4K Gaming: A Sign of the Future, or Not Entirely Possible?

[Sanji Himura]

I would like to open discussion on 4K gaming by saying that the thread title is a hyperbole. We all know that it is a sign of the future, but yet with today's console and some PC tech, it is not entirely possible because developers and publishers have yet to optimize any game in the format.

Don't believe me? How about a word from Rich from ReviewTechUSA to get the matter sorted:



Now that I have said my peace, what do you think about 4K being the future of both gaming and video?

 

[TenEightyOne]

Piece

4K gaming isn't any different from 640x400 gaming. You just have to render a looooot more which requires a lot more processing and make sure that your textures look good. It's all about C/GPU power, that's all.

I only watched 3 mins of the video, by that time he'd spoken about 10s of interesting stuff... I gave up

 

[Grayfox]

It is like saying is Full HD better the D1 and is 4K better then Full HD.
More resolution is better, you will just need the power to make it happen which is nearly/has been done.

 

[Omnis]

I like how people say "invest" in 4k gaming. Uh... that's not an investment. The question should be, "Should I throw my money away on 4k gaming?"

 

[BKGlover]

It'll be nice....when I can spare the money to make a jump remotely close to it. It took until this last move for me to stop playing games on 20-some-odd-inch tube TVs, and that's because I don't have a game room, and my main tv is the flatscreen I got for early Christmas...four years ago now IIRC.

 

[TB]

Since I have no problems playing a "lowly" 720p game blown up full screen on a 1080p screen, there's no way I'm spending money on a 4k monitor and the cards necessary to push it.

 

[Sanji Himura]

I'm sad to say, @TB, that 4K is coming, and games are starting to more and more be optimized for the format. Sure, at least Sony, in all of their marketing for the format, should, and could, have made the PS4 more capable of 4K gaming right out of the box. It might make the PS4 more expensive short term, but at least it would make the 10 year gaming deadline that Sony bosses promised on the console.

That isn't to say that 4K gaming is completely out of reach. The beauty of technology is that it does get cheaper over time. So if the PC market [Read: Eliteist] can get behind the tech early, it can trickle down to the console market sooner rather than later.

 

[BobK]

I'm not sure what the point of this thread is. We used to get by with 320x200 four-color graphics. Better hardware came along, and we moved on to 320x200 but now 64 colors. Then 256 colors. 648x48x16 colors, then 256 colors, and so on and so on. When the hardware becomes available, the games will use it.

It's gonna take a helluva GPU to run three (or more) 4K monitors/screens. But ten or fifteen years down the road we'll be talking about how crappy that old 4k stuff was.

 

[Techy]

It's definitely plausible to game at 4K. There are GPUs and CPUs that can handle such loads. The problem is that it's very expensive. Running a single 4K monitor requires some pretty hefty hardware. Running multiple 4K monitors will need even more firepower. Most people can't afford that. Plus you have to consider the game as well. Some games perform pretty well at 4K while some games do not. 4K is reaching out to GPU & CPU manufacturers as well as game devs, but it's still getting there. Rockstar for example announced that the PC version of GTA V will support 4K, and a single GTX 980 can game at 4K near or below 60 FPS on games (assume it's coupled with an i7, 8 GB RAM and SSD). It can become a problem for the "next-gen" consoles too since they obviously can't render 4K with their hardware.

 

[MHPALA]

Inb4 the 8k hype train. PS4 and 4k gaming? The next-gen console's SOCs should have been developed on a 20nm node to even make that possible (IMO).

 

[LeMansAid]

It's very mundane, linear progression. There's nothing much to say really. It's not the future, it's now, just yet to be fleshed out.

 

[Joel]

I'm sad to say, @TB, that 4K is coming, and games are starting to more and more be optimized for the format.

What's "sad" about that? You're not going to be locked out of gaming because you don't have a 4k TV, people still run PS3's and PS4's on 15 year old CRT bricks at 480i. It'll be no different than now when games are designed around 1080p and can run at a different resolution, and it won't impact console gaming at all because you don't change resolutions on consoles. 4k isn't a "format", it's just a resolution.

