Will gaming ever go 4K/8K?

Really these next gen consoles are too weak to run games at 1080p @ 60fps without cut backs. No way they can run 4k and they only support movie playback 24fps @ 4k since hdmi doesnt support any thing higher.

This console cycle will be the first time a single gpu can just destroy the console at launch. Both consoles are really just very weak.
 
Kb-Smoker said:
Really these next gen consoles are too weak to run games at 1080p @ 60fps without cut backs. No way they can run 4k and they only support movie playback 24fps @ 4k since hdmi doesnt support any thing higher.

This console cycle will be the first time a single gpu can just destroy the console at launch. Both consoles are really just very weak.
Click to expand...

And the cost of that GPU is...? That's why I find such a statement silly. Comparing a $399 console to a $999 video card is pointless.
 
Ever is long time so the short answer is yes. It's just a matter of when not if. But I expect nothing more then the oocasional game to support 4k and that's more cause they can then they were shooting for it in the near future.
 
jlippo said:
Of course.
Importance of very high resolutions will become even more important when going for wide FoV displays like Rift.
Click to expand...
I think it will be the other way around. Higher resolutions will be dismissed for higher framerates. And 4k-8k displays won't succeed as much as they could if VR becomes the norm.

After reading this article related to Virtual Reality -now that Project Morpheus and Occulus Rift are a reality- I wonder what kind of machine we are going to need to run games at 300 fps or 1000 fps. :oops::oops::oops::oops::oops::oops: HUH?

http://blogs.valvesoftware.com/abrash/down-the-vr-rabbit-hole-fixing-judder/

Unfortunately, an infinite frame rate is not an option, but somewhere between 60 Hz and infinity, there must be a frame rate that’s good enough so that the eye can’t tell the difference. The question is, what is that frame rate?

There’s no one answer to that question; it depends on the scene content, resolution, FOV, pixel fill, display type, speed of eye motion, and characteristics of the eye. I can tell you, though, that 100 Hz is nowhere near enough. 200 Hz would be a significant improvement but still not enough; the sweet spot for 1080p at 90 degrees FOV is probably somewhere between 300 and 1000 Hz, although higher frame rates would be required to hit the sweet spot at higher resolutions. A 1000 Hz display would very likely look great, and would also almost certainly reduce or eliminate a number of other HMD problems, possibly including motion sickness, because it would interact with the visual system in a way that mimics reality much more closely than existing displays. I have no way of knowing any of that for sure, though, since I’ve never seen a 1000 Hz head-mounted display myself, and don’t ever expect to.

And there’s the rub – there are no existing consumer displays capable of anywhere near the required refresh rates, and no existing consumer data links that can transfer the amount of video data that would be required. There’s no current reason to build such a display or link, and even if there were, rendering at that rate would require such a huge reduction in scene complexity that net visual quality would not be impressive – the lack of judder would be great, but 2005-level graphics would undo a lot of that advantage. (That’s not to say 2005-level graphics couldn’t be adequate for VR – after all, they were good enough for Half-Life 2 – but they would be clearly inferior to PC and console graphics; also, really good VR is going to require a lot more resolution than 1080p, and it’s a moot point anyway because there’s no prospect of consumer displays that can handle anything like 1000 Hz.)
Click to expand...
 
Cyan said:
I think it will be the other way around. Higher resolutions will be dismissed for higher framerates. And 4k-8k displays won't succeed as much as they could if VR becomes the norm.

After reading this article related to Virtual Reality -now that Project Morpheus and Occulus Rift are a reality- I wonder what kind of machine we are going to need to run games at 300 fps or 1000 fps. :oops::oops::oops::oops::oops::oops: HUH?
Click to expand...
It might all depend on what we can get away with decoupling.

For instance, if rendering at 120fps and then reprojecting to rapidly deal with subtleties in viewer head motion manages to deal with most of the problems, we're not in too bad a situation (if such reprojection happens to be nicely supported in some way or another).

Throw in some clever foveated rendering with tons of aggressive TAA (even if it's a touch inaccurate and blurry, who cares), and you might be doing pretty good.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
PS3 did have Ridge Racer 7 at 1080P | 60fps at launch in 2006.


