Try our new beta!Click here
Submitted by Rashid Sayed 1005d ago | opinion piece

How 4K Resolution Gaming Looks – Is It Really Worth It?

"With the advent of next gen consoles i.e. the PlayStation 4 and the next Xbox, one term that has gained a lot of traction in the last few months is 4K gaming. Sony have earlier spoken about 4K gaming and while it won’t be hitting the PlayStation 4 at launch, it is in the pipeline for a few years later." (PC, PS4, Xbox One)

DA_SHREDDER  +   1005d ago
hell no. just make good games, let the devs get good with graphics over time. It's a waste of resources to start making games at 4000k when most devs cant even make a decent game in 720p.
JDW  +   1005d ago
Can't remember the last time I played a game at anything less than 1080p 60 fps.
stage88  +   1005d ago
You missed out.
3-4-5  +   1004d ago
secret brag....
minimur12  +   1004d ago
im still using scart on my TV.......... (no joke)
jsslifelike  +   1004d ago
4000k resolution?? Holy GAWD
Kennytaur  +   1004d ago
So, did you miss out on everything before the naughties? And all the great console-only games ever? Some gamer you are.
Mini0510  +   1004d ago
you are a joke
bullymangLer  +   1004d ago
#1.1.7 (Edited 1004d ago ) | Agree(0) | Disagree(0) | Report
Zhipp  +   1004d ago
Your PC must be beast. I can tell that you're very proud.
RankFTW  +   1004d ago
Pfft 1080p JDW? Real men play at 1440p.
loulou  +   1004d ago
4k will probably be the gen after. then oleds and other tvs will be cheap enough to become the norm.

at the moment, it is too high cost, and not enough to justify the outlay.

besides, is there any broadcasters that actually broadcast in 1080p? coz in europe it is still mostly 720p 1080i.

another 5 years perhaps.
GamerSciz  +   1005d ago
Not only that but 4k TVs are still on the up and coming and are quite expensive. I look at it as similar to 3D in that it had a niche group but never really took off. Don't force it upon us though.
RIP_Cell  +   1005d ago
here's 50 inch 4K TV for $1500, sure still not cheap, but not crazy expensive

LAWSON72  +   1005d ago
This is not like 3d at all. 3d is just one of those things you love or hate. 4k is will be the standard in the future because it will get cheaper and it is a big improvement and over 1080p.
#1.2.2 (Edited 1005d ago ) | Agree(10) | Disagree(2) | Report
gamegenieny  +   1005d ago

That tv is good for movies @24p. But the tv doesn't support games well. Was reviewed on techfeed and was shown to only support up to 30fps i believe for anything running on it (or upscaled to 4k dont remember which)
kayoss  +   1004d ago
Thats what i heard when 1080p first came out. Everyone was saying, "im happy with my standard tv." looked what happened?
Blackdeath_663  +   1005d ago
couldn't agree more at this statement " It's a waste of resources to start making games at 4000k when most devs cant even make a decent game in 720p. " i think 1080p and 60 fps minimum should be the standard next gen its really absurd that consoles still haven't managed that effectively that is partly due to the current gen dragging on so long. i think the gen after the ps4 and next box is when we can begin to consider it. it will be interesting if 4k gaming does well on pc though
Muerte2494  +   1005d ago
This is dumb...
because the engine the game was built for was only 720p natively. It's like taking a running a 720p tv show on a 4k tv. All people are doing is just upscaling the image. So unless the engine the game is running in is 4k, all these things aren't comparable.

PC heads like to boast about how there PC's are running games at all these resolutions. It's just like running a standard definition image on a 1080p TV. You're just stretching the image. You're not adding the more pixels.
#1.4 (Edited 1005d ago ) | Agree(5) | Disagree(17) | Report | Reply
Pandamobile  +   1004d ago
Are you daft? Are you seriously implying that when I play a PC game at 1080p on my 1080p monitor that I'm actually playing at 720p upscaled to 1080p?
#1.4.1 (Edited 1004d ago ) | Agree(11) | Disagree(4) | Report
Irishguy95  +   1004d ago
PC's aren't consoles...even Youtube can show you 1080p is a quality leap between 720p.(even though you can't see how big the improvement really is)
Alcohog  +   1004d ago
Drekken  +   1004d ago
I don't comment much anymore... but:

" It's just like running a standard definition image on a 1080p TV. You're just stretching the image. You're not adding the more pixels. "

Seriously man... Do a little research before you open your mouth.
ssj27  +   1004d ago
I don't believe you, got any prof?
I think you mean, current gen games pixels are not even full native 1080p and all PC does is upscale it to 1080p but not natively?
You may be right.. but clearly those upscale techniques are way more advanced than the ones the PS3 or tv uses.

