1
Gaming in Ultra HD
GeoinPlanetMC
Leeberator
Hey guys, Geo here. Today were talking about gaming in Ultra HD!
While normal high definition tvs and monitors have been around for a while now, Ultra HD (4K) is typically very pricy.
BUT, you can get VIZIO P-Series 4K UHD Smart TV for less than $1000
What can you do in Ultra HD?
If you have a powerful gaming pc that supports 1440p, in the graphics card theres going to be a HDMI 2.0 port which you can connect to the tv by using a HDMI cable that supports UHD.
It might be weird using a tv as a pc monitor but it works surprisingly well.
If you play a game like "Metro: Last Light Redux", moving to 4K is a big one. Even on medium settings the ex resolution makes a big difference and makes even more difference in "Watch Dogs". With ultra textures your getting a lot more detail, apart from the console version which can't even make it to 1080p, apart from consoles which can't even reach 1080p and much less 4k.
Theres also a solid gamemode that lowers the latency to some of the lowest levels i've ever seen on a tv. It might not see like a big deal but this alone makes the P-Series totally usable even on the most fast paced games out there.
The P-Series TVs has a spatchal scaling engine to upscale HD content to 4K which helps to make normal gaming PCs and consoles like the "Xbox One" and "PS4" look even better. Also your getting a tv that is feature proofed for 4k content like "Netflix".
So what do you think? Is it time to move to 4K?
Let me know by commenting below.
While normal high definition tvs and monitors have been around for a while now, Ultra HD (4K) is typically very pricy.
BUT, you can get VIZIO P-Series 4K UHD Smart TV for less than $1000
What can you do in Ultra HD?
If you have a powerful gaming pc that supports 1440p, in the graphics card theres going to be a HDMI 2.0 port which you can connect to the tv by using a HDMI cable that supports UHD.
It might be weird using a tv as a pc monitor but it works surprisingly well.
If you play a game like "Metro: Last Light Redux", moving to 4K is a big one. Even on medium settings the ex resolution makes a big difference and makes even more difference in "Watch Dogs". With ultra textures your getting a lot more detail, apart from the console version which can't even make it to 1080p, apart from consoles which can't even reach 1080p and much less 4k.
Theres also a solid gamemode that lowers the latency to some of the lowest levels i've ever seen on a tv. It might not see like a big deal but this alone makes the P-Series totally usable even on the most fast paced games out there.
The P-Series TVs has a spatchal scaling engine to upscale HD content to 4K which helps to make normal gaming PCs and consoles like the "Xbox One" and "PS4" look even better. Also your getting a tv that is feature proofed for 4k content like "Netflix".
So what do you think? Is it time to move to 4K?
Let me know by commenting below.
Create an account or sign in to comment.
28
1
eww UHD. XGA+ (1152x864) is where it's at (for me)! I'm still rockin' a CRT monitor. And, because it's analog, it's got no input lag basically! On top of that, it has better color than an LED. Also, VGA is much better than HDMI. Sure, it can't do audio, but at least it doesn't have any DRM silliness, which can cause issues.
1
All displays have a delay between when the signal is received by the controller and when it is projected onto the screen. For CRTs it's the electron gun and magnetic waves positioning before/while firing the electron; for LCDs it's the time it takes for a liquid crystal to twist. CRTs usually have a response time lower than 5ms, but at the same time most LCDs on the market are also in that category. Regardless, it is difficult to differentiate between response times that low when the refresh rate is only 60-85Hz.
Here are the things HDMI can do that VGA cannot:
Here are the things VGA can do that HDMI cannot:
They can both do the following:
As you can see, HDMI is the better of the two connectors by a long shot. I prefer DisplayPort over HDMI, but that's just my personal opinion.
Also, my CRT can do 1600x1200.
Here are the things HDMI can do that VGA cannot:
- Handle 4K at 60Hz (as of rev. 2.0)
- Carry audio signal
- Carry network traffic (i.e. Ethernet)
- Display DRM-laced content
Here are the things VGA can do that HDMI cannot:
- Carry analog video signal
- Give you that 90s groove
They can both do the following:
- Display DRM-free content
As you can see, HDMI is the better of the two connectors by a long shot. I prefer DisplayPort over HDMI, but that's just my personal opinion.
Also, my CRT can do 1600x1200.
1
S_HackerCalebachS_Hacker
You think gold coating makes a difference?
It does, not by much though.
All HDMI cables of the same type are the same. You're getting ripped off if you pay more than a few dollars for a cable. Gold plating doesn't make a difference, you clearly must not know about cables that much.
