High End Graphics Cards Tested At 4K Resolutions

Vigile writes "One of the drawbacks to high end graphics has been the lack of low cost and massively-available displays with a resolution higher than 1920x1080. Yes, 25x16/25x14 panels are coming down in price, but it might be the influx of 4K monitors that makes a splash. PC Perspective purchased a 4K TV for under $1500 recently and set to benchmarking high end graphics cards from AMD and NVIDIA at 3840x2160. For under $500, the Radeon HD 7970 provided the best experience, though the GTX Titan was the most powerful single GPU option. At the $1000 price point the GeForce GTX 690 appears to be the card to beat with AMD's continuing problems on CrossFire scaling. PC Perspective has also included YouTube and downloadable 4K video files (~100 mbps) as well as screenshots, in addition to a full suite of benchmarks."

Comments

Now where's the cheap monitors?

[Kjella]

I've done the distance/size check, I don't need an UHDTV from where I'm sitting. There's not content for it anyway. But I would like a 27-30" 3840x2160 monitor for my computer.

Re:Now where's the cheap monitors?

[Skapare]

3840 is not 4k. 4096 is 4k.

Re:Now where's the cheap monitors?

[PhrostyMcByte]

4K/8K will sell UHDTV. But the best benefit, a gem rarely mentioned: it features a hugely increased gamut and 10 or 12-bit (10-bit mandatory minimum) component depth. The image will look more life-like than any of the common TVs available today, and it won't be relegated to photographers and graph designers: it'll be standard.

Re:Now where's the cheap monitors?

[SOOPRcow]

4K Ultra high definition television 3840 × 2160 which is, as I'm sure you can figure out, double the resolution of current HD content. That said, I will agree that calling it "4K Ultra HD" is kind of misleading :) See, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/4K_resolution

Re:Now where's the cheap monitors?

[Anonymous Coward]

A 9.7" retina display costs 55$ off the shelf for horsiest. That's about 40$ BoM or lower. Quintuple\Sextuple that for a 23" 4K and add a thick margin and you end up in the 300-350$ range without taking into account how this production will scale to make it all cheaper.

As for your 27-30" 3840x2160 desire, it's actually quite easily doable now since it's really not that dense when you consider stuff like 5" devices having 1920x1080.

I would imagine a small OEM could make an order for these right from an existing Chinese line as long as the order are in the thousands. I don't even think over 20,000 will be necessary considering it's really just taking the same piece and *not* cutting it up as much. Maybe an Alienwere \ Nvidia co-venture to produce console killers with their own x86 console targeting these yet to be seen screens... Oh, we can dream...

Re: Now where's the cheap monitors?

[crdotson]

Thank you. Most people just don't seem to understand that monitors aren't done until you can't tell the difference between a monitor and a window! It's "1920x1080 should be enough for anybody" mentality. You'd think people would learn after a while.

Re:Now where's the cheap monitors?

[Anonymous Coward]

lol meant *hobbyists* not *horsiest* :D
This spell-check is freaking awesome :P

Re:Now where's the cheap monitors?

[gman003]

Yes - which is why I make a point to call it 2160p, not 4K.

Re:Now where's the cheap monitors?

[dfghjk]

"The image will look more life-like than any of the common TVs available today..."

Not because of the wide gamut it won't. Having the gamut on your output device doesn't mean you have it on your input device. Content won't exist that uses it so it WILL be "relegated to photographers and graph (sic) designers", standard or not. The value is suspect and the cost is mandatory extra bit depth leading to higher data rates.

The side effect of wide gamut displays displaying common content in non-color managed environments is that it looks worse, not better. This is television we are talking about, not Photoshop. Today's HD content won't look the least bit better on a wide gamut display, it could only look worse.

Re: Now where's the cheap monitors?

[DigiShaman]

If these monitors can reproduce the life-likeness of the printing process used by Peter Lik, then I'm sold!

Re:Now where's the cheap monitors?

[mjwx]

4K/8K will sell UHDTV. But the best benefit, a gem rarely mentioned: it features a hugely increased gamut and 10 or 12-bit (10-bit mandatory minimum) component depth. The image will look more life-like than any of the common TVs available today, and it won't be relegated to photographers and graph designers: it'll be standard.

In theory yes,

In practice people cant tell the difference between 6 bit and 10 bit colour. Besides this, most people wont be able or willing to configure or manage colour on their TV set properly. Most people cant be bothered to set their monitor at the proper resolution.

It's the same with DVD and Bluray, most people cant tell the difference. They only think they can because they know it's bluray. I can easily convince people an upscaled DVD is bluray simply by telling them it's bluray. They think I'm lying when I show them a plain DVD at the end of it.

A nice improvement in theory but much like 1080p or 3D, in practice it'll be nothing more than a gimmick to keep TV prices high.

However, all the resolution and gamut improvements in the world wont improve the crappy reality TV that gets served up on it.

Re:Now where's the cheap monitors?

[scubamage]

Eh. I could see using this for a PC, but honestly, I drive all of my media through a HTPC, and I'll be darned if I'm going to have to buy something that can fit a full height video card just to watch videos, plus the video card. My 51" 1080p plasma display at 10 feet looks crystal clear, with no discernable pixels. Maybe in 5-10 years once the life has been zapped out of this plasma, I'll think about it. But until it is commodity hardware, no thanks. By all means though, other folks feel free. I'm more interested in the graphics card updates that will have to be in place to drive the performance required for gaming on these things.

Re:Now where's the cheap monitors?

[JanneM]

It's different for different parts of the business of course, but the graphic designers I know personally (through a family member) don't care about monitor gamut or colour fidelity at all. Sounds odd, perhaps, but there's good reason for it.

Most graphic design is not for the web, but for physical objects. Anything you see around you that's printed or patterned - kitchen utensils, tools, and household objets; clothes and textile prints; books, calendars, pamphlets; not to mention the cardboard and plastic boxes it all came in - has been designed by a graphic designer. And it's all printed using different kind of processes, on different materials, with different kinds of inks and dyes.

A monitor, any monitor, simply can't show you what the finished design will look like, since it can't replicate the effect of the particular ink and material combination you're going to use. So they don't even try. Instead they do the design on the computer, but choose the precise colour and material combination by Pantone patches. We've got shelves of sample binders at home, with all kinds of colour and material combinations for reference. As an added bonus you can take samples into different light conditions and see what they look like there.

The finished design is usually sent off as a set of monochrome layers, with an accompanying specification on what Pantone colour each layer should use. They do make a colour version of it too, but that's just to give the client a rough idea of what the design will look like.

Re:Now where's the cheap monitors?

[will.perdikakis]

In practice people cant tell the difference between 6 bit and 10 bit colour. .

That is unfair.

Rec 2020 not only increases the resolution of the color space, it also increases the area covered in the CIE 1931. In other words, it is not just the same color gamut with less quantization, it is a much larger color space entirely.

Comparison:
Rec 2020 UHDTV: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b6/CIExy1931_Rec_2020.svg

Rec 709: HDTV: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/ef/CIExy1931_Rec_709.svg

Re:Now where's the cheap monitors?

[mjwx]

In practice people cant tell the difference between 6 bit and 10 bit colour. .

That is unfair.

It's not unfair all.

Most people wont be able to tell. The graphs you linked to tell you the measurable difference, but that's using a device to measure it, we're talking about people here. People are terrible at measuring things.

In a blind test. Most people wont be able to tell the difference.

Re: Now where's the cheap monitors?

[Anonymous Coward]

This resolution drought we've been in for a decade really pisses me off. I was running 2048x1280 15 years ago on a Sony Trinitron monitor with 0.22" dot pitch. Why the fuck are all monitors today still shittier than we had over 15 years ago?

Re:Now where's the cheap monitors?

[jelizondo]

In a blind test. Most people wont be able to tell the difference.

You insensitive clod! They are blind! Of course they can't tell the difference!

Jees!

(ducks)

Re:Now where's the cheap monitors?

[PhrostyMcByte]

Content won't exist that uses it so it WILL be "relegated to photographers and graph (sic) designers", standard or not.

Except every 4K/8K UHDTV broadcast will be using Rec. 2020, in this wide gamut, and cameras have been able to capture images outside of the sRGB gamut for some time. The content will exist.

The side effect of wide gamut displays displaying common content in non-color managed environments is that it looks worse, not better.

Right. This is because the de-facto standard 8-bit output is sRGB. These monitors are doing something outside of this standard and require proper color management to make things look correct.

The difference here is that we've got a fairly clean slate with 10-/12-bit UHDTV and Rec. 2020. There's no reason for any device to assume sending sRGB in this case will give the correct results. The TVs/monitors will use it. The content will use it. HEVC has a Main 10 profile added specifically for use with UHDTV.

Today's HD content won't look the least bit better on a wide gamut display, it could only look worse.

With 10-bit processing you should be able to do color management without any perceptible loss in quality.

Re:Now where's the cheap monitors?

