1080p is so incredibly trash, It's like going back to playing on nintendo 64. I can't imagine going back to it after experiencing 4k gaming. Do yourself a favor and get a cheap 4k display or even 1440p. You can find one for less than $300 these days.
It's also impressively dumb that they think it matters what CPU they are using for these tests lol. This is 110% a GPU bottleneck, not sure why they brought up not using 13th gen or 7000 series
There's people who know where to look, and people who don't. 8k is not that important for a TV - not a display, for a monitor it's pretty useful especially when 42 inches large format display is starting to become a thing. I have 4k 42 inches and the lower pixel density is pretty notiecable even at a meter away
@@SuperCartoonist but gaming and all stuff was still on 420p or 240p what's resoulation of ps1 take that way. PS2 bought 480p gaming but yeah on pc it was higher resolution.
@@Samrat-r15k I'm not talking about gaming on a CRT TV. You can change the resolution on a computer operating system, Microsoft Windows was capable of doing that even back then.
I have worked in games a long time and texture texture resolution is always a challenge due to memory. Normal texture sizes are often 2048x2048 but 4096x4096 are also used even though they are a bit less common. I try to author our textures in 8k to make them future proof but often do not submit them to the game because they take so much disk space. If you walk up to a wall you could even argue that the resolution needs to be higher than the screen resolution if you are close enough. I would say that most games do not have enough texture resolution to do 4K gaming justice
Back 20 years ago we got a high res texture pack for Unreal Tournament and it looked great, one of the tricks it looks like they used was applying a repeating fine texture across various surface types (wood grain, cement bumps, scratches or rust on steel), so almost every surface in the game was given fine texture, just not unique texture. I feel like that strategy would still provide most of the visual feedback people are looking for at high resolutions today while consuming minimal memory and without demanding assets be authored at extreme high resolutions.
I always install 4k/8k mods, TW3 4k+ in 3D looks absolutely stunning. No idea what century you are living that you run out of disk space, I only have 1 archive HDD, every other disk is Sata SSDs and M2 ssds and my conputer was build 9 years ago. Only gpu needed to get upgraded since then
@@alexanderschu6933 im talking as a developer. If the games take 50-100GB now and we double the resolution the size will be 4x higher which will of course put a larger strain on internet and say console storage.
@@andreasoberg2021 Ah ok you talk about consoles. As consoles arent even close to high end graphics like pc gaming I dont care much. I dislike fake high res upscaling and tearing too but most gamers dont have good eyes at all 😉
@@alexanderschu6933 Sadly the limitations of consoles limit the PC games a lot so rhey are almost always the target. I always fight to add extra quality features on PC
nicole hit the nail on the head. no 8k textures means you could run at any resolution you want and it would look the same. You need a game with that level of detail on the source side
Main problem is that no physical game can ship with 8K resolution graphics on disk as UHD Blu-ray support 4k resolutions at maximum. So until an actual disk format arrives for 8k textures that gets widespread support in the console world, the best you can do is 4k. Game devs are not going to have multiple versions of their game available for each console based on if you are a physical owner or digital owner, as that would really make the physical owners upset.
The only time I’ve noticed 8K looking better than 4K is in stuff like space scenes and heavy particle effects. 8K obviously allows for smaller individual particles, which combined with OLED can look truly incredible, but it’s a really rare occurrence that you’ll get enough 1px or 2px particles at once in a game or movie for it to matter.
8k up close is pointless it's for massive areas when large screens are needed. We'll be back on electron gun panels soon and the resolution won't go up for a while. 4k still isn't even the standard for streaming yet it's fake 4k for a start. They panel tech will got back to electron guns soon just watch were going back to the days of no buffers and just insanely fast response times. They already admit that's the plan if you are up to speed with the very latest panel tech. Even old CRT is back people love the look and the speed they feel great even when you play silly fast mouse settings on Brutal Doom etc they cope no problem. The 165hz monitors don't they can do the speed but they are taxed out doing it they get ghosting and blur and alsorts. Electron guns don't care they live at that speed.
You know back in the days my roommate wanted a 17" screen and in the shop they said it was rediculous (only if he was a cad designer). 16K will be about default I guess. The higher res the better it is possible to make things look real. And the higher the res the bigger the screen. The bigger the screen the better experience.Just love it.
Important note: those THX viewing distance guidelines are not applicable to gaming at all. In video games, a display can occupy your entire field of view and you won't have any problems... as long as the ingame FOV is adjustable.
Nicole was right, most games aren't developed or intended to be that high of res. It depends on the resolution of the materials applied to the walls, boxes, etc.
Nicole was right, most games aren’t developed or intended to be that high of res. It depends on the resolution of the materials applied to the walls, boxes, etc.
Nicole was right, most games aren’t developed or intended to be that high of res. It depends on the resolution of the materials applied to the walls, boxes, etc.
@@LaggyKar exactly. With Unreal Engine 5 Nanite technology where it dynamically tesselates geometry so that the polygons are about the size of a pixel it will make a difference. Not that I care, the real pertinent number isn't the resolution anyway but the the pixel density. I'm totally fine with gaming in 1440p on a small monitor.
As others have said, if the textures aren't natively 8k then you won't see more --in the textures--. The real difference is in the quality of the lines where they meet and how sharp or less stepped and aliased they are. Take a cube and turn it 45 degrees so the lines are angled and compare those between 4k and 8k and you should see a difference.
An 8k will resolve more pixels of any particular texture than a 4k tv except when the texture is at 100% coverage match (1:1 scaling). If you were to take two identically sized TVs, one 4k and the other 8k and a square texture of 1000x1000 texels the 8k would be able to render the texture fully pixel perfect at 1/4th the size of the 4k tv (ie: the 8k can show 1000pixels of horizontal solution in the same space that a 4k tv will only resolve 500 pixels) Ok course in practice there isn't usually a linear correlation due to the quirks of graphics rendering. The issue with 8k is that the current performance cost just doesn't justify the minor perceived image clarity. 8k (or rather 16k+) makes more sense for VR/AR displays.
100%. 8k at 32inch is around 275ppi (depending on aspect ratio). 4k at 32 inch is around 137 (which looks pretty crappy to me). Going from the display quality of a laptop to a monitor is almost always a huge downgrade. For me, there's a huge trade off for that screen size. I tried so many displays until just switching to apple with the studio display and wow. Monitor standards are low. For gaming, I realise it makes no difference and I imagine most people care about that here. I don't game so doing anything other than gaming on generally "amazing" monitors, sucks.
@@user-jy6ur8gb1c I hear ya. It is getting really good very fast. But so far, 8k isn't really needed. Can definitely wait on the graphics to catch up though and save a ton on an 8k monitor/tv. You know how much prices drop on things in just a couple years.
@@The1stDukeDroklar yeah true. It will also take some years for game developers to actually put new game engine feats and qualities into practice anyway. UE 5.1 is just out i think, so it'll take some time for developers to actually make products. Same thing happened with the release of the 64bit Audio studio software (like Apple's Logic Pro X) after those came out back in 2016 if memory serves me right. It took some 3 years or so before music producers began releasing songs of notably better quality.
Nicole brought up a really important point: game assets must be in 4k/8k in order for the resolution to actually work. Maybe you could test it in minecraft (with 4k/8k texture palcks), because this ensures you are using correct assets. Also you could test RTX (and hdr? don't know if minecraft supports this) this way
Yes, the geometry contours (specially the electricity wires as Linus pointed out) is seen crisper the higher the resolution is, but because the screen has more pixels to draw/raster it. Less chances for staircase. But the objects textures resolution is super key to not see pixelation. Of course, it depends on how the modeler distributed the textures and made the UV mapping, as if using 6k texture but for a full town, you might end up seeing very pixelated textures. The moment you approach the camera to something which texture (easy to see with text) gets to fill up (in that moment) in screen a bigger resolution in pixels that that texture itself has, you see pixelation (even if blurred and etc to minimize the effect), is very difficult to avoid, other than using large textures for everything. But there are many tricks with shaders, these days. So, yep, IMO a game must be having prepared a version for 8k, in the matter of assets, to actually appreciate if there's a difference "really" in 8k. In normal 3D rendering, of course there is, you get a ton detail more rendering a scene as an 8k render than a 4k one. But there are many factors in games. Counter Strike, if it's not a version or mod with very high res textures, wouldn't see a difference in 8k, for example.
Screen res and texture res are different things. Not many games have 4k textures. Just think about it, if your entire screen is in 4k, the asset would have to take up more than your screen to even see it pixelated. Anything smaller will not need 4k. How many times do you walk right up to a wall and think "this would look better in 8k"? Thats why 1k and sometimes 2k textures are enough. Many smaller assets wont even need 1k and large walls and floors etc have tiled textures. Also textures are already very demanding so keeping them as low as possible makes sense. This is also why 8k textures make no sense at all, not in minecraft or any other game.
@@Xirpzy Unreal Engine 5 with Quixel's Megascans in an open world and indoor environment is the true way you can appreciate the 8K experience. These games they've been playing on 8K is the wrong way to show off what 8K is truly about. It's like them trying to show how amazing an NES/SNES game looks on at 1080p resolution. They should've at least try 8K with "A Plague Tale: Requiem"
4k and 8k really only help with far off textures or new games that use textures that large but in VR 4k and 8k are super important even with an index or quest 2
as a dev i assure you we DO NOT make graphical assets at 8k, nor often do we even make them at 4k. The amount of compression, file size and file handling would just be a waste of time. You would end up with games being over 200GB's or higher and compression is already a massive issue within our games.
Time to bring back detail texturing. lol. But for real, if we switched to a model of using AI-generated detail textures, we could probably do a lot more for a bit less.
It depends on the content . IF for example you were building an open world game and you wanted mountains and tress to be super detailed to far away distances , and or a space simulator , and want the planets to look super detailed when traveling there. then in such cases there will be a noticeable major difference. between 4k and 8k.. it depends on what kind of game they doing or how far you want the textures quality to be.
@@UwePieper Kinda reminds me of when people complained about the textures in HL2 and other early Source titles. Like, are you playing a game or are you staring at a wall from 2 inches away? Jake had the right idea with the trees off in the distance.
@@sntslilhlpr6601 Well kind of. You need any modeled parts that has fine details and might show clipping or stairs. So diagonal edges are fine. The power lines Linus looked at were perfect. Trees in the distance could be textures, as well to save performance. Textures have a limited resolution and will look bad if you get too close. The mesh has an unlimited resolution. You might have simple objects but you can scale those up to infinity.
For streaming, most import important issue is for the streaming providers to actually use a decent enough bitrate to use 4k to its full pontential. When used with low bitrate, the image doesn't even look like 4k anymore, because the compression hides all the detail. Even professional grade raw camera codecs usually use some sort of compression.
I like that Nicole made a very good point, if a game wasnt designed for 8k, or even 4k, the assets may not even benefit from the higher res Imo a better benefit for a card like the 4090 really is atleast playing higher quality settings while still having head room
Which makes me wonder if games like Skyrim can benefit from it with 8K texture mods. Modding sadly is always overlooked when it comes to these performance reviews.
You should be able to notice the difference in geometry tho. If you can't tell the difference between 4k and 8k from the geometry, specially with aa off, you wouldn't be able to see any difference in texture either.
@@motokid6008 i think because ideally you'd want to measure just the base game, and tbh not every game has mods available, nor would every player want to mod their game, so it would probably affect proper testing
Something *very* important to me is filesize. 4k resolutions, especially in proper large games, will make the filesize skyrocket to the point of any bigger game from like 15 years ago suddenly being the size of a AAA from a couple years ago... And just looking a bit better. I really dont think 8k textures are going to be worth it at all.
You could not have picked a worse game to showcase 8k. Minecraft, and Skyrim both have 8k Texture Packs, while Star Citizen's Textures are native 16k Resolution.
The rubes really caught on to how important assets are to how useful 8K is. If you had assets that at a close range stood up to an 8K display you’d have a different experience. When the only thing benefiting are the edges of geometry there’s not going to be much going on. It’s basically just AA. I’d be very interested to see something like setting up CS with textures that utilize the 8k and see if folks can tell. Still going to be pretty limited but I’d be curious to see how much things would stand out at that point.
Yep. Then you have the problem of delivering 8K texture assets to customers. Games are already huuuuge, and even with compression reducing the effective scaling factor it's still a lot more data. They'd need a special sample game to really show off the difference, because the lower resolution versions of the assets have to be derived from the same high res source, and no game is shipping assets that high res. They should be able to find or commission a demo though.
One of my biggest gripes about games for the last 20 years has been muddy textures. The "4K era" has been a good step in the right direction be we have a LONG way to go before games actually look realistically detailed. The worst part about this video is "The Math" that Linus is using at 17:18 in the video is woefully out of date, 60PPD is nothing but a marketing ploy used at the time when it was a convenient crutch to convince people to upgrade from "SD" to "HD", by telling everyone "60PPD is the last upgrade you'll ever need". Everyone has always known 60PPD was wrong. 300 Pixels Per Degree is the limit of perceptual detail in "average human vision (look up "Visual Hyperacuity", all the companies using the 60PPD "Visual Acuity" are basing their conclusions on incomplete data). To reach 300PPD with a 55" 8K TV you need to be sitting nine feet away, which almost perfectly matches the viewing habits of the average american household.
You can have and enormous advantage when you see an enemy far away... In a 4k screen it will be like I dunno 40 pixel, in 8k 80... So the far details will be sharper, But if you need an 4090 for get ultra quality... Better get an 4060 and play 4k.
Totally agreed, Jake was definitely looking for the important parts with the actual distant tree geometry, and Nicole raised a very poignant part of your argument there.
@@budthecyborg4575 The limitation is filesize, textures can't be compressed because you can't make textures from nothing. The better the textures look, the fatter the game. 8K textures would definitely start pushing games into terabyte territory.
I noticed that people are trying to compare resolutions by getting close to textures, but as they noted the texture quality doesn't change when the screen resolution increases. The difference in texture quality could only be assessed from a distance, and even then the game engine might swap out for lower quality texture based on view distance.
Yeah people seem to pay more attention to texture resolution than image resolution, maybe vram is more important. Which nVidia is going the wrong direction on lol
@@sqlevolicious there is no better game. No devs in their right mind are delivering assets that can stand up to 8K. You’d have to mod a game to do that.
I feel like the staff at LTT should understand by now that screen resolution is not the same as texture resolution - doesn't matter how many K's are in your screen, zooming into flat textures isn't going to change, lol. At least Linus gets it, when he points out the power lines going diagonally across the screen.
Bingo, doesn’t matter how Many bazillions of pixels your GPU and Display can handle, if it’s not in the game to be displayed in the first place 🤷🏻♂️ haha.
this I why I don't understand why use game CSGO or doom for 8k comparison.. and they HAVE games with 4k and 8k texture packs. i just want see how these gpu handles Current games like Arkham knights or cyber punk at 8k
I'm glad you guys covered this topic. I've been telling friends this for years.. Using 65" screen size for example, you would need to be sitting LESS than 4' away in order to tell any difference between 4K and 8K resolution, which is substantially closer than a comfortable or recommended viewing distance. Even a 4K screen would be indistinguishable from 1080P if you are sitting more than 8 1/2 feet away.
maybe for movies, but live rendered content benefits from higher resolution much more, anyone saying 1080p and 4k doesn't yield a big difference is just in denial at this point, even at 1440p my games look disgusting compared to 4k, playing old games in 4k feels like theyve been remastered
I sit 1,2m from my curved 55" 4k TV I use as computer monitor, at that distance you can see the pixels in some games so you also have to use anti aliasing. But when watching a movie even that close I can not see the difference between 1080p and 4k, only in games the 4k give visual improvement.
