- Status
sonofliberty08
Distinguished
- Mar 17, 2009
- 658
- 0
- 18,980
[citation][nom]geeksinhere23[/nom]that's nothing. is just rumorRumor said xbox720 Will Support 8K Resolution, if you merge 2 xbox 720 together you can output 16k resolution. please. can someone inform me that I don't need to sell my house to get that super HD tv for gaming.[/citation]
rumor said america will have spaceship for starwar...... and then soviet unions fall......
rumor said america will have spaceship for starwar...... and then soviet unions fall......
hannibal
Distinguished
- Apr 1, 2004
- 2,926
- 269
- 21,190
Ofcource it will support 4K! Even now there are Highend AV-reseivers that support 4K. It is like PS3: PS3 suport full HD movie playpack, and the games are made in 720P. The new PS4 will play movies in 4K and support games in 1080P.
The PS 3 was the cheapest way of playin Blue ray movies a long time! Now it seems that PS4 will do the same to 4K. Nobody expect that in can run games at that resolution, but movies. Hell yeah! It is even easy to do.
The PS 3 was the cheapest way of playin Blue ray movies a long time! Now it seems that PS4 will do the same to 4K. Nobody expect that in can run games at that resolution, but movies. Hell yeah! It is even easy to do.
innocent bystander
Distinguished
- Nov 13, 2009
- 64
- 0
- 18,640
I don't see much point to 4K in a home setting other than using a 46"+ TV as a computer monitor without getting washed out text on the screen.
I'll probably pick one up when my current TV dies but won't make purchasing one a priority. It's not as big of a jump as going from 480i to 1080p. Especially watching the screen from 10-15ft away. I doubt any normal person will see much of a difference.
Just natural progression of technology. It's supposed to push the next big wave of upgrades but I suspect it'll fizzle out just like 3D. Now it's being advertised as the "must have" feature and when it fails to catch on it'll quietly become just another feature of just another flat panel TV.
IB
I'll probably pick one up when my current TV dies but won't make purchasing one a priority. It's not as big of a jump as going from 480i to 1080p. Especially watching the screen from 10-15ft away. I doubt any normal person will see much of a difference.
Just natural progression of technology. It's supposed to push the next big wave of upgrades but I suspect it'll fizzle out just like 3D. Now it's being advertised as the "must have" feature and when it fails to catch on it'll quietly become just another feature of just another flat panel TV.
IB
playing a PlayStation 4 game at 3840 x 2160 -- and 60 frames per second at that -- seems a little far-fetched at this point.
Wrong it would be 120hz at least since it would have 3D support.
Current tripple gpu pc's almost don't have enough power to support that let alone a console.
Wrong it would be 120hz at least since it would have 3D support.
Current tripple gpu pc's almost don't have enough power to support that let alone a console.
quangluu96
Distinguished
- Apr 19, 2011
- 124
- 0
- 18,680
Look, the title said it "supports" doesn't mean games is gonna be at that res, maybe now 1080p games will be standard and maybe minigames will be at 4k res and videos&photos.
techguy911
Distinguished
- Jun 8, 2007
- 1,075
- 0
- 19,460
4k is for video playback not gaming as for the price min $30,000 for a 4k display atm too much for average person don't see how anyone will pay that much for a display.
Even 4k monitors are that price range while at smaller size movie theaters are using 4k atm it's so expensive that in small cities they only have 1 4k projector.
Even 4k monitors are that price range while at smaller size movie theaters are using 4k atm it's so expensive that in small cities they only have 1 4k projector.
g00fysmiley
Distinguished
- Apr 30, 2010
- 2,175
- 0
- 19,860
i could see 4k resolution for playback of blueray or other media, but am n agreement that a console will not put out 4k resolution at a decent framerate.
consoles can do impressive thinge for thier hardware... granted pc's look better due to superior hardware but for what little muscle they pack consoles look decent, i just can't see a console gen jumpping to 4k resolution withouy the cosole costing at least a grand and at that price not many people would buy it
consoles can do impressive thinge for thier hardware... granted pc's look better due to superior hardware but for what little muscle they pack consoles look decent, i just can't see a console gen jumpping to 4k resolution withouy the cosole costing at least a grand and at that price not many people would buy it
djscribbles
Honorable
- Apr 6, 2012
- 1,212
- 0
- 11,460
Meanwhile at Sony:
Marketing is having a huge staff party, promotions for everyone!
And...
Engineering is weeping while updating their resumes.
Marketing is having a huge staff party, promotions for everyone!
And...
Engineering is weeping while updating their resumes.
