PS4 and Xbox One are stuck in the past arguing over 1080p when 4K resolutions are becoming much more affordable to the masses.
4K Images direct download link added.
But how much data would need to fit on a disc? Imagine an open world game in 4k. Thats a lot of data. I also believe the price of games will increase if and when 4k gaming hits.
Most openworld games can already be played in 4k... You don't actually need 4k textures to benefit from 4k resolution, it's not like you typically have a single texture occupying the full screen. 4k allows any grade of texture that makes up part of a scene to retain and display more detail that would be lost if the resolution were lower.
In case that idea is confusing, imagine a 1080p texture. If that texture occupies the whole screen, then a 1080p TV and a 4k TV show the same amount of detail. Now shrink that 1080p texture to a quarter of the screen, and tile it 4 times. The 1080p TV loses 3/4 of the detail, and the 4k TV retains it all. This concept applies directly to textured surfaces in games.
4K still not pratical at all. I only play 1080p with my 2 GTX 970s. I would sacrifice lots of frame rate if I were to go 4K.
@Mike I have 3 R9 290s in my system, I play games like Insurgency at 3840x2160 with AA and still manage 250+FPS. FF14 runs at 90fps. SMITE runs at 180fps, Arma 3 runs at 140fps. And this cost the same as a little more than 1 GTX 980. It's very much possible to run games at 4k and it's not even that expensive.
@Mike sli 970s could run a lot of games at 4k. Of course you would sacrifice frames, but it's not so much as to say it is impractical. Easiest way to find out is to use the downsampling tool in the nVidia control panel.
@mike: you bought two 970s for 1080p? I hope you're also going for 120-144FPS, because 60FPS framerates at 1080p are achievable for a lot less. I have two myself, but the only game that brings them down to around 60 is Dragon Age, and that's just because it's CPU bound and unoptimized, frankly. Plus, that game stutters like mad in SLI at times, it's better played on a single GPU or even in CFX, apparently. The 970s are limited at 4k due to their memory bandwidth as well. The 780s and R9 series outperform them at resolutions above 1440p.
Yes you can play them in 4K, but they don't use assets designed for 4k. While you get more detail from the textures it's not the same as actually using 4k assets and that will require a lot more storage.
who approves these bs articles? btw if 1080p is past and 4k is future whats the present? and how many games have been made for native 4k so far? you can even play snes games i 4k but that doesnt make them 4k games. 4k tvs are rare and expensive, 4k machines are rare and expensive.there is no need for 4k on consoles atm 1080p if perfectly fine. we should focus on making games better, making them compatible to bigger screens adds absolutely nothing besides some reduced AA and sharper detail.pointless waste of resources.and thats when you downsample @volk what exactly is the point of a 4k game with no 4k assets? assets include more than just textures 4k isnt nearly as common on pc either,its just fanboys . how stupid is it that youre asking for a pointless resolution upgrade for a screen you do not even own instead of better effects,textures,fps,onscreen characters,other game features.
At mikes: I have 970 slis and run All my games at 4k. You don't need to have high anti Aliasing at that resolution, you can even turn it off, and that's what usually is the most demanding. As long as I have 35-40 fps on my gsync monitor it feels like 60 frames. I think gsync is the greatest invention since we went from twigs to CRT.
@Vishmark, the same applies for assets. Imagine Nathan Drake is a 1080p asset, OK? To see the full benefit of that asset, you would need Nathan Drake to occuply the entirety of your 1080p screen. Otherwise lose detail. On a 4k TV you could fit 4 Nathan Drakes on screen, in full detail. As for how many games are made for native 4k? Hundreds. Maybe thousands. Mortal Kombat 9 won't render in 4k, but that's about the only 3D game of the last 5 years I can think of that doesn't. I can actually run Asheron's Call 2 in native 4k, and that's about 12 years old.
