-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
Finally bought a 4K TV and confirmed it is indeed a waste of rendering resources
- Thread starter Baccus
- Start date
Eh, the way I see it, 1080 to 4K is a huge leap in image quality.
To me, even under constraint of hardware, effects still tend to look pretty excellent and portray otherworldly and stylized elements in a way that is completely satisfactory and sometimes awe-inspiring. Offering higher clarity of those effects at their current fidelity via increased resolution is a better overall net gain to the images being portrayed than to trying to allocate processing power to making particles look great. I think raytracing is the only technology I've been exposed to that looks like it has as profound an image quality boost by way of "effect" that matches that of increased resolution, and it's still early (and very expensive -- beyond accessibility to the console space right now) in the consumer market for wide adoption.
I think we have a perfectly fine balanced look as far as consoles go atm. PS4 Pro and Xbox One X might not always hit native 4K resolution, but I think seeing games like Resident Evil 2 get much closer to locking in a 60fps vs the base consoles is good, and then they also feature a pretty good reconstruction method for 4K output that to my eye undoubtedly improves image quality overall, and I'm perfectly satisfied with the quality of effects and lighting in that game. I know that's a single example and not all-inclusive of the entire picture, but I think developers tend to hit a similar mark more often than not utilizing the mid-generation refresh of consoles, and yes, 4K resolution output (even through reconstruction) often tends to be a goal because it's the most generalized means of achieving elevated image quality within constraints.
As far as varied content consumption goes, I think we're better for going after 4K -- a decision to buy a 4K TV didn't revolve solely around gaming for me, and I have really enjoyed consuming passive content like movies and streaming at a higher resolution with HDR. It's improved everything I consume, not just the games. 4K is worth it, then -- staying at 1080/1440p really only sees the benefit to gaming, and I think that's a good reason that PC gaming is kinda more focused there rather than console gaming... Because they usually are set up to have their own devoted monitor and space in most households.
My 4K TV is meant to provide the image quality boost to ALL content, videogames and passive forms of media, and I think PS4 Pro and Xbox One X in the console space honestly deserve a lot more credit for finding a really good balance for fitting into that home theater space in the here and now of market realities and hardware constraints.
I know gaming-specific advancements are available via PC right now, and that tech tends to scale well, but I don't think we're at a point where we can see consoles move forward with a big shift in focus on how their processing limitations are used to portray games until we can find more comprehensive trends that gaming console users are moving their console usage out of a mixed-media environment and demand for features like high refresh rate (120Hz+) and optimizing for low resolution for improved effects is actually preferred by console gamers.
To me, even under constraint of hardware, effects still tend to look pretty excellent and portray otherworldly and stylized elements in a way that is completely satisfactory and sometimes awe-inspiring. Offering higher clarity of those effects at their current fidelity via increased resolution is a better overall net gain to the images being portrayed than to trying to allocate processing power to making particles look great. I think raytracing is the only technology I've been exposed to that looks like it has as profound an image quality boost by way of "effect" that matches that of increased resolution, and it's still early (and very expensive -- beyond accessibility to the console space right now) in the consumer market for wide adoption.
I think we have a perfectly fine balanced look as far as consoles go atm. PS4 Pro and Xbox One X might not always hit native 4K resolution, but I think seeing games like Resident Evil 2 get much closer to locking in a 60fps vs the base consoles is good, and then they also feature a pretty good reconstruction method for 4K output that to my eye undoubtedly improves image quality overall, and I'm perfectly satisfied with the quality of effects and lighting in that game. I know that's a single example and not all-inclusive of the entire picture, but I think developers tend to hit a similar mark more often than not utilizing the mid-generation refresh of consoles, and yes, 4K resolution output (even through reconstruction) often tends to be a goal because it's the most generalized means of achieving elevated image quality within constraints.
As far as varied content consumption goes, I think we're better for going after 4K -- a decision to buy a 4K TV didn't revolve solely around gaming for me, and I have really enjoyed consuming passive content like movies and streaming at a higher resolution with HDR. It's improved everything I consume, not just the games. 4K is worth it, then -- staying at 1080/1440p really only sees the benefit to gaming, and I think that's a good reason that PC gaming is kinda more focused there rather than console gaming... Because they usually are set up to have their own devoted monitor and space in most households.
