4 ms·

More interesting than this is what's caused the performance expectation of gamers to rise faster than Moore's Law. It took us almost 10 years to move the stand

More interesting than this is what's caused the performance expectation of gamers to rise faster than Moore's Law. It took us almost 10 years to move the standard from 1024x768 to 1920x1080 (~2.5x increase in pixels/sec), yet in the past 5 years we've gone from 1920x1080@60Hz to 4k@120Hz (~8x increase). I'm not sure if it's because graphics aren't naturally improving the same way they were in the 00s and early 2010s, or streaming culture showing things off with the highest resolutions and framerates possible, but it's absolutely a modern phenomenon and I'm not sure how long it can last.

kungito 5y ago
I'm not sure which setup and games you are thinking about but if I'm not mistaken, right now we are still struggling with 1440p@60hz for ubisoft games and other AAAs
jpalomaki 5y ago
Maybe this is driven by the increase in disposable income. Many avid gamers likely want the best possible rig (in terms of computing power) they can comfortably afford. Hardware vendors try to meet this demand. Powerful setups are useless without games that benefit from power. This creates a demand for super highres graphics, even though those might not add much to the actual gameplay experience.
Macha 5y ago
I don't think 4k120 today is in the same market position as 1080p60 5 years ago. 5 years ago 1080p60 was the bar, if your device couldn't do 1080p60, it wasn't a gaming product, it was a business product. I don't think 4k120 is there, I think we're just at the bar where 1440p60 is considered at that level. In that time, the higher end target has moved from 1440p60 or 4k30 to 1440p120 or 4k60, which means the halo products now have to promise 4k120 to keep ahead of the merely high end. I think the current increase in interest in high refresh rate gaming came from the shift away from TN panels. Once IPS became reasonably available, companies with TN products couldn't push for them as premium products from an image quality perspective, but high refresh rate was something they could still market with TN that there was a window where IPS and VA could not do that. So they did, gamers got exposed to high refresh rates and then moved those expectations to other products. Also tech like gsync/freesync meant that if your monitor had a higher refresh rate than your hardware could produce, you no longer had to deal with tearing. I think monitor tech is leading GPU tech at the moment, with 1440p240 and 4k120 monitors. There's certainly _some_ games where those resolution/framerate combinations are achievable, mostly esports titles and older/smaller titles, but for the most part, no (also for me at least, past like 90hz you're into dimishing returns territory). But now people have these monitors capable of X resolution and Y refresh rate, people want to have their cake and eat it, wanting games that have modern effects for higher fidelity and yet also higher fps to take advantage of their monitors.
- cjbprime 5y ago
  4k120 is interesting because gaming consoles have it, but an extremely expensive GPU from a few years ago like 2080Ti doesn't (with HDMI you need HDMI 2.1).
  - Macha 5y ago
    Well, consoles "have" it, in the same way that last gen consoles "have" 4k60 or PS3/360 had 1080p60. They have a video interface capable of transmitting such a signal, but not hardware capable of producing that in basically all titles. Also the 2080 Ti had a 4k120 output over DisplayPort 1.4a .
- AussieWog93 5y ago
  >I don't think 4k120 today is in the same market position as 1080p60 5 years ago. Yeah, I think you're actually right there. People talk about high-end monitor technology much more than they used to, but I'm not sure how many ordinary people actually have them. >Once IPS became reasonably available, companies with TN products couldn't push for them as premium products from an image quality perspective. That's really interesting. I recently changed monitors from 4k60 to 1440p/144Hz under the assumption that the increased frequency would make more of a difference than the additional resolution. Immediately noticed an inferior quality picture (less pixels aside) - perhaps that's why!
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - majou 5y ago
    There are 144hz IPS monitors too.
  - c21h30o2 5y ago
    I bought my first 4k@120 monitor this year. Huge TV that doubles as PC screen. The first time I've bought a TV and the first time I've spent that much on a monitor. My graphics card can't keep up (I'd need a GPU as expensive as the screen) but playing games at 1080p works fine. The 4k resolution is most appreciated when I do desktop stuff. I think 4k@120 monitors are entering more people's price range and many will choose one on their next upgrade cycle.
kayoone 5y ago
4k120 is not really the standard in anyway. The newest gen of consoles do 4k30 or lower with dynamic resolution adjustments to reach 60fps in some games. Yes HDMI 2.0 supports 4k120 but no modern system can reach that in a modern graphically intensive game. 1080p60-144 or 1440p60-144 is still what the majority of gamers play at, especially on consoles. I think high res displays on smartphones and then laptops and TVs have ultimately driven this from the industry side, but most gamers still don’t care that much about 4K and there is probably not much coming after it because even now it’s hard to make out the differences in fast moving environments unless you sit really close to your big 4K TV.
throaway46546 5y ago
No one is gaming at 4k120 what are you even talking about?
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
SturgeonsLaw 5y ago
At the high end sure, but the most used resolution by an order of magnitude is 1080p https://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey/Steam-Hardware-Software-Survey-Welcome-to-Steam https://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey/Steam-Hardware-Softw...

