TR Forums

morphine wrote:

And while I'm at it, I'd like butter on my unicorn.

Get Dell to add FreeSync and you'd be set.
http://accessories.us.dell.com/sna/prod ... 75K3&s=dhs

5K is serious over kill IMHO. Just because its a non standard res it will have lots of compatibility issues if you do multi media integration. My darn 2K has sure driven that point home for me.

I'm wondering do we yet have a GPU that drives HDMI 2.0??? I think to get over my current hurdle I should get a 40" 4K monitor, new receiver, hdmi cable, and new compatible GPU. Drivers keep dropping the ball when it comes to pushing audio only over HDMI to my receiver while driving video via display port to my 2k.

kamikaziechameleon wrote:

I think I sit about 8 ft from my 65" TV.

I have a TV too, thinking about selling it because it collects dust and doesn't get used!

So here is what I need to have what I want:

HDMI 2.0 GPU
HDMI 2.0 HT reciever
HDMI 2.0 40" 4K monitor

This will solve all my problems. Issue being no such receivers, GPU's or Monitors yet exist. Meanwhile they falsely market HORRIBLE 4K options to people. :^/

Following that I'd also like a 4K BluRay player and some flipping content.

Honestly, most of this thread is just junk. It's basically kamikaziechameleon asking an incredibly vague question, then disagreeing or ignoring a lot of what's being said. Well, whatever - You've said time and time again that no GPU's exist with HDMI 2.0 so it's a problem. This is why I'm posting to correct you.

There's several sporting HDMI 2.0: GTX 960, 970, 980, 980Ti, Titan X.

I honestly wonder about 4K and other high-resolution display standards. I'm sure it'll have a presence in the workstation space, but on the consumer side, only so much software gets made. So with VR coming out soon, there presumably will be some movement in gpu-abilities. This will allow people to drive a high-resolution display. But VR games aren't display games. People only have so much money. If someone dumps a bunch of cash into a VR kit and big GPU, how likely are they also to buy a fancy display? If VR takes off, people will have the hardware to run a 4K display but will have already paid good money for that and playing games on a regular display will be less attractive. If VR doesn't take off quickly, then how likely is it that people will push VR farther away for themselves by adding in a 4K display before VR? Unless VR totally failes, which I think is really unlikely, I think it's going to seriously disrupt high-resolution displays as a premium-margin item. The consoles are a year and a half old, so assuming a regular life cycle, they have a ways to go yet. Those games do not require 4K displays or hardware. So where does that leave 4K displays for consumer PCs?

The only reason I want a 4K TV is because I want to run a Mac mini HTPC at Retina 1080p (for the benefit of the desktop UI). 4K content will appear eventually but I really don't care. The largest 4K TV I will get is around 70" and I doubt it will make much of difference when watching 4K vs 1080p content unless I pixel peep. Current Mac minis are crap when it comes to 4K so I will be waiting on this for another gen or two.

If Rec. 2020 is as big a deal as some say as far as Ultra HD Blu-ray is concerned then I'm holding off on a 4K TV until Ultra HD Blu-ray and Rec.2020 TVs hit the market.

I have no immediate desire to get a 4K display although it would be nice if 5K displays appeared on the market as then I could run them at Retina 2560x1440 on my Macs (again, I will have to wait until the Mac mini supports 5K). My next display will be a G-sync enabled 2560x1440 for my gaming PC.

I'll get to 4K eventually but I am in no hurry and Ultra HD Blu-ray and a proper 4K capable Mac mini have to hit the market first.

Melvar wrote:

morphine wrote:

I could get a 4K monitor and play at 1920x1080 for perfect scaling

That's a myth. Everyone assumes that because 1080p could be scaled perfectly that it will be, and that is not the case. I have 3 4K monitors and not one of them offers the option of unfiltered 1080p scaling.

Get a Mac. Retina 1080p.

End User wrote:

Melvar wrote:

morphine wrote:

I could get a 4K monitor and play at 1920x1080 for perfect scaling

That's a myth. Everyone assumes that because 1080p could be scaled perfectly that it will be, and that is not the case. I have 3 4K monitors and not one of them offers the option of unfiltered 1080p scaling.

Get a Mac. Retina 1080p.

Ok, I have a problem with that. By using Windows display scaling algorithm, assuming his software supports it (that's an issue Mac doesn't have, granted), it will look crisp.

Now - Retina is a marketing term Apple created. It used to be used for high PPI displays (eg, shoving a 1080p screen into a 4" panel would be high PPI).

Using 1080p on a 4K screen looks sharp on a Mac because it's actually just display scaling the way Windows does. Multiplying the pixels on UI elements by a factor of 2 (150%) or 4 (200%) can give a 4K screen on Windows the effect of looking like either 1440 and 1080 respectively. Apple fudge the software so you see the intended res, rather than the native res of the panel that Windows will show you. End result is the same, and not exclusive to Apple.

