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

[QUOTE="mitu123"]

[QUOTE="Bebi_vegeta"]

FF XIII is native 720p on PS3...

painguy1

A mid range GPU at the end of the year won't do 4k on next gen games, but sure...on current gen games maybe. It depends on the optimizations done on the PC version. They will do alot more to next gen games besides increasing the resolution. Physics, animation, poly count, hopefully soundprocessing, and other stuff will draw more processing power.

Martin_G_N

Well, the key part would be memory bandwidth for entry level "fat" GPUs e.g. Radeon HD 7850.

PC GPU vendors ussually scales down both GPU and memory bandwidth i.e. PC's 7850 ussually has low grade GDDR5 memory.

7850 with 79x0's memory bandwidth (from on-chip-package stacked VRAM) would be stronger than stock 7850 i.e. refer to overclocked memory with 7850's results.

[QUOTE="painguy1"]

[QUOTE="mitu123"] Yeah the game looked too blurry so 1080p is out of the question.

mitu123

[QUOTE="mitu123"]

[QUOTE="painguy1"] it also had 2xaa. xbox 360 version was sub 720p, but also had 2xaa

painguy1

And why we would care exactly? Unless you have your nose next to the screen, or have a truly monstrous screen, you wouldn't see the difference. Hell, I have a hard time telling the difference between 720p and 1080p now. This would truly be kind of irrelevant. DerekLoffin

I haven't been gaming in 1080p too long (since 2010). I was gaming at 1280x1024 since 2001 and then regressed down to 1440x900 in 2009. So, I'm not tired of 1080p yet. But, it's good to have higher-res displays as an option.

And why we would care exactly? Unless you have your nose next to the screen, or have a truly monstrous screen, you wouldn't see the difference. Hell, I have a hard time telling the difference between 720p and 1080p now. This would truly be kind of irrelevant. DerekLoffin

How small is your HDTV ?

Funny. That's also the moment your current PC becomes obsolete.

[QUOTE="Bebi_vegeta"]

[QUOTE="GioVela2010"] Well I said its a reference card so that's pretty accurateGioVela2010

Well your powercolor is obviously not a reference... hence why I said, it must be your card and not the whole 660 TI that is loud.

If games only look "10%" better than consoles, then yeah. Your 660ti is broken. Or you're blind. Or lying. Probably a little bit of all of them.

And why we would care exactly? Unless you have your nose next to the screen, or have a truly monstrous screen, you wouldn't see the difference. Hell, I have a hard time telling the difference between 720p and 1080p now. This would truly be kind of irrelevant. DerekLoffin

What are you blind?

And why we would care exactly? Unless you have your nose next to the screen, or have a truly monstrous screen, you wouldn't see the difference. Hell, I have a hard time telling the difference between 720p and 1080p now. This would truly be kind of irrelevant. DerekLoffin

If I sit on my couch, like 7 or 8 feet away from my 42" TV, and have my laptop plugged into it, and I run any given game, and alternate between 1080p and 720p, the difference is massive. It's over twice as many pixels. Over twice as much detail. And that's not just technical mumbo-jumbo. It looks a lot better. Anyone and everyone can tell. You have to be blind to not see it. Granted, lower resolutions don't look as bad when you get further away from the screen, but that means that higher resolutions also look even better when you get further from the screen. It all stays relative. 1080p is a very big, immediately noticeable upgrade from 720p. If you can't see that, you're blind or lying. Or you're not actually seeing 1080p when you think you are. If you're playing console games, keep in mind that the vast majority of the games that say "1080p" on the back of the case, are actually rendering at less than 720p, and being upscaled. Which is pretty much equivalent to running a PC game at a less-than-native resolution, and hitting "fullscreen".

[QUOTE="GioVela2010"][QUOTE="Bebi_vegeta"]

Well your powercolor is obviously not a reference... hence why I said, it must be your card and not the whole 660 TI that is loud.

the_bi99man

If games only look "10%" better than consoles, then yeah. Your 660ti is broken. Or you're blind. Or lying. Probably a little bit of all of them.

[QUOTE="the_bi99man"]

[QUOTE="GioVela2010"] I thought you meant I got a broken 660TiGioVela2010

If games only look "10%" better than consoles, then yeah. Your 660ti is broken. Or you're blind. Or lying. Probably a little bit of all of them.