For the PC gamers yes 4k is needed.. I mean only 0.69 of them can afford to get 21inch 4k monitor. And there is no games on todays PC running 4k jet.. but by the time %5 of them can afford a 4kmonitor they have create a new ability that only them have to be able to see the difference on a 21inch .. yes sadly I can't see the differenceand 99.99can't but they can and is needed.

Well in the mean time know that full 1080p will become the standard, 1080p looks bad for the PC gamers because they are gaming on 1200p 21inch monitor and only they can tell the difference between those few pixels in such a small screen .. I actually read some can even tell the difference in a small cellphone screen, this guys are advancing faster, human evolution is happening in front of our eyes.. we start as fish and know we are evolving into been able to see such a pixels difference .. well to be fair this 0.01% I'm not that amazing :(

I guess I will have to wait untill PS5 and I will have to buy a 55+inch ultra 4ktv to be able to tell the difference since I'm just a mortal and non evolving mortal ;(
#1.4.5 (Edited 1004d ago ) | Agree(2) | Disagree(0) | Report
kupomogli  +   1004d ago
@Muerte and ssj27

Here's two videos of Diablo 2. One showing 800x600 full screen/stretched resolution, the other showing 1920x1080.

If you own a PS3 you can see there's a major difference between 720p and 1080p as well. Just by switching your resolution on your system. Go to your video settings, uncheck everything but 720p. It'll switch the resolution. Then switch it back to everything checked, including 1080p. See the difference?
Muerte2494  +   1004d ago
@ Panadamobile, look at Gran Turismo 5. The reason it's on such a big disk is because there are two different games. There is the 720p version with no screen tearing and 1080p with slight screen tearing. I'm referring the the 4k resolution, Eyefinity resolution, and 2560 x 1600. You aren't understanding the difference between upscale resolution and native resolution.


If the source of the material is natively 1080p then why wouldn't it work?


Thank you, you phrased it a whole lot better than I did. But yes, that what i was trying to say. You're not increasing the game pixels (suddenly start rendering more pixels) when you set your resolutions above 1080p. You're just upscaling the image.

@ kupomogli,

we're talking about the 1400x 1200, 2560 x 1600, and pretty much all resolutions above 1080p. Video is completely different from rendering games. The resolution of the SDK runtime environment is what i'm referring to.
#1.4.7 (Edited 1004d ago ) | Agree(0) | Disagree(4) | Report
turnerdc  +   1004d ago

GT5 doesn't run at 1080p (1920x1080p) but instead only runs at 1280x1080...

"The game still renders at native 720p with 4x multi-sampling anti-aliasing (MSAA) when your XMB is set to 720p mode, while the resolution shifts to 1280x1080 with 2x quincunx (QAA) when the 1080p mode is engaged. So we're not seeing anything like native 1080p resolution here..."
#1.4.8 (Edited 1004d ago ) | Agree(2) | Disagree(0) | Report
Muerte2494  +   1004d ago
you should finish the entire quote.

"1280x1080 with 2x quincunx (QAA) when the 1080p mode is engaged. So we're not seeing anything like native 1080p resolution here, but you are getting a 50 per cent increase in the number of pixels rendered."

