By the time nextgen comes out midrange GPUs will be capable of 4k-1600p gaming

[QUOTE="clyde46"][QUOTE="GioVela2010"] That's not midrange..savagetwinkie

Who decided that?

[QUOTE="clyde46"][QUOTE="GioVela2010"]Lol good luck having a midrange 2013 GPU run demanding games at that resolutionGioVela2010

Yeah it is. You know what "high-end" is? A 680 or 690. 670 is like "mid-high". 660 is midrange. Also, doesn't matter because you're a lying troll anyway. You're just saying you bought a 660 so you can follow it with "games only look like 10% better than consoles", and hope someone believes you. Plus, even though a 660 is midrange, it's more than capable of playing games looking far more than "10%" better than consoles. So yeah. You're full of sh!t. Get new material, troll.

[QUOTE="GioVela2010"][QUOTE="clyde46"] And yet you bought a midrange GPU from last year...the_bi99man

Yeah it is. You know what "high-end" is? A 680 or 690. 670 is like "mid-high". 660 is midrange. Also, doesn't matter because you're a lying troll anyway. You're just saying you bought a 660 so you can follow it with "games only look like 10% better than consoles", and hope someone believes you. Plus, even though a 660 is midrange, it's more than capable of playing games looking far more than "10%" better than consoles. So yeah. You're full of sh!t. Get new material, troll.

i would like them try to at least be able support Retina res which is like 2500x 1600 or something on that line. k2theswiss

Probably 2560x1600, I think. Depends on the aspect ratio. Either way, yeah, the next gen consoles aren't going to do that. They barely "supported" 1080p this gen, with the majority of games not even rendering 720p, and the better looking ones struggling (<25-30 fps) just to do that. Frankly, I would be totally stoked if they could even guarantee that all next gen console games would render 1080p, but I actually think even that is probably too much to expect. There will probably many more games that support it than there were this gen, but I bet the majority of the big blockbuster games still opt to aim for 720p-900p, and 30 fps, while packing in more effects, that look like crap at that low resolution.

[QUOTE="the_bi99man"]

[QUOTE="GioVela2010"] That's not midrange..GioVela2010

Yeah it is. You know what "high-end" is? A 680 or 690. 670 is like "mid-high". 660 is midrange. Also, doesn't matter because you're a lying troll anyway. You're just saying you bought a 660 so you can follow it with "games only look like 10% better than consoles", and hope someone believes you. Plus, even though a 660 is midrange, it's more than capable of playing games looking far more than "10%" better than consoles. So yeah. You're full of sh!t. Get new material, troll.

:lol:

[QUOTE="the_bi99man"]

[QUOTE="GioVela2010"] That's not midrange..GioVela2010

Yeah it is. You know what "high-end" is? A 680 or 690. 670 is like "mid-high". 660 is midrange. Also, doesn't matter because you're a lying troll anyway. You're just saying you bought a 660 so you can follow it with "games only look like 10% better than consoles", and hope someone believes you. Plus, even though a 660 is midrange, it's more than capable of playing games looking far more than "10%" better than consoles. So yeah. You're full of sh!t. Get new material, troll.

You have never proved a single naysayer wrong, about anything.

[QUOTE="crimsonman1245"]

I think people would be happy with 1080P for the next 5 years, just sayin.

mitu123

consoles will easily oputperform, ill bet money on it.

think next gen consoles graphics are just gonna be ramped up resolution and high quality textures... yur a moron.

consoles will easily oputperform, ill bet money on it.

think next gen consoles graphics are just gonna be ramped up resolution and high quality textures... yur a moron.

BeardMaster

Correct. They won't even be that.

