The 4k scam ruined graphics advancement....will 8k do the same?

In the past what we had was simple graphics steps:

- Textures

- Polygons

- Shaders

and other graphical settings advanced and people had to upgrade in order to benefit from the improvements

This gen we see a pathetic scam of 4k ruining any hardware advancement for simplest of reasons:

Pixel per inch density

Espesially on PC where it is beyond moronic to pay for a 4k monitor when an amazing ultrawide will deliver insane immersion while not hitting on the frames

A buddy of mine who is on a 7970ghz 3gb from 2011 SEVEN YEARS old dinosaur can run on a ultrawide 1080p at 75 frames anything he throws at it....maxed

Hell my 1060 6gb pushes even more insane frames

And my fear is that if devs use 8k as yet another scapegoat to have games using pathetic graphics just on 8k this will prolong the life of dinosaurs like 7970 into teens...

@True_Gamer_: 4K is awesome and so is ultrawide, but stop trying to bullshit us with the 7970 claims. That card is shit and will struggle even on a regular 1080p monitor, let alone an ultrawide.

I have essentially the same card, an R9 280X and I have a 34" Dell 3440 X 1440p monitor so I can comment on this thread with some hands on experience. I disagree with you that the 7970 is sh!t and will struggle with 1080p. That's exaggerating a quite a bit there. I can run practically any game at roughly med with a lot of things set to high and I only turn the res down to 1080p in more demanding games. Otherwise I run them at the native 3440 X 1440 resolution.

I will also disagree with the OP's claim that you can run any game maxed out at 1080p ultrawide. That's a bit of an exaggeration as well. You can run everything pretty darn good but you can't max out everything even at 1080p wide.

What a load of crap

280X is shit too. No wonder why you think the X1X is good. LOL

Eh, no.

4K isn’t a scam. It’s a big step up from 1080p.

LOL best buy is going to start selling an LG 88 inch OLED 8k TV this year, you'll see it at CES in a few days.

rumours are it costs $20,000 to $50,000.

So yeah, we aren't seeing a console do 8k anytime soon.

You gotta be fucking kidding me! 4K ain't a scam, it's way beyond 1080p/1440p, you just need the best hardware to run 4K on PC and not on consoles.

This made laugh more then it should

@goldenelementxl said:

@True_Gamer_ said:

A buddy of mine who is on a 7970ghz 3gb from 2011 SEVEN YEARS old dinosaur can run on a ultrawide 1080p at 75 frames anything he throws at it....maxed

Hell my 1060 6gb pushes even more insane frames

lol.... "anything he throws at it....maxed" a very narrow selection then. 7970 is slower than GTX 1050 so yea

I was playing Assassin's Creed Origins on my TV today and then switched to my monitor later on. My TV is 4k, my monitor is 1440p. Here's a couple of screen shots (both photo made with DoF completely off but no other adjustments.

TV, 4K, max settings, DoF off, Motion Blur Off, can't see HDR because it's a TV thing that doesn't come through on a screen shot.

Monitor, 1440p, same settings obviously no HDR, (I was quite impressed with what swimming in oil does to you :) )

These aren't a great comparison because of time of day and location etc. and I didn't take them to compare but there really isn't a massive difference in clarity between them. To be honest I'm not even sure if Uplay has stored them at the correct size other than the difference in file size, both of which seem quite small. I may do some direct comparison shots when I get a chance, it only takes a few seconds to change the used display.

Depends.

For example, someone gaming on a 30 inch monitor at 1080p has the same pixel density as someone gaming at a 60 inch at 4k, or a 40 inch at 1440p. Though many PC gamers do indeed use their regular TV to game, most (at least that I know) are gaming around 24-27 inches. On screens that size, people simply can't tell the difference between 1080p and 4k, or if they can It's not nearly worth the price jump. It's not until you start getting in the display range north of 40-48" that you start seeing a real difference.

Still, I agree that I prefer graphical improvements over silly increases in resolution all day.

First, upgrade your piece of crap CPU before you open your mouth criticizing my rig. Second, get on your knees and apologize to me for being disrespectful.

There is no reason for computer monitors to ever go higher than 1440p. The screen is simply too small for you to be able to notice the benefits of 4k.

I hope the consumer market is smart enough to realize this.

an i7 7700k is a "piece of crap"?

It should be a crime for people to have a brain and fail to use it.

4 core, 8 thread in 2018 and he paid for $350 for it. That's what I call a real piece of sh!t.

@Xplode_games: You must be joking. i7 7700k isn't outdated as you think and I even have an i7 8700K but the i7 7700K is also an awesome CPU.

Fucking lol.

I'm actually going to preemptively skip 8K.

I've just upgraded to 4K with WCG capable HDR and it's like looking into a freshly washed window.

There is a limit to what the human eye can see.