[Luckyo]

That's not really true. The current limit on the display gamut is typically not the broadcasting spec but the display technology. Essentially all LCDs available on the market have significantly worse gamut then CRTs, and CRTs don't have enough to cover the current HDTV spec.

The breakthrough that is currently waiting to happen is OLED. It's the only technology in addition to plasma that has a decent chance of actually making use of gamut available from the signal spec. Considering the difficulties in making large OLED panels even in HDTV resolution, I would imagine that reasonably afforable OLED 4Ks are not coming any time soon.

Until then you're basically stuck with twisted nematic and in plane switching LCDs which are both utterly terrible in terms of ability to display a wide array of colors.

Re:Now where's the cheap monitors?

[Luckyo]

And technology able to display this signal... is not really coming at all. We've taken a huge leap backwards in terms of color gamut displayed by TVs when we made the switch to LCDs, and the only decently promising tech that is coming that has decent enough gamut to compete with CRTs is OLED... which doesn't seem to scale all that well to big screens and has huge problems with longetivity (dimming).

What's the point of having the awesome signal being able to carry a much large color space, when you have no monitor that can display it?

Re:Now where's the cheap monitors?

[PhrostyMcByte]

In practice people cant tell the difference between 6 bit and 10 bit colour.

Some particularly problematic scenes involving mostly a single color should still benefit, but I tend to agree especially for movie watching. The real purpose of moving to 10-bit components is to accommodate the ~3x larger gamut without introducing banding compared to 8-bit.

Re:Now where's the cheap monitors?

[will.perdikakis]

To clarify something:

CIE 1931 is considered the full space of color that is discernible by the human eye. Both Rec. 701 and Rec. 2020 are subsets of the CIE 1931.

Re:Now where's the cheap monitors?

[will.perdikakis]

Just assume that by the time this is mainstream the I/O will be intelligent enough to set the color space and resolution automatically based in source material and display. But, the problem will still remain with calibration... sigh.

You might be selling the masses short by assuming they will not notice. Remember, you are seeing an sRGB version of theCIE 1931 color space, the greens that are omitted (that you monitor is probably not capable of displaying anyway) are colors that many people see everyday for 3 seasons a year.

TBH, I am not worried about what other people do. I calibrate every display that I use (sans my mobile devices) for both high and low light situations and fine tune every setting. Most people do not do this now, but the media and the technology is here.

Re:Now where's the cheap monitors?

[DragonTHC]

It's not double, it's quadruple, which is why it's called 4k.

1920+1920=3840
1080+1080=2160
It's set in a grid like this:

1080p1080p
1080p1080p

That's 4k. Simple geometry error on your part. Understandable.

Re: Now where's the cheap monitors?

[DragonTHC]

Blame marketing of "HD"

There's been no market demand for higher resolutions.

Re:Now where's the cheap monitors?

[UnknownSoldier]

Oooh, that is awesome that 10-bit display is the minimum. I've hated banding in 24-bit images for ages.

Now if we could get 120 Hz standardized we'd be all set. Checking the link, oooh, I see it is. Excellent!

I really don't think there is enough demand though for 4K resolutions? Chicken-Egg problem of not enough content - not enough TVs to demand content.

At least the spec is shaping up VERY nicely.

Re: Now where's the cheap monitors?

[mindwhip]

Most people just don't seem to understand that monitors aren't done until you can't tell the difference between a monitor and a window!

I just can't wait until I can open my monitor and get some fresh air into my flat...

Re:Now where's the cheap monitors?

[flargleblarg]

It's not double, it's quadruple, which is why it's called 4k.

Quadruple is ***NOT*** why it's called 4k.

"4k" is short for 4000, e.g, pixels. The "4" in 4000 has absolutely nothing to do with the quadrupling. It's merely a coincidence.

Re:Now where's the cheap monitors?

[AmiMoJo]

3840 is 4k, and 1920 is 2k. 8k is only 7680.

I guess it sounds better than 3.8k and allows perfect pixel doubling for high quality scaling.

Re:Now where's the cheap monitors?

[squizzar]

Actually in broadcast 2k is 2048 - there's a good number of 2048x1080 standards. 1920x1080 (or 1050 or 1035) are generally referred to as HD.

Re:Now where's the cheap monitors?

[gigaherz]

There is a value on being there early, though. People who pay a lot for a "4k" display will also want to pay a lot for "4k" content to try their new toy. Of course it won't be just ANY content, it has to be the type of content that interests people with the interest AND money to get "4k" hardware.

Re: Now where's the cheap monitors?

[tehcyder]

Because most people can't tell and/or don't care. There's not much money in catering to the resolution queens.

You do know that if you have gold-plated HDMI cables (at only $35K each) then your High Definition Television satisfaction quotient rises by almost 3 points?

Re:Now where's the cheap monitors?

[AmiMoJo]

TVs will include colour correction as part of the up-scaling process for HD and SD video.

4k is a stop-gap on the way to 8k. NHK has said they are not going to bother with it and go directly to 8k instead, which is a huge step up and needs a lot of special equipment to be developed. For example you can't visually check focus on a studio monitor at 8k, you need auto-focus to stand a chance.

That's for video of course, for computers I'd love a 4k monitor.

Re:Now where's the cheap monitors?

[TheSkepticalOptimist]

of in this case, "almost 4000".

Re: Now where's the cheap monitors?

[Nadaka]

Thats mostly because we got really good multi-monitor support a few years ago. we can already get 4, 6 or even 9 times the resolution of 1080p. And if you are willing to blow enough money or cut apart an LCD you can do it with almost no bezel.

Re: Now where's the cheap monitors?

[Nadaka]

Smellovision.

Re: Now where's the cheap monitors?

[tlhIngan]

This resolution drought we've been in for a decade really pisses me off. I was running 2048x1280 15 years ago on a Sony Trinitron monitor with 0.22" dot pitch. Why the fuck are all monitors today still shittier than we had over 15 years ago?

You can find better monitors, and always could. You just had to pay what you were paying 15 years ago prices to get them.

Monitors, like laptops, have dropped in price, but you still have to pay a pretty penny for good ones. You pay less now than you did before, but you ain't getting it for rock-bottom prices.

1080p monitors are helped by two things - 1) commodity (1080p is cheap - video processors handling 1080p are common to drive commodity TVs and now, monitors), 2) compatibility (to drive these HDTVs, they used component, RGB (aka VGA), and DVI/HDMI. The latter two are what PCs could drive easily, thus making video processor circuits compatible).

If you wanted a good monitor, you always paid, even if you wanted a 19x12 one because they don't have the advantage of commoditization.

But, just like people paid easily $3000+ for a good monitor 10-20 years ago and $300 for a crappy one, you can still get 1080p ones for sub-$100, and nice high res ones for $1000.

Likewise, the same happened with laptops - yes you can find them for $300. But if you want something half-decent, you're still looking at $1000+. Cheaper than the $5-10K you paid even just a decade earlier, but no, the high end high quality stuff does NOT participate in the race to the bottom.

Just because it's cheap doesn't mean it's good. (And depending on the compromises, that $300 laptop can make more profit than the $500 one). And just like how people concentrated on single numbers, well, that's what they got - inches, GHz, gigabytes (RAM), gigabytes (HDD), megapixels, etc. Manufacturers learned they can cut corners elsewhere - 1366x768, 1080p, onboard graphics, etc.

Hell, everyone loves to bash Apple for overpricing their computers and monitors ($1000 for a 27"?! You can get it for $200!), you do have to realize they actually do add value (that 27" isn't a 1080p monitor...). Or how the low end 13" laptop has 1366x768 and not the 15" or 17" (which even had 19x12, not 1080p when they were available).

Re:Now where's the cheap monitors?

[Nadaka]

Some of the hobbyists I know are among the horsiest people I have seen. So the shoe fits.

Re:Now where's the cheap monitors?

[Nadaka]

You can get a pcie angle/ribbon adapter and mount your video card parallel to your motherboard. You will of course need to hack your own case, but that is child's play.

Re:Now where's the cheap monitors?

[UnknownSoldier]

Yes, I know it is 30-bits total. Hence the comment about 24-bit vs 30-bit, since 8-bit / channel is inadequate.

Re:Now where's the cheap monitors?

[Ed Avis]

Well, yeah, surely 4000x4000 is 4k (like IMAX), and 3840x2160 is only about 2k measured conservatively.

Re: Now where's the cheap monitors?

[Ziggitz]

And what did you watch on that Trinitron? Exactly. Fuck all that that resolution.

What are you really going to do with a 4K television and why is anyone going to make content at that resolution for you? No one will make content at that resolution for consumers because noone has the bandwidth to stream that kind of content. Upscaled content generally looks awful and graphics cards are always being pushed to the limit in terms of what we can render at acceptable framerates with given resolutions. Hell current gen consoles are still stuck at 30 fps at 1080p and plenty of games are pushing the hardware to the absolute limit. Even if we have 60 100 times the graphical processing power that we did ten years ago, it doesn't mean we should be using a resolution 60-100 times bigger, every improvement takes its toll(framerates, resolution, antialiasing lighting, texture quality, filtering,realworld physics offloaded to the graphics card.)

