A note for console gamers about 4k

Honestly, visuals were never a selling point of PC gaming IMO. It's always been these games that look shitty but actually have a quite a bit of charm underneath the lack of polish. With the overhead of console licensing, these games and genres rarely, if ever see console releases. It's the difference in culture between PC gamers cultivating good experiences and console gamers being herded towards the next AAA cash grab.

@MBirdy88 said:

@m3Boarder32 said:

@MBirdy88 said:

@Juub1990 said:

@m3Boarder32 said:

You’re right, a little strong with the adjective :)

So you have a 10,000$ set up but only about 7 games are phenomenal on it? Kinda ironic you are one of the guys constantly comparing the quality/price of a PC vs an Xbox One X.

Yea I think it's time to stop.

As you said about Pedro...

Feeding this guy is just as bad.

Fact's don't work when you are only experience the one side of the fence (console gaming) ... just emotional defensive responses from them.

"In your opinion, my opinion with no experience is all that matters" .. f*ck it, lets have a world focus on opinions!

I’ve had a 5870, GTX 670, and GTX 970.

Yall just sound mad that I didn’t go from a 970 to a 1070, I chose an X1X instead.

It’s laughable that you peasants think it’s irreprehensible that someone prefer The system with the best HDR and Atmos Support. And the system which undoubtedly will continue to get more support. All while you harp on about 4K/60 while at the same time admiting a 1080 Ti doesn’t cut it for 4K/60.

But I will keep laughing, laughing while sitting up top my HDR/Audio throne

Mad? .... no just think you are quite looney at this point.

All this "supposed" money spent on OLED and ATMOS (lets be honest, its alot smaller deal than you claim. as someone who has that kind of money to splash is not concerned with a 970 or 1070 if they want fidelity). You could hook up a PC to that same setup with the same controller and have a million more options with 1080 TI you would actually see the VAST majority of games at that fidelity... and yes, when HDR actually gets more love in the gaming world, more HDR.

All cheap talk about nothing.

When PC gets more HDR love, I’ll get one again. Right now it’s a dumb purchase for my priorities.

It is the Holy Grail for my priorities.

Atmos Sound

HDR

Best Contrast

Best Color Saturation

Split Screen with my Kids

Have I mentioned HDR yet? :D

Mildly improved colour being the biggest priority in gaming.

Damn.... this is how TV companies make a fortune.

demi0227_basic (OP) is Extremely bullish on HDR, post after post about how awesome HDR is hahaha. Maybe you should argue with him that it’s only “mildly improved colour“

And anyway, I’d gladly wager that the profit margins on a gaming monitor are greater than they are on a OLED TV

@m3Boarder32 said:

@GarGx1 said:

@m3Boarder32 said:

@GarGx1 said:

@m3Boarder32 said:

OLeD Has below 1ms response time regardless of the frames per second genius

Link please, state a 'fact' present the evidence to go with it. Not saying you're wrong but until you have something backing up your statements then, as far as I'm concerned, you are talking shite.

You want to see the "input lag" response time for monitors?

Feel free to compare and you can see why monitors are better for gaming than TV's. You can but... but... about HDR all day long but it doesn't change that monitors are better gaming displays, add in Gsync or Freesync and incomparibly higher frame rates and they'll always win, regardless of bright white is or how dark black is.

Thank you, that wasn't hard was it? Do you have a link so as I can see the entire table/article and not just the cropped image?

Now what's your take on the higher input lag and low frame rates (the actual thread topic)? We'll not go into being forced to use DoF and motion blur, just yet.

To me it’s not as important/satisfying as contrast ratio, color saturation, response times, HDR, and 3D Audio.

which is why I game on an OLED and ditched my PC for a X1X

Can you post a link to that article please, I've been through Rtings.com and it's not an easy find. I would like to see what they mean by 80% and 100% response time and why they are listed like that, I'd also like to see the rest of the table.

I presume you have a LG C7 or Sony A1E, other wise the response times are slower.

Why would input lag be less of a concern when it has a direct impact on gaming where as colour saturation (available on PC), HDR (available on PC) and 3d Audio (available on PC) have a much lesser impact? It's looking very much that you prefer graphics over game play.

Console technology, brought to you by PC technology from five years ago.

The idea that PC gaming is a product of console gaming and not the other way around is laughably obtuse. You can cherry pick features that appeared on consoles first, but the point is moot because the whole philosophy behind the design of the modern console is to install proprietary gaming software onto an OEM PC.

