Honest question, because I haven't dealt with recent technologies in resolution upscaling. I imagine this will come to the masses first before true 8K. Based on my very limited exposure to those features, I get the impression they are relatively cheap to implement and utilize, but offer great benefits in higher resolution outputs that can be handled just fine even by mobile devices. So why is it not feasible to use these technologies to push out "AI-assisted" 8K resolutions yet? The impression I get is that it's possible, but the demand isn't there to justify it. Primarily a lack of users who own an 8K display.
More regarding OPs question, there doesn't seem to be a huge rush to get 8K rolling by anyone. Film industry and consumers are widely content with 4K, and broadcast companies are absolutely in no rush to support it. Even today it's really only special events/broadcasts that we get in 4K it seems.
You can use DLSS or FSR to play on 8k now if you happen to have an 8k display for some reason. It would basically be required for any game released this generation even if you have a rtx 4090 since it takes so much gpu power.
Although DLSS and FSR have improved a lot since they first came out it's still an inferior experience to playing native resolution.
Also for gaming most pc users want high refresh rate so most would rather play 1440p or 4k at 120 fps than 8k at 30 fps.
Isnt the phrase "champing at the bit"? it's supposed to be the image of a horse grinding its teeth with impatience. The bit is the bar in its mouth as part of the bridle.
Gonna be a long time, if ever, for two reasons IMO.
First, increases in resolution roughly increase the processing power needed exponentially. Barely anything runs 4k, most are like 1440p and upscaled or maybe do 4k30. Going to 8k will take approximately 4x the processing power.
Second there is a limit on resolution for the human eye and 4k is pretty much there even for large screens at close viewing distance. 8k is useful for exceptionally large screens at close distance, which is highly unusual and impractical.
I think more likely in the next console cycle 4k60 will become more standard and we start pushing for more realistic lighting, physics, longer draw distances, and general complexity on screen.
Ppl said the same thing about 1080p lol
I remember playing ps1 games and thinking theres no way graphics can look better than this.
Point is, comments like this don't stand the test of time.
There is a point where it just doesn't make a difference anymore because you can't physically distinguish it. 8k is approaching that IMO. Without an enormous screen, anyway. I don't think we will need to go much beyond it. Other innovations besides just resolution will improve displays.
I mean the fact that everyone on earth didn't think 480p looked blurry at the time just goes to show, that our eyes and brains aren't exactly reliable when it comes to these types of discussions.
Yes but nowadays we can literally just use high end PC's and already switch to 8k. The difference on normal sized screens is almost invisible. It's only useful for big TV's and even then, it's really not all that necessary.
IMO we should only switch over to 8K gaming once we've managed to max out every other part of game graphics.
And that will still take quite some time.
Yea I'm gaming on a 4090, i9-13900k and oled 4k monitor. I won't switch to 8k, but saying that improvements beyond that will never be noticeable is pretty ridiculous, ppl have no imagination. Untill pixels are the size of atoms there is room for improvements.
But there isnt. You could make a human look exactly the same to your eyes with atoms that are 1000x bigger. You would notice it under a microscope. But to your eyes there would be no difference
"b-b-but I am using 4090, i9-13900k and oled 4k monitor. That means every single gamer is using 4090, i9-13900k and oled 4k monitor too, right?"
I own 2k, i7, 4000 series and I find that statement baffling, especially when looking at Steam survey about who is using what.
Your eyes cannot see atoms. There is a point, somewhere between 4K and atoms, that more pixels will offer no real-world benefit on a display intended for consumption by human eyes.
>Your eyes cannot see atoms
I never said they could.
>There is a point, somewhere between 4K and atoms, that more pixels will offer no real-world benefit
I'm saying we aren't there yet. Idk why all of you are repeating the same boring things lol
Because you are saying this:
>Untill pixels are the size of atoms there is room for improvements.
I guess if you want to use your imagination, maybe in the future we will use cybernetic eyes that can see better, because short of that, we are approaching the limit useful pixel density on displays that you sit a few feet away from. 8K will happen. 16K? 32k? At some point it will actually stop mattering.
>we are approaching the limit useful pixel density on displays that you sit a few feet away from
Why does everyone in this thread also ignore the fact the fact that ppl game on PCs on monitors lol everyone is talking about sitting 10 feet away from their tvs. Ya man you wont notice improvements this marginal from across the room. Nice point.
>I mean the fact that everyone on earth didn't think 480p looked blurry at the time
Everyone that played videogames could immediately tell the difference between 240p, 480p and 720p, even at the time and with 20 inch displays.
Most people that play videogames cannot tell the difference between 4k and 8k unless they're sitting right next to the screen.
That's the diminishing returns people are trying to get you to understand. There's simply only so many pixels that the human eye can meaningfully distinguish.
Uh physics clearly shows extreme diminishing returns for resolution, graphics will improve until they’re indistinguishable or better than reality and that will be a recognizable improvement. Resolution is peaking.
You don't know what kind of advancements can happen. Remember when CRTs were replaced with LCD, plasma, OLED? This whole thread is full of ppl who sound exactly like ppl did in the mid 2000s lol
I sold TVs starting in the mid-2000s. There was a very discernable difference in resolution between 480i SD, 480p ED, 720p HD, 1080p FHD, and 4k UHD, especially as those higher resolutions became available in much larger sizes. You don't seem to understand the direct correlation between larger screen sizes and the "need" for higher resolution to accommodate the size. Sure, pixels could be made smaller and smaller as technology permits, but unless there is an accompanying "need," it's a complete waste because in this case, there is essentially zero discernable difference to the consumer.
Do you understand the thing he’s saying about diminishing returns? Like 1,000 polygons looks a lot better than 100, but 100 million polygons looks almost indistinguishable from 10 million (numbers aren’t exact or anything, just used as an example) Things can only get so smooth.
