Why hasn't 8K been mainstream yet?
>>109853318Most people can't even afford a GPU for 4k. Heck even a 5090 or RTX PRO 6000 is barely enough for 4k.
>>109853318nothing to watch
>>109853318streaming killed BD and household bandwidth is too poor to even do 4k
Because there is no functional difference from 4k in a tv
no 8K blu raysmeans no enthusiasts buying 8K TVsmeans no one shoots in 8Kmeans no one streams 8K content to usersmeans no videogame companies target 8K as a render targetmeans no GPU vendors target 8K as a game resolution
>>109853322you would think all of this AI bullshit would have caused some kind of breakthrough in memory manufacturing and/or GPU design, but no, we can't even do 4K60 let alone 8K60
>>109853322>what is dlss?
>>109853340>we can't even do 4K60What? Even a 4080 can do 4K60 native in most games. But who plays at 60 FPS anymore?>>109853341Upscaling the same base resolution to have the same FPS as with a 4k screen will just look worse than an actual 4k panel though.
>>109853318I actually NEED an 8K screen to watch your 211 KB image properly
>>109853333>means no one shoots in 8Kiirc everyone shoots in 8K, no??They do even shoot in 16K sometimes, no??Then you can crop the picture however you want without losing details
>>109853341DLSS is meant for live video upscaling, youd be better off using a heavier algorithm to make movies 8kBut even those would take large filesizes and im not sure if theres a point, vs say having a 8k mastered file from the source with actual real detail
>>109853318If you are sitting at some distance from the screen your eyes may not even be able to tell much difference from 4k. Smaller 4k screens are already close to the human optical resolving limit unless you sit 3 inches away from it. 8k makes sense if you are talking about a nearly wall-sized screen, but most people are not in the market for those. If they were cheaper they would be so maybe in another 10+ years as manufacturing catches up 8k would make sense. But not today.This isn’t even touching on how much harder 8k would be on GPUs for gaming, and we are in a world several years away from the top tier cards being easily-gettable consumer products like they used to be. In a better world where we had no supply chokeholds gumming shit up and we could get 6090s along with 85” screens for 1-2k each right now, we would be heavily debating 8k. But we don’t live there yet.
>>109853318no content most people are happy with 1080
>>109853318Even 4K already too much for some people.
>>109853322A basic iGPU from 10 years ago will output 4k.
>>109853318>Why hasn't 8K been mainstream yet?General consumers don't care about video quality and still buy DVDs over Blu-rays and play them stretched out on their 65" 4K TVs.
>>109853644This is /g/, we're a video game oriented technology board.
>>109853649I play video games in 4k with an intel UHD graphics.
>>109853664Selection of games* you meanDoubtful you can run every game in existence
>>109853702There's more games than I can ever play either way. I don't have to spend thousands on the newest crap when 20 year old titles do the job
>>109853713You do you
>>109853326/thread
>>109853340no I wouldn't because I'm not a fucking retard
>>109853358Fake frames. Not real.
>>109855218Anon is talking about upscaling not frame generation, retrardbro.
>>109853664You can't run anything modern in 4k on integrated. I know because every response you type is cope.
>>109855228My point still stands. The entire market has sold fake frames and everyone just somehow accepted it.
>>109855233...this is relevant here, how?
with what 8k content?
>>109853318It is because it only make sense on massive displays. Only die-hard videophiles would get them. Computer users who need more resolution for work simply go the multi-monitor route.
>>109855229Maybe not AAA released in the past year or whatever you care about but you can make your own games and they'll run perfectly fine in 4k.If you had the choice between playing a "modern" game in 1080 or an older game in 4k, would you really pick the former?
>>109853318It cost $1,000 per "K" minimum for fairly mediocre panels and there's almost zero 8K content outside of the Olympics in a few cities every few years and VR Porn (which is just 4K per eye).
>>109853318the human eye can only see 1920x1080 pixels
>>109853318why? even 4k is pointless. It's usually low bitrate crap anyway
>>109853318Do you plan on sitting 3 feet away from a 60 inch tv?
>>109855754With the lights turned off.
>>109853318ESL post
>>109853340Graphics and AI Compute are basically two different things. It doesn't transfer at all. We haven't had any graphics breakthroughs in forever and more AI slop on the chip isn't going to help.
>>1098533184k is barely an improvement over 1080p and not worth the additional cost in computation and electricity. It's even worse with 8k.
>>109855891It's absolutely worth it for text. High PPI 4K display makes my PP drip
>>109853318The human eye can't see more than 1080i @ 24fps, after that it's all placebo
because it's literally beyond human perception60 pixels per degree is roughly the limit of human vision, 8k is 7680 horizontal pixels, that display would have to fill 128 horizontal degrees for that resolution to not be wastedno one wants to sit that close
>>109855897There are no high PPI 4k displays. Best you can get is 27" 5k displays and even those only have 218ppi.