@@a64738 At that distance with that screen size you're at about 54°, which is about 10° less than being able to see every single pixel on a 4K screen. To see 100% of the pixels at 4K would require moving up to be 0.975m away. Differences in movies being less apparent to you may be due to watching streaming content which is always going to be lower quality than full blu-ray quality. I believe you may notice the difference increase if you were to watch a blu-ray in 1080P and a UHD blu-ray of the same film back to back.
@@yesyes-om1po I'm just talking about math. Depending on how far away you view the screen from, it's going to take up a certain angle of your horizontal field of view. That angle scales linearly with screen size. If you sit far enough away, your eyes cannot resolve more than 1080P resolution no matter how large the screen is. The further back you move, the fewer pixels your eyes can differentiate between. If you watched a TV that was at the other end of a football stadium, you would not be able to differentiate between video on a modern 8K TV or one from the 1950s that had only displayed 440x330 pixels.
As he said in the video, this will help VR. I still don't know if VR will be great some day, but I'm willing to wait to see. Also if 8k is available it brings down prices for 4k and more good 4k content.
Nicole did have a great point, a lot of game devs are simply just not rendering everything in 8k making it look really just the same. Personally I would have possibly tried to see what native uncompressed 8k footage be 4k would have looked like with the upscaling (yes I completely understand that storage limitations would most likely be a thing when viewing 8k) but all in all a gpu pushing that many pixels on a native display is amazing considering I was still rocking a 570 for a long while before parting out my gaming rig when the cpu simply refused to post.
Yeah, past a certain resolution it becomes clear that the textures are crappy. That's always been the way. It's like taking an old DOS game intended to run at 320x240 and running it on a 1024x768 monitor. It'll either look like a postage stamp (windowed at 320x240) or hammered dog crap (full screen). LOL
A good use for 8k would be 4 player split screen. That was always my favorite way to play halo. Also, 8k is cool for photography because you can view photos close to their native resolution and get a better idea of print quality.
Honestly, screen size is much more important. Doesnt matter if everyone has a 4k „screen“ if its 20 inches. For that, better to just get a projector so everyone can have a decently sized screen
we all played 4 player split screen halo on xbox original on a 36" tube tv and we had a great time....4 people in the room banter snacks etc was way better......tossing 4 player killed gaming for everyone i know. the internet bandwidth capable wasnt good enough and even later with good internet it sucked by comparison..... they got greedy to sell consoles and games..instead they killed off a bunch of new gen buyers
You should have mentioned that most games doesn't have enough texture resolution to make a big difference. Higher texture resulotion is more important at this resolution. 4K/8K Edit: Apparently one of the employees mentioned this and I missed. My bad. Still, I think they should give this topic a seperate part of this video. And I hope Nvidia will develop an AI for upscaling game textures.
I think that the texture packs are not 8k optimized, or even 4k in most cases. It's up to the devs to implement 8k textures to take advantage of the resolution. Change in resolution wont impact textures if there's no texture details to add.
which we will probably never have because of three reasons: 1. It'd take expotentially more time to make detailed 8k textures for stuff that doesn't really need it. 2. These would be way too big in size, and no one is gonna download a 5TB game, at least not with today's technology. 3. It'd take more money for actual diminishing returns. So, I'd say we are about 10 years away from a true 8k gaming experience, if anyone is crazy enough to make all their textures 8k worth of detail on a game anyways
I rather not be forced to download 4K or 8K res textures if I'm not gonna use them. Games are ballooning to 100+ GB sizes already, no need for more forced bloat just because some folks really want nicer looking textures. My solution would be to release said texture packs as free DLCs, that way playees can choose to download if they want better looking textures in their games.
Changing resolution /will/ still impact textures if they aren't scaled up to 100% - so whenever you're further away from it, it still makes a difference.
I think that the ability to render games at resolutions like this is only going to be useful in VR, when your FOV is far larger than on a monitor or TV.
Past 2k there's serious diminishing returns regardless. You're really just looking to lessen jagged edges and if you have 2k and MSAA at 8x it's almost inperceptible from 4k native.
@@DixonErHands that depends on the size. I shutdown my cheap $270, 6 year old Sony TV 40inch because ppi too low at 1080p 60hz. I like the color and the size but for PC u need at least 120hz and 4k at 40 inch. Monitors colors suck, especially if it's ips glow, backlight bleed.
@@DixonErHands Apart from MSAA not being a thing anymore with deferred rendering 1440p with MSAA 8x would also perform a lot worse than native 4k. Also it's all about pixel density and distance. My 4k 42" TV on my desk really doesn't look that great when it comes to resolution. With older games that still had decent image quality I might agree that 1440p would be enough for most scenarios as long as you're not exceeding 24", but thanks to modern games relying so much on temporal techniques that cause terrible image quality issues you want the resolution to be as high as possible. 4k nowadays generally looks worse than 1440p did 10 years ago at the same monitor size.
This is a very good point. The difference between 8K and 4K is a difference of diminishing returns. But that also means, that games can now be more demanding without having to take 8K into account.
Something else to consider - are these games simply upsampling 4k textures to 8k resolution? That means you don't have 8k density natively. The game would need to actually have 8k textures, to see the real uplift, of 8k resolution. Like when you upsample 1080 to 4k it looks terrible, compared to games with true 4k textures.
Notice how Linus is gaming on a television? That's because there are a total of 2 monitors on the market that do 8K. They both came out in 2017, both are Dell, one is 32 inches, and the other is 31.5 inches. They are both $4000 right now on pc part picker. The smallest available 8K television is 65 inches on up to 85 inches. Putting one of those on a desk and gaming on it would probably cause neck injury because the center of the screen would be higher than ergonomically natural. EDIT: Oh I forgot to mention, for those unaware... 8K is stuck at 60Hz for both monitors and TVs.
@@kennylaysh2776 You have discovered the necessary purpose of DirectStorage. Microsoft said they will release DirectStorage version 1.1 by the end of this year, it offers some critical features and improved features that have been missing since then. Most everyone is unaware that DirectStorage also supports RAM-to-VRAM decompression. RAM is faster than even a 15.7GB/s PCIe 5.0 x4 interface. Even slow DDR4 2400 delivers 17.88GB/s. PC games can store critical nearby compressed assets in RAM then the GPU uses hardware accelerated decompression to directly decompress and copy to VRAM, all without loading the CPU. I suppose the CPU will instead be used to handle non-essential nearby eye candy like signs on walls and stuff like that???
But in coming years, there will be monitors using glasses free 3D technology that optically combines a mosaic of many slightly different camera angles into a 3D image. The 'Looking Glass' monitor is pretty mind blowing. (It's real, look it up) That kind of tech is a pathway to practical use of 8k, 16k, 32k or even higher. I hope that company stays in business, I'll love to see what they will have in 10 years. Or that other companies use a similar optical technology. But as a plain 2D display, 8k is only useful in really big sizes.
I think 8K is definitely a stretch but VR performance would be worth evaluating. There are a lot of heavy VR games you should be trying on these new flagship cards.
I don’t play a lot of different VR games, but I haven’t been able to get gigantic uplifts in resolution from a 3090 to a 4090 like I had hoped going from a 1080Ti, to a 2080 Ti, to a 3090, and now a 4090. There seems to be an issue with the game engines that doesn’t scale very well at ultra high resolutions. But to be fair, I’ve only tested 3 games so far. Well, on my 4090 I mean. Fallout 4 has typically been the game I keep hoping, this next card should get me to 300% resolution scaling, but I went from 180% to 220-230%. It’s something, but I was hoping for at least 250%. Each generation gets me just a tiny bump it seems instead of that huge leap I keep hoping for.
@@braisedtoast9002 except for the part where it actually is a vr game and a damn good one at that. with a relatively cheap stick setup might be the closest to a real simulator or even flying an actual aircraft most people will ever get
This is honestly crazy, I can’t imagine aiming for 8K. It seems like such a ridiculous waste of power, even if you’re sat right next to it it must be really hard to tell. But it’s also really impressive, I’ve pushed my RTX 2080 SUPER to the limit rendering some of my favourite oldish games at 8K, more so just for the fun of it than for any actual benefit, since my monitor is only 1080p and 8x supersampling is massively overkill. Seeing modern games playable at 60hz in native 8K while maxed out is really mindblowing, despite how unnecessary it is. I can’t see a difference, but just knowing it’s possible is a surprise.
Next time if you're wondering why a teammate on your team is staring at the walls and trees the entire time, you know they're testing out their 8K display.
I feel like the comments as well as the people in the video are all talking about textures as viewed up close, when even at 1920x1080 the textures would be a bottleneck. The only way to tell a difference between 4k and 8k would be by looking at *distant* textures and objects.
Mathematically it makes sense just like you concluded. If you get a monitor large enough to see 8K worth of pixels, you have to sit far enough back that that you can't see the difference. 8K for distribution only makes sense on signage in a mall where you might be standing 2 feet from the screen.
@@niceone1456 - People did not say the same thing about 4K. The understanding of the human eye is still basically the same as it was when 4K was released. There may have been people saying 4K on a 40" screen in the living room couldn't be perceived, but that isn't the same as saying 8K can't be perceived within the ideal field of view. If we change how TVs are used I could see a wall-to-wall sized screen at 32K even, if it was decoupled from the source material. Being able to draw out multiple "TVs" on the wall for different content while having changeable background wallpaper that blended with the house lighting, or stock tickers near the ceiling, or anything else in the background could be pretty interesting.
@@niceone1456 they did but not for computers- entire research projects were done by the broadcast industry where for instance the BBC determined that broadcasting in 4K would not make any sense financially as it would only benefit a very, very small number of their viewers even in a best case scenario due to where people normally put their TVs relative to where they sit- this is not true for PC gaming in 4K if you like sitting close to a very large screen. However 8K is 4x as many pixels as 4K, so it becomes much more difficult to find a use case for it as the mathematics and capabilities of the human eye just don’t lend themselves to making 8K have a purpose, even if you’re sitting near a big screen- you simply won’t be able to see the difference versus 4K unless you stick your face against the glass. The extra cost, performance loss etc for no upside makes the whole thing a fool’s errand. For most people’s desks with a typically sized monitor 1440P is enough to not be able to see the pixels at all. To put it in context most feature films until very recently were screened at 2K in cinemas until very recently and almost no content is actually edited or mastered in 8K (even 8K releases are upscaled from 2K or 4K normally) as all the data suggests it’s mostly pointless.
What are your thoughts on cinema/movie theatre screens? I could imagine something with a big enough screen like an IMAX there might be a perceivable difference. That and *maybe* simulators for training are the only actual use cases I can think of.
@@joshuatk59 - Flight sims might be one good use scenario. For movies though, the field of view is the biggest issue. If you get close enough for a screen to fill a lot more than about 50 degrees it gets fatiguing to watch because you can't take in the whole scene at once and you have to turn your head to see something happening on one edge of the screen or another. So no matter how big a screen gets you have to sit a certain distance away for it to be comfortable. That happens to be a distance where most people can't make out the 8K of detail. There are certain scenarios where you might want to fill out more of their field of view, but most movies are not framed that way. Movies almost always frame the image for a small screen with close ups that make someone's head fill the entire frame. That kind of close up doesn't work on a screen that extends into or beyond your peripheral vision. 8K cameras will likely be an important thing because acquiring 8K video gives more flexibility in editing, but distributing 8K is an issue of extremely diminishing returns. Unless you are in a scenario where people are standing right next to the screen or a special video designed to create nausea like those 180 or 360 videos at Disney world, then 8K doesn't make much sense. The 1% of people with 20/10 vision, who can also afford a very large screen, might love it though.
1440p upgrades will be the sweet spot for most 1080 gamers-it give the biggest boost in visuals upgrade/vfm.Still good to see the best kit being pushed to its limits-what linus does.
8k and higher makes only sense in VR but there it absolutely makes sense to achieve a wider fov and a higher pixel density, but there you theoretically can combine it with foveated rendering to reduce gpu load
I have an asus 4k hdr 144hz gsync and asus 2k top of the line too side by side , and I can 100% say that with my 3080 I will always and forever run 4k. It looks absolutely better. If you have the monitor and can push the frames absolutely do it. 2k looks half as good especially if you don't have hdr.
@@WCGwkf yeah..... you can't run 4k with an rtx3080. It can barely do 1440p and it still has big fps drops in a lot of games. Even red dead redemption 2 will only run 50-80fps at 1440p. Nowhere near 144fps like you claim.
@@kenshinhimura9387 that cant be true. I got a RX 6700XT, which is considerably weaker than the 3080 and there isnt a game where I would go below 100fps on 1440p
Agreed, because I've always felt: new technology allows for new content and VR just hasn't been great yet and so I sill have some hope for it. Not the whole Meta-thing, but let's see how far it can be pushed.
@@MadWatcher I would love to see those numbers, as I just upgraded from an I7-3960x (2nd gen) to a I9-10850k and I don't see that huge of a difference with my 1080TI, would be interesting to see some of the different configurations for VR to get the best price to performance ratio.
the audio depth beyond 16 bit and 10 bit video are huge improvements for me . any further improvement and its only provable by people with perfect vision or math.
8K is going to be a meme for at least a decade or 2. Our eyes aren't good enough to see details that fine grained, even if they exist. You need 20/20 vision and to be sitting much closer to the display than is healthy to notice a difference. At that point, you are not experiencing the medium (TV/gaming), you are viewing digital panoramas at the Smithsonian.
@@brandongroth4569 what if the experiences were tailored to it though? Like it doesn't make sense to just cram more pixels into the same TV or monitor sized screen. Nor does it make sense to just stretch regular 1080 or 4k content onto a giant screen. But if you had content that actually used that screenspace and extra pixels for something it could be cool. Think imax theater in your living room or something...
Nicole made a good point, the quality of game assets should be taken into consideration as a bottleneck, those bullets in Halo: Infinite show this perfectly; you can add as many Ks as you want into a setup but if your feeding it Xbox era assets regardless if it's 1080, 4 or 8K you're going to get an Xbox era view of those models.
yep! though that doesn't necessarily have to always be true. what if you use procedural generation your assets? [also, vector graphics where applicable] and the more powerful the hardware becomes combined with the more research [AND DISCLOSURE] of algos, the more likely this will happen and possibly become mainstream. there's already isolated examples that do this well. and if you look past your biases and do some actual research/exploration, there's a few decades of history in adobe flash where vector graphics were used quite effectively. the problem with low-quality content was *not* the technology. it was creative effort, and to some degree, bottlenecks no longer present in modern hardware. and "performance!" is a myth, you're a fool if you think modern graphics pipelines are lighter than vector rasterization/triangulation. [especially an optimized one, i hear ruffle's rendering is actually faster than flash] all that said, firmly with linus and his employees' conclusions here. if i were to get an 8K display, it would be to gain screen real estate, not screen resolution. what more pixels is actually *good* for is putting more application windows on the screen.
@@ETXAlienRobot201 AI generated assets would be a good idea, but would rely on developers implementing it and limiting where it applies. There is no silver bullet in using algorithms to improve assets, imagine if in 2001: a space odyssey, the monolith had rounded corners or texture because the AI decided that it was a low quality asset that needed "fine tuning", AI isn't in a place in a place right now (that I'm aware of) that it can recognize the subtle value certain objects have, and having AI blanket solve everything is going to bring it's own problems.
