Prove it! Please list some 4K-monitors which were available for PCs in 2000 - 2006!

Some benchmarks of Anandtech & Co. of that era in 3840x2160 would also be welcome!

Also let us know which PC setup you had in 2001 or 2002.

1. Eh. Maybe that's the case.  Claims like this are easily supported. Since KBG almost never supports any of his points, so I'm not about to take his word on it. A simple link to a cost breakdown of a similar intel NUC would have sufficed.

2. You're right, consoles are about as streamlined as possible. My point was the extra ports of the NUC are not the kinds of things that add meaningful cost to the device. The physical  themselves add almost no cost, and unless they had to change to a noticably more expensive chipset or add other required additional supporting hardware, shielding, etc. it's a non issue. Besides, he's advocating adding simcard and cell phone network support to a PS4 Portable, because obviously everyone needs that, right?. That is far more expensive to add to a system that an additional USB port or two.

3. Who said anything about 14 nm Raven Ridge? There's a gap between 14 nm and 7 nm that no one's bothering discussing.  But besides that, I'm not saying such a device wouldn't sell. KBG was arguing that it's not really a question of tech or pricing,  when that's obviously nonsense. I would definitely, totally buy a PS4 portable if it had the right features and the right price. But what if it doesn't have the right features? What if Sony releases a PS4 portable at $599 and only plays PS4 games at 720p? What if it sells less than 2 million over a 2 year period and they never make the initial investment back? What good does that do for Sony? For what it's worth, there's other ways for Sony to put fingers in Nintendo's pie that do not involve releasing new SKUs. You can claim that Nintendo has "the mobile crowd" but the truth is, there's no denying Nintendo is competing with Apple and Google for that part of the market. There's plenty of parents that are going to decide between getting their kid a Switch or an iPad or an android tablet. As well as the Switch is selling, Apple and Google haven't yet responded to it, and sales could quickly flat line as they did with the Wii.


The way I see it, the only way Sony releases another handheld is if they do what they haven't done before, and that's if they can go toe to toe with Nintendo in every way. That includes price. Nintendo just released their most expensive handheld ever, but unlike they Wii U, they also built it in such a way that it lends itself to cheaper manufacturing processes. It will be a huge struggle, and for what exactly? The ability to say they're competing in the mobile space. I just don't think they're willing to put the time, money and effort into doing that when they're kicking so much ass under the television, and they know how much attention that requires to maintain. I think Sony is going to sit and wait it out, and see how the Switch performs long term before he seriously considers putting it's hat back in that ring. Sony can let Nintendo take the gamble and dive in if the market proves its willing to support such a device before they throw any bit of effort into it..

I don't know.
It looks pretty possible to me.
You don't need a 4k (or 8MP) monitor to render, and play games at 4k, super-sampling is a thing.
I can play games (some modern ones too) at 8k on my 4k monitor, with a single 1080Ti.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_T220/T221_LCD_monitors

2006
http://www.hexus.net/tech/reviews/monitors/4537-dell-ultrasharp-3007wfp-widescreen-lcd-display/
2560x1600
Roughly half the pixel count of a modern, 16:9 4k monitor.

https://www.extremetech.com/computing/51006-sli-vs-crossfire-benchmarks
Systems from 2006 running some of the most advanced/demanding titles of the time, at 4MP.
None of these games even made it to the PS2.
It isn't hard to imagine systems like these being able to run PS2, or early 2000s PC titles at 8MP.
Especially if you drop some settings.

16k gaming on a PC.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Toft6fMvByA

But he claimed several times that there were 4K displays in the PS2-era... should be easy to prove that if true.

You are comparing tech of the year 2000 (PS2) with tech of the year 2006 in an extremely costly setup (quad-SLI). And nobody is denying that PS2 was very dated in 2006... the 7th gen was already out then.

But until mid 2004 there was no Nvidia SLI and until mid 2005 there was no ATi Crossfire... the maximal performance you could get in the early PS2-years were from one GeForce 2 (2000), GeForce 3 (2001) and GeForce4 Ti 4600 (2002) respectively their ATi counterparts... good luck playing in 4K on them.

"But he claimed several times that there were 4K displays in the PS2-era... should be easy to prove that if true."
There were; it is, and I linked you one.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_T220/T221_LCD_monitors
Sold between 2001 to 2005.
3840×2400, 9.2MP.
This monitor has more pixels than an average modern, 16:9 4k monitor.

https://www-03.ibm.com/press/us/en/pressrelease/1180.wss
https://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/1012426/ibm-t221-world-finest-monitor
https://www.computerworld.com.au/article/45719/ibm_crams_9_2m_pixels_onto_new_22-inch_lcd_screen/
https://forums.anandtech.com/threads/ibm-t221-lcd-monitor-3840x2400-resolution-anyone.1025676/
https://www.extremetech.com/computing/51882-dense-pixel-lcd-delivers-200-dpi
http://tiamat.tsotech.com/high-res-please
https://www.viewsonic.com/au/products/archive/VP2290b.php
https://www.amazon.com/IBM-T221-22-2-3840x2400-Monitor/dp/B00006HS5R
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1WTc0cY9GxU

4k in the early 2000s, must've been glorious.

Nobody said you could hit 4k with 2000 - 2002 cards, in PS2-era games.
It is hard to find super high res benchmarks being done on sites like Anandtech.
Because, well, why would they?
It generates next to no usable data for their readers.
Running the latest and greatest titles, titles that will probably generate the most user interest/traffic, would likely be impossible at decent frame-rates.