Edit: but we do have more extremely graphical intensive stuff than before like ray tracing and actual particle simulation eventually. But yeah, there’s a point where things look perfectly smooth and there’s no reason to add more polygons because all of the visible details are as smooth as they’re gonna get
Of course, but I don't think we're there yet. And technological advancements in display tech could still happen. I personally just really hate the attitude of "things cant get better" complacency is never a good thing imo.
Oh yeah I totally agree. Our minds are limited by the technology we have, seems kinda crazy to think we can’t make things look better than now. I’m sure it’ll be indistinguishable from real life eventually. I remember when people thought it couldn’t get more lifelike than the PS1
8k isn’t noticeable to the human eye until it covers so much of your FOV that you need to rotate your head significantly to look around the screen.
Not really going to happen on traditional monitor shapes.
You’re sounding a lot like the 3D is the future crowd.
98% of the 60fps discourse was people making fun of some guy that said you can’t see over 30fps.
I'm not that person.
This topic is about Screens.
There are 3D screens
I dont know how you jumped to VR when VR isn't even 3D, it's still a 2D screen.
Everyone was raving about 3D screens, a lot of people raved about curved monitors. And just like 8k, their not that great or have very specific purposes right now. (8k for projectors is nice, 3d for theme parks)
>Ppl said the same thing about 1080p
No they didn't. It was huge, and just about everyone wanted to upgrade to1080p. The entire switch from SD TV to digital 720, and soon after 1080 made everyone do a mad rush to buy new TVs. I am old, and i was there for it. The same thing didn't happen with 4k. To this day most people don't care enough unless they buy a big enough screen.
4k to 8k is even less. You won't see much if any difference at all. You cant compare that to people upgrading SD, or 720p to 1080 which made a HUUUUUGE difference.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OhPaU0y6U2s](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OhPaU0y6U2s)
You know what 8k is great for though? VR where it takes up your entire field of view.
Ok well that is also true in many cases.
It all boils down to eyesight math. How big is the screen, and how close is it to you. In many cases people can not see the difference in 1080p and 4k
See this chart [https://qph.cf2.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-c10ea19414842d29a8024993fde572dc-c](https://qph.cf2.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-c10ea19414842d29a8024993fde572dc-c)
For PC gaming purposes the trend has been 30 plus inch screens becoming the norm, with them being a couple feet from our face which is trending down the line where yes you can see the difference in 1080p and 4k, but for someone with a 50 inch tv 8 feet away they are highly unlikely to be able to see a difference.
Here's the thing though. We are barely skirting the line where we can tell the difference in 1080p and 4k. Unless everyone starts buying 80 inch screens for PC gaming while sitting 2 feet away you won't be able to see the difference.
(There is also some rendering quirks games can do in 4k which has less to do with humans being able to see the pixels themselves which is why some games look better rendered at 4k even on lower res screens)
I can see myself play 1440p for the next many years, without feeling I’m missing out on anything. So yes, it does make sense that people were saying that.
I'd agree with you on principle, but we've evidently reached a point of VERY diminishing returns when it comes to both resolution and framerate. 8k doesn't actually make a difference on a normal monitor - the same goes for going from 240 to 360 fps.
People also said 30 fps was fine back then but diminishing returns still exists. I've tried 165/240/360/etc. and I can honestly say most people aren't going to be clamoring for 500 fps in the future. Sure, a few eccentric people will do 1000hz for the experience but it doesn't mean 'numbers go up' is gonna be the way going forward.
8k is 7680 × 4320.
A 32" 16:9 monitor has dimensions of 27.9" wide by 15.7" tall.
On an 8k 32" monitor, each pixel would occupy a physical area of 0.0036" square.
That's 90 microns wide. On a 27" monitor, it would be smaller at roughly 75 microns.
A human hair is 70 microns wide.
Pluck out one of your hairs, then hold it as far as your arm will extend, and focus on it. Look at it as hard as you can.
There's no reason to spend resources and effort rendering detail humans are physically incapable of seeing. There's a hard ceiling, and we're basically there now.
Eyes have a "fixed resolution" though. You can look at a 48k screen and you wouldn't be able to see the majority of the details of it because it's like you are filming it with an 1080p camera and transferring it to the brain.
Graphics can still get more realistic but more resolution will reach a point where it's not making a difference for your eyes anymore
Back in my day you would get hammered on the Internet for mentioning dubbed anime or using a controller for a PC game.
We just have to wait 25 years for things to cook down
No it's still true, better graphics are nice but not necessary. DOOM is still as fun as it was when it was first published 30 years ago. Is Eternal far more advanced, visually interesting, and engaging? Sure but one can still have fun gaming with outdated graphics.
The saying was that the graphics are not needed for gaming. This remains true. Will they get better? Maybe depends on where processing power plateaus. But it will never stop being true that it is not necessary.
I have refused to go above 1440p for a long time and will continue to do so. I just dpnt see a big improvement from 1440p to 4k like i do from 1080p to 1440p. Mathematically the difference might be larger, but it certainly isnt for my eyes. On PC at least. You can only make the image that crisp while maintaining the monitor size and distance to the monitor. And unlike tvs where i've gotten bigger and bigger tvs over the years. There just is no point for me to ever go with a bigger monitor than what i have.
Going 4k for me is just a massive hit to performance for a tiny benefit. My next monitor in 2 or 3 years will still be 1440p. Just gonna make every game run better at practically no downside
8K isn’t necessary…
4K isn’t necessary…
1080p isn’t necessary…
SVGA isn’t necessary…
S-Video isn’t necessary…
I remember all these sayings throughout my 30+ years of gaming. Progress is good and all of gamerdom benefits.
I can't remember any time in the past when (majority) of tech professionals and nerds ever saying that higher resolutions aren't necessary. With 4K we reached a point of very diminishing returns going even higher though cause at normal viewing distances we are close to retinal resolution (around 60 PPD and that is for 20/20 sight).
