Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
I think almost no one will play MMO at 4k resolution.
Kiyoris
Member RarePosts: 2,130
Some MMO use the argument they support 4k resolutions (in the settings).
I just don't think it makes any sense.
I hae been looking at commonly sold video cards and the hit they get when they go form 1080P to 4k.
The amount of FPS you lose by going to 4k is massive.
It's a 3x to 4x reduction in FPS.
Considering each new iteration of GPU increases performance by barely 10%-15%, a 400% hit in performance by using 4k is hard to justify.
Up to 4 times lower FPS by going from 1080P to 4K.
It makes no sense that:
1. People would put up with a 4x drop in framerates
2. People would justify the extra cost in power consumption / hardware price for such horrible gains when they could be playing at 4 times the FPS for cheaper
Sure, we went from 640x460 to 800x600 to 1024x768 and to 1080P, but those changes resulted in easily verifiable gains in graphics quality, you can easily SEE the difference between 800x600 and 1080P.
However, this, from 1080p to 4k, which is barely visible, and causes a massive drop in performance, makes no sense to me.
Comments
welp, 4k gaming is for the 1%'er and your tables show crap class cards, if talking AMD you should only show 290 290x 295's anything else is underpowered because AMD feels people care about noise, just like nvidia.
if you showed tables with nvidia cards it sould only be titan 980 880s. otherwise again you are showing pointless tables.
and in all honestly i personally find it hard to see visual diferences between 2k and 4k in games i use a 40inch 4k screen and i play all games at 2k.
My understanding is that anything over 30 FPS cannot bee seen by the naked eye, therefore 4x the resolution allows the game to be more beautiful and detailed (significantly) as long as the FPS never drops below 30.
Wouldn't you want to have 4x the resolution instead of 200 FPS that looks the same as 30FPS?
280x is still a $300 card though, not that "crappy", it still suffers from a 4x drop in framerate
I believe the graph shows that performance scales linearly with resolution, No matter the GPU in that list, they all suffer from a 3x to 4x drop when going to 4k.
The graph is 1920 x 1200 instead of 1920 by 1080, but close enough.
I am one of the pplz which will play MMO's for sure on 4K.
Atm i play Titles like Skyforge, WoWS, WoT, TESO and such on 4K and i enjoy it sooooo much. And i play them around ~30-60 FPS, so i have no problems whatsoever. I run a Palit Super Jetstream GTX980 with an i5 3570K. So for me there is pretty much place for a 4790 (i think it is or?) later on if air gets thin FPS whise.
I would strongly to suggest to jump on the 4K Train because the Details and whatnot are just awesome and the Monitors for it become cheaper every day. I payed for my 28" just 339€ and that made me an happy Old Gaming Fart. And tbh, i was not into 4K before. But as the Offer came up, i bought it. And then, after having the first Games running in 4K i could not get my mouth closed.
I knew what pplz wrote about 4K, so like "get yourself 3 Titans in SLI" and all that BS, but i can say for me, it is not needed. Not at all. Thats a "Tale". Sure, if you wanna have 1k Frames or what, you need that. But as you can just see ~ 30 anyways it is by far enough. All Games are fluid, no GFX Lag or anything else.
I loudly say YES to 4K Gaming!!
Aerowyn's Video Compilation of ALL things Guild Wars 2
The human eye does not see in frames per second. Though I would concur that anything that is stable and looks continuous is fine to play, and if it looks better with 4k resolution, then go for it.
Wow..not too bright there.
The human eye can see the difference in smoothness on any game running below 30 FPS. Once you are over that threshold, it appears the same regardless of how man more frames per second are rendered.
Actually updated my post with more information regarding the matter at hand. Though I can do no more than facepalm at both my inability to articulate my meaning as well as your misinformation that FPS has anything to do with human sight (besides relations of movement, which are gauged different as explained after this). The human eye sees in a continuous motion; there is a threshold, yes, whereby we notice things. Though FPS is a gauged for electronics. To simply use "simple" terminology and mistakenly use "FPS" as an example oft confuses people who do not distinguish (or even know there is such), which leads to the myth that the eye sees in 30 frames per second, as well as constant arguments of people saying you can or cannot. When, in fact, they are both wrong.
The notion of old "flicks" -- or something whereby it doesn't constantly flow enough for our human eyes to recognize -- is from old movies where we can see the gap in continuous motion and flow of information. If our eyes truly were only capable of seeing in FPS, and 30 FPS was our average, then one would surmise that we wouldn't even recognize any discrepancy or notice if something is extra smooth or that anything at all looks odd when moving from 30 electronic frames per second to 60. We also wouldn't have people being able to tell 30 FPS from 60 FPS from 120 FPS simply just by looking at them (also, why would youtube even have a 60 FPS option now, and why do people prefer it, saying it's much more smooth and takes a few videos to get used to?).