This is not the same philosophy behind the design of the SNES or Genesis, for instance. These consoles were designed to emulate an arcade experience. Consoles have only ever been designed to port other superior experiences to the La-Z-Boii gamer.

@Juub1990, @m3Boarder32

Funny thing with Atmos is that it is a spatial audio technology that just came to consoles.

PC have had spatial audio back when Creative released there SBX Pro studio software, surround sound since ages before that and now Microsoft literally have the exact same technology for free with Windows Sonic. Atmos is no different to windows sonic other than a paid license. It does the exact same thing.

Interesting thing to note however is the sound quality going from device to amplifier. Atmos actually reduces the quality of the audio stream from the highest possible bit-rate on digital audio to either 16-bit - 24-bit to 44.1kHz - 96kHz. The bit rate isn't really that big an issue but the sampling rate is quite a step back in terms of sound quality when compared to something like 32-Bit @ 192kHz or 384kHz available on the PC hardware and higher end Hi-Fi systems.

I still can't find much information on what the x-box one x produces in terms of sound quality. I'm guessing it is 16-bit @ 44.1 or 48kHz however as that seems to be pretty standard.

@GarGx1 said:

@m3Boarder32 said:

@GarGx1 said:

@m3Boarder32 said:

@GarGx1 said:

Link please, state a 'fact' present the evidence to go with it. Not saying you're wrong but until you have something backing up your statements then, as far as I'm concerned, you are talking shite.

You want to see the "input lag" response time for monitors?

Feel free to compare and you can see why monitors are better for gaming than TV's. You can but... but... about HDR all day long but it doesn't change that monitors are better gaming displays, add in Gsync or Freesync and incomparibly higher frame rates and they'll always win, regardless of bright white is or how dark black is.

Thank you, that wasn't hard was it? Do you have a link so as I can see the entire table/article and not just the cropped image?

Now what's your take on the higher input lag and low frame rates (the actual thread topic)? We'll not go into being forced to use DoF and motion blur, just yet.

To me it’s not as important/satisfying as contrast ratio, color saturation, response times, HDR, and 3D Audio.

which is why I game on an OLED and ditched my PC for a X1X

Can you post a link to that article please, I've been through Rtings.com and it's not an easy find. I would like to see what they mean by 80% and 100% response time and why they are listed like that, I'd also like to see the rest of the table.

I presume you have a LG C7 or Sony A1E, other wise the response times are slower.

Why would input lag be less of a concern when it has a direct impact on gaming where as colour saturation (available on PC), HDR (available on PC) and 3d Audio (available on PC) have a much lesser impact? It's looking very much that you prefer graphics over game play.

https://www.rtings.com/tv/tests/motion/motion-blur-and-response-time#comparison_918

All the other shit you posted has been rebutted to death.

The difference in motion blur between a 1ms response time monitor and a 0.1ms response time OLED screen is insignificant in the extreme.

The OLED TV would perform phenomenally better if it's refresh rate was also much higher, but consoles simply can't do it in the majority of cases and certainly can't reach as high as a PC in any case that I know of.

What you should be considering is the metric used to measure the quality of motion on the display. That includes refresh rate.

33.3ms refresh rate for consoles by default at @ 30fps.

6.94ms refresh rate for pc monitor @ 144fps.

http://www.30vs60fps.com/ - That's the difference between 30fps and 60fps.

For a console with an OLED screen that has super duper response time let's just pick 0ms it doesn't really matter. You are getting a slide show:

New image every 33.3ms + 0ms = 33.3ms.

Let's pick a 6ms response time monitor for arguments sake.

New image every 6.94ms + 6ms = 12.94ms.

33.3ms vs 12.94ms.

PC can still reproduce the image nearly 3 times as fast with a standard monitor. If you start reducing the response time on PC to some of the greater performance monitors then it starts to approach 5 times.

Plus it even says it in your article you just linked, "Noticeable difference in response time 10ms". The difference in OLED screens and decent monitors is not 10ms and not noticeable.

Consoles dictate gaming standards on consoles. PC has its own standards. One of the main reason of HDR popularity on consoles is that it is a selling point for living room TV's which tried to sell people on 4K alone but that wasn't enough. HDR is a nice feature and since TV's are mostly used for consoles, consoles also started adding HDR to their titles.

PC monitors still primarily chase high-refresh rates, ghost-free displays, good viewing angles, variable refresh technology and low input lag/low response time. HDR is secondary. It's coming bit by bit but it still isn't a priority for most people gaming on PC.

Regardless. PC IS getting HDR/Dolby Atmos support. Consoles are NOT getting all the bells and whistles of monitors.

PC doesn't need Atmos support, windows sonic does the same thing for free.

I was actually reading the OLED screen issue is that the monitor market is not as big as the phone and TV market and coupled with the apparent difficulty in making the OLED screens the production just wasn't there yet to jump into another market when sales of the other products was still sapping supplies. Better to service 2 markets well than 3 moderately.

Dell had an OLED screen on the market for a couple of months but pulled it due to quality control issues.

Not much into sound engineering so I don't know much about it but how is Windows Sonic similar to Dolby Atmos? Don't the games need to support it?

You are absolutely right about the sound quality...these guys are sold on Corporate talking points though, so "Atmos" sounds cool and they think it's the absolute best experience. Not that it's a bad thing (more directionality in a home theater is better to a point). But they won't understand the technical aspects of audio you are mentioning. My Schiit Stack with even some Beyerdynamic 990's "sounds" better than whatever is in their living room, but it doesn't have that keyword to cling to. It's just scientifically better sound, which isn't what they are looking for at this point in their life. They want justification for their purchase...which most people do, to be fair.

I say this as an aspiring audiophile (If only I were more rich!) with a 5.1.2 atmos setup connected to my computer, ps4pro, xbones. PC audio sounds much better to my ear, and for the games that don't have atmos, it matrixes just fine. I'd rather have the higher quality audio than a talking point.

Dolby Atmos and Windows Sonic are two pieces of software made to achieve the same thing. Place sound in a 3D soundstage and reproduce it to the listener. Either through headphones or another setup. Dolby being Dolby license their version of the technology, Windows Sonic does the same thing but is free with the creative update on windows.

https://www.reddit.com/r/xboxone/comments/6vkmnm/dolby_atmos_windows_sonic_for_dummies/

https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/windows/desktop/mt807491(v=vs.85).aspx

https://www.dolby.com/us/en/brands/dolby-atmos.html

So what you will see is that for the licensing agreement with Dolby, they must advertise that it is Dolby Atmos compatible or whatever. Windows Sonic they dont', it just works anyway when enabled.

The fastest 4k monitor on Rtings.com is 15.6ms

Which would still make it 22.5ms vs 33.3ms (minimum)

It's not like we will have to wait long for better monitors or anything.

https://www.pcgamer.com/asus-and-acer-delay-feature-rich-4k-144hz-monitors-with-hdr-until-2018/

They keep coming out better all the time.

Yeah exactly they do need to support it, and Windows Sonic Games are over headphones only. Even works with 2.0 headphones. its Basically virtual sorround sound via 2.0 headphones.

And as you know Atmos is both over headphones (virtual like Sonic) but the real thing is with main, Surround, and height speakers

I would further draw your eye to this quote from rtings.com

"While our motion blur test is centered around the response time, the general cause of motion blur is what is called "Persistence". Essentially, the longer a frame is kept on screen before switching to the next one, the blurrier a moving object will appear on-screen. While response time is a good way to reduce persistence, it is greatly affected by other aspects of the screen such as its refresh rate as well as the monitor's ability to use a flickering backlight (also called black frame insertion, BFI, or ULMB) which reduces the time a frame is shown.

This is why a screen that has an almost instant response time like an OLED TV can still look blurrier than a 120 Hz monitor that has a few milliseconds of average response time (if the content's framerate can match the refresh rate). While the transition time might be instant, the lower amount of "steps" for motion requires our brain to do additional compensation leads to blurrier movement. We've made a series of videos which explain the different aspects that affect motion which you can find on our Youtube channel."

https://www.rtings.com/monitor/tests/motion/motion-blur-and-response-time#comparison_1429

You really need to upgrade to 5.1.4 for Atmos, there’s no overhead panning with 2 height speakers

No that is not correct.

"The platform fully supports real-time Dolby Atmos encoding for both HDMI and stereo headphone output, as well as Windows Sonic for Headphones encoding for stereo headphones."

https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/windows/desktop/mt807491(v=vs.85).aspx

Meaning I can use digital audio outputs to send this to a receiver (like yours) and enjoy the same level of immersive audio.

Whoops hang on, I might be wrong on the output to stereo. I need to do more reading.

@m3Boarder32 said:

@GarGx1 said:

@m3Boarder32 said:

@GarGx1 said:

@m3Boarder32 said:

Thank you, that wasn't hard was it? Do you have a link so as I can see the entire table/article and not just the cropped image?

Now what's your take on the higher input lag and low frame rates (the actual thread topic)? We'll not go into being forced to use DoF and motion blur, just yet.