It's not FULL HD but it is 1080p. FULL HD is 1920 x 1080p. But the number of horizontal lines running along the "Y" axis are indeed 1080.

compared to the 720p version there are 50% more pixels being rendered.
#1.4.9 (Edited 1004d ago ) | Agree(0) | Disagree(7) | Report
Pandamobile  +   1004d ago
Muerte, are you trolling or do you actually believe the asinine stuff you're saying?
turnerdc  +   1002d ago
Muerte, 1080p implies a resolution of 1920x1080p just like 720p implies a resolution of 1280x720p. Yes, 1280x1080p is an HD resolution...just like 1280x720p is an HD resolution. Is 1280x1080p the industry standard 1080p...heck no. Even my original quote stated that the resolution GT5 runs at is NOT 1080p. Sounds like you're grasping at straws. It's a nice increase from 720p but it's still missing almost 700,000 pixels. If you want to say GT5 runs at 1280x1080p then that's completely right but to state it runs at 1080p is wrong.

"1080p represents 1,920 pixels displayed across a screen horizontally and 1,080 pixels down a screen vertically."

"Refers to the 1920x1080 "progressive scan" HDTV format."

"A display mode for HDTV's, with a resolution of 1920x1080."

#1.4.11 (Edited 1002d ago ) | Agree(0) | Disagree(0) | Report
Lior  +   1005d ago
It doesn't matter the new consoles won't even be able to do 4k output whilst playing a game, pc gaming in 4k for need for speed 2012 and games like crysis 3 need 3 titans to run at a playable 30fps
FlyingFoxy  +   1004d ago
3 titans for 30fps at 4k resolution? rofl, that's pathetic to need 3 cards that expensive to be able to pull just 30fps at that resolution and not even a constant 60!.

1080P & high end graphics cards for me, speed first and sharpness second, its just not worth the sacrifice to go higher.

Thinking about it now, it's not even sharper because it's split across 3 monitors.. it's purely for the extra viewing space & experience. Purely a waste IMO.
#1.5.1 (Edited 1004d ago ) | Agree(1) | Disagree(1) | Report
Pandamobile  +   1004d ago
BF3 on full settings runs at ~30 FPS at 4K on a single GTX 680.
SonyPS4  +   1004d ago
4K is overkill, especially when you will have a insignificant amount of people owning 4KTVs for many years to come. Don't waste thousands of dollars on developing nothing important in your game kthx.
greenlantern2814  +   1004d ago
4k is going to be huge in about 2 or 3 years. right now it coast to much. but much like when hd first came out it will grow and take over than it will matter. for now just set that on the back burner
LKHGFDSA  +   1004d ago
There actually is a 50" 4K TV on the market for $1500, already.
Sure they're not wide spread, but they're already available.
Considering we'll be using PS4s for the next 10 years, I still think it'd be better if it supported 4K res games.
Edit: I saw another guy said the thing about the 1.5K 4K TV. Woops.
#1.7.1 (Edited 1004d ago ) | Agree(1) | Disagree(0) | Report
SnakeCQC  +   1004d ago
LKHGFDSA  +   1004d ago
wtf, surely it would hardware restrictions that would or would not enable 4K resolutions. not software.
Devs wouldn't have to make their games any different than they normally would.
There would be additional resources primarily for the 4K res.
GiantFriendlyCrab  +   1005d ago
4k indie games is really welcome though
SoapShoes  +   1004d ago
I'm sure Gran Turismo 7 will be able to pull off 4k. I mean it was the only PS2 game to pull off 1080i and only PS3 game to do 1080p and 60fps.
DoesUs  +   1004d ago
There are a number more than GT5...Wipeout HD for example.
SoapShoes  +   1003d ago
Yeah I don't know what I was thinking when I said that but a number more? I'm fairly sure there are only a few that achieve that not a lot more.
Lulz_Boat  +   1005d ago
it was the 2004/2005 when i heard the SAMETHING for the HD Ready and Full HD resolution

1) hell no!
2) super expensive blahblah!
3) not required!
4) useless!
5) other bad things

this is the technology, 4k will be a standard, maybe in 2 years, but it will be.
claudionmc  +   1005d ago
2004 - 2005, OBVIOUSLY NO! it is like 2013-2014... the difference is that now the hardware is growing much faster than before.

PS4 and nextbox will last 4 years... no 4k needed
Sharingan_no_Kakashi  +   1005d ago
No. It's not necessary on pc's because the screens are too small for there to be a meaningful difference. And it's not necessary on consoles because 4k tvs aren't mass market yet. So no.
Elite_737  +   1005d ago
They said the same thing when it came to Apple's Retina display, and the 1080p phones that are just coming out. But, you can clearly tell the improvement.