[QUOTE="GioVela2010"][QUOTE="the_bi99man"]

Yeah it is. You know what "high-end" is? A 680 or 690. 670 is like "mid-high". 660 is midrange. Also, doesn't matter because you're a lying troll anyway. You're just saying you bought a 660 so you can follow it with "games only look like 10% better than consoles", and hope someone believes you. Plus, even though a 660 is midrange, it's more than capable of playing games looking far more than "10%" better than consoles. So yeah. You're full of sh!t. Get new material, troll.

the_bi99man

You have never proved a single naysayer wrong, about anything.

Modern Low end GPUs can already play games in 1080p easily with reasonable graphical quality, toshiba displayed a GTX 680 and HD 7950 playing Dirt 3 in ultra in 4k, so for less demanding games/settings it will be even better performance. By the time the Xbox 720/PS4 come out which probably late 2013 or early 2013, mid range GPUs will be capable of playing games on average in 1600p-4k. GDDR6 has been hinted to release in 2014 so the boost in VRAM speed will make playing in such high resolutions and having even higher res textures more possible.

Mid range GPUs should rival the GTX 680 at least since the GTX 660 performs faster than a GTX 580.

Of course adaption for 4k TVs will take some time but PC gamers are starting to move over to 1600p. So in a year or 2 when every company has a 4k TV line up prices should be cheap enough for the masses to jump ship.

NoodleFighter

Nice, now all PC misses is exclusives to use the extra power/graphics

[QUOTE="NoodleFighter"]

Modern Low end GPUs can already play games in 1080p easily with reasonable graphical quality, toshiba displayed a GTX 680 and HD 7950 playing Dirt 3 in ultra in 4k, so for less demanding games/settings it will be even better performance. By the time the Xbox 720/PS4 come out which probably late 2013 or early 2013, mid range GPUs will be capable of playing games on average in 1600p-4k. GDDR6 has been hinted to release in 2014 so the boost in VRAM speed will make playing in such high resolutions and having even higher res textures more possible.

Mid range GPUs should rival the GTX 680 at least since the GTX 660 performs faster than a GTX 580.

Of course adaption for 4k TVs will take some time but PC gamers are starting to move over to 1600p. So in a year or 2 when every company has a 4k TV line up prices should be cheap enough for the masses to jump ship.

clyde46

:P

People with capable monitors are playing at 1440p today, they are affordable.

[QUOTE="NoodleFighter"]

Modern Low end GPUs can already play games in 1080p easily with reasonable graphical quality, toshiba displayed a GTX 680 and HD 7950 playing Dirt 3 in ultra in 4k, so for less demanding games/settings it will be even better performance. By the time the Xbox 720/PS4 come out which probably late 2013 or early 2013, mid range GPUs will be capable of playing games on average in 1600p-4k. GDDR6 has been hinted to release in 2014 so the boost in VRAM speed will make playing in such high resolutions and having even higher res textures more possible.

Mid range GPUs should rival the GTX 680 at least since the GTX 660 performs faster than a GTX 580.

Of course adaption for 4k TVs will take some time but PC gamers are starting to move over to 1600p. So in a year or 2 when every company has a 4k TV line up prices should be cheap enough for the masses to jump ship.

jhcho2

You don't seem to understand how things work. It is and was never about absolute capability. Even the ps3 and 360 can do 1080p @ 60fps. However, it's about what you lose from doing that. Devs are not sticking to 720p @ 30fps, like they normally do, because the console hardware can't handle it, it's just that they feel the extra million pixels and 30fps take a backseat compared to say....better textures, dynamic lighting, draw distances etc. etc.

Even on the PC, it's the same thing. I have a GTX 680, and capability wise, my card can handle 2560x1440. But do i want to? Do I really need that extra 2 million pixels? It'll be nice to have of course. But is it worth lowering all my graphic settings from Ultra to Medium? The answer is probably a NO.

