Finally bought a 4K TV and confirmed it is indeed a waste of rendering resources

Oct 27, 2017
1,110
Missoula
Is no one reading the OP? They said that yes, it looks clearer, but that the systems targeting 4K are struggling to do so, and they're worried that prioritizing a 4K rez next gen could be a waste of hardware power thst could be used for deeper simulation, AI, NPC population density, etc. Of course next gen hardware will hit resolution targets easier than X or Pro, so I'm not sure OPs worry is too warranted, but the "hrrrr, 240p is fine then?" replies are just silly.
 
Oct 27, 2017
172
Your first statement nailed the reason for 4k. You wanted a big TV
Well a 65 inch 1080p tv would look pretty bad for all media not just games that is why we need higher resolutions on larger screens
 
Dec 5, 2017
1,456
Yep definitely going to have to disagree with you. 1080p games look like a Vaseline filter is on them oftentimes comparatively. Playing through Arkham Knight on my PC at a locked 4K 60 and it’s pretty breathtaking.
 
Jun 22, 2018
772
Then why do 480p TV broadcasts look more detailed than your average 4k game? That is false.
Filming real world and rendering a digital image pixel by pixel are two very different things.

Think of the starting point / source material for the two scenarios and hopefully you can see where your comparison is flawed.
 
Oct 25, 2017
4,198
Anyone that says 4K makes no difference needs to play halo 5 in 4K. Night and day difference. I’ll agree that some games the difference is marginal but others it’s huge.
It's just so much much of a resource hog for what could have been1440p, better frame rate, and more graphical effects until better more affordable hardware is available that is made for 4k. On PC I always shot for 60fps, with a 144fps monitor I shoot higher. It's understandable for cenematic games like RDR2 to have 30ish as the framerate doesn't seem to matter to people in that situation, but imagine it at 60, GTA5 PS360 vs PC for example (only considering framerate and feel). I played both and the framerate difference is amazing. Also a game like Final Fantasy XII, I played the PS2 version for years, even on PC emulator (higher framerate just speed up the game here), but when I first played the PC version of The Zodiac Age at 60fps it was so good.
 
Oct 27, 2017
1,625
There are very few Ops in the history of this forum I've agreed with less. The jump from the Xbox to the X was astonishing. Even the jump from the X to the Pro is significant. The X is, far and away, my most played console since it's release, and that only happened because the jump was so big.

Literally every time one of these advancements in displays comes out you have a mountain of people trying to tell you why it isn't worth it or they can't see the difference, and every time they're wrong.

Then why do 480p TV broadcasts look more detailed than your average 4k game? That is false.
First off, quit trying to compare real life to a digital medium, they're completely different. Even so, you're crazy if you don't think a ton of detail is lost in 480p. Go watch any video of grass or a really detailed shirt, or any other complex looking scene in 480p and then watch it again in 4k. The gain in detail is tremendous. Hell, just go watch some old porn vs some new for that matter. There is a reason tv and movies had to change the way they did makeup and sets with these higher resolutions, because you could see all the things that crappy low resolutions hid before.
 
Nov 5, 2017
1,463
OP is right. 4k was pushed to sell tvs, not games. Sure, better iq is nice, but it's not that important at the end of the day.
 
I've always said it. 4k is trash and a waste of resources. Instead of pushing better graphics andore effects we go for ridiculous dumbass resolution. Mind you, that they can't even push for it natively. 1440p should be where it's at and push the graphics more. I had a 4k monitor, shit was wack. Went back to 1440p with either 120 o 144hz which is just the best.
 
Dec 3, 2018
382
I agree to a point, 1440 is the sweet spot. Games at that resolution running at 144hz or higher with Gsync are far more mind blowing to me than on my 4K monitor. Wouldn't want to play any lower res than that though.
 
Jan 31, 2018
1,536
It's just so much much of a resource hog for what could have been1440p, better frame rate, and more graphical effects until better more affordable hardware is available that is made for 4k. On PC I always shot for 60fps, with a 144fps monitor I shoot higher. It's understandable for cenematic games like RDR2 to have 30ish as the framerate doesn't seem to matter to people in that situation, but imagine it at 60, GTA5 PS360 vs PC for example (only considering framerate and feel). I played both and the framerate difference is amazing. Also a game like Final Fantasy XII, I played the PS2 version for years, even on PC emulator (higher framerate just speed up the game here), but when I first played the PC version of The Zodiac Age at 60fps it was so good.
Nothing is stopping devs from doing 1440p. Idk I don’t think a 4K sticker on a box is going to sell more games than a 1440p sticker. I think next gen devs will do 4K over 1440p because a resolution bump is easier and cheaper than actually making more detailed worlds. I’m just praying we get AI improvements. That’s all I care about.
 
