| Arkaign said: Supposedly 900p (1600x900) was 'impossible' to tell from 1080 (1920x1080), so how is 3840x2160 checkerboard supposed to be distinguishable from 3840x2160 native in a living room setup unless you have a 100" TV? |
Because Checkerboard isn't 3840x2160. It is two 1920x1080 frames.
Best to put it into pixel counts to give you a better idea.
900P is 1,440,000 pixels.
1080P is 2,073,600 pixels.
Checkerboard is 4,147,200 pixels.
4K is 8,294,400 pixels.
There is a difference between all of them, anyone who has seen them in the flesh can testify to that.
With that said, there are a few tricks to cover up such inadequacies like: Upscaling, Anti-Aliasing, Blur etc' which helps blur the lines.
| Arkaign said: IMHO, 900p is a bit blurry but not horrendously so at typical viewing distances to a 60" TV. I find that indeed most people can't tell the difference when I change my HTPC gaming setup between 900/1080. 720 does look pretty awful though. |
I disagree. 900P is horrible. 720P is disgusting. 1080P is dated. - I have been a 1440P gamer for years. Before that I was running Eyefinity 1080P panels for a total of 5760x1080.
| Arkaign said: I think we're in the realm of diminishing returns with resolution, I wish console resources were going to 60fps ultra 1080p instead. I'm not even going to replace my 2560x1440 144hz gysnc screen for most of my PC gaming until I can reasonably buy enough GPU power for ~100fps at 4K native. |
Disagree.
I got to see an 5k panel in action a few months ago. All I could say was: Wow.
Once I find a high-refresh rate 4k (Or better) non-tn panel monitor at a good price, I'm jumping on it like flies to poop.
| Arkaign said: I have a 10-bit 4K 42" display for the bedroom that I tried out briefly, but even with twin 1070s, the experience wasn't great. Dual GPU is not efficient enough to make it worthwhile, so I split them back up to HTPC + Gaming PC once again (replaced a 970 and R390, I briefly replaced the 390 with a 480, but it was incredibly underwhelming, so I doubt I'll buy another AMD GPU anytime soon). |
Your mistake was thinking the Radeon 480 was a replacement for the 390. That was never AMD's intention. The 390 is actually the faster card in a ton of games, especially when compared against the Radeon 480 4Gb version.
That mistake lays with you not AMD.
| Arkaign said: Going by that, what would be the ultimate 2D setup? Where moving beyond it wouldn't be noticeable? 64K resolution (64,440x34,560) on a 200" Wall-flush curved OLED (or better) 12-bit color 240hz display. 200FPS with maximum AA and fully accurate Vsync and no perceivable delay (sub 2ms) 400TF GPU with 2TB Dedicated Memory (HBM3 or GDDR6) Hybrid Quad-Core 8Ghz CPU with 64-Core 4Ghz CPU (most games demand from 1 to 4 cores pretty highly, and scale poorly from there, but a ton of secondary cores could help with background OS/AI/MP/Networking/etc) 2TB Eight-Channel 4Ghz Main System Memory on 1024-bit Bus, for keeping entire OS/game in memory at all times $299? :D LOL |
Okay. So.
1) Eyes don't see the world in pixels. You can have vision that exceeds 20/20.
2) Eyes don't see the world in terms of "frames per second".
3) There is little sense in making a 64-core CPU. CPU's aren't meant for highly parallel tasks, that's the job of the GPU, keep them serialised. - Also the frequency they operate isn't their performance.
4) You will not have System Ram on a 1024-bit bus, like. Ever. It requires far to many traces on the motherboard to make it economically feasible.
--::{PC Gaming Master Race}::--
