Where are the 8K Monitors?

elvn said:
Yeah his example might be using that mac supersampling/scaling HiDPI at 4k or 5k. Still he got good results overall I think and for $1k prob not a bad deal overall. I'll wait out drops on the 800b/900b - c though. Not in that big of a rush but looking forward to higher than 4k real-estate someday w/out bezels. Currently I have two 4k screens for desktop/apps + a 4k OLED for media and games.
Click to expand...
Sounds like an awesome setup already.

But yeah, completely get the desire to reduce the number of bezels, preferably none. I've been on 43-50" 4k for a couple of years now and don't currently feel the need (or have the space o_O) for anything more.

I'd maybe go down in size and up in DPI to allow for more actual desktop real estate if the displays that allowed for such things didn't have their own annoying compromises.

As ever, keeping my eyes on developments with no immediate need or desire to swap out what I have.
 


see, there is good transparent OLED out already, just not on a PC. How many yr. will it take for these commerical transparent OLED to migrate to home PC?
 
Happy Hopping said:
I understand. But by the same token, if you do a search under the model name and the word 'chroma", there are other website who said it doesn't have 444

So surely this shouldn't be a guessing game. But when I read the spec. of this model, it doesn't say. I am guessing some samsung website should says 1 way or the other what the chroma ratio is

imagine you and I go buy a car, and the manufacturer won't tell you how many HP the car is. And you and I have to guess. Would you buy that car?
Click to expand...
Please also note that Samsung TVs, despite having the same name, might still be different in different parts of the world. Like the qn900b only being 120 Hz in Europe etc, not 144 Hz.
 
They, especially samsung, need Pho-LED. Phosphorescent blue oleds that degrade much slower - but that's not until 2025. LG also has meta lenses they claim can enable their screens to do up to 2000nit (probably somewhat less but maybe not once combined with phoLED) peaks and somewhat higher than OLED's sustained larger %'s of screen can do now. LG also uses that white subpixel to "cheat" higher perceived brightness at lower energy levels. They should be able to do higher brightness and better longevity with all of those technologies combined since they won't have to output as much energy+heat to get the same output levels and they won't be relying on fluorescent blue oled emitters that fail quicker.. Idk if samsung has anything like meta lens tech but they will all have phosphorescent supposedly in 2025. That and prob a 5000 series gpu in 2025 with dp 2.1 also so seems like a milestone year for some tech (and spending depending if you drop $ on any of that).

Unfortunately oled seems to be steps behind FALD in high rez + 240Hz though, (and 8k TVs even for that matter) and the uw oled screens are staying relatively small compared to the largest FALD ones. Also, oled are a great deal for gaming TVs but the TVs probably won't have dp 2.1 ports while nvidia will prob release 5000 series gpu with dp 2.1 in 2025. Tradeoff there is monitors usually have abraded AG layer which I hate for several reasons. Not that OLED won't hit those Hz +Rez+Size marks eventually but they are not in sync with FALD on those facets development/timeline wise. I still love oled, my main living room TV is a C1 OLED. However I'm leaning heavily towards trying one of those FALD LCD 57" super ultrawides. I'll probably move my 48" CX to bedroom at that point if/when that happens because the oled wouldn't be my choice as an over top in an over under since I wouldn't like using it for desktop/apps personally, which would be the main duty of the top screen in that kind of setup for me so I can have stuff on the top one while gaming on the bottom s-uw band one.
 
Last edited:
Considering the actual street price/value of the included Samsung Galaxy Tab S9 WiFi 11.0, the 65" QN900B is now basically at the same price as the Acer X32FP etc in Sweden. Which is interesting as it is basically 4 X32FPs in one. Finding it really hard to resist even with the undefeatable upscaling :D
 
1693454272957.png


Look at those amazing black grey levels.

I'm so glad this panel isn't using a Glossy coating. No sense in having the panel have the ability to fully disable the backlight if the coating is so clear and transparent that it becomes fully black.