@@festro1000 i said procedural, not AI. also why i mentioned vector graphics because instead of using a fixed number of points to represent a curve, you have an actual curve from which you extrapolate the needed points at run time. even without curves, however, you can generate a lot of different types of geometry. for most/all of this process, you'd still need human-made assets. AI has a long time before being viable [and even then, raises questions], but decent chunks of what i suggest is already implemented in the actual programs used to generate those art assets. to some degree, it's explored by actual games, but typically just the re-arrangement of existing assets instead of creating whole new ones. the main issue here is this requires a lot more processor power and RAM. i imagine the GPU could make quick work of this with compute shaders. and you can still cache results so this would be feasible even on the CPU. there's always the option of caching to permanent storage instead of RAM, too. this does mitigate some of the advantages of my proposal, however. and i'm obviously not denying the complexity of implementing this.
@@ETXAlienRobot201 Procedural or AI either way your going to have to get devs onboard and still have the issue of assets being modified (by whatever path they decide to go along with) when they shouldn't be, the Monolith being an example, so there is also going to need to be a way to exclude certain assets when it comes to asset generation or post processing.
@@festro1000 if someone wants to mess with the files, they will. it is primarily publishers/suits who care, not developers. now, in the case of say, wall hacks, you do this during the render phase "this wall is transparent and it shouldn't be". even if the final results are generated, there would be files defining how to generate them, being smaller, they're actually easier to hide/protect. though honestly, there are much better things to use developer resources and computational resources on. regardless of their motivations, hackers WILL break through just about anything you set-up. normal/"legit" end users will however suffer the consequences of those systems. i emphasized the open sharing of research, and what would not surprise me is if several required components for this are under some stupid patent. especially since my country still has enough brain rot to allow software patents to exist. if not patented, they're being withheld/controlled by other means. anyways, i don't see much more point debating this. right now it's merely a concept/dream. i just laid-out a hypothetical scenario. i personally don't obsess over models and/or textures needing to be HD, either. i'd as much like to see this tech being used to create low poly models with low-res textures as creating something with as much detail as the hardware of a given generation is capable of handling. this, i actually expect to prove challenging. the tech might itself work, but will the output look presentable? in the most extreme case, let's not generate *any* extra points for that curve. a flat circle degrades nicely, but what about a character's face?
I would love a double-blind test with two 8k monitors (that Dell UltraSharp, perhaps?) and a series of tests that could show if people can actually tell the difference. Might need a few other resolutions in there also.
@@budthecyborg4575 isn't 16k the limit of perception (as in the sharpest an image can be before the difference is physically zero)? and even then, peripheral vision isn't anywhere close to that, I'd wager eye-tracked foveated rendering with dlss set to 16k might be able to run on something less powerful than the 40 series
@@budthecyborg4575 Nah, you can even get a reasonably sharp image with a VERY GOOD 1080p headset (rare). Get yourself a GOOD 2k or 4k per eye one and you'll be golden
@@AMan-xz7tx the difference won't be physically zero, nor is resolution the only measure that is important. The other measure that is important is bitrate (See the bitrate video from LTT/Techquickie for explanation) and the screen size compared to the resolution. I would argue 16k isn't close to the human limit holding all else equal. With huge improvements on bitrate and DPI there still is a lot of room to go. I have a couple 2k monitors that look like dog^^^^ compared to a 1080p monitor I have with a smaller screen size. The problem is the 1080p monitor size is worse and its hard to see details that would matter. Anything you are processing also would need to be made to run at the higher detail levels or else you aren't going to notice the difference. Another HAI video ("Why It Takes Pixar 3 Years To Render A Movie" ) which was interesting showed rendering scenes in movies with massive levels of additional detail creating a huge effect as well.
As Nicole said, it's the textures. Eventually, textures will probably reach that point, but for right now(just like with 4K), it isn't practical. Within the next 10 years, you'll probably see 8K become a bigger thing, at least with gaming.
CSGO came out 10 years ago, I don't know why they used that game as an example. A single player game with a lots of small details that cause shimmer at low resolutions would have been so much better for testing.
@@LutraLovegood The best way to see the difference is too look at thin models like antennas of cars. Those become solid on higher resolutions. It's especially apparent on Battlefield games.
@@LutraLovegood That's a red herring. The recommended sitting distance from a TV screen means you aint gonna see the difference between 4 and 8k gaming.
It's not just the textures. You can run 16K textures on a 2k display and have it appear sharper the more you zoom in. But the details and outlines of objects is what makes it count, and I don't see 8K doing it below a screen size of what? 160 inches? The problem with the difference between 4K and 8K isn't the detail per se, it's that 4K was crammed into a display size standard, that wasn't worth it from the beginning. 4K below 30 inches for example, is more than wasted performance. 4K below 40 inches, is still wasted performance. At around 50 inches is where you start getting more value opposed to 2K, but increasing the 4K pixel density AGAIN by 4x at monitor sizes that haven't increased much in the last 7-8 years, at all, is an absolute waste.
Strangely enough, there is a case for 8k but it isn’t for tv or film viewing at all, it’s for displays like when displaying impressive images in your room or for your pc display, in these scenarios the wider FOV will allow the advantages of 8k to be noticeable and impressive, for watching films and TV it’s a waste time because you would need to be sat uncomfortably close to the screen in order to appreciate the additional detail that 8k can offer. Assuming that graphics processing power isn’t an issue (and in the decade of writing this it is) there are some games that would benefit from 8k but they almost certainly wouldn’t be fast action competitive games.
I love how you can tell what members of the staff are more experience in actual video graphics analysis, and wich ones have their expertise in other subjects. The guys I was expecting to notice right away. Right away they did hahaha
I love how Doom is literally the test for hardware as small as a screened pregnancy test and ESP's all the way to the highest end hardware leading the industry.
The pregnancy test thing wasn't real in that he used no part of the pregnancy test other than the plastic shell. He put in his own lcd screen and computer.
@@Greenleaf_ Ahh, but that was only after he actually tried on the pregnancy test hardware. It failed the test obviously. ;) hehe. No Doom Marine + Isabelle Babies thankfully.
@@nathantron The pregnancy test had one of those screens where it just lights up certain predetermined shapes like mr game and watch so it was never viable as a screen at all.
We are definitely beginning to see the law of diminishing returns here. Back in the day, going from 480p to 720p was amazing, 720p to 1080p was also amazing, 1080p to 1440p was great, but I believe that's where the law of diminishing returns began. Then, 1440p to 2160p was also an amazing upgrade, but you would only notice it when gaming or watching a movie on a big screen. 8k is great and all, but I think 8k is not going to be worth it for the average user. For cinemas however, I could see 8k being much more useful in that kind of setting. You guys do bring up a good point when it comes to 8k and VR, but we definitely won't have headsets capable of 8k anytime soon and when we do, you will probably need to sell a kidney to afford it lol.
4k is good on a 27" monitor, as long as u sit close. While going to 4k is a good upgrade, it's not worth it. The extra detail will wow u at 1st but u get use to it, then it's like it never was lol. Only went 4k cus I got 7900xtx, typically get 100fps most games
@@agentnukaz1715 That's why I say 4k really shines on a big screen. It all comes down to DPI, which I think is hard to tell the difference between 1440p and 4k if you use a monitor under 30". Like you said, you gotta sit close to see the difference. I think that's just because the DPI is already amazing in 1440p. Getting to see such amazing DPI on a large TV like my 65" Sony 4k TV? Now that's a priceless way to experience 4k imo. I never knew Cyberpunk or Rise of the Tomb Raider could look so good!
8K would be nice in VR. It makes a big difference when your eye is against the screen. Also, as an artist, 8K would be nice. Having a reference image as large and clear as possible is paramount.
Surprised Linus didn't go into the implications of 8k for VR. I know there's probably not any headset out there that can really take advantage of this yet, but I think if 8k has any practical benefit, it'd be with VR.
@@user-wq9mw2xz3j we dont need better headsets, we need better games. everyone, especially meta, seem to be too focused on hardware and not enough on games
Check out the holographic displays from Looking Glass. With mosaic tiled many cameras optically combined into one image, this type of technology will necessitate pixel densities well beyond human capability to see. It makes anything above 4K useful, IF it has the optical layers for glasses free 3D. This type of technology is still in it's infancy, and I don't know what kinds of patents Looking Glass holds, but it is a glimpse into what we could be expecting in 10-15 years. Kind of the middle ground between VR and normal displays, a virtual window. One company is doing it, I hope the tech goes somewhere.
if u get a 48inch or 43inch 4k tv ull notice how clear it is then a 1080p 32inch trust me the 1080p looks so last gen and cant go back to 1080p anymore lmao its just too blurry im stuck on 4k60fps gaming ever since i got my 4k 43inch tv and love it just pure clearness and smoothness after switching from 1080p to 4k for gaming on my ps5 and was worth it
1080p is still perfectly fine, I would much rather go with 1080p/1440p at 144hz than 4k at 60. You can't really see the sharpness with a 24-27 inch PC monitor anyway if you don't sit inches away from your screen
I'm on an rx580. Sometimes I watch youtube in 1440p60 and break out the box fan. Edit: to be fair I have a 144hz 1080p monitor and I usually tweak to keep it above 100. MW2 runs at about 80 (fps *and* C, lol) on recommended and I've been more interested in playing than tweaking because of reasons, but the box fan thing isn't necessarily entirely a joke 😒
The jump from 1080 to 1440 was pretty noticeable for me, but 4k feels like diminishing returns. I'd rather have the increased framerate and extra features at 1440 while being able to stay behind a few generations for a "reasonable" price.
I game on a 2k monitor it wasn't a bad price for the monitor. It's an Viotek flat panel with 2k resolution. My brother games on a 4k TV he had the TV before building his PC. Games like ETS or ATS I get around 90 FPS and 70FPS in areas with allot of buildings and traffic. I use a Nvidia RTX 2060 Super.
What fate a Slugcat. Prey and predator. As the old world died, a new ecosystem evolved. In a land where even rain can kill. Each creature struggles for its own survival. Each beast has a place on the food chain, which it seeks to deny, and through this ruined landscape strange monstrosities and mysteries, Slugcat journeys along. As a search for shelter. A search for answers. A search for hope. What fate a Slugcat.
@@tidelwaver1 Good point. I was curious so I had to check and according to the most recent steam hardware survey the most popular resolution is still 1080p by a large margin >66% followed by 1440p at like 11% so maybe there is no future except 1080p lol?
@@ryanholm3480 Most of the world is very poor and does not have access to displays that have a resolution beyond 1080p. What we should look at are these metrics coming from first world countries where I bet 1440p and 4k gaming have the marketshare over 1080p.
One thing I've noticed while learning Chinese is that 4k is SUPER beneficial, since many Chinese characters have intricate details/strokes that aren't as visible at 1080 (though it's less an issue with simplified than traditional characters). I wonder if there's any further benefit to 8k for Chinese, especially on things like public information boards (e.g. a bus or train timetable which will have a lot of information on a digital board)?
no, people don't actually need to see strokes clearly to make out characters, the general shape is really enough. we know this because ppl have no trouble reading fonts that are super bolded and lose a ton of definition or very fonts.
EXACTLY! While it's true that more than 4k resolution for gaming just doesn't make much sense for normal monitors because of the distance, it makes a LOT more sense for future high end vr tech where you could easily make use of 8k per eye (or even more) at even higher refresh rates than you would need for smooth monitor gaming, since your basically trying to simulate real life! If you just wanna game on a monitor tho never go above 4k.
To be completely honest, i cant tell 4k and 1440p apart most of the time. Theres no way id be able to see the difference of 4k+ on a screen size i actually would want to use. I cant really see the difference between 90 and 144fps either, so i will continue gaming on 1440p 144hz for the time being. VR as you said it definitely makes sense to go way higher, even the best VR displays out right now have a lot of weird visual issues caused by resolution, and its not exactly as simple as "make a higher res screen nerds" lol
I am glad that VR was at least mentioned. I spend a large amount of time in VR and while my Index is only 1440×1600 per eye these new high end GPU's are almost a must have. I currently run a EVGA 3090 ti FTW3 and only get 40 to 65 FPS in game, and even less when streaming. Seeing the IRL jump in performance of the 4090 over the 3090/3090 ti is making me seriously consider upgrading to a 4090 far sooner than I had expected to.
@@Ernismeister that would be the one. Some of the Private Clubs and rave instances can be down right brutal. My 3090 is working hard to keep up, I am quite often running very low on Vram even with 24GB. I was kind of hoping that the 4090 would have more, 48 GB would be nice.
@@iamthelain VRChat is a dumpster fire since its user created content. Very Poor avatars can often exceed 300mb of vram. I'd love to see vr with a 4000 series card especially since my 3000 series laptop just recently melted :(
I remember the day I swapped my 1080p display with a 4K display. I was playing through Assassin’s Creed Odyssey at the time. I changed resolution, loaded into my world, and just started at the screen for five minutes. I was fully prepared to be disappointed. I expected it to MAYBE look a BIT better. But it was a MASSIVE improvement. So much more detail on every inch of the screen. That’s been about three years ago now, and at no point have I looked at that display and thought that I needed more pixels. Next purchase will be a 4K 144hz display. Having seen high refresh rate displays in person, going back to 60 is hard. But I don’t need more resolution right now.
The jump from 4K to 8K is not as dramatic but it's sill a big step. Look up "Visual Hyperacuity", 300 Pixels Per Degree is the limit of perceptual detail in average human vision, and to reach 300PPD with a 55" 8K TV you need to be sitting nine feet away, which almost perfectly matches the viewing habits of the average american household.
HDR would be a great improvement for computer monitors, but the HDR implementation in Windows kind of sucks and HDR in monitors is stupid expensive if you want equivalent HDR performance to a mid-tier 4K TV.
I think we'll see some 1440p like resolution between 4K and 8K that will make sense for human vision and gaming performance standpoint, but for now I'm just glad we are getting high framerates at 4K.
8K becomes the intermediate when you're using Nvidia DLSS, set to "Quality" the rendered resolution will be 5K, but you're still getting near "Native 8K" sharpness. With the capabilities of modern upscaling you will always benefit most from upscaling to the highest possible resolution.
This is best for VR really, where the view has to cover your entire FOV. Either way I hate how every single player tried zooming in to see if they could tell the difference, which is the exact opposite of how to measure it. What they needed to do was have the details as a far away from the view as possible to see the detail differences. The trees were a good example as they were distant objects with obvious details.
Indeed, 8k and 4k on upclose objects yields little difference I'd imagine, but that is not what we want 8k for, we want 8k to be able to see somebody in a building, 100s of feet away. Imagine how cool it'd be to be able to see something happening in high detail insanely far away without having to zoom in.
The only way to actually test it would be in Skyrim with 8k vs 4k texture packs and even then that's not a consistent way to measure it imo. There just are no games that come standard with 8k textures in mind or even 4k for that matter. So anything standard will never be noticeable.
@@tbuk8350 they aren't 12k, they're 6k. massive difference, its just a marketing sham by I am assuming pimax you are talking about, their "8kx" is also just two 4k screens.
I was gonna say, this kind of power makes sense for VR, flatscreen gaming & entertainment imo no real reason to ever go above 4k. Its different for some wide FOV VR where you want stable 90+ fps and higher than 4k per eye. Not to mention HDR and color depth which means more data per pixel.
This is what ive always thought, 4k would be the best before diminishing returns and so as what i felt with 240hz. I think the best monitor would be 32in 4K 240hz 1000 nits HDR.