In the case of a TV, unlike the PC, people tend to be sitting 10 feet away from it. At that distance, you're not gonna notice the difference between 1080p and 1440p. Why then. would devs waste processing power rendering at 1440p if it's negated by the distance people sit away from the TV? 60fps however, is something that is easily perceptible from 30fps. But even then, the logic is that 45 fps is seemingly smooth enough. So rather than lock it at 60fps, might as well strive for 45fps and use the processing power for texture and lighting instead. It's all opportunity cost. If you'd have spent a whole day tampering with the settings of Crysis 1 to get the best balance of visual quality and performance, you would have understood that automatically.

1400p is almost twice the resolution of 1080p I find hard for one to not find a difference at all unless they're playing some tiny screen or have bad eyesight,

A GTX 680 and HD 7970 can handle todays most demanding games at 2560x1600p maxed out fine with at least 30fps, if you're not going to utilize the higher resolution capablities than you basically kinda just wasted money on it.

[QUOTE="jhcho2"]

[QUOTE="NoodleFighter"]

Modern Low end GPUs can already play games in 1080p easily with reasonable graphical quality, toshiba displayed a GTX 680 and HD 7950 playing Dirt 3 in ultra in 4k, so for less demanding games/settings it will be even better performance. By the time the Xbox 720/PS4 come out which probably late 2013 or early 2013, mid range GPUs will be capable of playing games on average in 1600p-4k. GDDR6 has been hinted to release in 2014 so the boost in VRAM speed will make playing in such high resolutions and having even higher res textures more possible.

Mid range GPUs should rival the GTX 680 at least since the GTX 660 performs faster than a GTX 580.

Of course adaption for 4k TVs will take some time but PC gamers are starting to move over to 1600p. So in a year or 2 when every company has a 4k TV line up prices should be cheap enough for the masses to jump ship.

NoodleFighter

You don't seem to understand how things work. It is and was never about absolute capability. Even the ps3 and 360 can do 1080p @ 60fps. However, it's about what you lose from doing that. Devs are not sticking to 720p @ 30fps, like they normally do, because the console hardware can't handle it, it's just that they feel the extra million pixels and 30fps take a backseat compared to say....better textures, dynamic lighting, draw distances etc. etc.

Even on the PC, it's the same thing. I have a GTX 680, and capability wise, my card can handle 2560x1440. But do i want to? Do I really need that extra 2 million pixels? It'll be nice to have of course. But is it worth lowering all my graphic settings from Ultra to Medium? The answer is probably a NO.

In the case of a TV, unlike the PC, people tend to be sitting 10 feet away from it. At that distance, you're not gonna notice the difference between 1080p and 1440p. Why then. would devs waste processing power rendering at 1440p if it's negated by the distance people sit away from the TV? 60fps however, is something that is easily perceptible from 30fps. But even then, the logic is that 45 fps is seemingly smooth enough. So rather than lock it at 60fps, might as well strive for 45fps and use the processing power for texture and lighting instead. It's all opportunity cost. If you'd have spent a whole day tampering with the settings of Crysis 1 to get the best balance of visual quality and performance, you would have understood that automatically.

1400p is almost twice the resolution of 1080p I find hard for one to not find a difference at all unless they're playing some tiny screen or have bad eyesight,

A GTX 680 and HD 7970 can handle todays most demanding games at 2560x1600p maxed out fine with at least 30fps, if you're not going to utilize the higher resolution capablities than you basically kinda just wasted money on it.

yea but 1400p is low resolution garbage, unles its at 2800p i find it hard for anyone to not find a difference.

[QUOTE="NoodleFighter"]

[QUOTE="jhcho2"]

You don't seem to understand how things work. It is and was never about absolute capability. Even the ps3 and 360 can do 1080p @ 60fps. However, it's about what you lose from doing that. Devs are not sticking to 720p @ 30fps, like they normally do, because the console hardware can't handle it, it's just that they feel the extra million pixels and 30fps take a backseat compared to say....better textures, dynamic lighting, draw distances etc. etc.

Even on the PC, it's the same thing. I have a GTX 680, and capability wise, my card can handle 2560x1440. But do i want to? Do I really need that extra 2 million pixels? It'll be nice to have of course. But is it worth lowering all my graphic settings from Ultra to Medium? The answer is probably a NO.

In the case of a TV, unlike the PC, people tend to be sitting 10 feet away from it. At that distance, you're not gonna notice the difference between 1080p and 1440p. Why then. would devs waste processing power rendering at 1440p if it's negated by the distance people sit away from the TV? 60fps however, is something that is easily perceptible from 30fps. But even then, the logic is that 45 fps is seemingly smooth enough. So rather than lock it at 60fps, might as well strive for 45fps and use the processing power for texture and lighting instead. It's all opportunity cost. If you'd have spent a whole day tampering with the settings of Crysis 1 to get the best balance of visual quality and performance, you would have understood that automatically.

BeardMaster

1400p is almost twice the resolution of 1080p I find hard for one to not find a difference at all unless they're playing some tiny screen or have bad eyesight,

A GTX 680 and HD 7970 can handle todays most demanding games at 2560x1600p maxed out fine with at least 30fps, if you're not going to utilize the higher resolution capablities than you basically kinda just wasted money on it.

yea but 1400p is low resolution garbage, unles its at 2800p i find it hard for anyone to not find a difference.

So if 1440p is garbage, then what does that make console games that struggle to run in 720p? You do realize that 1440p is exactly 4 times the resolution right?

i dont think i will tell the difference lol. on small screens i really cant tell between 720 and 1080. 4k a waste of money.

For starters I've posted a speccy screenshot with my Gamespot username and Steam account in backgroundGioVela2010

Here's a question for you. You don't game on PC at all (your words) as consoles are superior for gaming in every way (the standpoint you argue from constantly). If so, why do you keep spending money on sh!t you don't use? And why do you come here and try so hard to prove you have something you've got no interest in?

Did you need to pump up your Word Document rendering speed? Is your life so worthless you have to try and gain some form of validation for it on System Wars?

Seriously fella...

High end PCs are allways more powerful than consoles, even when they come out. Good thing there's something called optimization, when it comes to develop for consoles.

Modern Low end GPUs can already play games in 1080p easily with reasonable graphical quality, toshiba displayed a GTX 680 and HD 7950 playing Dirt 3 in ultra in 4k, so for less demanding games/settings it will be even better performance. By the time the Xbox 720/PS4 come out which probably late 2013 or early 2013, mid range GPUs will be capable of playing games on average in 1600p-4k. GDDR6 has been hinted to release in 2014 so the boost in VRAM speed will make playing in such high resolutions and having even higher res textures more possible.

Mid range GPUs should rival the GTX 680 at least since the GTX 660 performs faster than a GTX 580.

Of course adaption for 4k TVs will take some time but PC gamers are starting to move over to 1600p. So in a year or 2 when every company has a 4k TV line up prices should be cheap enough for the masses to jump ship.

NoodleFighter

LOL i read article last week saying not even 20% of the US population would have 4k tv's by 2017 because of the price. 4k wont be important till next next gen, not worth it. 4k is nice and all but it's not worth the price any time soon.

[QUOTE="clyde46"][QUOTE="GioVela2010"] That's not midrange..GioVela2010

Wait... am I getting this right?

You whine about PC being useless for gaming, and saying you prefer consoles all the time, yet you still buy a competent gaming GPU.

So, what's happening here?

Either you're a bad SW troll who in reality enjoys all platforms, or a closet hermit, for some reason afraid to come out and say the real thoughts on PC gaming...

Which is it?

[QUOTE="GioVela2010"][QUOTE="clyde46"] The 660 is a midrange card.Rocker6

Wait... am I getting this right?

You whine about PC being useless for gaming, and saying you prefer consoles all the time, yet you still buy a competent gaming GPU.

So, what's happening here?

Either you're a bad SW troll who in reality enjoys all platforms, or a closet hermit, for some reason afraid to come out and say the real thoughts on PC gaming...

