No, but I wouldn't mind if most games that couldn't hit a native 4k60 at that point have a choice between native 4k30 and checkboard 4k60 since graphics options are becoming a thing for console games.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Digital Foundry + GTX1080ti SLI vs 8K
- Thread starter Caayn
- Start date
No, but I wouldn't mind if most games that couldn't hit a native 4k60 at that point have a choice between native 4k30 and checkboard 4k60 since graphics options are becoming a thing for console games.
Maintenance
Member
Forza can run 30fps just fine. If they tried 60fps though, that would be another story.
Sad Affleck
Member
It doesn't work like that. You need a powerful CPU to hit 60 fps unless you design the game for 60 fps in the first place. Dropping the resolution won't be enough in most cases.
Frozone
Member
I would rather not chase the pixel throughput trying to get higher resolutions but put the research into shading, lighting, FX, more accurate hair and higher res textures/normal maps (which the author eludes to when playing with graphics settings).
Right now, every game appears to use the same techniques (i.e. making most of them look the same) consequently making it appear as if we hit a wall in developing more complex techniques.
Right now, every game appears to use the same techniques (i.e. making most of them look the same) consequently making it appear as if we hit a wall in developing more complex techniques.
You are right, but if they choose to design around checkboard 60 then they should definitely have enough room for 4k30 as well.
It will be mainstream in home theatre and theatres, but the television size requirementz will go up to like 70"+ screens. Keep in mind as a resolution, 8K content will look amazing.
As for games, why not. The more resolution you can fit, the better. In fact greater than 8K needed for more immersive VR. I think television/film wise we will peak at 8K before some kind of holographic/AR/VR future comes but for games 8K-16K will be norm pretty quick. 4K has come rapidly and is already being rapidly adopted.
Textures at that point will be a compression issue as to not take 200gb. The rest can and will probably happen in parallel as it has happened every other generation.
Lagspike_exe
Member
DF should have tried a quad SLI 1080ti setup. 
delete this
Felix Lighter
Member
DF should have tried a quad SLI 1080ti setup.
Nvidia killed off 3 and 4 way SLI.
If you include the upper (400x240) and lower (320x240) screen resolutions together, the 2DS (or 3DS, including new and XL varieties) require exactly 192 pairs of screens to make up 8k resolution (7680x4320).
It can always look better!
spootime
Member
I'm with you. I want my FPS at 144 at a minimum.
Both still work...just have to do quite a bit of tweaking.
keraj37
Member
They haven't killed it off, but they don't support it. I have a feeling they are getting to the point where they are about to just not support SLI entirely.
But what about our OLED wallpaper of the future? That's the size of an entire wall, we'll need 8K for that for sure.
High framerate gaming is increasingly CPU-limited.
Most game engines are still poorly multi-threaded and it really seems like a limit has been reached on single-threaded performance.
Single-threaded performance has improved very little in the last five years, while CPUs at the high-end have been getting more and more cores for significantly faster performance overall.
Intel have 24-core CPUs and AMD are due to release 32-core CPUs soon. Lots of games only really use two.
Even if your GPU is fast enough to do 8K60, that's no guarantee that you would be able to run a game at 4K120.
Forza is a completely busted port.
Not only does it appear to have problems when things slow down, it also has problems with cars jumping all over the place when the framerate gets too high as well.
I'm surprised that Richard said the engine was well-optimized in this video, considering that 90% of the game's CPU workload runs on a single CPU core.
Maintenance
Member
I'm not surprised at all.
From watching DF over the years, I'm pretty sure they can't be negative about anything haha.
I run games at 4K@120FPS+ maxed out all the time. Forza Apex and ReCore come to mind right off the bat. I mean yeah you have limitations, but I haven't come across a game so far where my CPU is the bottleneck for performance. Even if it isn't taking advantage of my threads.
*I stay current on hardware, so yes older CPUs are the source of bottlenecks if you're using a brand new GPU.
I've uninstalled Forza Horizon 3. I tried playing it the other day and the fluctuating framerate is ridiculous.
With all this said, I think jumping from 4K to 8K is a bit ridiculous and I don't think most people understand how strenuous that is on hardware right now. I think we'll see a more LOGICAL increase in the coming years in the PC space:
- 5120x2880 is the next step from 4K.
- After that is 6400x3600.
- Then you have 7680x4320.
As a matter of fact, until consoles use 7680x4320 @ 30fps as a baseline for the majority of their games, this is not happening anytime soon... So maybe 2025 or later even. Hell, physical gaming platforms might not even be a thing by then.
capitalCORN
Member
If it's a good compile like Darkplaces, probably Pixar levels of SSAA, but native.
