Forget about 4K displays, Sharp is showing 8K at CES.

[n0cturnal]

http://www.sweclockers.com/nyhet/163...-8k-upplosning

I guess someone always have to be the best

[Giants41]

The chrome translator is actually pretty good. Back on topic. I would love one of those.

[DeltrusDisc]

Was hoping someone would... good on Sharp for doing that! The faster these resolutions are pushed, the faster we can move out of this 1080p deadlock that we should have never been stuck in.

[Deleted]

Was hoping someone would... good on Sharp for doing that! The faster these resolutions are pushed, the faster we can move out of this 1080p deadlock that we should have never been stuck in.

that is provided GPU power can keep up

[n0cturnal]

that is provided GPU power can keep up

It is only 16 times the pixels of a FullHD display, my GTX 670 can easily max BF3 on that.

[lockblock]

What cable do they even use to drive a resolution that high? I'm pretty sure hdmi 1.4 would be severely lacking and display port might be enough.

[DeltrusDisc]

What cable do they even use to drive a resolution that high? I'm pretty sure hdmi 1.4 would be severely lacking and display port might be enough.

HDMI is garbage. DisplayPort is better. ;o

I'm pretty sure they've also made it where you can use two cables to power one screen.

[Deleted]

It is only 16 times the pixels of a FullHD display, my GTX 670 can easily max BF3 on that.

i highly question that for maxed out , aka full ultra? (performance already takes a +- 40% hit when going to 1440p )

[n0cturnal]

i highly question that for maxed out , aka full ultra? (performance already takes a +- 40% hit when going to 1440p )

Oh I'm sorry I thought it was pretty clear that it was a joke.

[Deleted]

How the hell are we going to able to run games at 4k? never mind 8k. 4k is already 4 times more pixels then 1080p. Saw some reviews on batman, where they were using 3 1440p monitors and quad-sli 670GTX and was averaging around 45fps. Unless you are running triple/quad sli, I can't see getting good solid FPS on a 4k monitor for a while. That said, it'll be a few years till the price drops enough for us consumers to afford them.

[DeltrusDisc]

How the hell are we going to able to run games at 4k? never mind 8k. 4k is already 4 times more pixels then 1080p. Saw some reviews on batman, where they were using 3 1440p monitors and quad-sli 670GTX and was averaging around 45fps. Unless you are running triple/quad sli, I can't see getting good solid FPS on a 4k monitor for a while. That said, it'll be a few years till the price drops enough for us consumers to afford them.

Just wait for the GTX 780 and Maxwell and AMD's equivalent GPUs...

[Masterec]

Tought they said that the 8000 series AMD would be more or less a rebadge of 7000.
I wouldnt expect much of a performance jump from Nvidia either, why would they release a powerfull card if they can hold it back and make money on the sucky ones.

[Deleted]

Tought they said that the 8000 series AMD would be more or less a rebadge of 7000.
I wouldnt expect much of a performance jump from Nvidia either, why would they release a powerfull card if they can hold it back and make money on the sucky ones.

Kinda have to agree with this. Search on google for 780GTX and even the most far-fetched rumors are only putting it 50% better. A looong way short of been 4 times better then the best cards we currently have.

That said, we will most likely been at the 880/980GTX before we start seeing these 4k monitors in our homes.

[DeltrusDisc]

Why does it need to be 4x better? Cards nowadays can power 2560x1600 and still push out other screens.

For instance, a single 7950 can power up to 6 displays, all could be 1080p or even bigger, since the card has bloody DisplayPorts and DVI-Ds all over it...

Also, 4k... much less 8k, are absurd right now and JUST breaking into the market. I highly doubt you both had 1080p monitors when 1080p was the new thing. For the first few years new technology is really only for the true enthusiasts and wealthy folk, THEN it will become more the norm. Hell only a couple years ago 1080p monitors were $200-300! Now? You can get them for about $100.

Since we know that 4k monitors aren't even being made yet, just TVs, and they are upwards of a few grand easily, let's assume that in 5 years they are "easy" for the average consumer to get. (Look, even 2560x1440 monitors are typically still $500+) 5 years from now, we will likely be more than 2-3 generations into GPUs, aka, where I mentioned "Maxwell" (GTX 800 series) and even beyond that, and AMD's equivalent.

But trust me, a single 4k monitor wouldn't be too hard for a GPU nowadays to power, GPU technology is beyond monitors.

[reohh]

What cable do they even use to drive a resolution that high? I'm pretty sure hdmi 1.4 would be severely lacking and display port might be enough.

HDMI 1.4 can display up to 4K at 24fps. HDMI 2.0 can do 4K at 60fps but those havent been released yet. The ETA on HDMI 2.0 is Q1 or Q2 2013

[DeltrusDisc]

HDMI 1.4 can display up to 4K at 24fps. HDMI 2.0 can do 4K at 60fps but those havent been released yet. The ETA on HDMI 2.0 is Q1 or Q2 2013

I don't see why they don't just push out DisplayPort more... it's so much betterer. >_<

[n0cturnal]

I don't see why they don't just push out DisplayPort more... it's so much betterer. >_<

The TV industry prefers HDMI since it can transfer audio and networks signals in one cable I guess. Displayport can already run 4K at 60FPS.

[DeltrusDisc]

The TV industry prefers HDMI since it can transfer audio and networks signals in one cable I guess. Displayport can already run 4K at 60FPS.

DisplayPort can also transfer audio and I believe networking.

[n0cturnal]

DisplayPort can also transfer audio and I believe networking.

Reading through this part makes me question why you would want to use HDMI at all. Most likely some silly political reason.

Also about that comment of no 4K monitors. Behold http://www.sweclockers.com/nyhet/163...ch-pekfunktion . Though I guess technically that isn't being made yet either for the consumer market.

[DeltrusDisc]

Reading through this part makes me question why you would want to use HDMI at all. Most likely some silly political reason.

My point exactly. =/

Also about that comment of no 4K monitors. Behold http://www.sweclockers.com/nyhet/163...ch-pekfunktion . Though I guess technically that isn't being made yet either for the consumer market.

Behold why 4k monitors are essentially out of consumers' reach:

The price tag expected to land at least 5 500 USD, more than 47 000 Euros including VAT. Pekversionen also costs several hundred dollars extra.