Why is everyone obsessed with 4K?

[PrincessFrosty]

I think a lot of people are excited about 4K simply because we feel that eventually it is probably going to be the "1080p" ubiquitous resolution for gaming and its rein could last over a period of 10+ years.

It will be for the same reason that 1080p was, there's a home cinema standard behind the screen resolution which will eventually be in every living room around the world and the investment into 4k panels will drive the cost down which is has done massively already.

Still, looking at 4K monitor, TV tech and GPU horsepower, it is still too niche. 4K adaptive sync monitors are too few, and 4K gaming on 27-28" isn't even an option for some gamers who would want 32"+ 4K gaming as a minimum.

There's 32"+ 4k monitors on the market, I just got one, using native res in windows 8.1 is fine for me. I'm not sure how much adaptive sync means to the average gamer, I personally don't really care enough about it to let it swing a monitor decision.

Windows DPI scaling is still not A+ which means outside of gaming, it's not as pleasant to use a 32" and below 4K monitor for productivity as say 1440/1600P or even a 34" 3440x1440.

If you have good eyesight then 32" is fine, windows DPI scaling is naff though and hopefully it'll be fixed in Windows 10 and patched in win 7/8 before long.

Quite honestly I find it hard to believe that OLED offers the kind of gains in IQ you're talking about with respect to something like an LED IPS panel, but then I've not seen them in real life. I have no doubt they're better but surely we've entered the realm of diminishing returns on panel quality already?

Res is less important for TV and more important for gaming, anything 3D has to be rendered to an approximation so screen resolution is a bottleneck for image quality in a more significant way than it is with TV, Aliasing being the primary source of bother but also things like the filtering of textures at acute angles. I find it hard to believe that OLED @1080p provides a better gaming experience than 4k LED IPS, although that is a highly subjective statement so each to his own I guess.

 

[Madpacket]

Until you've really compared OLED to a high end LCD TV it's hard to appreciate the difference. I'm a huge Panasonic Plasma fan which I still consider the best TV's (if you can find one) and it makes those look bad. It's simply just beautiful in comparison.

 

[mohit9206]

When $200 cards can run AAA games reasonably well at 4K and when 4K monitors can be purchased for less than $300 then i will care about 4K.Guessing that would be about 2020 or so. Currently on 1600x900 and reasonably satisfied.

 

[tential]

Already a tremendous thread, and I've tried to absorb some of the technical understanding infused into many posts. Graphics and displays have always been a low priority item with me.

I only switched from a pre-HD 150-lb tube TV to LCD-LED HDTV in 2011. And I only changed from a 4:3 1680x1050 Viewsonic desktop LCD to HD about two years ago.

My best friend of 25 years was worth about $25 million when he retired. I had a fleet of interchangeable Hondas; he had a fleet of interchangeable BMWs. He didn't buy new cars; I didn't buy new cars. But the wisdom may translate into computer technology: "For new auto technology, wait at least for the second year after it's been introduced." Otherwise, the logic doesn't apply here: "Always buy 'used' and couple years behind the model year."

My last 1080p desktop monitor went on the fritz in January, and I was looking at this same issue -- given the "hype" or excitement about 4K. I "needed" a replacement monitor. Whatever the price, there didn't seem to be sufficient 4K options to choose from. I decided I didn't know enough at that point. I might have picked a 1440p for the replacement, though.

I've got the graphics horsepower. But I think I'm going to take a year to see what develops on this angle. Others may have different priorities, and that's their privilege.

Ya I am starting to get into the used market. I want the Crossfire R9 290 still but now I'm holding back because in reality I can get a lot more time out of my card right now if I play the games I plan on playing. Or I can get an R9 290 by itself and play some newer games. Or I can get 2 used (instead of 1 used) and try crossfire/downsampling. Decisions. I just don't think I'll finish enough games with the setup but I'm moving my main desktop into my bedroom (instead of living room) since I game more here and now that makes me further question crossfire r9 290s.

 

[RussianSensation]

There's 32"+ 4k monitors on the market, I just got one, using native res in windows 8.1 is fine for me. I'm not sure how much adaptive sync means to the average gamer, I personally don't really care enough about it to let it swing a monitor decision.

How much is a 32"+ 4K monitor, even without A-Sync? $1000+ for a good one? For most gamers worldwide, this is unaffordable.

