Is 4K ready for gamers yet? - AVS Forum | Home Theater Discussions And Reviews
Forum Jump: 
 2Likes
  • 1 Post By UnfoldingSquid
  • 1 Post By Nillaz
 
Thread Tools
post #1 of 25 Old 04-07-2017, 11:34 PM - Thread Starter
Senior Member
 
Shydow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 206
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 21 Post(s)
Liked: 22
Is 4K ready for gamers yet?

I've been sitting on upgrading my TV for several years now waiting for 4K to finally mature, and I know that alot has changed, but one thing I'm curious about it whether or not 4K is truly ready for gamers. What I'm meaning here, is can HDR 4K gaming be had with an acceptable amount of display lag.

If there are any fighting game players around I'm sure you'll understand, but pretty much anything over 20ms as far as fighting games go makes a TV unusable. So as a fighting gamer, that's personally my cut off.

So that's my question. Are there 65" 4K UHD HDR TVs out there clocking in around 20ms or less for display lag? My current Sharp sits at 16ms, but I'm not expecting HDR sets to be THAT fast at this point (especially not at 65", as my current set is only 46"). But at this point I'm pretty much willing to accept having to put up with another 4 or 5ms of lag to go ahead and upgrade my set. I'm not in dire straights yet, but mathematically speaking my current TV should be on it's last year of life before it's no longer acceptable as my primary set; and frankly I wouldn't be surprised if it doesn't make it outside of 2017 without developing backlight issues.

I don't need ultra-specific answers, but a little guidance would be nice. Even just as far as what manufacturers I need to be paying attention to If anyone already has some well-studied info on this, what I'm personally looking for is...

Full Array Local Dimming or OLED
~20ms or less lag w/ HDR Gaming Mode
4K 60hz 4:4:4 CS
HDR10 (be nice if Dolby Vision was also supported but... eh)

Cost is a factor somewhat but, if it's $6,000 or less, I'm interested.

Sharp LC-46E77UN
Xbox One Elite Edition
Denon AVR-X4100W
Rythmik FV15HPse
Harman Infinity Primus P363 FL/FR | Harman Infinity Primus PC351 C
Spherex OmniPolar SL/SR

Last edited by Shydow; 04-08-2017 at 12:15 AM.
Shydow is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #2 of 25 Old 04-10-2017, 08:09 PM
Senior Member
 
Nillaz's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 369
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 109 Post(s)
Liked: 83
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shydow View Post
I've been sitting on upgrading my TV for several years now waiting for 4K to finally mature, and I know that alot has changed, but one thing I'm curious about it whether or not 4K is truly ready for gamers. What I'm meaning here, is can HDR 4K gaming be had with an acceptable amount of display lag.

If there are any fighting game players around I'm sure you'll understand, but pretty much anything over 20ms as far as fighting games go makes a TV unusable. So as a fighting gamer, that's personally my cut off.

So that's my question. Are there 65" 4K UHD HDR TVs out there clocking in around 20ms or less for display lag? My current Sharp sits at 16ms, but I'm not expecting HDR sets to be THAT fast at this point (especially not at 65", as my current set is only 46"). But at this point I'm pretty much willing to accept having to put up with another 4 or 5ms of lag to go ahead and upgrade my set. I'm not in dire straights yet, but mathematically speaking my current TV should be on it's last year of life before it's no longer acceptable as my primary set; and frankly I wouldn't be surprised if it doesn't make it outside of 2017 without developing backlight issues.

I don't need ultra-specific answers, but a little guidance would be nice. Even just as far as what manufacturers I need to be paying attention to If anyone already has some well-studied info on this, what I'm personally looking for is...

Full Array Local Dimming or OLED
~20ms or less lag w/ HDR Gaming Mode
4K 60hz 4:4:4 CS
HDR10 (be nice if Dolby Vision was also supported but... eh)

Cost is a factor somewhat but, if it's $6,000 or less, I'm interested.
There is nothing out there that is going to hit all of your criteria regardless of price point, so something will have to give somewhere.

