Volitions Advocate on 9/8/2016 at 08:15
Got my GTX 1080 installed tonight, Rise of the TR with maxed settings at 4K averages 45 fps on the in game benchmark. That's pretty amazing.
Playing games at 1080 with this monitor and this video card will be insane.
Volitions Advocate on 11/8/2016 at 02:04
Using Vulkan instead of OpenGL in Doom last night, at 4K and ultra settings I never dipped below 55 fps. And it stayed at 60 most of the time.
Thirith on 12/8/2016 at 08:39
Not sure I understand your question, Abysmal, but the big difference isn't necessarily when things are all up in your face, I'd imagine (at least that's what I'd say as the new user of an 1440p screen), it's that things remain clear and sharp at bigger distances. Objects or characters would turn into pixelated lumps more quickly as they recede into the distance, whereas now they remain recognisable at higher distances. This in itself already makes a big difference, although it doesn't matter the same in all types of games.
Judith on 12/8/2016 at 09:08
Average texture size shifts towards 2048 px, so there should be some difference in 2160p vs 1080p.
Volitions Advocate on 13/8/2016 at 04:15
Keep in mind, for me, the screen was for better desktop use. So far while editing audio in a DAW it is far more efficient than multiple monitors ever were. Even writing papers is easier with all of my cited articles open on the screen.
Gaming is a secondary reason, even if it's one I'm quite happy about. Getting the GTX 1080 was a "why the fuck not? I deserve something this year." type of splurge. I'm perfectly happy playing games at 1080p with this screen. I just wish I had bought it sooner, since people report being able to overclock the panel up to 240hz. The most I can get out of it at 1080p with this newer model is 75. 1080p with an overkill gfx card at well over 120hz on the panel would be sublime enough for me.
But for the mean time, if 4K is working. I'll bask while I can.
Sulphur on 13/8/2016 at 13:44
Also, I thought one of the key things for 4K gaming was that it helped make everything pin-sharp with less visible aliasing? Logically, aliasing's never going to go away despite the resolution, but I assume 4K makes it much harder to notice.
Thirith on 13/8/2016 at 14:46
If VR is going to stick around (and I hope it does), higher standard resolutions will also translate into higher possible resolutions in VR, which currently suffers from relatively low resolutions. Other than that, I don't expect higher resolutions than 4K to become relevant any time soon, if indeed ever.
ZylonBane on 13/8/2016 at 16:19
Quote Posted by Abysmal
The same way 120fps makes 60fps looks stuttery, 8K would make 4K look seriously pixellated.
Suckers, 16K makes 8K look like Minecraft!
Pyrian on 13/8/2016 at 23:46
Quote Posted by Abysmal
The human eye can't see past 30fps!
:rolleyes: Did you know the human eye can't distinguish 1fps from 2fps if nothing in the scene is moving? The human eye can't see past 30K
if and only if you fake motion blur convincingly enough (among other requirements) - i.e. if you do a good enough job making 30fps look like it's actually a lot more than 30fps. Which is really just trickery, not an eye limit at all.
In practice, I couldn't stand 60 fps CRT's, I always had to kick them up to 85 or the flickering drove me bonkers. It's not as bad in LCD screens because the pixels don't go black between frames.
VR devices are typically set to 90fps, which is suspiciously similar to the 85 I preferred. Oh, and 30 fps in VR sucks, BTW, "human eye can't see" notwithstanding.