After all, who wants contrast and vibrancy when you have to deal with the exact same amount of reflections but not blurry.

(yes I'm being sarcastic, Poe's law)
 
KazeoHin said:
View attachment 595097

Look at those amazing black grey levels.

I'm so glad this panel isn't using a Glossy coating. No sense in having the panel have the ability to fully disable the backlight if the coating is so clear and transparent that it becomes fully black.

After all, who wants contrast and vibrancy when you have to deal with the exact same amount of reflections but not blurry.

(yes I'm being sarcastic, Poe's law)
Click to expand...
If only you would have mentioned what TV it is so we could share your enjoyment :)
 
KazeoHin said:
View attachment 595097

Look at those amazing black grey levels.

I'm so glad this panel isn't using a Glossy coating. No sense in having the panel have the ability to fully disable the backlight if the coating is so clear and transparent that it becomes fully black.

After all, who wants contrast and vibrancy when you have to deal with the exact same amount of reflections but not blurry.

(yes I'm being sarcastic, Poe's law)
Click to expand...

improwise said:
If only you would have mentioned what TV it is so we could share your enjoyment :)
Click to expand...

It's the image from that AUO 8k 120hz article I linked if you visit the hyperlinked page.

Here is the original pic from techpowerup:

honSqIftAwU9pDr1.jpg


Yeah idk what's up with that shot. Modern FALDs do not look as bad as that picture really. There is no detail in the blacks at all either. That looks like 720p on an old rear projection screen in that photo lol. Looks like 600:1 contrast or something. The main point was that 120hz 8k tech seems to be on the roadmap - but prob 2025 and onward.

Matte abraded surface is a big downgrade for sure though, especially with ambient light hitting it (or showroom light in that case most likely).FALD will raise blacks to more like grey-blacks when the ag is 'activated' by ambient lighting. Really should be an option on screens either way but I guess they might think it would risk being stuck with units of one or the other that didn't sell, idk. Plus extra cost to mfg each differently instead of all the same.



. . . . .


elvn said:
https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/202...-more-reflections/?comments=1&comments-page=1

Or course you are seeing this picture below on whatever screen surface you are using at the moment so it's more of a simulation. ;)

matte-glossy.jpg




. . . . . .

https://euro.dough.tech/blogs/news/matte-vs-glossy-gaming-monitors-technology-explained

7fc6daaf63fa0869961e502ac6cb4fb2e99b179e_480x480.jpg


86e018a65e7c6b031682e3cf01edec16b7b177d6_480x480.jpg


075c78e242e254fd3f497774caaceadd54b947ba_480x480.jpg


subpixel photo the euro.dough.tech site referenced from TFTcentral:

d3047e25cf1e8c6b2679bd7aeaf8a0b7612859e4_480x480.png



bee01dbf0c7a3ed7446fb60e138e8d0a6196b2d6_480x480.jpg
Click to expand...

Might not be able to get dp 2.1 on a glossy screen for a much longer time than matte so might have limited choices if you want that any time soon. Maybe some glossy oled *monitor* with dp 2.1 will pop up at some point or something but tv's historically are tied to hdmi version updates. That said, so far dp 2.1 gpus and the 57" 4k+4k superultawide screens are all 54Gbps (vs hdmi 2.1's 48) .. and not dp 2.1 full 80 Gbps spec.
 
Last edited:
Gatecrasher3000 said:
Clickbate, but still good for a read.
https://www.pcmag.com/news/8k-tvs-not-dead-yet-but-pretty-close
Click to expand...
Even without the EU regulations, it's just hard to imagine 8K content becoming a thing. Streaming services won't do it due to bandwidth requirements (or it gets heavily gimped in bitrate), most YT content creators won't bother because it's niche and not sure if 8K BluRay movies would be viable either. 1080p to 4K gave obvious benefits for all this but 4K to 8K just doesn't.