Oct 28, 2017
1,200
Put in God of War and switch the graphics modes and FPS modes. One is a blurry mess, the other is 4k goodness. Massive difference.
 
Oct 27, 2017
8,518
With VRR coming to TVs it will be interesting to see if any devs start targeting 120hz 1080p/1440p, or at least provide that option as a performance preset.
 
Oct 27, 2017
8,518
Put in God of War and switch the graphics modes and FPS modes. One is a blurry mess, the other is 4k goodness. Massive difference.
Yeah I'm one of those oddballs when people say 1080/60>4k/30 I think, well, not so fast. For non-shooters/racers I'd actually generally say no give me the 4k/30. 4k/60 preferable of course but you need a very beefy GPU for that.
 
Oct 30, 2017
262
I used to think the same, then I got glasses and it's pretty day and night. My 4k TV made me notice I had a slight eye problem hahaha
I bought a 4k TV recently and I can't see much of a diffence at all. I wear glasses and haven't had a check up in a while so it's prompted me to book an appointment and get some new ones. It's bad but in a small way I'm kind of hoping my eyes have got a little bit worse rather than 4k not actually being impressive.

When I type that out I realise how ridiculous it sounds.
 
Oct 26, 2017
1,397
Then why do 480p TV broadcasts look more detailed than your average 4k game? That is false.
Come on, man. Reality isn't rasterized. It's an image that comes from a source of near infinite information/resolution if you wanna use graphics terms. 3D graphics are rasterized. If the res is too low and detail doesn't come up then it doesn't exist. It's not merely blurred like the 480p broadcast.
Especially with textures and geometry this isn't even an argument. It's just an objective fact that 4k is more detailed.
 
Oct 27, 2017
768
Kind of agree with you OP, I got my 4k tv over a year ago and I consistently give it side eye over whether the investment was worth it coming off a 720 (yes you read that right) plasma. Now I'm sure my tune would be different if I had the disposable income for an oled for proper hdr wow factor, as such mine doesn't really capture the benefits of that tech, making it mostly a 4k set.

I can certainly see the difference between 1080 and 1440 but above that it gets negligible for me based on my current viewing distance from my set (55 inch about 12 feet away). In a game like Spider Man for instance I can see that extra detail in things like the suit mesh but only in photo mode when everything is still. During movement (ya know most times you're playing) that extra detail is mostly lost on me. I'm sure others have the eye to see these things even in high motion scenarios but not moi. For me IQ, video processing, high framerate, and accurate color reproduction trumps resolution as indicated by my brain's rather tepid reaction coming off a 720 set to 4k. Like OP said sure we can see more detail but when the average 4k set can't compare to the contrast ratio of an ancient plasma then we're still in a premature phase for the tech imo. It really feels like unless you're going oled or one of those high end Sony or Samsung sets it just isn't worth it. Another area where I'd agree with OP is I'd wish there was more focus on thing like physics simulations and AI improvements in gaming rather than this enduring quest for pixels. However, with the new gen of consoles supposedly getting quite a processing bump I'm hopeful we can see strides in those areas.

Now when it comes to VR give me all the pixels as I've become increasingly sensitive to low res and screen door effect in VR headsets since DK1 was a thing. I'm still bewildered there was a time when that dinky thing didn't bother me.
 
Feb 6, 2019
144
I believe that what OP is trying to say is that Pro and X on a 4k screen don't have enough power to increase the graphic settings, not that there is no difference between 4k and 1080p.
If that's the case he is right, no need to disagree.

He is woried about the generational leap not being wide as previous ones, and he is probably right too; each generation has diminishing returns, that's a given as the tech advancement is slowing too as we are reaching silicon limits.
 
Oct 27, 2017
8,350
UK
Flabbergasted at the OP.

1080p to 1440p is a night and day improvement. And then again from 1440p to 2160p

Image quality is such a big deal for me. Resolution is critical. Just look at X-enhanced BC games for proof of how a 720p or 480p game is completely transformed when boosted to high resolutions.

It's not a waste of rendering resources, it's the very opposite.
 
Oct 25, 2017
6,122
What is it with people swearing "X resolution is good enough" or "Y upgrade isn't worth it".