Oh okay. That explains it. So now you're using an ancient 5800, brutally bottlenecking the rest of your system, and acting like PC games don't look good because yours don't look good. Mystery solved.

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

If games only look "10%" better than consoles, then yeah. Your 660ti is broken. Or you're blind. Or lying. Probably a little bit of all of them.

the_bi99man

Oh okay. That explains it. So now you're using an ancient 5800, brutally bottlenecking the rest of your system, and acting like PC games don't look good because yours don't look good. Mystery solved.

[QUOTE="DerekLoffin"]And why we would care exactly? Unless you have your nose next to the screen, or have a truly monstrous screen, you wouldn't see the difference. Hell, I have a hard time telling the difference between 720p and 1080p now. This would truly be kind of irrelevant. el3m2tigre

What are you blind?

Funny. That's also the moment your current PC becomes obsolete.

Mr_BillGates

[QUOTE="the_bi99man"]

[QUOTE="GioVela2010"] I thought you meant I got a broken 660TiGioVela2010

If games only look "10%" better than consoles, then yeah. Your 660ti is broken. Or you're blind. Or lying. Probably a little bit of all of them.

[QUOTE="GioVela2010"][QUOTE="moistsandwich"]

How about we get 1080p as an industry standard before we start worrying about 1600p.

Yes I know PC's have been doing 1080p for a full generation already.

Bebi_vegeta

Monitors were way ahead of HDTV.

Not anymore there not, while monitors may have higher res they sacrafice both contrast ratio and color accuracy. A high end HDTV is the way to go if you can afford it.

[QUOTE="Bebi_vegeta"]

[QUOTE="GioVela2010"] More like half a generation, for most of 360's life Most hermits had monitors of 1280x1024 or less. Lol full screen was garbage btwAM-Gamer

Monitors were way ahead of HDTV.

Not anymore there not, while monitors may have higher res they sacrafice both contrast ratio and color accuracy. A high end HDTV is the way to go if you can afford it.

[QUOTE="AM-Gamer"]

[QUOTE="Bebi_vegeta"]

Monitors were way ahead of HDTV.

clyde46

Not anymore there not, while monitors may have higher res they sacrafice both contrast ratio and color accuracy. A high end HDTV is the way to go if you can afford it.

LOL thats what all he poor kids say.

[QUOTE="clyde46"][QUOTE="AM-Gamer"]

Not anymore there not, while monitors may have higher res they sacrafice both contrast ratio and color accuracy. A high end HDTV is the way to go if you can afford it.

AM-Gamer

LOL thats what all he poor kids say.

[QUOTE="AM-Gamer"]

[QUOTE="clyde46"] Monitors vastly outclass TV's buddy.clyde46

LOL thats what all he poor kids say.

[QUOTE="clyde46"][QUOTE="AM-Gamer"]

LOL thats what all he poor kids say.

GioVela2010

[QUOTE="GioVela2010"][QUOTE="clyde46"] Unless you game on a broadcast grade panel, monitors are far superior to HDTV's. clyde46

LMAO you must be comparing them to Vizios at Walmart, a high end HDTV smokes a monitor in every single area you mentioned .

[QUOTE="clyde46"][QUOTE="GioVela2010"] In what way? LolAM-Gamer

LMAO you must be comparing them to Vizios at Walmart, a high end HDTV smokes a monitor in every single area you mentioned .

[QUOTE="AM-Gamer"]

[QUOTE="clyde46"] Higher DPI, better colours, higher contrast ratio's, faster response times. clyde46

LMAO you must be comparing them to Vizios at Walmart, a high end HDTV smokes a monitor in every single area you mentioned .

Or I could actually look for myself as I own a $300 dollar samsung Monitor which is above average and in comparison to my Sony HX850 it looks like garbage. You simply have no clue what you are talking about.

[QUOTE="AM-Gamer"]

[QUOTE="clyde46"] Higher DPI, better colours, higher contrast ratio's, faster response times. clyde46

LMAO you must be comparing them to Vizios at Walmart, a high end HDTV smokes a monitor in every single area you mentioned .

[QUOTE="clyde46"][QUOTE="AM-Gamer"]

LMAO you must be comparing them to Vizios at Walmart, a high end HDTV smokes a monitor in every single area you mentioned .

AM-Gamer

Or I could actually look for myself as I own a $300 dollar samsung Monitor which is above average and in comparison to my Sony HX850 it looks like garbage. You simply have no clue what you are talking about.