There are a few Samsungs that can get close to 20ms with 4K/60 HDR, but the vast majority of them will be edgelit displays. Also, perish the thought of using 4:4:4 at anywhere near 20ms. If a display can even handle 4:4:4 correctly it will pretty much be 30ms+ minimum.
Nillaz is offline  
post #3 of 25 Old 04-10-2017, 08:38 PM - Thread Starter
Senior Member
 
Shydow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 206
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 21 Post(s)
Liked: 22
Nothing in general or nothing that can do those things simultaneously? I should have been more specific, but I only need it to be 4:4:4 capable for movies, not gaming. I'd like an HDR gaming mode that takes it somewhere around 20ms, but outside of gaming mode I don't really care about achieving that kind of number.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G925A using Tapatalk

Sharp LC-46E77UN
Xbox One Elite Edition
Denon AVR-X4100W
Rythmik FV15HPse
Harman Infinity Primus P363 FL/FR | Harman Infinity Primus PC351 C
Spherex OmniPolar SL/SR
Shydow is offline  
 
post #4 of 25 Old 04-11-2017, 10:23 AM
Senior Member
 
Nillaz's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 369
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 109 Post(s)
Liked: 83
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shydow View Post
Nothing in general or nothing that can do those things simultaneously? I should have been more specific, but I only need it to be 4:4:4 capable for movies, not gaming. I'd like an HDR gaming mode that takes it somewhere around 20ms, but outside of gaming mode I don't really care about achieving that kind of number.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G925A using Tapatalk
Thanks for the clarification. The KS9000 can do 4K/60 HDR @ 20ms. The KS8000 @ 21ms. Both support 4:4:4 chroma, but they are edgelit. Both are also becoming difficult to find as they are being phased out for 2017 models. I'm not sure what the numbers are for the KS9800, which was the 2016 Samsung FALD model (and also curved) but I suspect that the numbers are similar. Very few other manufacturers get close to these numbers on any of their sets regardless of the panel tech or backlight system employed.

There's not a lot of details for 2017 displays yet. Early reports from Mark Henninger (aka imagic) show that the 2017 Samsung Q9 delivers approx 18ms, though I have yet to see this corroborated (it's also a sidelit display). Beyond that it's still pretty much anyone's guess how it will shake out this year with other displays.
Nillaz is offline  
post #5 of 25 Old 04-12-2017, 12:09 AM - Thread Starter
Senior Member
 
Shydow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 206
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 21 Post(s)
Liked: 22
Thanks for the info sir. Sounds like going 4K isn't going to be worth it for me as of yet but I'm going to hold out a candle of hope to hear some good news about sets that might be releasing later this year.

Sharp LC-46E77UN
Xbox One Elite Edition
Denon AVR-X4100W
Rythmik FV15HPse
Harman Infinity Primus P363 FL/FR | Harman Infinity Primus PC351 C
Spherex OmniPolar SL/SR
Shydow is offline  
post #6 of 25 Old 04-12-2017, 06:23 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
nathanddrews's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 1,660
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 422 Post(s)
Liked: 358
You would be best served to wait until HDMI 2.1 displays are released. With yesterday's announcement that the 2017 Xbox "Scorpio" will support HDMI 2.1's variable refresh game mode using AMD FreeSync, that is HUGE news for console and PC gamers alike. My only question is, who will be the first display manufacturer to release a compatible TV and will it be ready by the time Scorpio hits? Exciting!
nathanddrews is offline  
post #7 of 25 Old 04-12-2017, 06:31 AM
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Posts: 100
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 69 Post(s)
Liked: 34
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nillaz View Post
Thanks for the clarification. The KS9000 can do 4K/60 HDR @ 20ms. The KS8000 @ 21ms. Both support 4:4:4 chroma, but they are edgelit. Both are also becoming difficult to find as they are being phased out for 2017 models. I'm not sure what the numbers are for the KS9800, which was the 2016 Samsung FALD model (and also curved) but I suspect that the numbers are similar. Very few other manufacturers get close to these numbers on any of their sets regardless of the panel tech or backlight system employed.

