Discussion CPUs and 16K - Are You Ready for the Future?

[jnjnilson6]

On the right side of the above image there appear two 16K videos. To play them you'd need a very fast Internet connection and a very powerful CPU.
My Core i7-12700H (14 Cores / 20 Threads | Top Speed @ 4.7 GHz) goes up to 100% while playing video 1.

The Wikipedia page may be reached at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/16K_resolution .

I would be glad if you should share your CPU usage on both video 1 and 2, your memory usage and your GPU usage. Let's see who's got true speed beneath the hood!

Thank you!

 

[randyh121]

On the right side of the above image there appear two 16K videos. To play them you'd need a very fast Internet connection and a very powerful CPU.
My Core i7-12700H (14 Cores / 20 Threads | Top Speed @ 4.7 GHz) goes up to 100% while playing video 1.

The Wikipedia page may be reached at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/16K_resolution .

I would be glad if you should share your CPU usage on both video 1 and 2, your memory usage and your GPU usage. Let's see who's got true speed beneath the hood!

Thank you!

LOL as soon as I started playing that video my i9-10900 fan started to whir loudly. That is funny.

 

[sitehostplus]

CPU usage is 11%
GPU usage is 24%

My cpu is Ryzen 9 7950x3d and it cranks on stuff like this. Temps shot up to 85C running it though.

I will tell you my internet connection is completely sad, so the videos stutter.

Anyone want to tell me how to measure memory usage? I can't pull up task manager and GForce overlay at the same time.

 

[Exploding PSU]

On the right side of the above image there appear two 16K videos. To play them you'd need a very fast Internet connection and a very powerful CPU.
My Core i7-12700H (14 Cores / 20 Threads | Top Speed @ 4.7 GHz) goes up to 100% while playing video 1.

The Wikipedia page may be reached at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/16K_resolution .

I would be glad if you should share your CPU usage on both video 1 and 2, your memory usage and your GPU usage. Let's see who's got true speed beneath the hood!

Thank you!

It took me half an hour just to load the video, yeah my internet connection isn't exactly the best in the world. It's 3.8 GB in size turns out.

My CPU shot up to 100% when playing the video, and hovers around 90% after a few seconds. The video plays horribly though, we're talking 1-2 FPS, with a couple of hiccups that sees the video skip forward every so often.
CPU is a Ryzen 5 2600. Stock everything.

GPU only goes up to 20%-ish, I believe.

CPU usage is 11%
GPU usage is 24%

My cpu is Ryzen 9 7950x3d and it cranks on stuff like this. Temps shot up to 85C running it though.

I will tell you my internet connection is completely sad, so the videos stutter.

Anyone want to tell me how to measure memory usage? I can't pull up task manager and GForce overlay at the same time.

The video takes up roughly 4GB in memory, except you're talking about VRAM, in which case it's about 2 GB-ish.

So that means, to answer the question posed in the title of this post : "No I am not, yet."
To be fair the main TV on my "living room" is still 720p, and you trailblazers already talking about 16K?

Might try it on my 2010-era single core Atom netbook later this evening, what could possibly happen?

 

[Deleted member 2838871]

Let's see who's got true speed beneath the hood!

Thank you!

It doesn't matter what the speed under the hood is when the video is hosted by AOL.

My system didn't have any issues... both CPU and GPU usage was low as was RAM usage but the problem was the constant stuttering because the video only downloaded 1 second at a time. I even paused it to try to download the entire thing and then play it for a more accurate result but it just stops.

Need a better source. My internet isn't the problem.

 

[sitehostplus]

It doesn't matter what the speed under the hood is when the video is hosted by AOL.

My system didn't have any issues... both CPU and GPU usage was low as was RAM usage but the problem was the constant stuttering because the video only downloaded 1 second at a time. I even paused it to try to download the entire thing and then play it for a more accurate result but it just stops.

Need a better source. My internet isn't the problem.

How about downloading the video and running it locally and see if that helps.

There is a tutorial on how to do that somewhere on Toms.

 

[kanewolf]

Without a 16K display, aren't you just using CPU to transcode/scale the video to the resolution you have?

 

[sitehostplus]

Ok, after a little digging, I found this page with the original file you can download and run locally.

Video one:

File:Menger-Schwammreihe 16K Endlosschleife 16000x9000p60 20211231 VP9 fast006 x10.webm - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Video two:

File:Menger16KVR 16000x8000p60 20220106 VP9 fast wiki.webm - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Look for the link 'original video' to download.

Have fun!

 

[sitehostplus]

Without a 16K display, aren't you just using CPU to transcode/scale the video to the resolution you have?

You're right. But it's still fun to see how much my 4080/Ryzen 9 chokes on this file getting it to run. 😺

 

[Deleted member 2838871]

Ok, after a little digging, I found this page with the original file you can download and run locally.


Look for the link 'original video' to download.

Have fun!

That's what I did last night... I clicked on it and it downloaded 3-4 seconds of the video and then stopped... video starts playback... then when it reaches the point it had downloaded to it just starts stuttering. Have had no luck at all getting it to download the entire video... and I'm at work now and it did the same thing it did last night on my home PC.

You're right. But it's still fun to see how much my 4080/Ryzen 9 chokes on this file getting it to run. 😺

The few seconds I ran last night had my CPU at less than 10% and my 4090 at less than 20%... although the CPU temps did get up in the 70C range.

Still... not really accurate until you can play the entire video without waiting on it to download.

I'm really curious to see how this does because my system has actually done really well with UE5 demos.

 

[sitehostplus]

Update.

Downloaded both videos and ran them locally.

GPU utilivation vaires from 1% to 80%. The CPU sits at 25% pretty steady.

Clearly you need a strong GPU to run this stuff. Not sure my 4080 can handle it.

 

[Deleted member 2838871]

Update.

Downloaded both videos and ran them locally.

GPU utilivation vaires from 1% to 80%. The CPU sits at 25% pretty steady.

Clearly you need a strong GPU to run this stuff. Not sure my 4080 can handle it.

I'll try again tonight to see if I can actually download them.

On a side note... I don't really buy into 16K... or even 8K for that matter. There's only so much detail the human eye can see... and 4K is stunning as is. Not sure 8K or 16K is going to be worth the outrageous premiums. We aren't talking 720p to 1080p here.

This isn't my PC enthusiast opinion either... it's my home theater enthusiast opinion. In both cases I use an OLED display.

 

[sitehostplus]

I'll try again tonight to see if I can actually download them.

On a side note... I don't really buy into 16K... or even 8K for that matter. There's only so much detail the human eye can see... and 4K is stunning as is. Not sure 8K or 16K is going to be worth the outrageous premiums. We aren't talking 720p to 1080p here.

This isn't my PC enthusiast opinion either... it's my home theater enthusiast opinion. In both cases I use an OLED display.

TBH, you would actually need a 16k display to really see it in its full glory. I think there is only a handful of those available, so getting your hands on one might be a little hard.

 

[Deleted member 2838871]

TBH, you would actually need a 16k display to really see it in its full glory. I think there is only a handful of those available, so getting your hands on one might be a little hard.

Oh I'm sure... but like I said... it's a bit overkill. When I can already count the pores on someone's face on my 4K (calibrated) OLED... I don't have much interest in 8K and definitely not 16K. There comes a point when resolution goes beyond what the eye can distinguish. Then you have the problem of content... everything home media is 4K Ultra... 1080p... and even DVDs are still being made. You can buy an 8K or 16K setup but if all the content is 4K it doesn't matter.

I don't claim to be an expert... but I do have lots of home theater experience. 🤣

TravisPNW's media library

Anyway... will see if I can get those videos to download later.

 

[TerryLaze]

There comes a point when resolution goes beyond what the eye can distinguish.

This depends incredibly on the size of the display and how far you are from it,
when the total recall future happens and we get a full wall at home being a display we will be needing better than 4k resolution.

Of course by then we will also have hardware decoders for it just like even the cheapest android device has 1080p 264 decoding now.

 

[Deleted member 2838871]

This depends incredibly on the size of the display and how far you are from it,
when the total recall future happens and we get a full wall at home being a display we will be needing better than 4k resolution.

Of course by then we will also have hardware decoders for it just like even the cheapest android device has 1080p 264 decoding now.

Haha yeah... good point. Who knows when that will be... I mean... I remember back in 1989 watching BTTF II and thinking we'd have flying cars in 2015. 🤣

Right now I don't see much use beyond 4K... and my main panel is a 77" CX OLED. Now if the entire wall had like a 200 inch display.... then yeah 8K will be useful... 🤣

 

[TerryLaze]

Haha yeah... good point. Who knows when that will be... I mean... I remember back in 1989 watching BTTF II and thinking we'd have flying cars in 2015. 🤣

Right now I don't see much use beyond 4K... and my main panel is a 77" CX OLED. Now if the entire wall had like a 200 inch display.... then yeah 8K will be useful... 🤣

A propos BTTF 2, that was only 6 standard definition pictures, that's maximum 720x480 times 6=2,073,600
or
720x3=2160
480x2=960
That's the exact resolution of 1080p! Just a different aspect ratio.
1920x1080=2,073,600

 

[Deleted member 2838871]

A propos BTTF 2, that was only 6 standard definition pictures, that's maximum 720x480 times 6=2,073,600
or
720x3=2160
480x2=960
That's the exact resolution of 1080p! Just a different aspect ratio.
1920x1080=2,073,600

Hahah! I was always horrible in math!

 

[Deleted member 2838871]

Nothing changed... clicked original file... they download about 3 seconds worth of video then plays automatically without downloading any further. When it hits the 3 second spot it ends.

I couldn't get it to download... and it's not my internet. It is what it is. For the 3 seconds the videos played my CPU/GPU were showing 20% usage.