-
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
While I don't agree with the degree you assign to the benefits of high res, I mostly agree with this post.
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.
I think the main point to keep in mind is that devs still have to support the base consoles for everything they put out. I assume that limits the kind of enhancements they can muster, not to mention that the industry would prefer to keep to the marketing wave of 4K and HDR as the next step of TV upgrades.
In that sense I kind of agree with OP in that if it wasn't for these two factors, would developers perhaps be more creative with their visual enhancements/rendering to games? But the realities aren't going to work out in that manner when 4K does still present a visual upgrade.
That's a valid point for the current gen. I'm not a dev, but my (possibly wrong) understanding is that adding effects to the same base game takes more effort than increasing resolution. Or from the other end, removing effects to meet the minimum specs takes more work than lowering the resolution. So I think seeing the X and Pro as strictly "resolution enhancing machines" is fair, and it's a fine use of the product in a vacuum.
I think OP's lamentation is that these 4K machines could be setting a new resolution standard that the base PS5 and Xbox 2 will strive to follow. That devs won't want to be seen with a game at "only 1080p?!" when the next gen consoles launch. So while the mid-gen machines may actually be best used as resolution upgrade machines, it could be undermining next-gen consoles' abilities to wow with new effects since so much horsepower will likely be used in resolution thanks to the new resolution standards set by the mid-gen upgrades.
I tend to agree with OP. 4K is pretty, but I don't think devs should focus on it as much as they probably will. 1080/1440 are fine. I was considering upgrading, but decided against it because 4K really just didn't wow me, or feel worth the investment. I'll get one if my current TV ever dies, but until it does I'm perfectly content with 1080p.
Edit: And honestly, I feel like the definite priority should be 60 fps before trying to hit those resolutions.
Edit: And honestly, I feel like the definite priority should be 60 fps before trying to hit those resolutions.
I saw OP's TV at Best Buy today. Don't buy that TV. The NU7100 would sour me on 4K HDR too. The NU8000 is about $200 more but is a far better performer. The step up in HDR performance is instantly noticeable. It's still edge-lit though, which might be a deal breaker to some. To get a 65" full-array backlit Samsung TV, the Q8 (over $2K) is the cheapest model. That's nearly 3x the price of the 7100.
Budget electronics have their place. It's just silly to judge an entire spectrum of technology based on the entry level products. It's like saying PC gaming is overrated based on a $800 prebuilt PC
Budget electronics have their place. It's just silly to judge an entire spectrum of technology based on the entry level products. It's like saying PC gaming is overrated based on a $800 prebuilt PC
even on a LED TV you can tell, I have a 55" Samsung KS8000 and I haven't had a single person not be able to tell how much better the 4K looks especially in games like Assassin's Creed: Odyssey
Disagree completely as a primarily PC gamer these days who just HDMIs it out to my 4k TV. The difference between 4k and 1080p is night and day; it's a huge leap and I'll be glad when it's standard for all consoles.
I've played console games where the difference between 1080p and 4k was just as obvious. While you're right that it can currently affect other design decisions and performance, it'll be great once it doesn't.
I've played console games where the difference between 1080p and 4k was just as obvious. While you're right that it can currently affect other design decisions and performance, it'll be great once it doesn't.
Last edited:
Honestly, 4K on that TV would adequately be displayed and even a NU8000 or Q6FN would fit the OPs description of disappointment over resolution. Picture quality is a different story. I'd take the NU7100 back to the store and get a R615/R617 if I was the OP for picture quality reasons. Viewing distance is a major factor in resolution sensitivity on these larger TV displays.
I own the same TV and played AC: O (which isn't native 4K), and what people are probably noticing is the exceptional picture quality (colors and contrast are crazy here) and HDR performance of the KS8000, not the resolution bump.
Mate of mine owns a 4K 55 incher, I own a wee humble HD 32 incher.
I have not seen anything so drastically differently appealing that would make me want to upgrade so badly but I acknowledge that in the same way that I upgraded my olde SD CRT, I will go 4K next gen or around that time.
I still watch my YT videos in 360p.
I also wear spectacles so there you go.
I have not seen anything so drastically differently appealing that would make me want to upgrade so badly but I acknowledge that in the same way that I upgraded my olde SD CRT, I will go 4K next gen or around that time.
I still watch my YT videos in 360p.
I also wear spectacles so there you go.
Thread is true.
There is better clarity but the game doesn't look better/more realistic. And that's OK. You don't get better graphics with better resolution, you get clearer graphics.
As I'm gaming on a Switch or Steamlink (1080) on my Sony 4K there is no "wow this damn resolution, how have I not been playing this before???".
Console players will tell you there is a big difference. PC players who played at 4K (or at least on higher resolution then 1080 for over a decade) will tell you otherwise. If you want better graphics it's better to lower the resolution but turn the different graphical settings higher, for the same performance.