There's not a lot of details for 2017 displays yet. Early reports from Mark Henninger (aka imagic) show that the 2017 Samsung Q9 delivers approx 18ms, though I have yet to see this corroborated (it's also a sidelit display). Beyond that it's still pretty much anyone's guess how it will shake out this year with other displays.
The Q9 is the 2017 version of the 9800, although flat this year instead of curved it is in fact FALD.
UnfoldingSquid is offline  
post #8 of 25 Old 04-12-2017, 06:35 AM
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Posts: 100
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 69 Post(s)
Liked: 34
Honestly you could get the 2016 77" ks9800 for around $5,000 now, and if you wait a couple of weeks could probably even pick up a store's shelf display (if you're interested in that) for around $3,000. The 65" should be around $3,500 right now, haven't checked that one's price recently. The ks9800 hits all your points including FALD, but is a curved screen if that makes a difference.
UnfoldingSquid is offline  
post #9 of 25 Old 04-12-2017, 07:58 AM
Senior Member
 
Nillaz's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 369
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 109 Post(s)
Liked: 83
Quote:
Originally Posted by UnfoldingSquid View Post
The Q9 is the 2017 version of the 9800, although flat this year instead of curved it is in fact FALD.
I'm sorry but it is not. Samsung does not have a FALD display this year. The Q9 is a sidelit display.
Nillaz is offline  
post #10 of 25 Old 04-12-2017, 02:04 PM
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Posts: 100
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 69 Post(s)
Liked: 34
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nillaz View Post
I'm sorry but it is not. Samsung does not have a FALD display this year. The Q9 is a sidelit display.
I saw Samsung.com had the Q9 listed as "infinite Array" but did some poking around, fully intending to prove you wrong... I ended up proving you right, left and right edge lit as opposed to single bottom edge lit on the Q7 and Q8. Very weird that Samsung would do that, and very misleading that they would call it "infinite Array."
Nillaz likes this.
UnfoldingSquid is offline  
post #11 of 25 Old 04-12-2017, 05:29 PM
Senior Member
 
Nillaz's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 369
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 109 Post(s)
Liked: 83
Quote:
Originally Posted by UnfoldingSquid View Post
I saw Samsung.com had the Q9 listed as "infinite Array" but did some poking around, fully intending to prove you wrong... I ended up proving you right, left and right edge lit as opposed to single bottom edge lit on the Q7 and Q8. Very weird that Samsung would do that, and very misleading that they would call it "infinite Array."
It's all good. It's perfectly understandable to be skeptical of some rando on the internet, and it's entirely too easy to be deceived by all the marketing mumbo jumbo that comes from the various tv manufacturers. The world would be a better place if they would stop engaging in shenanigans like this.
UnfoldingSquid likes this.
Nillaz is offline  
post #12 of 25 Old 04-13-2017, 10:21 AM - Thread Starter
Senior Member
 
Shydow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 206
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 21 Post(s)
Liked: 22
Quote:
Originally Posted by nathanddrews View Post
You would be best served to wait until HDMI 2.1 displays are released. With yesterday's announcement that the 2017 Xbox "Scorpio" will support HDMI 2.1's variable refresh game mode using AMD FreeSync, that is HUGE news for console and PC gamers alike. My only question is, who will be the first display manufacturer to release a compatible TV and will it be ready by the time Scorpio hits? Exciting!
Yeah I was reading up on that, and while I'd definitely like to have the tech I can't help but wonder how long it'll be before it shows up in HDTVs instead of just PC monitors. My only real hope there is, given Microsoft's partnership with Samsung, they might ask them to push a set out of the pipeline somewhere along/near Scorpio's launch if they were already working on one; but I'm not hopeful.