Basic biology has proven that any screen size under 82 inches does not benefit from 4k. You'd have be sitting right in front of the screen to see a benefit on and screen size smaller than that. So unless you're screen is bigger than 82 inches or you plan on sitting inches from your screen, 4k is pointless. The human eye has limitations which are not debatable. If you claim otherwise, you're obviously lying or obviously Superman.
when I think of 4k I think of PC... Right now we are still haveing my console's 1080P is bigger then your console's 900P D"£%^k swinging contests... At let's not mention that if we hit the magic 1080p it usually means FPS has to default to 30 unless it's a jumped up indie game! what a blow-out :/
I agree with your point, actually I want 4K gaming... But I think that you could not have had consoles released with 60hz 4K output last year, so both support whatever version of HDMI enabled back then (4k at 30hz) however, the software does not enable it yet. Now, I am not sure I want man 4K games on the PS4 (the idea of 1080p games on the XB1 is still hardly attainable, so let's not include this one in the conversation at all)... So, we have issues getting above 30fps games on the PS4 now, at 1080p (well, for some stupid reason a lot of recent games come with a 30fps cap on them) ... so the games I see benefiting from 4K would be ports of older titles and some indie games that accept to take the hit on frame rate :-/ maybe in a few years there will be a decent ammount of 4K TVs out there and we will get consoles that can output good quality images at a decent price, for now, you need a pretty high end PC to do anything beyond watching pictures at 4K.
Lol average Joe. Explain this basic biology of the human eye. Should be easy.
This seems like a "pat on the back, I have a 4K system!!"article.
Why Ultra HD 4K TVs are still stupid The flood of TVs with higher resolution than 1080p is inevitable, but at typical TV sizes, quadruple the pixels makes no difference in picture quality and are not worth the extra price. http://www.cnet.com/news/wh...
@everyone here you do know 3840x2160 is not 4K? but actually Ultra HD? 4096 × 2160 (19:10 display radio) is 4K !!!! 4K has 1/2 of million pixels more than UHD !!!
@ slappy508 I couldn't agree more. Buying a G-Sync monitor was one of the best purchases I ever made for my PC gaming. It honestly is a game changer and makes a bigger difference than any other technology to come along in a long time. Any variable framerate between 30 and 144fps is smooth and enjoyable on my monitor. I'm glad you are enjoying yours as well.
@NIO, that is honestly a bad example. an average of $550 for a single computer part is pretty expensive. I'm sure majority of gamers out there are like me and have to save and plan for a year before you can even consider parts. Not of all of can drop cash for 3 graphics cards. Yes it is possible to run 4k for a lot of games and cards, but that's why they call some of these cards budget cards. I'm considering picking up a 970 myself but that's after months of financial planning, budgeting, and stealing from some of my tax return. We all can't just spend like crazy on pc parts.
4K gaming isn't really prevalent for 70% of gamers as they don't own TVs big enough to see the immediate benefits. It's one thing to say consoles should have included it but it would have upped the consoles to a price point where it just would have put off too much of the audience.. 1080p should have been the most important and to be fair every game could have been 1080p since launch devs just choose graphical fidelity over resolution.
Finally got a UHD 65" Sony and a 4k server summer of last year. The movies are pricey at 30 bucks but I'd gladly pay $60 for AAA 4K gaming titles like say, GT7 or God of War, Uncharted etc.... Yeah bring it on. Let's get on with it already...
A single gtx 970 gets you 4k @30fps in battlefield 4 @ ultra settings. Or 1200p @85fps. http://www.guru3d.com/artic... Now when dx12 comes and nvidia/amd stacked vram comes next year pc will be to far ahead lol 1440p is the present and 4k will be big between 2016/17 no doubt. Newegg has 4k monitors at $450+. The consoles tablet hardware makes it easy this gen for pc gamers. @mikeslemonade is a lier and the console gamers who agree with him are ignorant about hardware. Two gtx 970s?? Yeah ok. Let me guess u get 35fps at 1080p lol @uth11 Are u 90 years old? Do u want me to come program the remote control?
@Nio I have 6 of those cards in my system. I run all those games at double the FPS you mentioned and display my games on 4 4K monitors linked up simultaneously! Also use the HoloLens and Morpheus at the same time it's pretty amazing /s :)
only got my ps4 at christmas after having a ps3 since day 1 (which i was well happy with) and im blown away with 1080 on ps4 and this early in the generation too hopefully games later on in the gen will look alot better than this even 1080p is more than enough for me thanks
Visual difference yeah but I want a VG that plays smart and that has nothhing to do with 4K...talk any Zelda, MSG game...they didn't need a 4K to tell an awesome story or gameplay, I think 4K is ok but just as part of normal technique evolution nothing that kills gaming experience in "lower" resolutions
...well most of those games are also last gen titles..running on dated engines.
