NVIDIA has shared the first 8K gaming benchmarks for its upcoming high-end GPU, the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090.
Why the fuck are we talking about 8k gaming when 4k gaming is only now starting to become the norm? Hell, iirc, last year a steam survey showed that nearly 2/3rd's of its users were gaming on 1080p displays.
4k is the norm? Most resolutions I see people go for is 2k.
Now now, Let’s not get ahead of ourselves! The Nintendo gang still enjoys 720p-1080p, barely! ;)
There's plenty of people out there in the camp of 4K just isn't necessary. Maybe there's a practical use for 8K for some things, but seems that power is better spent on other graphical features.
1440p is definitely the sweet spot right now, but 4k is starting to become more plausible. Especially with DLSS.
I agree. Ultra wide monitor in 2K is the way to go.
2k, you can still see the pixels up close. 4K, most people cannot, and nobody can from 8 feet away. 8K is a waste unless you have a theater sized screen. 4K is the sweet spot for home theaters.
I'm interested in the benchmarks just as a measure of performance. When we moved up in resolutions we saw certain hardware outperforming others. Though 8K isn't really expected to repeat that behavior. It was 720p vs 1080 and 1080 vs 4k that showed some brands outperforming others based off architecture, features, RAM amount, etc. It will be a good day though just seeing us hit an 8k60fps card on the most demanding games.
Because 8k monitors are available and some really rich people can use them? 1080p was available on Pc LONG before average people could use it What you’re saying is because people don’t have these there’s no point in pushing forward?
These cards aren't for the norm. PC gamers with a big budget and big screen
Agreed, I bet there is less than 5000 8ktv in people's home globally ?
So does that mean that content should not be available for those people who have them? These cards aren’t for regular people. Should Ferrari stop making cars because they’re not the norm?
@ChubbyBlade To be fair, there's almost no 8K content out there atm, look at how long it took for 4K to become as prelevant as it is now. It used to be "this year is the year 4K will take off", and people were saying that about 4K for 5 years plus, 8K will happen eventually, it's just not worth buying into yet.
They do this every time. Hyping the next Big thing to justify prices. Even when games are nowhere close to this overall. Hell, tv shows aren’t even there yet. Same thing will happen when they jump to 12k.
Guess we never should have jumped to 1080p huh? Maybe we should have stayed at 240p.
Why the fk are talking about 800x600… Etc Etc Etc Why the fk are we talking about 1650x1050… You really want to be on that side of history?
Clearly not targeted at you. But there are people with 8k TV's. I have one, and will be buying a 4090 just to see how far it can push it native.
Its really just something for them to benchmark and show off what their newest most powerful card can do. 8k definitely for sure is only used by a very small minority. Only the most core and technical fans will care about this. Most pc gamers play on 1080 or 1440. Nothing to take seriously for lol.
The 4090 is their flagship card and not sold in large quantities for the majority. It's for the enthusiast who wants the best currently possible.
8K will be the norm one day. Someone needs to start the ball rolling or it'll never get there. It also looks good that they're graphics cards can handle 8K.
4k barely is 4k, they use dlss on pc and on consoles, temporal antialiasing and checkerboard rendering. 4K is a sneaky word for now, 2K is more in tone with reality.
There used to be a chart I'd refer to regarding resolutions. How far you'd have to be sitting from a screen of what size for the human eye to discern resolution differences. I gotta think 8k would be getting to the point where your TV /monitor would have to be gigantic.
Yup. Probably a 55 inch and up. Anything lower than that is unnecessary to have 8K
I haven't done an A to B test, but it just seems with my not perfect eye sight at about 8-9 feet on my 65" TV, I can't tell the difference.
People used to say the same about 720p, 1080p and even 4k. Go back to when 4k was becoming a thing. People said the exact same thing saying it was pointless and you need a huge screen yet you can tell the different between 4k and 1440p on a 32” screen.
8K is *RIDICULOUS* for almost everyone. Someone can be offended by this, but science is science and this is quantifiable. I'll include a link for recommended viewing distances (based on THX standards) *as well as* 20/20 visual acuity "ideals" to reap the full benefit. I am *NOT KIDDING* that the recommended viewing distance on an 80" screen for 8K and an individual with 20/20 vision (in order to benefit from the pixel resolution on offer) is 2.61 feet or .8 meters... 8K *might* be great for large movie screens. For most home use, we need to focus on motion handling much more than worrying about resolution increases at this point. There are others like this that give the same results, but this is one of the nicer ones to us in my opinion. https://goodcalculators.com...
I actually sit over 2m from my TV... I need something bigger than 55".
You have it backwards. The closer you sit the higher the resolution you want because it's easier to see the pixels. So for something like a computer where you are 2-4 feet away 4k and 8k would be better. Here is a chart https://i.rtings.com/images...