If you have good eyesight then 32" is fine, windows DPI scaling is naff though and hopefully it'll be fixed in Windows 10 and patched in win 7/8 before long.

I have perfect eye-sight (20/20) and I still use 125% DPI scaling on a 15.6" 1080P laptop. It has nothing to do with eye-sight but the fact that human eyes get tired (they are a muscle) staring at small details/text with incorrect DPI scaling. As you have noticed, I already mentioned that 4K becomes 'usable' at 32"+ but most PC gamers can't afford 32" 4K monitors today. Even if someone is OK spending $800-1000 for a mediocre LED/LCD 4K tech today (compared to OLED), get ready to buy a pair of $600+ flagship cards every 2 years to keep up. All of a sudden we are talking < 3% of PC gamers worldwide running 980Ti SLI or similar and swapping it out every gen.

Quite honestly I find it hard to believe that OLED offers the kind of gains in IQ you're talking about with respect to something like an LED IPS panel, but then I've not seen them in real life. I have no doubt they're better but surely we've entered the realm of diminishing returns on panel quality already?

LG OLED 1080P is better than any 4K LED/LCD. It's not even close. It'll blow your panel out of the water, not 20% better, like 2-3X better. It's not even comparable. Your IPS panel's blacks and whites are pure garbage compared to OLED. The IQ difference is so dramatic, I'd buy a $3K 55" OLED 1080P over a $1.5K 55" 4K 2015 Samsung LED if I were in the market for a new TV today. If you haven't seen it, how are you even arguing that OLED is diminishing returns? OLED blows plasma away and your 4K IPS panel is nowhere near as good as the best Panasonic plasma/Pioneer Kuro TVs.

The only good thing about your IPS panel is 4K resolution - in all areas related to IQ, IPS gets destroyed by OLED. The fact that IPS has horrible black levels/contrast already makes it a non-starter for videophiles.

Res is less important for TV and more important for gaming, anything 3D has to be rendered to an approximation so screen resolution is a bottleneck for image quality in a more significant way than it is with TV, Aliasing being the primary source of bother but also things like the filtering of textures at acute angles. I find it hard to believe that OLED @1080p provides a better gaming experience than 4k LED IPS, although that is a highly subjective statement so each to his own I guess.

Black levels, response time, colour quality, viewing angles are all more important than resolution for PC gaming beyond 1080P. OLED creates picture that's a lot more lifelike than any LED ever could. Even if one takes an 8K LED, it'll fail to beat a 1080P OLED in overall IQ. Response time is also 0.1 microseconds, which smashes LED/LCD tech out. Once OLED TVs get 4K and become more affordable, it's game over for LED/LCD tech assuming OLEDs prove to be reliable.

 

[boozzer]

I always believe the resolution that most gamers use is the flagship resolution.

4k would only matter when a single gpu can power games at high settings. not max, just need high settings at 60+ fps. I doubt a gpu like that would ever appear with how pc gaming has fake, tacked on hardware requirements with each gen/year

with how bad pc ports of AAA games are, I am honestly questioning why I even bother with upgrades anymore. might go back to being super casual again.

 

[desprado]

Imo 4K is just a hype.

 

[Silverforce11]

Imo 4K is just a hype.

People used to say that about 1600p then 1440p 120hz etc.. everything new is a hype until it becomes the norm.

 

[Scalesdini]

How much is a 32"+ 4K monitor, even without A-Sync? $1000+ for a good one? For most gamers worldwide, this is unaffordable.

I paid $650 for a 55" 4k TV. Literally everyone who has seen it says it's the best looking display they've ever seen. What defines "good" here? Price? Brand name? Obscure specs only the snobbiest of the snob elitists care about?

LG OLED 1080P is better than any 4K LED/LCD. It's not even close. It'll blow your panel out of the water, not 20% better, like 2-3X better. It's not even comparable. Your IPS panel's blacks and whites are pure garbage compared to OLED. The IQ difference is so dramatic, I'd buy a $3K 55" OLED 1080P over a $1.5K 55" 4K 2015 Samsung LED if I were in the market for a new TV today. If you haven't seen it, how are you even arguing that OLED is diminishing returns? OLED blows plasma away and your 4K IPS panel is nowhere near as good as the best Panasonic plasma/Pioneer Kuro TVs.