I hope the Samsung 8Kx2K superultrawide is successful and shows display manufacturers that maybe pushing for 8K 16:9 on large desktop displays is the route to go.
 
kasakka said:
Even without the EU regulations, it's just hard to imagine 8K content becoming a thing. Streaming services won't do it due to bandwidth requirements (or it gets heavily gimped in bitrate), most YT content creators won't bother because it's niche and not sure if 8K BluRay movies would be viable either. 1080p to 4K gave obvious benefits for all this but 4K to 8K just doesn't.

I hope the Samsung 8Kx2K superultrawide is successful and shows display manufacturers that maybe pushing for 8K 16:9 on large desktop displays is the route to go.
Click to expand...
Are you old enough to remember when 4K and even FHD came with the same discussion about being not needed? :) That said, I kind of agree (for now) with one big exception, self generated content, or to be more precise, outputting your own 8K signal and finally get rid of multi monitors and all the problems that still comes with. Now, I totally understand that for most users, a 4K monitor without scaling is probably enough for their workflow, but for us few pixel junkies, we can never have enough :D

Edit:

One could probably argue a case where really large monitors like 85" could benefit from 8K for normal content, but since you would most likely be further away from such a monitor/TV, I am not sure if the logic actually holds up.
 
Last edited:
improwise said:
Are you old enough to remember when 4K and even FHD came with the same discussion about being not needed? :) That said, I kind of agree (for now) with one big exception, self generated content, or to be more precise, outputting your own 8K signal and finally get rid of multi monitors and all the problems that still comes with. Now, I totally understand that for most users, a 4K monitor without scaling is probably enough for their workflow, but for us few pixel junkies, we can never have enough :D

Edit:

One could probably argue a case where really large monitors like 85" could benefit from 8K for normal content, but since you would most likely be further away from such a monitor/TV, I am not sure if the logic actually holds up.
Click to expand...
I'm old enough to have seen the transition from VHS to DVD. All these were big leaps in image quality, but 4K to 8K is not. Even watching 8K content on a huge 8K screen, it's very difficult to tell that it actually looks better vs same video running on a 4K screen. Especially on large screens that need a lot of viewing distance like you said.

I'm interested in 8K mostly for the scaling benefits. I'm honestly ok with about 2x 1440p displays worth of unscaled desktop space, but would like sharper text/UI.
 
I'm interested in 8k desktop real-estate of a larger screen instead of two or three 4k screens with bezels. I'm all for higher PPD and more resolution per character and fine highly contrasted borders/fringes, higher pixel density 2d desktop graphics and images too but I'd enjoy a large wall of screen where I could put windows and games, fields of whatever anywhere on a screen if I could get one in the meantime without bezels crossing.. Even in that usage scenario, 8k would have higher ppd than I've been using.

E.g. even if you sat at 30" from a 65" 8k, which is pretty extreme at an 87 deg wide viewing angle, you'd be getting almost 90 PPD, where on my 4k at the viewing angle of 60 to 55 deg that I use I'm getting 64 to 70 PPD (central viewing angle = 60 to 50). I can adjust how near and far my desk sits since I decouple my screens from the desk so sitting nearer for a smaller game space or uw frame and then rolling back when doing desktop/app/media is not a problem.. Or vice versa, I want to see a full screen game or media space from farther away but sit closer to use the screen space like a multi-monitor setup where I move my head around. Desk and chair are on caster wheels.
 
elvn said:
I'm interested in 8k desktop real-estate of a larger screen instead of two or three 4k screens with bezels. I'm all for higher PPD and more resolution per character and fine highly contrasted borders/fringes, higher pixel density 2d desktop graphics and images too but I'd enjoy a large wall of screen where I could put windows and games, fields of whatever anywhere on a screen if I could get one in the meantime without bezels crossing.. Even in that usage scenario, 8k would have higher ppd than I've been using.