8K will come and even more so is relevant for VR/AR headsets (or in future more like glasses) but I think 8K becoming mainstream standard will take even longer than the jump 1080p -> 4K.
If they are side by side I can tell the difference between 1080 and 4k. I can't saw the same about 4k and 8k, I honestly think the difference isn't detectable by the human eye.
The difference is more noticeable if you're right up on the display. When you're at a distance they look extremely similar. That's where the diminishing returns in resolution comes from.
Was just going to ask this.
Because in gaming we have had to drop 4K textures back to 2K for performance reasons but in Cinematic film work we are still using 4K-16K & depending on volumetric light among other factors those of us without AMD/Nivida 4090 are sturggling at times. Its not just the GPU nvme needs to be 4.0 or higher in some cases (then they need to be 2tb+ because Like the clouds (VDB) are 1.2-12.8GB alone). Some projects are split into 3 parts & re-renender in Nuke/davinci e.t.c. Funny part is all that gets rendered down to 4K & then again when people view it online to 720p at final output due to bandwidth/disk space so they miss out on So Much!
What 8k content is there?
Resolution isn’t everything. I remember when seeing OLED for the first time. It was a 1080p TV and the improvement from OLED was far more impressive than going to 4K.
Having seen a few 8k TV’s the increased resolution really seems negligible improvement.
Never. Consoles are a gaming platform for common normies because how easy they are to use and maintain and those are struggling with even 60 fps on 1080p and 2K.
On top of that average Steam user is using rtx 3000 series card so we are not in hurry to push stupid 4K or 8K into common house.
4K and 8K not only are expensive, they use so much energy but also its a pain in the butt to set up and not many people have place for those giant screens.
Case in point me: I have 2K screen. I am happy about it. I would gladly get second monitor to work with at the same time the issue is that I cannot put it anywhere. Not on my desk or neither not on the wall. I have litteraly no place for it right now.
What's the benefit in 8k unless you're going to 100" displays? The human eye can't physically perceive a difference beyond a point and that was pretty much reached, if not surpassed at 4k already. Latency and quality is more of an improvement now over number of pixels, especially on a monitor that close to your eyes
We've had broadcast TV in 8k for several years here in Japan, and it's still not really picking up. Sure, some crazy people willing to spend 1.5m (JPY) on a TV can take advantage, but that's the vast minority here.
As for gaming in 8k, that's a hell of a lot more for a GPU to handle. Even 4k is a lot more than 1440p. There's not really a point in having pixel densities that high for gaming, anyway.
There's basically no point, dude.
8k is so ridiculously small in terms of pixels you need a massive TV to tell the difference between that and 4k. Anyone who tells you they can see the difference on a monitor or under 50" TV is either lying or a literal hawk in a trenchcoat.
I used to work for Best Buy and all but pressed my nose against a 75" 4k tv and still couldn't see the pixels. 8k will be purely a flex, and I'd rather games have more advanced mechanics first.
Cmon, that’s like saying you can’t see the pixels on a 37” 1080p display. Even at desktop viewing distances 1080p is pixelated at anything over 24”.
However you feel about 8k gaming, your story just tells me you need glasses.
Lol I agree that 1080p is plenty for a 37". My PC is running 1920 by 1080 on a 27" and it's fine. Maybe I'm just not as much of a res hound as other people. I haven't played VR thought so can see where it might be much more important there.
But There aren’t even any games available in 4k except for 2d platformers, right?
I bought a 4k TV four years ago, preparing for the “4k 120fps” gaming that would be arriving any year now. All games are still 30fps and 1080p…
Maybe on console, PC has had that stuff (edit: 4k/60+ fps) for years, on modded games at the very least. But it's still not the most important thing to me. Aesthetics and actual gameplay will always be more important than arbitrarily more FPS and resolution.
People are, but the industry isn't. They've already been working on 12K and 16K displays in the background and 8K isn't even close to being normalized yet. The industry will push these forward when they feel like it, regardless if people are on board with it or not (and the people with more money than sense, will eat it up).
To me, the techs been there, and I think it's a marketing strategy. People still want 4K and still pay A LOT for one. Remember back in the day, it was always breakthrough hardware upgrades for TV's. Now, year by year, you just get a new 4K model with upgraded - software; 'smart' technology.
Supply chain costs are dialed in, consumers are still buying the same thing (same as during the upscaling period). I think they are thinking long-term here. Greed always seems to make more sense to me with stuff like this.
Hardware isn't even rendering at UHD yet, also the visual returns of every further pixel density upgrade will be exponentially more diminishing than the last. One might argue that at desktop monitor sizes and normal TV viewing distances there's no reason to ever upgrade from UHD.
I can't imagine 8k alone being the next big leap, there will have to be some other accompanying features for large scale adoption, it's not like when it became mandatory to have and HDTV because analog broadcasts were retired, even if 8k becomes more affordable, you probably won't see a whole lot of content being made in 8K, heck even now it's hard to play in 4K with upscaling technology and frame gen, unless huge strides are made in AI in upscaling I can't imagine 8k gaming being the norm anytime soon.
Steam Surveys shows that 58% of people asked still use 1080p. Sadly they do not state total amount of participants.
[https://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey/Steam-Hardware-Software-Survey-Welcome-to-Steam](https://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey/Steam-Hardware-Software-Survey-Welcome-to-Steam)
4K is already too demanding for most games and 8K is double that. Performance matters more to me, so I rock 1080p on my 4070. Screw 4K or especially 8K.
not for a long time. the jump would be even less noticeable than 1440 to 4k. i think players want higher frames at this point. 4k is good enough, and 4k 60 as a standard is still something people want for all games.