[random thoughts]

I would imagine that PlayStation 5 (and if there is another, the next Xbox) will support 4K Ultra HD games and arrive sometime before 2020 (2018-2019).

No doubt, the following generation of consoles will run a mix of, mostly 1080P games upscaled to 4K, and some at native 4K,

I highly doubt though, that the PS5/Xbox4 in 5-6 years would be able to do native 8K games, anymore than PS4/Xbox One can do 4K.

There are only concepts and prototypes of 8K TVs right now.

The penetration of 4K monitors / televisions is next to nothing at present.

The number of 4K sets late in this decade (2018-2019 when next gen consoles could arrive) may still be relatively small. At best, 4K penetration would be perhaps as much as 1080i/720p HDTV in late 2005 when Xbox 360 came out. Again, at best.
If broadcasters don't support 4K, then forget it.

Regardless, it will take a major increase in CPU/GPU power over the APUs inside the current PS4/X1 to handle native 4K games.

4K is 4 times the resolution of 1080P, while 8K is 16 times the resolution of 1080P, or 4 times the res of 4K.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Several sports broadcasters have already started experimenting with 4K, that is going to snowball over the next few years and most major sports will be broadcasting in 4K.

4K TV's are becoming cheaper almost daily, i imagine that they will be easy to buy at prices affordable to the average consumer in the next few years.
A quick look on Amazon shows a 39" 4k going for $499, though that is at 30hz.

It's easy to imagine a 50" 4k@60hz going for $500-$600 by 2016, so when the next generation consoles launch in 2018 it's pretty easy to see 4k being in most homes, if not then the consoles themselves will drive the adoption of 4K to the average household.
 
Megadrive1988 said:
The number of 4K sets late in this decade (2018-2019 when next gen consoles could arrive) may still be relatively small. At best, 4K penetration would be perhaps as much as 1080i/720p HDTV in late 2005 when Xbox 360 came out. Again, at best.
Click to expand...

I think you are way off with these. 4-5 years from now 4K TVs and monitors will have very significant market presence. The volumes are already ramping up quickly. The prices are already plummeted of what they were a year ago. The manufacturing of TV panels, especially 50" and over will just transition to 4K production in a relatively short order and it wont take too long before everything but the lower end new TVs will be using 4K panels.
 
Yeah.. it's like Google Glass or some wearable watches. You don't need to buy them right now. You just need to watch their developments in the next few years and let developers and some rich people build the ecosystem for you, the end user.
 
Human visual limits and 4k

It mostly depends on viewing distance.
For up close monitor based gaming, yes 4k can provide benefits.

For the default viewing distance of 2.7meters in the larger screens, then no unless your larger screen surpasses 192". Even then framerates have to increase to 140~700.

In other words, its f****** stupid for consoles.

That's the most recent result on visual capabilities of the human eye. And if we use this information then the discussion has to focus on temporal resolution and not spacial resolution.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/rd/sites/50335...4230acfbab0981007485/CSFweb_line_16_9_big.png
That's the most recent result on visual capabilities of the human eye.
 
blakjedi said:
Google, Samsung and Apple now have their opening.
Click to expand...

Uhh, to do what? Build and mass market a console system so much more powerful than PS4/X1 they can handle 4k with ease? Which would sell for what, $500+ in 2-3 years when it's ready? Meanwhile X1 PS4 have tens of millions of install base and huge libraries? Never mind that console is a not particularly profitable market to begin with? Good luck with that :rolleyes:

If any of these built a console, which is unlikely anyway, it would have nothing to do with 4k specifically. 4K is just another incremental thing like 720P and 1080P before it. I dont think 4k will be widespread in consumer TV's in homes in the next 5 years anyway, which is the PS4/X1 timeframe. They are just now getting out a decent Samsung 28" 4K monitor for $800 for PC.

I guess on the good side for current gen consoles, 4k monitors are supposed to play very nicely with true 1080P, as it's a straight 4 pixels for 1 conversion. Not sure if this looks as good as a native 1080P monitor as I've not seen it in person. Which might not bode well for quite a few sub 1080 games currently on X1.

This gen we worry about 1080P, next gen will be for 4K, hell if nothing else, it will give them an excuse to make next gen boxes.