ForTehNguyen
Honorable
- Jun 6, 2012
- 13
- 0
- 10,510
[citation][nom]caedenv[/nom]1080p has a DAR of 1.7:1QFHD (quad full HD, which is the same as UHD) has the same aspect ratio of 1.7:1'full' cinema 4K (sort of the old standard) is 4096x1714 which is an extremely wide 2.39:1'normal' cinema 4K resolution is 3996x2160 which is a slightly less wide 1.85:1, but still wider than good 'ol 16:9I see another format war brewing. QFHD looks to be in the lead with the most support from display manufacturers, but there are quite a few hats in the 4K (3996x2160) camp as well as it is the format for the projector, camera, and film industries.[/citation]
movies have always been wider. tv, people moaned when they have black bars on the sides, i cant see them going even wider while most tv pre hd is all 4:3, if they reformated that again to even wider, the shows would be unwatchable. and haveing what, almost a full tv on the 2 sides would enrage people. i cant see anything wider than 16:9 winning out in a normal home.
4K cinima version, will win out in projectors though, but normal homes dont use projectors.
[citation][nom]innocent bystander[/nom]I don't see much point to 4K in a home setting other than using a 46"+ TV as a computer monitor without getting washed out text on the screen. I'll probably pick one up when my current TV dies but won't make purchasing one a priority. It's not as big of a jump as going from 480i to 1080p. Especially watching the screen from 10-15ft away. I doubt any normal person will see much of a difference.Just natural progression of technology. It's supposed to push the next big wave of upgrades but I suspect it'll fizzle out just like 3D. Now it's being advertised as the "must have" feature and when it fails to catch on it'll quietly become just another feature of just another flat panel TV.IB[/citation]
at 10-15 feet you need an 80inch + just to push what you can see in 1080p, much less 4k.
-----------------------
god, do you people forget allot or what?
the ps3 took a massive loss at 600$, when cost to build was closet to 1000$... this was a time when a bluray player alone was 4-500$
sony is willing to take a massive loss to push a format, what do you think they will do with the next one if they are willing to take a loss? lets say they come out at 400$ and they take the same loss. cpu, and other parts, that adds up to what, 200-250$, so they have 550$ on a gpu budget. the ps3 probably wont come out till 2014, so do you really think they will use the gpu power of today?
if they really want to push the 4k format, they will be spending 550$ on a gpu budget (thats basicly a whole sale price gpu, not a msrp markup like we get) on a 2 year down the line gpu.
honestly if sony wants to push power, by god they could make current high end rigs look like crap. and we have seen with ion the past, and today, that they are willing to take a massive loss to win out a format.
granted they could just settle for outputing at 4k, but if they really want to push the format, they will need to go balls out, and gameing will be the thing to push it.
sure, not all games will run at 4k, but for all of us, they will run just fine at a lower resolution (higher than 1080p but lower than 4k, like now how games are higher than 480p, but lower than 720 most of the time.
movies have always been wider. tv, people moaned when they have black bars on the sides, i cant see them going even wider while most tv pre hd is all 4:3, if they reformated that again to even wider, the shows would be unwatchable. and haveing what, almost a full tv on the 2 sides would enrage people. i cant see anything wider than 16:9 winning out in a normal home.
4K cinima version, will win out in projectors though, but normal homes dont use projectors.
[citation][nom]innocent bystander[/nom]I don't see much point to 4K in a home setting other than using a 46"+ TV as a computer monitor without getting washed out text on the screen. I'll probably pick one up when my current TV dies but won't make purchasing one a priority. It's not as big of a jump as going from 480i to 1080p. Especially watching the screen from 10-15ft away. I doubt any normal person will see much of a difference.Just natural progression of technology. It's supposed to push the next big wave of upgrades but I suspect it'll fizzle out just like 3D. Now it's being advertised as the "must have" feature and when it fails to catch on it'll quietly become just another feature of just another flat panel TV.IB[/citation]
at 10-15 feet you need an 80inch + just to push what you can see in 1080p, much less 4k.
-----------------------
god, do you people forget allot or what?
the ps3 took a massive loss at 600$, when cost to build was closet to 1000$... this was a time when a bluray player alone was 4-500$
sony is willing to take a massive loss to push a format, what do you think they will do with the next one if they are willing to take a loss? lets say they come out at 400$ and they take the same loss. cpu, and other parts, that adds up to what, 200-250$, so they have 550$ on a gpu budget. the ps3 probably wont come out till 2014, so do you really think they will use the gpu power of today?
if they really want to push the 4k format, they will be spending 550$ on a gpu budget (thats basicly a whole sale price gpu, not a msrp markup like we get) on a 2 year down the line gpu.
honestly if sony wants to push power, by god they could make current high end rigs look like crap. and we have seen with ion the past, and today, that they are willing to take a massive loss to win out a format.
granted they could just settle for outputing at 4k, but if they really want to push the format, they will need to go balls out, and gameing will be the thing to push it.
sure, not all games will run at 4k, but for all of us, they will run just fine at a lower resolution (higher than 1080p but lower than 4k, like now how games are higher than 480p, but lower than 720 most of the time.
demonhorde665
Distinguished
- Jul 13, 2008
- 1,492
- 0
- 19,280
ok granted the game industry was wrong on the 720 vs 1080p thing ... but 4k ... these tv';s arnt even out yet , do you know how rediculous this is , or how rediculous a 4k set will cost when they come out. to think for aminute this is gona sell this early on is just stupid. most poor console palyign people don't even have a 720 hdtv yet let alone be any where near the price range a 4k will cost. i dotn even think any pc monitors out ahve hit 4k resolutions yet.
Lastly i'd lie to say 4k WTF ??? unless you are hopping onto a 60 -80 inch monster tv (which cost uberly expensive ammounts already) 4k resolution won't mean s---, 42 and lower i just don't see where you'd get much noticable visual benifit of that high of a resolution , i think the max you'd see differnece on at 42 inch would be 2k something , on a 32 1080 is jsut about right for it's max, i jsut don't see 4k as necessary , and i honestly think TV manufactures are just pushing for reasons to get consumers to cyle through tv's every 5 years , f--- that , i paid 500 bucks for my 42 inch LG last year ona sale and i don't see myself dropping 500 bucks every 5 years on a new tv. sick and tired of seeing this consumerism mentality out country has driven itself into , bottom line is all that matters and throw way goods at premium prices. the future is starting to look more and more like that stupid movie "Idiocracy".
Lastly i'd lie to say 4k WTF ??? unless you are hopping onto a 60 -80 inch monster tv (which cost uberly expensive ammounts already) 4k resolution won't mean s---, 42 and lower i just don't see where you'd get much noticable visual benifit of that high of a resolution , i think the max you'd see differnece on at 42 inch would be 2k something , on a 32 1080 is jsut about right for it's max, i jsut don't see 4k as necessary , and i honestly think TV manufactures are just pushing for reasons to get consumers to cyle through tv's every 5 years , f--- that , i paid 500 bucks for my 42 inch LG last year ona sale and i don't see myself dropping 500 bucks every 5 years on a new tv. sick and tired of seeing this consumerism mentality out country has driven itself into , bottom line is all that matters and throw way goods at premium prices. the future is starting to look more and more like that stupid movie "Idiocracy".
I just went to Japan and saw a 55", AMOLED, high Hz rate (not sure the number) playing video of content at the res. and, I gotta say, it was the most gorgeous thing I've ever seen. I just sat there for like 10 minutes. I want.[citation][nom]Gin Fushicho[/nom]Doesn't anyone else think it should be 2160p instead of the deceiving 4k? Considering we say 1080p and not 1920p.[/citation]
I'm in the other camp. I think that since the horizontal resolution is the only thing constant (the bars at the top and bottom during movies), we should be saying 2K for 1080p and 4K for 2160p
I'm in the other camp. I think that since the horizontal resolution is the only thing constant (the bars at the top and bottom during movies), we should be saying 2K for 1080p and 4K for 2160p
shin0bi272
Distinguished
- Nov 20, 2007
- 1,103
- 0
- 19,310
I think we're missing the point here. A) this is a rumor which are often wrong ... remember the rumor that the 680 would be called the 780? And then of course B) even if it turns out to be true and they are pushing 2160p how many of us on our pc's are running 1080p or higher with 4x msaa on ultra detail at higher than 60 fps? Now imagine what you'll be running the end of next year or the end of 2014. 2160p wont be a problem to run in 2 years.
gigantor21
Distinguished
- Aug 23, 2011
- 38
- 0
- 18,530
Random noob question: will 4k even be worth it for games on a 23-25" screen? I do most of my gaming and movie viewing in my bedroom, so...
- Status
TRENDING THREADS
-
Question New build wont post Gigabyte B650M Gaming Plus wifi , AMD Ryzen 5 7600X CPU, 32GB T-Force RGB DDR5. Need help!
- Started by Notmiserable
- Replies: 26
-
Discussion PSU recommendations and power supply discussion thread - Tom's hardware- Started by Darkbreeze
- Replies: 2K
-
Discussion What's your favourite video game you've been playing?- Started by amdfangirl
- Replies: 4K
-
Question Upgraded from a 1060 6GB to a 2070 Super, barely notice the difference in fps???- Started by MrFlyingstickman
- Replies: 18
-
Question Debit card compromised, paranoid about malware
- Started by royrichard1290
- Replies: 3
-
Review AMD Ryzen 7 9800X3D Review: Devastating Gaming Performance- Started by Admin
- Replies: 203
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram