Top
520°

Epic: Skyrim put to test on 4K monitor

The guys at PCGH.de played a modded version of Skyrim which consumes 3.5 gigs of VRAM on an 36 inch Eizo which offers 4k resolution (4096x2160). They also show a video running Skyrim in this epic resolution.

Read Full Story >>
translate.google.de
The story is too old to be commented.
5eriously1229d ago (Edited 1229d ago )

Now where are those fools that claim 4K is not relevant?

hennessey861229d ago

When its not so expensive to buy one

morganfell1229d ago (Edited 1229d ago )

I never think tech really cost that much. But lets look back at the general perceptions of the consumer base in the past. CD players came out and were expensive. DVD players were expensive. Flatscreen TVs outrageous. Bluray players costly. 3D TVs beyond purchase. All of these dropped rapidly in price and became mainstay consumer items. 4K televisions will be no different. At CES this year there was a virtual flood of models from numerous companies. As they race for your dollar the prices will plummet. And console manufacturer not looking at 4K will rapidly find themselves outdated.

aceitman1229d ago

at 27 inch 4k monitor cost 25,000 , so it will take one hell of a price drop to make it.

SilentNegotiator1229d ago (Edited 1229d ago )

"Now where are those fools that claim 4K is not relevant?"

In reality, where it costs a fortune for it to make any sort of sense in gaming for the next ten years, or even as a TV for watching video.

Scenarist1229d ago (Edited 1229d ago )

4k res .. . i seen one in the sony store a couple months ago

84inch 3d tv ... . 25k
so why the fk does this monitor cost 25k

that new spider man movie they were shoing gave me a "belly drop" ( dont know why ive been callin it that all my life)

ziggurcat1229d ago (Edited 1229d ago )

@ hennessey86:

every piece of new tech first released on the market says, "hi!"

plasma/LCD/LED TVs were all ridiculously expensive when they first became available, so why is 4K all of a sudden going to "fail" or become "irrelevant" because of its cost?

PinkFunk1229d ago

I've never actually seen a 4K in action, but isn't it pretty much pointless until you get a TV 60"+?

I'm sure someone can enlighten me on the specifics. But if that is the case, I will reiterate that I think nailing down 1080P is more important when it comes to video games.

I suppose the whole pushing 4K has more to do with movie but I could be wrong. Either way, I don't have an 80" TV quite yet and don't intend on getting one for a long, long time.

Anon19741228d ago

It doesn't even matter if it's relevant today. The next gen of consoles will probably last 10 years again. Who knows what TV tech will be readily available for cheap in 2020. Those are the conversations that are taking place right now with regard to next-gen systems.

abigailmark21228d ago SpamShow
Bathyj1228d ago

Well said Morgan.
Nice to sell someone who realizes brand new tech is always expensive at first buy only every goes one way.

Down.

I distinctly remember the first DVD player I ever saw was a thousand bucks.
The first Plasma TV was 20 grand!

People act like this stuff will stay the same price forever.

portal_21228d ago (Edited 1228d ago )

Nice

+ Show (7) more repliesLast reply 1228d ago
mandf1229d ago

It's not relevant because Sony is promoting 4k. The only problem with 4k is it;s expensive right now. Give it 7 to 8 years and thing will change. Remember vcr's were priced at $2000 when they first came out.

Allsystemgamer1229d ago

It's not because Sony is promoting it its because the fanboys actually believe the ps4 will deliver AAA top graphic 4k games. It takes a beefy PC to run 4k games at max settings. There's no way a console in the next year or 2 will do that unless its expensive but that defeats the purpose.

mandf1229d ago (Edited 1229d ago )

@ allsystemgamer

I don't disagree with anything you said but it doesn't change the fact 4k is not being fairly discussed because Sony is promoting it. 4k is caught up in a fanboy war when gamers should be excited for this.

turgore1229d ago

4k are too expensive for what the offer. I mean if you take the displays of four of the newest ipads and put them side by side their resolution will be 4k.
The problem is getting enough horsepower to run games at that resolution.

Bigpappy1229d ago (Edited 1229d ago )

@mandf: You need to calm down. You are defending something that is not an issue. Every thing does not come down to anti-Sony. You need to listen to what people are saying with your head out of the fanboy box.

