6 ms·

as a gamer 8k makes me sweat because i can't imagine what kind of hardware you'd need to run a game :O probably great for text-based work, though!

by 4ggr0 1y ago

pornel 1y ago
You don't really need 8K for gaming, but upscaling and frame generation have made game rendering resolution and display resolution almost independent.
- jsheard 1y ago
  And if all else fails, 8K means you can fall back to 4K, 1440p or 1080p with perfect integer scaling.
  - layer8 1y ago
    Except that the hardware doesn’t necessarily offer perfect integer scaling. Oftentimes, it only provides blurry interpolation that looks less sharp than a corresponding native-resolution display.
    - jsheard 1y ago
      The monitor may or may not offer perfect scaling, but at least on Windows the GPU drivers can do it on their side so the monitor receives a native resolution signal that's already pixel doubled correctly.
    - Aurornis 1y ago
      Most modern games already have built-in scaling options. You can set the game to run at your screen’s native resolution but have it do the rendering at a different scale factor. Good games can even render the HUD at native resolution and the graphics at a scaled resolution. Modern OSes also scale fine. It’s really not an issue.
      - layer8 1y ago
        Games are not what I had in mind. Last time I checked, most graphics drivers didn’t support true integer scaling (i.e. nearest-neighbor, no interpolation).
        jsheard 1y ago
        > most graphics drivers didn’t support true integer scaling https://www.nvidia.com/content/Control-Panel-Help/vLatest/en-us/mergedProjects/nvdsp/CS_Display_Scaling.htm https://www.nvidia.com/content/Control-Panel-Help/vLatest/en... https://www.amd.com/en/resources/support-articles/faqs/DH3-034.html https://www.amd.com/en/resources/support-articles/faqs/DH3-0... https://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/support/articles/000057030/graphics.html https://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/support/articles/000... I don't know what the situation is on Mac and Linux, but all of the Windows drivers offer it.
        Aurornis 1y ago
        With very high PPI displays the gamma corrected interpolation scaling is far better than nearest neighbor scaling. The idea is to make the pixels so small that your eyes aren’t resolving individual pixels anyway. Interpolation appears correct to your eyes because you’re viewing it through a low-pass filter (the physical limit of your eyes) anyway. Reverting to nearest neighbor at high PPI would introduce new artifacts because the aliasing effects would create unpleasant and unnatural frequencies in the image. Most modern GPU drivers (nVidia in particular) will do fixed multiple scaling if that’s what you want. Nearest neighbor is not good though.
Aurornis 1y ago
Once you get into the high pixel densities you stop running everything at native resolution. You have enough pixel density that scaling the output doesn’t produce significant visible artifacts. With 8K small pixels you could pick a number of resolutions up to 4K or higher and you wouldn’t even notice that the final product was scaled on your monitor. People with Macs with retina displays have been doing this for years. It’s really nice once you realize how flexible it is.
- 4ggr0 1y ago
  i'm actually going to do the reverse move, was gaming on a 4K display, but going to downgrade to 3440x1440 to get more performance. but of course the gaming displays i find apparently aren't ideal for working, because text looks worse. add to that that the internet seems to be split if wide-monitors are the best thing ever or actually horrible. why is it all so complicated, man.
  - zamadatix 1y ago
    My only gripe is nearly all common "ultrawide" models should really be thought of as "ultrashort" in that they don't offer more width, just less height. E.g. a 21:9 ultrawide variant of 4k should really be 5040x2160. Instead they are nearly all 3840x1600. That may well be cost/price optimal for certain folks, I'm not saying it's bad for the product itself to exist, but nobody was looking at a 1600p monitor thinking "man, I wish they'd make a wider variant!" they started with 4k and decided it would be nice if it were permanently shortened.
    - 4ggr0 1y ago
      yeah, that really confused me as well. the whole 4K, 2K, 2.5K, ultrawide, ultrahigh, microwide, 8K shit just gets confusing, especially because it's neither accurate nor standardized.
    - tstrimple 1y ago
      I think they are calling those 5k2k monitors. I'm quite happy with my 45" LG 5k2k OLED monitor. Much more usable than the 32:9 monitors after seeing both in person.