Are you even able to discern pixels at a 32 inch 4K vs say a 1440p? I have a 4K 55 inch LG OLED and I have to press my eyes to the screen to see any pixels
@@XGARBAGExBO2 with Borderlands 3 at 4k there's a pole in the background at a startup menu. I can see some stairstepping effect on the edge. My glasses are 5yrs old. I'm Overdue for a new pair. In most cases though, I don't see the pixels.
32", that's tiny for todays gaming. Anything over 60fps is a waste of time unless your into fast shooter fps games. I run my games in 4k on my 70" UHD tv at 60Hz / 60 fps without any problems, I prefer it over my 48" ultrawide screen @ 120Hz / 120fps.
@@AL-lh2ht yes, but its not necessarily for the reason you might think, its for motion blurr reduction. The draw and hold nature of an LCD or OLED means every frame remains on screen for the length of the frame before being replaced, this means it is exposing your eye that entire time. For an object moving on screen, your eye is moving accross the screen trying to move to where the object will be but its being exposed by the static image. The result is the object appears to blur, just like any static object does as your eyes move in real life. But in real life moving objects you are tracking don't blur. This is why LCDs, OLED, Film projectors, etc. Appear blurry but a CRT does not. Why does the CRT not? Because the CRT is actually black the majority of the time spent on each frame, every fame the image is drawn on line by line and only a few pixels are lit, the rest are black. This makes your eye exposed to each static frame for a very short period of time which largely negates the motion blur. To get a similar amount of fluidity on an OLED you would need a very very high refresh rate, limiting the time each static image is on screen and thus the relative distance the static image moves relative to your eye. Is a huge difference for normal use? No. Can you tell, yes.
thanks for telling me not to use 8K linus. idk what i would do without you. just returned my $7000 8k tv for a smaller 720p screen 👍you're a lifesaver man
I already felt this way since I started using 4K monitors back in 2016---4K should be the max res for monitors unless you have a special use case for higher res ones. For big screen TVs, 8K is more acceptable. But for PC monitors, going higher than 4K is just kind of stupid. Even on this demo using a big screen 8K TV, Linus himself said the difference in 4K & 8K is hardly noticeable.
I think it's funny you posted this video today because I was just thinking this morning, as I stood much closer to my 4k tv than usual, that there's no point to 8k since you'd never going to sit close enough to even a HUGE screen to notice.
i sit an arms length away from my 55" 1080p tv and i'm totally fine. there's also a 4k tv here -same size. but the expensive piece of shxt has tons of display flaws like a big fat vertical black line spanning the entire thing. so the ultra cheap 1080p tv wins and all those amounts of K can go screw themselves. same as all those gamepads that are made to drift. the further they drive their planned obsolescence, the less i even wanna have any of that trash. keep your garbage i'm entirely fed up by now... everything is made to be trash so you can buy more trash.
after flight simming on a 50 inch at 4k, I actually would say there is a use case for 8k on very large gaming pannels. I can actually start noticing pixels on my large pannel at 4k. edit : after watching the end and finding out you have to be close to see the pixels. that makes sense because I play under 30 inches to get as much FOV as possible
@@xpodx As mentioned in the video, you'd have to be fairly close to your screen to even perceive the difference between 4k and 8k, much less 10k. At 27", your eyes would have to be ~20 inches from the screen or closer, even with 20/20 vision. RTINGS has a helpful article that includes a relevant chart based on angular resolution. 5k is the highest resolution you'd need for any reason at 27".
could actually be great for flight sims since youre looking at tiny things that are miles away. good luck running more than 20 fps in dcs with that though
I'm excited for 8k at reasonable prices, but that's because I like using 3 monitors and having 3 4k monitors sounds pretty great. Also, it means we are close to the point where TVs and monitors aren't going to have much room to improve anymore without some huge change in how we consume visual media, which means they'll just get cheaper.
I did the same when Cyperpunk was releases, I played it with the 3090 at 4k first, changed it to WQHD on a 32“ Monitor and couldn‘t tell a difference. I had 20-30 FPS more and enjoyed it the same way. You really don‘t need so much resolution most of the time.
I know the screen was big but because they're sitting pretty far away I can see why they didn't notice a difference, two people in the video pointed out they're too far to tell and they're correct. I've played on an 8k screen before around monitor distance and I absolutely could tell it was clearer than 4k but I didn't have to go back far before suddenly the benefit (limitations of the human eye) made it so they looked the same.
Another thing Vincent on HDTV test pointed out was that 8K monitors don’t emit as much light due to the smaller pixels so the overall image quality won’t be as strong when outputting HDR compared to 4K. I think 4K with some good HDR is absolutely the sweet spot now and there’s an argument for making ‘better pixels’ rather than just ‘more pixels’
at this point, it's much better to just go for higher refresh rates for having a more smooth game as well as have that slight advantage of a few miliseconds, also less pixels to render will mean more fps anyways, it always feels nicer to have 100fps rather than 60 and makes some difference, 8k doesn't really do much
That absolutely depends on the use case. 100 fps is a complete waste when running campaing games and I'd take the extra details over any perceived "fluidness" at those fps levels
@Mr.Sitallewal GAMING PS5 that's your own personal opinion, not a fact. There's nothing that says more fps is better when you hit a certain point (~60 fps). Very few ppl will notice any difference
It mainly comes down to the details of the textures of the assets and different surfaces/meshes that have been designed in the game. If they are non-existent for the certain, specific resolution that you have selected, then it is pointless to compare against different resolutions and say that they are all the same because they ARE actually the same. The reason that 4K looks just the same as 8K here, is just because the texture packs are only there for up to 4K, and no more beyond that. Something very similar happens with the "upscaling" of lossy audio files, where, even if you were to resample and increase the bitrate, you wouldn't get any increase in audio quality because there is only what was there from the start to begin with. It is isn't magic. You can't simply create stuff out of nothing - all the upscaling does is to increase the file size with no difference in sound quality.
The bandwidth 8k would take up and graphics and hard drive requirements to play a game would be stupid. I understand if a dev wants to add option to play at 8k but NATIVE 8K is stupid
I mean I watch youtube videos in 720p sometimes.. just because I want to safe bandwidth, but I liked the explanation of Nicole. 8K would maybe make sense if you had a game that was really build for 8K. Additionally 3kliksphilip did a great video on rendering games in 4K and playing it on 1080p screen, maybe playing 8k on 4k screen would be nice.
The idea of Supersampling touches on a different subject from this video. "Aliasing" is actually always going to be visible no matter what your resolution because of the nature of 3D rendering. A light source in real life emits energy equally in all directions and no matter what your position is relative to the light source you will always be able to see it (as long as more than a few photos reach your eye), but in games pixels are sampled at exact points and your ability to see an object is dependent on a pixel sample point actually hitting that object, it's possible for entire objects to fit inbetween sample points and not show up on screen at all, thus Aliasing always looks really bad even when rendering at Native 8K because there will always be some details popping in and out of existence. DLSS does a lot to fix these issues (filling in gaps in the image with assumed knowledge of object positions), but eventually it still breaks down, so in extreme scenarios even at 8K you're going to want Supersampling, problem is that gets stupidly expensive. The best way around this is Variable Rate Shading, modern game engines have the ability to change resolution per-object and an easy example where this would make a huge difference would be using a supersampled rendering zone over the crosshairs in shooters, and the body outline of enemy characters should also be supersampled to make sure the player silhouette isn't never masked or entirely hidden with aliasing.
These resolutions are not worth it for your average gamer. The higher you keep going from 1080p, 2k, 4k and 8k gaming, the further away you have to keep getting from the monitor because the screens get larger. So unless you're planning to play with a controller and with your friends over at your place often, it's not worth it if gaming home alone. Otherwise, just get a pc for gaming solo and an xbox or ps to play together with friends when they come over on your 4k or 8k tv 🤷♂️ personally I think 2k (1440p) gaming is a sweet spot 👌 you can get 2k gaming comfortably on a 27" monitor at your desk still and looks GREAT! 4k really needs 32" monitor, but that's a bit too big of a monitor for my liking for solo gaming at your desk.
watching the 8k bluescreen struggling to slowly render-scan in at 5:50 was my favourite part
8k half-life soon?
Now that you pointed it out, same
I guess the CPU was like: WTF was that? It couldn't have been the 4090, so it must be CPU trying to come up with a 8K bluescreen
8k asmongold impersonation soon?
EU will ban 8K TVs by March 2023 due to high power consumption. Let's hope power hog gpus is next on the list.
Me with a 1080p monitor and an integrated graphics: Okay, I won't.
rip
Get a job then Indian it's not that expensive to afford if you work hard for it
Me with a 5 year old laptop 😶
But 1080p is still good
@@pessiescobar4707 🤓
As a 1080p user i can't even imagine how the 16 times resolution of my screen would look like
you wouldn't be able to tell unless you put your eyeballs directly on the screen.
@@Born_Stellar Depends on your eye sight, though your eyesight would need to be in the 11th percentile LOL.
1080p is so incredibly trash, It's like going back to playing on nintendo 64. I can't imagine going back to it after experiencing 4k gaming.
Do yourself a favor and get a cheap 4k display or even 1440p. You can find one for less than $300 these days.
The performance we are hitting is getting to the point of "Why in FUCK you need that"
Honestly the best part about 4k is when a pixel dies you wont notice because it is so small
All you gotta do to make Linus happy is give him a ridiculously expensive gaming rig and an 8k tv.
I correct:
All you gotta do to make all of us nerds happy is give us a ridiculously expensive gaming rig and an 8k tv
Wow, 8K looks so detailed on 1080p.
😂
It does. That was previously known as 8xSSAA. You know, super sampling Anti Aliasing?
Seriously, a 4k TV is next on my big tech purchase list
😂😂😂💔
it looks better on 720p
5:52 watching it have to draw the blue screen was pretty impressive.
i find it hilarious how long it took to draw the BSOD.
So impressive the power connector catches fire 🔥
@@meknowu1 Something tells me you're an AMD fanboy...
@@2hotflavored666 Something tells me you're an Nvidia fanboy...
@@2hotflavored666 Both amd and nvidia have stopped caring about power efficiency and are trying to one up each other with performance instead
I love Colton.
Also Alex and Jake immediately recognizing that it wasn't native 8K was impressive
I was surprised nobody else figured it out given that they still had the fps counter visible.
It's also impressively dumb that they think it matters what CPU they are using for these tests lol. This is 110% a GPU bottleneck, not sure why they brought up not using 13th gen or 7000 series
@@pcmasterracetechgod5660 Agreed. But I'm guessing they know from experience, that they will get comments on it, if they don't adress it in the video.
There's people who know where to look, and people who don't. 8k is not that important for a TV - not a display, for a monitor it's pretty useful especially when 42 inches large format display is starting to become a thing. I have 4k 42 inches and the lower pixel density is pretty notiecable even at a meter away
Scripted video
Gamers in 1998: “is gaming at 720p even worth it?!?”
More like is it even possible for gaming on 720p ??
@@Samrat-r15k 720p was possible with Computer monitor back in 1998. I mean they went higher then 720p back in 1998 on a CRT monitor.
@@SuperCartoonist but gaming and all stuff was still on 420p or 240p what's resoulation of ps1 take that way. PS2 bought 480p gaming but yeah on pc it was higher resolution.
@@Samrat-r15k I'm not talking about gaming on a CRT TV. You can change the resolution on a computer operating system, Microsoft Windows was capable of doing that even back then.
@@SuperCartoonist nice
I have worked in games a long time and texture texture resolution is always a challenge due to memory. Normal texture sizes are often 2048x2048 but 4096x4096 are also used even though they are a bit less common. I try to author our textures in 8k to make them future proof but often do not submit them to the game because they take so much disk space. If you walk up to a wall you could even argue that the resolution needs to be higher than the screen resolution if you are close enough. I would say that most games do not have enough texture resolution to do 4K gaming justice
Back 20 years ago we got a high res texture pack for Unreal Tournament and it looked great, one of the tricks it looks like they used was applying a repeating fine texture across various surface types (wood grain, cement bumps, scratches or rust on steel), so almost every surface in the game was given fine texture, just not unique texture. I feel like that strategy would still provide most of the visual feedback people are looking for at high resolutions today while consuming minimal memory and without demanding assets be authored at extreme high resolutions.
I always install 4k/8k mods, TW3 4k+ in 3D looks absolutely stunning. No idea what century you are living that you run out of disk space, I only have 1 archive HDD, every other disk is Sata SSDs and M2 ssds and my conputer was build 9 years ago. Only gpu needed to get upgraded since then
@@alexanderschu6933 im talking as a developer. If the games take 50-100GB now and we double the resolution the size will be 4x higher which will of course put a larger strain on internet and say console storage.
@@andreasoberg2021 Ah ok you talk about consoles. As consoles arent even close to high end graphics like pc gaming I dont care much. I dislike fake high res upscaling and tearing too but most gamers dont have good eyes at all 😉
@@alexanderschu6933 Sadly the limitations of consoles limit the PC games a lot so rhey are almost always the target. I always fight to add extra quality features on PC
nicole hit the nail on the head. no 8k textures means you could run at any resolution you want and it would look the same. You need a game with that level of detail on the source side
I guess? I pay attention to jagged edges and stuff. like Half-Life 2 looks nicer in 1440p than 720p and that game was made in 2004.
To add to that all the game models will have very low poly mesh’s so wouldn’t benefit either.
only partially true. there should still be a overall image clarity boost and less jagged edges on geometry
Main problem is that no physical game can ship with 8K resolution graphics on disk as UHD Blu-ray support 4k resolutions at maximum. So until an actual disk format arrives for 8k textures that gets widespread support in the console world, the best you can do is 4k. Game devs are not going to have multiple versions of their game available for each console based on if you are a physical owner or digital owner, as that would really make the physical owners upset.
It's like running a game from the 90's at 1080p, the textures are still 640x480 so it's going to look like 640x480
The only time I’ve noticed 8K looking better than 4K is in stuff like space scenes and heavy particle effects. 8K obviously allows for smaller individual particles, which combined with OLED can look truly incredible, but it’s a really rare occurrence that you’ll get enough 1px or 2px particles at once in a game or movie for it to matter.
8k up close is pointless it's for massive areas when large screens are needed. We'll be back on electron gun panels soon and the resolution won't go up for a while. 4k still isn't even the standard for streaming yet it's fake 4k for a start. They panel tech will got back to electron guns soon just watch were going back to the days of no buffers and just insanely fast response times. They already admit that's the plan if you are up to speed with the very latest panel tech. Even old CRT is back people love the look and the speed they feel great even when you play silly fast mouse settings on Brutal Doom etc they cope no problem. The 165hz monitors don't they can do the speed but they are taxed out doing it they get ghosting and blur and alsorts. Electron guns don't care they live at that speed.
@@bigduphusaj162 never again will electron guns be used, they simply require too much space
You know back in the days my roommate wanted a 17" screen and in the shop they said it was rediculous (only if he was a cad designer). 16K will be about default I guess. The higher res the better it is possible to make things look real. And the higher the res the bigger the screen. The bigger the screen the better experience.Just love it.
Even in this case DLSS plus sharpening can achieve the same visual effect
wouldn't you be able to see more particales by just turning on taa or antialiasing 2x
Important note: those THX viewing distance guidelines are not applicable to gaming at all. In video games, a display can occupy your entire field of view and you won't have any problems... as long as the ingame FOV is adjustable.
Nicole was right, most games aren't developed or intended to be that high of res. It depends on the resolution of the materials applied to the walls, boxes, etc.