Expect your 4K monitor in a good five years or more when graphics cards are almost 20 times more powerful. Expect your 4K TV when 100Mb/s down stream fiber bundles are common place. And then barely expect it to change for a good decade after that.

Re:Now where's the cheap monitors?

[Shirley Marquez]

Mathematically it's not 4K, but it is a resolution that the industry is calling "4K" for marketing reasons. (Anything that is at least 2x 1080p in each direction qualifies.) It's annoying to see a mathematically incorrect term be used, but at least it's a convenient shorthand for the next generation of display products.

Theatrical 4K projectors are mostly 4096x2160, at least for now. Home equipment will converge on 3840x2160 because it's easier to upscale 1080p content to that resolution, and low-end theatrical projectors for small theaters might end up using the same resolution because of the possibility of using components designed for consumer devices.

Re:Now where's the cheap monitors?

[Shirley Marquez]

That Wikipedia article is a great summary of the various 4K systems. If I hadn't already commented on this subject I'd give you a mod point.

Re:Now where's the cheap monitors?

[Shirley Marquez]

Why not a 50" monitor instead? (http://gizmodo.com/5994765/seiki-50+inch-4k-tv-eyes+on-how-the-hell-is-a-tv-this-beautiful-so-cheap) It's being marketed as a TV, but you can connect to any video card that has an HDMI output and enough GPU power to light up all those pixels. $1500 counts as cheap for a technology at this stage of development; the $500 30" model is next year's product.

Re:Now where's the cheap monitors?

[matfud]

Most monitors will display somewhere between 6 and 8 bits. Not great colour.
 

4k for games?

[aleator]

does it matter that much if you play on a 4k or 2k screen? the games graphics are anyway not distinguishing between single pixels and the textures are not optimised for 4k. if you would play 2k side by side to 4k (now keeping aside the GPU power), would you realise the difference? 4k makes significant difference for photography and video!

Re:4k for games?

[aleator]

a DVD has smaller frames inside compared to a blueray - whereas the texture and 3d structures a game is shipped with is the same... no game will show you a different 3d object with more detail simply because you are on higher resolution

Re:4k for games?

[Anonymous Coward]

" the textures are not optimised for 4k"

While I generally agree with you that 4K is overkill, I don't agree for the reasons you stated.

The textures don't have to be available in the full resolution in order to take advantage of that resolution (in theory). That is because texels are not 1:1 with scree pixels. They can be many:1, because the object on which they are mapped can be in the distance. A 1024 pixel wide texture might be mapped to (say) 20 pixels of screen space.

That being said, 4K does seem fairly absurd for most gaming purposes.

Re:4k for games?

[hairyfeet]

Until the monitor manufacturers can crank those puppies out for the same price they can crank 1080p screens out for its largely gonna be moot, it'll be one of those niches like laserdisc back in the day that only a few of the videophiles cared about.

Until then the sweet spot seems to be 32-42 inch 1080p screens, at least that is what I'm seeing in the shop from both the gamers and those setting up home theaters, with the gamers preferring 32s and the home theaters going 40 to 42. Makes me feel like a dinosaur going home to do everything on a 20 inch 16x9 but I'm less than a foot from the screen so I figure right now a 32 inch would be overkill and I'd rather spend that money on a caching SSD and a new GPU.

Re:4k for games?

[wierd_w]

Unless the game supports community content, like say, skyrim.

Then you drop in a high poly, high res pack, and play at 4k native all day long.

Re:4k for games?

[Keith Mickunas]

A 4K 50" display 4' or 5' away would give you a pretty damn immersive experience. Wouldn't that be nice?

I'm sitting with my eyes about 3' from my 27" 2560x1440 display with about 108ppi. I can make out some pixels as it is in the text. I'm not wearing my glasses, so that helps some. If this was a 4K 27" display, that would be 163ppi. That's a 50% increase right there.

Wasn't that long ago that running 1280x1024 on a 17" LCD was pretty damn nice, and that was 94ppi. So for a decade we've barely improved when it comes to density. Hell, a 24" 16:10 display that so many people love so much has the same density as a 17" LCD.

Of course my very first PC games ran in CGA, and I thought VGA was a huge step up. But at no time have I ever thought to myself "Nope, more wouldn't be better". Not when it comes to graphics, RAM, harddrive size, etc. Give me more and I'll use it.

Re:4k for games?

[epyT-R]

uh wait what? no.. Bitmapped data (like an mpeg stream) will not show you more detail if simply scaled up. The detail has to be there in the first place. Some tvs and players can 'add' sharper edges and gradients, as well as add intermediate frames (temporal/motion smoothing) with filters, which are running at the higher resolution, but this is fake data added after the fact. Some people like this and some don't.

However, rendering native 3D graphics at higher resolutions reduces edge aliasing and tightens perspective correction filtering (anisotropy) on surfaces not parallel and/or very distant to the view frustum. Yes, lower resolution textures will cause the latter benefit to roll off faster as the display resolution increases, but the benefits are still there.

Re:4k for games?

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

does it matter that much if you play on a 4k or 2k screen? the games graphics are anyway not distinguishing between single pixels and the textures are not optimised for 4k. if you would play 2k side by side to 4k (now keeping aside the GPU power), would you realise the difference? 4k makes significant difference for photography and video!

Support varies by engine; but one (reasonably) common thing that people do with games that weren't originally designed with high-resolution widescreens in mind is mess with the field of view. Some games react badly, with all sorts of distortion effects; but it can also create a nice 'peripheral vision' sense that the game originally lacked.

This would also be engine-dependent, in terms of how much it can be tweaked; but it isn't uncommon for (even comparatively low resolution) games to have decent texture assets so that the world doesn't turn to lego when you walk up and talk to somebody/bump into a tree; but it swaps them out for lower-poly and lower resolution models when you are further away in order to save power, and eventually ceases drawing them altogether. If the engine allows it, and you've got the power, just bumping all the sliders to "Fuck yeah, I've got more shader units than some minor deities, MAXIMUM DETAIL AND DRAW DISTANCE!" will be an improvement.

For games that have lots of floating HUD elements, buttons, sidebars, etc(RTS, some of the more cluttered RPGs) it's always handy to have more room around the edges while still having a high resolution view of the action.

Re:4k for games?

[PopeRatzo]

Unless the game supports community content, like say, skyrim.

Skyrim is a pretty rare example. Most games are not modded to the moon the way Skyrim has been.

Most games will look the same on 2k or 4k.

Re:4k for games?

[hairyfeet]

But how many people can actually see that when all the shit be blowing up all over the screen? I used to always have to go for the biggest GPU I could possibly afford but then one day it was pointed out to me "All you are doing is letting those around you enjoy a little more eye candy, you are too busy trying not to die to notice" and he was right,when I am focusing on actually playing a game as long as it stays above 30FPS and doesn't have obvious graphics pop in I couldn't pay attention to bling, I was too busy playing.

As far as 4K goes for gaming i don't see it becoming mainstream until you can get sub $200 4K screens like you can the 24s and sometimes 32 inch 1080Ps now, because at least with my gamer customers they have waaay too many other parts they want to get so that changing screens? not really high on their list. Can't say as I blame 'em, I want to replace my aging HD4850 with an HD7770,add a caching SSD to speed game load times,heck even getting a nicer headset has a higher priority than replacing my 20 inch 16x9 screen does, I will probably end up keeping it until most games won't play at less than 1080p or the screen dies, one of the two.

So I have a feeling that for the foreseeable future 4k is gonna be strictly a videophile hobby which means the content just won't be there, kinda like how the OEMs pushed like hell for 3D TV and that has bombed pretty massively, nobody cares because the content isn't there and the content isn't there because nobody cares, a classic chicken and the egg kinda deal.

Re:4k for games?

[bmxeroh]

I'm with you on price, until these things come way down, you will see these sets pretty much never. That being said, any cable we pull through the wall supports 4k, just in case someone wants to upgrade some day. I find it curious that you mention 40-42 inch sets, generally everything we put on the wall is 50" or larger with folks moving to projection if they want to go really, really big (100" + big). Usually the 40 inch sets are in the bedroom.

<shameless_plug> The site in my sig has some photos of some of the large sets we've mounted. They look fantastic. And we're awesome. Seriously. Like we completely blow every other Central Ohio installer out of the water on price and customer service. It's what we do. </shameless_plug>

Re:4k for games?

[fredgiblet]

Agreed. And the reason this is being pushed now is probably BECAUSE 3D is bombing. The content companies need to push something new to get people to upgrade their TVs, 3D didn't work so now they're going for 4K. Whatever, when I bought my TV I chose the 720 model because it was going to be used for Xbox and DVDs, I doubt I'll be getting a 4K for a decade or so.

Re:4k for games?