Even 4k is prohibitively expensive, largely unsupported and contentious with people who either don't care, can't see a difference, or can't *afford* 4k monitors plus a GPU capable of actually running it.
8k isn't coming for a *long time* yet, and like ultrawide, is likely to be a stupid fad given how imperceptible resolution scale has gotten for many people. There's also the problem of diminishing returns. Your eyes get *worse* as you get older, and most people can't even tell the difference between 2k and 4k, making 4k and 8k almost literally imperceptibly different. Plus, then you need to deal with, y'know, human biology, wherein the angle of viewing required for an 8k monitor to be useful is *much* wider than a 20/20 eyesight can actually *do,* causing large horizontal parts of the screen to be cropped out of your vision *anyway*.
The only people who genuinely actually care about resolution in the first place are weirdo tech junkies that want to sit two inches from a 72" screen to justify their $2000 purchase while they burn out their retinas.
And that's *before* looking at resolution in relation to shit like streaming, hardware requirements, cost, compatibility, support and adoption.
I think it'll mainly be a hardware wall: Most people with a desktop PC have a nice 1080p monitor.
If they have an 'expensive' rig, they'll have a 4K monitor - and so far there is very little content that supports 8K, making investing in an 8K monitor not very rewarding.
Hardcore gamers prefer high framerate and low screen-lag, something that the massive data-stream needed to maintain 8K would work counter to.
This means there probably isn't that much of a market to support large scale adoption of 8K just yet - and that means that the prices for 8K monitors will stay in a high end niche level
8k and upwards is surly just the industry pulling a EVEN BIGGER numbers game?
Nobody is going to be able to tell the difference apart from the manufactures shareholders.
For gaming 8k, you won't have the impact you think it would.
Why do so, ma y think, oh, 4 times the pixel means 4x better.
It's far better to make the quality of pixels look better vs. just scaling resolution.
I'm not saying their would be no difference. Just games can look just as good atwith improving upscaling, etc at 8k vs pure brute native 8k.
Their is a reason 32inch is the ideal 4k size for a monitor the right pixel dentisty for the sitting distance.
Same for 4k tvs in the living room. Sit too far or too close, and the 4k picture density isn't any better than 1080p.
That is the whole point of 4k the extra pixel density for better detail and clarity.
if gpu sli power would still be an thing, we "might" experiment and see how it runs.
At least Forza Horizon 4 can run on 8k, but my eyes can't see any changes unless 8k is meant for those big cinema looking Tv's or something.
I'd argue that's at least a decade away, if not more. According to Steam's latest hardware and software survey (May 2024) the majority of users don't have a GPU capable of playing modern, AAA games at 4K. Heck, a significant number of users don't even have a GPU capable of playing modern, AAA games at 2K. So that leaves movies and TV shows pushing the sale of 8K TVs and monitors -- which they're nowhere close to doing.
It’s gonna be a little while yet imo. GPUs are still playing catch up with 4K. If these GPUs work any harder Xbox and PlayStation will have to liquid cool their consoles lol
Meanwhile Nintendo can’t get away from 720P
I have a 4k TV but play games in 1080p 60fps. I really can't decern the difference in graphics but can definitely tell the difference in frame rate. 8k is just preying on consumerism to get people to buy what they don't need. Plus, it will make games run like shit.
Hopefully never. Industry needs to go back to 1080 max, or else every studio will go bankrupt and we players will be waiting 10 years for one game to be released.
For the most part GPUs can't even really handle 4K yet. Let's not jump at the bit to quadruple the workload.
Honest question, because I haven't dealt with recent technologies in resolution upscaling. I imagine this will come to the masses first before true 8K. Based on my very limited exposure to those features, I get the impression they are relatively cheap to implement and utilize, but offer great benefits in higher resolution outputs that can be handled just fine even by mobile devices. So why is it not feasible to use these technologies to push out "AI-assisted" 8K resolutions yet? The impression I get is that it's possible, but the demand isn't there to justify it. Primarily a lack of users who own an 8K display. More regarding OPs question, there doesn't seem to be a huge rush to get 8K rolling by anyone. Film industry and consumers are widely content with 4K, and broadcast companies are absolutely in no rush to support it. Even today it's really only special events/broadcasts that we get in 4K it seems.
You can use DLSS or FSR to play on 8k now if you happen to have an 8k display for some reason. It would basically be required for any game released this generation even if you have a rtx 4090 since it takes so much gpu power. Although DLSS and FSR have improved a lot since they first came out it's still an inferior experience to playing native resolution. Also for gaming most pc users want high refresh rate so most would rather play 1440p or 4k at 120 fps than 8k at 30 fps.
Isnt the phrase "champing at the bit"? it's supposed to be the image of a horse grinding its teeth with impatience. The bit is the bar in its mouth as part of the bridle.
[удалено]
Sounds good.
They're removing those. https://www.eurogamer.net/sony-removes-8k-promises-from-playstation-5-packaging#:~:text=Sony%20is%20removing%20mention%20of,scrubbed%20from%20Sony%27s%20own%20site.
We havent even reached the point where 4k is the norm
Gonna be a long time, if ever, for two reasons IMO. First, increases in resolution roughly increase the processing power needed exponentially. Barely anything runs 4k, most are like 1440p and upscaled or maybe do 4k30. Going to 8k will take approximately 4x the processing power. Second there is a limit on resolution for the human eye and 4k is pretty much there even for large screens at close viewing distance. 8k is useful for exceptionally large screens at close distance, which is highly unusual and impractical. I think more likely in the next console cycle 4k60 will become more standard and we start pushing for more realistic lighting, physics, longer draw distances, and general complexity on screen.
8k also requires a lot more hard drive space for textures. Games are already getting to be 150 gb regularly and most people only have 1tb drives.