For one thing, the OP doesn't seem to understand what a mid-gen console is, lol. The games have to run on base PS4 too, so of course the only bump is going to be resolution/textures; do you want them to make brand new models or rendering technology just for the Pro version?

Resolution is not "knee-capping" rendering progress in the way you seem to think it is. Next gen will be 4K standard; do you think there will be no graphical progress from the start of the gen to the end of it, like there has been for literally the entire history of video games?

"Real life doesn't need resolution" is one of the silliest things I've ever read, lol. Would you like to go back to gaming on a CRT? Do you think stuff like raytracing will be locked to 1080p60 forever? Resolution is a natural progression of technology in the same way rendering or world size is. It's additive. It enhances the quality of the experience, in the same way as better lighting or better AI, regardless of whether you in particular notice or appreciate it. It's not an "either-or" proposition to other technologies you happen to value more highly. So, should we arbitrary lock an entire industry out of progress, because the current standard is "good enough" for you?
 

2n2

Member
Oct 25, 2017
2,445
Flabbergasted at the OP.

1080p to 1440p is a night and day improvement. And then again from 1440p to 2160p

Image quality is such a big deal for me. Resolution is critical. Just look at X-enhanced BC games for proof of how a 720p or 480p game is completely transformed when boosted to high resolutions.

It's not a waste of rendering resources, it's the very opposite
Assuming everything else is fixed, yes. The increased res of BC games is awesome, but they can't be touched internally, so there's no question to max out the res if you can.

Unfortunately, for currently developed games we're jumping right past 1440p, where it might be possible to get both a significant res bump from 1080p and better frame rates or effects, instead of the same but at 4k.
I'd be content with 1440p and other improvements for a while. It feels like a better sweet spot.
 
Nov 2, 2017
1,830
Now you're just being silly.


That is a good point, though. ISF calibration is a standard for film, not video games. No such thing exists in our video game world. At best, we can only strive for color accuracy and a video signal unmolested by a TV's post-processing.


Considering that OLED's nits can't touch a candle (puns!) to the best LCDs', this statement is materially wrong. If you are exclusively talking about the lower end of the luminosity scale, then you'd be better at shining a light (puns!) on OLED's strengths, but high-end full-array LCDs handle that same luminosity almost as well.
People throw around terms like nits but the truth is that OLED's ability to dim and shine every individual pixel gives it much more punch in its picture, so it doesn't need as many nits. I've seen OLED and LCD side by side and there really is no contest
 
Jun 22, 2018
772
Assuming everything else is fixed, yes. The increased res of BC games is awesome, but they can't be touched internally, so there's no question to max out the res if you can.

Unfortunately, for currently developed games we're jumping right past 1440p, where it might be possible to get both a significant res bump from 1080p and better frame rates or effects, instead of the same but at 4k.
I'd be content with 1440p and other improvements for a while. It feels like a better sweet spot.
Actually, quite a few games target 1440p, especially on the PS4 Pro. It's a resolution that developers can and do choose to target.
 
Dec 30, 2018
637
I have to disagree OP, I can’t go back to 1080p now, it looks really bad in comparison, the aliasing, the soft looking blurry image, that goes for movies and games and my eyesight isn’t even all that good.
 
Oct 27, 2017
1,359
Uncharted 1 at 4K would still, graphically speaking , be a worse looking game then UC4 at 1080p.

I get where the OP is coming from, I too would rather have perfect hit detection, supreme animation, ray tracing, massive draw distances, no pop up, no shimmering shadows etc. then "just" more resolution.

To be a bit more extreme, I would rather have Avatar like gfx in 720p then God of War 2018 at 4K.
 

ElephantShell

10,000,000
Member
Oct 25, 2017
3,944
I bought a decent but not great 55" 4K TV a year and a half ago and the difference at first was pretty crazy, I thought. I'm used to it now, I kinda want to go back to 1080 for a couple weeks then switch back again just to see the difference and see if it's as big as I thought or if I was just excited about having a new tv before.
 
Oct 27, 2017
3,303
Australia
Yeah sorry OP, I can kinda see where you're coming from, but after switching from my faithful old 1080p set to 55" 4K .... I just need that clarity. I used to think 1080p was enough, people were putting too much effort into a resolution boost when effects and performance could use that power more, ect etc.

But 4K is looks beautiful.

I use the X mostly, and while I DID have Forza Horizon on 1080p 60fps performance mode, I decided to try out the native 4K 30fps mode and, well, it was just so pretty I couldn't bring myself to put it back :(
I betrayed myself for the pretty graphics.
 