[Nyder]

does it matter that much if you play on a 4k or 2k screen? the games graphics are anyway not distinguishing between single pixels and the textures are not optimised for 4k. if you would play 2k side by side to 4k (now keeping aside the GPU power), would you realise the difference? 4k makes significant difference for photography and video!

What does that matter when the game devs program for the consoles and port it to the PC? Sure, maybe on the PC you can go a bit higher resolution, but crappy textures still look like crappy textures.

Re:4k for games?

[radarskiy]

"Wasn't that long ago that running 1280x1024 on a 17" LCD was pretty damn nice,"

How long is "not long ago"? 10 years ago I had 1600x1200 on a 14" LCD on my ThinkPad for work.
(I now have 15" 1920 x 1080. I'm note sure if that is an improvement or a degradation.)

Re:4k for games?

[AmiMoJo]

So for a decade we've barely improved when it comes to density.

Yes, it was a decade long race to the bottom for price and performance. People seemed to just want large and cheap monitors that fit their widescreen DVDs.

NEC and Eizo kept on producing quality displays but, much as I hate to admit it, I think it wasn't until Apple came out with high resolution displays that people started to care again. They only got half way there though. The failure of 3D to really generate a lot of sales is what started the push to 4k.

Re:4k for games?

[hairyfeet]

The reason I see more 40s is 1.- We have a LOT of apt dwellers and in an apt there just isn't as big a living room so the monsters don't fit. I've seen one TV over 42 and that is a sports nut that wanted the biggest mother he could fit so all his buds could pile in for the game, and 2.- We have a LOT of families so you get 2 sets, one for the parents and a smaller one for the kids, that tends to cut into the finances.

But yeah until the price drops a shitload i just don't see it happening, it'll be like 3D TVs which i have yet to see outside the showroom either, given the choice most opt for the bigger set over 3D. Hell even I am still using a 20 inch monitor, got too many other upgrades I want to do to care about a bigger screen, especially since i sit less than a foot away from the thing. I want a new GPU, add a caching SSD, probably swap out my DDR 2 board for a DDR 3 one so I can max out the mem my OS holds (that is if I can find one with the same chipset, Win 7 really don't like swapping chipsets without a reinstall and I got too much stuff to want to go through THAT mess) so a new screen? pretty far down on that list.

But I see 4K being another 3D, something you see in the showrooms that just doesn't translate to homes. It was the same thing back in the day with laserdisc, every showroom had to have a laserdisc to show off and nobody bought the things,they just never ended up at a price point folks would pay...and God I'm getting old when I can remember long obsolete tech like that.

Re:4k for games?

[hairyfeet]

Well they can push all they want, working in a little shop that does a lot of home theater installs i see what folks are buying and its a mix of 720p and 1080p at anywhere from 32in to 50in (with 42in being the sweet spot, but we have a lot of apt dwellers so that makes sense) and no 3D TVs in sight, folks would rather get a larger screen than pay for the 3D capable screen AND pay for extra glasses for something that the content just isn't there. I hear they make a few 3D Blu Ray but since most folks here are still on DVD (Have no desire to re-buy their movie collections, can't say as I blame 'em) the content just isn't there.

What amazes me (maybe because I'm a greybeard) is that folks don't know this is the second or third time they have pushed 3D TV and it never goes anywhere, I remember checking out 3D TV demos in the 80s and for awhile in the late 90s Nvidia pushed 3D TV using their cards and special glasses that IIRC plugged into the card or the PC somehow, both cases nobody cared so the content wasn't there so even less than nobody cared.

With 4K its gonna be even worse than 3D conversion as the vast majority of the entire history of cinema isn't in 4K and never was so they'd have to use some upscaling which IMHO never looks that hot, and I don't see enough filmmakers using 4K until the cams come down from butt puckeringly expensive, I hear one of the 4K RED cam setups is north of a mil for everything you need to support the thing while a regular cam is $100k, pretty big diff there, so I just don't see it happening. This is BD all over again where the majority just does not care and I don't see them coming up with a way to make them care honestly, I really don't.

Re:4k for games?

[bmxeroh]

That makes sense with folks in apartments. I think 4k may have some modicum of a chance if the price drops to sane levels. Right now, even the people that always have to have the newest shiny toy can't afford them. I see a lot of 3d sets/smart tvs, but it's more because it's really difficult to find just a simple TV anymore, than because anyone really wants it. Last TV I bought for myself I was all over the place to find just a TV. I don't think it's justified to pay an extra $300-500 just to do all the things my PS3 can do, and for 3D that doesn't even work for me because of my eyes.

Re:4k for games?

[VortexCortex]

Of course my very first PC games ran in CGA, and I thought VGA was a huge step up. But at no time have I ever thought to myself "Nope, more wouldn't be better". Not when it comes to graphics, RAM, harddrive size, etc. Give me more and I'll use it.

As a game programmer I have to say, pushing pixels is damn expensive. I make my 3D data visualization software and games resolution independent (because, why not?) but some AAA game devs don't (not in the budget). That means when you get a higher resolution monitor and throw more pixels on the screen your UI text can shrink. Oh, just scale them up? Yep, then what's the point more pixels if you're just going to upscale the textures?

I've done some experimenting with fractal & procedural generation to make near infinitely detailed textures and geometry, but the LOD system can get in the way of the game play, and the starved AI budget (only 1% to 2% of RAM / CPU -- which is why your games have dumb bots: Every drop of power goes to pushing more pixels and ragdoll limbs). Look at something up close, then spin around and watch the world's textures go from blurry to detailed again since you ran out of RAM and had a cache miss.

It's getting better, but pixel fill rate really does eat up the GPU time for little to no significant gameplay or graphical detail increase at this point; In fact it prevents better gameplay in many respects: Good AI takes more RAM... It's sinful to mention Game AI in the same breath as Neural Nets, but the stupid thing is that they are embarrassingly parallel and thus run BEAUTIFULLY on the GPU hardware -- if we could just budget some of it for AI... Nope, gotta please the pixel pixies. If you're sitting more than a few feet away or the screen is animating then it's effectively blurring the pixels, depending on the pixel response times. A game where you slowly crawl along the walls and stare at stuff like the OCD "godspoken" girl in that Ender's Game book (Children of the Mind?), you would really notice the detail on them textures, boy let me tell ya! However, for a high percentage of the games out there where things move on the screen, 4K or 8X is pretty much pointless -- You can't see that well either, i.e, your retinas have response times too...

Many games do per pixel lighting on all those triangles -- Even the triangles getting obscured by the next triangle drawn in front of it, because calculating partial obscurity, subdividing surfaces and sorting every triangle is slow... So, you don't have to just worry about the pixels on your screen that need to get drawn, but all the ones we drew first that frame that got covered up by stuff in front... So, better make sure you have a hefty GPU even for playing crappy older games, because fill rate's a bitch. 4096 x 2160 = 8,847,360 pixels. 1920 x 1080 = 2,073,600. See how area scales? Twice the apparent resolution is Four times the number of pixels we need to push... When you factor in over-draw from overlapping triangles it's even worse.

There is such a pixels per inch that is "good enough", and it's already been reached. Bigger screens are still better, but the human vision system can contain only so much field of view at once. Instead, I use AR glasses in some of my work (clipping point-cloud data over a scale model in real time is faster than importing an autocad file), and some VR glasses work with smart phones. I think that's where we should be trying to focus more pixels -- put the screens in our eyes and the whole world is covered, with screens you have to cover the entire room, that scales horribly. If they can get the clumsy and awkward form factor of something like the Oculus Rift down into the comfy Vuzix frames, then that would be amazing -- Hasn't happened yet though.

In any event, I doubt you'll notice the improved fidelity when you're dod

Re:4k for games?

[Nadaka]

There will be games with algorithmically detailed models and textures of arbitrary resolution. You could have a display accurate to the Planck length.

Re:4k for games?

[UnknownSoldier]

> But how many people can actually see that when all the shit be blowing up all over the screen?

After 1080+ I agree most can't. Resolution is NOT the barrier today.

Lighting is. As in Real-Time Radiosity. Crysis/Unreal is doing real-time 3-pass bounces. It is "good enough" (for the next few years)

Almost every game has crappy lighting -- i.e. quantity (performance) is favored over quality (accurate)

> when I am focusing on actually playing a game as long as it stays above 30FPS

There are those who can tell _instantly_ when the framerate drops from 60 Hz down to 30 Hz and it looks stutterly as hell. Once you get used to 120+ Hz monitors with Lightboost it is hard to go back to crappy 30 Hz.

Games should be targeting 120+ Hz, and giving the player options to GUARANTEE 120 Hz framerates unlike some console games which run at a crappy 30 Hz.

Re:4k for games?

[hairyfeet]

Mind some advice? Next time check out TCL TVs on Amazon. I had a customer that just raved about his TCL (I don't sell the sets, I do the set-ups and sell HTPCs and media tanks to go with 'em) and checking his out...nice picture, damned nice. I ended up picking up one for my mom, had it on my doorstep in 2 days and yeah...great picture, clear sound, its a nice set and pretty damned reasonable on the price.

