That game is called 'There is only flesh', designed by P. Innhead.They're already here:
(NSFW)
Gaming in 8K and Beyond
- Thread starter snc
- Start date
/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_image/image/57139097/Screen_Shot_2017_10_13_at_2.26.11_PM.0.png)
D
Deleted member 2197
Guest
Control Tested at 8K: NVIDIA TITAN RTX Uses 18GB of VRAM
https://www.tweaktown.com/articles/9131/control-tested-8k-nvidia-titan-rtx-uses-18gb-vram/index.html
Control is an absolutely astonishing game on its own two feet, but in 4K and 8K with all of the RTX bells and whistles, its one of the best graphical experiences you can get in your home.
As you can see, even with RTX disabled it only drops to 14.6GB of VRAM -- and within normal operating limits at 4K with between 7.6-8.1GB of VRAM used when RTX is disabled, and enabled respectively. 18.5GB of VRAM with everything at 8K is just insanity. 18.5GB of VRAM is serious business, and there's only one graphics card on the market in the consumer world with it: NVIDIA's TITAN RTX, which retails for $2499. The next highest-end card with copious amounts of framebuffer is the one-and-done Radeon VII from AMD which has 16GB of HBM2. Under that, we have the TITAN Xp with 12GB, and RTX 2080 Ti with 11GB. These cards don't have enough VRAM to handle 8K in Control.
https://www.tweaktown.com/articles/9131/control-tested-8k-nvidia-titan-rtx-uses-18gb-vram/index.html
D
Deleted member 13524
Guest
An interesting observation from the comment section at the above link:
This had not yet come to my attention, and is a valid point. I still believe that with proper scalers, we should not need absolute perfect integer ratios to reproduce lower resolutions, but scalling acuracy and quality have long been a traditional oversight of manufacturers, so the fact the display's phisical properties themselves make a fuck up harder is still a welcome feature.
This had not yet come to my attention, and is a valid point. I still believe that with proper scalers, we should not need absolute perfect integer ratios to reproduce lower resolutions, but scalling acuracy and quality have long been a traditional oversight of manufacturers, so the fact the display's phisical properties themselves make a fuck up harder is still a welcome feature.
I remember on first seeing HD content that it didn't look much different from SDTV and we used to rent SD versions as a bit cheaper. Now SD looks really low res and blurry. Maybe give it time and perhaps your perception will adjust?
I don't want to be that guy but at 65 inches I can definitely tell the difference between 4k and 1080p, I do sit more like 2.5m away though.
For me 1080p became noticeable at 48inches and bigger. I can see 8k being overkill at anything under 80inches
Kyyla
Veteran
Sure and I can tell too if I sit closer. I dont though so what's the point? Even 4k seems pretty pointless to me. No I'm not going to move to a smaller house just so I can appreciate 4k and I'll definitely not buy an even bigger telly. Even this one is hideous and ruins any living room.
Kyyla
Veteran
I'm not a toddler or an idiot or new to high res content. I use a 1440p 144hz monitor. There are limits to human perception. People should look at content, not the amount of pixels, or in the case of computer graphics use the flops for something more useful like higher fps or better lightning.
Tkumpathenurple
Veteran
You seem cranky. Maybe you should have a nap.
Well, you have a point, obviously.
But people use their screens in different ways - a way of looking at 8k is to liken it to cell phones. Nobody gives a damn about cell phone resolutions anymore, because it is enough. To my mind, 8k screens is about removing output resolution as a limitation. It's about creating a canvas where what you see is determined by the input material, rather than limitations in the screen. Note: This requires advances in colour gamut, frame rates and so on as well. But we can remove resolution as a limitation right now, so, well, lets do that. And since we need the bandwidth anyway, if that means we can allocate it to 240Hz at 4k if we please, that would be great.
(My own interest is basically in replacing the slide projectors of yore, without having to care about staying out of the beam. And rollable screens are also real right now, and might be a solution to having a big black hole in your living room. And by the way, I use a 1440p monitor too, and the 2880p monitors the iMacs have used for the last few years are just better. A lot better. Check them out.)
Last edited:
I didn't suggest you were. Human perception is a curious thing though and I had exactly the same response with HD content as you - "I don't see the difference." And then one day, I could, and it was sharper, and I wouldn't want to ever go back. So I repeat, you may find your brain adapts and you start to notice the difference swapping between 4K and 1080p content.
Incidentally, is your 1080p content your comparing 4K to being upscaled? Or is it being pixel-doubled?
The optimal viewing distance for a 65 inch TV at 1080p is around 10 feet. The optimal distance for 4K and 65 inch is more like 5-6 feet. I guess for 8K it will drop to 2-3 feet. I guess when we get to post 16K you are going to be required to gently lay your face sideways against the screen.
LOL
Last edited:
Kyyla
Veteran
I really don't know anything about the post processing going on.
Kyyla
Veteran
Yeah, sorry about that. Better now.
Well that in itself is going to make a big difference as you aren't comparing like for like. 1080p upscaled will look better than 1080p native on the same set size. Although that's a good reason not to consider rendering at native 4K if upscaled looks pretty much the same, and that'll be even more the case for 8K.
Don't forget your snickers bar next time.
Kyyla
Veteran
Don't be mean now.
Mihailjones
Newcomer
I agree, imo even 4k is just waste on tvs, unless it is +65" or sitting really close.
I have 48" 1080p and it is sharp enough from 1.5-2m distance. Would 4k be be sharper, probably, but nothing special.
It is not a bad thing for movies, but for gaming it sucks if next gen will waste 50% of performance to run at 4k.
Kind of like 1080p/60 ultra vs 4k/30/low situation
Best situation would be that every game have at least 1080p/super hyper ultra and 4k/low-high setting.
Better details and lightnings can be easily seen, but that resolution isnt.
I have 48" 1080p and it is sharp enough from 1.5-2m distance. Would 4k be be sharper, probably, but nothing special.
It is not a bad thing for movies, but for gaming it sucks if next gen will waste 50% of performance to run at 4k.
Kind of like 1080p/60 ultra vs 4k/30/low situation
Best situation would be that every game have at least 1080p/super hyper ultra and 4k/low-high setting.
Better details and lightnings can be easily seen, but that resolution isnt.