@mikeslemonade Well 970 SLI is easily capable of 4k, if they can do Crysis 3 on very high with an average of 31 then you'd probably hit 60 fps in most games less demanding games or if you turned the settings down a little, one 970 is considered overkill for 1080p. http://www.guru3d.com/artic...
You guys are living in some kinda of weird fantasy. The PS4 is $400. Who would actually compare it to that of a $1200+ PC?
@ Dasteru That is both hyperbole and trolling in one post.
averagejoe is right. 4k is pointless unless you have an enormous tv. you can only tell the difference if youre like 2ft away from it. and it makes perfect sense, the same sense in not being able to tell the difference between 720p and 1080 on a tv smaller than a 40in. there is a threshold at a certain distance where your eyes cannot makeout the small details of a 4k tv anyways, unless it is say 80in and above. on 65in people couldnt tell the difference between 1080 and 4k at a normal viewing distance 6-9 feet. only when they went close up could they make out the small detail and benefits. companys market it like you need it bc they want to sell it to you. its even funnier when they get ppl to spend more money on a smaller 4k tv, boy you are being conned like theres no tomorrow. picture quality trumps rez, im a big fan of OLED. id pick it over the pointless 4k any day of the week. bigger color spectrum and sharper blacks really makes a TV Pop-eye.
You could also say PC elitists are stuck in a cycle of buying overpriced hardware to play games that just really aren't that good, and getting slightly better looking multiplatform games. I play PC games too but if I had to give one up I would give up my gaming PC well before I ever gave up my Xbox. I spent about $2000 building my gaming PC. Are the games worth the price of admission? No. I have enough disposable income that it doesn't matter but I get way more enjoyment out of my Xbox that is priced far lower.
@Volkama 970 cant run well at 4k because they only have 3.5gigs of usable ram. Ram is a huge bottleneck for 4k gaming.
A guy running 2 970 GTX at 1080p? Must be either an idiot or a troll. Unless you refuse to run your games in under tripple digit fps that set up is a massive overkill.
Nvm mike hes a hardcore PS4 fan, ill believe he has 2x GTX 970s when pigs fly.
8k is the future. Actually 12k is the future. Im sorry, 16k is the real future. People can like whatever but 4k gaming powerful pcs are amazing but 1080p ps4 has the best looking game on earth which is the order 1886 and it isnt 4k but 1080p. I would have loved to have a more powerful ps4 that is able to do 4k gaming but it would have cost a lot more and sales would have suffered. Its like people cant get over the simple idea that gaming consoles are made to be affordable for a lot of people to buy while being very reliable to play on for years. Ive got a powerful pc which can play most games at max settings in 1080p @60fps but i have to deal with all the headaches of bsod, error messages, graphics card firmware that causes conflicts, software that causes conflicts, wait a lot of times for games that are already on consoles, programs that wont boot and all sorts. I like it but i prefer the ease of consoles that are smaller, produces less heat while burning less electricity. I would love if all games were on pc but it isnt so.
Honestly, I see more vague error messages on my PS4 and Xbox than I do on my PC. And I haven't seen a BSOD since.... Windows XP? You are right that "people cant get over the simple idea that gaming consoles are made to be affordable", but it isn't the people with PCs that struggle with that...
For me it got so bad that the thought of installing a new game on my PC caused more dread than excitement. Because there were always problems of one sort or another. Then I bought consoles and gaming became fun again.
LOL what vague error messages do you get on your PS4 and Xbox outside of login errors or internet connectivity errors? PC have so many more problems it just comes with the territory there is a lot more threats out there on a PC.
It sounds to me uth11 that you aren't very tech literate...
Oh please, unless the game is unplayable/doesn't start, the issues that SOMETIMES accompany PC releases far from remove the fun of gaming entirely. Hyperbole much?