End User wrote:

Melvar wrote:

That's a myth. Everyone assumes that because 1080p could be scaled perfectly that it will be, and that is not the case. I have 3 4K monitors and not one of them offers the option of unfiltered 1080p scaling.

Get a Mac. Retina 1080p.

You know, once I realized a GTX 980 was fast enough for 97% of games at 4K and can handle the rest just fine at 1440p, my desire for perfect 1080p scaling dried up almost completely. Filtered 1440p looks better than unfiltered 1080p anyway, thanks to nearly twice the detail. Especially on a large screen.

Melvar wrote:

End User wrote:

Melvar wrote:

That's a myth. Everyone assumes that because 1080p could be scaled perfectly that it will be, and that is not the case. I have 3 4K monitors and not one of them offers the option of unfiltered 1080p scaling.

Get a Mac. Retina 1080p.

You know, once I realized a GTX 980 was fast enough for 97% of games at 4K and can handle the rest just fine at 1440p, my desire for perfect 1080p scaling dried up almost completely. Filtered 1440p looks better than unfiltered 1080p anyway, thanks to nearly twice the detail. Especially on a large screen.

It's ok to admit that you were wrong about 1080p being scaled perfectly.

geekl33tgamer wrote:

End User wrote:

Melvar wrote:

Everyone assumes that because 1080p could be scaled perfectly that it will be, and that is not the case. I have 3 4K monitors and not one of them offers the option of unfiltered 1080p scaling.

Get a Mac. Retina 1080p.

Ok, I have a problem with that. By using Windows display scaling algorithm, assuming his software supports it (that's an issue Mac doesn't have, granted), it will look crisp.

Now - Retina is a marketing term Apple created. It used to be used for high PPI displays (eg, shoving a 1080p screen into a 4" panel would be high PPI).

Using 1080p on a 4K screen looks sharp on a Mac because it's actually just display scaling the way Windows does. Multiplying the pixels on UI elements by a factor of 2 (150%) or 4 (200%) can give a 4K screen on Windows the effect of looking like either 1440 and 1080 respectively. Apple fudge the software so you see the intended res, rather than the native res of the panel that Windows will show you. End result is the same, and not exclusive to Apple.

So, to make a long story short, regardless of whether you run Windows or OS X, 1080p on a 4K display will look absolutely awesome and Retina is now akin to Kleenex.

I was not wrong, as far as I can tell. Buying a Mac will not add an unfiltered 1080p mode to any PC monitor.

Furthermore, if a Mac can display unfiltered 1080p on any 4K monitor it's not actually running in 1080p mode. I don't even need to look into this to know it's true, because as I correctly stated, most 4K monitors will not do unfiltered 1080p.

Melvar wrote:

unfiltered

I think you are talking about milk.

Sometimes it almost seems like you're just putting on an act to make Mac users look like jerks.

Melvar wrote:

Sometimes it almost seems like you're just putting on an act to make Mac users look like jerks.

I'm a platform agnostic jerk.

Melvar wrote:

unfiltered 1080p

What is this?

Filtered 1080p is 1080p scaled to 2160p with a stupid pointless bilinear filter added just to piss me off.* Unfiltered 1080p would be simple nearest-neighbor scaling without any extra pointless blurring.

* I guess they do it so there isn't a big difference in look between the resolutions that need filtering and the couple that don't, but I still hate it.


Dell already has a 5K (dual tile) monitor on the market BTW. Looks pretty sweet. Does the Mini not have the output hardware to support it?

Melvar wrote:

Filtered 1080p is 1080p scaled to 2160p with a stupid pointless bilinear filter added just to piss me off.* Unfiltered 1080p would be simple nearest-neighbor scaling without any extra pointless blurring.

What are you using that applies this filter?

I use both Plex and VLC to view 1080p content on higher resolution displays (max 2880x1800). Uncompress Blu-ray content always looks great. Is there a stand out issue that is easy to see?

Melvar wrote:

Dell already has a 5K (dual tile) monitor on the market BTW. Looks pretty sweet. Does the Mini not have the output hardware to support it?

5K! Geez. Hell no. I don't think any of Intels integrated graphics support 5K.

End User wrote:

Melvar wrote:

Filtered 1080p is 1080p scaled to 2160p with a stupid pointless bilinear filter added just to piss me off.* Unfiltered 1080p would be simple nearest-neighbor scaling without any extra pointless blurring.

What are you using that applies this filter?

I use both Plex and VLC to view 1080p content on higher resolution displays (max 2880x1800). Uncompress Blu-ray content always looks great. Is there a stand out issue that is easy to see?