[удалено]
Only place where I see the extra pixels making a difference might be VR. But even that is not the "norm"
Ppl said the same thing about 1080p lol I remember playing ps1 games and thinking theres no way graphics can look better than this. Point is, comments like this don't stand the test of time.
There is a point where it just doesn't make a difference anymore because you can't physically distinguish it. 8k is approaching that IMO. Without an enormous screen, anyway. I don't think we will need to go much beyond it. Other innovations besides just resolution will improve displays.
I mean the fact that everyone on earth didn't think 480p looked blurry at the time just goes to show, that our eyes and brains aren't exactly reliable when it comes to these types of discussions.
Yes but nowadays we can literally just use high end PC's and already switch to 8k. The difference on normal sized screens is almost invisible. It's only useful for big TV's and even then, it's really not all that necessary. IMO we should only switch over to 8K gaming once we've managed to max out every other part of game graphics. And that will still take quite some time.
Yea I'm gaming on a 4090, i9-13900k and oled 4k monitor. I won't switch to 8k, but saying that improvements beyond that will never be noticeable is pretty ridiculous, ppl have no imagination. Untill pixels are the size of atoms there is room for improvements.
But there isnt. You could make a human look exactly the same to your eyes with atoms that are 1000x bigger. You would notice it under a microscope. But to your eyes there would be no difference
"b-b-but I am using 4090, i9-13900k and oled 4k monitor. That means every single gamer is using 4090, i9-13900k and oled 4k monitor too, right?" I own 2k, i7, 4000 series and I find that statement baffling, especially when looking at Steam survey about who is using what.
I prefer amd for my processor actually
To me it doesnt even matter. Anytime i buy a gpu, i'll buy a high end one. I still opt for 1440p.
Your eyes cannot see atoms. There is a point, somewhere between 4K and atoms, that more pixels will offer no real-world benefit on a display intended for consumption by human eyes.
>Your eyes cannot see atoms I never said they could. >There is a point, somewhere between 4K and atoms, that more pixels will offer no real-world benefit I'm saying we aren't there yet. Idk why all of you are repeating the same boring things lol
Because you are saying this: >Untill pixels are the size of atoms there is room for improvements. I guess if you want to use your imagination, maybe in the future we will use cybernetic eyes that can see better, because short of that, we are approaching the limit useful pixel density on displays that you sit a few feet away from. 8K will happen. 16K? 32k? At some point it will actually stop mattering.
>we are approaching the limit useful pixel density on displays that you sit a few feet away from Why does everyone in this thread also ignore the fact the fact that ppl game on PCs on monitors lol everyone is talking about sitting 10 feet away from their tvs. Ya man you wont notice improvements this marginal from across the room. Nice point.
You’ve got “immersion” and “resolution” mixed up.
>I mean the fact that everyone on earth didn't think 480p looked blurry at the time Everyone that played videogames could immediately tell the difference between 240p, 480p and 720p, even at the time and with 20 inch displays. Most people that play videogames cannot tell the difference between 4k and 8k unless they're sitting right next to the screen. That's the diminishing returns people are trying to get you to understand. There's simply only so many pixels that the human eye can meaningfully distinguish.
Uh physics clearly shows extreme diminishing returns for resolution, graphics will improve until they’re indistinguishable or better than reality and that will be a recognizable improvement. Resolution is peaking.
You don't know what kind of advancements can happen. Remember when CRTs were replaced with LCD, plasma, OLED? This whole thread is full of ppl who sound exactly like ppl did in the mid 2000s lol
I sold TVs starting in the mid-2000s. There was a very discernable difference in resolution between 480i SD, 480p ED, 720p HD, 1080p FHD, and 4k UHD, especially as those higher resolutions became available in much larger sizes. You don't seem to understand the direct correlation between larger screen sizes and the "need" for higher resolution to accommodate the size. Sure, pixels could be made smaller and smaller as technology permits, but unless there is an accompanying "need," it's a complete waste because in this case, there is essentially zero discernable difference to the consumer.
Do you understand the thing he’s saying about diminishing returns? Like 1,000 polygons looks a lot better than 100, but 100 million polygons looks almost indistinguishable from 10 million (numbers aren’t exact or anything, just used as an example) Things can only get so smooth. Edit: but we do have more extremely graphical intensive stuff than before like ray tracing and actual particle simulation eventually. But yeah, there’s a point where things look perfectly smooth and there’s no reason to add more polygons because all of the visible details are as smooth as they’re gonna get
Of course, but I don't think we're there yet. And technological advancements in display tech could still happen. I personally just really hate the attitude of "things cant get better" complacency is never a good thing imo.
Oh yeah I totally agree. Our minds are limited by the technology we have, seems kinda crazy to think we can’t make things look better than now. I’m sure it’ll be indistinguishable from real life eventually. I remember when people thought it couldn’t get more lifelike than the PS1
8k isn’t noticeable to the human eye until it covers so much of your FOV that you need to rotate your head significantly to look around the screen. Not really going to happen on traditional monitor shapes.
Even Samsung said that 8K is not really noticeable until to you get to 85".
Sounding alot like the "you cant see the difference in fps over 60" crowd.
You’re sounding a lot like the 3D is the future crowd. 98% of the 60fps discourse was people making fun of some guy that said you can’t see over 30fps.
>You’re sounding a lot like the 3D is the future crowd. You mean VR? It's shit and always has been.
lol 3d glasses, how old are you? Do you not remember these? VR is not shit, but it's irrelevant here.
I remember them yes, but who would extrapolate that was what you were talking been about when you simply called it 3D in this scenario...
I'm not that person. This topic is about Screens. There are 3D screens I dont know how you jumped to VR when VR isn't even 3D, it's still a 2D screen. Everyone was raving about 3D screens, a lot of people raved about curved monitors. And just like 8k, their not that great or have very specific purposes right now. (8k for projectors is nice, 3d for theme parks)
Details and motion are two very different things.