But where I'm at I pretty much get all walks of life so its pretty easy to gauge the pulse of what the buying public cares about and 3D TV? Really do NOT care a bit. Even the couple I saw that ended up with one (because they couldn't find a set in the size they wanted except a 3D unit) never used the 3D, its just a wasted feature as far as they are concerned.

I do have to wonder if 4K is gonna end up making folks sick like the 3D does, I had a couple of friends see the Hobbit in 48 frames and they said it made them queasy, and that is what I've found when it comes to 3D that there is always one or more family members that 3D makes them queasy so that is the end of that.

Re:4k for games?

[bmxeroh]

We'll definitely check them out. We're starting to move towards offering the electronics as well, mostly for the sake of convenience cause I can tell you we don't make crap on them. Not that it's really a secret that the margin on TV's is super low. We look at them more or less as a loss leader.

That's usually the story we hear about the 3d enabled sets. The stores push them so hard, to the point that out of 50 sets on the floor, only a handful ARE NOT 3D. I keep praying that they will just go away.

I don't think the 4k itself will bother people, since it's just an increase in resolution, but to your point about seeing the Hobbit in 48FPS, it will be all the weird, gimmicky visual effects that bother folks. And you can bet that since the MFG's are so reluctant to let go of 3D, they'll find more stupid effects to make the experience that much more unpleasant.

Re:4k for games?

[hairyfeet]

Well the margins are better on installs and HTPC setups that is for sure, if you don't mind another bit of advice? Really easy way to sell folks on 'em is to have a couple set up to let them play with, I try to keep an "entry" level and a "mainstream" level while telling them the sky is the limit on how bad ass they want it. For the entry I have something like this that is just great for your web surfing, video, and casual gaming (although frankly if you buy the parts separate you can get 'em even cheaper, amazon sells the board for $70 and the HTPC cases are pretty cheap) and for the midrange something like this triple or one of their mainstream APUs although I tend to lean towards the Athlon triples as not only can you pair them with a cheap ACC board like an entry Asrock and have a nearly 70% unlock rate (at least that is what I've been seeing, which makes sense as their quad cores have been out for awhile and the tech mature) but you can pick up a $30 refurb HD4770 or HD4830/4850 and have the thing playing Just Cause II and Batman AA demos which just cause folks to drool. Again its cheaper to get the parts separate but seeing the killer 3D game demos playing? Makes it an easy sell, just slap in steam in BPM with some cool demos and they WILL be drooling.

Now as for 48 FPS? I saw a review of the Hobbit by Diamanda Hagan of all people (normally reviews all the mondo bizarre stuff, but her wife is a huge fan of the books so she jumped in) that made a lot of sense. what she said was "The thing people need to remember is that we have been at 24 FPS for nearly a century now, even a small time director like me can tell you that there are schools that teach you film making but its all based on 24 FPS and the steadycam guys alone have spent YEARS, literally years, learning how to pace every single movement they make around 24FPS. Not only that but the lighting people have been trained on proper lighting for 24 FPS, all the makeup..well look at how fake early ST:TNG or DS9 looks on Blue Ray and it wasn't like they went cheap on their effects, it is simply the fact that TV resolution covered up a lot that BD brings into sharp and ugly focus. What people need to understand is this is NOT gonna be an overnight change, its literally gonna take years to learn how to make films properly at 48 FPS because you are pretty much having to throw out a century of teaching and experience and start over, this is gonna be a huge fundamental shift in the way things are done and that is just gonna take a LOT of time"

And if you think about it that makes perfect sense, as all of your film team is gonna have all this exp with the 24 FPS/1080P way of doing things and then suddenly BAM! All your effects look shitty, your pacing seems "off" your set design and costumes are gonna look like a HS play thanks to all the little details that wouldn't have been noticeable before is right there for all to see, so I wouldn't be surprised if some of the first 4K movies end up making people a little sick as the filmmakers have to basically relearn their craft.

Finally as far as 3D goes? I'm already starting to see backlash from the bloggers and critics, even the ones that were originally fine with 3D, so i have a feeling just like in the 50s, 70s, and 90s its about to die out again. i give it another year, maybe 2, and then i have a feeling it'll just peter out like it did before. I recently saw a piece with a studio experimenting with force feedback in the seats so that you could for instance "feel" a shotgun blast and unlike 3D anybody can use this without getting a blinding headache so I wouldn't be surprised to see the studios embrace that or some other gimmick. After all in the end all they want is something that will put butts in seats while letting them charge more and get away with it and 3D will always

Re:4k for games?

[grumbel]

> does it matter that much if you play on a 4k or 2k screen?

Depends on your viewing distance and the size of the monitor. A current monitor only has 100dpi and for normal viewing distances you can resolve something around 200dpi, maybe 300dpi when you sit closer. A lot of the times it will probably be preferable to get better frame rates then resolution improvements. But monitors get bigger and computers get fasters and once you can run your games in 4k at 60fps, why not? In the end it's simply a trade-off, look at consoles, they can do HD in theory, but most games don't even do 720p, instead they render lower resolutions and scale them up, as the smoother gameplay is more important then the resolution.

Also VR is coming and the field of view that a VR headset gives you is far larger then what a monitor provides, meaning you do need all the resolution you can get.

No

[bhcompy]

One of the drawbacks to high end graphics has been the lack of low cost and massively-available displays with a resolution higher than 1920x1080.

Really? You've never heard of the Dell U2410? Fuck 16:9

Re:No

[Keith Mickunas]

1920x1200 have been around long before the Dell U2410, so it's silly they ignored this. But would you really reject a 2560x1440 display because it's 16:9? How about a 4k display? That's just silly.

People need to get over this 16:9 vs. 16:10 garbage. What matters is the number of pixels. Once you get past 1200 lines or thereabouts, it's all gravy. I'm happily using two 16:9 displays, a pair of Dell U2711, and I'm well pleased with that. The extra cost to get an additional 160 lines from a 16:10 30" screen just isn't worth it.

Re:No

[Keith Mickunas]

Why? Why does 16:10 make a difference at that resolution? I mentioned the 2560x1600 displays, but you know what, they cost hundreds more and they have lower pixel density. The premium for 160 pixels is 30% or more, hell with Dell on Amazon right now it's 50% more.

What exactly are people doing that requires 16:10? I've used 'em, I like 'em, but I'll take 2560x1440 over 1920x1200 any day of the week. Likewise I'll take 3840x2160 over 2560x1600.

If the premium for 16:10 was in the neighborhood of 10-15% for the same pixel density, then yes, it's worthwhile. Otherwise, what's the big deal?

Re:No

[fredgiblet]

Would I reject it? No. But I'd look to trade it for a 16:10 monitor ASAP. Some games (particularly strategy games) are better with taller screens.

Re:No

[Keith Mickunas]

I heard at one time that 16:10 came out of the video editing industry. Basically they were working on 16:9 video, so they had displays with extra space at the bottom for controls. These displays then were adapted to the higher end computer market. However once 16:9 displays were being manufactured in large quantities for consumer TVs, I imagine that drove the price down for manufacturing 16:9 computer monitors. I'm fairly certain the decision to use 1920x1080 in the TV industry had nothing to do with computer displays.

But what does the ratio really matter? Isn't it about the pixels? I used a Samsung 24" 1920x1200 for a long time, and I loved it. But I'd seen higher pixel counts, and I wanted it. So when I had the spare cash last year the decision for me was 1 30" display or spend a slight bit more and go for 2 27" displays. I don't care about the ratio, I got plenty of height now. That's what matters.

Re:No

[ebh]

I just took a 21" CRT to the recycling place. In 1995, it cost about $2200 new. In 2001, my employer gave it to me as scrap when our building was closed and they decided that a lot of that stuff was cheaper to give away than to move to some warehouse across the country. (Plus it was a tiny bit of good will that the local management could show the laid-off employees when the Big Guys were being callous pricks kicking us to the curb while we were still going to 9/11 funerals.)

ObTopic: $400 is an expensive monitor these days, but it wasn't that long ago that $400 wouldn't buy you a useable SVGA monitor.

Re:No

[fredgiblet]

Ratio does matter, more vertical space reduces scrolling in documents and web pages, gives more space for content creation that isn't widescreen formatted itself (like making square or portrait oriented art) and is beneficial for some games (most non-first person games). The only real benefit that I can think of for 16:9 over 16:10 is no letterboxing, I'd gladly trade that for the benefits of 16:10 (or even 4:3, I can watch movies on my TV if the letterboxing is going to be that big of a deal).

Re:No

[Keith Mickunas]

I bought a Gateway open-box 21" monitor back in the late 90's for about $1k. I think it could do 1600x1200, but it wasn't real solid at that. That was one heavy beast to move around. I got rid of it some time ago, don't remember how. I got a Dell 19" Trinitron from one employer in 2000. That was sweet, although it had those two strange horizontal lines, but other than that the image was solid. Eventually its color started to go though. I also bought a 17" NEC monitor in '95 or '96 for just under $700 on sale at Best Buy. Checked Computer Shopper and saw that was about $300 off list. Ah, those were the days.