The fact that games need anti-aliasing is proof enough that we need 4k (or at least 2k). Even on my 21.5inch 1080p monitor, the pixels are big enough that I can clearly see the jagged edges of them, which requires AA to smooth them out. If we had 4k, the pixels would be so small that the jaggies wouldn't even be noticeable to the human eye.
hesido  +   1005d ago
Would you not rather use all those valuable computing power for better and more complex rendering techniques, instead of trying to fill all those pixels using current rendering methods? Why not use AA? It's a very practical method of removing edges. Why use a brute approach to remove jaggies?

Would you be worried if your games looked as beautiful as a 1080p movie? First lets get that sorted out, and then move to 4K, shall we?
Elite_737  +   1004d ago

I'm speaking from a PC perspective, not a console one. Developers can make games look as good as they want as far as texturing, shaders, shadowing, etc. I'll be able to enable 4k resolutions if I have a 4k monitor. It's up to me to have the power to run it maxed out, the developers have nothing to worry about.

I understand where you're coming from though, from a console perspective. I really don't think developers should sacrifice 720p/1080p with good graphics for 4k with bad graphics.
Mr Tretton  +   1005d ago
A lot of PC users use big TVs as monitors. Many PC users are looking forward to 4K.

Anyway, the PS4 is too underpowered for 4K. It's like a dated PC from a few years ago. And powerful PCs now can't output 4K successfully on modern games. BF4 will be 720p on PS4. That's not a good sign.

Love Playstation, but glad I love PC too.
Pandamobile  +   1004d ago
You've got the wrong idea there's Legends. You're going to see a more noticeable difference in pixel density if you're close to your screen (PC gamers). Most console gamers can't tell the difference between 720p and 1080p because they're so far away from their TVs.
Sharingan_no_Kakashi  +   1004d ago
inFAMOUS_KRATOS  +   1005d ago
i dont see any point in this stuff, really tho isn't hd enough? is all gimick..k will never standup just like 3d won't ever be standard in all tv.
No_Pantaloons  +   1005d ago
I think it is the future, but 2 years, get real, tech doesn't become mainsteam that fast. The HD 1080 was largely pushed because of tv broudcasts switching to digital, it took more than 2 years and that was slightly forced.

4k is no where near ready, the tv prices are way too high, the content isn't available, and for gaming even high end graphics cards would be brought to its knees trying to crank out 4x the pixels per frame. Just settle the hell down, the tech will come when it comes, enjoy whats current.
kayoss  +   1004d ago
Actually 4K is ready. Its the consumers and tv broad cast who are not ready.
kingduqc  +   1004d ago
I see a lot of retarded post here and misinform people.

First 4k at affordable price is already here: 4k tv as low as 1200-1500$ Seiki 50-Inch 4K TV. not even 2 year ago that was the price of a good 1080p one.

Movies are being shoot in 4k for a few years now, there could be 4k version of your favorite movie for sure if tehy would release blu ray 2.0 or whatever format is next. You can actually buy a 4k 120 fps camera under 4 grands. It's quite affordable.

4k games =/= bad games. It doesn't take dev much resources more to make use of them, they are already using quite big texture and downscale em most of the time for consoles.It's stressful for hardware but today's gpu are powerful enough to handle it (680 sli can play crisis 3 at 40 fps in 4k, in two years the 800$ gpu setup will be cut 3-4 fold making it affordable for everyone)

There is room for improvement, right now we still use AA to remove jaggies from screen because the pixel per inch is too low to make lines clear and smooth.
No_Pantaloons  +   1004d ago
The reviews for the tv you just pointed out state "is a basic 4k panel with no up conversion processing or bells and whistles" for $1500.
Cnet even claims it "can't compete with most standard HDTVs at this price."

And cnn says "Right now, no cable channels or satellite providers offering 4K broadcasts."

Bluray cant fit a movie in 4k on a single side disk so it's likely those wont be out, much less become standard until the next media format takes hold.