Not sure if you were replying to me because that is not far from the point I was making (you have to be REALLY close to benefit). But I was adding to that, and saying that due to the very high pixel count of 8K, the fact is that not only do you have to be very close, but you have to be very close AND the screen has to be larger than what is generally considered comfortable and/or realistic at those distances. As I said, the "ideal" for an 8K screen (based on someone with 20/20 vision) to be able to appreciate the resolution benefits "fully" is to sit 2.61 feet (or .8 meters) away from AN 80 INCH SCREEN! That is ludicrous+++! In fact, the rtings table you linked to has the same data and indicates that to benefit from an 80" 8K screen, the absolute MAXIMUM recommended seating distance is just under 5 feet. Who wants less than 5 feet to be the maximum recommended distance to sit from an 80" television? The point? Most people do not have 80 inch screens and for those who do, sitting less than 5 feet from an 80 inch screen would be beyond absurd in most cases. Translate that to something as small as a monitor. Even if you have a 40 inch monitor (8K), the FARTHEST you should be (based on the chart you linked to) is barely over 2 feet. The "ideal" with 20/20 vision is 1.29 feet. To sit 1.29 feet from a 40 inch monitor is not by most measures pleasant. Get a 27 inch monitor and the MAXIMUM distance to benefit is under two feet! The ideal? Forget even worrying about it. 1.8 feet from a 27 inch monitor for an extended time (and NOT even being the "ideal" to be able to fully appreciate the extra pixels) is simply unrealistic. Again - 8K is best suited for GIANT screens (like this: https://robbreport.com/gear... ).
....and here is me, still gaming on a 1080p monitor
1080p and 1440p with 60 FPS is what most average-gamer really needs (IMO).
I can play games in 2k pretty well with my setup with a couple setting set under max but I prefer to have a completely stable fps with all the bells and whistles on than getting my resolution up to 2k. So I pretty much always have my 55 inch screen at 1080p for games.
The other Question is how much of a benefit is 8k? How much can the human eye discern on a monitor or tv that may be anywhere from 28 in to 65 inches? Because I’ve seen the 8k content at Bestbuy on their demo units and it’s a wash between that and 4k demo content at those sizes.
Ah, the Bestbuy test- bravo to you. Seems I remember I heard a comment like yours before - every friggin year since 800x600 and pong.
Well considering Bestbuy and the internet wasn’t even around when pong was. It doesn’t invalidate the question.
The exact same argument was going on when 4k was a thing. The human eye sees in over 550 megapixels which when converted is a bit ok 16k.
Thanks for that info. But I imagine screen size an density of led, response time and all that other crap comes into play as well. When we are talking about the benefits to gamers. Plus how does this effect development of games? The jump from 4k to 8k is much shorter compared to the jump from1080p to 4k.
here's the thing, while 8K might be extreme and silly at this point, imagine what sorts of benefits you'll get at 4K instead. imagine gaming at 144fps @ 4K with every setting cranked to ultra with ray tracing and all other sorts of effects enabled.
I can’t wait for my tv to break so I can have an excuse to 8k
Frame rates will always be king. HD begins at 720p so getting a clean picture isn't hard to achieve. The real question is how fluid your game is? Performance should always be priority. In reality the 4090 is probably a true 4k/60+ card across majority of games. It won't be consistent at native 8k. Advertising it as an 8k card is good for marketing I guess. There's a reason why techniques like DLSS are employed.
8K gaming for an £8k system probably.
Still have a 360hz 1080p HDR display, I love my high FPS but soon it's time to go over to 1440p. Until the FPS in 4k is almost parity with 1440p then I will move on to 4K. I like my games with FPS in the 100's or more.
Which companies focused more on gameplay then resolution
How much storage Hass to be used up sacrifice other parts of the game just to fit a huge resolution
I'm still waiting on a decent ultrawide 4K monitor with 144hz, I'll probably wait for DP 2.0 while I'm at it, I haven't even made the full jump to 4K yet.
I will gladly take 4k smooth 60-120 fps over 8K 30-60 fps!
At least they actually showed the non DLSS numbers this time but it's hit or miss. 5/9 games are playable without DLSS at 8k but the other 4 are not and if you read the fine print this is on DLSS Performance mode so the image quality won't be as good.
I had a 4K tv during the ps360 days, before the ps4 was even announced. I had it on an og gtx titan. From my research was the first commercially available 4K tv brand sold in the US, I believe it was a Seiki I got on Amazon. At the time‘‘Twas funny people playing 720p down sampled by the console to even less like 540p and I’d play the same multi platform game in full 4K 3840x2160 on pc.
It's too bad there's a good chance if your not using the right power supply adapter you will over draw and have your cables catch on fire. Skipping the 40 series for now. Now then happy with my 3090. https://youtu.be/K6FiGEAp92...
Come on the new consoles can only do 4k when they chug along at 30fps ...I know ps5 says 8k on the box,but at what cost to performance?...it'll be running at single digit frames.
You can defo tell the difference between 4k and 1080p. At all distances unless you're sat really really far away for most TV's being 55"+. Seeing an 8K TV in the flesh, ngl you can still tell, but you get to the point of diminishing returns. Main argument for me would be, what content actually takes advantage of 8K? Most content is still 1080p. It's really not worth it.
N4G is a community of gamers posting and discussing the latest game news. It’s part of NewsBoiler, a network of social news sites covering today’s pop culture.