E.g. even if you sat at 30" from a 65" 8k, which is pretty extreme at an 87 deg wide viewing angle, you'd be getting almost 90 PPD, where on my 4k at the viewing angle of 60 to 55 deg that I use I'm getting 64 to 70 PPD (central viewing angle = 60 to 50). I can adjust how near and far my desk sits since I decouple my screens from the desk so sitting nearer for a smaller game space or uw frame and then rolling back when doing desktop/app/media is not a problem.. Or vice versa, I want to see a full screen game or media space from farther away but sit closer to use the screen space like a multi-monitor setup where I move my head around. Desk and chair are on caster wheels.
Click to expand...
If only Samsung had offered the option to disable scaling, that scenario would be my reality. I find myself even starting to consider getting the QN900C instead despite it's astronomical price tag, as at least in the EU it is a bit better actually being 144 hz instead of 120 hz. Also, unlike the QN900B, it offers 4 views in multi view, which could mean that even without being able to disable scaling, perhaps you could get 4K 1:1 by feeding it as a Multi View source. The QN900B at it's current price is hard to ignore also, only problem is that I am not really a "second best" kind of guy unfortunately.

As mentioned before, in 8K and with GPU scaling it is 60 hz only.
 
You'll probably have more options and more mfgs in the 8k market in 2025. 8k is just not ripe right now so most of your options are going to be green apples so to speak. It's a little aggravating but it's the way things played out for various reaons.
 
With Samsung having been caught cheating again with their One Connect boxes and their limited bandwidth, what does this actually mean for the 8K monitors? No 4:4:4 at 4K@144hz or can DSC compensate for it? Would this limited bandwidth affect other aspects specific to the 8K monitors?


View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q20_oW25NDM

(Probably same problem for 4K sets using the One connect box AFAIK)
 
improwise said:
With Samsung having been caught cheating again with their One Connect boxes and their limited bandwidth, what does this actually mean for the 8K monitors? No 4:4:4 at 4K@144hz or can DSC compensate for it? Would this limited bandwidth affect other aspects specific to the 8K monitors?


View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q20_oW25NDM

(Probably same problem for 4K sets using the One connect box AFAIK)
Click to expand...

Is there some confirmation that 8K models would use a One Connect box limited to 40 Gbps HDMI 2.1?

For 4K I think it's pretty irrelevant at current refresh rates. There was no real practical difference between the 4K 120 Hz LG C9 (48 Gbps) vs CX (40 Gbps) I had. The C9 allowed for 12-bit color but that's pretty useless on a 10-bit panel.

If these Samsungs support 4K 144 Hz, they could simply use DSC without issue. If they move to use 240 Hz panels/controllers in future iterations, DSC becomes a necessity.
 
kasakka said:
Is there some confirmation that 8K models would use a One Connect box limited to 40 Gbps HDMI 2.1?

For 4K I think it's pretty irrelevant at current refresh rates. There was no real practical difference between the 4K 120 Hz LG C9 (48 Gbps) vs CX (40 Gbps) I had. The C9 allowed for 12-bit color but that's pretty useless on a 10-bit panel.

If these Samsungs support 4K 144 Hz, they could simply use DSC without issue. If they move to use 240 Hz panels/controllers in future iterations, DSC becomes a necessity.
Click to expand...
I believe that it was Rtings that confirmed it and also that it was true for 2022 models as well. But it is a bit hard to actually find out what impact it will have and for different TV models and also what impact it would have with DSC, which I assume that S95C has as well (at least the video seem to indicate that). If it isn''t a problem, I am surprised if Vincent etc make it out to be, as one of the most renowned reviewers/experts in the world.

https://www.tomsguide.com/news/sams...senting-some-features-of-its-flagship-oled-tv
 
improwise said:
I believe that it was Rtings that confirmed it and also that it was true for 2022 models as well. But it is a bit hard to actually find out what impact it will have and for different TV models and also what impact it would have with DSC, which I assume that S95C has as well (at least the video seem to indicate that). If it isn''t a problem, I am surprised if Vincent etc make it out to be, as one of the most renowned reviewers/experts in the world.

https://www.tomsguide.com/news/sams...senting-some-features-of-its-flagship-oled-tv
Click to expand...
The below is with the assumption of 4:4:4/RGB color.

With 40 Gbps HDMI 2.1, 4K @ 10-bit @ 120 Hz is possible without DSC but even 2:1 compression would allow for 4K @ 10-bit @ 240 Hz so it's not much of an issue.

With 8K res, you need DSC even for 8-bit @ 60 Hz, even on a 48 Gbps port. So reducing down to a 40 Gbps port for cost cutting changes nothing. For 8K @ 120 Hz, even a 48 Gbps port is not enough for 10-bit color without dropping down to 4:2:2. In which case even 40 Gbps is enough.

So while it's disappointing to see 40 Gbps ports on top end TVs, with where the tech is atm, it doesn't really matter much.
 
Just had an interesting chat with Samsung regarding the QN900C and its Multi View (which seems to have been upgraded to Multi View 2.0 with the 2023 line). They claim that the QN900C can do 4K@144hz on EACH input in Multiview, and as Multi View 2.0 supports 4 instead of 2 sources, that should mean that it being an 8K display, it should actually be able to do 4K at 1:1 in Multi View mode. This could be quite interesting as the main reason I returned the QN900B was because you could not disable upscaling.

Now, I should add that I still remain more than a bit doubtful about this actually being true, that it would support 4:4:4, VRR etc, but it could at least be reason enough to give it a try and also if needed return it due to misleading information (which usually isn't a problem in the EU regardless).
 
improwise said:
Just had an interesting chat with Samsung regarding the QN900C and its Multi View (which seems to have been upgraded to Multi View 2.0 with the 2023 line). They claim that the QN900C can do 4K@144hz on EACH input in Multiview, and as Multi View 2.0 supports 4 instead of 2 sources, that should mean that it being an 8K display, it should actually be able to do 4K at 1:1 in Multi View mode. This could be quite interesting as the main reason I returned the QN900B was because you could not disable upscaling.

Now, I should add that I still remain more than a bit doubtful about this actually being true, that it would support 4:4:4, VRR etc, but it could at least be reason enough to give it a try and also if needed return it due to misleading information (which usually isn't a problem in the EU regardless).
Click to expand...
So far there is no Multi-view/PbP mode on any Samsung display that supports VRR though.

You also need DSC for 4K 144 Hz @ 10-bit color so you are unlikely to be able to get 4x 4K 144 Hz outputs from a single GPU. 4x 4K 120 Hz @ 8-bit color might be max you can get out of a single GPU.
 
kasakka said:
So far there is no Multi-view/PbP mode on any Samsung display that supports VRR though.

You also need DSC for 4K 144 Hz @ 10-bit color so you are unlikely to be able to get 4x 4K 144 Hz outputs from a single GPU. 4x 4K 120 Hz @ 8-bit color might be max you can get out of a single GPU.
Click to expand...
My main usage would actually be laptops etc that cant run 8K to avoid having to have 4K scale to 65" fullscreen.
 
I'll check it out, thanks.

I think a big problem is lack of competition in the space after all the other mfgs put 8k production on pause for a few years.

Currently the 65" 900C is $3600 usd + $315 tax here and that's after a $400 discount, the list price is $4k + tax.

Currently the 65" 800C is $2700 usd + $236 tax here and that's after a $300 discount, the list price is $3k + tax.

The 8k displays currently don't warrant those kind of prices imo. I paid ~ $3200 for my 77inch 4k 120hz oled tv in living room when it was new (since there was no ~ $2500 or so 70" size made I stretched budget to spend more) . . but I don't see that kind of buy for my pc with what the 8k screens are offering right now. I'm not expecting $800 - $1200 4k OLED pricing or anything but still samsung overcharges quite a bit being the only game in town more or less.