From what I am reading, the reasons people are not ready to jump on the 4K bandwagon are: 1) it is too freaking EXPENDSIVE not and the foreseeable future. 2)the concern of putting out close to the money need for one, then not have it fully supported for a long time because of development cost concerns and cost of hardware needed to support it.

Those are legitimate concerns that have nothing to do with Sony. I can also guaranty you, that Sony (while leading on the tech) is not the only company who has interest and is work on 4K monitors.

papashango1228d ago

I don't see why 4k is being included in the fanboy wars. 4k is not a Sony technology.

portal_21228d ago

@Allsystemgamer Kaz said that just upscaling 1080p looks excellent too.

+ Show (3) more repliesLast reply 1228d ago
cleft51229d ago

It's relevant and amazing, but incredibly expensive at the moment. I wish I had a truckload of money to spend on whatever I want but right now I have to budget myself. If you don't then great, buy a 4ktv and enjoy it for the both of us.

With that said, please try and understand where the majority of people are coming from when they talk about 4k and how much it cost.

aliengmr1228d ago

Amazing? Sure. Relevant? Hardly.

Thing is, the improvement doesn't justify the cost.

Then there is the next gen consoles that have the largest market share in gaming. They aren't going to support this for the foreseeable future so its just not relevant.

FantasyStar1229d ago (Edited 1229d ago )

2160 (or 4k) is not relevant in the same way 1080 is not relevant this-gen. It's not a question of whether or not it's worth it: more pixels is always going to look better. What is the issue is working with the increased hardware load to deliver it.

Allsystemgamer1229d ago

Exactly. No console "next gen" will be able to output a AAA title with impressive graphic fidelity. Some indie titles maybe but nothing along the lines of uncharted, killzone, halo 4 or god o war. It's simply not going to happen

1080p standard at 60fps locked is a lot more reasonable

OpenGL1229d ago

Not only that but the 4K TVs demoed at CES from LG and other manufacturers only supported HDMI 1.4 so that means you can't play games because HDMI 1.4 only supports 4K at a refresh rate of 24Hz. This 4K display they used in the video utilizes DisplayPort which is currently the only video input standard that supports 4K at 60Hz.

donman11229d ago

It not going to relevant for the up coming next generation of consoles as price will be a huge issues for both the console (pushing that level of graphics with a solid frame rate) and purchasing a HDTV with 4K capability. Its simply a cost factor. We are at best 4-6 years away from HDTV being at an affordable rate for 4K to be mainstream.

--Onilink--1229d ago

Im guessing you misswd the part where just the processor and graphics card alone are close to $1500, add in the rest of the components and the prize of tv and you would be spending a small fortune.

And lets not forget that this was just an upscaled version, they are not working with 4k textures, which i cant even begin to imagine how large they would be if the regular "hd texture packs" these days are at least 3gb and they are not even for the whole game... And this is not even a very graphically intensive game, imagine now one of those fancy new engines for next gen how much harder it would be

So yeah... $2000 (with luck) console + $20.000 tv + $100 games that have to be sold on 1TB external hard drives just to fit the game = VERY IRRELEVANT TECH

redanyeage1228d ago SpamShow
palaeomerus1228d ago (Edited 1228d ago )

Yeah sure, and supporting 3d was essential for video games too. Except for y'know...it's totally not and no one cares about it any more.

Frankly, that video didn't make me want to go out and spend money on 4K at all.

admiralvic1228d ago

In a lot of ways it still isn't relevant.

This generation we saw a lot of games fail to hit 1080 and even more fail to hit 1080P. Naturally next generation we will probably see 1080 become the new standard, which will give 4k time to become affordable. Even then it's hard to say if we will see a shift to 4k, since we have no clue how many companies will be able to afford / justify the increased costs for this tech.

Either or, we're looking at about 6 years before this tech becomes relevant.

+ Show (6) more repliesLast reply 1228d ago
LordHiggens1229d ago

I.....can't see the difference.

shutUpAndTakeMyMoney1229d ago (Edited 1229d ago )

Ofcourse wii can't see it.. But it's good to know pc can do it. Also new gpus are coming in a few months. Gtx780!

@DoomeDx
why not?