He's right you know^. Gold plated cables are just for 1. Marketing (gold = high class right?) 2. Lasts longer compared to copper/normal HDMI cables, but not like, years and years, just if you take the HDMI out once a day it'll wear the connector part on a standard HDMI cable. But if you're buying online, amazon/newegg/etc will have the gold plated and standard for basically the same price.
1
CalebachS_Hacker
You think gold coating makes a difference?
It does, not by much though.
All HDMI cables of the same type are the same. You're getting ripped off if you pay more than a few dollars for a cable. Gold plating doesn't make a difference, you clearly must not know about cables that much.
1
I'll admit I may have contributed to the salt in this thread, but... inb4 lock
1
S_Hacker
You think gold coating makes a difference?
It does, not by much though.
1
zainLol im already using a 40 inch Samsung UHD TV as my display.
By the way you will need the gold coated HDMI cable to function properly at 60HZ otherwise the screen will keep flickering.
You think gold coating makes a difference?
1
Playing a lower resolution in 4k won't make it look "worse". There's this thing called mipmapping which basically lowers the resolutions of textures it can't render at full resolution (For example, if an object is 30 meters away it won't have a full texture since there's simply no need, you won't be able to see the detail that it contains.)
1
[deleted]
1
Wait, would a 4 k monitor be good for playing Minecraft? Or would it just be a waste? Because if it's the latter, than 1440 p seems good.
1
I don't think you realize how close we are to having super photorealistic games. When that comes out, it'd be really good to already have a 4k monitor because when the graphics in game start becoming that good everyone will rush out to buy a 4k one and the price will skyrocket
1
Meh, 4K just isn't worth the processing power right now. Not until more games start supporting it. And by support I don't mean "Oh but ur wrong! It fits duh screen!" no, i'm talking about games having textures and resolutions that match 4K, not put up with it.
1
Already many games support it! I already played Watch Dogs, Far cry 4,Just Cause 2, The Crew, Need for speed rivals etc.
1
>Just cause 2
> March 23, 2010
>March 2010
>2010
>"Support"
kek
> March 23, 2010
>March 2010
>2010
>"Support"
kek
1
Halo PC supports resolutions up to 4800x3600, and it was released in 2003.
1
Well then. Was it from an update?
1
Of course it was. No programmers in those days imagined people using 1080p let alone 4K. But the fact that older games support 4K and above just goes to show that your ridicule of the other person's suggestions is unfounded.
1
Lex The Gallade
This post is like a big ad, you seem very biased on 4k being better, and then ask people of the forums on their opinion.
But it's a fact that 4K is better. Whether or not the improvement is worth the price is up to the consumer, but 4K is factually better than 1080p.
1
GeoinPlanetMCHey guys, Geo here. Today were talking about gaming in Ultra HD!
While normal high definition tvs and monitors have been around for a while now, Ultra HD (4K) is typically very pricy.
BUT, you can get VIZIO P-Series 4K UHD Smart TV for less than $1000
What can you do in Ultra HD?
If you have a powerful gaming pc that supports 1440p, in the graphics card theres going to be a HDMI 2.0 port which you can connect to the tv by using a HDMI cable that supports UHD.
It might be weird using a tv as a pc monitor but it works surprisingly well.
If you play a game like "Metro: Last Light Redux", moving to 4K is a big one. Even on medium settings the ex resolution makes a big difference and makes even more difference in "Watch Dogs". With ultra textures your getting a lot more detail, apart from the console version which can't even make it to 1080p, apart from consoles which can't even reach 1080p and much less 4k.
Theres also a solid gamemode that lowers the latency to some of the lowest levels i've ever seen on a tv. It might not see like a big deal but this alone makes the P-Series totally usable even on the most fast paced games out there.
The P-Series TVs has a spatchal scaling engine to upscale HD content to 4K which helps to make normal gaming PCs and consoles like the "Xbox One" and "PS4" look even better. Also your getting a tv that is feature proofed for 4k content like "Netflix".
So what do you think? Is it time to move to 4K?
Let me know by commenting below.
This post is like a big ad, you seem very biased on 4k being better, and then ask people of the forums on their opinion.
1
1
nammerbomJetra...Look at MineCraft and Terraria, two of the lowest resolution most popular games...