Maybe if they did 8k 120hz native so I could window games at 120hz on a 8k desktop, and maybe if they could do even higher Hz at lower rez (4k, 5k, 6k, and uw resolutions) 1:1 pixel letterboxed , maybe if they had 1000R curve, as well as having really good PbP, and generally ticked all of the boxes as an all-around use screen so I wouldn't need a separate gaming monitor I'd cough up decent money on one that was on sale (like when the $3500 ark went on sale for $2000, which also has no compeition in it's form factor other than from itself). However as it is, as many times as I keep looking and wanting 8k already it still seems a little green on the vine. I'm guessing once more mfgs come to the table there will be a lot more competition in models, features, and pricing.

I really like the idea of having quads of 4k worth of real-estate at high PPD for desktop/app that I could run a game at high hz on in different sized/aspect fields at 1:1 pixel. I'm not seeing 8k matured enough to blow that kind of money on right now personally, plus nvidia 5000 series gpus prob not until 2025 too on that front so everything seems to be in a middling phase at the moment overall. 8k still needs to defrost out of the deep freeze most mfgs put on it and start growing/maturing with models and competition from multiple mfgs (LG, sony, TCL, Asus, dell/alienware, etc.). Instead currently it's more or less of a one stop samsung shop with apple tier pricing scheme on tech that could stand to mature more and with competition in models and features vying against each other in the 8k space.
 
I don't think 8K monitors will be back until DP 2.1 becomes standard (next year?).
 
elvn said:
I'll check it out, thanks.

I think a big problem is lack of competition in the space after all the other mfgs put 8k production on pause for a few years.

Currently the 65" 900C is $3600 usd + $315 tax here and that's after a $400 discount, the list price is $4k + tax.

Currently the 65" 800C is $2700 usd + $236 tax here and that's after a $300 discount, the list price is $3k + tax.

The 8k displays currently don't warrant those kind of prices imo. I paid ~ $3200 for my 77inch 4k 120hz oled tv in living room when it was new (since there was no ~ $2500 or so 70" size made I stretched budget to spend more) . . but I don't see that kind of buy for my pc with what the 8k screens are offering right now. I'm not expecting $800 - $1200 4k OLED pricing or anything but still samsung overcharges quite a bit being the only game in town more or less.

Maybe if they did 8k 120hz native so I could window games at 120hz on a 8k desktop, and maybe if they could do even higher Hz at lower rez (4k, 5k, 6k, and uw resolutions) 1:1 pixel letterboxed , maybe if they had 1000R curve, as well as having really good PbP, and generally ticked all of the boxes as an all-around use screen so I wouldn't need a separate gaming monitor I'd cough up decent money on one that was on sale (like when the $3500 ark went on sale for $2000, which also has no compeition in it's form factor other than from itself). However as it is, as many times as I keep looking and wanting 8k already it still seems a little green on the vine. I'm guessing once more mfgs come to the table there will be a lot more competition in models, features, and pricing.

I really like the idea of having quads of 4k worth of real-estate at high PPD for desktop/app that I could run a game at high hz on in different sized/aspect fields at 1:1 pixel. I'm not seeing 8k matured enough to blow that kind of money on right now personally, plus nvidia 5000 series gpus prob not until 2025 too on that front so everything seems to be in a middling phase at the moment overall. 8k still needs to defrost out of the deep freeze most mfgs put on it and start growing/maturing with models and competition from multiple mfgs (LG, sony, TCL, Asus, dell/alienware, etc.). Instead currently it's more or less of a one stop samsung shop with apple tier pricing scheme on tech that could stand to mature more and with competition in models and features vying against each other in the 8k space.
Click to expand...
I guess the problem is that nothing on the TV side can transfer 8K@120hz while DP2.1 is kind of a fantasy product right now. If there was a way to disable scaling and do something like 4K@144hz uncscaled, it would be interesting. Still pondering to get the QN900C to give it and it's multi view a try, as the Neo G9 57" is kind of a fantasy product right now there are no powerful DP2.1 GPUs around for quite some time (from what I undertand, the 7900XT(X) has DP 2.1 but not the needed performance for it).
 