My 4K TV is meant to provide the image quality boost to ALL content, videogames and passive forms of media, and I think PS4 Pro and Xbox One X in the console space honestly deserve a lot more credit for finding a really good balance for fitting into that home theater space in the here and now of market realities and hardware constraints.
I know gaming-specific advancements are available via PC right now, and that tech tends to scale well, but I don't think we're at a point where we can see consoles move forward with a big shift in focus on how their processing limitations are used to portray games until we can find more comprehensive trends that gaming console users are moving their console usage out of a mixed-media environment and demand for features like high refresh rate (120Hz+) and optimizing for low resolution for improved effects is actually preferred by console gamers.
Gonna be a hard disagree. Got a PS4 Pro connected to an LG B7 at home and a PS4 Slim connected to a Sony 1080p tv at work and it is a night and day difference.
4K (and 8K) resolutions, in the living room, are most beneficial with large screens. Tiago is quite wrong to not even consider this; distance matters not, it's the size of the screen. The larger screens get the more detail they can show that can be appreciable by the viewer.Baccus Put this vid in the OP along with the screenshots below. It's a waste of rendering resources that could be better spent on effects, higher framerate, etc. I'd take a checkerboard solution or straight 1440p and (60 fps or better effects) over just 4k.
Tiago Sousa agrees with you btw:
Seems like a lot of people here missed this line. 4k won't be worth it until the framerate is stable enough for 60/120/144 etc.
The problem with 4K on consoles is that most people have consoles in the living room and most people don't have the TV right infront of the sofa but rather at the opposite side of the living room like 3-4+ meters away.
4K on PC makes much more sense since you usually sit by a desk less than a meter from the screen.
4K on PC makes much more sense since you usually sit by a desk less than a meter from the screen.
OP isn't saying there is no difference, they're saying higher resolutions hold graphical advancements back, basically you now have PS3 games with blown up resolutions instead of really revolutionary new rendering techniques and also physics advancements.
Basically what it is is snake oil in pure form, and many, many fall for it.
Or they're just content with current graphical fidelity and just want higher resolutions for the sake of it?
I know for certain I would take more realistic looking textures and better physics at 1080p over same shit as always in 4k any day.
I don't understasnd how someone could look at a RDR2 or a Forza Horizon 4 in native 4K and say that it's visually lacking.
After getting a 4K TV, and seeing games in 4K, I also think it's a waste of rendering resources, and 1440p with better performance or other uses of the power is a much better tradeoff.
I think jumping straight from a typical 1080p straight to 4K has too big of a hit.
Difference is massive on a big screen, hell its even massive on a pc monitor. PS4 Pro has very few games with native 4K though so on most titles it wont be as noticeable as it should be.
Its not about seeing or not its about being a worth tradeoff compared to other stuff.
I have an OLED and an X1X. When I saw the water in Sea of Thieves my jaw dropped. Not every game takes advantage of 4K HDR but when they do it's the most stunning visuals I have ever seen. Shadow of the Tomb Raider really impressed me too.
Greebman brought up the very reason why this shouldn't (and won't) ever be the case. There is no point to an increase in detail if that detail cannot be seen.
Op is not talking about OLED or HDR tho, he's talking about the fact that he doesn't see much detail being brought out by higher resolution on current gen games.
I don't think anyone is saying that a 4K image is not a huge improvement over 1080p in terms of image quality, as it obviously is. Just that the jump comes at a huge hit, which not everyone prefers instead of a smoother game or other improvements at 1080p or 1440p.
I really like playing in 4k rather than 1080p, however I do also agree with OP.
Framerate has always been more important for me, and now when 144hz TVs are getting into the market then I'd rather have that everyday of the week on consoles (or atleast let me choose what's my preference).
Most of the games I play on the computer can be played in 4k in 144hz thanks to my computer, but since consoles are a closed system and they need to make sacrifices then skip 4k and make the games run better instead.
Framerate has always been more important for me, and now when 144hz TVs are getting into the market then I'd rather have that everyday of the week on consoles (or atleast let me choose what's my preference).
Most of the games I play on the computer can be played in 4k in 144hz thanks to my computer, but since consoles are a closed system and they need to make sacrifices then skip 4k and make the games run better instead.
I like it.....but for games specifically it's probably a waste of resources. I think most resolutions about 1080 look really nice, and don't feel the need for actual 4K. Even.......checkerboarding! Yep, I like the clarity there too.
Folks I've talked to who make games think it's a waste, which changed my mind, but that there's a marketing plus is saying your support higher resolutions.
Personally, I really hope we never do one of these jumps again. 4K is clear enough. Framerates, effects, and AI need to eat too.
If someone's game does 1080 with good AA, I'm cool with that too. Whatever RE2 is running at on PS4 Pro is good enough for me.
Folks I've talked to who make games think it's a waste, which changed my mind, but that there's a marketing plus is saying your support higher resolutions.
Personally, I really hope we never do one of these jumps again. 4K is clear enough. Framerates, effects, and AI need to eat too.
If someone's game does 1080 with good AA, I'm cool with that too. Whatever RE2 is running at on PS4 Pro is good enough for me.
OP has an NU7000?
Things are starting to make more sense. It's the lowest end Samsung 4k TV, so you can't really expect much from it, especially if he had a decent 1080p TV before.
Last edited:
Many people are saying you can't see the difference.
What's the point in having high fidelity graphics at 1080p image quality?
I think RDR2 is the best looking game out there and I tried playing it at 1080p and holyshit what a downgrade that was.
Tiago is not wrong at all. 4k does not improve the graphics in anyway imo. I have a sony x900e and a 27" 1080p Samsung CFG73 VA monitor. Playing Starwars BF2 on the Xbox One X looks noticeably worse than playing the SWBF2 on my CFG73 at max settings and 144hz.
EDIT: Higher resolutions on bigger screens are beneficial but spending limited computational resources to render at native 4k is a waste. There are checker-boarding and temporal injection techniques that can deliver image quality suitable for 4k screens. Rendering at native 4k on a console is a giant waste of resources.
I feel like all that GPU power thats is pushing all that raw pixels is being wasted in most games anyway since the game dev then slaps some blury ass FX or TAA over it.
I feel like I would rather have a 1440p image with greater graphical fidelity or the extra power put into things to eliminate pop in and frame drops.
I feel like I would rather have a 1440p image with greater graphical fidelity or the extra power put into things to eliminate pop in and frame drops.
The big jump is HDR. The model you bought, (NU7100) has iffy HDR and no local dimming. That model is at a great price for its size, but I wouldn't discount all 4K tv's based on the performance of the NU7100. The Samsung Q8 and Q9 are stunning as is the Sony 900F in the LCD category.
Higher resolutions shouldn't come at a sacrifice to stable framerates. KH3 is a perfect example of this. Playing in the 1080p mode is a no brainer.
I bet 1080p on a 4k tv looks bad for sure. Native res is the reason I won't try to future proof my PC setup with a 4k display. I'd want everything to be at least native resolution or easily notice the difference with sub native. I tried this with having a ton of mods in Skyrim. I'd sometimes lower the resolution to fit in 50 other mods. Those were the days, grass mods, and TES5 still looks neat with a ton of mods.
Agreed. Waste of resources and is being made because manufacturers need an excuse for you to buy new tvs.
I bought a 4k monitor, and yeah, there's no way in hell the performance trade off is worth it yet.
Yea, its crazy to judge 4k as not worth it when all their experience is with the the lowest end budget 4k TV Samsung has in its line up.
Go play Red Dead Redemption 1 on an Xbox 360 or PS3. Then play it on an X1X in 4K.
You'll immediately see how the higher render resolution allows the EXISTING detail of the textures to really come through. Without the higher render resolution, extra texture detail is just lost.
You'll immediately see how the higher render resolution allows the EXISTING detail of the textures to really come through. Without the higher render resolution, extra texture detail is just lost.