@volkama "Honestly, I see more vague error messages on my PS4 and Xbox than I do on my PC." Seriously, the utter and total crap people like you say in order to prove a non existing point is staggering. Other than the RROD with the 360, what other console in history has ever given more problems than a windows PC? "You are right that "people cant get over the simple idea that gaming consoles are made to be affordable", but it isn't the people with PCs that struggle with that..." Really??? Freaking seriously??? Console gamers aren't the ones who write garbage articles like this. They aren't the ones who constantly bash consoles for being "weak" and "outdated". They aren't the ones who cry down every single console game for not being 1600000K and troll every console article about games not running at 200000000fps and criticizing games even when they look better than anything we've seen on pc. When have you ever heard sony, microsoft or nintendo come out publicly and down play pc gaming the way Nvidia does to consoles? I would love to know. PC gamers have this elite club that only they give a [email protected] about and spend more time trolling console articles than actually playing the games they buy. What other sort of nutjob would want to compare a game running on a $1000 pc to one running on a $400 console and then criticize that game for not having the same performance? The utter lunacy of pc elitists is mind numbing. They are the ones who cannot accept that these games CANNOT be 4k and 120fps on a bloody $400 console, not us.
@JohnDoe take a breath... Are you OK? My Xbox One definitely crashes and has problems more frequently than my PC. They are invariably resolved by a hard reset, but they happen more than they should. My PS4 is less error prone, but when there is a problem with the network or rest mode or anything else, it's damn vague about it. Some times I need to take the batteries out of my Wii remote in the middle of a game in order to re-sync it. Am I "proving a non-existing point"? No, I'm responding to one. So rant at Cindy-rella, who brought up "bsod, error messages, graphics card firmware that causes conflicts, software that causes conflicts, wait a lot of times for games that are already on consoles, programs that wont boot and all sorts". Take a look at my other comments in this article and you should see quite clearly that I'm here discussing 4k gaming, because it interests me. Unfortunately I responded to a poor post which you seem to have missed. I didn't say PC elistists are right to attack console-only players. I said most people understand that consoles are made to be affordable. If someone compares a game running on an expensive PC with a game running on a console and says the PC one looks better, that doesn't make them a nutjob. It only suggests that they are observant and level headed. If someone compares those same games and shouts "YOU CAN'T COMPARE THOSE GAMES!" and starts insulting people for having PCs, their logic is more questionable. Sound like anyone you know?
I'm sorry but you're talking out of your ass. BSOD was an issue maybe 15-20 years ago, but not anymore. 'Graphics card firmware'? You're trying to sound smart but you obviously have no clue what you're talking about.
@Cindy-rella All of your comments make it blatantly clear that you are a hardcore Sony fanboy (or fangirl?), which makes me somewhat dubious that you actually own a high end PC. Many of your comments simply don't make sense if you actually owned a gaming PC. In any case, I can't fathom why you would have so many problems. I have very few problems with my PC games. I haven't had a single game from this generation crash on me, nor any of that other crap. The only issues I've had--and only with a few games, mind you--are performance issues where I had to go into the ini files and tweak something. These games are the minority, though, and usually the problem is solved with a quick google search and a few minutes of tweaks. I've had some problems with console games too, but, again, not many. The difference is, however, that I often can't fix the problems myself on my consoles and have to just hope that the developers will fix them. As far as The Order 1886 being the best looking game ever, well that's debatable. I'm open minded to that possibility and if it turns out to be true after I have played the game myself then that will be just great. But honestly what would that one game change? It wouldn't change the fact that 4k (or 1440p for that matter) are better than 1080p. It wouldn't change the fact that the PC has better looking games and better performance nearly across the board. ' You seem to think that it would somehow make the PC irrelevant if the PS4 had one game that looked better than any other game at this point in time. But it really wouldn't. It's just one game. I enjoy my PS4 for what it is and I'm happy some Sony first party developers push out such great looking games, but it doesn't change the fact that I am disappointed with the performance and image quality of many 3rd party games on the console. Those same games look and run so much better on my PC and one game isn't going to change that.
But my pcs gaming network never goes down
100% Agreed. Many don't fully get that resolution is based on game engine. If a game is running in 4k, its liking a lessor engine. Next gen only titles like The Order, AC Unity etc will be running on much more beast engines. Thus...those games in 1080p, beat last gen titles in 4k, as those 4k titles are also RUNNING ON DATED ENGINES! Example...would you want GTASA in 4k or GTAV in 1080p? MOST will tell you GTAV even at 720p, looks more advance, next gen etc then GTASA at ANY resolution. Resolution does nothing for a dated engine, blurry textures etc. Add in there are not PC exclusives that even fully use most hardware to even rival any AAA exclusives on PS4 and XONE. Soooo this idea that 4k on PC being better then 1080p is not that big of a deal if you consider what games are even being played in 4k. PC might have 12k, but it also doesn't have titles that are ONLY for PC that max it out near a PS4 or XONE. Next gen only titles are much more technical and desired then dated engines in 4k. Would someone really want a GTASA looking game in 4k, vs a GTAV looking game in 1080p? I'm sorry but I just don't think that resolution is desired MORE then updated engines.
Also many need to factor that indeed, The Order is very much up there with one of the most demanding engines created thus far. its A. Next gen only. B. On the most powerful next gen system C. PC doesn't have a game that requires 8gigs, 3.5TFLOPS to run yes....the PS4's GPU PERFORMANCE is 2x of what is listed based on optimization. Sooo unless someone knows of a beast PC game currently being made that requires a GPU of 3.5TLOPS or higher to play....I would really sit down. Yes...The Order's engine is much more advanced then Star Citizens...its a great looking game, but it also runs on any damn GPU, many GPU's way, way lessor then the PS4's. Its also running on the CryEngine3. I'm sorry but factually, The Order's custom engine is very much likely the more powerful one given that they are able to use all the hardware of the PS4 vs on PC using bare specs. http://www.eurogamer.net/ar... "they are relatively well-balanced pieces of hardware that are well above what most people have right now, performance-wise. And let's not forget that programming close to the metal will usually mean that we can get 2x performance gain over the equivalent PC spec" Sooo many seem to be forgetting that system specs mean nothing of a developer is NOT creating such a game on PC. Again...unless we know of a developer that has a PC exclusive that is so demanding, its 8gigs required, 3.5TFLOP GPU or higher etc....then its not even meeting the max PS4 specs. Thus...how can a game be more advance then a system its bare specs are factually not even meeting?
"Ive got a powerful pc which can play most games at max settings in 1080p @60fps" I find that hard to believe. http://i.imgur.com/zOHlE7A.... "but i have to deal with all the headaches of bsod, error messages, graphics card firmware that causes conflicts, software that causes conflicts, wait a lot of times for games that are already on consoles, programs that wont boot and all sorts." Then there is clearly something wrong with your PC, i have 134 games on Steam and bunch of others on Origin ect and i've only had issues running Just Cause 2 which took me 5 minutes on Google to find a fix and Tiberium Sun which is a 16 year old game so compatibility issues are expected. I'd like to know about all the games that have delayed PC versions that you're interested in, the vast majority of games come out at the same time. "I like it but i prefer the ease of consoles that are smaller, produces less heat while burning less electricity." It's not like consoles are matching high end hardware in multiplats, and getting getting console like performance/efficiently in a small form factor is not hard at all. https://www.youtube.com/wat... @_-EDMIX-_ "yes....the PS4's GPU PERFORMANCE is 2x of what is listed based on optimization. " No it's not, a 750 TI matches a PS4 in the majority of games, Digital Foundry and other webites have your proof if you're interested. plus the PS4 isn't getting things like MFAA, Mantle, mods ect that ease the load. https://www.youtube.com/wat...
The Order 1886 looks like shart. The playable character models are moderately detailed but the environments are basically RFOM at 1080p. The NPC models also look like pastel phantoms made with PS1 hardware. http://ftg.operationsupplyd... http://media1.gameinformer.... https://cdn1.vox-cdn.com/up... Crysis 3 still looks vastly better than 1886 and will most likely look better than anything the PS4 will ever get.
Yeah acer has a 4k monitor that people have rated very high for 489 dollars.
