This happened to me in my last vacation, left my Pro at home and when I played on my brother's 1080p using the standard PS4 I felt everything looked considerably blurrier.
-
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
He said a few posts later that its a Samsung NU7100, so its probably comparable to your TCL (unless you have a 6 series).
Another thread with a good title but some questionable content in the actual OP. The PS4 Pro is a worst "4K" hardware on the market, 95% of the software isn't native and doesn't even have an UHD player.
Right now 4K is a waste of resources for everything outside of a top end PC. Just look at how many games on even the 1X are running at 4K but at medium settings and then still struggle to hold 30fps properly. There's a reason no one on PC chooses to run their games like that. That's like someone with a 1070 playing their games at 4K but then locking the frame rate to 30 and turning down all the settings.
Right now 4K is a waste of resources for everything outside of a top end PC. Just look at how many games on even the 1X are running at 4K but at medium settings and then still struggle to hold 30fps properly. There's a reason no one on PC chooses to run their games like that. That's like someone with a 1070 playing their games at 4K but then locking the frame rate to 30 and turning down all the settings.
You are getting confused between Dolby Vision and UHD Premiun certification.
Dolby Vision can actually be SDR content and in fact part of it's movie magic is that it can blend the HDR master with an SDR grade, so you end up with something that looks good regardless of the capabilities of the display.
Even if you aren't seeing them HDR master, you are maybe seeing something that sits between SDR and HDR
A lot of people talking about smear, colour quality, and other things that have little or nothing to do with res also. Yes, the IQ you perceive is dramatically improved between your old jank 1080p set and your flash new 4k set, but a lot of that is other improvements in technology aside from the raw resolution. Cheap LCD panels these days in stuff like TCLs sets rival the best panels from 5 years ago in terms of colour quality, contrast and black level.
It's about diminishing returns and the limits of the human eye. Most people can clearly perceive the difference between 1080p and 1440p. Most people cannot clearly perceive the difference between 1440p and 2160p, but it consumes significantly more resources which could, arguably, be better spent elsewhere.
Red Dead Redemption 2 would like to have a word with you about this.
OP
OP
Fortunately, the developers get to choose their target resolutions on consoles. So, if they feel that power can be better used elsewhere, they'll use it elsewhere. Devs really are in the best position to make those decisions, and they are the ones making them. So, do we really have all that much to worry about moving forward?
I hope that options for performance vs. detail continue to be a thing.
I recently got a 55" 4K TV and Xbox One X. Forza Horizon 4 was, of course, mandatory.
For years I've been looking forward to playing Forza Horizon at 60fps. I was ecstatic when the 60fps mode was announced for FH4 and I turned it on immediately. I've been having a great time with the game.
One night, I decided "well, let's try the detail mode to see what 4K looks like." I got what I expected: a slideshow. Even my wife, who doesn't usually detect or care about framerate, noticed the difference right away. Back to 60fps we went. I'll never look back again.
4K/60fps looks gorgeous on Forza Motorsport 7, of course. And it's great to be able to have both. And the Planet Earth II/Blue Planet II box set we just got? That looks stunningly beautiful at 4K (and who cares about framerate on that anyway?). But for fast action or driving games? Framerate wins. Every time. As it should.
I recently got a 55" 4K TV and Xbox One X. Forza Horizon 4 was, of course, mandatory.
For years I've been looking forward to playing Forza Horizon at 60fps. I was ecstatic when the 60fps mode was announced for FH4 and I turned it on immediately. I've been having a great time with the game.
One night, I decided "well, let's try the detail mode to see what 4K looks like." I got what I expected: a slideshow. Even my wife, who doesn't usually detect or care about framerate, noticed the difference right away. Back to 60fps we went. I'll never look back again.
4K/60fps looks gorgeous on Forza Motorsport 7, of course. And it's great to be able to have both. And the Planet Earth II/Blue Planet II box set we just got? That looks stunningly beautiful at 4K (and who cares about framerate on that anyway?). But for fast action or driving games? Framerate wins. Every time. As it should.