as a gamer 8k makes me sweat because i can't imagine what kind of hardware you'd need to run a game :O probably great for text-based work, though!

by 4ggr0 1y ago

as a gamer 8k makes me sweat because i can't imagine what kind of hardware you'd need to run a game :O probably great for text-based work, though!

pornel 1y ago

You don't really need 8K for gaming, but upscaling and frame generation have made game rendering resolution and display resolution almost independent.

jsheard 1y ago
And if all else fails, 8K means you can fall back to 4K, 1440p or 1080p with perfect integer scaling.
- layer8 1y ago
  Except that the hardware doesn’t necessarily offer perfect integer scaling. Oftentimes, it only provides blurry interpolation that looks less sharp than a corresponding native-resolution display.
  - jsheard 1y ago
    The monitor may or may not offer perfect scaling, but at least on Windows the GPU drivers can do it on their side so the monitor receives a native resolution signal that's already pixel doubled correctly.
  - Aurornis 1y ago
    Most modern games already have built-in scaling options. You can set the game to run at your screen’s native resolution but have it do the rendering at a different scale factor. Good games can even render the HUD at native resolution and the graphics at a scaled resolution. Modern OSes also scale fine. It’s really not an issue.
    - layer8 1y ago
      Games are not what I had in mind. Last time I checked, most graphics drivers didn’t support true integer scaling (i.e. nearest-neighbor, no interpolation).
      - jsheard 1y ago
        > most graphics drivers didn’t support true integer scaling https://www.nvidia.com/content/Control-Panel-Help/vLatest/en-us/mergedProjects/nvdsp/CS_Display_Scaling.htm https://www.nvidia.com/content/Control-Panel-Help/vLatest/en... https://www.amd.com/en/resources/support-articles/faqs/DH3-034.html https://www.amd.com/en/resources/support-articles/faqs/DH3-0... https://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/support/articles/000057030/graphics.html https://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/support/articles/000... I don't know what the situation is on Mac and Linux, but all of the Windows drivers offer it.
      - Aurornis 1y ago
        With very high PPI displays the gamma corrected interpolation scaling is far better than nearest neighbor scaling. The idea is to make the pixels so small that your eyes aren’t resolving individual pixels anyway. Interpolation appears correct to your eyes because you’re viewing it through a low-pass filter (the physical limit of your eyes) anyway. Reverting to nearest neighbor at high PPI would introduce new artifacts because the aliasing effects would create unpleasant and unnatural frequencies in the image. Most modern GPU drivers (nVidia in particular) will do fixed multiple scaling if that’s what you want. Nearest neighbor is not good though.

Aurornis 1y ago

Once you get into the high pixel densities you stop running everything at native resolution. You have enough pixel density that scaling the output doesn’t produce significant visible artifacts. With 8K small pixels you could pick a number of resolutions up to 4K or higher and you wouldn’t even notice that the final product was scaled on your monitor. People with Macs with retina displays have been doing this for years. It’s really nice once you realize how flexible it is.

4ggr0 1y ago
i'm actually going to do the reverse move, was gaming on a 4K display, but going to downgrade to 3440x1440 to get more performance. but of course the gaming displays i find apparently aren't ideal for working, because text looks worse. add to that that the internet seems to be split if wide-monitors are the best thing ever or actually horrible. why is it all so complicated, man.
- zamadatix 1y ago
  My only gripe is nearly all common "ultrawide" models should really be thought of as "ultrashort" in that they don't offer more width, just less height. E.g. a 21:9 ultrawide variant of 4k should really be 5040x2160. Instead they are nearly all 3840x1600. That may well be cost/price optimal for certain folks, I'm not saying it's bad for the product itself to exist, but nobody was looking at a 1600p monitor thinking "man, I wish they'd make a wider variant!" they started with 4k and decided it would be nice if it were permanently shortened.
  - 4ggr0 1y ago
    yeah, that really confused me as well. the whole 4K, 2K, 2.5K, ultrawide, ultrahigh, microwide, 8K shit just gets confusing, especially because it's neither accurate nor standardized.
  - tstrimple 1y ago
    I think they are calling those 5k2k monitors. I'm quite happy with my 45" LG 5k2k OLED monitor. Much more usable than the 32:9 monitors after seeing both in person.