Your opinion became meaningless at the end when you said no 4k LED can compare to a Panasonic plasma. Owning both a 55" 4k TV and a 50" Panasonic plasma, I can tell you the 4k destroys the Panasonic every day of the week and twice on Sunday. If you remove the dynamic contrast from the 4k, yeah, the Panny beats it in black levels/etc, but since it has dynamic contrast it's not even close. The Panny looks like a hot, blurry mess in comparison.

Black levels, response time, colour quality, viewing angles are all more important than resolution for PC gaming beyond 1080P. OLED creates picture that's a lot more lifelike than any LED ever could. Even if one takes an 8K LED, it'll fail to beat a 1080P OLED in overall IQ. Response time is also 0.1 microseconds, which smashes LED/LCD tech out. Once OLED TVs get 4K and become more affordable, it's game over for LED/LCD tech assuming OLEDs prove to be reliable.

So your argument against 4k for the first 4 paragraphs is it's too expensive, then you push OLED. Because OLED is cheap.

Imo 4K is just a hype.

IMO you don't know what you're talking about.

 

[Ranulf]

People used to say that about 1600p then 1440p 120hz etc.. everything new is a hype until it becomes the norm.

The hype seems worse these days. For computer work and gaming, it might be worth the cost for some but 4k makes no sense to me for tv viewing. There are so few sources of 4k content.

 

[StrangerGuy]

The hype seems worse these days. For computer work and gaming, it might be worth the cost for some but 4k makes no sense to me for tv viewing. There are so few sources of 4k content.

What hype? There's no hype. Tech forums are usually out of touch with reality of the the general consumer market; hardly anybody cares about IQ let alone 4K. If they did crappy TNs would be long dead by now...and I haven't even seen one IPS PC monitor in any workplace yet.

 

[amenx]

I paid $650 for a 55" 4k TV. Literally everyone who has seen it says it's the best looking display they've ever seen...


Owning both a 55" 4k TV and a 50" Panasonic plasma, I can tell you the 4k destroys the Panasonic every day of the week and twice on Sunday....

What are you watching on your 4k TV? You have enough 4k content to watch it "every day of the week"? Or do you mean you mean that includes 1080p content as well?

 

[Sabrewings]

People used to say that about 1600p then 1440p 120hz etc.. everything new is a hype until it becomes the norm.

1.1% usage on 1440p is not the "norm." Maybe in a select few who frequent certain parts of forums, but the "norm" is 1080p at 34%. 1% vs 34% I would still call hype.

Though, 1440p is blowing away 4k adoption at 0.07%.

http://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey

 

[tential]

What hype? There's no hype. Tech forums are usually out of touch with reality of the the general consumer market; hardly anybody cares about IQ let alone 4K. If they did crappy TNs would be long dead by now...and I haven't even seen one IPS PC monitor in any workplace yet.

Lol, all of our monitors are IPS monitors in our workplace. Small company but still.

 

[tential]

1.1% usage on 1440p is not the "norm." Maybe in a select few who frequent certain parts of forums, but the "norm" is 1080p at 34%. 1% vs 34% I would still call hype.

Though, 1440p is blowing away 4k adoption at 0.07%.

http://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey

It's useful whether or not your monitor supports it. It's still useful for downsampling. I'm not talking about 4K necessarily either, but 1600p is still nice and other resolutions too. If you have DSR, you're quite flexible. For me, I like VSR a LOT, so downsampling from a high res on my projector helps a bit. I'd like native 4K, but native 4K just doesn't meet my requirements. I thought I could do 70 inches, but I just need bigger and bigger isn't affordable yet. GPU's still aren't doing 4K well enough (Fury was a disappointment I thought it would be far faster at 4K even if slower at other resolutions.). HDMI 2.0 isn't in the GPU to spur more price competition. HDR could change a lot of things and OLED as well.

So at this point, high res as possible gaming is important to me for VSR, but otherwise, I'll wait til the node shrink for 4K gaming as 2016 is probably when 4K, OLED, and HDR really kick off. Might as well save and get the set I want then get a stopgap set now and then another set next year too.

