 3840x2160, your next step down that won't look awful due to scaling is only 1920x1080, and that resolution is just too low :p Maybe the 1080p crowd would put up with it, but that's just too low for me ;)


edit: fixed number transposition pointed out below.
 
Last edited:
B

bunnyfubbles

Lifer
Sep 3, 2001
12,248
3
0
Ferzerp said:
No one will game at that resolution for a very, very long time. That's 33M pixels. Right now, two top end cards can do 4-8M pixels depending on the game.

What would happen is you'd run it at 3480x2160, but even that is 8M pixels which right now we can't run satisfactorily. All in all, a monitor of that res would be poor for gaming at this time. Some games would work, but some games wouldn't. If you can't run it at 3480x2160, your next step down that won't look awful due to scaling is only 1740x1080, and that resolution is just too low :p Maybe the 1080p crowd would put up with it, but that's just too low.
Click to expand...

your math is off, this is quad x quad HD, so 7680 -> 3840 -> 1920, not 3480 and 1740

but otherwise you're right about gaming, simply going from 1080 to 2160p will require a major increase in processing power, let alone 4320p @ 120Hz. 16 times the resolution, yet also double the refresh rate, so basically 32 times the processing power to truly appreciate, so basically at best we'd be able to enjoy this in 5 years (assuming a doubling of current power once a year) outside of some sort of major breakthrough.
 
Last edited:
F

Ferzerp

Diamond Member
Oct 12, 1999
6,438
107
106
Woops, I transposed when I typed, and then used that transposition to do the other math.
 
C

Corporate Thug

Lifer
Apr 17, 2003
37,622
0
76
bunnyfubbles said:
I don't care about the extreme resolution nearly as much as I care about the 120fps standard :D

this is 7680x4320@120

gg

not even sure I want to think about the hardware its going to take to push that...
Click to expand...

it probably won't become PC standard for a very long time. by the time it does, the hardware will be there.
 
I

imaheadcase

Diamond Member
May 9, 2005
3,850
7
76
By the time its standard, hardware will be better they will have to ratify that standard to another.

Nevermind that monitors are the slowest evolving thing on a PC.
 
B

blackened23

Diamond Member
Jul 26, 2011
8,548
2
0
What the heck are you people talking about? This isn't about GPUs. This standard is designed for TV's, i'm not sure why people are even correlating this to PC graphics hardware, did you people even read the article?

Furthermore, this resolution is part of the "4k" standard which will be pushed in the next year. 7680 x 4320 is 4k times 2. "4k" is a marketing term because previously all resolutions were described vertically, yet 4k is described horizontally. Doesn't make a darn bit of sense, anyway 4k times one is technically 2 times the pixel density of 1920x1080.

4k blu rays are already being developed. When we get 4k TVs , 4k blu rays will already be there. Also: 4k horizontal resolution isn't much more pixel dense than 2560x1600. Graphics hardware that can handle really isn't that far off.
 
RussianSensation

RussianSensation

Elite Member
Sep 5, 2003
19,458
765
126
blackened23 said:
What the heck are you people talking about? This isn't about GPUs. This standard is designed for TV's, i'm not sure why people are even correlating this to PC graphics hardware, did you people even read the article?
Click to expand...

:thumbsup: Only a fraction of PC gamers are even gaming at 2560x1440 or above. No point at all even talking about 7680x4320 for another 5-10 years.

Right now a 32-inch 4K TV costs as much as a car.
http://www.engadget.com/2012/06/05/viewsonic-vp3280-led-4k-monitor-hands-on/

I will be upgrading to a 37 inch 4K LCD/LED/OLED/Plasma for gaming when it hits $1000-1,500. I can't see that happening for at least 5-6 years, maybe more.

Also, people are forgetting that right now we are at the most distorted point in PC gaming graphics. GPUs are 15-20x faster than RSX/R500 in PS3/360 but graphics have hardly improved by a factor of 2x, maybe 3x with mods/textures, etc. Once next generation of consoles launch by end of 2013/2014, I expect DX11 to really take off and an exponential increase in graphics. That would hammer videocards where once again we'll be scrambling to upgrade. That's just my person opinion and it may be entirely wrong if next generation consoles are weak.

Either way, as PC graphics become more complex, our GPUs will start choking even at 2560x1600. The industry goes in cycles. Since right now we are at the end of a 2005-2006 console generation, it appears that we have ample GPU power reserves but looking at next generation lighting and shadow effects in games such as Dirt Showdown, Sniper Elite and Sleeping Dogs, it tells me all those new graphical features that improve graphics just a little bit are going to start costing us A TON of graphical performance.

It makes sense if you think about it. Going from textured hair to 50,000 individual hair strands of hair all reacting to wind requires 10x the GPU increase in horsepower.

Imagine GTA VI with a world 10x more populated world/streets than GTA V. It'll make a GTX680 go at 5 fps in no time at all. We'll get there eventually.
 
exar333

exar333

Diamond Member
Feb 7, 2004
8,518
8
91
RussianSensation said:
:thumbsup: Only a fraction of PC gamers are even gaming at 2560x1440 or above. No point at all even talking about 7680x4320 for another 5-10 years.

Right now a 32-inch 4K TV costs as much as a car.
http://www.engadget.com/2012/06/05/viewsonic-vp3280-led-4k-monitor-hands-on/

I will be upgrading to a 37 inch 4K LCD/LED/OLED/Plasma for gaming when it hits $1000-1,500. I can't see that happening for at least 5-6 years, maybe more.

Also, people are forgetting that right now we are at the most distorted point in PC gaming graphics. GPUs are 15-20x faster than RSX/R500 in PS3/360 but graphics have hardly improved by a factor of 2x, maybe 3x with mods/textures, etc. Once next generation of consoles launch by end of 2013/2014, I expect DX11 to really take off and an exponential increase in graphics. That would hammer videocards where once again we'll be scrambling to upgrade. That's just my person opinion and it may be entirely wrong if next generation consoles are weak.

Either way, as PC graphics become more complex, our GPUs will start choking even at 2560x1600. The industry goes in cycles. Since right now we are at the end of a 2005-2006 console generation, it appears that we have ample GPU power reserves but looking at next generation lighting and shadow effects in games such as Dirt Showdown, Sniper Elite and Sleeping Dogs, it tells me all those new graphical features that improve graphics just a little bit are going to start costing us A TON of graphical performance.

It makes sense if you think about it. Going from textured hair to 50,000 individual hair strands of hair all reacting to wind requires 10x the GPU increase in horsepower.

Imagine GTA VI with a world 10x more populated world/streets than GTA V. It'll make a GTX680 go at 5 fps in no time at all. We'll get there eventually.
Click to expand...

I'll settle for a 2k display at 24/27 inch or 3k at 30-32 inch @120hz for $1000-1500 That would be a great way to move me back to CF/SLI. :)


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD
 
Throckmorton

Throckmorton

Lifer
Aug 23, 2007
16,829
3
0
Ferzerp said:
No one will game at that resolution for a very, very long time. That's 33M pixels. Right now, two top end cards can do 4-8M pixels depending on the game.

What would happen is you'd run it at 3840x2160, but even that is 8M pixels which right now we can't run satisfactorily. All in all, a monitor of that res would be poor for gaming at this time. Some games would work, but some games wouldn't. If you can't run it at 3840x2160, your next step down that won't look awful due to scaling is only 1920x1080, and that resolution is just too low :p Maybe the 1080p crowd would put up with it, but that's just too low for me ;)


edit: fixed number transposition pointed out below.
Click to expand...

Unless video cards start supporting pixel doubling or pixel quadrupling, any resolution other than native will look like crap.
 
B

blackened23

Diamond Member
Jul 26, 2011
8,548
2
0
Ferzerp said:
You got me excited, but I can't find a place to buy one of these :(
Click to expand...

LG just released an 84 inch 4k Television in asia, the cost is 22,000$. A PC monitor at 4k may be more expensive due to more pixel density, not sure.

It is expected to have availability in September (the LG 4k TV)
 
ShintaiDK

ShintaiDK

Lifer
Apr 22, 2012
20,378
145
106
blackened23 said:
LG just released an 84 inch 4k Television in asia, the cost is 22,000$. A PC monitor at 4k may be more expensive due to more pixel density, not sure.

It is expected to have availability in September (the LG 4k TV)
Click to expand...

Eizo got a 4K monitor at 35000$ I think it was.
 
Fire&Blood

Fire&Blood

Platinum Member
Jan 13, 2009
2,333
18
81
I guess that in less than 2 years, 2160p monitors will be as widespread as Dell's 1600p's are today. So a 5 year estimate til 4320p seems right. I wouldn't be surprised to see something like a $350 Yamakasi Q310 2160p on ebay even within a year.

Interesting that i5 is only enough for image slide shows, can't drive 4k res for regular desktop usage, takes an i7 for that. So while the GPU's got ways to go, CPU's need to get much better as well. I hope GTX980 can run Crysis at 30FPS.
 
P

Pottuvoi

Senior member
Apr 16, 2012
416
2
81
Meh..
I wouldn't mind a 4k with 480hz though, there simply wouldn't be any reason not to use VSync anymore. ;)
 
Fanatical Meat

Fanatical Meat

Lifer
Feb 4, 2009
35,782
17,322
136
At the risk of sounding stupid, can our eyes perceive a difference between a 4k display and this 12k display?
 
C

Childs

Lifer
Jul 9, 2000
11,313
7
81
I saw this at NAB like 5 or 6 years ago at NHK's booth. It was projection, and I dont think it was at 120Hz. Sound was also 22.2 in the theater. Funny thing was, it didnt look all that different than good HD. I was much more impressed with the sound.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom