Minecraft Can Handle 16K, But Don't Expect To Be Playing Your Favorite Like That For A Long While

From GameWatcher: "If we take Steam's hardware survey into account, just about half of all PC gamers are still gaming at 1080p - a precedent that started to become the norm around 2006-2008. The 'next gen' point of PC gaming was when players hoped to make the incremental jump to 2560x1440 or '2K' resolution. From there, 3840x2160 (4K) has been the big talking point, yet only 0.86% of the Steam userbase are reported to be pulling that off."

Read Full Story >>
The story is too old to be commented.
nitus10294d ago (Edited 294d ago )

Well great if you have a spare $10,000 USD just lying around for your graphics cards (4 0ff) and that does not cover the cost of upgrading your PC, plus 16 display port cables and 16 4K monitors although to be fair DP cables are not that expensive.

Actually, Return of The Tomb Raider had a blistering frame rate of approx 1.3 fps. Minecraft was surprisingly responsive and playable.

BTW. You also have to consider the desk and the 4K panel mounting system which would probably go for well over $2000 USD (assuming a cost per bracket of $125 USD).

I think if you want more than 4K gaming you should probably wait two to three years for 8K displays. They are available now but are still pricey (Dell Ultrasharp 32" 8K - $5,000 USD) and you will need a powerful graphics card (normally 2) to drive it.

fr0sty294d ago

You don't have eyes capable of seeing 16k resolution pixel for pixel on a screen that can fit into your house. Not even theaters use those resolutions.

Pantz294d ago

The human eye can't see more than 720p

Dabigsiebowski295d ago

Also while we did have 1080P between 06-08 I would argue it wasn't the actual standard until 2011 just like how 4k is just now becoming the standard with people still buying into the increased res. 8k is available already but that is far from standard at this point.

fr0sty294d ago

There is no logical reason to go beyond 8K on the display side of things. Even 4K exceeds our vision at 8 feet away, even the best eyes can't see the pixels that far back.

Rendering, that's a different story (4K with supersampling for great anti-aliasing).

Dabigsiebowski294d ago

Frosty, I have seen 8k in person at CES. Yes there is quite the difference actually and I don't know anyone here
who denounces a resolution bump. I think once we hit 8k then AA will no longer be needed.

fr0sty294d ago

Note that I said "No reason to go beyond 8K", not 4K. Physically, it wouldn't make sense. We couldn't resolve the pixel density with our eyes and any reasonable distance from the screen. Rendering is different, though. AA is always needed if you are rendering at 8K native and displaying at 8K, same with any other resolution. If you display at the same resolution you render at, you get aliasing. Rendering above your display resolution and downsampling (supersampling) or any of a variety of other AA techniques fix that. This is why I say once we hit 8K TVs, we should focus more on dynamic range and framerate changes rather than just trying to cram more pixels we can't even see onto the screen. However, it does make sense to make a GPU powerful enough to render 16k, not because we need a 16K screen, but for supersampling reasons.

AmUnRa294d ago

Oooke, where can i buy a 16k monitor ore a 16k tv??😇

DialgaMarine294d ago (Edited 294d ago )

I'm expecting the potential PS5 to be a 4K machine, and the potential PS5 Pro to be a dynamic 8K. I have zero anticipation for 16K for a long while lol

Besides, isn't 16K pretty much only practical for projectors in movie theatres?

Show all comments (15)