kungito 5y ago

I'm not sure which setup and games you are thinking about but if I'm not mistaken, right now we are still struggling with 1440p@60hz for ubisoft games and other AAAs

jpalomaki 5y ago

Maybe this is driven by the increase in disposable income. Many avid gamers likely want the best possible rig (in terms of computing power) they can comfortably afford. Hardware vendors try to meet this demand. Powerful setups are useless without games that benefit from power. This creates a demand for super highres graphics, even though those might not add much to the actual gameplay experience.

Macha 5y ago

I don't think 4k120 today is in the same market position as 1080p60 5 years ago. 5 years ago 1080p60 was the bar, if your device couldn't do 1080p60, it wasn't a gaming product, it was a business product. I don't think 4k120 is there, I think we're just at the bar where 1440p60 is considered at that level. In that time, the higher end target has moved from 1440p60 or 4k30 to 1440p120 or 4k60, which means the halo products now have to promise 4k120 to keep ahead of the merely high end. I think the current increase in interest in high refresh rate gaming came from the shift away from TN panels. Once IPS became reasonably available, companies with TN products couldn't push for them as premium products from an image quality perspective, but high refresh rate was something they could still market with TN that there was a window where IPS and VA could not do that. So they did, gamers got exposed to high refresh rates and then moved those expectations to other products. Also tech like gsync/freesync meant that if your monitor had a higher refresh rate than your hardware could produce, you no longer had to deal with tearing. I think monitor tech is leading GPU tech at the moment, with 1440p240 and 4k120 monitors. There's certainly _some_ games where those resolution/framerate combinations are achievable, mostly esports titles and older/smaller titles, but for the most part, no (also for me at least, past like 90hz you're into dimishing returns territory). But now people have these monitors capable of X resolution and Y refresh rate, people want to have their cake and eat it, wanting games that have modern effects for higher fidelity and yet also higher fps to take advantage of their monitors.

cjbprime 5y ago
4k120 is interesting because gaming consoles have it, but an extremely expensive GPU from a few years ago like 2080Ti doesn't (with HDMI you need HDMI 2.1).
- Macha 5y ago
  Well, consoles "have" it, in the same way that last gen consoles "have" 4k60 or PS3/360 had 1080p60. They have a video interface capable of transmitting such a signal, but not hardware capable of producing that in basically all titles. Also the 2080 Ti had a 4k120 output over DisplayPort 1.4a .
AussieWog93 5y ago
>I don't think 4k120 today is in the same market position as 1080p60 5 years ago. Yeah, I think you're actually right there. People talk about high-end monitor technology much more than they used to, but I'm not sure how many ordinary people actually have them. >Once IPS became reasonably available, companies with TN products couldn't push for them as premium products from an image quality perspective. That's really interesting. I recently changed monitors from 4k60 to 1440p/144Hz under the assumption that the increased frequency would make more of a difference than the additional resolution. Immediately noticed an inferior quality picture (less pixels aside) - perhaps that's why!
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- majou 5y ago
  There are 144hz IPS monitors too.
- c21h30o2 5y ago
  I bought my first 4k@120 monitor this year. Huge TV that doubles as PC screen. The first time I've bought a TV and the first time I've spent that much on a monitor. My graphics card can't keep up (I'd need a GPU as expensive as the screen) but playing games at 1080p works fine. The 4k resolution is most appreciated when I do desktop stuff. I think 4k@120 monitors are entering more people's price range and many will choose one on their next upgrade cycle.

kayoone 5y ago

4k120 is not really the standard in anyway. The newest gen of consoles do 4k30 or lower with dynamic resolution adjustments to reach 60fps in some games. Yes HDMI 2.0 supports 4k120 but no modern system can reach that in a modern graphically intensive game. 1080p60-144 or 1440p60-144 is still what the majority of gamers play at, especially on consoles. I think high res displays on smartphones and then laptops and TVs have ultimately driven this from the industry side, but most gamers still don’t care that much about 4K and there is probably not much coming after it because even now it’s hard to make out the differences in fast moving environments unless you sit really close to your big 4K TV.

throaway46546 5y ago

No one is gaming at 4k120 what are you even talking about?

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

SturgeonsLaw 5y ago

At the high end sure, but the most used resolution by an order of magnitude is 1080p https://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey/Steam-Hardware-Software-Survey-Welcome-to-Steam https://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey/Steam-Hardware-Softw...