I did show quite a bit of incompetence in my post when I didn't elaborate that I was mainly speaking in terms of academia and not outright say you were wrong (I tried to edit it by agree with your point in an edit dated before your response). In my opinion, you also displayed such both in not also elaborating (granted, you did imply that you did not know for sure at the start and it is far from being my own point of interest or center of knowledge) the point in the first place. In addition to calling someone "Not to bright" to start off a retort that could've sparked intelligent debate and conversation as opposed to implications of outright stupidity of someone who may or may not disagree with you.
Therefore my advice would be to both elaborate on things in the future, as well as respond as one would expect an adult to act, rather than how you began.
My response was appropriate to your unedited post. Perhaps you should be more clear before hitting "Post Message".
In fact I would go so far as to say that it appears to me it is much more important to you to point out to others that you feel you are more intelligent than they. Even more so than discussing any substance such as the original topic. You have contributed criticism to the thread, but little of value in my opinion. Perhaps in the future you should ask yourself if what you are posting is actually of value to others or just to yourself. This post was for me.
The human eye does not see in frames per second.
Wow..not too bright there.
The human eye can see the difference in smoothness on any game running below 30 FPS. Once you are over that threshold, it appears the same regardless of how man more frames per second are rendered.
True human eye can see much after 30fps, but at higher fps you have much more leeway for frame stuttering. Also figures are for maximum fps, hence the higher the numbers the better its avg fps are. And average mumbers that you want to see.Humans can see beyond 30 fps, stop spreading lies. Multiple organizations have proved this including the Unites States Airforce.
STOP SPREADING LIES
http://amo.net/NT/02-21-01FPS.html
http://amo.net/NT/02-21-01FPS.html
http://amo.net/NT/02-21-01FPS.html
http://amo.net/NT/02-21-01FPS.html
http://amo.net/NT/02-21-01FPS.html
http://amo.net/NT/02-21-01FPS.html
Fair points, assertions and opinions, if that's how you feel. I've heard such claims before, but oft weed them out as rhetoric when thinking further on the matter (after reviewing what I write and what they wrote in response, as I will do here). In fact, it's why I simply posted the one sentence originally.
Though the ultimate line therein would be that I wholly recognized my faults, called myself incompetent and said I failed in articulation. I'm even acknowledging your feelings in this response and do believe that it may hold merit as I can see where you might be coming from. But further breaking down my post -- as well as yours -- I'm the only one admitting my faults. I'm also not the one who started by implying the other was "not to bright." It's true, I gave advice, but I was also fair in calling myself out on things, whereas you simply pointed fingers yet again with this response. In a post that was "just for you". When you claim someone else is writing for ulterior reasons or to just such "superior intelligence."
I would never say I'm more intelligent than you (and if I ever did, I instantly admit right now that I am an idiot in that post and lose whatever debate I was in). Though you've made ample implications, and replied on a personal level, whereas I have merely spoke on the topic on hand -- or the analyzing what was written. If correction, acknowledgement of my faults, and stating reasons and observations with regards to my assertions is of "little value" when compared to someone who does these things, then I daresay I have truly failed. Though as you said yourself, it's all in your opinion, and I respect that.
With that said, I do believe we are done. You may write up a third post. I am unsure of what you will come up with next. You already said I wasn't too bright, only to do a 180 and say I'm essentially trying to be too bright when I elaborated what you rebuked me for. So, I look forward to it. Agreeing with your right to an opinion, weighing it with my thoughts and what we both wrote, and creating my own.
It is in my nature to elaborate and create long winded posts as a result. Short posts do not work, as we both see. And I endeavor to take my own advice and elaborate when needed, irregardless of how it makes others feel. Indeed, I'll even think before I press the "post" button as to whether or not I articulated myself to an exceptional degree. Which in itself, also kind've contradicts you not wanting me to elaborate and thus "prove my intelligence". I'll assume it's not a contradiction, but rather an implication that I should stop posting. Ouch.
----------------------------------------
On a second note, I only really run one monitor with 4k resolution when I go that route. Today, I prefer my multiple monitor setup for most things, as I can do various other activities. Though once I am able to have at least three monitors play 4k at one time, I likely will.
you cant see the difference between 30FPS and higher FPS?
I personally dont care about 4k, as long as i get 60FPS in my games im happy. At the moment i dont get it with many games on my old PC but damn the difference is so noticeable its not even funny. Im really sick of some devs jumping into the "cinematic" 30FPS bs. If higher resolution will limit the frames per second to 30 due to lack of stronger tech then ill welcome 1080 60fps over 4k any day.
most likely not, but definitely between 30 and anything higher than that. What im saying is that i would rather play at 1080p 60FPS than 4k 30FPS.
Unless the person i quoted mistakenly typed 30FPS instead of 60 on his post
This resolution hype has flown way past my head. You even see smartphones with 1080p screens these days, which is a pointless waste of money. You are never going to need that many pixels unless you use a magnifying glass with your phone. Mu old nokia has like 120x180 pixels and it is even enough to look at photos, let alone general use.
The only people who would practically need 4k are those who play games on a 40 inch TV and have perfectly sharp vision. 0.5 in any direction and you really can't tell the difference from that distance. On my 32 inch TV with my -0.5 vision, I can sit 2-3 meters away and play games at 720p and it looks perfectly fine. I also get an extra 40% FPS compared to my 1080p monitor which has saved me a 300 dollar graphics card upgrade (a GTX960 would get same FPS in 1080p as my current 4 year old card does in 720p)
Maybe I just have low standards because I started gaming on a PS1 with pixelated graphics all over the place, but 720p is really the sweetspot for me, where the quality looks good anough, and I can still play modern games on a cheap pc that costs around the same as a console. Buying a 4k monitor and some 800 euro graphics card just to play MMOs? why? There are better things to spend money on.
You opened my eyes (no pun intended). 720p looks good enough, I cant see any difference between 720 and 1080 (image quality-wise).
I’m an Nvidia fan so I say look at this article on The Witcher 3 at 4K. They recommend “you’ll need something closer to the recommended requirements: a Core i7 3770 3.4GHz CPU, with a GeForce GTX 770 card and 8GB of RAM.”
The accompanying photo alone is proof in the deference of 4k images.
NVIDIA GeForce GTX Battlebox: Military Grade Gaming For This Holiday’s Cutting Edge Games
GeForce Garage: How to Create a Monster Build
Boy: Why can't I talk to Him?
Mom: We don't talk to Priests.
As if it could exist, without being payed for.
F2P means you get what you paid for. Pay nothing, get nothing.
Even telemarketers wouldn't think that.
It costs money to play. Therefore P2W.
Me either. I can't see the difference between 1080P and 720P.
Before people say "But I can". It took months before people realised that some PS3 / Xbox 360 titles were actually upscaled 720P, only after months of no one caring did people complain. Everyone thought those games were native 1080P.
The games were being rendered in 720P to increase FPS and then upscaled to 1080P, but for months, people didn't realise this. If the difference between 720P and 1080P isn't obvious, the argument that you can easily distinguish 4k from 1080P is pretty hard to believe.
A guy who has never seen 120fps on 120Hz monitor spotted, lulz.
I mean, excluding the obvious frame tearing that happens on that frame rate, the reaction time alone at 30 fps should tell you that "something ain't right", you know, because of how real-time message loop.
Zooming in on an image is not relevant, it would allow you to prove you need 8k or 16k too. It's a false argument, since you don't look at an image 16 times zoomed in. It's just marketing.
The actual size of that image would be multiple factors smaller.
Uuuuuuuh. Yeah. Riiiight. Sure !
"640 KB memory is enough, nobody will ever need more."
(Bill Gates in the middle of the 1980s, in case you dont know that cite)
For all I care, I could get 8K monitors for MMOs. Damn effect icons, especially during raids.
Actually, yes it can. The frequency you're looking for is 60 Herz, not 30.
And thats assuming you really have video, i.e. the single pictures have motion blurr. Otherwise you'll need even more Hertz for a natural look.
Cinema movies archieve their special kind of look exactly thanks to 24 Herz and 1/50 sec Shutterspeed, i.e. half of the natural motion blurr.
There's a number of problems with that argument, it comes up quite a lot, and I'll point out the 2 main ones.
1. Bill Gates never said that: http://www.computerworld.com/article/2534312/operating-systems/the--640k--quote-won-t-go-away----but-did-gates-really-say-it-.html
2. We have reached many limits in technology where there are such diminishing returns that it's pointless to increase the quality because our senses can't perceive it.
A good example is SOUND.
-Beyond 320 kbit/s we can no longer distinguish the difference in quality. Music formats have reached that point and there's no point increasing it.
-We can also not hear sound beyond a certain Hz. Our hearing range goes from 20 to 20 kHz, yet headphones go from 5hz to easily over 30 kHz, far beyond the capability of human hearing. Unless you're a bat who can hear far beyond that, there's no point in going beyond 30kHz, it is already far beyond the capabilities of human hearing.
I have yet to come across some set of independent studies that would actually perform simple test sample based experiment whether people can notice high FPS difference.
But then, I guess those +100MHz screens would not sell well...
I think that 4k is still 1-2 years away, for 2 simple reasons:
- scaling
- driver and game support
While true that manufacturers are moving (slowly) towards full blown 4k support, since 90% of their customer base is still at 1080p, I doubt they see a real reason to divert too many resources towards it. I think 2 more generations of video cards and a bit more advancement in displays (with a price change to match), and 4k will be mainstream.
Now, I agree that 4K does NOT make sense everywhere, like in artsy/cartoony graphics which rely on the dev's skills rather than the hardware it is run on. 4K WoW vs 1080p WoW won't be night-and-day...But Battlefield/Witcher 3 will most certainly be.
(and lol at all them "scientists" claiming to know what the human eye can and cannot see...if you ACTUALLY knew, you would never be posting it on this website)