Nicole was right, most games aren’t developed or intended to be that high of res. It depends on the resolution of the materials applied to the walls, boxes, etc.
Nicole was right, most games aren’t developed or intended to be that high of res. It depends on the resolution of the materials applied to the walls, boxes, etc.
But the main difference isn't how the textures look. The main difference will be the edges of objects
@@LaggyKar exactly. With Unreal Engine 5 Nanite technology where it dynamically tesselates geometry so that the polygons are about the size of a pixel it will make a difference. Not that I care, the real pertinent number isn't the resolution anyway but the the pixel density. I'm totally fine with gaming in 1440p on a small monitor.
We're gonna need unreal engine 6 to be released lol
I do like how Alex immediately noticed it was 4k because it was too good for 8k
I absolutely loved how Alex was like "nope, you guys are up to something. I know where I work."
Jake as well. He noticed how high fps was
As others have said, if the textures aren't natively 8k then you won't see more --in the textures--. The real difference is in the quality of the lines where they meet and how sharp or less stepped and aliased they are. Take a cube and turn it 45 degrees so the lines are angled and compare those between 4k and 8k and you should see a difference.
you could almost argue at that point, due to the sheer pixel density, that you could basically disable AA and it would still look buttery smooth
I can't believe those idiots were looking at the textures instead to the edges. And those have job on gaming channel. Unbelievable.
I mean technically you can more clearly see the pixels of the textures
8K won't be a thing until 2026 when games will be talking about 8k textures and an 88 inch 8k OLED will be 10k or less....
An 8k will resolve more pixels of any particular texture than a 4k tv except when the texture is at 100% coverage match (1:1 scaling). If you were to take two identically sized TVs, one 4k and the other 8k and a square texture of 1000x1000 texels the 8k would be able to render the texture fully pixel perfect at 1/4th the size of the 4k tv (ie: the 8k can show 1000pixels of horizontal solution in the same space that a 4k tv will only resolve 500 pixels) Ok course in practice there isn't usually a linear correlation due to the quirks of graphics rendering. The issue with 8k is that the current performance cost just doesn't justify the minor perceived image clarity. 8k (or rather 16k+) makes more sense for VR/AR displays.
8K is useful on flatscreen as well. But downscaled to 4K. You’ll obtain detail much better than antialiasing can provide.
100%. 8k at 32inch is around 275ppi (depending on aspect ratio). 4k at 32 inch is around 137 (which looks pretty crappy to me). Going from the display quality of a laptop to a monitor is almost always a huge downgrade. For me, there's a huge trade off for that screen size. I tried so many displays until just switching to apple with the studio display and wow. Monitor standards are low. For gaming, I realise it makes no difference and I imagine most people care about that here. I don't game so doing anything other than gaming on generally "amazing" monitors, sucks.
I think the game graphics will need to get closer to photorealistic before those resolutions will matter at all.
Have you seen the Unreal Engine 5.1 demo? Graphics like that are totally possible soon.
@@user-jy6ur8gb1c I hear ya. It is getting really good very fast. But so far, 8k isn't really needed. Can definitely wait on the graphics to catch up though and save a ton on an 8k monitor/tv. You know how much prices drop on things in just a couple years.
@@The1stDukeDroklar yeah true. It will also take some years for game developers to actually put new game engine feats and qualities into practice anyway. UE 5.1 is just out i think, so it'll take some time for developers to actually make products.
Same thing happened with the release of the 64bit Audio studio software (like Apple's Logic Pro X) after those came out back in 2016 if memory serves me right. It took some 3 years or so before music producers began releasing songs of notably better quality.
@@user-jy6ur8gb1c Hahaha you have absolutely no clue what you are talking about… So 64bit software sounds better than 32bit? Lol
@@Strepite please explain better this
14:46
I like how Alex always immediately figures these kind of tests out
came here to say the same
Nicole brought up a really important point: game assets must be in 4k/8k in order for the resolution to actually work.
Maybe you could test it in minecraft (with 4k/8k texture palcks), because this ensures you are using correct assets. Also you could test RTX (and hdr? don't know if minecraft supports this) this way
what. nah. What about the geometry etc. If that were the case then games with "1k" textures would be as easy to run on 1080p as in 4k and so on.
Well textures in any case benefits from a higher resolution rendering
Yes, the geometry contours (specially the electricity wires as Linus pointed out) is seen crisper the higher the resolution is, but because the screen has more pixels to draw/raster it. Less chances for staircase. But the objects textures resolution is super key to not see pixelation. Of course, it depends on how the modeler distributed the textures and made the UV mapping, as if using 6k texture but for a full town, you might end up seeing very pixelated textures. The moment you approach the camera to something which texture (easy to see with text) gets to fill up (in that moment) in screen a bigger resolution in pixels that that texture itself has, you see pixelation (even if blurred and etc to minimize the effect), is very difficult to avoid, other than using large textures for everything. But there are many tricks with shaders, these days.
So, yep, IMO a game must be having prepared a version for 8k, in the matter of assets, to actually appreciate if there's a difference "really" in 8k. In normal 3D rendering, of course there is, you get a ton detail more rendering a scene as an 8k render than a 4k one. But there are many factors in games. Counter Strike, if it's not a version or mod with very high res textures, wouldn't see a difference in 8k, for example.
Screen res and texture res are different things. Not many games have 4k textures. Just think about it, if your entire screen is in 4k, the asset would have to take up more than your screen to even see it pixelated. Anything smaller will not need 4k. How many times do you walk right up to a wall and think "this would look better in 8k"? Thats why 1k and sometimes 2k textures are enough. Many smaller assets wont even need 1k and large walls and floors etc have tiled textures. Also textures are already very demanding so keeping them as low as possible makes sense. This is also why 8k textures make no sense at all, not in minecraft or any other game.
@@Xirpzy Unreal Engine 5 with Quixel's Megascans in an open world and indoor environment is the true way you can appreciate the 8K experience. These games they've been playing on 8K is the wrong way to show off what 8K is truly about. It's like them trying to show how amazing an NES/SNES game looks on at 1080p resolution.
They should've at least try 8K with "A Plague Tale: Requiem"
4k and 8k really only help with far off textures or new games that use textures that large but in VR 4k and 8k are super important even with an index or quest 2
We need 8k+ for VR
I love how Alex and Jake immediately noticed something is fishy from the fps counter alone :D
haha, yes immediately they knew from the fps
In retrospect they shouldn't have left it on the screen
@@dexopaw exactly what I thought, would they have still been able to tell?
@@Adlata Are you silly? That won't damage the product at all. I can tell you haven't been around watercoolers in your life.
@@Adlata if that thing would be damaged just from holding it like that, you dont want it in your system
as a dev i assure you we DO NOT make graphical assets at 8k, nor often do we even make them at 4k. The amount of compression, file size and file handling would just be a waste of time.
You would end up with games being over 200GB's or higher and compression is already a massive issue within our games.
4K Ultra HD Blu ray can't handle that
Time to bring back detail texturing. lol. But for real, if we switched to a model of using AI-generated detail textures, we could probably do a lot more for a bit less.
please keep making them at 1080P my pc cant handle 4k shit it screams
You dont need 8k textures for the game to look better at 8k. Even old games like Gothic look amazing in 4k, im sure its even better in 8k.
It depends on the content . IF for example you were building an open world game and you wanted mountains and tress to be super detailed to far away distances , and or a space simulator , and want the planets to look super detailed when traveling there. then in such cases there will be a noticeable major difference. between 4k and 8k.. it depends on what kind of game they doing or how far you want the textures quality to be.
So proud of Alex for instantly catching onto the fact that it was actually not 8k
And I hate how much they all look at textures 🙈
@@UwePieper what are you going to use your monitor behind you or you facing your back at the monitor?
@@UwePieper Kinda reminds me of when people complained about the textures in HL2 and other early Source titles. Like, are you playing a game or are you staring at a wall from 2 inches away? Jake had the right idea with the trees off in the distance.
@@sntslilhlpr6601 Well kind of. You need any modeled parts that has fine details and might show clipping or stairs. So diagonal edges are fine. The power lines Linus looked at were perfect. Trees in the distance could be textures, as well to save performance. Textures have a limited resolution and will look bad if you get too close. The mesh has an unlimited resolution. You might have simple objects but you can scale those up to infinity.
@@UwePieper I was thinking the same exact thing.
Cant wait until they do this test with the 5090 around December.
For streaming, most import important issue is for the streaming providers to actually use a decent enough bitrate to use 4k to its full pontential. When used with low bitrate, the image doesn't even look like 4k anymore, because the compression hides all the detail. Even professional grade raw camera codecs usually use some sort of compression.
Same reason why an actual 1080p bluray looks better than 4k youtube.
I like that Nicole made a very good point, if a game wasnt designed for 8k, or even 4k, the assets may not even benefit from the higher res
Imo a better benefit for a card like the 4090 really is atleast playing higher quality settings while still having head room
Which makes me wonder if games like Skyrim can benefit from it with 8K texture mods. Modding sadly is always overlooked when it comes to these performance reviews.
You should be able to notice the difference in geometry tho. If you can't tell the difference between 4k and 8k from the geometry, specially with aa off, you wouldn't be able to see any difference in texture either.
@@motokid6008 i think because ideally you'd want to measure just the base game, and tbh not every game has mods available, nor would every player want to mod their game, so it would probably affect proper testing
@@motokid6008 Mods are made by furries
Something *very* important to me is filesize. 4k resolutions, especially in proper large games, will make the filesize skyrocket to the point of any bigger game from like 15 years ago suddenly being the size of a AAA from a couple years ago... And just looking a bit better. I really dont think 8k textures are going to be worth it at all.
This is the beauty of having a big crew. I love seeing other people's reactions!
You could not have picked a worse game to showcase 8k.
Minecraft, and Skyrim both have 8k Texture Packs, while Star Citizen's Textures are native 16k Resolution.
The rubes really caught on to how important assets are to how useful 8K is. If you had assets that at a close range stood up to an 8K display you’d have a different experience. When the only thing benefiting are the edges of geometry there’s not going to be much going on. It’s basically just AA.
I’d be very interested to see something like setting up CS with textures that utilize the 8k and see if folks can tell. Still going to be pretty limited but I’d be curious to see how much things would stand out at that point.
Yep. Then you have the problem of delivering 8K texture assets to customers. Games are already huuuuge, and even with compression reducing the effective scaling factor it's still a lot more data.
They'd need a special sample game to really show off the difference, because the lower resolution versions of the assets have to be derived from the same high res source, and no game is shipping assets that high res.
They should be able to find or commission a demo though.
One of my biggest gripes about games for the last 20 years has been muddy textures.
The "4K era" has been a good step in the right direction be we have a LONG way to go before games actually look realistically detailed.
The worst part about this video is "The Math" that Linus is using at 17:18 in the video is woefully out of date, 60PPD is nothing but a marketing ploy used at the time when it was a convenient crutch to convince people to upgrade from "SD" to "HD", by telling everyone "60PPD is the last upgrade you'll ever need".
Everyone has always known 60PPD was wrong.
300 Pixels Per Degree is the limit of perceptual detail in "average human vision (look up "Visual Hyperacuity", all the companies using the 60PPD "Visual Acuity" are basing their conclusions on incomplete data).
To reach 300PPD with a 55" 8K TV you need to be sitting nine feet away, which almost perfectly matches the viewing habits of the average american household.
You can have and enormous advantage when you see an enemy far away... In a 4k screen it will be like I dunno 40 pixel, in 8k 80... So the far details will be sharper, But if you need an 4090 for get ultra quality... Better get an 4060 and play 4k.
Totally agreed, Jake was definitely looking for the important parts with the actual distant tree geometry, and Nicole raised a very poignant part of your argument there.
@@budthecyborg4575 The limitation is filesize, textures can't be compressed because you can't make textures from nothing. The better the textures look, the fatter the game. 8K textures would definitely start pushing games into terabyte territory.
I noticed that people are trying to compare resolutions by getting close to textures, but as they noted the texture quality doesn't change when the screen resolution increases. The difference in texture quality could only be assessed from a distance, and even then the game engine might swap out for lower quality texture based on view distance.
Correct, they need to test with better games.
Yeah, using CS:GO to test this was a weird move. Didn't make a ton of sense.
Yeah people seem to pay more attention to texture resolution than image resolution, maybe vram is more important. Which nVidia is going the wrong direction on lol
@@sqlevolicious there is no better game. No devs in their right mind are delivering assets that can stand up to 8K. You’d have to mod a game to do that.
@@sqlevolicious no games support 8k textures properly, maybe in 5 years from now, but rn no games supports 8k textures
I feel like the staff at LTT should understand by now that screen resolution is not the same as texture resolution - doesn't matter how many K's are in your screen, zooming into flat textures isn't going to change, lol.
At least Linus gets it, when he points out the power lines going diagonally across the screen.
Bingo, doesn’t matter how Many bazillions of pixels your GPU and Display can handle, if it’s not in the game to be displayed in the first place 🤷🏻♂️ haha.
I was thinking this myself, and they used fucking CS:GO of all games for the comparison 😂
@@Cr4z3d right ? No one fucking uses CS:GO as a modern benchmark 😂 a potato can run CS:GO at 120 fps max settings.
this I why I don't understand why use game CSGO or doom for 8k comparison.. and they HAVE games with 4k and 8k texture packs. i just want see how these gpu handles Current games like Arkham knights or cyber punk at 8k
@@tarikcollins778 Arkham Knights is trash.
8K for movies is fantastic, but for games imo rn is not worth it.
We may wait for couple of years down the line to truly use 8k gaming
I'm glad you guys covered this topic. I've been telling friends this for years.. Using 65" screen size for example, you would need to be sitting LESS than 4' away in order to tell any difference between 4K and 8K resolution, which is substantially closer than a comfortable or recommended viewing distance. Even a 4K screen would be indistinguishable from 1080P if you are sitting more than 8 1/2 feet away.
maybe for movies, but live rendered content benefits from higher resolution much more, anyone saying 1080p and 4k doesn't yield a big difference is just in denial at this point, even at 1440p my games look disgusting compared to 4k, playing old games in 4k feels like theyve been remastered
I sit 1,2m from my curved 55" 4k TV I use as computer monitor, at that distance you can see the pixels in some games so you also have to use anti aliasing. But when watching a movie even that close I can not see the difference between 1080p and 4k, only in games the 4k give visual improvement.
@@a64738 At that distance with that screen size you're at about 54°, which is about 10° less than being able to see every single pixel on a 4K screen. To see 100% of the pixels at 4K would require moving up to be 0.975m away.
Differences in movies being less apparent to you may be due to watching streaming content which is always going to be lower quality than full blu-ray quality. I believe you may notice the difference increase if you were to watch a blu-ray in 1080P and a UHD blu-ray of the same film back to back.
@@yesyes-om1po I'm just talking about math. Depending on how far away you view the screen from, it's going to take up a certain angle of your horizontal field of view. That angle scales linearly with screen size.
If you sit far enough away, your eyes cannot resolve more than 1080P resolution no matter how large the screen is. The further back you move, the fewer pixels your eyes can differentiate between.
If you watched a TV that was at the other end of a football stadium, you would not be able to differentiate between video on a modern 8K TV or one from the 1950s that had only displayed 440x330 pixels.
As he said in the video, this will help VR. I still don't know if VR will be great some day, but I'm willing to wait to see.
Also if 8k is available it brings down prices for 4k and more good 4k content.
