4k meme

>consoles are pushing for 4k/60fps
Except they're not
They barley manage 4k/30

>>380443901
xbox one x

>>380442830
30fps to 60 fps is massive.
60fps to 144fps is minor.
60 plus fps is a meme.
Its better the industry focuses on crisper grafics then framerated above 60fps.
Only '''''''''''''''pro gamers''''''''''''''' care about 144fps.

This whole push for higher resolutions is retarded. I would rather have more detailed assets, better lighting, higher resolution textures etc at 1080p

>>380444282
What about it?

Are TVs capable of displaying 144 FPS as common in households as 4k TVs?

>>380444420
At this point 1080p has been pushed to its limits. High resoutions textures are pointless if you can't see them.

File: gun.png (108KB, 396x385px) Image search: [Google]

108KB, 396x385px

>1440p 144fps
>not 480p 320fps

get a grip OP

File: 1443903079788.jpg (486KB, 2000x1500px) Image search: [Google]

486KB, 2000x1500px

>>380445128
>Not 240p

>>380445859
my god that monitor is aesthetic as fuck

>>380442830
Consoles are for televisions.
PCs are for monitors.

>>380444297
You have to go back

>>380442830
TV's cant into more than 100hz refresh panels.

>>380442830
just buy a huge flatscreen, anon. You can't be this poor.

>>380442830
I'm only curious, because I don't know. Wouldn't 144fps be harder to achieve than 4k? That's over twice as many frames.

>neglectable
You mean negligible

File: 9c4e03c52a9cf5132c44e823b1a6a836.jpg (532KB, 675x900px) Image search: [Google]

532KB, 675x900px

>>380442830
Wow holy shit

Its like they are designed for TVs or something

WoooooooooooW

>>380449710
144 is 2.4*60
4k is 4*1080p
Pushing pixels 2.4 times as fast is easier than pushing pixels 4 times as fast.

>>380444297
>60fps to 144fps is minor.
You have never tried a 144Hz monitor. Poseurs LEAVE

>>380450341
60 to 120 is significant but 120 to 144 is minor

>>380450498
That is true.

>>380450243
Doesn't it matter that each frame is a new frame?
Like, wouldn't it be easier to move more pixels all at once in a group, rather than less at a more frequent rate?
For example, if I had to transport materials, it would save time to transport as many as I can carry in a single trip, rather than making multiple trips.

>>380450827
That's not how rendering works.
After being displayed on the monitor, every final frame is flushed (read: deleted from memory) and the scene is entirely re-rendered for the next frame.
Pixels are not carried over from one frame to another.

>>380450498
no one is talking about 120 to 144

>>380442830
>neglectable

>>380451487
you're talking about 144 at all even though it would be cheaper to use 120

>>380451227
I didn't figure pixels were carried over. That's not what I meant. Like, say you were carrying groceries from the car? You have 4 bags. You can carry 2 bags in each hand, and do it in a single trip. That would save time, right? Rather than only grabbing 2 bags, and then coming back to retrieve the other 2 bags.

Or, you know, let's assume you had someone helping you carry the groceries. You grab two bags, and then they grab two bags. And you both take them inside in successive order. That would be a lot faster than making two trips, yet still relatively slower than one person carrying all 4 bags.

>>380451558
No one produces 120Hz screens. It's all 144Hz or 165Hz (or 100Hz for ultra-widescreens).

>>380442830
>4k/60fps
You mean 2160p/60fps?

>>380451721
Your analogy makes no fucking sense when you are traveling essentially at light speed.

A game at 1080p60 fps have to output 1080x1920x60 pixels per second.

At 4k60fps it needs 4x1080x1920x60 pixels per second

At 1080144fps it needs 2.4x1080x1920x60 pixels per second

>>380452148
2160p is called 4k because >muh high numbers

>>380451721
I think I see what you're asking.
The difference with your analogy is that the "return trip time" (which would be moving on to the next frame to restart a computation) is negligible in rendering.
To stay in your analogy, you'd have to equate bag weight with movement speed (meaning heavier bags = slower movement).
In that sense, carrying 2 bags of 1kg with instantaneous transportation back to your car is faster than carrying 1 bag of 4kg, because with that one you'd only go at a quarter of your speed.