That's not how 4k gaming works man. I'm sitting on my computer right now with a 4k screen playing Final Fantasy 13 At 4k. You can see the difference here. I even have a screenshot for 1080p and 3840x2160 UHD 4k. I even highlight major differences. 1080p http://i.imgur.com/7XlZ259.... 3840x2160 UHD 4k http://i.imgur.com/fUnq0MA.... Major differences http://i.imgur.com/GzwCBLg.... This is a game from 2009. long before 4k was even thought of as a thing for gaming. So please don't spread miss information about needing "loads" of space on a disc. Regular textures we have right now are more than capable.
That's because you're sitting 2 feet from a small monitor. You aren't doing that with a console. If you have a 50" TV, you can't tell the difference between 1080p and 4K unless you are sitting within like 7 feet... which you don't do with a screen that big.
Pmsl thats like sooooo major.pshhhhhh get out of here with ya miniscule differences
what a joke you are really going to put your case to own a 4k pc because a game will look this much better to notice what you just pointed out its so small in fact your tweet has done the opposite than you planned its proved 4k is not needed what a joke
You have to place resolution comparisons at the same size of screen/object. I have used NioRide's screenshots. http://i.imgur.com/E4qDwk3.... This lets you see the difference between 1080P and 4K IF it were on the same TV/monitor capable of both 1080P and 4K. When you view a 4k image on a 1080P screen, the image will appear zoomed because the pixels are the same size. But you can fit more pixels in the same amount of space in 4K so you have to double the zoom of the 1080P and place it next to the 4k image to show the difference in clarity. @kurruptor And when we have 55-65 inch screens, 1080P is not sufficient at 6 feet which is where I sit. http://en.wikipedia.org/wik... I can EASILY see jaggies at that TV size, distance, and resolution. Once 4K becomes to a decent price for TVs, you bet I will be getting one, and it will be bigger than 60 inches.
Discs - also the way of the past.
I love discs. call me old school, but I prefer having a hard copy to digital copy. I tend to lose digital copies of things by storing them in different places. I do like when I find some old songs, its like finding $5 in your coat pocket.
No thank you. Unless they come up with a way to sell used digital games or digital games cost half price.
Discs outside of movies are dead by next gen, you'll still have a physical media format for games but it will be like a vita game cartridge or sd card.
720p and 900p is the past.
Too funny. Yet XONE's little stunt the beginning of this gen failed....I wounder why. Consider this is still the beginning of next gen and we've yet to even see a 100GB game, by the end of the gen, we will likely see 250GB games easy as LAST GEN we saw 50GB games... What about Next gen? When games are using 4K? I'm sorry but disk are neither past, future as much as the are the current and make sense in the present. Sony and Panasonic are working on a new format right now that fits 300GB per layer! Unless you like downloading 300GB to 400GB...I would legit sit down with that notion...
Most everywhere I have read, to get the best out of 4K you need a over 50" TV, and also depends on distance to TV. I have a 24" 1080P PC Monitor, I'm not going to notice much if anything on that. I play console on 47" 1080P 120HZ LED TV, i'm not going to see much difference from that either. If you want to see a difference you will, but I don't sit that close to my TV.
So, the great 1080p war of 2014 is over?
Uncharted 3 - 720p ~40GBs Skyrim - 720p ~8GBs Its called compression. Size of gameworld isn't really relevant ya know? You'd think it would be but it isn't. Compression techniques are extremely good these days.
Skyrim reused a lot of the assets over and over again.This reduced the size needed for the game.An compression is not going to ever be as good as being uncompressed.Just a matter of physics there there will always be some loss.There is even more downsides then that.You have to waste CPU power to decompress that data. Though Uncharted 3 also had uncompressed audio and that can eat up disc space quick.They probably also had assets on the disc multiple times due to the ps3 BD drive having a slow seek speed.
Bwaaa? How are people agreeing with this?! The resolution the game is displayed at doesn't increase the storage space it uses up. HD textures already benefit from higher resolution display.
Lets not jump ahead now, theirs only a handful of games that can even do 1080p and 60fps.
No need for prices to go up once industry standards are attained. Same way prices cost the same as last-gen.