As for movies and such 4k "support" on consoles, that's another matter. I'm sure they support outp[utting in 4K, yes, but I dont see many games supporting it, maybe a low graphics type game here and there eventually. Basically analogous to hw much 1080P was supported in games last gen. Of course it's the exactly same incremental principle repeated.
 
Dr Evil said:
I think you are way off with these. 4-5 years from now 4K TVs and monitors will have very significant market presence. The volumes are already ramping up quickly. The prices are already plummeted of what they were a year ago. The manufacturing of TV panels, especially 50" and over will just transition to 4K production in a relatively short order and it wont take too long before everything but the lower end new TVs will be using 4K panels.
Click to expand...

Even if they have a significant market presence of new sets sold, you'll still have a gigantic install base of 1080P sets in people homes for years after.

And I dont know of a single affordable 4K TV. I've heard of a few decent sounding monitors coming right now, like an Asus and that Samsung, for probably $600-$800, which is still pretty cheap. Ignoring those cheap Seiki's. Even those Asus/Samsung monitors sound like the first 4K stuff that you'd actually want (single panel, 60 hz supporting, etc). That's how early this stuff is, they're literally still sorting the basics out, not ready for prime time yet.

Again you're looking at years to get significant in home penetration, if then, by which time current gen will be winding down anyway, as predicted leaving it a problem to be addressed by the next gen.

4K is 4 times the resolution of 1080P, while 8K is 16 times the resolution of 1080P, or 4 times the res of 4K.
Click to expand...

Forgetting 8k, 480P (well, Ps2 only did half that didn't it?)>720P ~3x, 720>1080 ~2x...that's the biggest pixel jump yet. And it will soak up 4X of whatever 8-10X multiplier we usually look at in console transitions. It's kind of discouraging how all these res increases sap our power. But I guess, that's kind of the point of res increases, they are supposed to give better returns than using that power somewhere else.

Tangent, for 10X power we'll be looking at 13-18 teraflops. Do we see that being feasible as mid range PC GPU's in 2019-20? I suppose so...then again this gen didn't strictly deliver 10X flops either. More like 5X-8X depending how many flops you rate Xenos/RSX. If you rate RSX ~250 GFLOP, then PS4 delivered ~7.4X. Multiply that by low end current gen 1.3 TF ~10 TF. Which, R9 290X=5.6 TF. So I guess you could say, that dual R9 290X is next-gen now :D

Somehow, the way this gen went pretty mild in terms of power, and how it's all about environmentalism and low power use these days, I have doubts whether we really get even 10+ TF next gen, but we'll see.

I also wonder if we'll get a lot of 1080 upscale nicely to 4K too, next gen, if the visual returns work out better that way, and/or if next gen doesn't deliver enough power again.
 
Rangers said:
480P (well, Ps2 only did half that didn't it?)
Click to expand...
Some PS2 games were restricted to field-rendered 480i, which I guess you could envision as "half of 480p60" if you really want to. But it supported higher.

Somehow, the way this gen went pretty mild in terms of power, and how it's all about environmentalism and low power use these days, I have doubts whether we really get even 10+ TF next gen, but we'll see.
Click to expand...
Heh, environmentalism probably has less to do with it than:
1-Weaker hardware is usually less hardware and thus cheaper, and
2-Too much heat in too small a box caused some notable problems last gen, particularly on Microsoft's side, and that's not something they wanted to repeat. >50% in-warranty hardware failures and jet engines aren't very stylish for a console.

So, we get modest components at a reasonable clock speed.

I also wonder if we'll get a lot of 1080 upscale nicely to 4K too, next gen
Click to expand...
Well, it's not like they're going to windowbox it. :p

The question is whether Microsoft's console applies a sharpening filter to 1080->4K conversions :devilish:
 
One question thats been bugging me, ggogling doesnt give a clear answer
why is it called 4k?
from wiki
Using horizontal resolution to characterize the technology marks a switch from the previous generation, high definition television, which categorized media according to vertical resolution (1080i, 720p, 480p, etc.).
Click to expand...
why did they switch surely its not cause 4k is bigger than 2160, are they really that lame?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

J
4K displays announced at CES 2011
5 6 7
Replies
128
Views
34K
Silent_Buddha
S
H
IBM backstabbing sony and neglected Apple ? (long read)
5 6 7
Replies
126
Views
47K
Fox5
F
Back
Top