6 ms·

8K gaming is the ultimate gimmick. Even in the ideal conditions they set up for that demo, I'm doubtful those gamers have the ability to detect a significant i

8K gaming is the ultimate gimmick. Even in the ideal conditions they set up for that demo, I'm doubtful those gamers have the ability to detect a significant improvement over 4K.

friedman23 6y ago
Ultra high pixel count gaming is not a gimmick. Get a 4k ultrawide form factor monitor and you have close to as many pixels as are in an 8k monitor
kitsunesoba 6y ago
Agree that 8K is a bit overkill, but it'll be nice for 60FPS+ 5k since 5k doubles 2560x1440 exactly and makes for a better multipurpose use resolution than 4k does at 27".
- shados 6y ago
  > since 5k doubles 2560x1440 exactly Does that really matter? Integer scaling isn't really a thing AFAIK, and game devs are more likely to test their HUD layouts in 4k than 5k these days.
  - kitsunesoba 6y ago
    Doesn't matter much in games, but it makes a difference on the desktop. Don't know about Windows but under macOS and Linux integer scaling generally works more cleanly and predictably than fractional scaling does.
    - shados 6y ago
      Ahh yeah, I don't know about Linux, but MacOS' desktop is notorious for the way it scales things up.
cma 6y ago
There already exist 1/2 8K VR headsets though (full 16:9 4K per eye), and you can keep seeing a difference there up through around 16K per eye and higher refresh rates than they showed.
t0mbstone 6y ago
It's all about VR headsets
- fluffything 6y ago
  For VR 60 FPS is not enough, but maybe in the next generation with another 2x leap we'll have 120 FPS at 8k.
  - omni 6y ago
    The interpolation tech they've come up with is not shabby, 45 FPS will get you pretty far with that
  - keenmaster 6y ago
    Foveated rendering might take that 60 FPS to 90 FPS or 120 FPS on the same GPU. That will cause a step change in realism.
  - Polylactic_acid 6y ago
    We are at the stage where nothing is enough for either fps or resolution. I use a vive original and its painfully blurry and thats 1080p per eye and a very low fov. For a high fov lens we will probably need 16k per eye at 144hz before people will consider it good enough like 4k for monitors is now. We don't even have the cables to push that much data currently, let alone render it. I expect to reach this we will probably have to start using foverted rendering.
    - fluffything 6y ago
      So the 3090 they announced is shown at 8k on 320 Hz monitors on the presentation. They are quite far still from 2*16k at 144 Hz. I was surprised over the difference 320 Hz monitors make according to them.
- nomel 6y ago
  Until DLSS can work with VR, it's probably still out of reach, beyond Roblox quality graphics.
shados 6y ago
That's fine. Its really hard to get good frame rate in 4k today. A lot of that isn't just the GPU (eg: poorly optimized games, CPU, I/O, etc), but if it can do 8k 60fps reasonably consistantly on paper, then it can do 4k@60fps+ consistently for real (assuming nothing else is the bottleneck). That makes it worthwhile. That's personally what I was waiting for before upgrading my 1080 GTX TI and my monitor.
jiggawatts 6y ago
In my experience, high resolution is only relevant to games where the camera isn't constantly moving. Think DOTA 2 or Civilization 5. They both look amazing at 4K and I bet would look noticeably better at 8K. Especially in those two, the games assets have enough detail to allow zooming in all the way from a bird's eye view to a first person view. As you crank up the rendering resolution, there's plenty of "real" detail available in the models and textures. You could push these games to 16K and still get more quality out of them.
- lifeformed 6y ago
  Agreed. and in high movement games (mostly first person shooters), you want higher framerate over higher resolution any day. 120+ fps is a night and day advantage over 60fps.
peterlk 6y ago
8k on a normal sized monitor is a gimmick, but 8k gaming on a 98"+ tv is not. These TVs are mega expensive right now, but they might not be in 2 years. Nvidia is ahead of the curve.

8K gaming is the ultimate gimmick. Even in the ideal conditions they set up for that demo, I'm doubtful those gamers have the ability to detect a significant improvement over 4K.

friedman23 6y ago

Ultra high pixel count gaming is not a gimmick. Get a 4k ultrawide form factor monitor and you have close to as many pixels as are in an 8k monitor

kitsunesoba 6y ago

Agree that 8K is a bit overkill, but it'll be nice for 60FPS+ 5k since 5k doubles 2560x1440 exactly and makes for a better multipurpose use resolution than 4k does at 27".

shados 6y ago
> since 5k doubles 2560x1440 exactly Does that really matter? Integer scaling isn't really a thing AFAIK, and game devs are more likely to test their HUD layouts in 4k than 5k these days.
- kitsunesoba 6y ago
  Doesn't matter much in games, but it makes a difference on the desktop. Don't know about Windows but under macOS and Linux integer scaling generally works more cleanly and predictably than fractional scaling does.
  - shados 6y ago
    Ahh yeah, I don't know about Linux, but MacOS' desktop is notorious for the way it scales things up.

cma 6y ago

There already exist 1/2 8K VR headsets though (full 16:9 4K per eye), and you can keep seeing a difference there up through around 16K per eye and higher refresh rates than they showed.

t0mbstone 6y ago

It's all about VR headsets

fluffything 6y ago
For VR 60 FPS is not enough, but maybe in the next generation with another 2x leap we'll have 120 FPS at 8k.
- omni 6y ago
  The interpolation tech they've come up with is not shabby, 45 FPS will get you pretty far with that
- keenmaster 6y ago
  Foveated rendering might take that 60 FPS to 90 FPS or 120 FPS on the same GPU. That will cause a step change in realism.
- Polylactic_acid 6y ago
  We are at the stage where nothing is enough for either fps or resolution. I use a vive original and its painfully blurry and thats 1080p per eye and a very low fov. For a high fov lens we will probably need 16k per eye at 144hz before people will consider it good enough like 4k for monitors is now. We don't even have the cables to push that much data currently, let alone render it. I expect to reach this we will probably have to start using foverted rendering.
  - fluffything 6y ago
    So the 3090 they announced is shown at 8k on 320 Hz monitors on the presentation. They are quite far still from 2*16k at 144 Hz. I was surprised over the difference 320 Hz monitors make according to them.
nomel 6y ago
Until DLSS can work with VR, it's probably still out of reach, beyond Roblox quality graphics.

shados 6y ago

That's fine. Its really hard to get good frame rate in 4k today. A lot of that isn't just the GPU (eg: poorly optimized games, CPU, I/O, etc), but if it can do 8k 60fps reasonably consistantly on paper, then it can do 4k@60fps+ consistently for real (assuming nothing else is the bottleneck). That makes it worthwhile. That's personally what I was waiting for before upgrading my 1080 GTX TI and my monitor.

jiggawatts 6y ago

In my experience, high resolution is only relevant to games where the camera isn't constantly moving. Think DOTA 2 or Civilization 5. They both look amazing at 4K and I bet would look noticeably better at 8K. Especially in those two, the games assets have enough detail to allow zooming in all the way from a bird's eye view to a first person view. As you crank up the rendering resolution, there's plenty of "real" detail available in the models and textures. You could push these games to 16K and still get more quality out of them.

lifeformed 6y ago
Agreed. and in high movement games (mostly first person shooters), you want higher framerate over higher resolution any day. 120+ fps is a night and day advantage over 60fps.

peterlk 6y ago

8k on a normal sized monitor is a gimmick, but 8k gaming on a 98"+ tv is not. These TVs are mega expensive right now, but they might not be in 2 years. Nvidia is ahead of the curve.