Which is it?

[QUOTE="Rocker6"]

[QUOTE="GioVela2010"] Ti isn't BPoole96

Wait... am I getting this right?

You whine about PC being useless for gaming, and saying you prefer consoles all the time, yet you still buy a competent gaming GPU.

So, what's happening here?

Either you're a bad SW troll who in reality enjoys all platforms, or a closet hermit, for some reason afraid to come out and say the real thoughts on PC gaming...

Which is it?

Yeah... but Lowe at least acknowledges the positives of the PC, and says he likes his Surround setup. He also hates the boring generalizations and stereotypes...

And yeah, he has a 3-way SLI 670!

At the same time, this guy here has no redeeming factors. He fails an all fronts! ;)

[QUOTE="BPoole96"][QUOTE="Rocker6"]

Wait... am I getting this right?

You whine about PC being useless for gaming, and saying you prefer consoles all the time, yet you still buy a competent gaming GPU.

So, what's happening here?

Either you're a bad SW troll who in reality enjoys all platforms, or a closet hermit, for some reason afraid to come out and say the real thoughts on PC gaming...

Which is it?

Rocker6

Yeah... but Lowe at least acknowledges the positives of the PC, and says he likes his Surround setup. He also hates the boring generalizations and stereotypes...

And yeah, he has a 3-way SLI 670!

At the same time, this guy here has no redeeming factors. He fails an all fronts! ;)

PC will always be ahead. Long way.

There should be a limit in consoles where they cannot go further in terms of technical capabilities. I don't want to see consoles trying to go beyond what they can do, resulting in awful performance. Multiplats on PS3 and 360 are mostly awful.

I'm expecting PS4 and 720 to be capable of 1080p, not any further.

[QUOTE="Rocker6"]

[QUOTE="BPoole96"] He's like another version of Lowe. Both claim console gaming is superior yet drop $300+ on video cards. I think Lowe even has 670s in SLI.BPoole96

Yeah... but Lowe at least acknowledges the positives of the PC, and says he likes his Surround setup. He also hates the boring generalizations and stereotypes...

And yeah, he has a 3-way SLI 670!

At the same time, this guy here has no redeeming factors. He fails an all fronts! ;)

I'm like 90% sure he's just lying about all of it. He's just a troll. He'll never understand the true power of the dark sid-.... I mean. Gaming PCs.

I'm looking forward to 4K but the price will keep me and most people from upgrading to a 4K display for a while even if they can afford it they just can't justify it at the current price In 5 years time things will different the premium over 1080p display will be alot less. Console games will mostly be 720p next-gen anyways with no more sub-hd games so anyone with playing at 1080p is already ahead and 2560x1440 monitors are cheap and offer 4 times the resolution already or what most current gen and next-gen console games will run at. By next gen when I expect console to finally move up to 1080p as standard in games to be able to support pixel doubling on 4K displays we'll have much more reasonably priced 4K t.v and monitors keeping up the trend.

Keep 720 and push AI, interactive enviroments, physics (not just for show, but with gameplay implications as well), destructibility, scale of battles etc. And make sure the framerate is steady :)!Sushiglutton

I would really like to think they could bump the standard to 1080p and still do that. It wouldn't take THAT great of hardware.

capable of is not the same as running the games well. My mothers android phone can display in 1080p does that mean it can run crysis 3?

[QUOTE="Sushiglutton"]Keep 720 and push AI, interactive enviroments, physics (not just for show, but with gameplay implications as well), destructibility, scale of battles etc. And make sure the framerate is steady :)!the_bi99man

I would really like to think they could bump the standard to 1080p and still do that. It wouldn't take THAT great of hardware.

The op is assuming graphics arent going to improve. Only reason pc's are playing games at such high resolutions is because graphics have barely evolved in the last 5 years since most games are built around console hardware. Console hardware that games are designed around are about to get 6x more powerful than today's consoles. Expect pc requirements to skyrocket in the next few years.

