4K? Meh, time to play games on 8K!

joxer

joxer

The Smoker
Original Sin Donor
Original Sin 2 Donor
Joined
April 12, 2009
Messages
23,459
http://wccftech.com/acer-predator-orion-9000-8k-display-support/

Acer Predator Orion 9000 Is a Gaming Desktop That Features an 18-Core CPU and 8K Display Support

…

Sporting an Intel Core i9 Extreme Edition processor that comes with 18 cores and 36 threads, you can also configure the desktop gaming beast with up to 4-way AMD Radeon RX Vega graphics or two NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1080 Ti graphics in SLI. If you want your gaming system to handle more than just rendering high-quality visuals at acceptable frame rates, you should also know that the Predator Orion 9000 can support up to 128GB of DDR4 RAM. With the amount of heat being generated, you will need a viable cooling solution.
Click to expand...

Y3nF8Ll.gif


Right? Start saving some money folks.

Unless of course you care about 4K or 8K as much as I do. ;)
I mean… Who on earth needs this expensive bs in 2017.
 
Joined
Apr 12, 2009
Messages
23,459
It's important to push the technology, but for gaming it's step backwards, IMHO.

Once you start pushing more pixels (that you don't need) then everyone wants the latest and greatest. So then they buy these 4k and 8k displays for bragging rights and consumerism. So then they start to become cheaper (relatively, i mean, they're still expensive) and more mainstream. Then you need more powerful video cards to push the pixels. Then developers are like "well we need our game to stand out so lets add cutting edge graphics that need uber video cars, because most people are jumping on the 8k bandwagon anyways, plus nvidia/amd payed us to feature their hardware". So then we've reached this death spiral of new games requiring heavy duty hardware, just because it's there, making programming lazy and poorly optimized.

Yet even worse, when 8k becomes the norm, you can bet your stupid smartphone will come default with a 16k screen. Ok i'm going to stop now before I start a phone rant.
 
Joined
Feb 19, 2009
Messages
2,257
Location
Calgary, Alberta
I run at 1650X1080 :) I don't have p's or k's as far as I know.
 
Joined
Oct 18, 2006
Messages
8,836
Instead of the p or k, its going ultra wide that made the difference for me.
 
Joined
Oct 8, 2009
Messages
4,425
Location
UK
I'm already ultra-wide ;)
 
Joined
Oct 18, 2006
Messages
8,836
Don't really see a problem. Resolutions have always been increasing, and it used to be common to have a CRT with a top resolution that was impractical for gaming. Eventually things catch up and even out, and we end up with a better image.

I definitely wouldn't be an early adopter, though.
 
Joined
Nov 8, 2014
Messages
12,085
I am happy with being an early adopter of 4K. I like playing vintage games in 4K with mods, etc.. Morrowind, Oblivion and Skyrim looked particularly great in 4K.

That said, it's very limited overall and I wouldn't recommend getting in that early. In another year it will be much cheaper and you can spend the saved money on a better GPU to run more mods or more modern games @ 4K. You can also get a much better 4K TV/monitor then that will have more bells and whistles. I also use mine as my TV so it worked out well for me.
 
I'm sitting at 2560x1440 on a 27" monitor. Honestly, I don't think I would really get a better image with higher resolution. In fact, I could probably drop the resolution on this monitor about 20% and still be fine. So I agree with Joxer on this one. Unless you're plopping down in front of a 40" screen, I think you're wasting cash better spent on 3D Vision or a VR setup. (Or, you know, games... if you're into that kind of thing.)
 
Joined
Aug 3, 2008
Messages
8,258
Location
Kansas City
I went to an Ultrawide 29" 2560 x 1080. So basically the equivalent of a decent sized 1080p screen but with a little more real estate on the sides.

I've tried 4k (which pushes more pixels) and I prefer the Ultrawide more. Just more usable screen, and the bonus that you're pushing less pixels than 4k. I don't think i'll ever go back.