[QUOTE="AM-Gamer"]

[QUOTE="clyde46"] If you actually look a little deeper, you will find a standard PC monitor will smoke even the highest price HDTV. clyde46

Or I could actually look for myself as I own a $300 dollar samsung Monitor which is above average and in comparison to my Sony HX850 it looks like garbage. You simply have no clue what you are talking about.

Yes because a degree in broadcasting somehow makes you a expert on screen quality , lmao? Please tell me what news room or any broadcasting station thats going to fill there office up with top of the line TV's and monitors for you to do a comparison. As I say you have no clue what you are talking about. But ill let you live in a fantasy land when you somehow think a $300.00 peace of tech will beat a $2,000.00 peace of tech.

[QUOTE="clyde46"][QUOTE="AM-Gamer"]

Or I could actually look for myself as I own a $300 dollar samsung Monitor which is above average and in comparison to my Sony HX850 it looks like garbage. You simply have no clue what you are talking about.

AM-Gamer

Yes because a degree in broadcasting somehow makes you a expert on screen quality , lmao? Please tell me what news room or any broadcasting station thats going to fill there office up with top of the line TV's and monitors for you to do a comparison. As I say you have no clue what you are talking about. But ill let you live in a fantasy land when you somehow think a $300.00 peace of tech will beat a $2,000.00 peace of tech.

More like half a generation, for most of 360's life Most hermits had monitors of 1280x1024 or less. Lol full screen was garbage btwGioVela2010

1280x1024 still looked much better than 720p. Heck, 1280x1024 looked better than 1440x900 as I found out back in 2009. The only disadvantage was the shorter field of view in games. But, the actual picture quality isn't that far off from 1080p.

Edit:

By 2005, 21" monitors that did 1900x1200 was fairly common among PC gamers although I doubt anyone would lug one of those things around to a LANfest unless they wanted to risk getting a hernia.

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

[QUOTE="clyde46"][QUOTE="AM-Gamer"]

Or I could actually look for myself as I own a $300 dollar samsung Monitor which is above average and in comparison to my Sony HX850 it looks like garbage. You simply have no clue what you are talking about.

AM-Gamer

Yes because a degree in broadcasting somehow makes you a expert on screen quality , lmao? Please tell me what news room or any broadcasting station thats going to fill there office up with top of the line TV's and monitors for you to do a comparison. As I say you have no clue what you are talking about. But ill let you live in a fantasy land when you somehow think a $300.00 peace of tech will beat a $2,000.00 peace of tech.

Now if we are talking about LCD based monitors then Plasma TV's win with contrast and color grading but not DPI or response times.

[QUOTE="clyde46"][QUOTE="GioVela2010"] In what way? LolGioVela2010

Now if we are talking about LCD based monitors then Plasma TV's win with contrast and color grading but not DPI or response times.

[QUOTE="GioVela2010"][QUOTE="clyde46"] Higher DPI, better colours, higher contrast ratio's, faster response times. 04dcarraher

Now if we are talking about LCD based monitors then Plasma TV's win with contrast and color grading but not DPI or response times.

[QUOTE="04dcarraher"]

[QUOTE="GioVela2010"] Wrong on every account after DPI. In fact contrast ratio and response time is not even debatable, a Plasma smokes today's gaming monitors kraken2109

Now if we are talking about LCD based monitors then Plasma TV's win with contrast and color grading but not DPI or response times.

[QUOTE="04dcarraher"]

[QUOTE="GioVela2010"] Wrong on every account after DPI. In fact contrast ratio and response time is not even debatable, a Plasma smokes today's gaming monitors kraken2109

Now if we are talking about LCD based monitors then Plasma TV's win with contrast and color grading but not DPI or response times.

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

crimsonman1245

[QUOTE="kraken2109"][QUOTE="04dcarraher"] For example CRT's produced truer blacks and whites and better color grading Then any HD based screen today even Plasma. also CRT's project the image onto the screen so no need for native resolutions, or AA to get rid of jaggies. Next about the response times for CRT's, a major difference between a LCD and CRT is response time. is how fast an individual pixel can update. CRTs always update their pixels and each screen is actually a pixel refresh. Therefore, response time does not really matter for CRTs which means ~1MS.

Now if we are talking about LCD based monitors then Plasma TV's win with contrast and color grading but not DPI or response times.

