But is it game over for 8K on the PC, too?
In regular use I prefer 4k, but with games I legit cant tell the difference between 4k and 1440p, I can tell the different between 60 and 120, 180 not really
Kiss goodbye to 8K as support from the TV industry 'dwindles'
Submitted 5 hours ago by BrikoX@lemmy.zip to technology@lemmy.zip
Comments
dil@piefed.zip 3 hours ago
GammaGames@beehaw.org 3 hours ago
The main difference to me is that I can completely disable anti-aliasing on higher resolutions, jagged pixels just aren’t as much an issue when there are so many more
dil@piefed.zip 3 hours ago
my 40 inch curved monitor is like a foot from my head too
commander@lemmy.world 1 hour ago
PC gaming should head towards 21:9 for ubiquitous support in games. 1680x720, 1920x800, 2560x1080, 3440x1440, …
I early adopted 3840x2160 way back and recently went with a no name $200 3440x1440 monitor in 2024 and that was a way better upgrade than 1080p to 2160p. I’d take 2560x1080 over 3840x2160. 8k has no relevance until it’s the best value for up to $1000 for a 65" TV
FlordaMan@lemmy.world 4 hours ago
Honestly, 4K is more then enough for me
nonentity@sh.itjust.works 2 hours ago
4320p video makes as much sense as 96kHz audio. Both have a legitimate role in capture and creation, but a vanishingly minuscule role at the point of playback and consumption.
Tim_Bisley@piefed.social 4 hours ago
Still on a 1080p plasma tv. Those old charts showing if you can tell the difference in quality shows at my distance I’d be fine with 720p. Do people sit inches from their 80 inch TV?
roofuskit@lemmy.world 1 hour ago
I can 100% tell the difference between 1080p and 720p. I can tell with 1080p and UHD as well, but I honestly think that has more to do with the size of the compression artifacts. Compared to the image.
paraphrand@lemmy.world 2 hours ago
5k and 6k is where it’s at. Get hip.
belated_frog_pants@beehaw.org 3 hours ago
Most people arent even at 4k and cant see the difference past that.
8k is just there to sell shit.
dazaroo@lemmygrad.ml 4 hours ago
My eyesight isn’t perfect but I honestly struggle to tell the difference between a 1440p monitor and 4K television so I’d much rather we stop the resolution nonsense and get back to tech that is at least mildly more interesting, like Q-dot or 3D
snooggums@piefed.world 3 hours ago
I didn’t even say hello…
scintilla@crust.piefed.social 4 hours ago
We’ve reached the point where FPS is far more impactful to feel than pixel count imo. The difference of looks between 4k and 8k isn’t as high as the decrease in performance is.
UnfortunateShort@lemmy.world 4 hours ago
We’re past that point as well. 4k @ 240 Hz is so good, most people won’t be able to tell the difference to an 8k, 480 Hz monitor. Even if they pay special attention to it. Probably not even in A/B testing.
There is still room for improvement in the area of HDR, but monitors are almost as good as they will ever get.
TheJesusaurus@piefed.ca 2 hours ago
That’s what everyone always thinks
Technus@lemmy.zip 3 hours ago
It’s because we’re at the limits of the human visual system. The difference in pixel pitch between 4k and 8k at the distances we watch TV is literally imperceptible.
It also doesn’t help that there’s not much content authored and distributed for higher resolutions. It’s exponentially more expensive to produce, store, and deliver.
Home Internet connections on average aren’t any better than they were ten years ago, either, at least not in the US. I doubt a lot of them can even support 8k streaming, let alone with anyone else using it at the same time.
UnspecificGravity@piefed.social 3 hours ago
Most of them can’t really even support 4k streaming at a bitrate that is significantly better than 1080p.
mrnobody@reddthat.com 3 hours ago
To add… It would only matter in large format displays anyway. Pixel density is only going to matter so much.
I remember when Sharp put out their Aquos 70" FHD TV and I thought, “eww, so grainy”! But now I’ve got a 85" UHD with the same density as a ~42" FHD which helps with clarity since my viewing distance hadn’t really changed (~10ft).
FPS is great and all, but not when most content is 24fps-60fps. 120 is an awesome sweet spot for 24fps content since its 5hz per frame.
IMO UHD still has room for growth and adoption before another tech hits. Not to mention the financial strains everyone’s in due to the fucking billionaire squeeze… And they wonder why people are tight on money?! Fucking idiots!
UnspecificGravity@piefed.social 3 hours ago
I doubt the streaming model is going to support 8k content anytime soon. Actual 4k is already more data than anyone wants to be pushing around every time they watch something, to the point that what most people actually watch as “4k” in streaming is at bitrates that make it almost indistinguishable from 1080p.
cmnybo@discuss.tchncs.de 3 hours ago
The screen size needed for 8K to make a difference doesn’t fit in a typical living room.