>>109855891>4k is barely an improvement over 1080pNah, it's a major improvement, if you cannot tell the difference you must seriously have bad eyesight. That being said, depending on screen size and viewing distance, it feels like 4k even on computer monitors is very close to the limits of human vision acuity, 8k would definitely go far beyond and at TV viewing distances I think most people already sit so far away that they don't need any more.There's not much practical demand for 8k and a lower resolution like "5k" or "6k" would probably go beyond human vision all the same in most reasonable use cases.
>>109855978They're a lot higher PPI than 1080p or 1440p and it makes a major difference.
>>109855954>no one wants to sit that closeI sit less than 50cm away from my 4k 24" monitor. Why wouldn't you want to use your full binocular view?
>>109856008that's literally the intended viewing distance
>>109853340its a scam to keep you buying previous gen hardware for 3x the price so they can maximize profit from that fab while they work around real issues with the next gen fab that they realized was going to take 3+ years to solve.
>>109853318getting shit to work at 4K is enough of a pain in the ass. DP to HDMI conversion fucking sucks and for whatever reason, every PC is DP and every TV is HDMI.
>>109856008in what world are you getting 120 degrees of binocular visionclose one of your eyes and keep alternating, it's basically a circle thanks to your nose
>>109856280>every PC is DPMine is USB-C.
>>109856393if its a laptop then DP Alt is an option yeah but its technically still DP.
>>109856457It's a regular AT-X mainboard. There is a DP plug but it's actually in input if you want to connect a dGPU. The HDMI out is limited to HDMI 1.4 which means you only get 30Hz for 4k. The lightning ports are the only way to get 60Hz.
>>109853318Resolving power of a human eye is ~1 pixel per arcminute, or ~60 pixels per degreeFor the human eye to resolve the difference b/w 4k and 8k, the screen would have to take up >65 degrees of the visual fieldPrecisely 0% of normie home theater setups take up 65 degrees of the visual fieldHumans are uncomfortable viewing content on a screen that takes up more than about 60 degrees, even in high-end prosumer home theater setups where cost is no object8k is a meme
>>109853318nobody needs more than 1440p for 27" monitors, that's why
>>109856528>There is a DP plug but it's actually in input if you want to connect a dGPUDoes it capture / passthrough for recording or something? What a weird contraption.
>>1098533186K 32" displays for PC are becoming the new high end standard and 27" 5K as the lower end
>>109857427It passes through the USB4 controller so you can connect one or multiple displays or docks with displays over USB-C, like with modern laptops.
>>109857403Imagine not getting at least a 4K 27" monitor
>>109857509you'd be pissing away money on the monitor, on the gpu and extra power. it's just not worth it. you're not getting anything out of it at 27" at regular desk distance.the only benefit is you get the fuzzies knowing you have the 4Ks they keep talking about so you must be cool for having it. while struggling at 25fps.4k is 2.25x more pixels to move, thus your fps will more than halve. that is one of the shittiest deal you could ever make for basically nothing in return as far as pixel perception goes, at 27" at normal viewing distance.so in the end, you didn't make a smart choice, you made a retarded one and everyone is laughing at you
>>109857582>I'm poor and dont value high ppi because muh gaymingyeah I got thatwriting this post from my 32" 6K display btw
>>109857613>I just pay more for the same exact experienceweird flex but ok
>>109853318im too poor
>>109857632>squint really hard and you won't notice!My laptop also has a 4K display.
There was like no 8k content aside from some sporting competitions
>>109857647>more poor decisionsyou cannot be saved anon. marketing has you by the balls.
>>109857672Let me guess, you also think color calibration is a meme
Another EU victory.>The power consumption limits on 8K TVs (and microLED-based displays) are set so low that essentially none of these devices will pass. It not only means a failing grade but a requirement that these devices cannot be sold in the EU. That will have a very chilling effect on all players working to develop the 8K ecosystem, including consumers whose access to devices and innovation will now be restricted.
>>109857679for what you get in return it absolutely is. who fucking cares when gaming lol.that clearly makes sense for graphical work and shit, for professionals. you're flexing weird niche tech that you pay for with nothing in return, practically speaking. like audiophiles paying $100k for something that sounds 0.1% better than $200 gear lolsee >>109857672
>>109857613>my pp is bigger btwhey, are you lost? where are your parents?you are being bad because this is an 18+ website, did you know that? what about going back? you don’t want to disappoint them, right?don’t worry anon, you can come here again once you are a bit older, we will wait for you don’t worry :)
>>109857698Manufacturers already got around that by shipping in a dim "eco" mode but making it super easy to disable it if you want, by showing a pop up every time while its enabled>>109857713poorfag ad hominem cope projection>>109857712Who said I'm using it for gaming?