 

[Sabrewings]

It's useful whether or not your monitor supports it. It's still useful for downsampling. I'm not talking about 4K necessarily either, but 1600p is still nice and other resolutions too. If you have DSR, you're quite flexible. For me, I like VSR a LOT, so downsampling from a high res on my projector helps a bit. I'd like native 4K, but native 4K just doesn't meet my requirements. I thought I could do 70 inches, but I just need bigger and bigger isn't affordable yet. GPU's still aren't doing 4K well enough (Fury was a disappointment I thought it would be far faster at 4K even if slower at other resolutions.). HDMI 2.0 isn't in the GPU to spur more price competition. HDR could change a lot of things and OLED as well.

So at this point, high res as possible gaming is important to me for VSR, but otherwise, I'll wait til the node shrink for 4K gaming as 2016 is probably when 4K, OLED, and HDR really kick off. Might as well save and get the set I want then get a stopgap set now and then another set next year too.

I wasn't saying rendering at that resolution can't be useful (if not a brute force method), but that monitor adoption is lacking. I too love DSR and pretty much run all of my games in DSR as it is the only way for my 1080p LED TV to really give my 980 Ti a workout until VR headsets hit. The image quality is outstanding on 1080p. I don't have to worry about any pixelation as this is in my theater room where I sit about 5ft back from the display.

Though, bringing up DSR did give me a thought. Does running DSR affect the Steam Hardware survey? It's technically a hardware survey so it should take info from Windows about actual hardware. But, if DSR is uses isn't it telling the game (and Steam) that it can render at 4k (or, whatever factor you set it at)? I ask this because whenever a Steam game is rendered with DSR the Steam overlay is way too small as Steam believes it is rendering at 4k. If this does happen, it could be slightly inflating the 4k numbers on Steam even further, which are pretty dismal as is.

 

[tential]

I wasn't saying rendering at that resolution can't be useful (if not a brute force method), but that monitor adoption is lacking. I too love DSR and pretty much run all of my games in DSR as it is the only way for my 1080p LED TV to really give my 980 Ti a workout until VR headsets hit. The image quality is outstanding on 1080p. I don't have to worry about any pixelation as this is in my theater room where I sit about 5ft back from the display.

Though, bringing up DSR did give me a thought. Does running DSR affect the Steam Hardware survey? It's technically a hardware survey so it should take info from Windows about actual hardware. But, if DSR is uses isn't it telling the game (and Steam) that it can render at 4k (or, whatever factor you set it at)? I ask this because whenever a Steam game is rendered with DSR the Steam overlay is way too small as Steam believes it is rendering at 4k. If this does happen, it could be slightly inflating the 4k numbers on Steam even further, which are pretty dismal as is.

Alright, I'm going to regret this a lot. But can you give me your opinion on the image quality fidelity on a couple of games you're playing at native 1080p, then whatever resolution you're downsampling from (just list it obviously) and how different it is?

I've been doing 1440p to 720p as I didn't have access to Wagnards when I had my 1080p display. Now that I do have my 1080p display, I really want to see more opinions on just how much it improves IQ for HDTV type setups. I'm about 8 feet from my 80 inch display so we're in a similar situation. Ugh, maybe I do go Crossfire 290s after all after reading your reply lol.

 

[TeknoBug]

I don't care about 4K with the pricing, I'm happy with mostly 1080p and occasionally 1440p.

 

[Sabrewings]

Alright, I'm going to regret this a lot. But can you give me your opinion on the image quality fidelity on a couple of games you're playing at native 1080p, then whatever resolution you're downsampling from (just list it obviously) and how different it is?

I've been doing 1440p to 720p as I didn't have access to Wagnards when I had my 1080p display. Now that I do have my 1080p display, I really want to see more opinions on just how much it improves IQ for HDTV type setups. I'm about 8 feet from my 80 inch display so we're in a similar situation. Ugh, maybe I do go Crossfire 290s after all after reading your reply lol.

I rolled through various max MFAA, FXAA, and MSAA settings to compare. With DSR (rendered at 4k and downsampled to 1080p) all lines are absolutely smooth and very beautifully anti-aliased. The part that really made me a believer is how it is so uniformly applied to everything on screen (by nature of being a brute force method). Transparencies, HUDs, reflections, etc all receive the same smoothing affect without blur.