It's pretty clear that a lot of developers prioritise resolution over everything else. Heaps of games running at extremely high resolutions at the cost of stable frame rate and gimped graphical effects.
My OLED TV isn't "Plagued" by burn in, it is brighter than my bedroom 4K LED TV/the blacks are better/HDR is better/its thinner, etc. Besides YT/twitch/netflix I don't even want to use my bedroom TV anymore. It is a HUGE difference, and every so often i will see some image retention (AKA not burn-in) but it always goes away very quickly. I have no permanent burn in whatsoever, probably because I have pixel shift turned on and I am concious about how I use my TV.
That said, my bedroom TV is a lower end Sony with no local dimming. My mom has a Sony x900F and it is certainly way better than my x800D, but still doesn't come close to OLED. OLEDs are the real deal, and they for sure are superior tech. If you have fears about burn in or brightness then don't buy one, but don't justify it by pretending OLED isn't better.
not sure if deliberately obtuse. ops argument seems pretty much in line with my qualms (i dont vibe with the 240p anecdote, but get what they were trying to say) with 4k/2160p, in that it's unnecessary because the assets are not there, and the quadrupling in pixel density over 1080p was overkill where 1440p (~doubling pixel density over 1080p) does the job of eliminating the issues with 1080p. no one was arguing 1080p is good enough, but that 4k is overkill for gaming specifically (and home cinema for the most part). even where it makes sense in large cinema displays, commercial projectors (outside of IMAX museum stuff) used for up to ~660 inch screens use 2160p resolutions (many are just 1440p). 4k for the home is mostly a gimmick.
I don't think there's much to worry about because this is the start of 4k. As time goes on it will be easier and easier for graphics cards to hit 4k/60 on pc. I think it's possible that some games will hit 4k/60 next gen but most likely they'll be locked at 30, just like most games have been before the mid cycle super consoles released.
I do prefer higher fps in general but I did play God of War at 30 fps because it looked so good. It would be nice if next gen there's no tradeoff and everything runs at 60 fps/4k but I highly doubt it.
This! people that tell you that you are wrong just want to justify their purchase.
Nah. The day I was able to actually read player names and see numbers on jerseys from a distance was a big step up going to HD. The amount of information being conveyed made a big difference. In games like Forza Horizon 4, being able to see minute details in the distance at 4K (or having the option to play in 60fps mode at 1080p) is the best of both worlds, depending on what you're in the mood for. Sorry you're let down. I have a relatively low-end 4K HDR panel (Sony X800D0, which I sit about 2~2.5 feet from, and 4K native and nicely implemented HDR are terrific on games that take good advantage of them. Tetris Effect is some retina-searing goodness.
I agree to some extent but 4K is/ will become the standard for gaming and that's not a bad thing. I still don't game in 4K though because I don't really care enough about it and would rather wait for the next batch of consoles to jump to it.
Honestly, I just want games to have wetter draw distances. Who gives a shit how crisp the picture if the landscape looks shitty anyways.
Honestly, I just want games to have wetter draw distances. Who gives a shit how crisp the picture if the landscape looks shitty anyways.
Wut?
If you can see the difference between 1080p how could you not see the difference in it and 4K?
All kinds of mental gymnastics going on ITT because people wanna justify their screens native res. I'll just say I use my TCL 6 over my 1440p 144hz BenQ in almost everything on PC. Apex is really the only game where I would rather downgrade my experience in order to stay competitive.
I shall happily hold onto my Panasonic 46" 1080P plasma until it's last fucking breath. She's a goddamned trooper.
Going on 8 years old now.
I don't know about that. Even when games are CB 4k they still look great. Playing Horizon on a 4k HDR screen and going back to 1080p is night and day. The image quality difference alone (no aliasing etc). This is like when my sister told me she didn't see a difference between DVD and Blu Ray.
Considering a 2070 supports it just now, it's more than possible. Especially when you have no idea of the specs of the next gen consoles. A 10-12tflop GPU with a 3.2GHz Ryzen CPU would absolutely be able to do it.