Allsystemgamer1229d ago

I may pick up a 780 to replace my aging 6970 2gb edi. But being in college my funds are tight lol and being a media student (producing is expensive) is also taking a huge toll on my wallet. Plus my job not giving me hours is painful

N4GDgAPc1229d ago

because u are watching it in a hd resolution for video. Not 4k.

LordHiggens1227d ago

This makes sense to me now, thank you for explaining...

donman11229d ago

Based on the video we both just watched... I also cannot see the difference.

sdozzo1229d ago

Haha I only have 8GB of RAM.

TheModernKamikaze1229d ago

Me too, but they're talking about VRAM, the ones in GPUs.

--Onilink--1229d ago

You would still need huge amounts of "normal" ram to help with the textures, though in this case ita just an upscale to 4k, its not even real 4k textures

Are_The_MaDNess1229d ago (Edited 1229d ago )

@You would still need huge amounts of "normal" ram to help with the textures, though in this case ita just an upscale to 4k, its not even real 4k textures

nope, you are wrong. most of the demand is on VRAM when it comes to resolution and 4k (ofc. GPU and CPU power aswell)

his ram usage is prob. at around 1.4-1.8GB
and the VRAM usage is because he is using AA (witch you own't really need in 4k since the Picture is already big)
he did also mod the game with 2k textures witch isn't on the Nexus anymore (he still hasn't the most demanding textures tho)

all and all, its good that a GPU for this gen has no problems. meaning my future 780/790 is a go for me ^^

edit: oh and BTW there are 4K textures out there, he is just being a n00b for not using them. and you won't see any difference in performance either

Norrison1229d ago (Edited 1229d ago )

@--Onilink--
Normal RAM wouldn't take a big hit, VRAM would. The GPU needs to render 8.3 million pixels which is more than 4 times 1080p (2 million pixels). I think he's using the 4k textures pack BTW.

Are_The_MaDNess1228d ago

@Norrison he clearly says Texture mod Realistic Overhaul with is removed from the Nexus and is up to 2k textures, they also had an 1k version.
the there is just one thing that uses 4k textures in that mod, and that is the mountains and that is only 2 textures for the mountains + normal map for each ofc.

and if anyone want a real Texturepack, get the Texture Pack Combinder:
http://skyrim.nexusmods.com...

it combindes the best Textures of many many mods to make it looks great. the only down side is that you have to download the Realistic Overhaul (with you need to find somewhere else then the nexus) if any one want the missing texture pack tell me and i get it up on a Skydrive or something (its 4.62 GB)

+ Show (1) more replyLast reply 1228d ago
MacDonagh1229d ago (Edited 1229d ago )

The people who claim they can tell the difference of 4K are probably blowing smoke because I can't tell the difference. Low frame-rate as well is actually pretty worrying. Check out the Battlefield demonstration and check out the weird glitch thing that happens.

cleft51229d ago

Unless you are checking out any 4k footage on a 4k monitor, then of course you can't tell the difference bro.

Hassassin1229d ago

with new GPU and SLI/CF it won't be a problem... I haven't seen a 4k display yet, but I CAN tell the difference between my 1440p monitor and a 1080p monitor.

LightofDarkness1229d ago

If you're looking at a 4k screen through a 1080p monitor, you won't be able to see it. If you're there in person, you'll see it as night and day.

MacDonagh1229d ago

Is it worth $25,000?

The new 84-inch Sony XBR-84X900 Bravia 4k television is going to cost that much and I've seen people on speculation threads claiming that both Microsoft and Sony need to have 4k support in their new consoles.

It'll only jack up the price for the new consoles and I don't think it's worth it.

Would be nice on PC I guess because that's where all the innovation is.

Qrphe1228d ago

Widescreen 480p has a 1/5 of the pixels 1080p has while 1080p has 1/4 of the pixels 4k has.

Yes, there is a huge difference.

MacDonagh1228d ago

Might be a huge difference, but let's be real here. If games are going to be made with 4K support in mind, it'll be an extra add-on that isn't needed. How about having console games that can run 60 fps first? Because from what I've seen in this HD generation of consoles are unacceptable frame-rates on 720p. These tellies might be nice in the future when they are far cheaper, but I'd rather have decent graphics with decent frame-rate to be honest.

+ Show (1) more replyLast reply 1228d ago
Hassassin1229d ago

I'd like to see some screenshots from the games also :P

And oh please test Witcher 2 with uber on 4k!!