Of course those CRTs didn't have the viewable size they were listed at. So that 21" was probably under 20". My LCDs are all within a fraction of an inch of what they claim. And of course they way a fraction of what those old CRTs did.

Re:No

[Rakarra]

What exactly are people doing that requires 16:10?

There's really only one advantage that 16:9 has over 16:10, and that's smaller black borders (or no borders at all) for widescreen video content. Otherwise, the vertical real estate is very nice to have, and I've found 2560x1600 (which I've used for the last 5 years) somehow really hits the sweet spot between vertical size and widescreen.

Re:No

[Skapare]

16:10 tends to work out better for office work. Sure, the higher res makes it less important. But its the physical size that makes it less important ... depending on how much space you have to push the display back.

But once you get up close to the holy grail of true 4k which is 4096, why even bother with 3840? Cinema digital is shot in 4096 (and up). 3840 should be boycotted or even banned.

Re:No

[EvanED]

The only real benefit that I can think of for 16:9 over 16:10 is no letterboxing

What I really like about wide screen is that it makes it a lot more helpful to have two windows open side by side, e.g. code and a command prompt or code and documentation. You can do that with 4:3 if you have enough horizontal pixels, but my feeling is that narrower than about 1600 things start to go downhill quickly. (I am usually pretty comfortable with my 1680-wide display.)

E.g., the monitor I'm writing this on (sort of -- more in a sec) is 1680x1050 (granted, this is 16:10), or 1.764 megapixels. A 4:3 display with the same number of pixels would be 1534x1150. If I had to choose between those two resolutions, I'd actually rather have the 1680 widescreen.

Re:No

[Keith Mickunas]

You're half right. More vertical space is great, but the ratio doesn't matter. For the work you are talking about what matters is the height.

There's a funky Dell out now that has an even wider aspect ratio, it's around 2.33:1 I believe. Now I'd like that, if it had more pixels. It's 2560x1080. That's a detriment. But imagine if that was more along the lines 3350x1440. Would you still complain that was too wide? You could have three documents, web pages, whatever up, side by side, and still have a lot of vertical space.

Overall resolution and pixel density are what's important. Far more so than ratio. Hell, if height is the only thing that matters to you then get the biggest monitor you can afford and turn it on its side.

Frankly I want both, height and width. But if the cost for a wee bit more height is substantial, well as long as I have enough vertical resolution I'm not going to get too caught up on the ratio. 1440 is great for me. Would I like 1600? Sure. Would I rather spend that $300+ on something else? You bet.

Re:No

[EvanED]

Oh look at my wonderful reading comprehension skills. You're comparing 16:9 to 16:10, not widescreen to 4:3.

Carry on, and ignore what I said completely. :-)

Re:No

[Keith Mickunas]

I wish they'd be honest about those resolutions. It is annoying that 3840 is being advertised as 4k. Clearly it's not. Sure it's double 1080p, but 1080p ain't 2k, so 3840 shouldn't be called 4k.

It's also annoying that they put 1080p and 2k in the graph, then just labeled this new display 4k. Dammit, so close, they acknowledged 2k as a valid format, but ignored real 4k.

Re:No

[epyT-R]

Those are your preferences.. I think anything over 24" is useless for desktop use as it requires too much neck panning and eyeball rolling. It's not just the number of pixels that matters, it's how many can be crammed into your visual range at a time. I'd like to see a 3840x2400 panel in 23-24", 120hz or better, no input lag/ghosting, and deep color support. Of course, this is unobtanium along with the gpu to drive it well, but everyone has different priorities.

Re:No

[epyT-R]

because then you're wasting visible space. 16:10 takes advantage of more vertical space in your field of view.

Re:No

[EvanED]

I got a Dell 19" Trinitron from one employer in 2000. That was sweet, although it had those two strange horizontal lines,

That was true of all Trinitron monitors. Here is what Wikipedia says about them:

Even small changes in the alignment of the grille over the phosphors can cause the coloring to shift. Since the wires are thin, small bumps can cause the wires to shift alignment if they are not held in place. Monitors using this technology have one or more thin tungsten wires running horizontally across the grille to prevent this. Screens 15" and below have one wire located about two thirds of the way down the screen, while monitors greater than 15" have 2 wires at the one-third and two-thirds positions. These wires are less apparent or completely obscured on standard definition sets due to larger scan lines of the video being displayed. On computer monitors, where the lines are much closer together, the wires are often visible. This is a minor drawback of the Trinitron standard which is not shared by shadow mask CRTs.

Re:No

[ewibble]

Yes it does, resolution isn't everything area (real screen size) also important. A 16:10 screen has 5% more area than a 16:9 monitor of the same size measured on the diagonal. and a 4:3 has 12% more.

Re:No

[bhcompy]

Yea, no letter boxing because on a 16:9 screen you don't have the real estate. The size of the picture is the same, it's just that you have a black banner because you have more screen to work with.

Re:No

[fredgiblet]

But what if I'm reading ONE website instead of three? It's true that if the screen is tall enough the ratio doesn't matter, but getting that height costs more horizontal desk space that I shouldn't have to give up and in a world where both ratios were widely produced getting the height from a 16:9 display would cost more. Also if I'm gaming the higher resolution can just as easily be a detriment, requiring more or higher-end video cards to get the other quality options up.

Resolution and pixel density are very important, but for the purposes of our discussion they're similar anyway, most consumer-grade monitors are in the 100 ppi range and will probably stay there for the foreseeable future, and the overall resolution of a 16:10 display is usually higher than a 16:9 display.

Height isn't the only thing that matters, but given similar resolution and ppi height starts moving up the list. I'd love for more monitors to have the pivot option to switch to portrait mode when I'm surfing then swap it to landscape for gaming and movie watching, but that's usually a significant premium as well.

Re:No

[mjwx]

But would you really reject a 2560x1440 display because it's 16:9?

I'd happily pay a few dollars more for a 2560x1600 display because it is 16:10. 16:10 displays are superior to 16:9 for almost all computing purposes. For games it gives me a taller FOV, for work it's exactly 2 A4 pages side by side and gives me a taller view (yes, an extra 4 CM really does make a difference when working on a large spreadsheet, config file or script), with video editing you can have the tools on screen without overlaying them on a video.

16:9 monitors are cheap. I generally recommend them if you dont do anything on your computer that requires a taller FOV (I.E. most users). If all you do is web browsing and watching cat videos, this difference means nothing, if you do serious work then it does.

People need to get over this 16:9 vs. 16:10 garbage.

My laptop is 16:9, my desktops (home and work) are 16:10.

This is mainly done due to availability. it's easy to get cheap 16:10 monitors, hard to get 16:10 laptops.

Re:No

[Luckyo]

It has four times the pixels. Because when you double both vertical and horizontal, total is quadrupled.

Basic math.

Re:No

[White Flame]

And if they called it 4xHD, I'd be fine with it.

Re:No

[Kjella]

But once you get up close to the holy grail of true 4k which is 4096, why even bother with 3840? Cinema digital is shot in 4096 (and up). 3840 should be boycotted or even banned.

No black bars. People hated it when we went widescreen, they won't accept another round. There is so much non-cinema 16:9 content that can't be remastered, and even if it could all existing DVDs/BluRays don't have it. The only thing that could give a hint of 17:9 adoption (4096x2160 seem to be the standard for cinema monitors) is if 4K BluRays come with the ability to ship both 3840x2160 and 4096x2160 on the same disc, like an extra 256x2160 slice added to the picture. Or since you're probably doing a bit of pan-and-scan to best fit 16:9, two slices one on each side to "fill out" the picture. Otherwise it's dead, Jim.

Re:No

[Twinbee]

I wish we'd all standardize on 1:1. That way, we get a fair compromise between those who need height, and those who prefer width.

Re:No

[tehcyder]

There's a funky Dell out now that has an even wider aspect ratio, it's around 2.33:1 I believe. Now I'd like that, if it had more pixels. It's 2560x1080. That's a detriment. But imagine if that was more along the lines 3350x1440. Would you still complain that was too wide? You could have three documents, web pages, whatever up, side by side, and still have a lot of vertical space.

And if it was twice as wide again you could have six documents open side by side, but you'd probably want it curved inwards at each end, or else you'd have to be like a table football player sliding on your chair from side to side.

Re:No

[jon3k]

Many, many people run multiple monitor setups now, so we don't want WIDER monitors. We want TALLER monitors. I'd much rather haeve a 4:3 monitor at 2560xY so I could use 3 of them side by side without having to turn as much.

Re:Meh

[olsmeister]

Would I give up a kidney to get 4k in my house? No. Do I want to see other people spend a ton of their money on it to move the technology forward and bring down the cost so maybe someday I can afford it? Hell yeah!