Maybe not (I won't argue you), but it can consistently go well past 1080p.
There's a very big difference between my experience and yours moving to a 4K TV... why?
But Red Dead had all kinds of unreported frame drops. Some pretty bad moments. Its in the OT thread though.
There have been some like Forza though.
Like i said though next gen in a year or so well all be good to go.
I'm confused. Clearer doesn't = better? The biggest benefit to playing at 4k to me is how well it cleans up stuff like foliage, stairs, and fences. Shimmering/pixel crawl is one of my biggest pet peeves when it comes to games. Increased texture detail is also nice.
Maybe you're sitting too far from your TV?
I do agree though that consoles shouldn't be pushing so hard for 4k. Framerates/times are suffering as a result.
Last edited:
I think some are missing a huge point here. The op has a PS4 pro meaning that the games are already are super sampled when they played at 1080p.
Seeing 1440p+ super sampled to a 1080p monitor for the first time is more impactful than seeing 1440p + to a 4k monitor afterwards IMO
Seeing 1440p+ super sampled to a 1080p monitor for the first time is more impactful than seeing 1440p + to a 4k monitor afterwards IMO
OP
OP
Quality detective work right here!
And yes, I loved super sampling on my 1080p. The IQ was worth the Pro.
Op is half right.
I'd much rather have next gen stick to 1080p or 1440p and pump out better graphics and FPS than chasing garbage 4K
Chasing 4K on pc and proven time and time again to be a waste of resources in real terms in what people can notice or even care about when a game is in fluid motion.
I'd much rather have next gen stick to 1080p or 1440p and pump out better graphics and FPS than chasing garbage 4K
Chasing 4K on pc and proven time and time again to be a waste of resources in real terms in what people can notice or even care about when a game is in fluid motion.
lol then why even post this thread?
Going from a $200 Walmart LCD panel to a 4K LG OLED is like what Marty McFly experienced when he went back to the future.
it's not mental gymnastics. start with the basic shit by Hermann Snellen on human visual limitations and image resolution.
my own anecdote and for the record i have a 30" 4k 60hz IPS display for programming and work that needs to be colour correct, right next to a 27" 1440p 144hz IPS samsung panel. 20/20 vision, yet barely notice the difference in resolution when sitting at my desk playing a game on either (one's slightly smaller, but when right up close, at my desk there's no SDE on the 1440p panel). the 4k panel sure has better contrast and a wider colour gamut, and it's resolution is more noticeable with film when im right up close (< 3 feet), or doing static image work, but it's trivial in games, and kills the framerate. im not saying there are no application for 4k, but the downsides in processing cost far outweigh the benefits in detail.
I'd rather improvements in VR rather than 4k. Pump all those pixels into my eyes.
OP
OP
If 4K was good I'd be able to see the dramatic difference between it a day supersampled 1080p and 4K. Specially at 20 inches more. Truth is said difference is incremental at best.
You are 💯 percent correct! You get it. I would take Pixar level 1080p over ps4 level 4K any day.
The 4K arms race is leading to disappointing graphics. Expect to be underwhelmed next generation.
For console gaming you just don't need more than 1080p unless you are 2 feet away. Total waste!
You're blind. 4K is the biggest leap in IQ in ages. Even older games in 4K now look so stable and clean.
Funny I could care less about 4K......can't tell the difference unless I pause the game and walk up to it.
You know what does make a difference....5.1 surround. If you want more immersive gaming buy a 5.1 surround setup. It will do you wonders compared to 4K.
That is unless you like to pause the game and walk up to the tv and squint.
You know what does make a difference....5.1 surround. If you want more immersive gaming buy a 5.1 surround setup. It will do you wonders compared to 4K.
That is unless you like to pause the game and walk up to the tv and squint.
it's not quite that extreme. most people with decent vision can comfortably discern the difference between 1080 and 1440+ on fairly low panel sizes. graphs like this are done with theoretical limits in mind as in, perfect vision.
also: https://www.rtings.com/tv/reviews/by-size/size-to-distance-relationship
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.
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.
Last edited: