Looks like 4K gaming will start to happen sooner than I thought (on PC ofcourse)

[QUOTE="psymon100"]

[QUOTE="FLOPPAGE_50"] Are they from Desktop rigs or Laptops? I know MANY laptops use 1366x768 still, and I know many people try to use laptops for PC gaming (look at WoW, Diablo, LoL, DOTA 2, ect) MonsieurX

Good point. If Laptops are included in the poll, then the rendering resolution average will skew towards lower resolutions because resolutions on laptops are typically lower than on monitors/plasmas/projectors/lcdtv/toilet

This is by far the stupidest response I've ever read. Higher resolution supports better graphics, it's a no brainer. Nobody needs 4K resolution to play 16 bit games.SKaREO

Well sure, but you can also play Gears of War on a SDTV and get about the same amount of Graphics as you would if you were to play on a HDTV.

It would just be blurry as crap.

Cool. But useless. Unless you're gaming on a huge display, this isn't something that would be noticeable.

1440p would be more standard

1440p would be more standard

TheFadeForever

Cool. But useless. Unless you're gaming on a huge display, this isn't something that would be noticeable.

shellcase86

Well, that's kind of the point. No one is talking about 4K 20 inch displays here. 32-24" monitor at 4K, from 2-4 feet would be a significant difference in detail. Same for a larger monitor from slightly farther away.

My friend uses a TV as a monitor. He hangs it from the wall right behind his desk. IT's a cool setup, but it's a 48" display. At that distance you can see the individual pixels. With 4K he could have both a great desktop AND a great gaming experience at that distance, at that size.

4k gaming?  LOL.  1600p at 60fps gaming is not even possible without spending almost $700 on a video card.  But you think you can double the pixel count to 4k and somehow bump the fps on a card refresh and API update?  Sure, you can probably get 3 Titans and go 4k gaming, but I don't consider spending 3k on cards and 2-3k on a monitor "happening".  Anything is possible with the right amount of money.  Once someone is able to do 4k gaming by spending $600 on a card and get 60fps, I'll consider it a viable option.  I think thats still 3 years away.

I hope Valve's Steam Machine can do 4K, or at least full HD + resolutions like 1440p, or 1600p. That would put it head and shoulders above PS4/Bone.

[QUOTE="EducatingU_PCMR"]

[QUOTE="m3Boarder32"] Yet the average steam gamer games at less than 1080pGioVela2010

Nope

http://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey?l=english

1080p is the most common resolution.

[QUOTE="MonsieurX"][QUOTE="psymon100"]

Good point. If Laptops are included in the poll, then the rendering resolution average will skew towards lower resolutions because resolutions on laptops are typically lower than on monitors/plasmas/projectors/lcdtv/toilet

trugs26

[QUOTE="GioVela2010"][QUOTE="EducatingU_PCMR"]

 

Nope

 

http://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey?l=english

 

1080p is the most common resolution.

Cranler

4k gaming?  LOL.  1600p at 60fps gaming is not even possible without spending almost $700 on a video card.  But you think you can double the pixel count to 4k and somehow bump the fps on a card refresh and API update?  Sure, you can probably get 3 Titans and go 4k gaming, but I don't consider spending 3k on cards and 2-3k on a monitor "happening".  Anything is possible with the right amount of money.  Once someone is able to do 4k gaming by spending $600 on a card and get 60fps, I'll consider it a viable option.  I think thats still 3 years away.

lhughey

[QUOTE="Rage010101"]

[QUOTE="MonsieurX"]inb4 m3boarder32 derailing the thread with his plasma. 500$ gpu for 1000$ monitor,meh.GoldenElementXL

lol it's funny because it's true :lol:

[QUOTE="Cranler"][QUOTE="GioVela2010"] Just because 1080p is the most commom resolution doesn't mean that most gamers arent using resolutions below 1080p. m3Boarder32

http://store.steampowered.com/stats/

[QUOTE="m3Boarder32"][QUOTE="Cranler"] Many steam users are CS, CSS and TF 2 only players. Old console games die while old pc games live on. Most people who play current gen games ar 1080p. Cranler

http://store.steampowered.com/stats/

[QUOTE="shellcase86"]

Cool. But useless. Unless you're gaming on a huge display, this isn't something that would be noticeable.