To me it’s not as important/satisfying as contrast ratio, color saturation, response times, HDR, and 3D Audio.

which is why I game on an OLED and ditched my PC for a X1X

Can you post a link to that article please, I've been through Rtings.com and it's not an easy find. I would like to see what they mean by 80% and 100% response time and why they are listed like that, I'd also like to see the rest of the table.

I presume you have a LG C7 or Sony A1E, other wise the response times are slower.

Why would input lag be less of a concern when it has a direct impact on gaming where as colour saturation (available on PC), HDR (available on PC) and 3d Audio (available on PC) have a much lesser impact? It's looking very much that you prefer graphics over game play.

https://www.rtings.com/tv/tests/motion/motion-blur-and-response-time#comparison_918

All the other shit you posted has been rebutted to death.

Again thank you, it's exactly as I suspected. They have 2 TV's which have sub 1Ms response times, do you have one of them?

This is why motion blur is so important to consoles and TV's, it hides the motion stutter from generally lower response times and especially low frame rates. PC does not need this feature because frame rates are much higher and the majority of monitors have far better response times than the majority of TV's.

Then we have the lovely forced Depth of Field which is used to allow the GPU to render less detail in the environment and background by blurring out everything outside of a small area around the centre of the screen (if it's done well it's graduated but a lot of games just do it really badly), because you're only meant to look at the centre point after all. With most PC games this can be switched off entirely which allows gamers to have a focused view of any point on the screen, without having to move the centre point. For example, if I'm scanning for a sniper, or an enemy in a partially concealed firing point I can use my eyes to scan the entire area on screen and not have to use the avatars fixed stare to look around, making target acquisition much more natural, immersive, fluid and faster.

If you really are as much of a graphics fan as you claim to be then you would still be gaming on a system that allows the best of the best in graphical fidelity and scaling options and that is most certainly is not an Xbox One X.

Yeah when it’s in the game, just like it only works on some X1X games

I don’t know too much about Windows Sonic, just that it’s overheadphones when Gaming. No point for it to be over speakers and gaming PC Games use Atmos when available (Battlefield 1, Battlefront 1)

I also think you can stream Dolby Atmos thru Windows Edge, and ThE Windows Netflix app, and maybe some other apps (that’s pretty cool actually).

im guessing Windows Sonic is somehow leveraged to make Atmos work with Edge and Netflix App

Rockin 5.2 no Atmos but 112db @ 20hz.

I have a B7A it’s the exact same panel as the C7, only difference is thr Speakers and the Bezel Color. The disparity in results betaeen The C7 and B7 is likely just testing fluctuations

so yeah 1ms response time, the fastest 4K Monitor on that site is around 14ms I believe (I just posted about it but forgot)

Well i'm still checking about whether windows sonic works over stereo's. There seems to be some people saying yes and others saying "I don't know", i'm trying to navigate the MSDN developers forum to figure it out. Not really clear tbh.

But, Windows Sonic only needs games that have compatible spatial audio or Dolby Atmos. So all of the games that have Dolby Atmos, every one of them can be used by Windows Sonic. Also all the games that have 3D spatial audio can be used by Windows Sonic.

You would still likely suffer from worse image blurring as mentioned in my post above, despite the faster response time due to far inferior refresh rates.

Last I checked there are no 120hz 4K Monitors either

Don't need them, 60Hz will still have less motion blur.
16.6ms Refresh rate @ 60Hz + 11ms for best response time I can find.
https://displaylag.com/asus-pb287q-review

But like I also mentioned the new monitors that are coming out are 144Hz @ 4k so no need to worry there.

Frames per Second doesn’t determine motion blue, pixel response time does

It is a combination, it is spelt out in the rtings.com website you have been using earlier. It is also why OLED's can have more motion blur than other screens with vastly worse response times.

"While our motion blur test is centered around the response time, the general cause of motion blur is what is called "Persistence". Essentially, the longer a frame is kept on screen before switching to the next one, the blurrier a moving object will appear on-screen. While response time is a good way to reduce persistence, it is greatly affected by other aspects of the screen such as its refresh rate as well as the monitor's ability to use a flickering backlight (also called black frame insertion, BFI, or ULMB) which reduces the time a frame is shown.

This is why a screen that has an almost instant response time like an OLED TV can still look blurrier than a 120 Hz monitor that has a few milliseconds of average response time (if the content's framerate can match the refresh rate). While the transition time might be instant, the lower amount of "steps" for motion requires our brain to do additional compensation leads to blurrier movement. We've made a series of videos which explain the different aspects that affect motion which you can find on our Youtube channel."

https://www.rtings.com/monitor/tests/motion/motion-blur-and-response-time#comparison_1429

Peep Blurbusters. Plenty of info there.