Yes, actually set the monitor to 1080p. As in run a 1080p signal out of whatever your source is. (replace 1080p with whatever resolution is 1/2 the linear res of your display; e.g. 1440x900 for a 2880x1800 screen)

The whole point of this line of discussion was that because most current GPU's aren't fast enough to do 4K with high settings at high frame rates, people want a monitor that can also display their gaming resolution well. That situation won't (usually) involve any upscaling by the OS to sidestep the way the monitor deals with non-native resolutions, so people want even 1:2 scaling. The issue is that every LCD monitor I've used applies the same smoothing filter to the scaled image whether it has uneven scaling to mask or not, so lower resolutions that could look sharp instead look blurry.


Scaling videos & stuff like that with Windows programs is not what I'm talking about; that works & looks exactly like you'd expect.

geekl33tgamer wrote:

Honestly, most of this thread is just junk. It's basically kamikaziechameleon asking an incredibly vague question, then disagreeing or ignoring a lot of what's being said. Well, whatever - You've said time and time again that no GPU's exist with HDMI 2.0 so it's a problem. This is why I'm posting to correct you.

There's several sporting HDMI 2.0: GTX 960, 970, 980, 980Ti, Titan X.

Ha, that's interesting. When I googled about I didn't find anything. I made the statement on the belief that the GPU's much like sets and Receivers were just hanging out with the new displayport standard. But upon a reinvestigation I see you are correct.

That being said, I do sometimes EMOTE on this thread about my frustrations with the rather SLOW transition to proper "4K" anything given the years of promotion and such plus the first 4K panel came out... what 5 years ago? probably longer.

Sorry to bother anyone.

fhohj wrote:

I honestly wonder about 4K and other high-resolution display standards. I'm sure it'll have a presence in the workstation space, but on the consumer side, only so much software gets made. So with VR coming out soon, there presumably will be some movement in gpu-abilities. This will allow people to drive a high-resolution display. But VR games aren't display games. People only have so much money. If someone dumps a bunch of cash into a VR kit and big GPU, how likely are they also to buy a fancy display? If VR takes off, people will have the hardware to run a 4K display but will have already paid good money for that and playing games on a regular display will be less attractive. If VR doesn't take off quickly, then how likely is it that people will push VR farther away for themselves by adding in a 4K display before VR? Unless VR totally failes, which I think is really unlikely, I think it's going to seriously disrupt high-resolution displays as a premium-margin item. The consoles are a year and a half old, so assuming a regular life cycle, they have a ways to go yet. Those games do not require 4K displays or hardware. So where does that leave 4K displays for consumer PCs?

I disagree with all your assertions, though purely along the lines of opinion vs fact. My opinion is that VR is the next motion control, it will be cool but not quite there yet and probably 10 years or more from not being an inconvenience for the many and interesting or awesome for a few. Far as games go, just look at the popularity of phone games. The average person wants less between them and the game, no buttons if possible. A headset isn't helping that.

To that end I think 4K in the next 12 months will FINALLY have things ironed out. We'll start to see 4K blu ray content, new TV's with HDMI 2 ports, receivers with HDMI 2 ports. FINALLY!

To that end I think 4K in the next 12 months will FINALLY have things ironed out. We'll start to see 4K blu ray content, new TV's with HDMI 2 ports, receivers with HDMI 2 ports. FINALLY!

And games with usable UIs and readable text on 4K displys.

I was going to post a reply then I checked the dates on the posts, now if I say anything, when it gets necro'd again a year later I'll look like an idiot. Time to put this thread to bed and start a new post next time.

Well, if you look at frame times and average framerates of the FuryX and 980Ti reviews, you'll see that 18 months after this thread was started, 4K is still not a realistic resolution and still requires either a reduction in graphics settings or multiple GPUs to reach acceptable framerates in some current games.

Who would want to spend top-dollar on a graphics card only to find that it struggles in today's games, let alone stuff coming out in the next year or two.
4K and 5K are not gaming resolutions. 4K and 5K are not Windows DPI-scaling-friendly resolutions. The problem still isn't solved and until we move off the 28nm process for GPUs, AMD and Nvidia clearly pushing the cost and power envelopes as high as possible with their hot/noisy/expesive/large GPU dies.

Chrispy_ wrote:

Well, if you look at frame times and average framerates of the FuryX and 980Ti reviews, you'll see that 18 months after this thread was started, 4K is still not a realistic resolution and still requires either a reduction in graphics settings or multiple GPUs to reach acceptable framerates in some current games.

Who would want to spend top-dollar on a graphics card only to find that it struggles in today's games, let alone stuff coming out in the next year or two.
4K and 5K are not gaming resolutions. 4K and 5K are not Windows DPI-scaling-friendly resolutions. The problem still isn't solved and until we move off the 28nm process for GPUs, AMD and Nvidia clearly pushing the cost and power envelopes as high as possible with their hot/noisy/expesive/large GPU dies.