There is better clarity but the game doesn't look better/more realistic. And that's OK. You don't get better graphics with better resolution, you get clearer graphics.
As I'm gaming on a Switch or Steamlink (1080) on my Sony 4K there is no "wow this damn resolution, how have I not been playing this before???".
Console players will tell you there is a big difference. PC players who played at 4K (or at least on higher resolution then 1080 for over a decade) will tell you otherwise. If you want better graphics it's better to lower the resolution but turn the different graphical settings higher, for the same performance.
X1X achieves Native 4K most of the time not only with games targeted for the "really weak S" , but also adding 4K textures/assets to them and additional improvement in lighting, effects, post-processing and effects (e.g. Anthem).
That said, 4K resolution alone is a very noticeable improvement over FullHD (especially in color accuracy other than definition), but its with 4K + HDR that a new generation jump is evident.
When implemented well, both HDR movies and games will provide a PQ and Highlights never seen before (and that you can't physically do with older regular TVs).
That said, 4K resolution alone is a very noticeable improvement over FullHD (especially in color accuracy other than definition), but its with 4K + HDR that a new generation jump is evident.
When implemented well, both HDR movies and games will provide a PQ and Highlights never seen before (and that you can't physically do with older regular TVs).
Pretty fucking much. 4k is such a jump in image quality that I sometimes forgo high refresh rate gaming for higher resolutions.
Overall, I'll choose 1080p/120Hz over 4k but for some games 4k just works, especially for HDR content.
Lol, half of the people responding didn't even bother to read OP.
OP said that native 4k Output Like movies looks great. Current consoles struggle to hit that native 4k Output though, they still produce a better image just not as clear as he wished it would be.
He fears that next generation will use all the extra GPU power to reach 4k instead of improving the graphics like better lightning, shadows, draw distance, frame rates etc.
In other words: he fears that games will be the same but rendered closer to 4k.
Instead of reading half of you just shout out that there is a difference between 4k and 1080p. Lol, He admitted that.
OP said that native 4k Output Like movies looks great. Current consoles struggle to hit that native 4k Output though, they still produce a better image just not as clear as he wished it would be.
He fears that next generation will use all the extra GPU power to reach 4k instead of improving the graphics like better lightning, shadows, draw distance, frame rates etc.
In other words: he fears that games will be the same but rendered closer to 4k.
Instead of reading half of you just shout out that there is a difference between 4k and 1080p. Lol, He admitted that.
But that's half the point, if LG would make a 27" 1080P OLED screen with HDR and the same panel-tech as the 4k screens then the difference between this screen and a 4k OLED wouldn't be as big. Sure it would still be a much clearer picture but not to the extend that people are saying now, I'm sure. If you go from a 1080p LCD screen to a high-end OLED 4k the panel-tech alone makes half of the difference people see.
Really don't appreciate these regressive views. Devs need to find ways to balance fidelity and detail, but 4k machines should always strive for these higher resolutions. Also, next gen machines will have an easier time reaching 4k.
I can tell the difference in media made for 4k. A friend has an LG oled set. However, 1080p is not ideal on a new set. Gaming wise, we have ways to go. To me the HDR is the most striking feature for gaming so far. Look forward to next gen (or powerful PCs) to give a 4k TV more meaning. I am waiting til get an oled until I can get the vsync ones. Frames are more important.
Oh man I'm so tired of this ridiculous claim. I use 3 different screen resolutions between home and work displays and I can go back and forth between 1080p, 1440p and 4K without any problems.
No, it doesn't. You still see jaggies in 1440p and you can still easily see individual pixels. I use 1080p, 1440p and 4K screens every day.
I regularly play games at 540p because I'm on a little tablet PC and modern games, even graphically simple ones, have gotten so bloated that they can't display 2010 era graphics without needing ten times the GPU power.
Watching gameplay videos of the same games at 1080p, I have to agree with OP - while the clarity is nice, I much prefer having the lower resolution, but a much better framerate and effects than I'd otherwise be able to get for the same money.
Watching gameplay videos of the same games at 1080p, I have to agree with OP - while the clarity is nice, I much prefer having the lower resolution, but a much better framerate and effects than I'd otherwise be able to get for the same money.
I completely agree. I actually tried out and returned two 4k hdr TV's (TCL 5 series and Samsung nu8000) over the span of around 3 months. Don't miss them at all.
I even tried out games with my PC on the TV's to pump the graphics up, but it just didn't feel worth the amount of money these TV's cost. Less jaggies and sharper detail, but much worse performance.
I just experienced a 144hz monitor (1080p) in person for the first time and was far more impressed, 144hz freesync/gsync at 1080p is what I'm going to stick with until the next generation.
I just hope the next generation isn't going to continue this trend of more clarity at the cost of performance. Can't believe we still have games dropping below 30fps.
I even tried out games with my PC on the TV's to pump the graphics up, but it just didn't feel worth the amount of money these TV's cost. Less jaggies and sharper detail, but much worse performance.