Nicole did have a great point, a lot of game devs are simply just not rendering everything in 8k making it look really just the same. Personally I would have possibly tried to see what native uncompressed 8k footage be 4k would have looked like with the upscaling (yes I completely understand that storage limitations would most likely be a thing when viewing 8k) but all in all a gpu pushing that many pixels on a native display is amazing considering I was still rocking a 570 for a long while before parting out my gaming rig when the cpu simply refused to post.
Probably what the stuttering was in Doom. Game engine bottleneck, not GPU or CPU.
She made such a good point that they switched to a modern game halfway through the video
Yeah, past a certain resolution it becomes clear that the textures are crappy. That's always been the way. It's like taking an old DOS game intended to run at 320x240 and running it on a 1024x768 monitor. It'll either look like a postage stamp (windowed at 320x240) or hammered dog crap (full screen). LOL
@@Psythik Agreed! I thought the same.
@@Psythik Same thought... I was like who tf compare 4K vs 8K with a game like CS:GO?
A good use for 8k would be 4 player split screen. That was always my favorite way to play halo. Also, 8k is cool for photography because you can view photos close to their native resolution and get a better idea of print quality.
To bad splitscreen coop will be dead by the time everyone can actually use 8k.
Honestly, screen size is much more important. Doesnt matter if everyone has a 4k „screen“ if its 20 inches. For that, better to just get a projector so everyone can have a decently sized screen
The print quality thing is available, everything else is silly
we all played 4 player split screen halo on xbox original on a 36" tube tv and we had a great time....4 people in the room banter snacks etc was way better......tossing 4 player killed gaming for everyone i know.
the internet bandwidth capable wasnt good enough and even later with good internet it sucked by comparison.....
they got greedy to sell consoles and games..instead they killed off a bunch of new gen buyers
@@Wuerschtle we did 4 player split screen on a 21" crt and it was still a blast. Ultimately we're way past diminishing returns, it's just cool. Haha
0:19 id like to see this video again with a 5090 make it happen poppa linus
You should have mentioned that most games doesn't have enough texture resolution to make a big difference. Higher texture resulotion is more important at this resolution. 4K/8K
Edit: Apparently one of the employees mentioned this and I missed. My bad.
Still, I think they should give this topic a seperate part of this video.
And I hope Nvidia will develop an AI for upscaling game textures.
No idea about 8K but i know 4K is pretty damned sharp image quality
It was mentioned by one of the employees
8k is diminishing returns.
Maybe someday we'll see game engines use AI powered scaling on art assets.
I think upcoming UE5 games with nanite would solve the problem
I think that the texture packs are not 8k optimized, or even 4k in most cases. It's up to the devs to implement 8k textures to take advantage of the resolution. Change in resolution wont impact textures if there's no texture details to add.
Yeah a 9000 yo game like CSGO is a really bad example
8k textures would be super hard on VRAM. I'm not even sure that 24gb would be enough.
which we will probably never have because of three reasons:
1. It'd take expotentially more time to make detailed 8k textures for stuff that doesn't really need it.
2. These would be way too big in size, and no one is gonna download a 5TB game, at least not with today's technology.
3. It'd take more money for actual diminishing returns.
So, I'd say we are about 10 years away from a true 8k gaming experience, if anyone is crazy enough to make all their textures 8k worth of detail on a game anyways
I rather not be forced to download 4K or 8K res textures if I'm not gonna use them. Games are ballooning to 100+ GB sizes already, no need for more forced bloat just because some folks really want nicer looking textures. My solution would be to release said texture packs as free DLCs, that way playees can choose to download if they want better looking textures in their games.
Changing resolution /will/ still impact textures if they aren't scaled up to 100% - so whenever you're further away from it, it still makes a difference.
I think that the ability to render games at resolutions like this is only going to be useful in VR, when your FOV is far larger than on a monitor or TV.
That's what Linus said
Just wait until games start to be made for 8K. 8K is by no means testing the limits of human vision.
17:19 OH YEA I REMEBER THIS distance from display
It's a good lesson that typically past 4k gamers start to care more and more about stability and frame rate than a higher resolution
Imo it's 1440p
Past 2k there's serious diminishing returns regardless. You're really just looking to lessen jagged edges and if you have 2k and MSAA at 8x it's almost inperceptible from 4k native.
@@DixonErHands that depends on the size. I shutdown my cheap $270, 6 year old Sony TV 40inch because ppi too low at 1080p 60hz. I like the color and the size but for PC u need at least 120hz and 4k at 40 inch. Monitors colors suck, especially if it's ips glow, backlight bleed.
@@DixonErHands Apart from MSAA not being a thing anymore with deferred rendering 1440p with MSAA 8x would also perform a lot worse than native 4k. Also it's all about pixel density and distance. My 4k 42" TV on my desk really doesn't look that great when it comes to resolution.
With older games that still had decent image quality I might agree that 1440p would be enough for most scenarios as long as you're not exceeding 24", but thanks to modern games relying so much on temporal techniques that cause terrible image quality issues you want the resolution to be as high as possible. 4k nowadays generally looks worse than 1440p did 10 years ago at the same monitor size.
Gotta have that CRT
This is a very good point. The difference between 8K and 4K is a difference of diminishing returns. But that also means, that games can now be more demanding without having to take 8K into account.
Something else to consider - are these games simply upsampling 4k textures to 8k resolution? That means you don't have 8k density natively. The game would need to actually have 8k textures, to see the real uplift, of 8k resolution. Like when you upsample 1080 to 4k it looks terrible, compared to games with true 4k textures.
Notice how Linus is gaming on a television? That's because there are a total of 2 monitors on the market that do 8K. They both came out in 2017, both are Dell, one is 32 inches, and the other is 31.5 inches. They are both $4000 right now on pc part picker. The smallest available 8K television is 65 inches on up to 85 inches. Putting one of those on a desk and gaming on it would probably cause neck injury because the center of the screen would be higher than ergonomically natural.
EDIT: Oh I forgot to mention, for those unaware... 8K is stuck at 60Hz for both monitors and TVs.
the human eye does have a max resolution we can see, seems like we may not be able to see in 8K
@@kennylaysh2776 You have discovered the necessary purpose of DirectStorage. Microsoft said they will release DirectStorage version 1.1 by the end of this year, it offers some critical features and improved features that have been missing since then. Most everyone is unaware that DirectStorage also supports RAM-to-VRAM decompression. RAM is faster than even a 15.7GB/s PCIe 5.0 x4 interface. Even slow DDR4 2400 delivers 17.88GB/s. PC games can store critical nearby compressed assets in RAM then the GPU uses hardware accelerated decompression to directly decompress and copy to VRAM, all without loading the CPU. I suppose the CPU will instead be used to handle non-essential nearby eye candy like signs on walls and stuff like that???
But in coming years, there will be monitors using glasses free 3D technology that optically combines a mosaic of many slightly different camera angles into a 3D image. The 'Looking Glass' monitor is pretty mind blowing. (It's real, look it up)
That kind of tech is a pathway to practical use of 8k, 16k, 32k or even higher. I hope that company stays in business, I'll love to see what they will have in 10 years. Or that other companies use a similar optical technology.
But as a plain 2D display, 8k is only useful in really big sizes.
I think 8K is definitely a stretch but VR performance would be worth evaluating. There are a lot of heavy VR games you should be trying on these new flagship cards.
Simply play Cyberpunk in 3D, thats demanding enough for the moment. And dont even dare thinking about upscaling 😂
@@braisedtoast9002 DCS, it fries my 6800xt
I don’t play a lot of different VR games, but I haven’t been able to get gigantic uplifts in resolution from a 3090 to a 4090 like I had hoped going from a 1080Ti, to a 2080 Ti, to a 3090, and now a 4090. There seems to be an issue with the game engines that doesn’t scale very well at ultra high resolutions. But to be fair, I’ve only tested 3 games so far. Well, on my 4090 I mean. Fallout 4 has typically been the game I keep hoping, this next card should get me to 300% resolution scaling, but I went from 180% to 220-230%. It’s something, but I was hoping for at least 250%. Each generation gets me just a tiny bump it seems instead of that huge leap I keep hoping for.
@@braisedtoast9002 except for the part where it actually is a vr game and a damn good one at that. with a relatively cheap stick setup might be the closest to a real simulator or even flying an actual aircraft most people will ever get
@@braisedtoast9002 Maybe, but it still pushes my system to the limit, and thats not even near max resolution.
This is honestly crazy, I can’t imagine aiming for 8K. It seems like such a ridiculous waste of power, even if you’re sat right next to it it must be really hard to tell.
But it’s also really impressive, I’ve pushed my RTX 2080 SUPER to the limit rendering some of my favourite oldish games at 8K, more so just for the fun of it than for any actual benefit, since my monitor is only 1080p and 8x supersampling is massively overkill.
Seeing modern games playable at 60hz in native 8K while maxed out is really mindblowing, despite how unnecessary it is. I can’t see a difference, but just knowing it’s possible is a surprise.
Next time if you're wondering why a teammate on your team is staring at the walls and trees the entire time, you know they're testing out their 8K display.
🤣
Or they're high asf
@@RT-uq1mp in lol LSD looks 16k reso dont even need video card :D xD
I feel like the comments as well as the people in the video are all talking about textures as viewed up close, when even at 1920x1080 the textures would be a bottleneck. The only way to tell a difference between 4k and 8k would be by looking at *distant* textures and objects.
Mathematically it makes sense just like you concluded. If you get a monitor large enough to see 8K worth of pixels, you have to sit far enough back that that you can't see the difference. 8K for distribution only makes sense on signage in a mall where you might be standing 2 feet from the screen.
People said the same thing about 4K. But 4K is absolutely noticeable compared to 2K, so 8k will come and stay, but it’s not now
@@niceone1456 - People did not say the same thing about 4K. The understanding of the human eye is still basically the same as it was when 4K was released. There may have been people saying 4K on a 40" screen in the living room couldn't be perceived, but that isn't the same as saying 8K can't be perceived within the ideal field of view.
If we change how TVs are used I could see a wall-to-wall sized screen at 32K even, if it was decoupled from the source material. Being able to draw out multiple "TVs" on the wall for different content while having changeable background wallpaper that blended with the house lighting, or stock tickers near the ceiling, or anything else in the background could be pretty interesting.
@@niceone1456 they did but not for computers- entire research projects were done by the broadcast industry where for instance the BBC determined that broadcasting in 4K would not make any sense financially as it would only benefit a very, very small number of their viewers even in a best case scenario due to where people normally put their TVs relative to where they sit- this is not true for PC gaming in 4K if you like sitting close to a very large screen. However 8K is 4x as many pixels as 4K, so it becomes much more difficult to find a use case for it as the mathematics and capabilities of the human eye just don’t lend themselves to making 8K have a purpose, even if you’re sitting near a big screen- you simply won’t be able to see the difference versus 4K unless you stick your face against the glass. The extra cost, performance loss etc for no upside makes the whole thing a fool’s errand. For most people’s desks with a typically sized monitor 1440P is enough to not be able to see the pixels at all. To put it in context most feature films until very recently were screened at 2K in cinemas until very recently and almost no content is actually edited or mastered in 8K (even 8K releases are upscaled from 2K or 4K normally) as all the data suggests it’s mostly pointless.
What are your thoughts on cinema/movie theatre screens? I could imagine something with a big enough screen like an IMAX there might be a perceivable difference. That and *maybe* simulators for training are the only actual use cases I can think of.
@@joshuatk59 - Flight sims might be one good use scenario. For movies though, the field of view is the biggest issue. If you get close enough for a screen to fill a lot more than about 50 degrees it gets fatiguing to watch because you can't take in the whole scene at once and you have to turn your head to see something happening on one edge of the screen or another. So no matter how big a screen gets you have to sit a certain distance away for it to be comfortable. That happens to be a distance where most people can't make out the 8K of detail.
There are certain scenarios where you might want to fill out more of their field of view, but most movies are not framed that way. Movies almost always frame the image for a small screen with close ups that make someone's head fill the entire frame. That kind of close up doesn't work on a screen that extends into or beyond your peripheral vision.
8K cameras will likely be an important thing because acquiring 8K video gives more flexibility in editing, but distributing 8K is an issue of extremely diminishing returns. Unless you are in a scenario where people are standing right next to the screen or a special video designed to create nausea like those 180 or 360 videos at Disney world, then 8K doesn't make much sense.
The 1% of people with 20/10 vision, who can also afford a very large screen, might love it though.
1440p upgrades will be the sweet spot for most 1080 gamers-it give the biggest boost in visuals upgrade/vfm.Still good to see the best kit being pushed to its limits-what linus does.
8k and higher makes only sense in VR but there it absolutely makes sense to achieve a wider fov and a higher pixel density, but there you theoretically can combine it with foveated rendering to reduce gpu load
I have an asus 4k hdr 144hz gsync and asus 2k top of the line too side by side , and I can 100% say that with my 3080 I will always and forever run 4k. It looks absolutely better. If you have the monitor and can push the frames absolutely do it. 2k looks half as good especially if you don't have hdr.
@@WCGwkf yeah..... you can't run 4k with an rtx3080. It can barely do 1440p and it still has big fps drops in a lot of games. Even red dead redemption 2 will only run 50-80fps at 1440p. Nowhere near 144fps like you claim.
@@kenshinhimura9387 that cant be true. I got a RX 6700XT, which is considerably weaker than the 3080 and there isnt a game where I would go below 100fps on 1440p
@@mejdlocraftci without fsr or dlss?
Out of focus footage of 8k being streamed in 4k. I'm still gonna watch it.
Definitely should do a VR video comparing the performance of different graphics cards.
Agreed, because I've always felt: new technology allows for new content and VR just hasn't been great yet and so I sill have some hope for it.
Not the whole Meta-thing, but let's see how far it can be pushed.
@@MadWatcher I would love to see those numbers, as I just upgraded from an I7-3960x (2nd gen) to a I9-10850k and I don't see that huge of a difference with my 1080TI, would be interesting to see some of the different configurations for VR to get the best price to performance ratio.
Never personally seen 8K but the jump on movie from 1080p to 4K was soooo good
We are just starting to get lots of 4k content can't imagine how long 8k will take lol
the audio depth beyond 16 bit and 10 bit video are huge improvements for me . any further improvement and its only provable by people with perfect vision or math.
That's because 1080 was never true 1080 but TH-cam compresses so 4k is actually near true 1080 quality that's why it looks good I think
8K is going to be a meme for at least a decade or 2. Our eyes aren't good enough to see details that fine grained, even if they exist. You need 20/20 vision and to be sitting much closer to the display than is healthy to notice a difference. At that point, you are not experiencing the medium (TV/gaming), you are viewing digital panoramas at the Smithsonian.
@@brandongroth4569 what if the experiences were tailored to it though? Like it doesn't make sense to just cram more pixels into the same TV or monitor sized screen. Nor does it make sense to just stretch regular 1080 or 4k content onto a giant screen. But if you had content that actually used that screenspace and extra pixels for something it could be cool. Think imax theater in your living room or something...
Nicole made a good point, the quality of game assets should be taken into consideration as a bottleneck, those bullets in Halo: Infinite show this perfectly; you can add as many Ks as you want into a setup but if your feeding it Xbox era assets regardless if it's 1080, 4 or 8K you're going to get an Xbox era view of those models.
yep! though that doesn't necessarily have to always be true. what if you use procedural generation your assets? [also, vector graphics where applicable] and the more powerful the hardware becomes combined with the more research [AND DISCLOSURE] of algos, the more likely this will happen and possibly become mainstream. there's already isolated examples that do this well. and if you look past your biases and do some actual research/exploration, there's a few decades of history in adobe flash where vector graphics were used quite effectively. the problem with low-quality content was *not* the technology. it was creative effort, and to some degree, bottlenecks no longer present in modern hardware. and "performance!" is a myth, you're a fool if you think modern graphics pipelines are lighter than vector rasterization/triangulation. [especially an optimized one, i hear ruffle's rendering is actually faster than flash]
all that said, firmly with linus and his employees' conclusions here. if i were to get an 8K display, it would be to gain screen real estate, not screen resolution. what more pixels is actually *good* for is putting more application windows on the screen.