Lastly as for games, a 690 (which almost is 680 sli) gets 52 average fps on crysis 3 maxed at 1080p. Not sure where youre getting info, but theres no way 680sli is pushing 4 times the pixels and still managing 40fps.

I don't think im misinformed at all, 4k is just not ready for mainsteam.
#6.2.1 (Edited 1004d ago ) | Agree(2) | Disagree(2) | Report
kingduqc  +   1004d ago

Yeah, crysis 3 with 40 fps with sli 680, not quite maxed but it's getting there with the 780 releasing but that's still 4 time the resolution so you don't need that much AA. bf3 also is playable close to max settings.

Sure that SEIKI tv isn't perfect. you are looking at a 1200$ 4k tv from a no-name brand, what did cnet expect? The thing that is impressive is last year Sony's 4k where 25 000$ now it's down close to 5000$ So yes,it's ready for mainstream. Price is going down way faster then 1080p tv, games are playable
No_Pantaloons  +   1004d ago
What you didn't mention (he states in the video) is both those 680's are 4gb versions, they're ~$50 more expensive each.
Both games used >3gb during play and that was only high or very high settings.
35-40 fps average isn't bad though mins would likely dip below 30, it still sorta defeats the purpose, why would someone upgrade to higher resolution then have to lower detail levels and turn off aa. And that's from 2 enthusiast level cards, again not mainstream.
It doesn't change that fast either, 2 years ago 580 was still top, what % average pc gamers today is using 580 sli equivalent or better, not most.
And the games 2 years from now will be more demanding than these.

Assuming all that is acceptable though, you still said nothing about other content like broadcast or physical medium. No one provides it and disks cant hold it. A single 4k movie is over 100gb, not a very attractive dl for the average user.

Time Warner Cable has no plans on upgrading their speeds as of 2 months ago.
DirectTV, who filed trademark in feb, says "It may be several years before enough Ultra HD TVs are in U.S. homes for DirecTV to invest in launching its 4K network."

So its possibly good for high end gaming, with nothing on the horizon. The tech exists doesn't mean its ready for mainstream consumers.
#6.2.3 (Edited 1004d ago ) | Agree(0) | Disagree(0) | Report
kingduqc  +   1004d ago
You are expexcing em to use 2gb version of the card for 4k? They are playing at a framerate that is demmed okay on a console and and I really don't belive you need much AA on a 4k monitor specially if you are playing on a 30 inch screen or 5-6 feet away from the 55 inch tv. Im playing in 1440p and I barely see a diference from 2x to 4x and you got like 3 time the number of pixels.
ZoyosJD  +   1004d ago
2 stock GTX 680's in SLI manage ~35 average on high in crysis 3 at 4k.

And BF3 manages 30 on ultra.

The only real problem with the Seiki is the lack of displayport or HDMI 2.0.
CBaoth  +   1004d ago
No the real problem is Seiki itself and the lunacy of N4Gers promoting it
It's a garbage TV that's sold at bargain bin prices at the Walmarts and Kmarts of the world. This isn't Vizio in its infancy either. Seikis have one of the highest defective rates in the industry. Trust me when I say this; they're garbage! Anyone who considers this is better off using that $1200 as toilet paper. Just wipe N flush...
#6.3.1 (Edited 1004d ago ) | Agree(0) | Disagree(0) | Report
sourav93  +   1005d ago
The thing people don't get with 4K is, that, for you to be able to see the different between 4K and 1080p, you either need to be sitting 2 feet away from you TV, or have a massive 100"+ TV. This article explains it pretty well:

4K gaming is ideal for PC gamers, since they sit really close to their monitors. So they will at least be able to see the difference. So it makes sense why 4K isn't going to be mainstream anytime soon.
Shnooze  +   1005d ago
What's the point?
JRH7783  +   1004d ago
4K games this coming generation will be like 1080p games this generation. Only games like Super Stardust will put out 4K until they figure out how to do things correctly.
level 360  +   1004d ago
For sure 4K-res is going to be magnificent..

..I bet all game developers would put forth this instantly on their triple A titles, question is put squarely will be budgetary issues of course.

