8K Gaming

>>57934339
by sucking my dick

>>57934339
That's really a 40" tv with an Asian manlet in front of it.

>>57934339
Please go back to /v/

>>57934339
4 Titan Xs running in DX-12 so the VRAM stacks

>>57934748
Lel

>>57934339
You dont. 4k gaming is just barely viable nowadays.

>>57934339
The image quality doesn't even look that good.

>>57934339
How? In Price / Pixel?

File: Crayon Pop - Doo Doom Chit Offcial Music Video-vaijpqksV8Q 00.00.23-00.00.24.webm (755KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

755KB, 1920x1080px

>>57934339

>8k tv that will just be used to play 1080p video because most movies are not in 4k or 8k

what a waste of money!

>>57935226
find an example of someone running that and it not being an awful overheating mess

>real talk
>gaming

LEOUEULOLOLOL

>>57934339
4K gaming is not mainstream yet, with:

-IPS >24" 4K screens being $400+
-Cards that handle 4K well are also ~$400

Once 4K is as mainstream as 1080p is now, then we can look forward to 8K.

>>57934339
no barely any 4k shit

Hell, even 4K gaming isn't viable. I still game in 1080p. You want me to game in 4K? Make GPUs 4x more powerful. You want to make 8K gaming viable? Make GPUs 8x more powerful.

>8k
>Not 1028k
We have to go deeper.

>>57938749
This could easily be done with watercooling

>>57938817
>8K requires 8X more powerful.

Nice maths skills you have there.

>>57938732
Nah more like 720p. Live TV makes it worse my only playing 480p video on most channels.

>>57938799
There are no graphics cards that can handle 4K gaming at all. Post a single card capable of playing BF1 at max settings, with 100% res scale @ 4K resolution with a MINIMUM frame rate of 60

>protip: you can't

>>57938817
That's not how it works.

Pong. In color!

>>57934339
The majority of games are made first and foremost for consoles and those have just barely gotten into 1080p.

>>57934339
If you have 20/20 vision, you would need to be sitting within 5 feet of that display to actually see 8K.

>>57938889
if you use more than 2-4x AA on 4k you're retarded, just saying

>>57938901
You're an idiot.

>>57938850
>Implying watercooling can be easily done.

>>57938889
>max settings
1- Don't be an idiot.
2- Titan X: https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/MSI/GTX_1070_Quick_Silver_OC/8.html

The more important thing is bringing up refresh rates. 4K is all well and good, but if you're locked into 30FPS because your shit video card can't handle 60FPS 4K, what's the point? Hell, even 60 is too little. There's no reason to give up your 144Hz 1080p display for a 60Hz 4K display.

>>57938911
I don't have time right now to do the maths and work out the exact distance. 5 feet is an extrapolation based on various viewing distance charts for 1080p/4K.

What's your own estimate for the distance from which 8K is noticeable on a 98" display, and what is your basis for that estimate?

>>57938817
4K 4,000 pixels vertical. That's why it's a K and not an X.

Same for 8K.

>>57938950
newer cards (900 series and up, 400 series and up) have hdmi 2.0 that does 4k@60hz
displayport also does 4k@60hz on even older cards

>>57938909
Nigger even 4K resolution on a small 22" monitor is still ~200 ppi, still lightyears away from the ~600 ppi found in smartphones with 1440p screens. You're gonna see jagged lines especially diagnal ones on that low ppi 4K monitor

>inb4 "hurrrr everything above 100 PPI is placebo"
Maybe you should have listened to your parents and not have stared at the sun for hours, billy.

>>57938986
>>inb4 "hurrrr everything above 100 PPI is placebo"
how about you stick your assumptions up your stupid fucking ass? the more dpi, the better, imo, but AA is fucking retarded in games where you actually play the game and you don't stop tot admire a fucking static image

>>57938986
Your face is not as close to a screen as it is to a phone.

>>57939036
it doesn't matter. pick two screens of different resolutions, and get a nice image with the resolution on the biggest screen. doesn't matter what size the screens are or how reasonably far away you are, you can always tell which one looks better

>>57938928
>>max settings
>1- Don't be an idiot.
Oh yeah breh, super low res textures and rocks made with 5 polygons are the shit.

>2- Titan X: https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/MSI/GTX_1070_Quick_Silver_OC/8.html
>not max settings

Are tou really THE falcon? I know he posts dumb shit sometimes but your posts seem extra stupid.

>>57939047
(forgot to mention same screen size on both)

>>57939036
t. ray charles

>>57939053
>There are no graphics cards that can handle 4K gaming at all.
Titan X can. 1080 is also good.

>It must be on 64x SSAA, on 12 screens, and at 360Hz
Hmm...

>That is not what I said!
>"super low res textures and rocks made with 5 polygons"

>>57934339
we time travel to 2019.

>>57939111
>Titan X can. 1080 is also good.
Not at max 4K settings in BF4 you cocksucker.

>>It must be on 64x SSAA, on 12 screens, and at 360Hz
I never said that nigger but if you can't tell the difference between medium and max settings then you really should go see an optometrists.

>>57939111
I have a question here,
since with 4K the pixels are 1/4 the size as a typical 1080p display, wouldn't turning off AA help with performance ?
the jaggies should be much less noticeable on a resolution like that, right ?

