Sup, I was wondering if anyone else was like WTF'ing on the huge push Nvidia & co are trying to put on 4k ? I mean, a 4k "battlebox" and the associated 4k screen would cost around 10 THOUSAND BUCKS... And be nowhere as fun, immersive or mindblowing as a game developed for oculus rift (which should cost, like, 700$ and work with any current gen). I think this thing is, like, the perfect illustration of forced consumption, where u try to explain to people that they need something they don't and that they should flush a mountain of money for something they won't even be really able to experience (4K resolution under 90 inches is just, like, useless and that's if u're close enough to the screen, unless u got bionic eyes of course).
You are absolutely right about the push to 4K. Plus there are no GPUs capable of playing games at 4K resolution right now anyway, so it is pointless to do. Nvidia just wants to try and steal attention away from AMD since they have nothing to fight back with against the new cards coming out for another 4-6 months. It takes 3 titans in SLI to get playable framerates (40 fps minimum) in current gen video games with decent graphics options. No way I am paying 3K in just graphics cards to play on a screen that have terrible motion quality anyway. Ill join in the "revolution" in another 2-3 years when a single GPU is capable of running 4K res games and there is a decent monitor available.
Yeah, battle ready computers are 3 TITANS, and the nvidia dude says "oh yeah i reach 40 fps in Arkham Asylum" i was like, hmmm, dude, i play at 60-70 on my 660 TI on a 1080p screen... And i paid the card 250 bucks lol.
I don't know off hand the resolution at which your pixel density is greater than an eye's resolving power for something at desktop distance/size. But I imagine 1440p @ 27inches is pretty damn close...but it's not out of the question that you might want a bit higher pixel density. 4k is even more insane in the living room. 1080p is beyond your resolving power at typical viewing distance and pretty large screen size. You need some HUGE panels for 4k to produce any viewable improvement. Yeah, it all boils down to needing to sell you something "better" than what you've got. There's a reason they tried so hard to push 3D and now 4k...nobody is making any money on TV/Monitors anymore.
when 4k is playable at 120 FPS I'm in. Until then, not a chance. I would love to see a 4k panel though to see if any of the hype is at all justified.
You can get a 4K panel for about $700. http://www.amazon.com/Seiki-Digital...=UTF8&qid=1381288432&sr=8-1&keywords=seiki+4k Not a 120Hz 4K display though. It can run 120Hz at 1080p, 30Hz at 4K.
Well when i bought my new plasma (65 inches Panasonic Bravia) they had 4k Samsung TVs for sale as well at best buy. It wasn't better looking at all (even tho they used, like, a video with more awesome landscapes than for the other tvs lol). It was running on a 4k blu-ray player too. Sure it looked good, but it dindn't look better than the plasma and it cost wayyyy more.... Yeah if they can have 120fps 4k maybe i'll get one, even if there's no real 4K monitor less than 31 inches it seems and that's pretty big for desktop distance... Still, i think the OR is a much better innovation for gaming, granting it doesn't melt your eyes.
Looking over the specifications of the new R9 290X, it *might* be able to play 4K games at around 30fps average with just a single GPU. Someone was finally smart and put a decent 64 ROP's in the GPU so it can properly push some big resolutions. Played in 1080p it will be an Anti-Aliasing monster.