Sure, at least Sony, in all of their marketing for the format, should, and could, have made the PS4 more capable of 4K gaming right out of the box. It might make the PS4 more expensive short term, but at least it would make the 10 year gaming deadline that Sony bosses promised on the console.

I don't think you're really appreciating how demanding it is to run games at 4k. It isn't Sony pulling a fast one that keeps 4k gaming from the PS4, and it's not PC elitism that makes it somewhat feasible on PC. It's hardware, and there won't be a console capable of running games at 4k until at least the next generation. To run 4k games now you need a top of the line card, Nvidia Titan or AMD R9 290x, you're paying at least $800 for a card that will only barely break 30fps at 4k. To get anywhere close to 60fps you'll need to buy two of them, and after dropping nearly $2000 on GPU's now you need a monitor. If you're lucky you'll find something for $500 at 24", and if you go for a screen any bigger than that the prices get silly. For 4k gaming at ~45-60fps your hardware will run you at the very least $2500, and that's all assuming that your motherboard, power supply, and CPU are powerful enough.

Nobody can make a $500 box that can sit in a poorly ventilated TV stand and run games at a resolution that $2500+ gaming PC's struggle to keep up with. Gaming at 4k is something that only the top end of consumer grade GPU's are capable of and the PS4's hardware is far below that mark. We may as well ask why Chevrolet doesn't just charge a little bit more and make the Cruze as fast as the Corvette. If they could feasibly do it, they would, being the only console to run at 4k would be one of the best selling points imaginable.

That isn't to say that 4K gaming is completely out of reach. The beauty of technology is that it does get cheaper over time. So if the PC market [Read: Eliteist] can get behind the tech early, it can trickle down to the console market sooner rather than later.

You won't see 4k on consoles until the next console generation. The PS4/XB1 are only just getting consoles to 1080p/30fps for the most part, which is where PC gaming has been for years. The PC market is behind it now in the sense that people think it'll be cool and are excited for it, but it's insanely expensive right now because it's so demanding on the hardware. Eventually 4k will become commonplace in the PC gaming market, the same way 1080p did, when the costs of the monitors and the GPU's that can handle it become reasonable, and it'll probably be what the PS5 and the next Xbox run at.

 

[LeMansAid]

......people still run PS3's and PS4's on 15 year old CRT bricks at 480i.

Pretty sure that the PS4 doesn't have analogue video output, so I doubt it.

You won't see 4k on consoles until the next console generation. The PS4/XB1 are only just getting consoles to 1080p/30fps for the most part, which is where PC gaming has been for years.

I think that the current gen consoles are bound by their hdmi version anyway. So, with you on this.

 

[Joel]

Pretty sure that the PS4 doesn't have analogue video output, so I doubt it.

I didn't realize they took it out of the PS4, either way though I don't really see a reason to be "sad" or afraid of games moving to a higher resolution like they have for their entire history.

 

[TenEightyOne]

I didn't realize they took it out of the PS4, either way though I don't really see a reason to be "sad" or afraid of games moving to a higher resolution like they have for their entire history.

I didn't realise they'd removed it either, it was on the original specs (article here) but I'm not surprised it wasn't included in the end.

Like you say, there's no real issue, we'll still be having this debate when we get to 128k VR sytems

 

[BobK]

It's definitely plausible to game at 4K. There are GPUs and CPUs that can handle such loads. The problem is that it's very expensive

...right now. This will change.

Running a single 4K monitor requires some pretty hefty hardware. Running multiple 4K monitors will need even more firepower. Most people can't afford that.

I remember reading in some of the computer magazines a while back that the IBM AT with its 6 MHz (yes, megahertz, not gigahertz) 286 CPU, 16-bit bus and ability to address up to 16 megabytes (not gigabytes) of memory had more processing power than any single user could possibly need. And yes it was frightfully expensive. Now I have a computer that cost me thirty five dollars that completely blows away not only those old 286s, but its successors the 386 and 486.

 

[TenEightyOne]

I remember reading in some of the computer magazines a while back that the IBM AT with its 6 MHz (yes, megahertz, not gigahertz) 286 CPU, 16-bit bus and ability to address up to 16 megabytes (not gigabytes) of memory had more processing power than any single user could possibly need. And yes it was frightfully expensive. Now I have a computer that cost me thirty five dollars that completely blows away not only those old 286s, but its successors the 386 and 486.

I once fitted a 38Mb hard drive shaking my head at such a waste of money, we'd never fill it. And we didn't. Crazy

 

[Techy]

...right now. This will change.

You have a point there. I can see such hardware becoming affordable in a few years. It'll still take time until the majority of PC gamers will actually move to 4K.

 

[Luminis]

You have a point there. I can see such hardware becoming affordable in a few years. It'll still take time until the majority of PC gamers will actually move to 4K.

Remember how expensive the GTX Titan was in early 2013? Now, compare the performance to a contemporary GTX970 that costs about a third of that.

Another two years and we'll get hardware that's 4k capable at a reasonable price point, I'd say.

 

[Tornado]

You won't see 4k on consoles until the next console generation. The PS4/XB1 are only just getting consoles to 1080p/30fps for the most part, which is where PC gaming has been for years. The PC market is behind it now in the sense that people think it'll be cool and are excited for it, but it's insanely expensive right now because it's so demanding on the hardware. Eventually 4k will become commonplace in the PC gaming market, the same way 1080p did, when the costs of the monitors and the GPU's that can handle it become reasonable, and it'll probably be what the PS5 and the next Xbox run at.

But for months certain people in the PS4 thread and GT6 forum were guaranteeing that the PS4 doing 4k was no big thing. Therefore you must be wrong and it is in fact no big thing.

 

[Techy]

Remember how expensive the GTX Titan was in early 2013? Now, compare the performance to a contemporary GTX970 that costs about a third of that.

Another two years and we'll get hardware that's 4k capable at a reasonable price point, I'd say.

Yeah. I still find it amazing that the 970 matches the Titan without being as costly in such a short release time frame. The Titan is still a good card, but the 970 can definitely work too. Once 4K gets affordable (or any res above 1080p), the "next-gen" consoles will probably be left behind. It'll be interesting when that happens.

 

[dice1998]

"1080p" to 4k. What ever happened to 2k?

 

[TenEightyOne]

"1080p" to 4k. What ever happened to 2k?

1920 is nearly 2000, so you already pretty much have 2k, there's not much need to re-engineer the standard for the small overall gain of 80px width.

The jump to 4k (actually UHD, not true 4k) sees the height/width double to 3840 * 2160p so is of much more benefit to buyers.

4K has become the common name for ultra high definition television (UHDTV), although its resolution is only 3840 x 2160 (at a 16:9, or 1.78:1 aspect ratio), which is lower than the 4K industry standard of 4096 x 2160 (at a 19:10 or 1.9:1 aspect ratio)"

 

[Luminis]

Yeah. I still find it amazing that the 970 matches the Titan without being as costly in such a short release time frame. The Titan is still a good card, but the 970 can definitely work too. Once 4K gets affordable (or any res above 1080p), the "next-gen" consoles will probably be left behind. It'll be interesting when that happens.

To be fair, the current consoles aren't the cutting edge of hardware and performance, as is. Can't expect that, either, given that the console's 400 bucks, supposed to last six years and be sold with a profit from launch.

Games like Metal Gear Solid: Ground Zeroes get a whole slew of graphic updates for the PC version, for example. And my GTX 680 (which was released in March 2012) is still powerful enough to match the system recommendations for a PS4 port with increased visual fidelity. A system running a more modern GPU crushes the PS4's/XBone's performance to the point I'd say they're already left behind...

 

[Tesla]

1920 is nearly 2000, so you already pretty much have 2k, there's not much need to re-engineer the standard for the small overall gain of 80px width.

