One of the underlying themes of CES this year was the transition to 4K displays. AMD had a 4K (4096 x 2160) demo at its booth driven by a Radeon HD 7970. Most 4K displays require multiple inputs, which was the case in AMD's demo. Two DisplayPort outputs from the 7970 drive the panel in the shot above. AMD ran both video playback and a 3D rendered test as a proof of functionality. If the high-end of the PC space moves to 4K eventually that will continue to drive high-end GPU demand thanks to the 2.1x increase in pixel count over a standard 30-inch display.
It's about time displays got some love. This will really push the performance need from PC and console gpu's. Not to mention a lot more memory to go with it.
Games and software lack the support ie. the resolution itself or gui appearance and layout issues that would result from such a dense resolution, but before that support will even happen, the hardware will need to keep up. 4K displays will become mainstrean eventually, economy willing, and more gpu horsepower an memory will be required. Most importantly gpu and game manufacturers have something to aim for.
Before we go to that sort of resolution some advances in game engines will need to take place. It will be like hdtv I think where the televisions got better then the programming and movies to display on them caught up to the times. Before there was no reason to have an hd camera for the news as no one could see it anyways.
I remember when widescreen support was a major concern for those upgrading their monitors. Sometimes we had to modify a game's config files to get the right res+FOV going. It didn't take long for widescreen support to become standard but correct FOV is still not being taken seriously enough by everyone.
I'm guessing OLED displays will become mainstream much sooner than 4K displays.
Guys, you do realize that modern polygonal 3D games are resolution independent, right? As long as it's not using the older pre-defined resolution options (which most Japanese-made PC games still do
) a game should list the same resolutions Windows lists in its display resolution options.
The only issue would be from having a wider display, and you could easily avoid that by running at 3840x2160 (16:9).
Though that begs the question - what's the point of an only slightly wider than 16:9 monitor? Either make it 16:9 or go full panoramic with something like 21:9. 4096px width just seems like a marketing gimmick to me just so they can say "z0mg it's true 4k!!!11!1"
Quote:
AMD ran both video playback and a 3D rendered test as a proof of functionality.
Games should scale pretty linearly, so long as the GPU can handle it. The increased resolution without the increased screen size should lessen the need for AA, which will help performance, and make it a bit easier to get a decent framerate at those resolutions.
I want a 120hz, 30" 4k monitor so badly. I'd give up my three 24" 1080p 60hz monitors for one.
Games should scale pretty linearly, so long as the GPU can handle it. The increased resolution without the increased screen size should lessen the need for AA, which will help performance, and make it a bit easier to get a decent framerate at those resolutions.
I want a 120hz, 30" 4k monitor so badly. I'd give up my three 24" 1080p 60hz monitors for one.
Omg.. 4 1080p porn streams on one screen at the same time! FULL RESOLUTION! DO WANT
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Related Threads
?
?
?
?
?
Ask a question
Ask a question
Overclock.net
27.8M posts
541.2K members
Since 2004
A forum community dedicated to overclocking enthusiasts and testing the limits of computing. Come join the discussion about computing, builds, collections, displays, models, styles, scales, specifications, reviews, accessories, classifieds, and more!