Oct 25, 2017
1,252
Canada
No one reads the OP yet again.

I agree with you, OP. Resolution is nice but I'd rather spend resources on improving visual effects and achieving photorealism.

In reality though, doing that is a lot harder than increasing the resolution and I doubt developers could make games look better by sacrificing it.
 
Oct 28, 2017
555
After years of fence sitting I bought a great 65'' Samsung LED 4K HDR panel. My 1080p was too small for my tastes and it was time to go big or go home. And so I did.

After 4 hours of professional calibration it was time to enter the new ave. Movies look drop dead gorgeous, with lots of clarity. Mind you, the effect was nowhere near as revelatory as sdtv->1080p, but it was good enough.

But when time came to plug in my beloved PS4 Pro, I couldn't be more dissapointed, and worse, worried at the implications of the industry sudden affair with 4K.

Simply put it. Games look certainly /clearer/ but they don't look /better/.

And so it dawned on me. I know even the almighty X can't manage to reach native 4K most of the time, and that's with games being targeted at a really weak console (The S). The X meanwhile was a $500 console. And while the added resolution is nice, there is no room to add more graphical effects that put the games closer to real life at all.

What dawned on me is that next gen, with consoles probably targeting native 4K, we're not getting the generational leap we could have had if devs had stayed on 1080p or the much more healthy middle of 1440p. The jump in power previously used to advance lighting, polygons and calculations are now being used to stretch the image with negligible difference in "realism".

And you know what's that? Because real life doesn't need resolution. You can watch a football match on a 240p portable bLack and white TV and it will certainly look more realistic to you than Star Citizen at 16K ever will.

So it is of my opinion that devs should focus more on creating new rendering techniques to advance the content of the images instead of the images instead. But given that is gonna most certainly not gonna be the case, we'll be advancing at turtle speed now with consoles being judged on their ability to reach such a high resolution so that the badly lit rock texture can be a bit noisier.

Before you ask me, I tried every high profile game you can name (GoW, Horizon, Spiderman, SOTC, AC Origins, RDR2, RE7) and it was always the same. HDR /is/ pretty great but it being tied to 4K is a commercial, not technical decision.

So yeah, it's a shame we're losing current and future power and tech advancements to sell TVs instead of advancing as a medium.
Bravo OP. Couldn't agree more.

From my perspective there is absolutely no point in 4K if the scene being rendered isn't rich enough to warrant crystal clear clarity. Consoles render large scale vista's with questionable visual fidelity...non-4K textures, terrible LoD's, low draw-distances with varying levels of pop-in and lower resolution effects, for instance. These things need to be addressed before we jump to native 4K.

Until then a presentation doesn't warrant an increase in resolution where that pristine visual presentation would just make the flaws even more obvious. I'd be very happy with 1440p until the time is right.
 
Dec 14, 2017
450
Even you are misreading the OP.

To put it simply lets pretend devs wanted to go all out on ray tracing next gen. Ray tracing at 4k is unfeasible at 4K but way more realistic at 1080p.


The OP still wants better image quality in his games but he wants image quality coming from advanced techniques in shading, lighting and textures. Sacrificing all that to play at higher resolutions means all the games will look no better than last gen games in any other way.
I feel that's what I was getting at, just not as clearly. Op could clarify a bit more, to prevent all the posts about blanket high resolution is better than lower resolution , but too late. But even the , people will probably start to argue that you can't even notice advanced rendering techniques at low res anyways
 
Oct 27, 2017
2,046
OP dropping truth bombs that apparently Era can't take it lol

I completely agree - I think it is the wrong avenue to pursue from a hardware resource expenditure point of view. But currently you have a huge number of both era users and the public in general who have invested a good amount of money in these devices and by god they are not going to let you tell them that

Is no one reading the OP? They said that yes, it looks clearer, but that the systems targeting 4K are struggling to do so, and they're worried that prioritizing a 4K rez next gen could be a waste of hardware power thst could be used for deeper simulation, AI, NPC population density, etc. Of course next gen hardware will hit resolution targets easier than X or Pro, so I'm not sure OPs worry is too warranted, but the "hrrrr, 240p is fine then?" replies are just silly.
100% this - really think we're seeing a lot of shoot from the hip responses to the title in here.
 
Last edited:
Nov 27, 2017
10
Completely agree with OP as well. This is also why I turn resolution down on (mediocre) PC so that I can hit 144 fps in games. Frame rate and other factors are more important than resolution bump. If you can have both, great.... but resolution is definitely lower on my list.