>>109853318Incredibly expensive, most video is not 8k, needs infinite bandwidth, needs a very good computer, and you cant even see the difference unless it is a cinema
>>109853318what content are you going to play on your fancy 8k display? there's almost nothing
>>109857749Most photos are higher res than an 8K display
>>109857753nobody cares about tiny details on a photo, it's video that needs great clarity that high res allows
>>109857733>haha poorfag you don't even have an autonomous combinewho fucking cares about obscure niches lol
>>109857772People who want to look at those details do care
>>109853318Because it's useless. What are you going to do with 8K? On a TV you're far away not go notice pixels and in a PC screen it's small enough to not notice pixels. What's the win in 8K? Lower performance?
>>109857784pixel peepers are 3/5 people at best
>>109857783And retards like this is why we had 1366x768 displays
>>109857790>What's the win in 8K?None of your peers have it and that means you’re better than them… apparently.>Lower performance?That too.
>>109857824If I had it it would still be useless. Right now I have a 4K 27 inch mini-led monitor and even up close you can't tell the pixels. You can go up to 4K 32 and you still won't notice pixels. 32 is already annoying for work let alone above that. 8K doesn't have a use case for PC and on TV even 1080p is good if you have a smaller TV. There's no practical use case for 8K. You'll only get it when it's so cheap that might as well have it anyway.
>>109857859I can maybe see 32" at 4K making some sense if you really sit up close to them. but still I would just like...move a bit back and save some money loland get more than double the fps. and not need more than 16gb vram.
>>109857878I got 4K for work because I had to use Windows 11 and it's horrible at font rendering. Having 4K masks the problem. The other reason was CRT Royale, it renders better at 4K. You can game at real 1440p with FSR or DLSS or you enable super resolution in the monitor so having 4K doesn't stop you from using 1440p if your GPU can't handle 4K. However I agree, you don't need 4K under normal conditions. I got it for niche reasons. A 27 inch monitor at 1440p is good enough even if you notice pixels up close and I have both so it's not a what if, I tested it.
>>109857582Do you never play games made before 2020?
>>109857916I mean not really, because I already played them back then. unc goes way back to 486 times
>>109857859>32 is already annoying for work32 is fucking incredible, what are you on aboutwhole reason i went from 1440p to 4k is to have more space for le productivity
>>109857953As a developer I don't want to constantly have my eyes moving around, I want it centered. If you're an artist that might make sense for you though.
>>109853318They are sandbagging tech and they plan to kill off oled since 4k oled looks better than 8k lcd due to the microcontrast detailsthey plan on killing oled only after that happens (or microled) will they be able to shill you 8k
>>109858905Why are they actively developing OLED then? Striped RGB panels next year.
>>109853318what you gona throw at it?
>>109858963oled monitors have 4x the profitability for monitors compared to tvs, it's the new shill once oled is dead
>>109859314What do you mean? Good OLEDs these days are cheaper than good miniLEDs while having better picture.
>>109858966Jizz, mostly.
>>109853318because nobody cares. the quality bump is indecipherable for most people sitting on their couch. 8k is a meme.
>>109857733>Manufacturers already got around that by shipping in a dim "eco" mode but making it super easy to disable it if you want, by showing a pop up every time while its enabledThere's always loopholes for EU bureaucracy. Like how they mandated replaceable batteries but everyone apart from Nintendo goes around it by making devices waterproof with a minimum battery specification that just about meets their minimum requirements with just enough charge cycles, no more, no less.It's like they want to encourage half assing things all the time
>>109853318It's not mainstream because you need an absurd amount of scaling just to make 4K usable even on a 50 inch TV, the pxiels are so fuckin small you can't even see as it is, a TV would need to be over 100 inches for the shit to even make sense, and even the 4K laptops we already have are retarded.
usecase? electricity cost?
TV signal here is barely 1080p with a shitty bitrate. Maybe when everyone born in the 1900s is dead
>>109853326Yeah this makes sense
>>109861817When everyone born in the 1900's is dead the world will implode.
even 4k is overkill most of the time
>>109861835This, it's getting to a point where we're hitting a wall with resolution relative to the size of screens people are practically using, 11-17 inches on laptops, 21-27 inches on desktops, 43-85 inches on TVs, 4K looks fine on it, no ones looking at 4K TVs at best buy and saying "I wish this wasn't so pixelated" meanwhile back in the days of 480i tubes, and even 768p flourescent backlit pieces of shit, "I wish this had more pixels" was the immediate reaction, because displays were so atrocious for a very long time.