improwise said:
I guess the problem is that nothing on the TV side can transfer 8K@120hz while DP2.1 is kind of a fantasy product right now. If there was a way to disable scaling and do something like 4K@144hz uncscaled, it would be interesting. Still pondering to get the QN900C to give it and it's multi view a try, as the Neo G9 57" is kind of a fantasy product right now there are no powerful DP2.1 GPUs around for quite some time (from what I undertand, the 7900XT(X) has DP 2.1 but not the needed performance for it).
Click to expand...
Even HDMI 2.1 48G can do 8K @ 120 Hz @ 8-bit color with DSC 3:1 ratio. 3.75:1 compression should do 10-bit too.
 
kasakka said:
Even HDMI 2.1 48G can do 8K @ 120 Hz @ 8-bit color with DSC 3:1 ratio. 3.75:1 compression should do 10-bit too.
Click to expand...
Yes, with DSC things change but not sure if DSC is part of the HDMI 2.1 spec or optional. Then of course you probably also need some serious hardware to code/decode all that data and then process it for being displayed etc.
 
improwise said:
Yes, with DSC things change but not sure if DSC is part of the HDMI 2.1 spec or optional. Then of course you probably also need some serious hardware to code/decode all that data and then process it for being displayed etc.
Click to expand...
DSC is part of the HDMI 2.1 spec but most things in it are optional afaik.

I think the issue is hardware to handle 8K 120 Hz. The panels seem to exist since the QN900C seems to support e.g 4K 144 Hz but only 8K 60 Hz.
 
I have no doubt they will be coming eventually, but as many have said before, monitor tech tends to flow downstream from TV tech. These days monitor manufacturers tend to wait for panels to come down in price through TV volumes before using them in monitors. That's why we see so few 16:10 screens these days.

All that said, I question the usefulness. With ~100dpi being the perfect pixel density for up close and personal desktop monitor use, an 8k screen is just going to be too large to be practically useful. We are talking sitting an arms length away from a ~84" screen. It makes no sense.

I've been an early adopter each time a new resolution has come along for 25 years now, and paid a huge cost in GPU's in order to make those new resolutions useful.

In 2005 I bought a Del 2405FPW (24" 1920x1200), and four years I struggled to have enough GPU power to use it properly. The GeForce 68700GT I had at the time just couldn't keep up. It even caused me to lose interest in games for a while.

Then again in 2010 I bought a Dell U3011 (30" 2560x1600) My GTX 470 despite being a golden sample that overclocked faster than a GTX480 struggled. I upgraded so many times in the next 3 years to try to make it work, but it wasn't until 2013 when I got the newly launched Kepler Titan I could comfortably use it.

Then in 2015 I bought my first 4k screen, a Samsung JS9000. First I tried to make it work with twin 980ti's in SLI, but that wasn't happening. Then I got a Pascal Titan X, and it was OK, but I still struggled form time to time over the next several years.

Given the rather limited usefulness of 8k, and the fact that it once again will undoubtedly put me in "no GPU is enough" hell, I think I'm done. 4k I all I'll ever need.
 
Depends on your usage scenario.

For me the usage scenario would be as a "command center" or "battlestation" style setup where the screen would be decoupled from the desk in order to allow for increased viewing distance and a more optimal viewing angle for a larger screen.

For a theoretical 8k screen with a similar format to the 1000R curvature of the samsung ark for example , in 55inch or 65 inch size:

..the center point of the circle. 1000R means a 1000mm radius. That's nearly 40 inch view distance for all of the pixels to remain pointed at you, equidistant from your eyes along the curve, remaining on axis in relation to you all the way to the ends of the screen.


..Pixels per degree is a much better measurement of the pixel pixel density you'll be seeinging than just stating ppi alone.

https://qasimk.io/screen-ppd/

For reference:

At the human central viewing angle of 60 to 50 degrees, every 8k screen of any size gets around 127 to 154 PPD

..At the human central viewing angle of 60 to 50 degrees, every 4k screen of any size gets around 64 to 77 PPD

..At the human central viewing angle of 60 to 50 degrees, every 2560x1440 screen of any size gets only 43 PPD to 51 PPD

..At the human central viewing angle of 60 to 50 degrees, every 1920x1080 screen of any size gets only 32 PPD to 39 PPD
Click to expand...




At longer view distances on larger screens, for example 32inch to 40inches away on a 55inch or 65 inch - you'd benefit from much higher ppi realized as PPD. A 55inch ark gets more like a 1440p desktop screen's pixel sizes to your perspective when sitting even 32 inches away, worse when closer. Even at 38 inch viewing distance its only getting 60ppd, which is ok but not stellar. I use my 48cx at around 65 to 70 PPD, 60deg to 55deg angle viewing distance wise but if it was mounted right on my desk it would be nore like 50 ppd ~ 1500p looking.

elvn said:
2D desktop graphics and imagery have no sub sampling or AA to smooth/smudge/blur the edges so they will remain uncompensated, have no masking.
...
The higher the PPD, the less you have to lean on masking how large the pixel structure appears. Low PPD exacerbates fringing issues in general. High contrast graphics aliasing, (rgb subpixel format) text fringing, frame insertion edge artifacts, DLSS AI upscaling edge artifacts, and non standard pixel structures like pentile and wrgb.
It's probably not a coincidence that the most vocal complaints about wrgb text are often from people cramming a 42", 48", or 55" oled into a near onto a desk setup that results in closer to 50PPD- than 70PPD+. Bigger perceived pixels bigger problems.
Click to expand...



.. the desktop/app real-estate estate would be much greater on a larger gaming tv style 8k screen. They promote the 55inch 4k ark as a bezel free multiple monitor setup replacement but it's quads of desktop real estate are only 1080p. Most people using multiple screens are likely using at least 1440 per screen space if not 4k, and many seeking the real estate using at least one 4k screen space in the mix I'd guess. No matter how you look at it, 1080p screen spaces aren't going to cut it imo.

.. for gaming, on a larger format screen like those described, optimally you'd be able to run smaller screen spaces 1:1 pixel when desired for more demanding games, more encompassing field of view and/or when desiring the opposite in an uw format. E.g. 4k at higher hz than 8k native. Also 5k, 6k, x1600, x2160 ultrawide resolutions etc. 1:1 w/o scaling. On a larger screen those smaller portions of the overall screen would still be decent sizes and also in relation to your perspective as you might sit closer to the screen while viewing games in those fields and sit farther when using the rest of the desktop/app/OS real-estate.

Gaming on a large format 8k screen(full screen or in smaller screen spaces 1:1) would be leaning on dlss AI upscaling and frame generation of today but also as it matures along with more powerful 5000 series gpus (2025 most likely, should have better 8k options and competitors by then too) and into the years of gpus and advancements beyond (perhaps eventually more vector informing: game engines,game development, os, drivers/peripherals to allow several frames to be generated more accurately rather than a single "tween" frame - using that kind of actual informed vector system rather than solely guessing what vectors might be between two frames).


.......

"All I'll ever need."

I can understand the sentiment at this stage considering what is available right now. However people said the same things about 1080p vs 1440p. 1440p vs 4k , 60hz vs 120hz, HDR nits, etc.

Right now I'd love a 65" 8k screen that could do 8k 120hz desktop / windowed games, higher hz ( ~ 144hz+) at lower resolutions 1:1 ~ letterboxed and at 4k upscaled full screen. I'm probably going to wait it out until more mfgs come out of the deep freeze they put 8k gaming tvs into though. More competition in pricing, models ,features and 8k a little less green on the vine.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top