Kinthalis

Well, that's kind of the point. No one is talking about 4K 20 inch displays here. 32-24" monitor at 4K, from 2-4 feet would be a significant difference in detail. Same for a larger monitor from slightly farther away.

My friend uses a TV as a monitor. He hangs it from the wall right behind his desk. IT's a cool setup, but it's a 48" display. At that distance you can see the individual pixels. With 4K he could have both a great desktop AND a great gaming experience at that distance, at that size.

Add it to one of these and you're laughing. 152" 4k Plasma TV yours for a snip at £600,000...I've ordered 2 ;)

http://www.gizmodo.co.uk/2012/11/this-panasonic-152-inch-4k-plasma-is-what-600000-dreams-are-made-of/

[QUOTE="Cranler"]

[QUOTE="m3Boarder32"] Prove itm3Boarder32

http://store.steampowered.com/stats/

How much is this graphics card going to cost $600 or $1000?

I am going to save up and buy three 1080P monitors and give my current one to my girl. I would rather run my games that way.AmazonTreeBoa

 

Add it to one of these and you're laughing. 152" 4k Plasma TV yours for a snip at £600,000...I've ordered 2 ;)

http://www.gizmodo.co.uk/2012/11/this-panasonic-152-inch-4k-plasma-is-what-600000-dreams-are-made-of/

GarGx1

And what's most impressive is that TV is like 3-4 years old...

Already being replaced by Panasonic & NHK's 145" 8K 3D display:

[QUOTE="GarGx1"]

Add it to one of these and you're laughing. 152" 4k Plasma TV yours for a snip at £600,000...I've ordered 2 ;)

http://www.gizmodo.co.uk/2012/11/this-panasonic-152-inch-4k-plasma-is-what-600000-dreams-are-made-of/

Mozelleple112

And what's most impressive is that TV is like 3-4 years old...

Already being replaced by Panasonic & NHK's 145" 8K 3D display:

It would be even better if I could actually see those images in 8k :)

I rather keep my 120hz display. Until they come out with a format than support 4k @ 120hz ill pass.FPSfan1985

Yeap. I'd rather have 8K with 120hz. Hermits have been gloating about 1440p for a long time but its not a a big jump. Its about time they atleast start talking about 4K. I like to upgrade when its a huge jump. Like SD to HD was. I guess I just have higher standards.

[QUOTE="MonsieurX"][QUOTE="psymon100"]

Good point. If Laptops are included in the poll, then the rendering resolution average will skew towards lower resolutions because resolutions on laptops are typically lower than on monitors/plasmas/projectors/lcdtv/toilet

trugs26

[QUOTE="trugs26"]

[QUOTE="MonsieurX"]Yes,that's why people are trying to claim ownage with the steam polls. But they do include laptops,so tons of people install Steam on their crappy laptop,average gets lowered.MonsieurX

And not to mention it's a steam hardware survey not a steam hardware census. 

[QUOTE="MonsieurX"][QUOTE="trugs26"]

 Why does it matter if laptops are included or not?

psymon100

And not to mention it's a steam hardware survey not a steam hardware census. 

[QUOTE="psymon100"]

[QUOTE="MonsieurX"] Because it's not quite representative of the reality. Tons of people(like myself) bought a cheap laptop,with integrated gpu and 720P screen(and that's why it's so popular in the poll results),installed steam to play some indie games\older games. So,it's not representative of what they really have to play gamesm3Boarder32

And not to mention it's a steam hardware survey not a steam hardware census. 

[QUOTE="m3Boarder32"][QUOTE="psymon100"]

And not to mention it's a steam hardware survey not a steam hardware census. 

princeofshapeir

Average Steam ... Hardware survey participant!

