Comments (168)
« 1 2 3 »
Petro  +   1136d ago
Unfortunately I have to agree with them who say that even PC cant do 4k, I have some experience on that, I have two liquid cooled GTX 670's pumping more power out than a GTX 690, and in some games I can barely do 2560 x 1440 (highest settings) and I can easily do 1920 x 1080 with highest setting available with one exception, I'm looking at you Arma 2! :)
wiiulee   1136d ago | Trolling | show | Replies(1)
Indo  +   1136d ago
4k TV price being affordable will blow me away more than seeing Killzone 4 rendered in 4k Res.
#63 (Edited 1136d ago ) | Agree(3) | Disagree(0) | Report | Reply
onandonandon  +   1136d ago
ANY console maker showing off ANY game could 'blow us away' if it was shown in 4k!!
hazardman  +   1136d ago
I love Sony and Killzone series, but why 4k¿?..I mean I love great looking games, but we barely have 1080P programing and they already want to push this 4k shit. I would like 1080p/60fps before any 4k talk!
Ulf  +   1136d ago
Wow. People are really dumb enough to believe that such a high quality rendering can be done at 4K? KZ2 and KZ3 run at 720p -- 40% the pixel resolution of 1080p, and approximately 2.5% the resolution of a 4K device.

GPU power is largely measured on a PER-PIXEL basis. If you have 40 TIMES as many pixels to render, then you'd need 40 TIMES the GPU muscle of the RSX, and you'd still be running at 30 frames per second, with the same shader quality. Also, this is in dream-land, where only shader processing, and not fillrate, are an issue. Note that the KZ series also does deferred rendering, to at least 6 different framebuffers, and making these buffers 40X as big would be a pretty serious issue.

You would need at LEAST 3 GTX 680s to hit 40X the RSX, in terms of pixel processing muscle, and you'd need SIX of them to run at 60 fps, in 4K, STILL without any more interesting or expensive shading techniques. Also note that, in KZ3, the SPUs remove the AA work from the GPU, and having 240 SPUs (6x40) running at 2.5ms for MSAA just isn't gonna happen. You'd need even MORE GPUs...

I realize that I've simplified the problem quite a bit, for easy digestion, but the basic problem with running at 4K should be pretty obvious to anyone who passed the 3rd grade... I hope. No PC in existence could handle the rendering of such a beast, even at 30fps at last-gen quality, so obviously a budget livingroom console device isn't going to, either.
#66 (Edited 1136d ago ) | Agree(0) | Disagree(1) | Report | Reply
Tzuno  +   1136d ago
You have that 4k supporting screen?
momthemeatloaf  +   1136d ago
not interested in Wackzone one bit
ATi_Elite  +   1136d ago
The Glorious PC Gaming Master Race!
I just want to ask consolers a SERIOUS question!

Why do consolers get so EXCITED about 4K?

1. Do you know that a 4K TV cost $20,000
2. A 4K monitor cost $5,500 dollars
3. 4K really only benefits large screens that are 60" or higher
4. a 4K TV cost $20,000
5. there currently is NO broadcast or media in Native 4K
6. most people still do not have 1080p TV's!
7. Oh yeh and a 4k TV cost $20,000

Now 4K resolution will eliminate more jaggies thus needing less Anti-Aliasing.

BUT 1080p and using the new low resource hogging Anti-Aliasing tech like FXAA will be just as good!

So again, what's the big excitement over 4k cause I just don't get it especially when a 4K TV cost $20,000
#69 (Edited 1136d ago ) | Agree(0) | Disagree(0) | Report | Reply
« 1 2 3 »

Add comment

You need to be registered to add comments. Register here or login