Re:Meh

[ChrisMaple]

For people who do technical work with a computer, the ability to have several high definition windows open at once is a tremendous benefit. Integrated circuit design, programming, CAD graphics, etc.

Re:Meh

[Keith Mickunas]

That's really the important thing. We've been stuck in a rut with display sizes for a long, long time. It's time to move pixel density forward. The 27" displays that have been on the scene for the past 2 years or so are great, but so far the price hasn't dropped a great deal (disregarding the generic Korean Dell/Apple rejects).

Once 4K TV production ramps up that should lead to more higher density monitors at reasonable prices. Sadly I have to admit that it really seems like Apple was the company that pushed forward into higher density displays for smaller devices. Fortunately other companies picked up on that pretty quickly. Once people get used to those kind of displays on their tablets and phones, they're going to want something similar on their desktops and laptops.

16:9 is cheaper than 16:10 to make

[aleator]

16:10 was the standard before the industry decided that 16:9 is actually cheaper to produce http://mybroadband.co.za/news/hardware/17621-widescreen-monitors-where-did-1920x1200-go.html http://www.displaysearch.com/cps/rde/xchg/SID-0A424DE8-28DF6E59/displaysearch/hs.xsl/070108_16by9_PR.asp

Re:16:9 is cheaper than 16:10 to make

[SolitaryMan]

Yep, it is pretty easy: making the ration the same as in TVs makes it possible for them to save money because of the scale.

Re:Meh

[fredgiblet]

It really is. I see people talking about how anything lower than 400 ppi is unacceptable on their phones and I just shake my head. I'm sure there are people who can legitimately tell the difference, but the vast majority of people aren't going to be able to. Meanwhile upgrading to 2560x1440 (or better x1600) may make my games a little prettier, but it's also going to require a third video card and won't do anything for the internet or the DVDs (or even Blu-rays) that I watch. When I get around to upgrading I'll probably end up getting 1920x1200 and leaving it at that for a good long while.

Re:Meh

[CODiNE]

Oh yeah I love using HiDPI mode on my 27" iMac to turn a 2560x1440 display into a virtual 1280x720 screen with twice the detail. This lets me sit way back 3-5 feet or more and have a nice readable picture. Helps avoid eye strain and is really nice how crisp everything is. Of course 1280x720 is limiting useable screw space and I occasionally have to switch it back, but I really do prefer to use it whenever possible.

It's sort of the opposite of what a true retina iMac would do for me though.

Re:Meh

[EvanED]

Sadly I have to admit that it really seems like Apple was the company that pushed forward into higher density displays for smaller devices.

Maybe they did it more successfully, and I'll also definitely grant them the Macbook Retina. But IMO they were late to the high-res game in the smartphone market. By the time the iPhone 4 was released in June 2010 with it's 326ppi screen, there were multiple phones with reasonably high resolution on the market. I have a Nokia N900, released in Nov 2009 with a 267ppi (800x480) screen; one of my friends actually bought one of the Neo Freerunners, released in July 2008 (almost 2 years before the iPhone's retina display) with a 286ppi 480x640 screen. And those are just the two I know about. (Disclaimer: my friend's opinion was that the Freerunner actually didn't make a very good phone; it seemed like more of an experiment with their open hardware design than anything.)

Yes, the iPhone 4's display is a little higher resolution than those, but compared to the 3GS's 163ppi, they get you most of the way to the retina.

Re:Meh

[fredgiblet]

True enough, but you're talking about a niche. There's niche uses for tons of technology that has no place on the average consumers desk (Like hex-core procs with hyper-threading, $1k video cards and motherboards with 10 SATA ports).

When will we get REAL 4k displays ...

[Skapare]

... like 4096x1728 (digital cinema size plus a few more pixels to make it mathematically right)? Feel free to make the actual LCD pixels a bit smaller so it can all fit in a decent size (not over 80cm, please). Hell, I'd be happy even with 2048x1280 for now so I can avoid the border bumping on 1920x1200.

Re:Meh

[vlueboy]

For people who do technical work with a computer, the ability to have several high definition windows open at once is a tremendous benefit. Integrated circuit design, programming, CAD graphics, etc.

Did you forget "reading slashdot clearly at *any* zoom level?" ;)

Well there is a niche...

[flayzernax]

As ive seen pictures of peoples massive 6 monitor setups...

Though as someone who's been a gamer since duke nukem... and the ultima games... I don't see what all the hype is about. The colors aught to be much nicer on a 4k display, but I know I won't be spending money on one until their dirt cheap or I get one as a gift (which means they'll be dirt cheap by then).

Then again you can make a pretty game, that gets pretty boring pretty fast =) I've played some hideous monstrosities with the worst interfaces known to man just because the actual game was fun.

Re:Well there is a niche...

[fredgiblet]

I remember seeing a setup someone made with 21 monitors to play Falcon 4.0 (IIRC). They had 180 degrees of monitors horizontally, one below the desk and several above in the middle area.

Re:Well there is a niche...

[mjwx]

As ive seen pictures of peoples massive 6 monitor setups...

There are a few games where a multi-monitor setup is really good. Flight sims in particular where you want 1 or even 2 monitors to your side to display the side windows, maybe one above or one for the instrumentation.

In fact if you're learning to fly, a multi-monitor setup with HOTAS is a godsend.

But so few games actually support multi-monitor setups. So for the most part they are just e-peen extensions.

Re:Well there is a niche...

[flayzernax]

Thats pretty cool, I played Falcon 3.0 and their game was very good. Military grade simulation software =) It was definitely worth the custom treatment.

Re:Well there is a niche...

[flayzernax]

Aye, simulations are the perfect application for that kind of set up. Artists like the multiple monitors, and the set up that comes to mind is from an artist who is also an avid Eve Online player.

Re:Niche?

[fredgiblet]

I would bet most people wouldn't notice the difference unless they were coming from a crappy monitor to begin with. Technically it's superior and they would benefit, but the RoI would be poor.

Re:Inevitable, mr...

[realityimpaired]

On a side note, I wonder how much work would be needed to get current cards rendering 4k Surround/Eyefinity.

Buy the monitors and cables, and hook them up? My 6970 has 2 DisplayPort outputs, each of which can support up to 4 monitors with the correct cable/splitter. 4K would only take two monitors on each, and the 2-way splitters are fairly easy to get your hands on. I don't even need the splitters, as I also have 2 DVI outputs on the card, so I can drive two monitors with DP, and two with DVI (and I have never seen a monitor that supports DP and doesn't support DVI).

The card can easily handle that resolution, as long as I turn the anti-aliasing down. I can leave everything else on max, and just set the AA to 2X or off (which I usually do anyway). Just that there isn't a lot of point with most games: the UI isn't designed to be split across multiple physical displays. This is why, even though I have multiple monitors connected, I play in windowed mode on a single 24" 1920x1080 display, and keep browser/chat/everything else on the other display, rather than bothering with eyefinity.

3D TV???

[Jane Q. Public]

Please put spaces around your "/".

25x16/25x14 is 3 dimensions.

Re:3D TV???

[Jane Q. Public]

"No, it's 224"

Haha. Yes. But 224 CUBIC units.

Re:Meh

[gman003]

No. Just... no.

If I could have my perfect setup, I'd have a 32" 4096x2560 main monitor, with two 27" 2560x1600 monitors to each side. And running each at 144Hz, with full AdobeRGB coverage (or better), while we're at it.

I just bought a 1440p display, and it is hands-down the best single computer component I have ever bought. Better than getting an SSD. Better than any new processor, or new video card, or new sound card, or new RAM.

True, I'm probably never going to watch video at that resolution. And it's likewise overkill for gaming. But you know what? Sometimes I feel like being a productive member of society, and that helps immensely. Dozens of open windows? No problem. Coding? Turn it to portrait mode and I can fit 150 lines on one screen, at standard font sizes.

And eyesight has nothing to do with it - I'm nearsighted as hell, and I would still like as many pixels as possible.

Resolution? WHY?

[will.perdikakis]

Honestly, resolution is the LAST thing that we need updated in the display frontier. Work on improving contrast ratios, widening the color gamut to the full capability of the human eye (obviously, the content must match here), reducing pixel response (LCD), reducing input lag, eliminating gamma, lighting and contrast variance throughout the panel. I would take a 1080P display with a 10% improvement in contrast ratio over a 4k TV any day.

Re:Resolution? WHY?

[will.perdikakis]

I was strictly talking about Picture quality, which, no doubt will be the marketing angle of 4k.

You complaint is one of aspect ratio actually and since 1080p and 4k UHD are 16:9, I do not see how 4k would be an improvement for you on the same size panel; you will need to be able to read the text.

On a side note, have you considered rotating your monitor? I have a 1680 x 1050 in portrait mode that is great for academic/professional production.

Re:Resolution? WHY?

[White Flame]

Most people read information on computer displays, reading web pages, emails, facebook updates, twitter feeds, wikipedia, and reference materials; and work in word processors, spreadsheets, and programming environments. All of these features are regularly constrained by vertical resolution.