Sharp LC-46E77UN
Xbox One Elite Edition
Denon AVR-X4100W
Rythmik FV15HPse
Harman Infinity Primus P363 FL/FR | Harman Infinity Primus PC351 C
Spherex OmniPolar SL/SR
Shydow is offline  
post #13 of 25 Old 04-13-2017, 10:27 AM - Thread Starter
Senior Member
 
Shydow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 206
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 21 Post(s)
Liked: 22
Quote:
Originally Posted by UnfoldingSquid View Post
Honestly you could get the 2016 77" ks9800 for around $5,000 now, and if you wait a couple of weeks could probably even pick up a store's shelf display (if you're interested in that) for around $3,000. The 65" should be around $3,500 right now, haven't checked that one's price recently. The ks9800 hits all your points including FALD, but is a curved screen if that makes a difference.
Hrm... going to look into that. Curved screens aren't a selling point or detractor for me so I don't mind things on that front. Having just re-read Nillaz' comment as well I realize he mentioned it too. My eyes had ran the KS8000, edgelit, and ks9800 altogether and made me miss his comment about it haha.

Sharp LC-46E77UN
Xbox One Elite Edition
Denon AVR-X4100W
Rythmik FV15HPse
Harman Infinity Primus P363 FL/FR | Harman Infinity Primus PC351 C
Spherex OmniPolar SL/SR
Shydow is offline  
post #14 of 25 Old 05-03-2017, 09:24 PM
Newbie
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Posts: 9
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Liked: 1
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shydow View Post
Yeah I was reading up on that, and while I'd definitely like to have the tech I can't help but wonder how long it'll be before it shows up in HDTVs instead of just PC monitors. My only real hope there is, given Microsoft's partnership with Samsung, they might ask them to push a set out of the pipeline somewhere along/near Scorpio's launch if they were already working on one; but I'm not hopeful.
Check out the vizio p series. They get 17 ms input lag on hdmi 5 without hdr but at 4k60hz u don't need hdr on fighting games anyway. And the 43.8 ms lag on hdr is not noticeable
Flintoli is offline  
post #15 of 25 Old 06-12-2017, 02:04 PM
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2017
Posts: 33
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 19 Post(s)
Liked: 2
WTB 4K gaming PST
OG_Mega is offline  
post #16 of 25 Old 06-12-2017, 04:41 PM
Advanced Member
 
mutelight's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: SF Bay Area
Posts: 784
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 458 Post(s)
Liked: 498
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shydow View Post
Full Array Local Dimming or OLED
~20ms or less lag w/ HDR Gaming Mode
4K 60hz 4:4:4 CS
HDR10 (be nice if Dolby Vision was also supported but... eh)

Cost is a factor somewhat but, if it's $6,000 or less, I'm interested.
The closest to meeting your criteria is the Sony Z9D. (Owner of one myself.)

Input lag is 24ms in 4K HDR mode, can accept 1080p120 signals, is FALD, can do 4K 60hz 4:4:4 at 8-bit (HDMI spec limitations) currently has HDR 10 and Dolby Vision is being patched in.
mutelight is offline  
post #17 of 25 Old 06-19-2017, 09:54 PM
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2017
Posts: 15
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Liked: 1
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shydow View Post
I've been sitting on upgrading my TV for several years now waiting for 4K to finally mature, and I know that alot has changed, but one thing I'm curious about it whether or not 4K is truly ready for gamers. What I'm meaning here, is can HDR 4K gaming be had with an acceptable amount of display lag.

If there are any fighting game players around I'm sure you'll understand, but pretty much anything over 20ms as far as fighting games go makes a TV unusable. So as a fighting gamer, that's personally my cut off.