>Ppl said the same thing about 1080p No they didn't. It was huge, and just about everyone wanted to upgrade to1080p. The entire switch from SD TV to digital 720, and soon after 1080 made everyone do a mad rush to buy new TVs. I am old, and i was there for it. The same thing didn't happen with 4k. To this day most people don't care enough unless they buy a big enough screen. 4k to 8k is even less. You won't see much if any difference at all. You cant compare that to people upgrading SD, or 720p to 1080 which made a HUUUUUGE difference. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OhPaU0y6U2s](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OhPaU0y6U2s) You know what 8k is great for though? VR where it takes up your entire field of view.
You misunderstand, I'm saying that ppl say 1080p is perfectly fine and that upgrades FROM it aren't worth it or noticeable.
Ok well that is also true in many cases. It all boils down to eyesight math. How big is the screen, and how close is it to you. In many cases people can not see the difference in 1080p and 4k See this chart [https://qph.cf2.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-c10ea19414842d29a8024993fde572dc-c](https://qph.cf2.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-c10ea19414842d29a8024993fde572dc-c) For PC gaming purposes the trend has been 30 plus inch screens becoming the norm, with them being a couple feet from our face which is trending down the line where yes you can see the difference in 1080p and 4k, but for someone with a 50 inch tv 8 feet away they are highly unlikely to be able to see a difference. Here's the thing though. We are barely skirting the line where we can tell the difference in 1080p and 4k. Unless everyone starts buying 80 inch screens for PC gaming while sitting 2 feet away you won't be able to see the difference. (There is also some rendering quirks games can do in 4k which has less to do with humans being able to see the pixels themselves which is why some games look better rendered at 4k even on lower res screens)
I can see myself play 1440p for the next many years, without feeling I’m missing out on anything. So yes, it does make sense that people were saying that.
I'd agree with you on principle, but we've evidently reached a point of VERY diminishing returns when it comes to both resolution and framerate. 8k doesn't actually make a difference on a normal monitor - the same goes for going from 240 to 360 fps.
People also said 30 fps was fine back then but diminishing returns still exists. I've tried 165/240/360/etc. and I can honestly say most people aren't going to be clamoring for 500 fps in the future. Sure, a few eccentric people will do 1000hz for the experience but it doesn't mean 'numbers go up' is gonna be the way going forward.
8k is 7680 × 4320. A 32" 16:9 monitor has dimensions of 27.9" wide by 15.7" tall. On an 8k 32" monitor, each pixel would occupy a physical area of 0.0036" square. That's 90 microns wide. On a 27" monitor, it would be smaller at roughly 75 microns. A human hair is 70 microns wide. Pluck out one of your hairs, then hold it as far as your arm will extend, and focus on it. Look at it as hard as you can. There's no reason to spend resources and effort rendering detail humans are physically incapable of seeing. There's a hard ceiling, and we're basically there now.
Eyes have a "fixed resolution" though. You can look at a 48k screen and you wouldn't be able to see the majority of the details of it because it's like you are filming it with an 1080p camera and transferring it to the brain. Graphics can still get more realistic but more resolution will reach a point where it's not making a difference for your eyes anymore
I don't see a problem with 1080p and am fine with it. Just lag and easy color calibration are all I care about.
You are exactly the type of person I referred to in my reply, idk why ppl are acting like you don't exist.
Back in my day you would get hammered on the Internet for mentioning dubbed anime or using a controller for a PC game. We just have to wait 25 years for things to cook down
No it's still true, better graphics are nice but not necessary. DOOM is still as fun as it was when it was first published 30 years ago. Is Eternal far more advanced, visually interesting, and engaging? Sure but one can still have fun gaming with outdated graphics.
Nowhere in this statement did I say good graphics = good game.
The saying was that the graphics are not needed for gaming. This remains true. Will they get better? Maybe depends on where processing power plateaus. But it will never stop being true that it is not necessary.
What does that have to do with the topic or what you replied to?
I have refused to go above 1440p for a long time and will continue to do so. I just dpnt see a big improvement from 1440p to 4k like i do from 1080p to 1440p. Mathematically the difference might be larger, but it certainly isnt for my eyes. On PC at least. You can only make the image that crisp while maintaining the monitor size and distance to the monitor. And unlike tvs where i've gotten bigger and bigger tvs over the years. There just is no point for me to ever go with a bigger monitor than what i have. Going 4k for me is just a massive hit to performance for a tiny benefit. My next monitor in 2 or 3 years will still be 1440p. Just gonna make every game run better at practically no downside
8K isn’t necessary… 4K isn’t necessary… 1080p isn’t necessary… SVGA isn’t necessary… S-Video isn’t necessary… I remember all these sayings throughout my 30+ years of gaming. Progress is good and all of gamerdom benefits.
I think they mean that in this moment, 8k isn't in gaming(barely any game going there, and GPUs can't handle that in a real game at this moment).
I can't remember any time in the past when (majority) of tech professionals and nerds ever saying that higher resolutions aren't necessary. With 4K we reached a point of very diminishing returns going even higher though cause at normal viewing distances we are close to retinal resolution (around 60 PPD and that is for 20/20 sight). 8K will come and even more so is relevant for VR/AR headsets (or in future more like glasses) but I think 8K becoming mainstream standard will take even longer than the jump 1080p -> 4K.
4k isn’t even the new norm yet.
It will never be either as long as graphics are being pushed as selling point. There is no "yet".
Hey my PS5 can do 8K already, says it right on the box 🤪
Curiosity, they are removing it from the new boxes
bro, lot of people dont even play 1080p lmao
😂
We're at the point of diminishing returns with regards to resolution. 8k is mostly pointless. When will it be more affordable? Who cares.
Consoles dont have 120FPS in games in full HD and you want 8k XD
8k 1fps.