@GarGx1: I agree the jump between 1440p and 4K isn't much, and it's why I choose 1440p and higher frames most of the time on my 4K monitor over 4K. The difference between 1080p and 4K however is very noticeable for me when gaming.

PC gamers has been gaming on their ATI Radeon 9700 for over a decade of course its a scam. ;)

4k monitors I agree, 1440p is enough on a small screen and you wont notice much difference, but on a big tv 4k makes all the difference, going back to 1080p or even 1440p on a big tv is instantly noticeable.

LOL. I bought it when it came out and it is still one of the best gaming CPUs you can buy. Nice try though. Also, you should not be talking about CPUs since the X1X CPU is absolute shit. As for me being disrespectful, that is because I have no respect for you. You are a joke.

You're gonna need a 4k monitor to even notice a huge difference between high and ultra if it uses high res assets.

4k didn't ruin advancements, developers and the average consumer who blindly follow resolution numbers did.

It's a scam if you mainly game on a small monitor. I play pretty close to my 65" TV and the clarity that 4k and near 4k resolutions offer is really ****** awesome.

I'd say no. It wouldn't run good enough to be worth it. That setup with 1080 or 1440p at 120-144hz, everything maxed > that setup with questionable 4K performance, stuff set on low and at only 60hz.

I hope the industry doesn't go crazy trying to push 8k anytime soon. But as for 4k it's a justified move, specially if you play on a big screen like most console users 1080p is a low resolution. And this happened with the jump to HD too.

Forget it. Maybe if you play at very low settings and/or play really old games. I'm rocking a 1080 Ti with a i7 8700k and even that setup can output stable 60 fps at max settings in 4k on a game like SW:BF2.

To the topic: I do think higher res textures do a lot for games, but I agree that it feels like innovation suffers under it. I'd like to see more innovation befor we jump to 8k.

It's an act of balance, as textures and details get better the more you need higher resolutions and bigger PPI's to show off the details.

480p would not show off all the detail of a texture built for 4k and a texture built for 480p would look like ass on a 4k display.

Balance is key and this is where developers are failing.

@GarGx1: On an unrelated topic, I really hope they release a texture upgrade pack for the PC version for this game. The textures are ugly as sin.

5k here now, 8k won't be til 2022 mainstream.

I don't think they are that bad and there is definitely worse out there but yeah the graphics would definitely be much improved with a 4k or 8k texture pack, really that's a "no shit Sherlock" thing.

what about fry cry 5 ?

I think the ground textures are the main culprit. The building(mostly, there are still some meh ones), flora, and character textures are actually decent, but those ground textures kinda look like ass, and not the good kind of ass.

I do find the focus on resolution boring. I would much rather the effort go towards new effects and so forth.

Resolution is part of graphic steps though. Those high textures won't look nearly as good compared with 1080p to 4k. Also jaggies are most noticeable. But i do agree with one thing 4k is over pushed and not worth the frame rate compromise. I have just come from a 4k to a 2k QHD 144Hz monitor. The difference is minimal at best when comparing the two, id say PC gamers should go higher Hz over 4k and console should go 4K. A big TV 4k would do better but 2k in front of your face is sharp enough take the frames!

8k vs 4k is so insignificant that to the naked eye I'm not sure if you would be able to pick out a 4k image vs a 8k image. It's time to move past monitor visual capabilities and really give this VR/AR a chance. VR/AR is where we will see the true leap of quality when it comes to gaming. Monitor visual performance is just an excuse for a dick measuring contest between Super PCs and consoles.

So a high end CPU from 2017 is a piece of crap, but you're getting defensive about your GPU from 2013?

In addition, you just created a thread using a 4c/8t intel CPU releasing in 2018 as ownage

4K isnt a scam. You must not have tried it if you think it is.

That's a good card that I would recommend to people looking for a mid-range solution.

What's your deal man? Do you only praise really expensive enthusiast hardware?

Mid-range would be a GTX 1060 and that is as low as I would go. Anything less and it starts falling into shit tier. 280X is definitely deep in the shit. hehe :)

I agree.

This 4K nonsense was a step back as far as graphical advancement go this generation. All this power "wasted" just for resolution purposes. Imagine if we were into 1080p era still and all this extra power would be used for ingame graphics quality alone. .Oh boy. Far better. Clarity over quality of ingame graphics, i go with ingame graphics/better Fps all day long

4K is useless on displays smaller than 65". People are literally wasting their money on 4K TVs/monitors and gaming hardware that can output the resolution.

I'm not sure why display manufacturers feel this constant urge to "innovate" for the sake of innovating.

3D TV was a gimmick. 4K is a gimmick. HDR is nice, but it's hardly the earth shattering difference some people make it out to be. Display manufacturers need to calm the **** down. People won't suddenly stop buying new TVs and monitors because you stopped pumping out useless gimmicks.

Yea I dunno about that. Looks pretty good to me at 50". 4k Ultra 90fps.