3 ms·

He was talking about the future, and he's correct - what's gonna happen with 4k?

recursive 13y ago
One of two things. 1) Network speeds and latency never improve, and it remains forever impossible to stream 4k video. In this scenario, we can still stream current "HD" video. 2) Network capacity improves, like it always has. 4k video is no problem.
- TillE 13y ago
  > The bit rate of the uncompressed 4K video stream can exceed 6 Gbit/s, which can be transmitted via a 10 Gbit/s network http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/login.jsp?tp=&arnumber=4445944&url=http%3A%2F%2Fieeexplore.ieee.org%2Fxpls%2Fabs_all.jsp%3Farnumber%3D4445944 http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/login.jsp?tp=&arnumber=444594... So we're already there, as long as you're set up for 10Gbit ethernet.
sliverstorm 13y ago
I'm not too concerned. To my reckoning, a 4k TV plus hardware that can render high-quality 4k games real-time is quite a ways away, and network hardware will continue to develop along the way.
- nwh 13y ago
  You can do both quite comfortably now. There's affordable (sub $2000 USD) 4K TVs, and consumer cards can push out 4L video if you gang them together. It's not really out of the range of possibility, I've been investigating making a setup capable of it in the very near future.
  - supergauntlet 13y ago
    You're looking at quite a lot of hardware investment, yes. I'd say around $1500 for graphics cards alone, if you want to run at high/ultra settings at 60 FPS. You could probably get away with a single 780 ti or a single 290x if you were fine with 30 frames per second or decreased quality settings.
    - nwh 13y ago
      I was going to aim for a single GPU just to avoid having to deal with having such a wide block of coolers. It's something I'll have to experiment with a bit I think, I haven't built a computer in years. Last time I did I was using AGP cards rather than three slot monsters drawing half a kilowatt. I'm quite happy spending money if it's something quality and will last a reasonable amount of time. I consciously avoid buying cheap things that I will dispose of in a year.

One of two things. 1) Network speeds and latency never improve, and it remains forever impossible to stream 4k video. In this scenario, we can still stream current "HD" video. 2) Network capacity improves, like it always has. 4k video is no problem.

TillE 13y ago
> The bit rate of the uncompressed 4K video stream can exceed 6 Gbit/s, which can be transmitted via a 10 Gbit/s network http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/login.jsp?tp=&arnumber=4445944&url=http%3A%2F%2Fieeexplore.ieee.org%2Fxpls%2Fabs_all.jsp%3Farnumber%3D4445944 http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/login.jsp?tp=&arnumber=444594... So we're already there, as long as you're set up for 10Gbit ethernet.

sliverstorm 13y ago

I'm not too concerned. To my reckoning, a 4k TV plus hardware that can render high-quality 4k games real-time is quite a ways away, and network hardware will continue to develop along the way.

nwh 13y ago
You can do both quite comfortably now. There's affordable (sub $2000 USD) 4K TVs, and consumer cards can push out 4L video if you gang them together. It's not really out of the range of possibility, I've been investigating making a setup capable of it in the very near future.
- supergauntlet 13y ago
  You're looking at quite a lot of hardware investment, yes. I'd say around $1500 for graphics cards alone, if you want to run at high/ultra settings at 60 FPS. You could probably get away with a single 780 ti or a single 290x if you were fine with 30 frames per second or decreased quality settings.
  - nwh 13y ago
    I was going to aim for a single GPU just to avoid having to deal with having such a wide block of coolers. It's something I'll have to experiment with a bit I think, I haven't built a computer in years. Last time I did I was using AGP cards rather than three slot monsters drawing half a kilowatt. I'm quite happy spending money if it's something quality and will last a reasonable amount of time. I consciously avoid buying cheap things that I will dispose of in a year.