Look at this benchmark:
https://www.extremetech.com/computing/51006-sli-vs-crossfire-benchmarks/4
All four of these systems, destroy Half-Life 2: Lost Coast, at 4MP.
Half-Life 2: Lost Coast, was designed as a PC tech showcase, at one point referred to as an ATI level.
http://www.valvetime.net/threads/ati-level.68115/
http://au.ign.com/articles/2005/02/05/half-life-2s-lost-coast

It was harder to run than the base Half-Life 2.
Half-Life 2 had to be cut down in order for the Xbox to be able to run the game (smaller levels, sub 30FPS, at or below PC minimum setting, ect).

These computers should be able to handle a PS2 title at 4k, no problem.
Some PCs from 2005 should be able to handle some PS2 titles at 4k.

I was hoping someone would ask me to prove it.
I tend not to make a claim unless I look it up first. ;)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_T220/T221_LCD_monitors
They were actually 3840×2400 resolution, so higher than 4k. But you know. Cats and stuff.

As for benchmarks, you aren't serious right? Anandtech wouldn't have done any reviews or deep dives and they are probably the only real website I trust.

In 2002... I had a 21" CRT with a resolution of 1920x1440. Aka Sony StylePro CPD-E540 as I needed it for professional work.
This isn't a resolution consoles like the Playstation 4 or Xbox One can even hit in 2018. (The Pro/X consoles of course exceed it.)

I would have been running with a Geforce 4 Ti 4600 with a pair of 3DFX Voodoo 2's in SLI, Athlon XP 2800+ and 4GB of DDR Ram.

In-fact, I still have the motherboard, processor, ram and one of the Voodoo 2's from that rig. I intend to get it back up and running at some point if again, you require me to provide evidence.

You are ruining my life! Let me prove people wrong, I live for it. :P

Who gives a shit? It doesn't change a damn thing.

False.

ATI had "Crossfire". - Aka. With the ATI Rage Fury Max. It wasn't "branded" as crossfire however.
It allowed ATI to put two GPU's on a single card to work together.

As for SLI, that was 3DFX's domain, nVidia purchased them and wouldn't implement the "branding" until the Geforce 6.

You are conflating two separate issues. That is also a logical fallacy.

1. Asking for proof is a valid request, but when we're taking a stab in the dark about hypothetical hardware that could potentially be coming sometime in the future, maybe, based on what little evidence is available at present, proof may help somewhat, but really isn't proving much anyway on a topic like this. The "about to reveal" and "is closer than some may think" is a little too ambitious and optimistic I think and a step too far just yet.

2. The extra port cost isn't that big of an issue, your mostly right about that, but I just assumed they were trying to make a similar point like I was in the end, that you don't add extra stuff, no matter the cost, if your plan is to sell for as cheap as possible. The cell hardware and software would add extra cost no doubt, but that would have to be handled with multiple SKU's. The base unit would not have those options, and if PS only made a single mobile device, then they most likely would leave that out, similar to why they left out 4K BD in Pro.

3. KBG mentioned 14nm, and your correct, 12nm and 10nm are ahead of 7nm, so there's a possibility there. I even mentioned in another thread that PS4 SS and Pro S could maybe launch this year with those chips. I don't think PS would launch 3 devices all at once though, so I still think a PS4 Portable would be a 2019 device, if it ends up a PS4 device, but it doesn't have to be 7nm, even though that would be a better pairing other than timing. I think assuming PS will charge too much is a wasted thought, since PS4 and Pro have both been $399. If a PS4 Portable launches, the base model will not be more than $399 max. Whether or not it sells, is something we would better understand once we know much much more about the actual device and their plans for it. The more PS focused on a phone type device and mobile phone type games, the more they would have to worry about Apple and Google. Nin is slightly infringing on their space now, but their only lightly treading on it at this point, so if PS follows suit, they should be ok in terms of competitive push back aside from Nin.

A PS4 Portable with the hardware that's being discussed, would more than likely have one big advantage over Switch, and that's the third party titles. Nin may very well hold the first party crown with Switch, but PS would most likely capture the majority of the handheld gamers who wanted to take their third party console games on the go with them. You make a good point about how much effort PS would have to put into it and how much focus would have to remain on the portable over time, which could hurt their future home console superiority to some degree. It's a gamble either way. If they can continue to grow the home console market and stave off an XB comeback, then why bother with a handheld? If they go all in on home consoles and the market starts to shift and demands a mobile aspect, trying to make inroads at this point in time is tough enough, let alone if Switch has 50-75+ million customers linked to that hardware and ecosystem already.

I by no means think this is a guarantee, or even something PS definitely should do, but I do see why they may want to keep their foot in the door. I think as long as PS5 doesn't deviate much from the PS4 formula, then PS can afford to take the risk and give the portable space a shot again, succeed or fail. Obviously plan to succeed enough to profit and compliment the PS ecosystem though.

Point taken. I only looked for "2160p" and forgot that 16:10-displays were still popular back then. My bad.

But I doubt that I would have been happy with one of these monitors for gaming with their low frequency (up to 41 Hz), they were more specialized for static images.

350mm^2 is Huge..... noway thats going into a new switch.

also "The chip delivers 1.3 TFLOPs of peak FP32 performance"  "The chip delivers all of this compute at just 20W".

That doesnt sound impressive to me.

AMD's 2500U is probably better suited for gameing than this Huge Soc from Nvidia called Xavier is.
And that ll be a small cheap chip, compaired to this one (thats designed for cars).

Maybe Nintendo Switch's to AMD APUs for the next Switch?

It isn't like there won't be a small custom X3 chip which is made especially for New Switch