Modern Low end GPUs can already play games in 1080p easily with reasonable graphical quality, toshiba displayed a GTX 680 and HD 7950 playing Dirt 3 in ultra in 4k, so for less demanding games/settings it will be even better performance. By the time the Xbox 720/PS4 come out which probably late 2013 or early 2013, mid range GPUs will be capable of playing games on average in 1600p-4k. GDDR6 has been hinted to release in 2014 so the boost in VRAM speed will make playing in such high resolutions and having even higher res textures more possible.

Mid range GPUs should rival the GTX 680 at least since the GTX 660 performs faster than a GTX 580.

Of course adaption for 4k TVs will take some time but PC gamers are starting to move over to 1600p. So in a year or 2 when every company has a 4k TV line up prices should be cheap enough for the masses to jump ship.

[QUOTE="Sushiglutton"]Keep 720 and push AI, interactive enviroments, physics (not just for show, but with gameplay implications as well), destructibility, scale of battles etc. And make sure the framerate is steady :)!the_bi99man

I would really like to think they could bump the standard to 1080p and still do that. It wouldn't take THAT great of hardware.

[QUOTE="crimsonman1245"]

I think people would be happy with 1080P for the next 5 years, just sayin.

sandbox3d

Exactly. 1080p with solid performance would be great and would already be a big step up from last gen.

Besides that, these higher resolutions will yield diminishing results at very much expense. Not really worth the trade off. The difference is there, 4K is really a sight to see, but unless you have a massive set the difference is almost negligible.

[QUOTE="the_bi99man"]

[QUOTE="Sushiglutton"]Not going to happen till at least the next waves of console after the 720 and ps4 and two gens after that it defiantly should be the standard.DJ_Headshot

Modern Low end GPUs can already play games in 1080p easily with reasonable graphical quality, toshiba displayed a GTX 680 and HD 7950 playing Dirt 3 in ultra in 4k, so for less demanding games/settings it will be even better performance. By the time the Xbox 720/PS4 come out which probably late 2013 or early 2013, mid range GPUs will be capable of playing games on average in 1600p-4k. GDDR6 has been hinted to release in 2014 so the boost in VRAM speed will make playing in such high resolutions and having even higher res textures more possible.

Mid range GPUs should rival the GTX 680 at least since the GTX 660 performs faster than a GTX 580.

Of course adaption for 4k TVs will take some time but PC gamers are starting to move over to 1600p. So in a year or 2 when every company has a 4k TV line up prices should be cheap enough for the masses to jump ship.

[QUOTE="sandbox3d"]

[QUOTE="crimsonman1245"]

I think people would be happy with 1080P for the next 5 years, just sayin.

Cranler

Exactly. 1080p with solid performance would be great and would already be a big step up from last gen.

Besides that, these higher resolutions will yield diminishing results at very much expense. Not really worth the trade off. The difference is there, 4K is really a sight to see, but unless you have a massive set the difference is almost negligible.

[QUOTE="DJ_Headshot"][QUOTE="the_bi99man"] [QUOTE="Sushiglutton"][QUOTE="NoodleFighter"]

Modern Low end GPUs can already play games in 1080p easily with reasonable graphical quality, toshiba displayed a GTX 680 and HD 7950 playing Dirt 3 in ultra in 4k, so for less demanding games/settings it will be even better performance. By the time the Xbox 720/PS4 come out which probably late 2013 or early 2013, mid range GPUs will be capable of playing games on average in 1600p-4k. GDDR6 has been hinted to release in 2014 so the boost in VRAM speed will make playing in such high resolutions and having even higher res textures more possible.

Mid range GPUs should rival the GTX 680 at least since the GTX 660 performs faster than a GTX 580.

Of course adaption for 4k TVs will take some time but PC gamers are starting to move over to 1600p. So in a year or 2 when every company has a 4k TV line up prices should be cheap enough for the masses to jump ship.