Personally my favorite 4k games would be top down isometric types like DOTA, Starcraft, Diablo, and the like. I'm more concerned with media than with games. And until the hardware is all available and working well we won't see content adjust and fill the gap. The 4K panel isn't new tech but getting a high frequency 4K signal with good color to that panel through a source generator(bluray disc, computer, apple TV) through a port, cable, reciever, another TV port, and finally processed into the panel... that has been a bumpy road.

The last piece to the puzzle, the recievers and blu ray players should be in place this fall. Then and only then will the content start flowing. I know PC's can support it but in this area windows has trended behind the home entertainment industry. 1080p was more widely embraced their first so makes sense that 4k would need to be established their first.

We are a whole console gen or two away from getting 4k console games. PC is still leading the way

Chrispy_ wrote:

Well, if you look at frame times and average framerates of the FuryX and 980Ti reviews, you'll see that 18 months after this thread was started, 4K is still not a realistic resolution and still requires either a reduction in graphics settings or multiple GPUs to reach acceptable framerates in some current games.

Who would want to spend top-dollar on a graphics card only to find that it struggles in today's games, let alone stuff coming out in the next year or two.
4K and 5K are not gaming resolutions. 4K and 5K are not Windows DPI-scaling-friendly resolutions. The problem still isn't solved and until we move off the 28nm process for GPUs, AMD and Nvidia clearly pushing the cost and power envelopes as high as possible with their hot/noisy/expesive/large GPU dies.

A million times this.

4K is being pushed hard by marketers trying to sell us more GPU power than we really need or a new expensive monitor when the ones we have right now are still good. It's all hype and the reward of having a 4K rig that can get at least 60fps just isn't worth the buy-in.

... not only the fact, have you guys actually tried to run games at 4K? It's a friggin mess, it's what it is. Menus don't scale or are out of space, UI elements go all wonky, the resolution increases but textures and some shaders still look like crap, etc. To test this, just use Nvidia DSR or the AMD equivalent to make the game render at a higher res and you'll see what I mean.

Granted, some games do work well, but they're a minority at the time of writing.

It's a friggin mess, it's what it is. Menus don't scale or are out of space, UI elements go all wonky, the resolution increases but textures and some shaders still look like crap, etc.

It will most likely take at least a few more years for these problems to be fix. Another major issue is that may even take longer for GPUs that can do 4K at 60fps or better at reasonable prices to appear.

Some of us like myself already have large costly displays and will not be replacing them anytime soon anyway.

Since I don't game anymore, I don't keep up with 4K on the PC side of the spectrum. However, as an avid "film" buff, I do follow the TV side a little more closely. It looks like things are starting to gel a little more on the TV/home entertainment side. Since this thread's inception we've had all major TV manufacturers release 4K capable TVs as their main lineup now (try finding a 1080p set that meets your requirements now and you'll find slim pickins!) at very competitive prices. We've got the UHD Blu-ray spec finalized. We have a video codec and a color space. We have HDR. Studios are starting to master/remaster more content at 4K (e.g., new 4K masters for Dracula, Leon The Professional, The Fifth Element all recently announced from Sony) with Dolby Atmos sound. UHD BR players should appear this holiday season. Etc.

Now, with that said, I'm going to wait for everything to gel a little more before I personally purchase a 4K TV. Right now, the Samsung 9500 series is really the only thing a consumer can pick up that will support HDR and WCG (wide color gamut) right out of the box...at least that's my understanding. I think the Sony 900 series has one or two models that, with a firmware update, are supposed to be able to do HDR.

This first round of 4K is going to be fueled and financed by the early adopters (thank you, early adopters). It will help the dust settle on which version of HDR (Dolby Vision vs. X) we'll see. I think a few more things that are options now are going to have to be baked in to future 4K sets before I purchase. The additional resolution is not yet enough to sell me on getting a low end 4K set now only to find in 12 months I have to buy again to get a set capable of HDR and WCG.

Still, I have to say this all moved faster than I thought it would. I marvel to think that it was just a "few" years ago we, as kids (I'm 38 now), had 3 local VHF broadcast stations. It was huge when dad put up a taller antenna and we got Fox 17 (UHF) out of Nashville! Fox had the best cartoons, of course. We consumed our movies on VHS. We were bound to the broadcasters' schedules and "slaves" to the TV Guide. DVD came along and was a revelation in appearance and convenience. I skipped the HD format war and only got into Blu-ray a couple of years ago. Watching a Blu-ray now is basically like having a 35mm release print in your home! To me, the time from Blu-ray at 1920x1080 to 4K UHD seems rather short compared to the time between all the other changes.