I just experienced a 144hz monitor (1080p) in person for the first time and was far more impressed, 144hz freesync/gsync at 1080p is what I'm going to stick with until the next generation.
I just hope the next generation isn't going to continue this trend of more clarity at the cost of performance. Can't believe we still have games dropping below 30fps.
Why you gotta be so regressive about framerates?
It's obvious not all gamers think resolution is the pony to chase for the best graphical experience.
I agree with OP in terms of resolution. I have a 65 inch B7 OLED. I have a hard time noticing the difference between 1080p and 1440p; 1440p and 2160p. I can notice 1080p vs. 2160p but I don't think it's that big of a deal. I am very happy with and impressed by HDR though. Also very impressed by OLED's IQ itself and the sheer size of my TV vs. my old 50 inch LED. Also very happy with Netflix shows that support Dolby Vision like Ozark and The Punisher.
While I clearly see the difference in resolution between 1080p and 4k, I'd actually rather that the computational power was spent on performance, shading etc. So count me in the "4k/30fps doesn't impress me" camp. Resolution just isn't that important to me, it's the least important aspect of a video game image to me.
This.
Or, giving OP's opthalmologist the benefit of the doubt, maybe OP's TV is too small for his room and his viewing distance is way too far.
Because there is no way you can't see a *massive* increase in clarity and fine detail going from 1080p -> 2160p at an appropriate viewing distance and calibrated TV.
Edit: or OP fell for the marketing and bought a lower end "HDR" TV with no contrast ratio and that struggles to break 400 nits for HDR highlights.
OP, what model Samsung?
Do all brands even offer OLED 4KTVs? I was under the impression that OLED was tech exclusive to LG (or ws it Samsung? I cant even remember).
Do I need to buy a specific brand to get an OLED 4KTV?
I'd take 1080/60 over 4K/30 any day of the week.
I was able to do a similar comparison recently when I was over at a mates house who actually has a system that can do 4K/30 at decent settings and the only person I know who has a 4K TV, while the 4K image was very nice and there was a difference, the 60fps over 30 was a much bigger difference, like it wasn't even close with what we thought looked better.
I was able to do a similar comparison recently when I was over at a mates house who actually has a system that can do 4K/30 at decent settings and the only person I know who has a 4K TV, while the 4K image was very nice and there was a difference, the 60fps over 30 was a much bigger difference, like it wasn't even close with what we thought looked better.
This is off-topic and also information you can perfectly look up yourself. Don't be lazy. ;-)
It depends on the game and whether the 4K mode has extra benefits like better lighting and draw distance. If it's a slow paced action adventure games with good looking environments and nice vistas, I tend to go for 4K. I also played Rise of the Tomb Raider on resolution mode due to the unlocked framerate and horrible shimmering in the performance mode.
I played Shadow of the Colossus on 1080p, because it felt very steady and smooth and the difference with the 1440p mode wasn't really noticeable for me personally.
I hope next gen give us the option of 4K or 1080p\60fps max settings and for it to be a standard in all games... I would totally keep my current 1080p TV and choose this option.
LG and Sony have OLED TVs in the US but I believe all of the actual OLED panels themselves are made by LG.
I think Phillips sells OLED TVs in the UK markets.
I don't own an Xbox/PC, but are you saying the 4K mode is blurry and the lower res mode is not? That seems kind of strange.
Currently all OLED TV panels are made by LG Display, even the ones sold under other brands (Sony, Panasonic, and Philips).
There are differences between all the brands tho because they all do their on processing stuff, only the panel itself is the same.
Haven't played it but I imagine they may use motion blur to cover up jaggies at 4K.
On the Xbox one X in motion it does yea - looks and feels way worse in my opinion.
If you don't move it's gorgeous
Graphics isn't all about resolution. This is an absolute fact.
But when you have RDR2 - one of the best looking games this gen running at native 4K on the X it shows that next gen SHOULD give headroom to run most at native 4K yet still improve other aspects considerably. The mid gen upgrades were designed to run games roughly at the same settings as the base units but with a resolution increase. In a few cases effects, textures etc have been improved on the X also.
But when you have RDR2 - one of the best looking games this gen running at native 4K on the X it shows that next gen SHOULD give headroom to run most at native 4K yet still improve other aspects considerably. The mid gen upgrades were designed to run games roughly at the same settings as the base units but with a resolution increase. In a few cases effects, textures etc have been improved on the X also.
They're most likely referring to motion resolution. Once you start turning the camera in 30fps there is far more blur than 60fps. Thats my issue when people say they prefer 4K30 because it has more clarity - that's only really true when you're standing still. Once you start moving the camera with any type of speed 1080/60 looks much better.
What do you expect from this forum. OP is absolutely right though, 1440p would suffice on a 4k screen, let's up fidelity not resolution.