Just because minecraft and terraria have low resolution textures does not mean its a low resolution game; if youre running it in 4k it will look much smoother than 1080p, and if youre running it in 1080p it will look much smoother than 480p. The game has pixelated textures but in order to render the game to make it look three dimensional, one 'pixel' that is textured can take up many more on your screen. Because you would be looking at the same game in a higher resolution, you would notice less jagged edges around 'pixel' corners.
Heres an example, the first picture is the game in 480p, while the second picture is the exact same perspective in 1080p. The 480p image was resized to make it the same size as the 1080p image, to simulate the effect you would have if you were running your monitor fullscreen in a lower resolution. Notice the pixelated edges of the ore textures:
480p:
http://i.imgur.com/D7JvBTD.png
1080p:
http://i.imgur.com/xwITNfE.png
I'm not tech smart, but at the very least know yes that's what resolution means. I wasn't really referring to the pixelation of the graphics, just the game graphics itself (and now that you showed me, ewwww, I'll take 1080p). When I meant low res graphics, I meant the 16 bit graphics against something like Witcher 3 which is totally my bad.
For now, it's fine the way it is, 4k seems excessive to me.
1
nammerbomJetra...Look at MineCraft and Terraria, two of the lowest resolution most popular games...
Just because minecraft and terraria have low resolution textures does not mean its a low resolution game; if youre running it in 4k it will look much smoother than 1080p, and if youre running it in 1080p it will look much smoother than 480p. The game has pixelated textures but in order to render the game to make it look three dimensional, one 'pixel' that is textured can take up many more on your screen. Because you would be looking at the same game in a higher resolution, you would notice less jagged edges around 'pixel' corners.
Heres an example, the first picture is the game in 480p, while the second picture is the exact same perspective in 1080p. The 480p image was resized to make it the same size as the 1080p image, to simulate the effect you would have if you were running your monitor fullscreen in a lower resolution. Notice the pixelated edges of the ore textures:
480p:
http://i.imgur.com/D7JvBTD.png
1080p:
http://i.imgur.com/xwITNfE.png
Well said.
1
Yes, UHD looks absolutely fantastic, but I'll stick with my 1080p for now.
1
Jetra...Look at MineCraft and Terraria, two of the lowest resolution most popular games...
Just because minecraft and terraria have low resolution textures does not mean its a low resolution game; if youre running it in 4k it will look much smoother than 1080p, and if youre running it in 1080p it will look much smoother than 480p. The game has pixelated textures but in order to render the game to make it look three dimensional, one 'pixel' that is textured can take up many more on your screen. Because you would be looking at the same game in a higher resolution, you would notice less jagged edges around 'pixel' corners.
Heres an example, the first picture is the game in 480p, while the second picture is the exact same perspective in 1080p. The 480p image was resized to make it the same size as the 1080p image, to simulate the effect you would have if you were running your monitor fullscreen in a lower resolution. Notice the pixelated edges of the ore textures:
480p:
http://i.imgur.com/D7JvBTD.png
1080p:
http://i.imgur.com/xwITNfE.png
1
I've heard of 4k being used a lot and as far as I knew, it's a recent thing that's gained in popularity (hearing of it about a year or two ago). I'm usually of the thinking that graphics aren't that important and that the fun of a game is more important. Look at MineCraft and Terraria, two of the lowest resolution most popular games, though MC has dwindled a bit and the new update in Terraria got a lot of players back on.
As far as I remember, I don't think I've seen any 4k anything so don't really have any solid opinions other than "if it becomes the standard, I'll upgrade." Otherwise, I'm just happy I can tell a person from terrain.
As far as I remember, I don't think I've seen any 4k anything so don't really have any solid opinions other than "if it becomes the standard, I'll upgrade." Otherwise, I'm just happy I can tell a person from terrain.
1
4k resolution monitors are not a realistic option for gaming at this time, they are extremely expensive and take a gigantic amount of processing power. If you use one it will make games that don't support 4k worse. 1440p is a maybe but I don't think it's ready to become the industry standard due to the price. I would never use a television as a monitor because they are generally more expensive plus you have to pay for a license if you don't have another television. There can also be technical issues because it's a television, it wasn't designed to be a monitor and you could typically get one for half the price.
1
Lol im already using a 40 inch Samsung UHD TV as my display.
By the way you will need the gold coated HDMI cable to function properly at 60HZ otherwise the screen will keep flickering.
By the way you will need the gold coated HDMI cable to function properly at 60HZ otherwise the screen will keep flickering.
1
4k has been around for years, though, and ever since Nvidia's Maxwell-Line of GPUs came out, many people have already switched.