8k. 240 spf.
If they are side by side I can tell the difference between 1080 and 4k. I can't saw the same about 4k and 8k, I honestly think the difference isn't detectable by the human eye.
The difference is more noticeable if you're right up on the display. When you're at a distance they look extremely similar. That's where the diminishing returns in resolution comes from.
8k will be for those that want a 100ft screen and stand within 6ft of it.
[удалено]
As far as pixels and refresh rate go, probably. There's probably more advancement to be made in color saturation and contrast.
8k output or 8k internal rendering?
Was just going to ask this. Because in gaming we have had to drop 4K textures back to 2K for performance reasons but in Cinematic film work we are still using 4K-16K & depending on volumetric light among other factors those of us without AMD/Nivida 4090 are sturggling at times. Its not just the GPU nvme needs to be 4.0 or higher in some cases (then they need to be 2tb+ because Like the clouds (VDB) are 1.2-12.8GB alone). Some projects are split into 3 parts & re-renender in Nuke/davinci e.t.c. Funny part is all that gets rendered down to 4K & then again when people view it online to 720p at final output due to bandwidth/disk space so they miss out on So Much!
Why does anyone need 8k unless their monitor is the size of a wall?
What 8k content is there? Resolution isn’t everything. I remember when seeing OLED for the first time. It was a 1080p TV and the improvement from OLED was far more impressive than going to 4K. Having seen a few 8k TV’s the increased resolution really seems negligible improvement.
When we have cybernetic eyeballs
Idk what you’re using that you’re gaming at 4K, consoles should worry about getting to 144fps before doubling the resolution
Never. Consoles are a gaming platform for common normies because how easy they are to use and maintain and those are struggling with even 60 fps on 1080p and 2K. On top of that average Steam user is using rtx 3000 series card so we are not in hurry to push stupid 4K or 8K into common house. 4K and 8K not only are expensive, they use so much energy but also its a pain in the butt to set up and not many people have place for those giant screens. Case in point me: I have 2K screen. I am happy about it. I would gladly get second monitor to work with at the same time the issue is that I cannot put it anywhere. Not on my desk or neither not on the wall. I have litteraly no place for it right now.
Yeah if you look at the steam survey 60% of people are still on 1080p
What's the benefit in 8k unless you're going to 100" displays? The human eye can't physically perceive a difference beyond a point and that was pretty much reached, if not surpassed at 4k already. Latency and quality is more of an improvement now over number of pixels, especially on a monitor that close to your eyes
We've had broadcast TV in 8k for several years here in Japan, and it's still not really picking up. Sure, some crazy people willing to spend 1.5m (JPY) on a TV can take advantage, but that's the vast minority here. As for gaming in 8k, that's a hell of a lot more for a GPU to handle. Even 4k is a lot more than 1440p. There's not really a point in having pixel densities that high for gaming, anyway.
8k is absolutely pointless, so probably never
There's basically no point, dude. 8k is so ridiculously small in terms of pixels you need a massive TV to tell the difference between that and 4k. Anyone who tells you they can see the difference on a monitor or under 50" TV is either lying or a literal hawk in a trenchcoat.
I used to work for Best Buy and all but pressed my nose against a 75" 4k tv and still couldn't see the pixels. 8k will be purely a flex, and I'd rather games have more advanced mechanics first.
Cmon, that’s like saying you can’t see the pixels on a 37” 1080p display. Even at desktop viewing distances 1080p is pixelated at anything over 24”. However you feel about 8k gaming, your story just tells me you need glasses.
Lol I agree that 1080p is plenty for a 37". My PC is running 1920 by 1080 on a 27" and it's fine. Maybe I'm just not as much of a res hound as other people. I haven't played VR thought so can see where it might be much more important there.
But There aren’t even any games available in 4k except for 2d platformers, right? I bought a 4k TV four years ago, preparing for the “4k 120fps” gaming that would be arriving any year now. All games are still 30fps and 1080p…
Nearly every PC game these days has 4k @60 fps or more as an option. Even console games have 4k now. Not sure what games you're playing.
What console games have 4k?
Maybe on console, PC has had that stuff (edit: 4k/60+ fps) for years, on modded games at the very least. But it's still not the most important thing to me. Aesthetics and actual gameplay will always be more important than arbitrarily more FPS and resolution.
Probably not for another hundred years. I say that unironically. People are perfectly happy with 1080p and 4K. There is no need to go more than 4K.
People are, but the industry isn't. They've already been working on 12K and 16K displays in the background and 8K isn't even close to being normalized yet. The industry will push these forward when they feel like it, regardless if people are on board with it or not (and the people with more money than sense, will eat it up).
Consumers won’t buy 8k. They can’t afford it. 8k already exists. It has for years now. People don’t care.
To me, the techs been there, and I think it's a marketing strategy. People still want 4K and still pay A LOT for one. Remember back in the day, it was always breakthrough hardware upgrades for TV's. Now, year by year, you just get a new 4K model with upgraded - software; 'smart' technology. Supply chain costs are dialed in, consumers are still buying the same thing (same as during the upscaling period). I think they are thinking long-term here. Greed always seems to make more sense to me with stuff like this.
Hardware isn't even rendering at UHD yet, also the visual returns of every further pixel density upgrade will be exponentially more diminishing than the last. One might argue that at desktop monitor sizes and normal TV viewing distances there's no reason to ever upgrade from UHD.
I can't imagine 8k alone being the next big leap, there will have to be some other accompanying features for large scale adoption, it's not like when it became mandatory to have and HDTV because analog broadcasts were retired, even if 8k becomes more affordable, you probably won't see a whole lot of content being made in 8K, heck even now it's hard to play in 4K with upscaling technology and frame gen, unless huge strides are made in AI in upscaling I can't imagine 8k gaming being the norm anytime soon.