The jump to 4k (actually UHD, not true 4k) sees the height/width double to 3840 * 2160p so is of much more benefit to buyers.

The "2K" is just 2560(?) by 1440. Common in monitors, hardly ever seen in TVs.

I think PS5 will see games start to push near-4k at the end of it's life, like PS3 games today are pushing 1080p - that's if we see a big enough uptake in 4K televisions. Meanwhile PCs will be pushing even higher, 4K maxed out for USD$1000 will be easy.

 

[TenEightyOne]

The "2K" is just 2560(?) by 1440. Common in monitors, hardly ever seen in TVs.

No, that's Quad HD, a specific format. 2k would be much closer to 2k per horizontal.

EDIT: Apologies; I thought I'd posted the link with the earlier quote... but hadn't

Link

 

[Joel]

But for months certain people in the PS4 thread and GT6 forum were guaranteeing that the PS4 doing 4k was no big thing. Therefore you must be wrong and it is in fact no big thing.

I think people have taken the PC gaming master race joke too far and now there's backlash. Nobody will believe you if you say how hard it is to run at 4k because you're just being a PC "elitist".

Is it elitist to point out that 1080p has been the standard on PC for years, and that the PS4 and XB1 still can't run everything at 1080p? Is it elitist to point out that brand new consoles are struggling to reach 30fps at 1080p, and be skeptical that they could render 4X the pixels if Sony just tried harder?

 

[TenEightyOne]

Is it elitist to point out that 1080p has been the standard on PC for years, and that the PS4 and XB1 still can't run at 1080p? Is it elitist to point out that brand new consoles are struggling to reach 30fps at 1080p, and be skeptical that they could render 4X the pixels if Sony just tried harder?

I nearly reported you for Master Race PC nonsense, I play 640 games on a monochrome CRT and I am better than you etc. etc. and you're a fanboi, and a hacks0r, and you like the Drag Forum.

Not calling you N00B though because then you'd win.

Consoles hit the limit of what's cheap/practical (and mildly futureproof) at the time of launch (from the manufacturer's point of view) and is then inevitably set in stone, albeit with minor upgrades through new sub-versions of the consoles. Some people can't accept the simple fact that there is a natural tech-lock there.

From the point of view of increased-resolution gaming that's always going to mean that consoles lag behind unless we go to platforms where we can plug upgrades in.... but that would lead to a whole new set of Master Race wars.

I think this is the last-ever generation of consoles, cloud computing is becoming so fast and cheap that I really think the next-gen will be control-out-video-in from central servers. This could be supported by the games manufacturers who'd never have to make pesky discs again and by the console manufacturers who will be able to lock players in while selling much more reliable kit to them.

 

[BobK]

You have a point there. I can see such hardware becoming affordable in a few years. It'll still take time until the majority of PC gamers will actually move to 4K.

You may not have been around long enough to have observed it, but this has been an ongoing thing. It took a while for the majority of gamers to move from CGA to early VGA (skipping over EGA for the most part BTW), then from VGA to so-called "super VGA", from 4:3 aspect ratio to widescreen, etc. I see the upcoming 4k as no different at all; pricey and not well-supported right now perhaps, but the price will come down quickly and there will be more software supporting it. Just like it has been for the last dozen or so iterations of video hardware. Eventually it'll become the minimally accepted standard, then not even that. Know where you can buy a monitor that supports no more than 640x480x256 colors nowadays, for example? That used to be the cutting edge of video technology, and I'm sure 4k will go the same way.

 

[Saidur_Ali]

But for months certain people in the PS4 thread and GT6 forum were guaranteeing that the PS4 doing 4k was no big thing. Therefore you must be wrong and it is in fact no big thing.

It is no big thing, just need Sony to enable 4K output and I'm sure there will be games that make use of it.

Best thing is 4K TVs have know come down in price a lot already with HDMI 2.0 and less than £500 for 42" from a decent brand, shame PS4 seems to be only HDMI 1.4 version so up to only 30FPS.