The movie/film industry who has the budget and holds a global market will be the ones to benefit greatly from 4K.
#10 (Edited 1004d ago ) | Agree(1) | Disagree(1) | Report | Reply
DOOMZ  +   1004d ago
4K is the future...
Not adding that capability would be shooting yourself in the foot...
MadMen  +   1004d ago
4k not needed, 3d not needed

Good Games...Needed
FlyingFoxy  +   1004d ago
Only difference is a bit of sharpness, if you want high speed (60+fps) games you have to run at 1080p even if you have a high end graphics card.

The things that affect the game most are in game graphics settings, so keeping high settings & good amount of AA and still at 1080P = high speed, if you have eyefinity setups you get issues with microstutter since it needs at least dual graphics cards, and the frame rate will be nowhere near as smooth as 60+fps.

Speed & Quality is best, 4k is not worth sacrificing all the speed for. if you want to run games slow and poorly then sure, but you'll be talking like 20-30fps at best and that is not really acceptable.
#13 (Edited 1004d ago ) | Agree(1) | Disagree(1) | Report | Reply
TotalHitman  +   1004d ago
What I want to see is an improvement in textures. When you look at human skin in a game, it looks waxy or plastic.
SonyPS4  +   1004d ago
Don't even bother. 1080p is good enough for this generation, but nothing less. Last gen very few games had 1080p and many had sub HD.
Albie360  +   1004d ago
Cannot wait for 4k 3d!!! Yes and it will come.
Qrphe  +   1004d ago
3k is barely going towards becoming a standard, no way 4k gaming will become widely available until years later.
imXify  +   1004d ago
4k is really not needed for gaming yet, but it is a better solution for those who wants more space to work in Photoshop, After Effect or Premiere Pro
#18 (Edited 1004d ago ) | Agree(0) | Disagree(1) | Report | Reply
Monkeysmarts  +   1004d ago
*notices PC linked in the article*

*turns around and walks out to avoid elitist douchebags*
taquito   1004d ago | Trolling | show | Replies(1)
sephx22  +   1004d ago
4k will be the gen after the ps4 and next xbox, im sure after the release of the ps4/x720 both MS and Sony will be doing their R&D on 4K gaming.
#21 (Edited 1004d ago ) | Agree(0) | Disagree(1) | Report | Reply
Agent_hitman  +   1004d ago
For me 1080p native for next gen is just fine.
#22 (Edited 1004d ago ) | Agree(1) | Disagree(0) | Report | Reply
brianunfried  +   1004d ago
Unless your TV is 80" or more you won't be able to tell much difference from 1080p. Until iTunes, Netflix, etc. start supplying 4k content its kind of pointless right now.
4logpc  +   1004d ago
So how does anyone on this site make comments on 4k, if they aren't viewing anything in 4k? How can you make such bold statemnts (most of which are wrong I might add) without having the proper hardware to see the content?

And you cant tell the difference between 1080p and 720p on a 5 inch smartphone? Get your eyes checked.

How does this place write such crap?

And the 360 can no only render 720p, but 1080p as well. What a horribly written piece.

Add comment

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

Firewatch Review | NextPowerUp

29m ago - Firewatch is a story orientated title with a hefty focus on hiking, pairing the exploration of th... | PC

XCOM 2 Review: Firaxis Games retains its strategy crown with bold & brilliant sequel | IBT UK

31m ago - Rather than retread a familiar premise, XCOM 2 throws out everything established in the series to... | PC

Gran Turismo SPORT Beta Testing Begins early 2016

Now - Start tracking GTS with's release date alert service and be notified when the GTS beta launches. | Promoted post

XCOM 2 advanced tips and advice on how to get through the mid and late game

32m ago - After beating XCOM 2 in Commander Difficulty, these are some of the tips, I (Jack Davis, The Gami... | 2K Games

Blackwell Podcast Episode 13 -- Alejandro Arque

2h ago - In this episode we interview the awesome Alejandro Arque, game designer at Square Enix who worked... | Culture

The PSP's Lumines will come to iOS and Android this summer, as Lumines 2016

2h ago - They’re making new Lumines! Remember Lumines? One of the best PSP titles is coming to iOS and And... | iPhone