@@ETXAlienRobot201 AI generated assets would be a good idea, but would rely on developers implementing it and limiting where it applies. There is no silver bullet in using algorithms to improve assets, imagine if in 2001: a space odyssey, the monolith had rounded corners or texture because the AI decided that it was a low quality asset that needed "fine tuning", AI isn't in a place in a place right now (that I'm aware of) that it can recognize the subtle value certain objects have, and having AI blanket solve everything is going to bring it's own problems.
@@festro1000 i said procedural, not AI. also why i mentioned vector graphics because instead of using a fixed number of points to represent a curve, you have an actual curve from which you extrapolate the needed points at run time. even without curves, however, you can generate a lot of different types of geometry. for most/all of this process, you'd still need human-made assets. AI has a long time before being viable [and even then, raises questions], but decent chunks of what i suggest is already implemented in the actual programs used to generate those art assets. to some degree, it's explored by actual games, but typically just the re-arrangement of existing assets instead of creating whole new ones.
the main issue here is this requires a lot more processor power and RAM. i imagine the GPU could make quick work of this with compute shaders. and you can still cache results so this would be feasible even on the CPU. there's always the option of caching to permanent storage instead of RAM, too. this does mitigate some of the advantages of my proposal, however. and i'm obviously not denying the complexity of implementing this.
@@ETXAlienRobot201 Procedural or AI either way your going to have to get devs onboard and still have the issue of assets being modified (by whatever path they decide to go along with) when they shouldn't be, the Monolith being an example, so there is also going to need to be a way to exclude certain assets when it comes to asset generation or post processing.
@@festro1000 if someone wants to mess with the files, they will. it is primarily publishers/suits who care, not developers. now, in the case of say, wall hacks, you do this during the render phase "this wall is transparent and it shouldn't be".
even if the final results are generated, there would be files defining how to generate them, being smaller, they're actually easier to hide/protect. though honestly, there are much better things to use developer resources and computational resources on. regardless of their motivations, hackers WILL break through just about anything you set-up. normal/"legit" end users will however suffer the consequences of those systems.
i emphasized the open sharing of research, and what would not surprise me is if several required components for this are under some stupid patent. especially since my country still has enough brain rot to allow software patents to exist. if not patented, they're being withheld/controlled by other means.
anyways, i don't see much more point debating this. right now it's merely a concept/dream. i just laid-out a hypothetical scenario. i personally don't obsess over models and/or textures needing to be HD, either. i'd as much like to see this tech being used to create low poly models with low-res textures as creating something with as much detail as the hardware of a given generation is capable of handling. this, i actually expect to prove challenging. the tech might itself work, but will the output look presentable? in the most extreme case, let's not generate *any* extra points for that curve. a flat circle degrades nicely, but what about a character's face?
"I don't even think these textures were rendered with 8k or even 4k in mind"
incredible video linus, very high effort.
I would love a double-blind test with two 8k monitors (that Dell UltraSharp, perhaps?) and a series of tests that could show if people can actually tell the difference. Might need a few other resolutions in there also.
Wow, 8K looks so detailed on 1080p.
Makes me really excited for the next gen for VR stuff.
Where you're actually going to need 16K to get a reasonably sharp image.
@@budthecyborg4575 isn't 16k the limit of perception (as in the sharpest an image can be before the difference is physically zero)? and even then, peripheral vision isn't anywhere close to that, I'd wager eye-tracked foveated rendering with dlss set to 16k might be able to run on something less powerful than the 40 series
@@budthecyborg4575 1440p in current headsets look about the same as 720-1080p. you dont really need more than 4k to have a superb screen.
@@budthecyborg4575 Nah, you can even get a reasonably sharp image with a VERY GOOD 1080p headset (rare). Get yourself a GOOD 2k or 4k per eye one and you'll be golden
@@AMan-xz7tx the difference won't be physically zero, nor is resolution the only measure that is important. The other measure that is important is bitrate (See the bitrate video from LTT/Techquickie for explanation) and the screen size compared to the resolution. I would argue 16k isn't close to the human limit holding all else equal. With huge improvements on bitrate and DPI there still is a lot of room to go. I have a couple 2k monitors that look like dog^^^^ compared to a 1080p monitor I have with a smaller screen size. The problem is the 1080p monitor size is worse and its hard to see details that would matter. Anything you are processing also would need to be made to run at the higher detail levels or else you aren't going to notice the difference. Another HAI video ("Why It Takes Pixar 3 Years To Render A Movie" ) which was interesting showed rendering scenes in movies with massive levels of additional detail creating a huge effect as well.
As Nicole said, it's the textures. Eventually, textures will probably reach that point, but for right now(just like with 4K), it isn't practical. Within the next 10 years, you'll probably see 8K become a bigger thing, at least with gaming.
CSGO came out 10 years ago, I don't know why they used that game as an example. A single player game with a lots of small details that cause shimmer at low resolutions would have been so much better for testing.
@@LutraLovegood Likely they chose it for FPS. The game is playable on pretty much anything from the last 10 or more years
@@LutraLovegood The best way to see the difference is too look at thin models like antennas of cars. Those become solid on higher resolutions. It's especially apparent on Battlefield games.
@@LutraLovegood That's a red herring. The recommended sitting distance from a TV screen means you aint gonna see the difference between 4 and 8k gaming.
It's not just the textures. You can run 16K textures on a 2k display and have it appear sharper the more you zoom in. But the details and outlines of objects is what makes it count, and I don't see 8K doing it below a screen size of what? 160 inches?
The problem with the difference between 4K and 8K isn't the detail per se, it's that 4K was crammed into a display size standard, that wasn't worth it from the beginning.
4K below 30 inches for example, is more than wasted performance. 4K below 40 inches, is still wasted performance.
At around 50 inches is where you start getting more value opposed to 2K, but increasing the 4K pixel density AGAIN by 4x at monitor sizes that haven't increased much in the last 7-8 years, at all, is an absolute waste.
Strangely enough, there is a case for 8k but it isn’t for tv or film viewing at all, it’s for displays like when displaying impressive images in your room or for your pc display, in these scenarios the wider FOV will allow the advantages of 8k to be noticeable and impressive, for watching films and TV it’s a waste time because you would need to be sat uncomfortably close to the screen in order to appreciate the additional detail that 8k can offer. Assuming that graphics processing power isn’t an issue (and in the decade of writing this it is) there are some games that would benefit from 8k but they almost certainly wouldn’t be fast action competitive games.
I love how you can tell what members of the staff are more experience in actual video graphics analysis, and wich ones have their expertise in other subjects.
The guys I was expecting to notice right away.
Right away they did hahaha
I love how Doom is literally the test for hardware as small as a screened pregnancy test and ESP's all the way to the highest end hardware leading the industry.
Wow, 8K looks so detailed on 1080p.
@@asktoseducemiss434 I 'see' what you did there...
The pregnancy test thing wasn't real in that he used no part of the pregnancy test other than the plastic shell. He put in his own lcd screen and computer.
@@Greenleaf_ Ahh, but that was only after he actually tried on the pregnancy test hardware. It failed the test obviously. ;) hehe. No Doom Marine + Isabelle Babies thankfully.
@@nathantron The pregnancy test had one of those screens where it just lights up certain predetermined shapes like mr game and watch so it was never viable as a screen at all.
We are definitely beginning to see the law of diminishing returns here. Back in the day, going from 480p to 720p was amazing, 720p to 1080p was also amazing, 1080p to 1440p was great, but I believe that's where the law of diminishing returns began. Then, 1440p to 2160p was also an amazing upgrade, but you would only notice it when gaming or watching a movie on a big screen. 8k is great and all, but I think 8k is not going to be worth it for the average user. For cinemas however, I could see 8k being much more useful in that kind of setting. You guys do bring up a good point when it comes to 8k and VR, but we definitely won't have headsets capable of 8k anytime soon and when we do, you will probably need to sell a kidney to afford it lol.
That surprisingly aged really well
1080p to 4k wowed me when I seen it for the first time. Like wow. It was so beautiful
4k vs 1440p is easily noticeable on a 27 inch monitor assuming your eyes aren't terrible.
4k is good on a 27" monitor, as long as u sit close. While going to 4k is a good upgrade, it's not worth it. The extra detail will wow u at 1st but u get use to it, then it's like it never was lol. Only went 4k cus I got 7900xtx, typically get 100fps most games
@@agentnukaz1715 That's why I say 4k really shines on a big screen. It all comes down to DPI, which I think is hard to tell the difference between 1440p and 4k if you use a monitor under 30". Like you said, you gotta sit close to see the difference. I think that's just because the DPI is already amazing in 1440p. Getting to see such amazing DPI on a large TV like my 65" Sony 4k TV? Now that's a priceless way to experience 4k imo. I never knew Cyberpunk or Rise of the Tomb Raider could look so good!
8K would be nice in VR. It makes a big difference when your eye is against the screen. Also, as an artist, 8K would be nice. Having a reference image as large and clear as possible is paramount.
Oled 8k would be lit
Surprised Linus didn't go into the implications of 8k for VR. I know there's probably not any headset out there that can really take advantage of this yet, but I think if 8k has any practical benefit, it'd be with VR.
Pimax 8K does 6K.
@@user-wq9mw2xz3j we dont need better headsets, we need better games. everyone, especially meta, seem to be too focused on hardware and not enough on games
Check out the holographic displays from Looking Glass. With mosaic tiled many cameras optically combined into one image, this type of technology will necessitate pixel densities well beyond human capability to see. It makes anything above 4K useful, IF it has the optical layers for glasses free 3D.
This type of technology is still in it's infancy, and I don't know what kinds of patents Looking Glass holds, but it is a glimpse into what we could be expecting in 10-15 years.
Kind of the middle ground between VR and normal displays, a virtual window. One company is doing it, I hope the tech goes somewhere.
8k is not needed for vr if vr adds eye tracking and smarter display technology
@@notuxnobux DId you try playing F122 VR? Then you want more pixels so you have a way sharper picture
Still using a 1070 with a 1080p monitor, I still wonder how 4k gaming feels for certain games that I still play, 8K seems just way too crazy
It feels slightly sharper on larger screens if you sit closer. That's it.
if u get a 48inch or 43inch 4k tv ull notice how clear it is then a 1080p 32inch trust me the 1080p looks so last gen and cant go back to 1080p anymore lmao its just too blurry im stuck on 4k60fps gaming ever since i got my 4k 43inch tv and love it just pure clearness and smoothness after switching from 1080p to 4k for gaming on my ps5 and was worth it
1080p is still perfectly fine, I would much rather go with 1080p/1440p at 144hz than 4k at 60. You can't really see the sharpness with a 24-27 inch PC monitor anyway if you don't sit inches away from your screen
I'm on an rx580. Sometimes I watch youtube in 1440p60 and break out the box fan.
Edit: to be fair I have a 144hz 1080p monitor and I usually tweak to keep it above 100. MW2 runs at about 80 (fps *and* C, lol) on recommended and I've been more interested in playing than tweaking because of reasons, but the box fan thing isn't necessarily entirely a joke 😒
@@locuscuztheyfocuse4581 Yep. I got a 14.5 inch 2880p laptop a few weeks ago and now I realize how bad my 1080p 23.8 inch looks.
The jump from 1080 to 1440 was pretty noticeable for me, but 4k feels like diminishing returns. I'd rather have the increased framerate and extra features at 1440 while being able to stay behind a few generations for a "reasonable" price.
I game on a 2k monitor it wasn't a bad price for the monitor. It's an Viotek flat panel with 2k resolution. My brother games on a 4k TV he had the TV before building his PC. Games like ETS or ATS I get around 90 FPS and 70FPS in areas with allot of buildings and traffic. I use a Nvidia RTX 2060 Super.
this is so crazy 8K GAMING!! AN THE 33 MILLION OF PIXELS IS 8K RESOLUTION AND GOOD VIDEO👍😮😮😎😎
8K is cool but I feel like 4K high refresh rate is the future.
What fate a Slugcat. Prey and predator. As the old world died, a new ecosystem evolved. In a land where even rain can kill. Each creature struggles for its own survival. Each beast has a place on the food chain, which it seeks to deny, and through this ruined landscape strange monstrosities and mysteries, Slugcat journeys along. As a search for shelter. A search for answers. A search for hope. What fate a Slugcat.
@@sillysillyamy. ....
Not long ago we used to think 1440p high refresh was the future. So maybe it'll change!
@@tidelwaver1 Good point. I was curious so I had to check and according to the most recent steam hardware survey the most popular resolution is still 1080p by a large margin >66% followed by 1440p at like 11% so maybe there is no future except 1080p lol?
@@ryanholm3480 Most of the world is very poor and does not have access to displays that have a resolution beyond 1080p. What we should look at are these metrics coming from first world countries where I bet 1440p and 4k gaming have the marketshare over 1080p.
One thing I've noticed while learning Chinese is that 4k is SUPER beneficial, since many Chinese characters have intricate details/strokes that aren't as visible at 1080 (though it's less an issue with simplified than traditional characters). I wonder if there's any further benefit to 8k for Chinese, especially on things like public information boards (e.g. a bus or train timetable which will have a lot of information on a digital board)?
no, people don't actually need to see strokes clearly to make out characters, the general shape is really enough. we know this because ppl have no trouble reading fonts that are super bolded and lose a ton of definition or very fonts.
@@martinkn.5161 Some* people have no trouble reading that
As with TVs, you'd probably have an easier time reading it with a _larger_ 4K signboard, so that you don't have to get as close to read it
Where I could really see this making a difference is in High end VR where you might want to push 4k per eye at high fps. I want HL:Alyx benchmarks!!!!
Absolutely. VR benchmarks are going wild with the 4090 right pushing with the Index and Varjo Aero. 4090 is absolutely needed for those HMDs.
I think 2 4k monitors is still half as many pixels as one 8k one
@@tidelwaver1 It is, but with high fps being so important for VR this card would help tremendously.
@@tidelwaver1 Yep, it is half. Which is a good thing imo, since you can get more fps
EXACTLY! While it's true that more than 4k resolution for gaming just doesn't make much sense for normal monitors because of the distance,
it makes a LOT more sense for future high end vr tech where you could easily make use of 8k per eye (or even more) at even higher refresh rates than you would need for smooth monitor gaming, since your basically trying to simulate real life! If you just wanna game on a monitor tho never go above 4k.
To be completely honest, i cant tell 4k and 1440p apart most of the time. Theres no way id be able to see the difference of 4k+ on a screen size i actually would want to use. I cant really see the difference between 90 and 144fps either, so i will continue gaming on 1440p 144hz for the time being.
VR as you said it definitely makes sense to go way higher, even the best VR displays out right now have a lot of weird visual issues caused by resolution, and its not exactly as simple as "make a higher res screen nerds" lol
I am glad that VR was at least mentioned. I spend a large amount of time in VR and while my Index is only 1440×1600 per eye these new high end GPU's are almost a must have. I currently run a EVGA 3090 ti FTW3 and only get 40 to 65 FPS in game, and even less when streaming. Seeing the IRL jump in performance of the 4090 over the 3090/3090 ti is making me seriously consider upgrading to a 4090 far sooner than I had expected to.
is that game VRChat? At that resolution, A 3090 ti is capable of running all other games other than VRChat at a comfortable 90 fps or more.