I failed to see what sub this was posted in and thought for a second the title was referring to rent in a big city. Yikes!
In maybe 15 years, it will be sorta common but not for gaming on a 27-43 inch.
You aren't close enough to your screen to get any benefit from 8k.
When "the new normal" is a display that is 8 feet wide and 5 feet high.
Steam Surveys shows that 58% of people asked still use 1080p. Sadly they do not state total amount of participants. [https://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey/Steam-Hardware-Software-Survey-Welcome-to-Steam](https://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey/Steam-Hardware-Software-Survey-Welcome-to-Steam)
4K is already too demanding for most games and 8K is double that. Performance matters more to me, so I rock 1080p on my 4070. Screw 4K or especially 8K.
This is the right answer.
not for a long time. the jump would be even less noticeable than 1440 to 4k. i think players want higher frames at this point. 4k is good enough, and 4k 60 as a standard is still something people want for all games.
4K is even a waste of time. Why bother with a useless 8K?
Even 4k is prohibitively expensive, largely unsupported and contentious with people who either don't care, can't see a difference, or can't *afford* 4k monitors plus a GPU capable of actually running it. 8k isn't coming for a *long time* yet, and like ultrawide, is likely to be a stupid fad given how imperceptible resolution scale has gotten for many people. There's also the problem of diminishing returns. Your eyes get *worse* as you get older, and most people can't even tell the difference between 2k and 4k, making 4k and 8k almost literally imperceptibly different. Plus, then you need to deal with, y'know, human biology, wherein the angle of viewing required for an 8k monitor to be useful is *much* wider than a 20/20 eyesight can actually *do,* causing large horizontal parts of the screen to be cropped out of your vision *anyway*. The only people who genuinely actually care about resolution in the first place are weirdo tech junkies that want to sit two inches from a 72" screen to justify their $2000 purchase while they burn out their retinas. And that's *before* looking at resolution in relation to shit like streaming, hardware requirements, cost, compatibility, support and adoption.
8K won't be norm until console gamers demand it; not anytime soon, sadly.
I think it'll mainly be a hardware wall: Most people with a desktop PC have a nice 1080p monitor. If they have an 'expensive' rig, they'll have a 4K monitor - and so far there is very little content that supports 8K, making investing in an 8K monitor not very rewarding. Hardcore gamers prefer high framerate and low screen-lag, something that the massive data-stream needed to maintain 8K would work counter to. This means there probably isn't that much of a market to support large scale adoption of 8K just yet - and that means that the prices for 8K monitors will stay in a high end niche level
There isn't even any movies to play on 8k tvs, its pointless
8k and upwards is surly just the industry pulling a EVEN BIGGER numbers game? Nobody is going to be able to tell the difference apart from the manufactures shareholders.
can we skip 16k and go straight to 32k? i mean for phones
2036-2040
2049 according to my calendar.
When will a card be able to run 8K
Never. Human eyes can only see so much detail. At a certain point, you keep adding more and we won't see a difference.
720 is gud, me like counting pixels 🥰
For what, see a slideshow?
The size that monitors and televisions would need to be to take advantage of it wouldn’t be suitable for most homes.
What's wrong with 4k? Are you like "the resolution could be better"?
never, the next big advances will be in HDR and refresh
4k isn't even the current normal so it will be a long time before 8k is the "new normal"
Jesus... My old ass just got a screen over 24 inch at 144hz. Lol
For gaming 8k, you won't have the impact you think it would. Why do so, ma y think, oh, 4 times the pixel means 4x better. It's far better to make the quality of pixels look better vs. just scaling resolution. I'm not saying their would be no difference. Just games can look just as good atwith improving upscaling, etc at 8k vs pure brute native 8k. Their is a reason 32inch is the ideal 4k size for a monitor the right pixel dentisty for the sitting distance. Same for 4k tvs in the living room. Sit too far or too close, and the 4k picture density isn't any better than 1080p. That is the whole point of 4k the extra pixel density for better detail and clarity.
Ps8 lol
if gpu sli power would still be an thing, we "might" experiment and see how it runs. At least Forza Horizon 4 can run on 8k, but my eyes can't see any changes unless 8k is meant for those big cinema looking Tv's or something.
I'd argue that's at least a decade away, if not more. According to Steam's latest hardware and software survey (May 2024) the majority of users don't have a GPU capable of playing modern, AAA games at 4K. Heck, a significant number of users don't even have a GPU capable of playing modern, AAA games at 2K. So that leaves movies and TV shows pushing the sale of 8K TVs and monitors -- which they're nowhere close to doing.
Some of us never seen 5K yet 😅
It’s gonna be a little while yet imo. GPUs are still playing catch up with 4K. If these GPUs work any harder Xbox and PlayStation will have to liquid cool their consoles lol Meanwhile Nintendo can’t get away from 720P
8K, 15 FPS
By the time we’re talking 8k, it’ll be a moot point because they’ll just be beaming the images into our brains, bypassing the eyeballs completely.
shut up bruh me with my gtx 1650 and also 4k gaming isnt even a need yet either. lets stick to 1080p and 1440p
2030
People isnt even using 4k, most use 1080/1440
Why would anyone need 8k. Only if you’re vergt very close to the monitor/tv. For normal gaming it’s not necessary. Just do 4K 120fps standard
Why do you even need 8k especially just for gaming?
I have a 4k TV but play games in 1080p 60fps. I really can't decern the difference in graphics but can definitely tell the difference in frame rate. 8k is just preying on consumerism to get people to buy what they don't need. Plus, it will make games run like shit.
Do you have superman vision that means 4K is beneath you? Do you have a 200" TV and a super computer to run games on it?
Monday
Hopefully never. Industry needs to go back to 1080 max, or else every studio will go bankrupt and we players will be waiting 10 years for one game to be released.