[QUOTE="m3Boarder32"][QUOTE="psymon100"]

And not to mention it's a steam hardware survey not a steam hardware census. 

princeofshapeir

[QUOTE="princeofshapeir"][QUOTE="m3Boarder32"] It's the closest thing we have to paint a picture of the average PC Gamerm3Boarder32

great logic

if you have PSN + you are a gamer, if you don't, you are not a gamer.

if you use your system resources for resolution over draw distance, particle effects, water effects, lighting, ground clutter or any one of a half dozen other things you are a derpwad.

nothing could demonstrate to me more your poor decision making skills and general dumbassery  than prioritizing resolution over just about any other aspect of game graphics.

[QUOTE="m3Boarder32"][QUOTE="princeofshapeir"] It paints a picture of the average Steam user. Nothing more. Lumpy311

great logic

if you have PSN + you are a gamer, if you don't, you are not a gamer.

[QUOTE="GoldenElementXL"][QUOTE="Rage010101"]

lol it's funny because it's true :lol:

m3Boarder32

[QUOTE="m3Boarder32"][QUOTE="psymon100"]

And not to mention it's a steam hardware survey not a steam hardware census. 

princeofshapeir

I'd like to see different content avenues delivered first, (Ultra-High Definition Disc of some type, streaming over broadband ect). 

There is so very little content. Not worried about the prices, they will come down fast enough.

Remember 'enhanced definition' TV? They were 480P sets and the trend lasted 2-3 years as we transitioned

into 720p/1080i. Like 480P flat panels were, some think 4K will just be a brief pause (2-3 years) before seeing 8K sets. 

Would love a 60" Samsung 4K ultra-slim (1") OLED with 3D processors built in. Don't care too much for 3D with glasses, but

the 3D video processors (like I have in my current Samsung), really make the picture pop. 

.

[QUOTE="Lumpy311"]

[QUOTE="m3Boarder32"] If you don't have Steam you're not a PC Gamer.. If u have Steam you're a PC Gamerm3Boarder32

great logic

if you have PSN + you are a gamer, if you don't, you are not a gamer.

not really, just shit logic on your side.

[QUOTE="m3Boarder32"][QUOTE="Lumpy311"]

great logic

 

if you have PSN + you are a gamer, if you don't, you are not a gamer.

Lumpy311

not really, just shit logic on your side.

[QUOTE="Lumpy311"]

[QUOTE="m3Boarder32"] Apples and oranges idiot :Dm3Boarder32

not really, just shit logic on your side.

If anyone here is stupid, it's you.

[QUOTE="trugs26"]

[QUOTE="MonsieurX"]Yes,that's why people are trying to claim ownage with the steam polls. But they do include laptops,so tons of people install Steam on their crappy laptop,average gets lowered.MonsieurX

Its a refreshing thought that PC will have better graphics and performance for yet another gen!

But this time, our headstart is even faster!

[QUOTE="Lumpy311"]

[QUOTE="m3Boarder32"] Apples and oranges idiot :Dm3Boarder32

not really, just shit logic on your side.

[QUOTE="Lumpy311"]

[QUOTE="m3Boarder32"] Apples and oranges idiot :Dm3Boarder32

not really, just shit logic on your side.

if you use your system resources for resolution over draw distance, particle effects, water effects, lighting, ground clutter or any one of a half dozen other things you are a derpwad.

nothing could demonstrate to me more your poor decision making skills and general dumbassery  than prioritizing resolution over just about any other aspect of game graphics.

Riverwolf007

[QUOTE="Riverwolf007"]

if you use your system resources for resolution over draw distance, particle effects, water effects, lighting, ground clutter or any one of a half dozen other things you are a derpwad.

nothing could demonstrate to me more your poor decision making skills and general dumbassery  than prioritizing resolution over just about any other aspect of game graphics.

lhughey

[QUOTE="lhughey"][QUOTE="Riverwolf007"]

if you use your system resources for resolution over draw distance, particle effects, water effects, lighting, ground clutter or any one of a half dozen other things you are a derpwad.

nothing could demonstrate to me more your poor decision making skills and general dumbassery  than prioritizing resolution over just about any other aspect of game graphics.

m3Boarder32

Agreed. Consoles won't touch PC in gfx this gen.