So that's my question. Are there 65" 4K UHD HDR TVs out there clocking in around 20ms or less for display lag? My current Sharp sits at 16ms, but I'm not expecting HDR sets to be THAT fast at this point (especially not at 65", as my current set is only 46"). But at this point I'm pretty much willing to accept having to put up with another 4 or 5ms of lag to go ahead and upgrade my set. I'm not in dire straights yet, but mathematically speaking my current TV should be on it's last year of life before it's no longer acceptable as my primary set; and frankly I wouldn't be surprised if it doesn't make it outside of 2017 without developing backlight issues.

I don't need ultra-specific answers, but a little guidance would be nice. Even just as far as what manufacturers I need to be paying attention to If anyone already has some well-studied info on this, what I'm personally looking for is...

Full Array Local Dimming or OLED
~20ms or less lag w/ HDR Gaming Mode
4K 60hz 4:4:4 CS
HDR10 (be nice if Dolby Vision was also supported but... eh)

Cost is a factor somewhat but, if it's $6,000 or less, I'm interested.
KS8000 is around 22ms and is a great price...
Lonesoul65 is offline  
post #18 of 25 Old 07-21-2017, 04:39 PM
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2016
Posts: 15
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Liked: 0
I have also been waiting for 4k gaming to mature..... but to be honest, the technology is not there yet!

you could buy intel i7 with gtx 1080 but the game experience is not there..... I played Resident evil 7 on a 4k 55" TV but the feel is almost the same as playing Full hd game..... it ran at 40 FPS and sometimes the TV lags..... (it's 60 hz TV)...... you should keep in mind, today games are designed for 1080p experience because the texture is for 1080p. If you want a trully 4K games, then game designers have to make the texture to 4K textures..... and it means the size of the installation will be quadrable..... suppose GTA 5 has 60 GB of installation files. If it was designed for 4K gaming, the installation files would be like around 240 GB.

So just by setting the resolution to 3860x2160 does NOT mean you are playing 4K gaming, the games must also be designed for 4K resolution..... just be patient and wait for 2 more years and save your money for building the true 4K gaming PC.
TigerBoots is offline  
post #19 of 25 Old 07-24-2017, 08:45 AM
Advanced Member
 
mutelight's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: SF Bay Area
Posts: 784
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 458 Post(s)
Liked: 498
Quote:
Originally Posted by TigerBoots View Post
I have also been waiting for 4k gaming to mature..... but to be honest, the technology is not there yet!

you could buy intel i7 with gtx 1080 but the game experience is not there..... I played Resident evil 7 on a 4k 55" TV but the feel is almost the same as playing Full hd game..... it ran at 40 FPS and sometimes the TV lags..... (it's 60 hz TV)...... you should keep in mind, today games are designed for 1080p experience because the texture is for 1080p. If you want a trully 4K games, then game designers have to make the texture to 4K textures..... and it means the size of the installation will be quadrable..... suppose GTA 5 has 60 GB of installation files. If it was designed for 4K gaming, the installation files would be like around 240 GB.

So just by setting the resolution to 3860x2160 does NOT mean you are playing 4K gaming, the games must also be designed for 4K resolution..... just be patient and wait for 2 more years and save your money for building the true 4K gaming PC.
Build size of games does not scale linearly with texture size. In order for the build size to quadruple, the build would have to have nothing but textures in the package files, no executable, engine, animations, video, gameplay scripts, audio, anything.

For example, Watch_Dogs 2 base install is around 20GB and the 4K texture pack adds 6GB on top.

I play 4K games on my HTPC and laptop and even games that don't have the increased texture resolution still benefit since the geometry, lighting, VFX, etc. are all rendered at a higher resolution.

Overwatch is a good example where it has a notably sharper presentation even with its stylized art and textures. True 4K render resolution which eliminates the need for anti aliasing. Sure, for games without high res texture packs, you won't get the benefit of being able to walk up and stare at a texture and get the detail but when you are playing the game normally and it is rendering a full scene, you get a boost.

Also, I have RE7 as well and while the HDR presentation is excellent the game doesn't have very good textures in general but overall it is still a nice looking game.