>>109861853i genuinely couldn't tell you whether the movie i'm currently watching on a 65" OLED TV is 1080p or 4k unless it's HDR, which for whatever reason is only available on 4k releases. HDR is more noticeable than 4k. i wish more groups did 1080p HDR releases, the only reason i even download 4k releases is for HDR
>>109861872>i genuinely couldn't tell you whether the movie i'm currently watching on a 65" OLED TV is 1080p or 4kSame, I'm on a regular ass Samsung LED 4K and my mom's DirecTV stream is 1080p and it looks absolutely fucking fine even with its compression going on. It's hilarious we're even discussing 8K when most things aren't even taking advantage of 4K due to how much horsepower it takes to push that in gaming, I will be shocked if GTA VI runs at 4K 30 frames when it comes out due to how old and weak the console is.
>>109853318Because image qualifying (i.e. contrast, black level, peak brightness, color accuracy, blooming) is more important than raw resolution.
>>109861943All that goodness+increased resolution are a nice thing, but the problem is will we even fucking see it? My 50 inch 4K Samsung has a mere 88 ppi, which sounds kinda shitty compared to my 94 ppi desktop, and my 157ppi 14 inch laptop, but you're looking at the damn thing from across the living room, you have to get so damn close to the screen to really see the pixels, it's hilarious, I don't think any more pixel density will be noticeable compared to the days when you had an iPhone 3Gs with that horrible pixelated screen being held close to your face, and then they double the pixels per inch with the iPhone 4 and it's this insane drastic difference.
It's pretty simple, shipping costs. The larger a screen is, the more expensive it is to ship.Screen companies have already fairly successfully sold "scam 4k" to consumers, which is where they market 4k as a high DPI concept and sell you a tiny little screen to give you what is essentially a 1080p display due to the requirement of scaling if you want to see anything.8k is something they don't want to sell. It's too expensive, 80" screens won't ever come down to affordable levels.
>>109853326You literally only need 50mb/s (and that's being generous) with how compressed it is on most streaming services. You're not getting Bluray remux quality off of Netflix or YouTube.8K would therefore only require 100mb/s. You'd only have issues with multiple people in the household trying to stream at once and even then it might not be an issue since most people have access to gigabit and multi-gigabit Internet now.
>>109860106We'll see if everyone actually does thatWhats frustrating is that phones and tablets with replaceable batteries still exist, like the Samsung Active tablets which even work without a battery, and the Zebra scanners which support battery hotswap with a small backup battery. It's obviously possible to implement even today
>>109853318I still don't even own a single 4K display.
>>109853333I think it starts with how poor early adoption of 4K and OLED was, and how delayed microled has been. True 8K displays can't be manufactured at competitive prices yet. After that the lack of 8K media is less of an issue since modern upscalers can handle simple doubling, but streaming services constant throttling bandwidth/bitstarving encodes and the lack of a new standard to replace blu-ray is a major issue. If a new 8K blu-ray standard using a modern format like AV1 or even VVC then 8K media becomes viable it would certainly help.
>>109862168What year are you stuck in?
>>109862209Hard to justify until gpus are affordable.
>>1098533184k is still a meme, and due to the practical realities of in-home use for a display of that fidelity will never stop being a meme for most situations anyone would want to use it for. It's a product for a niche market that the hawkers keep trying to pass off as a daily sundry to the entire town square.
>>109862231The general public that enjoys webstreams on their smartphones is indifferent to the difference in fidelity, so it will always be a niche market. Also the biggest spenders who you would have catered to in the past, Boomers, still mount TVs over their fireplaces and since they can barely see, use them like radios instead.
but i like video games in high resolutionand 8k is barely usable for vr, all the headsets worse than apple vision m5 are pure cope
Some real "human eyes can't see more than 24fps" in this thread
>>109853318Too little benefit over 1080p.
>>1098533184k + 4x MSAA = basically the same to 99% of the population.As for media, good luck getting anything 8k lol (and even then just downscale it to a 4k screen and again most people won't be able to tell).
>>109853702>every game in existenceWhy would one even consider playing AAA slop?
>>109857698These power consumption limits are on standby mode, aren't they?It wouldn't make any sense to put a power consumption limit on in-use power draw. Smaller TVs that are left on all day would draw more than a bigger TV that is only used a few hours at a time.
>>109862336Yeah fuck Quake 2 and original Half-Life, fucking AAA slop.
>>109862293It's retarded cope.I've also been a poorfag for a long time but I always knew that high res matters. 4K displays aren't even expensive anymore.
>>109862293>>109862367Buy ads.
>>109862478take your pills alice