Put on a shirt. Thanks.

Cool!

oh yippie I can Buy a GYX 1080 Ti, a 1440p 144hz lcd, And MAYBE I’ll have better motion resolution, so long as my GTX 1080 Ti is maxing out the panels refresh rate

1440p doesn’t equal “no compromises” either

ill stick to my 4K OLeD

Errr, where did you get 1440p from??

That monitor I referenced earlier is 4k 60Hz?

Anyway, I'm not going to convince you which one you should prefer, that's just silly. I just wanted to get rid of some of the FUD.

And a 1440p screen at 144Hz will have better motion blur than a console at 30 Hz and likely at 60Hz too.

Your call in the end man.

I just made a completely unbiased and absolutely realistic graphic showing the difference's between Console and PC level motion blur.

Remember this is 100% realistic.

Errr why would you reference a 4k 60hz monitor and than quote 120hz monitors? And why bring up 4k 120hz displays when theyre not out?

But hey lets stick to Rtings.com, 4K OLED, vs 4K Monitor, vs 1440p 144hz FreeSync 2 Monitor

LG B7A

• Video Games: 8.6
• HDR Gaming: 8.5
• Picture Quality: 8.6
• Contrast: 10
• OVERALL MOTION: 9.6
• Motion Blur 10
• Image Flicker: 4
• Input Lag: 9.1

LG 27UD68P-B (4k)

• Video Games 8.0
• HDR Gaming: 5.6
• Picture Quality: 6.7
• Contrast 6.3
• OVERALL MOTION: 7.9
• Motion Blur: 8.4
• Image Flicker: 7.5
• Input Lag 8.9

Samsung CH670 (144 Hz Freesync 2)

• Video Games 8.5
• HDR Gaming 7.3
• Picture Quality 7.1
• Contrast 7.8
• OVERALL MOTION 9.1
• Motion Blur 9.0
• Image Flicker 9.2
• Input Lag 9.5

@jereb31 said:

I just made a completely unbiased and absolutely realistic graphic showing the difference's between Console and PC level motion blur.

Remember this is 100% realistic.

this is glorious.

Except you cannot compare the score a monitor gets vs a TV. A monitor gets reviewed as a monitor and a TV as a TV. Hell look at the score, the LG B7A got 9.1 in input lag and the LG27UD68P got an 8.9 despite the fact it blows the TV out of the water in terms of input lag. They're different categories. You cannot directly compare a review of a monitor to a review of a TV. This makes no sense.

Yeah...but 4K OLED DOLBY ATMOS HDR MASTER RACE!!11111

LOL chill, you want to compare the raw scientific numbers from them?

Samsung CH670.................................................................................LG OLED B7A

• Contrast: 2925:1..........................................................................Infinite:1
• SDR Real Scene Brightness: 352 cd/m2............................384 cd/m2
• HDR Real Scene Brightness :355 cd/m2...........................670 cd/m2
• HDR Color Gamut DCI p3 xy 90.2%...................................97.1%
• HDR Color Gamut Rec. 2020 xy 67.9%.............................75.6%
• HDR Color Volume DCI-P3 in ICtCp 79.8%....................81.9%
• HDR Color Volume Rec. 2020 in ICtCp 64.9%...............66.7%
• 100% Response Time 11.3 ms.............................................1.0ms
• Refresh Rate: 144hz.................................................................60hz @ 4k (120hz @ 1080p)
• HDR Input Lag @ 60hz 9.3ms............................................21.4
• Pixels: 3,686,400.....................................................................8,294,400

I used both 120Hz example and a 60Hz example to show you that the image blurring would likely still be better than the OLED.

I even threw in a link to upcoming 120Hz 4k monitors for you and a current 4k 60Hz monitor with 11ms response time to boot.

To further help I linked the article on rtings.com to do with motion blur for you where they even mention that "Persistance" and refresh rate (they merge these terms a bit) is a larger cause of motion blur than response time.

Finally @dxmcat linked a website which offered heaps of really good reference's and material on how refresh rate reduce's blurring.

For bonus sauce I drew a picture.

Yeup,

"All the blur in the image is due to 60 fps persistence, no response time blur can be seen."

https://www.rtings.com/tv/reviews/lg/b7-b7a-oled#comparison_807

I am, aren't I? :D