Last edited by mutelight; 07-24-2017 at 09:04 AM.
mutelight is offline  
post #20 of 25 Old 07-26-2017, 02:28 PM
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2016
Posts: 15
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Liked: 0
Quote:
Originally Posted by mutelight View Post
Build size of games does not scale linearly with texture size. In order for the build size to quadruple, the build would have to have nothing but textures in the package files, no executable, engine, animations, video, gameplay scripts, audio, anything.

For example, Watch_Dogs 2 base install is around 20GB and the 4K texture pack adds 6GB on top.

I play 4K games on my HTPC and laptop and even games that don't have the increased texture resolution still benefit since the geometry, lighting, VFX, etc. are all rendered at a higher resolution.

Overwatch is a good example where it has a notably sharper presentation even with its stylized art and textures. True 4K render resolution which eliminates the need for anti aliasing. Sure, for games without high res texture packs, you won't get the benefit of being able to walk up and stare at a texture and get the detail but when you are playing the game normally and it is rendering a full scene, you get a boost.

Also, I have RE7 as well and while the HDR presentation is excellent the game doesn't have very good textures in general but overall it is still a nice looking game.
I might be wrong on the size of the installation files. But those 4K packs are just band aid. I did have the 4K pack for the Far Cry Primal. Probably around 300 MB (I couldn't recall and I deleted the game on my hard drive). Far Cry Primal is a very good example about 4K texture. To be honest, after installing the 4K texture, it's just a bit sharper on 4K resolution before installation. But no big difference on the view of the "valley".

Also even GTX 1080 runs Far Cry at only at 50 FPS at 2160p ultra settings. Not good enough for most hardcore gamers who like to play at 100 FPS (LOL). Most GPU cards are only good for 1440p right now.

If 4K TV prices are becoming mainstream (eg: 55" only around $700 compared to current price of $1500) then I will build a HTPC especially for 4K gaming.
TigerBoots is offline  
post #21 of 25 Old 07-26-2017, 02:34 PM
Advanced Member
 
mutelight's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: SF Bay Area
Posts: 784
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 458 Post(s)
Liked: 498
Quote:
Originally Posted by TigerBoots View Post
I might be wrong on the size of the installation files. But those 4K packs are just band aid. I did have the 4K pack for the Far Cry Primal. Probably around 300 MB (I couldn't recall and I deleted the game on my hard drive). Far Cry Primal is a very good example about 4K texture. To be honest, after installing the 4K texture, it's just a bit sharper on 4K resolution before installation. But no big difference on the view of the "valley".

Also even GTX 1080 runs Far Cry at only at 50 FPS at 2160p ultra settings. Not good enough for most hardcore gamers who like to play at 100 FPS (LOL). Most GPU cards are only good for 1440p right now.

If 4K TV prices are becoming mainstream (eg: 55" only around $700 compared to current price of $1500) then I will build a HTPC especially for 4K gaming.
Right, the texture packs only really benefit you when you are up close to textures but at 4K compared to even 1440p, the overall picture is notably sharper. You just need to make sure you are at the appropriate seating distance from the display to resolve all the detail. Views of the valley in Far Cry are sharper and have less aliasing and artifacts at 4K as well, especially without enabling Anti-aliasing.

Whenever people ask, is "4K worth it?", I almost always say, "only if you are an enthusiast and are willing to pay a premium due to the steep requirements.".

Personally I love it and it is why I have an overclocked Titan XP overclocked to 2100Mhz in my office rig and a 1080 Ti in my HTPC but I consider myself an enthusiast and the TV I run in my living room begs for native 4K content and the difference is there compared to running at lower resolutions.