Honestly I'm kind of with the OP, I don't have a 4k screen myself but from what I've seen it doesn't really warrant the huge amount of resources you have to put into it for now. I really wonder if the difference for many people is that big because it wasn't exactly an apples to apples comparison. A fairer comparison would be between a 24-27" 1080p OLED HDR screen and a 32"+ 4k OLED HDR screen, I'm not saying that 4k isn't a improvement but I wager it was such a big improvement for most people as many 4k HDR screens are simple way better screens in a technological sense compared to most 1080p screens so what creates the good image isn't "just" the resolution bump.
Don't get me wrong we absolutely should go 4k at some point but I feel atleast for video-games we again moved one gear too fast. I know the TV manufacturers don't go after the video-game industry but in my opinion the PS3/360 generation should have stuck to 720p with 720p screens, the base PS4 and XB1S should have aimed for 720p 60fps, the PS4 Pro and XB1X for 1080p proper and then now with next-gen we should have aimed for 4k. I think that would have led to a much more painless and smooth transition to higher resolutions, especially also with the rising development costs.
Don't get me wrong we absolutely should go 4k at some point but I feel atleast for video-games we again moved one gear too fast. I know the TV manufacturers don't go after the video-game industry but in my opinion the PS3/360 generation should have stuck to 720p with 720p screens, the base PS4 and XB1S should have aimed for 720p 60fps, the PS4 Pro and XB1X for 1080p proper and then now with next-gen we should have aimed for 4k. I think that would have led to a much more painless and smooth transition to higher resolutions, especially also with the rising development costs.
Yeah, this is especially irritating. DMC5 on Xbox One comes to mind from what we've seen of the demos.
Of course it's going to look worse if everything else is the same except for the resolution. If devs drop resolution and don't use the extra processing power for other stuff, then it is pointless, but that's not the argument being made.
I thought the jump from playing 900p Spider-man on my 4k TV to playing it via my PS4 Pro when I upgraded was massive personally. A big jump. I'd love a 60fps mode obviously but optional.
Yea. Developers should definitely focus on getting a smooth framerate first (not lower than 60fps) before deciding to do anything else. Framerate directly impacts how a game PLAYS, FEELS, CONTROLS and on top of it how it LOOKS in motion.
Games are controllable mediums with moving images. Since framerate impacts both controls and moving image quality it should always be the no. 1 priority, for every game genre.
Even navigating through a turn based RPG menu feels inherently smoother in high framerates.
Basically this:
Games are controllable mediums with moving images. Since framerate impacts both controls and moving image quality it should always be the no. 1 priority, for every game genre.
Even navigating through a turn based RPG menu feels inherently smoother in high framerates.
For still images, yes. But not when the game still runs in 30fps and all the details get blurry once the image starts moving.
Basically this:
Last edited:
There is certainly a difference, not as much as many people make it sounds, but it can not be denied.
At the same time, I wish next gen would focus more on 1440p than 4K, but at 60fps. I for one wish the Switch PRO at the very least can increase everything to 1080p at 60fps.
At the same time, I wish next gen would focus more on 1440p than 4K, but at 60fps. I for one wish the Switch PRO at the very least can increase everything to 1080p at 60fps.
Not at all what I was arguing, in simple words, if you can't fix clipping, unrealistically behaving physics, etc there's no reason to increase resolution, it only amplifies the flaws.
Also I don't think it's true we're anywhere near the maximum of graphical fidelity at 1080p or any given resolution when a game like RE2 looks so much better than other comparable games, it truly looks next gen to me and that's not primarily because of screen resolution, because that didn't really change.
So that game alone disproves the theory we are somehow at a maximum of render techniques because of screen resolutions.
Tldr: fix the clipping, fix the physics, improve lighting etc, then maximize screen resolutions.
I know it's not happening but it's also the reason why graphics generally are in stagnation, maybe next gen will improve things, but we aren't there just yet, and saying resolution alone will fix all those issues is disingenuous in my opinion.
OP
OP
Then why do 480p TV broadcasts look more detailed than your average 4k game? That is false.