Cranler

capable of is not the same as running the games well. My mothers android phone can display in 1080p does that mean it can run crysis 3?

osirisx3

[QUOTE="Cranler"][QUOTE="sandbox3d"]

Exactly. 1080p with solid performance would be great and would already be a big step up from last gen.

Besides that, these higher resolutions will yield diminishing results at very much expense. Not really worth the trade off. The difference is there, 4K is really a sight to see, but unless you have a massive set the difference is almost negligible.

DJ_Headshot

[QUOTE="clyde46"][QUOTE="NoodleFighter"]

Modern Low end GPUs can already play games in 1080p easily with reasonable graphical quality, toshiba displayed a GTX 680 and HD 7950 playing Dirt 3 in ultra in 4k, so for less demanding games/settings it will be even better performance. By the time the Xbox 720/PS4 come out which probably late 2013 or early 2013, mid range GPUs will be capable of playing games on average in 1600p-4k. GDDR6 has been hinted to release in 2014 so the boost in VRAM speed will make playing in such high resolutions and having even higher res textures more possible.

Mid range GPUs should rival the GTX 680 at least since the GTX 660 performs faster than a GTX 580.

Of course adaption for 4k TVs will take some time but PC gamers are starting to move over to 1600p. So in a year or 2 when every company has a 4k TV line up prices should be cheap enough for the masses to jump ship.

NoodleFighter

:P

[QUOTE="NoodleFighter"]

Modern Low end GPUs can already play games in 1080p easily with reasonable graphical quality, toshiba displayed a GTX 680 and HD 7950 playing Dirt 3 in ultra in 4k, so for less demanding games/settings it will be even better performance. By the time the Xbox 720/PS4 come out which probably late 2013 or early 2013, mid range GPUs will be capable of playing games on average in 1600p-4k. GDDR6 has been hinted to release in 2014 so the boost in VRAM speed will make playing in such high resolutions and having even higher res textures more possible.

Mid range GPUs should rival the GTX 680 at least since the GTX 660 performs faster than a GTX 580.

Of course adaption for 4k TVs will take some time but PC gamers are starting to move over to 1600p. So in a year or 2 when every company has a 4k TV line up prices should be cheap enough for the masses to jump ship.

Sushiglutton

Occulus Rift type tech will be a huge jump for visual immersion into video games but that still a ways out before they advance and refine the tech enough to really market it and even longer before it becomes widely avaible and supported in games at least as much as 3D gaming is supported in pc games. Large auto stereotopic 3D displays will be the stop gap until then and 4K makes that better as there vertical resolution is high enough your still getting 4026x1080 pixels per eye in 3D mode vs 1920x540 of convential 1080p and no glasses are needed. Also tons of games new and old won't support the oculus rift and you also may just want to do some gaming without a bulky contraption on your head. People complianed about 3D glasses so I can only imagine what they will think of having to wear an oculus rift while gaming despite the immersion benefits being even higher then what 3D adds to gaming its not as good for movies which is most people experience with 3D stems from.

I'd be worried if 1080p wasn't the standard next gen.

It's been the most common res for PCs in the steam hardware survey for a few years now.

[QUOTE="clyde46"][QUOTE="GioVela2010"]Lol good luck having a midrange 2013 GPU run demanding games at that resolutionGioVela2010

[QUOTE="Cranler"][QUOTE="DJ_Headshot"] PC graphics don't work that way if you have enough power you can run the most advanced games graphically at very high resolution.DJ_Headshot

Samaritan is an extreme example. A game with those graphics would have options to lower the graphics and disable aa of course. Its just silly to brag about running games at 4k when its due to lack of graphic evolution. With the launch of next gen consoles, pc game reqs are going to skyrocket in the next couple of years so the topic creator is wrong.

I'd be worried if 1080p wasn't the standard next gen.

It's been the most common res for PCs in the steam hardware survey for a few years now.

kraken2109