LinkAndEpona
Banned
I feel so behind, I'm barely gonna start gaming at 2k (1440p) on my PC.
In truth, 1440p is really the best place to be, with the best balance of IQ and high framerate performance. 4K isn't worth it right now, for those of us who don't spend 1080/Ti money.
When an x070 level card can do 4K/60 with ease, will be the time to make that leap.
I personally won't make the jump, until 4K/120fps is possible.
I got sorta forced into a 1440p monitor buy a month ago due to my old monitor shitting the bed, and I was pleasantly surprised at how good of an increase it is. Very noticeable increase in clarity, and when I decide to finally make the jump to a 4K60 ready card I think I'll keep this thing around for ultra fast gaming (165hz monitor, PG278QR) to really make the framerate potential just totally fly.
sixteen-bit
Member
impressed by the fm3 performance off a single 1080ti
Not sure what you mean, that's up to the devs to use ray-tracing or not, what resolution we choose is up to us.
Sorry but 1440p is a mariginal upgrade over 1080p at best. People seem to think 1440p is halfway between 1080p and 4k, when in reality it's nowhere close to that (fun fact: even ultrawide 1440p (3440x1440) is still closer to 1080p than it is to 4k in terms of pixel count). I hardly even notice an IQ difference between 1080p and 1440p cause they're both bad.
2560x1440 is 1.8x as many pixels as 1080p, which is very close to being halfway between 1080p and 4K.
3440x1440 is 2.4x as many pixels as 1080p, which makes it closer to 4K than 1080p.
Both are a significant increase in resolution and image quality over 1080p.
You are allowed to say that you prefer 4K resolution over 1440p without having to exaggerate to make your point.
For single-GPU setups - which is all that I would ever consider due to the microstutter and latency problems with multi-GPU - 1440p makes a whole lot more sense than native 4K on today's hardware.
And moving to 24:10 is a more meaningful upgrade than rendering 16:9 at higher resolutions in my opinion.
That does not mean that I think 4K is a waste of power - or 8K for that matter.
I've already been rendering older games at 4K and 8K using DSR and the image quality is stunning.
I just don't think it's the right choice for today's GPU hardware.
If televisions had not jumped straight from 1080p to 2160p, and there were 1440p options available instead, I doubt anyone would be trying to push 4K resolution as 'mainstream' today.
I'm glad that progress is being made, and the demand for higher resolutions is pushing GPU manufacturers and game developers to innovate, but as someone that wants to be gaming at or above 60 FPS, 1440p is the right choice today.
PPSSPP. Soooo good.
Bolivar687
Banned
I'll wait for 10k.
Sad Affleck
Member
I still play my games between 720p and 900p 😁
GearDraxon
Member
digitalrelic
Banned
Uhh... You're completely factually wrong here.
Everytime I see this guy's videos, all I can say is "wtf"
My PC can't (i7 3770k@4.4) play it smoothly and the buffering is immense. Damn son.
200/20
LabouredSubterfuge
Member
Keep it. 360p for life!
Satisfaction, gents. Have you ever tasted it?
Satisfaction, gents. Have you ever tasted it?
I made a recording to test on my LG 55e6p earlier today and 1440p looks better than 1080p at a normal viewing distance. It's hard for me to even tell the difference between 1440p and 4K on a TV when not sitting up close to it.
Guilty Gear 4K Test Vid
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4nhMJr_G4UM
*All resoltuions are upscaled or downscaled to 3840x2160.
I'm a big stickler when it comes to jaggies on polygons, but I feel like 1440p is a sweetspot right now both for PC and PS4 Pro/Scorpio gamers when it comes to gaming on a T.V. I feel like it's the sweet spot even for monitors. You get decent IQ with great framerates if you are on the upper level of the hardware spectrum. I'm in the camp where performance > image quality.
The halfway between 100 and 400 is 200. 240 is 2.4x as much as 100, and thus 240 is closer to 400 than it is to 100.
Or not.
I specifically said pixel count, not any other metrics. The halfway between 1080p and 4k in terms of pixel count is (3840x2160+1920x1080)/2=5,157,000. Meanwhile 3440x1440=4,953,600, and thus it's closer to 1080p and than it is to 4k.
Here's a helpful chart to people who think 1440p is close to the halfway between 1080p and 4k.
Almost responded, but where does one even begin with this.
I never even said or implied that I thought "1440p is halfway between 1080p and 4K", so I'm not understanding how you responded to my post with such drivel.