GioVela2010

Copy paste A Plasma panel display has near instantaneous response times on the order of 2 milliseconds. What this implies is that a plasma TV subpixel is only alight for a fraction of a second. Typically, most conventional Plasma TVs display video at 60fps (research has shown that the human eye cannot tell any significant difference in motion and smoothness of videos at higher frame rates). This implies that each frame has to be displayed for 1/60 or 17ms. However, the sub pixels of a plasma TV stay alight only for around 2ms when excited. Thus, to display a single frame for 1/60 seconds, the plasma panel excites the sub-pixels in pulses so as to keep all the pixels bright so that they can continuously display the desired frame. Thus, for example, a 60Hz plasma panel can have 10 pulses per frame, to display the image. Effectively, the screen is being refreshed 60Hz times 10 pulses/frame which gives us a value of 600Hz. This is what Plasma manufacturers refer to as the Sub field drive refresh rate. If the Plasma panel performs 8 pulses per frame, it gives a sub field drive refresh rate of 480Hz. Now when the displayed frame has to be changed to the next frame, the ultra-fast response times of the Plasma TV sub pixels enables an almost instantaneous transition to the next frame. As a result, even though only 60 frames are displayed per second by the Plasma TV, the near instantaneous transition between frames drastically minimizes motion blur and image ghosting. While the subfield drive terminology is a bit misleading as each frame is not being updated 600 times a second, it still portrays the inherent advantage of Plasma TVs when it comes to fast moving content due to its near instantaneous pixel response times. 240Hz and 480Hz LCD 3D TVs The truth behind the numbers In the case of LCD panels, things change drastically. One of the fundamental limitations of LCD technology is that the switching speed, or the time it takes to change the pixel color is quite slow on the order of around 4ms. In addition, this refresh rate is dependent on what color the pixel was showing, and what color it has to update to. The 4ms is only a best case estimate and even on some of the commercial 480Hz panels, many pixels can take much longer to update certain pixels. As a result, when you are trying to view 60Hz content on an LCD TV, in the case of fast moving scenes where there is a large difference between successive frames. If the LCD panel cant keep up with this (which is usually the case) it gives rise to motion blurring and image ghosting artifacts. While LCD manufacturers have been trying to push the response times of these displays, they are still nowhere close to producing a true 240Hz or 480Hz display that can display all video content accurately and free of artifacts at these high refresh rates. Instead, what they have chosen to do is use advanced mathematical techniques to interpolate between the frames of a 60Hz video signal to give rise to a 240Hz signal. Keep in mind that a large number of the 240 frames being displayed every second are fake interpolated frames. The idea behind this is that the 240Hz source keeps driving the LCD pixels at a much faster rate, thus allowing for a better transition from one frame to the next. While this is certainly an interesting way to improve LCD displays, the 240Hz or 480Hz terms are somewhat misleading since the screen itself is still not capable of true 240Hz/480hz response times.GioVela2010

1. BS

2. We're now discussing 'true' 120hz on PC monitors, not interpolation.

3. Link to source.

[QUOTE="Bebi_vegeta"]

[QUOTE="GioVela2010"] More like half a generation, for most of 360's life Most hermits had monitors of 1280x1024 or less. Lol full screen was garbage btwAM-Gamer

Monitors were way ahead of HDTV.

Not anymore there not, while monitors may have higher res they sacrafice both contrast ratio and color accuracy. A high end HDTV is the way to go if you can afford it.

Color accurancy... I'm sure people who have a profession for video editing or any related to that have monitors.

There's high end monitors too...

[QUOTE="AM-Gamer"]

[QUOTE="Bebi_vegeta"]

Monitors were way ahead of HDTV.

Bebi_vegeta

Not anymore there not, while monitors may have higher res they sacrafice both contrast ratio and color accuracy. A high end HDTV is the way to go if you can afford it.

Color accurancy... I'm sure people who have a profession for video editing or any related to that have monitors.

There's high end monitors too...

[QUOTE="Bebi_vegeta"]

[QUOTE="AM-Gamer"]

Not anymore there not, while monitors may have higher res they sacrafice both contrast ratio and color accuracy. A high end HDTV is the way to go if you can afford it.

GioVela2010

Color accurancy... I'm sure people who have a profession for video editing or any related to that have monitors.

There's high end monitors too...

Oh yeah I would agree, not the best for gaming.