@@Ernismeister that would be the one. Some of the Private Clubs and rave instances can be down right brutal. My 3090 is working hard to keep up, I am quite often running very low on Vram even with 24GB. I was kind of hoping that the 4090 would have more, 48 GB would be nice.
@@iamthelain VRChat is a dumpster fire since its user created content. Very Poor avatars can often exceed 300mb of vram. I'd love to see vr with a 4000 series card especially since my 3000 series laptop just recently melted :(
Skip the 40XX series. Overpriced and overhyped.
Must consoom
I remember the day I swapped my 1080p display with a 4K display. I was playing through Assassin’s Creed Odyssey at the time. I changed resolution, loaded into my world, and just started at the screen for five minutes. I was fully prepared to be disappointed. I expected it to MAYBE look a BIT better. But it was a MASSIVE improvement. So much more detail on every inch of the screen.
That’s been about three years ago now, and at no point have I looked at that display and thought that I needed more pixels. Next purchase will be a 4K 144hz display. Having seen high refresh rate displays in person, going back to 60 is hard. But I don’t need more resolution right now.
fyi, I've been a 1440p 240hz display for a while with a 3090 and I peg in games like r6 siege, 4k 144hz is plenty viable in tons of games.
1 thing you need to make sure the game isn't doing is giving you better LODs just because your display res is larger.
First 4k screen, gtx 1070, first game gta V, wow almost like real life 😂
The jump from 4K to 8K is not as dramatic but it's sill a big step.
Look up "Visual Hyperacuity", 300 Pixels Per Degree is the limit of perceptual detail in average human vision, and to reach 300PPD with a 55" 8K TV you need to be sitting nine feet away, which almost perfectly matches the viewing habits of the average american household.
@@budthecyborg4575 That's only like 25 degrees of your FOV, which is way too small for gaming on a home console and most definitely using your PC.
Spends thousands of dollars on a liquid cooled GPU. This is totally playable!
Finally I can play doom!
yeah there's no point in a 4090 ti unless you're already a jakillionare
I got a aoi evga 1080 ftw hybrid. Is standard watercooled. (But lots of games are not that playable now haha)
"playable" != "affordable"
I bought my liquid cooled MSI Suprim 4090 for $1700. I plan on getting a second to double up on AI experiments.
i think im ok at 2k... nice combo with good fps an good visuals, maybe 4k in two gens.
I bought a 1440p 144hz monitor several years ago and still feel it is the best overall gaming experience.
HDR would be a great improvement for computer monitors, but the HDR implementation in Windows kind of sucks and HDR in monitors is stupid expensive if you want equivalent HDR performance to a mid-tier 4K TV.
@@keithwilliams2353 hdr1000 is the real hdr, but only a couple of monitors have that. That's why people buy LG c1, c2, Sony a90k 42 inch tvs.
I think we'll see some 1440p like resolution between 4K and 8K that will make sense for human vision and gaming performance standpoint, but for now I'm just glad we are getting high framerates at 4K.
Yes 5K : 5120×2880 16 : 9 or 5120×3200 16 : 10 which I'm more likely to play at.
8K becomes the intermediate when you're using Nvidia DLSS, set to "Quality" the rendered resolution will be 5K, but you're still getting near "Native 8K" sharpness.
With the capabilities of modern upscaling you will always benefit most from upscaling to the highest possible resolution.
This is best for VR really, where the view has to cover your entire FOV.
Either way I hate how every single player tried zooming in to see if they could tell the difference, which is the exact opposite of how to measure it.
What they needed to do was have the details as a far away from the view as possible to see the detail differences.
The trees were a good example as they were distant objects with obvious details.
Indeed, 8k and 4k on upclose objects yields little difference I'd imagine, but that is not what we want 8k for, we want 8k to be able to see somebody in a building, 100s of feet away. Imagine how cool it'd be to be able to see something happening in high detail insanely far away without having to zoom in.
The only way to actually test it would be in Skyrim with 8k vs 4k texture packs and even then that's not a consistent way to measure it imo.
There just are no games that come standard with 8k textures in mind or even 4k for that matter. So anything standard will never be noticeable.
This is what I was thinking too. There are 12k headsets already though, so that's not a huge thing in the VR world.
@@tbuk8350 they aren't 12k, they're 6k. massive difference, its just a marketing sham by I am assuming pimax you are talking about, their "8kx" is also just two 4k screens.
I was gonna say, this kind of power makes sense for VR, flatscreen gaming & entertainment imo no real reason to ever go above 4k. Its different for some wide FOV VR where you want stable 90+ fps and higher than 4k per eye. Not to mention HDR and color depth which means more data per pixel.
Nobody talked about the way he is holding that Suprim Liquid X.
This is what ive always thought, 4k would be the best before diminishing returns and so as what i felt with 240hz. I think the best monitor would be 32in 4K 240hz 1000 nits HDR.
Are you even able to discern pixels at a 32 inch 4K vs say a 1440p? I have a 4K 55 inch LG OLED and I have to press my eyes to the screen to see any pixels
@@tsartomato does hertz even matter after 240hz?
@@XGARBAGExBO2 with Borderlands 3 at 4k there's a pole in the background at a startup menu. I can see some stairstepping effect on the edge. My glasses are 5yrs old. I'm Overdue for a new pair.
In most cases though, I don't see the pixels.
32", that's tiny for todays gaming. Anything over 60fps is a waste of time unless your into fast shooter fps games. I run my games in 4k on my 70" UHD tv at 60Hz / 60 fps without any problems, I prefer it over my 48" ultrawide screen @ 120Hz / 120fps.
@@AL-lh2ht yes, but its not necessarily for the reason you might think, its for motion blurr reduction. The draw and hold nature of an LCD or OLED means every frame remains on screen for the length of the frame before being replaced, this means it is exposing your eye that entire time. For an object moving on screen, your eye is moving accross the screen trying to move to where the object will be but its being exposed by the static image. The result is the object appears to blur, just like any static object does as your eyes move in real life. But in real life moving objects you are tracking don't blur. This is why LCDs, OLED, Film projectors, etc. Appear blurry but a CRT does not. Why does the CRT not? Because the CRT is actually black the majority of the time spent on each frame, every fame the image is drawn on line by line and only a few pixels are lit, the rest are black. This makes your eye exposed to each static frame for a very short period of time which largely negates the motion blur. To get a similar amount of fluidity on an OLED you would need a very very high refresh rate, limiting the time each static image is on screen and thus the relative distance the static image moves relative to your eye.
Is a huge difference for normal use? No. Can you tell, yes.
16:32 “This ain’t my Master Chief”
XD
thanks for telling me not to use 8K linus. idk what i would do without you. just returned my $7000 8k tv for a smaller 720p screen 👍you're a lifesaver man
What if you bought a good 4k tv instead in the first place ? Answer: You wouldn't be looking like an idiot going from 8k to 720p ... XD XD XD
MrCorby123 It’s obviously a joke lol. How did you not get that?
@@zacjohnson452 , it's obvious I'm joking as well lol. How did you not get that?
It depends on the size of the display... Actually what matters is dpi not 4k or 8k
8k on a 31.5" monitor is insane DPI.
I already felt this way since I started using 4K monitors back in 2016---4K should be the max res for monitors unless you have a special use case for higher res ones. For big screen TVs, 8K is more acceptable. But for PC monitors, going higher than 4K is just kind of stupid. Even on this demo using a big screen 8K TV, Linus himself said the difference in 4K & 8K is hardly noticeable.
Even 4k is overkill on smaller screens, 1440p ftw
1080 all you need baby
1440p hits the sweet spot for me so well that I honestly struggle with either 4k or 1080p now
Gaming at 4K is still fascinating and amazing.
5090 and if amd is good with rdna 4 the 8900 xtx would make 4k high refresh rate an easier experience
I think it's funny you posted this video today because I was just thinking this morning, as I stood much closer to my 4k tv than usual, that there's no point to 8k since you'd never going to sit close enough to even a HUGE screen to notice.
i sit an arms length away from my 55" 1080p tv and i'm totally fine. there's also a 4k tv here -same size. but the expensive piece of shxt has tons of display flaws like a big fat vertical black line spanning the entire thing. so the ultra cheap 1080p tv wins and all those amounts of K can go screw themselves. same as all those gamepads that are made to drift. the further they drive their planned obsolescence, the less i even wanna have any of that trash. keep your garbage i'm entirely fed up by now... everything is made to be trash so you can buy more trash.
All those pixels and the game still looks like something from the XBox 360 era. Is this what gaming is like in 2023?
I love the part where he tries to install the 4090 without taking the slot cover off first.
after flight simming on a 50 inch at 4k, I actually would say there is a use case for 8k on very large gaming pannels. I can actually start noticing pixels on my large pannel at 4k.
edit : after watching the end and finding out you have to be close to see the pixels. that makes sense because I play under 30 inches to get as much FOV as possible
@@xpodx As mentioned in the video, you'd have to be fairly close to your screen to even perceive the difference between 4k and 8k, much less 10k. At 27", your eyes would have to be ~20 inches from the screen or closer, even with 20/20 vision. RTINGS has a helpful article that includes a relevant chart based on angular resolution. 5k is the highest resolution you'd need for any reason at 27".
@@xpodx Okay, now I'm really curious how close you sit to your monitor 😆
could actually be great for flight sims since youre looking at tiny things that are miles away. good luck running more than 20 fps in dcs with that though
8k should be 65”+
4k for 24” - 50”
I'm excited for 8k at reasonable prices, but that's because I like using 3 monitors and having 3 4k monitors sounds pretty great. Also, it means we are close to the point where TVs and monitors aren't going to have much room to improve anymore without some huge change in how we consume visual media, which means they'll just get cheaper.
I just use one 65" 8k I have the 3080 n back when I ran on a 4k monitor iracing would run close to 400fps now it only hits around 90/100fps.
We still have to max out their potential, when things like 8k 240Hz become common.
I did the same when Cyperpunk was releases, I played it with the 3090 at 4k first, changed it to WQHD on a 32“ Monitor and couldn‘t tell a difference. I had 20-30 FPS more and enjoyed it the same way. You really don‘t need so much resolution most of the time.
When you’re in the middle of playing games, you wont even notice it. You can play at 1080p ultra and pretty much get the same experience. 😂
me with my voodoo 3 graphics card and 19" CRT monitor from costco: ok no problem i won't.
I know the screen was big but because they're sitting pretty far away I can see why they didn't notice a difference, two people in the video pointed out they're too far to tell and they're correct. I've played on an 8k screen before around monitor distance and I absolutely could tell it was clearer than 4k but I didn't have to go back far before suddenly the benefit (limitations of the human eye) made it so they looked the same.
Another thing Vincent on HDTV test pointed out was that 8K monitors don’t emit as much light due to the smaller pixels so the overall image quality won’t be as strong when outputting HDR compared to 4K. I think 4K with some good HDR is absolutely the sweet spot now and there’s an argument for making ‘better pixels’ rather than just ‘more pixels’
Sounds like MicroLED solves that problem.
@@sqlevolicious and quantum dots
just wait for 8K textures and materials in the 2024 games ;)
at this point, it's much better to just go for higher refresh rates for having a more smooth game as well as have that slight advantage of a few miliseconds, also less pixels to render will mean more fps anyways, it always feels nicer to have 100fps rather than 60 and makes some difference, 8k doesn't really do much
That absolutely depends on the use case. 100 fps is a complete waste when running campaing games and I'd take the extra details over any perceived "fluidness" at those fps levels
Agreed. The average person would have to sit at
@Mr.Sitallewal GAMING PS5 that's your own personal opinion, not a fact. There's nothing that says more fps is better when you hit a certain point (~60 fps). Very few ppl will notice any difference
@@romancastro6237 144hz is noticeably better than 60hz
I love that the water cooled card still needs an on-board fan.
vrms and memory chips, the blocks on AIO GPU's generally only cool the chip
It mainly comes down to the details of the textures of the assets and different surfaces/meshes that have been designed in the game. If they are non-existent for the certain, specific resolution that you have selected, then it is pointless to compare against different resolutions and say that they are all the same because they ARE actually the same.
The reason that 4K looks just the same as 8K here, is just because the texture packs are only there for up to 4K, and no more beyond that.
Something very similar happens with the "upscaling" of lossy audio files, where, even if you were to resample and increase the bitrate, you wouldn't get any increase in audio quality because there is only what was there from the start to begin with. It is isn't magic. You can't simply create stuff out of nothing - all the upscaling does is to increase the file size with no difference in sound quality.
The bandwidth 8k would take up and graphics and hard drive requirements to play a game would be stupid. I understand if a dev wants to add option to play at 8k but NATIVE 8K is stupid
Can't wait for 8K gaming on the 5090 🐐
I mean I watch youtube videos in 720p sometimes.. just because I want to safe bandwidth, but I liked the explanation of Nicole. 8K would maybe make sense if you had a game that was really build for 8K. Additionally 3kliksphilip did a great video on rendering games in 4K and playing it on 1080p screen, maybe playing 8k on 4k screen would be nice.
The idea of Supersampling touches on a different subject from this video.
"Aliasing" is actually always going to be visible no matter what your resolution because of the nature of 3D rendering.
A light source in real life emits energy equally in all directions and no matter what your position is relative to the light source you will always be able to see it (as long as more than a few photos reach your eye), but in games pixels are sampled at exact points and your ability to see an object is dependent on a pixel sample point actually hitting that object, it's possible for entire objects to fit inbetween sample points and not show up on screen at all, thus Aliasing always looks really bad even when rendering at Native 8K because there will always be some details popping in and out of existence.
DLSS does a lot to fix these issues (filling in gaps in the image with assumed knowledge of object positions), but eventually it still breaks down, so in extreme scenarios even at 8K you're going to want Supersampling, problem is that gets stupidly expensive.
The best way around this is Variable Rate Shading, modern game engines have the ability to change resolution per-object and an easy example where this would make a huge difference would be using a supersampled rendering zone over the crosshairs in shooters, and the body outline of enemy characters should also be supersampled to make sure the player silhouette isn't never masked or entirely hidden with aliasing.
Them kids, I played on the TV screen with ZX Spectrum compatible in those times. It was totally playable.
These resolutions are not worth it for your average gamer. The higher you keep going from 1080p, 2k, 4k and 8k gaming, the further away you have to keep getting from the monitor because the screens get larger. So unless you're planning to play with a controller and with your friends over at your place often, it's not worth it if gaming home alone. Otherwise, just get a pc for gaming solo and an xbox or ps to play together with friends when they come over on your 4k or 8k tv 🤷♂️ personally I think 2k (1440p) gaming is a sweet spot 👌 you can get 2k gaming comfortably on a 27" monitor at your desk still and looks GREAT! 4k really needs 32" monitor, but that's a bit too big of a monitor for my liking for solo gaming at your desk.
Kinda hard to do 8K/60fps gaming when Nvidia’s newest GPUs don’t support DisplayPort 2.0. Hopefully the AMD GPUs fill the void.
Displayport 1.4a can do 8k/60hz even with hdr im using it myself
I know right!
Dsc *exists*
I was ready to drop $3500 aud until I found out the 4090 only has 1.4a, wouldnt mind 2.0 to run the pimax 12k 😂, maybe the 4080ti will have it 🤔
AMD will still suck lmao