So in short, the difference is certainly objectively there, even with out the textures but the requirements are extremely steep and not everyone perceives the difference the same way.
mutelight is offline  
post #22 of 25 Old 08-01-2017, 12:52 PM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2016
Posts: 335
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 165 Post(s)
Liked: 114
i am pc gaming Nvidia TitanX Pascal 4k 2160p/60fps on an Optoma UHD60; its spectacular
am2model3 is offline  
post #23 of 25 Old 08-02-2017, 10:53 PM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2015
Posts: 489
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 341 Post(s)
Liked: 226
Quote:
Originally Posted by nathanddrews View Post
You would be best served to wait until HDMI 2.1 displays are released. With yesterday's announcement that the 2017 Xbox "Scorpio" will support HDMI 2.1's variable refresh game mode using AMD FreeSync, that is HUGE news for console and PC gamers alike. My only question is, who will be the first display manufacturer to release a compatible TV and will it be ready by the time Scorpio hits? Exciting!
What benefit would you get for playing Xbox games locked at 30/60 frames on a freesync display? I understand gsync/free sync from my PC perspective where my GPU is pushing 100-144 frames but for Xbox games that are locked, I don't see a benefit for TV displays as they will have to add freesync to the set. Now if you are connecting an Xbox 1x to a freesync gaming monitor than you might as well just build a PC at that point.

Last edited by FromPlasma2LCD; 08-02-2017 at 10:57 PM.
FromPlasma2LCD is offline  
post #24 of 25 Old 08-03-2017, 07:35 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
nathanddrews's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 1,660
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 422 Post(s)
Liked: 358
Quote:
Originally Posted by FromPlasma2LCD View Post
What benefit would you get for playing Xbox games locked at 30/60 frames on a freesync display? I understand gsync/free sync from my PC perspective where my GPU is pushing 100-144 frames but for Xbox games that are locked, I don't see a benefit for TV displays as they will have to add freesync to the set. Now if you are connecting an Xbox 1x to a freesync gaming monitor than you might as well just build a PC at that point.
Because very few games are actually locked to either framerate on consoles. They often employ VSync to lock the frame buffer to 30fps or 60fps, but the games often fall short, resulting in repeated frames or in cases where the frame rate is unlocked, you get screen tearing. Games like Halo 5 or Forza are the exception to the rule in that they run nearly perfect all the time. Many so-called 30fps games fluctuate significantly into the 20fps range and many so-called 60fps games fluctuate down into the 40fps range. FreeSync allows the refresh rate of the screen to match the frame rate of the given game (or multiples of the framerate), eliminating judder and tearing. In so doing, a game like Fallout 4 on consoles could run between 22fps and 45fps, depending upon the action in the scene, and the end user would not have to drop frames or repeat frames or see tearing as a result.

I have owned both a 144Hz G-Sync display and a 180Hz G-Sync display and the variable refresh rate is incredible. Maximum frame rates usually spike violently, so being able to accommodate those spikes without losing frames, tearing frames, or repeating frames is fantastic. That said, some people would prefer to cap their games at 60fps or 120fps, but even then you need something to handle the occasional dips below that. Again, variable refresh does a great job.

Ultimately it's going to come down to individual user preference, but there's no denying the objective benefits.
nathanddrews is offline  
post #25 of 25 Old 08-03-2017, 04:04 PM
Advanced Member
 
mutelight's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: SF Bay Area
Posts: 784
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 458 Post(s)
Liked: 498
Quote:
Originally Posted by FromPlasma2LCD View Post
What benefit would you get for playing Xbox games locked at 30/60 frames on a freesync display? I understand gsync/free sync from my PC perspective where my GPU is pushing 100-144 frames but for Xbox games that are locked, I don't see a benefit for TV displays as they will have to add freesync to the set. Now if you are connecting an Xbox 1x to a freesync gaming monitor than you might as well just build a PC at that point.
I would love adaptive display TVs myself, to deal with all the drops from 60 when I am trying to push 4K on my HTPC.

The same can be applied to the Xbox One X as an example. They are targeting a native 4K output at 60fps but there will still be occasional dips depending on the game, then the TV would step in and match the framerate.
mutelight is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Reply Home Theater Gaming

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off