>>380452816
>>380451721
Also important to note is that this is just thoretical performance.
In real life, the way a scene is rendered on a modern engine means there's a chunk of the computation that does not scale with resolution (meaning it stays constant), and those will make creating a 4k scene 60 times easier than creating a 1080p scene 144 times.
Proof of this is that 4k performance of recent titles is not a fourth of 1080p performance.
http://www.gamersnexus.net/game-bench/2859-mass-effect-andromeda-gpu-benchmark-fps-frametimes
http://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/ghost_recon_wildlands_pc_graphics_performance_benchmark_review,6.html & http://www.guru3d.com/articles-pages/ghost-recon-wildlands-pc-graphics-performance-benchmark-review,7.html
http://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/dishonored_2_pc_graphics_performance_benchmark_review,6.html & http://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/dishonored_2_pc_graphics_performance_benchmark_review,7.html

>>380442830
you're retarded and here's why:
1) tvs are almost always 60Hz max
2) 90% of console players use tvs
3) 1440p doesn't map to 1080p or 4k
4) 4k and 1080p are directly proportional
5) console users don't care about high refresh rate
6) 4k is significantly higher detail than 1440p
7) 144hz isn't proportional with 60hz/30hz meaning vsync will be fucked up for most tvs
8) its harder to tune games for 144hz as consoles would become cpu bound rather than gpu bound at this point
9) the latency added by using a wireless controller makes higher refresh rates pointless anyway as their advantages are outweighed.
10) tvs already have about 3 frames of latency at 60 hz. Do you really want to increase that to 8 frames?

>>380442830
4k 60fps will never become industry standard because shitty publishers / devs will always push graphix in bullshots than actual consistency.

If a console gets more power, that power will be immediately wasted in a billion extra vertex for the main character scrotum instead of being used in things that are severely lacking in consoles such as:

>AA
>Framerate
>Draw Distance
>Texture quality
>Lighting quality
>Shadow resolution and AA

>>380453798
You used the term "directly proportional" wrong, but i get what you are saying.

File: when the shotgun hits just right.png (196KB, 557x605px) Image search: [Google]

196KB, 557x605px

>>380450341
144hz with g-synch/free-sync is currently masterrace. The smoothness with 0 frame tear is exquisite.

File: 1463240382799.png (990KB, 961x1400px) Image search: [Google]

990KB, 961x1400px

>>380442830
Who the fuck uses a monitor for a console!?! Just build a PC you freak!

>>380454380
I have to back this up.

Just got a 1ms 144hz Samsung VA monitor with freesync. It's only 1080p and "only" 24 inches, but holy hell does it make a difference when it comes to playing games.

Especially if you come from a TN monitor with poor red levels. I can't stop playing Redout because of how fast and smooth it is with those bright bold colors. You can easily get away with a wireless controller playing on it because the lag is so minimal (I use a WiiU Pro controller with mayflash adapter).

Ori and the Blind forest looks amazing too. Pretty much any colorful game does. Even F-Zero GX looks great in 4:3.

I will take that over middling 2k and 4k setups any day.

>>380454796
What does "VA" means?

>>380455437
Vertical Alignment, a panel type.

File: 1497319868313.jpg (2MB, 2904x3862px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2904x3862px

>>380442830
>tfw no 4k Taylor gf

>>380455796
Go to /b/, maybe you will find her there.

>>380442830
I expect 120 fps hand animated and 1000 idoe animations please.

>>380455437
It's short for Vertical Alignment.
Monitor panels render images in different ways

TN panels are cheap LCD panels made in an older style that can be very minimal in lag but they suffer from poor viewing angles and "washed out" colors.

IPS is the second most common type now. Has better colors than TN but can suffer from light bleed, and usually aren't quite as responsive, and they are more expensive.

VA is less common these days, but recently a lot of their weaknesses, (used to be very laggy) have been compensated for with modern technology. They have excellent black levels, and color range and don't suffer from light bleed IPS monitors can have. The one I have however does suffer very slighty from purple after imaging in very specific circumstances. (Which I know can annoy some people) But they are pretty expensive as well.

Basically there is no perfect monitor tech yet. Each has their own strengths and weaknesses. But they get better over time. TNs could die out if IPS continues to improve and get cheaper.