For people watching cat videos and playing simple games (which comprises almost everybody else not doing the above), neither >1080p resolution nor fidelity matters.

For people doing high-end gaming and watching high-end media, your situation applies. However, it's a pretty tiny sliver of overall computer monitor time, all things considered.

Re:Resolution? WHY?

[gl4ss]

I would take a 1080P display with a 10% improvement in contrast ratio over a 4k TV any day.

I wouldn't. I have a 1680x1050 panel at home. Why would I move to a 1920x1080 panel? That's 30 more pixels vertically. Since most of the time I'm coding I have 2-3 code windows tiled hoizontally. 1680 pixels is more than enough for slighly more than 80 cols per terminal and a useable font size.

A 1080P monitor gives me nothing except the ability to watch high-def video without scaling. Since I don't do that on my PC anyway I don't see the point. Now, if you could give me a proper 1920x1200 monitor that would be a few more vertical lines and that is better.

rotate your display 90 degrees. there. problem solved. send me money.

Re:Resolution? WHY?

[TheSkepticalOptimist]

So, obviously you have not ventured out of your cave for the last 10 years...

Re:Resolution? WHY?

[jon3k]

False dichotomy. Because we advance one doesn't imply we're not advancing the other. And there will always be a range of image qualities to satisfy a range of budgets.

problem for usa-ers

[iggymanz]

feeding a 4K square screen is beyond the bandwidth of the pathetic "broadband" most of us can get.

so for only 2500$

[Osgeld]

I can play games optimized for 2005 era XBOX360 hardware in 4K, when at 1280x1024 I can already see the 128x128 textures clear as day?

whats my motivation here?

Re:Meh

[Malc]

I think it comes down to screen size and viewing distance. Personally I think 4K could provide a better movie experience than 3D. Sitting close to an enormous screen is pretty damn immersive. Then again, I don't particularly want my living room dominated by the TV.

I do like a large screen to work with, although I cannot use a 1080 screen on a 15" laptop (everything's too small for my eyes). Increasing the resolution and DPI better not make things smaller!

Re:Not that small

[dkf]

Two of the three most popular desktop OS famillies (windows and linux) don't have proper provisions for resolution independent font and window sizes.

The problem is that they tend to mis-report the physical size of the viewable area of the displays, without which you can't work out the scaling factor. (The low-level font rendering engine wants pixel-based sizes for obvious reasons, though you might well not be normally working at that level.) However, a bigger problem in practice is that the non-text parts of windows are not designed with scaling in mind. The most obvious example of that is where someone uses absolute positions for all the components within a window — the window becomes impossible to even resize correctly, never mind scale! — but it certainly isn't the only issue in the area. Far too much GUI programming is done with special magic values for things like borders and inter-component spaces, even now.

We're finally getting higher PPI?

[L4t3r4lu5]

I swear to Christ if the next "leap" is sandwiching two 1920x1080 monitors together and making a fucking TV for my computer desk will flip my shit.

Bring Retina quality displays to the desktop. If I can get 1080p on a fucking mobile phone I expect 4k on my desktop at 20".

Make it so.

Re:We're finally getting higher PPI?

[jon3k]

What's the point of 4K at 20"? 1080p at 20" at a 32" seating distance is already to the point where a human eye couldn't discern an individual pixel. 4K at 20" would require you to be closer than 16" to see an individual pixel, and no one sits that close to a desktop monitor. More like 24-30 inches.

Re:Meh

[fredgiblet]

Most modern OSes have methods of compensating for high resolutions IIRC.

Re:Not that small

[gl4ss]

In reality, almost no desktop software is capable of displaying at this high DPI without messing up font size or layout. Two of the three most popular desktop OS famillies (windows and linux) don't have proper provisions for resolution independent font and window sizes. It's really leet that your have a bazillion ppi, but if that means that a web page renders at the size of a stamp, you can't properly read it a distance comfortable for your eyes. I work with computers. That means I have to look at a screen for 8 hours a day and then drive home in busy traffic. If my eyes, neck and back muscles are tired and sore from staring at a monitor all day, that's not going to be a huge success. I need a display that will comfortably display my 20+ application windows at a good arms length or a bit more. Until Operating Systems are capable of doing that even for legacy applications without depending on 86 PPI screens (still the standard for Windows 7) I don't want insane PPI numbers but actual screen real estate. I currently have two 30" IPS screens at home and those are comfortable. Increasing the PPI on those will not make them more comfortable and in reality, my productivity will not rise even with added pixel count.

are you just trolling or are you ACTUALLY USING OSX? because windows and (popular desktops on) linux have had scaling for fonts, window decors etc user elements(for properly built programs) for years(over a decade). - it's a must thing to have if using fullhd resolution on a 15" screen. and works just fine for most programs(it's an easy way to see if an application was coded crappily or not).

osx has just crappy pixel doubling for retina displays..

They also look nice

[Sycraft-fu]

Probably because they are close to the golden ratio. 16/10 = 1.6, and the golden ratio is about 1.618. 16/9 = 1.78.

We tend to find it pleasing (hence the name) so it makes sense to have a monitor that is around it.

Who cares?

[Sycraft-fu]

Seriously, whining about a few extra pixels more or less is silly. The "double HDTV" version of 4k is fine, and works well for things given that it makes scaling a 1920x1080 signal easy. There is nothing special about 2^12 when it comes to monitors. We also wouldn't want a computer monitor with such a wide ratio. When you are doing computer work, vertical real estate matters. 2:39:1 CinemaScope is fine for a movie. It isn't what you want when programming or writing documents.

If you need one for pro digital cinema work, well then go get one. The Sony PVM-X300 is 4096x2160 and thus can do DCI 4k native, ACI 4k CinemaScope cropped, DCI 4k flat cropped, and 4k UHD without losing any image or any resizing. Also has 3G HDSDI inputs, 10-bit colour and all kinds of other pro features.

If you really are interested in doing DCI 4k editing, then it is something to get. If you are just whining then stop.

Also if you need something cheap (though given the cost of 4k cameras that is kinda silly) you know you can get computer monitors over 1920 horizontal, right? You can get 2560x1400 and 2560x1600 displays for under $2000. That'll let you do 2048x1280 with no resampling ans space to spare around it for controls. The NEC PA301W is what I'd recommend. 10-bit, full hardware calibration, excellent build quality, $1800 shipped from B&H. It is what I use for general computer use and gaming.

Colours are independent of rez

[Sycraft-fu]

They have to do with backlight and filters. You can already get monitors with much wider gamuts than normal (normal meaning sRGB). This can lead to much more realistic colours since it can cover more of what the eye is capable of seeing, and more importantly can cover all of the colours you are likely to encounter in the world, excluding some special cases like lasers.

The issue currently is that most software isn't colour space aware, so it won't render things right, you'll get oversaturation when you use a wider gamut.

Re:Meh

[AmiMoJo]

It would help if those apps had better multi-monitor support. A lot of CAD apps don't seem to have updated their interfaces since the move from DOS to Windows 3.11. Having said that it took until WIndows 8 to get proper multi-monitor task bars.

Re:Not that small

[sribe]

osx has just crappy pixel doubling for retina displays..

Bullshit. The text rendering engine properly uses the available resolution, and the major apps that use their own cross-platform rendering engines (MS, Adobe) have been updated. Vector graphics also get rendered properly at the actual screen resolution. Apple limits the APIs notion of screen resolution to "regular" and doubled just to make things easier on developers with regard to bitmapped graphics while avoiding crappy scaling of bitmapped graphics. (Of course applications that don't provide high-res versions wind up showing scaled-up versions, but applications that are actively maintained all show versions optimized for the current resolution, because they only have to provide a single extra high-res version to cover all cases.)

Where?

[jon3k]

I'm actually in the market to replace my existing monitors (2xDell 2408WFP) with new monitors. I'm currently considering 3x27" 2560x1440 LED IPS monitors (Dell U2713HM or LG 27EA83-D are the top 2 choices right now) so this interests me greatly, and something I keep seeing popup.

We're approaching "retina' resolution on the desktop anyway at 2560x1440 already. I of course mean retina in the Apple marketing sense as "at the normal viewing distance the human eye cannot resolve an individual pixel".

So really two questions - where are these 4K desktop monitors and what's the point?

Re:Not that small

[Ed Avis]

People repeat this meme that desktop OSes don't support high resolution displays, but it's not really true. At work I have Windows 7 and several 3840x2400 displays; just setting 200% font size works fine in all the applications I use.

Desktop resolution

[phorm]

For people that code as well. I've got my code editor, my debugger, my running application, possible a browser if it's web-integrated.
At the moment I've got two monitors with 1920x1200 each (total 3840x1200). I still have a different virtual desktop for email and a lot of other stuff due to lack of real-estate.

Having a single large monitor with 4000'ish pixels would be awesome, though I think that some additional for managing the windows might be in order as well.