- Oct 27, 2017
While I don't agree with the degree you assign to the benefits of high res, I mostly agree with this post.I really feel like this thread is conflating two different things and assuming that it resolves an overall debate about 4K. Question 1 I’d characterize as “is current hardware powerful enough to target native 4K without resulting in undesireable trade offs?” Question 2 is “assuming better hardware could guarantee no performance trade offs, does 4K provide a discernible benefit?” With current hardware, this is a YMMV situation as different people desire different things, but I do think it’s fair to say that current hardware is not up to snuff. Even on the PC side people that have little/no budgetary concerns weren’t hitting settings like 4K ultra @ 60 FPS locked (haven’t really followed 2080 Ti benchmarks though). So if the argument is that better image quality and higher locked framerates should be prioritized over targeting native 4K then I get it. But the idea that the Pro (or X) aren’t dazzling just yet on 4K TVs and thus we’ve proven that now and forever 4K is worthless is just bonkers to me.
When we started this gen and some journalists were acting like most consumers wouldn’t notice the difference between 1080p on PS4 and 720p on Xbox One they were rightly mocked. To act like the same isn’t potentially true here is just nonsense.
And with you, OP.
I mean, I can notice when a video is playing at 720p instead of 1080p, but it doesn't really bug me. That's gonna be subjective, though, and it will bug some people. (And yes, I have the correct prescription lenses.)
But while people are ascribing straw-man arguments to OP ("Resolution doesn't matter at all so 240p is fine OP?" (admittedly partially due to OP's somewhat poor 240p example to illustrate the principle of effects vs resolution)), what he's actually saying is very specific to our current hardware and the current resolution standard jump from 1080p to 4k.
He's simply saying that the effects that could be pushed out with 4x the power would make a much larger difference than the difference you see in the jump from 1080p to 4k.
He's not saying there's no difference.
He's not saying there's no significant difference.
He's saying it's not as big as a difference as if that horsepower were pumped into effects.
It's a very simple argument, and one that's kind of difficult to argue against.
Now, you could say that effects are experiencing the sorts of diminishing returns that resolution is--for example, a lot of people are seeing RTX as a pretty underwhelming upgrade to lighting for the cost of a lot of horsepower. And that's an argument worth having.
But that's not the argument people are having in this thread. "4k is an upgrade, OP!" Yeah, it is. The question is whether that horsepower couldn't be better spent elsewhere.