Did that make sensa? Ive had a little too much vodka
 
Joined
Feb 19, 2009
Messages
2,257
Location
Calgary, Alberta
Caddy said:
I went to an Ultrawide 29" 2560 x 1080. So basically the equivalent of a decent sized 1080p screen but with a little more real estate on the sides.

I've tried 4k (which pushes more pixels) and I prefer the Ultrawide more. Just more usable screen, and the bonus that you're pushing less pixels than 4k. I don't think i'll ever go back.

Did that make sensa? Ive had a little too much vodka
Click to expand...

It make perfect sense to me!

Initially I went 29" 2560 x 1080 but I wasn't happy with the height so I am now on 34" 3440x1442 and its perfect. You get both the height and the width and games are so much more immersive.
 
Joined
Oct 8, 2009
Messages
4,425
Location
UK
crpgnut said:
I run at 1650X1080 :) I don't have p's or k's as far as I know.
Click to expand...

Same here on my 22'' monitor ... it suits my needs just fine and I don't need to constantly upgrade my PC to the latest ultra expensive GPU card in order to churn out those extra pixels.

Didn't jump on the 4K craze, most certainly will not jump on the 8K craze either. :roll:
 
Joined
Oct 19, 2006
Messages
805
Location
Just outside of Copenhagen
FYI we have a 130000K resolution on our retinas, compressed to 1200K after hefty retinal image processing.

pibbur who admits this info may not be very relevant.-
 
I don't like big-ass monitors/screens. I play all my games on my laptop which has a compact 15 inch screen with the normal resolution of 1920 x 1080, and am satisfied. I can see going to a 17 inch monitor, but not much more than that. My friend has one of those huge wide screen monitors that connects to his computer, it reminds me of the popular big tvs they have now, and I'm just like, why? and shaking my head... I don't like the wide screen setups with 2-3 monitors either, and would never want that type of monitor array.
 
Joined
Oct 2, 2009
Messages
2,246
Location
Pacific NorthWest, USA!
I use a 27inch monitor on my 3 feet deep desk; i've thought about replacing the 27 with dell 25 (which is quite nice) but while it is only $200 seems like a waste. However, when these see there death i'll go with 1440p 25 inch over 1440p 27 inch.
 
Joined
Oct 20, 2006
Messages
7,758
Location
usa - no longer boston
Arkadia7 said:
I don't like the wide screen setups with 2-3 monitors either, and would never want that type of monitor array.
Click to expand...

I use a second monitor just for live-streaming or doing specific types of work on my PC. It's nice to use as a utility monitor. Also have a laptop projecting to it that I can switch to when needed.

I have a 55" TV that I use as my main TV as well as my PC monitor, but lately it's just too much. I'm only 3 feet or so away from it when at my desk. I'm looking to downsize but it's tricky because the TV is perfect size for regular TV use. I may move it to the other side of the room, use the 32" wall TV as my main monitor and just not worry about having a 2nd monitor right now.

pibbur who said:
FYI we have a 130000K resolution on our retinas, compressed to 1200K after hefty retinal image processing.
Click to expand...

Crazy!
 
I never liked 1920x1080 (monitors). However, I was happy with 1920x1200 - though as noted above i've been using 1440p 27 - going back to 1920x1200 would not phase myself.
 
Joined
Oct 20, 2006
Messages
7,758
Location
usa - no longer boston
I'm satisfied with a single 1920x1080 monitor for gaming.

I would only use multiple monitors for gaming if I had money to burn and some kind of custom flight-sim setup. Unless you actually have a curved monitor and the game uses cylindrical projection (and as far as I know, there are no games that do that), you're just getting an image that gets more and more distorted towards the edges.

Multiple monitors for productivity is something else entirely. I would kill (not just anyone, but there are people I could conceivably kill) for more screen space when I'm doing game design.
 
Joined
Jan 31, 2015
Messages
129
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom