12 votes

8K Gaming - Nvidia RTX 3090 on a LG ZX 88" OLED TV

18 comments

  1. [12]
    nothis
    (edited )
    Link
    "I could sit right here and not see a single pixel", sitting like a meter from the screen, lol. This chart says 2 meters, if I read it correctly, which is still way too close to be comfortable....

    "I could sit right here and not see a single pixel", sitting like a meter from the screen, lol. This chart says 2 meters, if I read it correctly, which is still way too close to be comfortable. Honestly, this whole thing makes no sense at all. 8K is already ridiculous but resolution will simply become irrelevant at this point, like it did for smartphone screens. "Antialiasing is officially dead". Fascinating.

    PS: I just googled it and it seems frickin IMAX only uses 4K. IMAX!

    8 votes
    1. [9]
      PancakeSquire
      Link Parent
      I still do not understand the obsession with trying to run video games at resolutions like 4K? 1080p at 60+ frames per second with a high refresh rate like 144Hz is more than enough for the human...

      I still do not understand the obsession with trying to run video games at resolutions like 4K? 1080p at 60+ frames per second with a high refresh rate like 144Hz is more than enough for the human eye to visually process and make games look beautiful. That is definitely enough for me on my gaming rig.

      Maybe I just don't get it?

      5 votes
      1. [2]
        stu2b50
        Link Parent
        It's not as large as 720p -> 1080p, but 1080p -> 4k is definitely very noticeable. I first got a 4k monitor just for text (it's a big difference when you stare at text all day), but it's...

        It's not as large as 720p -> 1080p, but 1080p -> 4k is definitely very noticeable. I first got a 4k monitor just for text (it's a big difference when you stare at text all day), but it's noticeably sharper in image.

        4k -> 8k is obviously not going to matter much for screens, but if and when such large TVs are mainstream, it's also quite noticeable.

        10 votes
        1. nothis
          Link Parent
          On a monitor, it's definitely more useful to have 4K. You're much closer and it's much larger in your field of view. But not 8K, for the same reason as the tv.

          On a monitor, it's definitely more useful to have 4K. You're much closer and it's much larger in your field of view. But not 8K, for the same reason as the tv.

          4 votes
      2. Akir
        Link Parent
        Personally speaking, I like 4K gaming because it gives you very clear images on a big TV display. For games with highly-detailed environments it means that gameplay can be like a gorgeous piece of...

        Personally speaking, I like 4K gaming because it gives you very clear images on a big TV display. For games with highly-detailed environments it means that gameplay can be like a gorgeous piece of moving art. Death Stranding is a pretty good example of this.

        But if you're playing your average FPS game, that doesn't matter; even if they have highly detailed environments, you're not going to be able to enjoy them much because the camera is always spinning. And with competitive or twitchy games in general, you will want to prioritize framerate over resolution.

        Honestly, 8K is mostly marketing; just like always, game developers are going to focus on graphics graphics graphics and make things as pretty as they can at the expense of higher resolutions.

        3 votes
      3. TheJorro
        Link Parent
        There are diminishing returns, of course, but the level of clarity offered by higher resolutions is the real prize. The best tell in this video is when Linus is examining the Doom Slayer model in...

        There are diminishing returns, of course, but the level of clarity offered by higher resolutions is the real prize. The best tell in this video is when Linus is examining the Doom Slayer model in the main menu and comparing it to the pedestal he's standing on. On lower resolutions (including 4K!), the difference isn't as noticeable but at 8K it becomes so because the level of clarity offered is so much higher that it's possible to tell what is of higher quality and what has been getting fuzzed over.

        It's a similar situation to what happened when film and television moved to HD by default. It used to be that anything smaller than a quarter would not be noticeable but then after people started getting higher resolutions, suddenly everything needed to be gone over with a fine tooth comb otherwise it would show up on screens clearly.

        Additionally, yeah, the level of aliasing goes down as the resolution goes up. I don't consider myself someone that needs the best graphics in the world but aliasing is one thing that really pulls me out. Some games have horrible aliasing that I can't stop seeing. There are a lot of hacky methods with modern games to try to address them but they're not 100% and often have tradeoffs. But a higher resolution solves the problem handily. Linus goes over this in the video pretty thoroughly too.

        I'm sitting here with a 144Hz 1080p display myself but I can't deny that the clarity and diminished aliasing of higher resolutions is something I'd love to have one day.

        3 votes
      4. seizethegoddamngap
        Link Parent
        I have an Acer ET430K at home, which is a 43" 4K 60Hz monitor. It's great for my job, and I really enjoy gaming on it.

        I have an Acer ET430K at home, which is a 43" 4K 60Hz monitor. It's great for my job, and I really enjoy gaming on it.

        1 vote
      5. nothis
        Link Parent
        It's not even about "good enough for me". There is a maximal angular resolution for the human eye (it's actually an arc of 1/60th degree, because the eye is round). You can map that to the pixel...

        It's not even about "good enough for me". There is a maximal angular resolution for the human eye (it's actually an arc of 1/60th degree, because the eye is round). You can map that to the pixel size of a device as it projects into your eye and there's a point where higher resolution is literally impossible to recognize. And we've reached that point.

        For smaller screens and large distances (an average sized TV with a couch rather far away), 1080p can already do that. 4K almost certainly reaches our maximum perceivable resolution, unless it's like wall-sized? 8K... you can barely even stand close enough to an 8K tv to see a pixel, it's done. The placement/viewing distance situations in which a person could distinguish 4K from 8K are probably so absurdly rare it plain isn't relevant. After 4K (and arguably 1440p) accurate colors and higher refresh rates make way more sense to focus on.

        1 vote
      6. Emerald_Knight
        Link Parent
        I don't get it, either, but I grew up with ~30" CRT TV sets, so maybe I'm just conditioned to think that existing displays are already incredible enough as it is lol.

        I don't get it, either, but I grew up with ~30" CRT TV sets, so maybe I'm just conditioned to think that existing displays are already incredible enough as it is lol.

      7. babypuncher
        Link Parent
        1440p is the magic resolution for a computer monitor, I think. You can still make out the individual pixels, but they go away with some decent AA.

        1440p is the magic resolution for a computer monitor, I think. You can still make out the individual pixels, but they go away with some decent AA.

    2. JXM
      Link Parent
      IMAX can’t even do 4K at 120 FPS, which is the technology they used for high frame rate movies like Billy Lynn’s Long Halftime Walk and Gemini Man. If you went to see those in high frame rate...

      IMAX can’t even do 4K at 120 FPS, which is the technology they used for high frame rate movies like Billy Lynn’s Long Halftime Walk and Gemini Man.

      If you went to see those in high frame rate IMAX, it was only 60 frames per second.

      2 votes
    3. yellow
      (edited )
      Link Parent
      That isn't what the chart is saying. The chart gives a resolution for a TV size and viewing distance. 2 meters being the furthest 4K and resolutions can be differentiated on an 88" TV. The graph...

      That isn't what the chart is saying. The chart gives a resolution for a TV size and viewing distance. 2 meters being the closest furthest 4K and resolutions can be differentiated on an 88" TV. The graph is meant to be used to determine the minimum resolution for a given TV size and viewing distance. For example, if you had a 50" TV 12' away, you wouldn't be able to tell the difference between 720p and a higher resolution, but you would be able to tell if it was 480p.

      2 votes
  2. Emerald_Knight
    Link
    I'm preparing to upgrade because this poor laptop of mine is about to keel over and decided I would wait for the RTX 3080 to be available given the ridiculous price disparity between that card and...

    Oh, and this video is sponsored by Nvidia, because[...] how on Earth else would I get my hands on it. Obviously.

    I'm preparing to upgrade because this poor laptop of mine is about to keel over and decided I would wait for the RTX 3080 to be available given the ridiculous price disparity between that card and some of the older ones. So with the complete and utter lack of supply right now, this statement just hits painfully, hilariously close to home.

    Also, what the hell, that TV could pay off most of my student loans! That's an absurd amount of money.

    5 votes
  3. [3]
    cfabbro
    Link
    That RTX 3090 is absolutely ridiculous and has more RAM than my bloody desktop does. :P p.s. I couldn't decide whether this belonged here or in ~games, but figured since the tech was focused on...

    That RTX 3090 is absolutely ridiculous and has more RAM than my bloody desktop does. :P

    p.s. I couldn't decide whether this belonged here or in ~games, but figured since the tech was focused on more than the gaming itself, it probably deserved to be here. And I will update this topic when the performance review gets posted later too.

    3 votes
    1. [2]
      nothis
      Link Parent
      24 Gigabytes of RAM, lol. I thought you meant 12GB or something. That is insane.

      24 Gigabytes of RAM, lol. I thought you meant 12GB or something. That is insane.

      4 votes
      1. cfabbro
        (edited )
        Link Parent
        GDDR6X at 19.5Gbps too... no wonder it costs $1,500!

        GDDR6X at 19.5Gbps too... no wonder it costs $1,500!

        2 votes