With the individual options, such as MFAA or MSAA I noticed a few items on screen that appeared with a slightly aliased lines. On FXAA everything appeared to have a slight haze, especially when in fast motion. DSR handles all of these issues quite easily as it is a complete downsampling of a final rendered frame. It's really a great technology, though I will say the performance trade off from normal MSAA at native resolution to rendering four times the pixel data for a downsample isn't necessarily a bang for buck winner. It's only viable if you're like us and still game on 1080p/1440p and have the hardware that can do it or would otherwise go on not fully utilized. I bought my 980 Ti for VR, but I might as well get what I can out of it at 1080p.

Some games I have tried it on are Elite: Dangerous (so gorgeous, can't wait to step in with VR), the original Crysis, Crysis 2, Kerbal (somewhat a joke, graphically, but can look beautiful with mods), Spintires, Dirt 3, and Thief.

One of the more interesting effects I noticed was in Kerbal Space Program. The lines for orbits looked "slatted" with normal MSAA or MFAA. On DSR they are extremely smooth.

 

[tential]

Ya, well good thing the seller I'm talking to now only has 1 card. Other one with 2 cards didn't respond to me yet. Already ordered my server which I cheaped out on(still quality just didn't get the luxury options I wanted) so now that I can finally get the hard drives out of my PC, I think I want crossfire. Still wish I could find better aftermarket crossfire reviews to see if my PSU would be enough.

 

[Ranulf]

What hype? There's no hype. Tech forums are usually out of touch with reality of the the general consumer market; hardly anybody cares about IQ let alone 4K. If they did crappy TNs would be long dead by now...and I haven't even seen one IPS PC monitor in any workplace yet.

I wasn't talking about the general consumer market. Although it would be foolish to think the tech enthusiast market doesn't influence the general market. There is plenty of hype over 4k in tech media these days.

 

[BonzaiDuck]

What hype? There's no hype. Tech forums are usually out of touch with reality of the the general consumer market; hardly anybody cares about IQ let alone 4K. If they did crappy TNs would be long dead by now...and I haven't even seen one IPS PC monitor in any workplace yet.

An insightful assessment. I know a lot of folks comfortable in their incomes and lifestyle. Nobody is springing for 4K HDTV yet because the broadcasters, satellite and cable providers are giving your 1080 and 720 @ 60Hz. I even have a TV spec'd at 120Hz, but the spec isn't revealed to my computer, which only shows an option of 60.

Here's a thought. For the desktop, 4k may offer a "bigger workspace" if the little difficulties people cite for 32 and 34" diagonal screen size gets resolved. Otherwise, bigger workspace but on a 27" panel.

For the HT, HTPC and big-screen gaming, some person (!?!) might opt to replace the HDTV to get 4K, and trade in the desktop monitor as some rational convenience arises.

I've talked to a few mainstreamers, and they're mostly goo-gah over UHD HDTVs. "Oh! Ya seen that 'curve' model?! That's sumethin' to behold! . . "

But they're not running out to COSTCO or Best Buy to replace their 36", 42" or 50" `1080p TV, either.

Of course, none of them are big "gamers." Makes sense, doesn't it?

 

[Broburger]

because 4k looks amazing

everything is so crisp and clear

 

[Scalesdini]

What are you watching on your 4k TV? You have enough 4k content to watch it "every day of the week"? Or do you mean you mean that includes 1080p content as well?

I was comparing the picture of the TV's, not the amount of content available in their native resolution, which should have been obvious. Yes, 4k has an incredible lack of content at the moment, but I use my TV mostly for PC gaming and have the graphics card to drive everything I play at good FPS. 1080p content generally looks the same on this TV as it does on a 1080p TV. Depending on the source/quality, sometimes better, sometimes worse.

Keep in mind, this is all personal opinion, I'm only saying what I think (and what other people who have seen the TV think), and I get 4k isn't for everyone, but I see the internet basically trying to hold back progress for no reason other than "new tech is expensive" (duh) and "LOL 60HZ PEASANTRY!" which comes down to preference and nothing else. It's incredible the amount of misinformation there is about 4k in general out there.

 

[bystander36]

I think the whole question can be summarized as so; it is hyped by those who own a 4K monitor, because they obviously liked it enough to buy one.

It is shunned by those who think it either won't help IQ much due to lack of content, and those who refuse to lower graphical settings.

The rest of use have other preferences.