>>57939194
https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/MSI/GTX_1070_Quick_Silver_OC/5.html
>All games are set to their highest quality setting unless indicated otherwise.

>>57939197
>I have a question here,
>since with 4K the pixels are 1/4 the size as a typical 1080p display, wouldn't turning off AA help with performance ?
It would look like shit unless you were like 10 meters away.

>the jaggies should be much less noticeable on a resolution like that, right ?
Less but still noticeable.

>>57939211
>doesn't specify whether they used the max anti-aliasing setting
cool story bro

>>57939197
>since with 4K the pixels are 1/4 the size as a typical 1080p display
That is not usually the case, since 1080p is typically ~23-24", and 4K is typically 28-32".

But yes, the higher the pixel density, the lower your AA needs to be. I am only on 1440p@25", but I can get by just fine on MSAA. For 4K, it is worth noting that rendering 4K native is the same as 1080p with SSAA x2.

>>57939253
>SSAA x4 at 4K
Why did you stop the childish insults and name calling?

Feeling a bit foolish, mate? How do you like the taste of your own feet?

wont be long before pcs need an exhaust chimney like a heater

>>57938889
you're actually retarded if you think there is only 1 game worth benchmarking as "the 4k standard"
you're actually retarded if you think attempting to use a AAA title with max settings (especially res scaling) is the judgement for 4k viability
just please stop sharing your thoughts permanently

>>57939841
found the piss 4 fanboy

File: 562.jpg (36KB, 600x600px)

36KB, 600x600px

>>57939295
>>57939265
fuck off you meme, you are so forced and far fetched you haven't offered anything for the community besides your shit website with shit builds

File: Solitare 8k.jpg (3MB, 7680x4240px)

3MB, 7680x4240px

>>57934339
A lot of games don't even support 8k

Solitaire does though

>>57934339
Linus did a thing on it already
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=211Vdi4oC9o&t=414s

>>57939954
Fuck off, falcuck has at least done more than you. He can keep his pretty mask with glued on cocks here.

>>57939954
But there are cards than can handle 4K gaming available right now.

>>57940223
NO. THERE. AREN'T.

As soon as you push even a pascal titan x to maximum settings it lags like a motherfucker in over half the vydias out there.

I'm sorry that you were born with super shitty vision but most of us can tell the difference between 24 FPS and 60FPS.

>>57940261
You are
[-------------------------]
this mad

>>57940261
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eoGzZ9g8v1o

>>57940273
t. someone with 20/200 vision and brain damage

>>57938901
I don't know the numbers either, but yeah 8k is well past "retina" (just kill me apple) in most monitors, and tv screens sit at about the same or smaller percent of visual field. We won't even need antialiasing anymore

File: 1481351929557.webm (2MB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1280x720px

>>57934339
>buy four 4k 49 inch tvs for less than $2000
>remove the bezels
>tile them together into a 98 inch 8k display
>spend other $53,000 on Twitch, Kickstarter and Patreon
Am I a genius

>>57938732
Name 1 movie not available in 4k. Protip:you can't

didnt linus shill tips make a video about 8k gaming?
using 4 4k monitors in nvidia surround or some shit
it was almost playable with 3 pascal titan x

>>57940328
You'd have lines in your image, it's worthless

File: 1481417825491.jpg (849KB, 1880x1172px)

849KB, 1880x1172px

>>57934339
>40 inch TV
>move 2 inches closer to screen
>40 inch TV becomes 80 inch TV

Dumbasses

>>57934748
kek, underrated

Titan x pascal sli with any antibaliasing settings turned off

>>57940351
Silence of the Hams.

I dare you to prove me wrong.

>>57938823
>1028k
>not 2490872390785320987503k
You pleb

>>57935226
But VRAM does stack
Thanks to AMD pushing HBM stacks

I can't imagine ever needing anything beyond 4k for games. Whatever incremental improvement there might be at >4k is in no way worth the massive amount of processing horsepower it would take to drive it, which could be much better spent elsewhere.

>>57935226
>so the VRAM stacks
VRAM will never stack until we solve the PCIe issue, PCIe 3.0 is only capable of something like 16GB/s in either direction. Whenever 4.0 releases it'll at best double that, so we're looking at 32GB/s for PCIe while the Titan X has something like 480GB/s of memory bandwidth. If you wanted memory to stack we'd need a ultra-high speed interconnect so GPU 1 can read and write to GPU 2's memory as if it was on the same board.

NVLink is supposed to help fix this issue but it seems like we're still years from it coming to consumers and even then it's only currently going to offer 80GB/s of bandwidth. 80GB/s through NVLink in addition to PCIe 3.0 or 4.0 would definitely make SLI a lot better than it is right now but it still wouldn't be the same as "stacking."

>>57939194
Well that's a lie, I can run BF4 at 4K 60fps on mostly high with a 390x

So I don't doubt that a titan x can

>>57947094
Yeah, the titan x is possible of 4k ultra and hits the 100fps mark

>>57947094
>BF4 at 4K 60fps
BF4 is highly optimized. Try GTA V or DS3

What k would a tv have to be to match real life?

>>57938817
>that grade A math
kek

>>57934339

Sony will release an 8k smartphone.

Sony will then release a gaming console that should do 8k but doesn't.

After that, Sony will release a gaming console that can do 8k.

>>57938817
>8 times 1080p equals 8k
>not buying ten 1080s for 10k
>current year