When are modern gamers going to start accepting 8k as the new normal?

do you own an 8k monitor?

>insert John Carmack quote here

the human eye cant see in 8k

>>713466978 (OP)
Resolution correlates to size.
You only need 8k over 4k if you need a bigger monitor, without moving away from it.
Do you need that? Not for most games

>>713466978 (OP)
Nigga I'm still running 1080, don't at me.

>>713467021
Do you not?

1440p is the highest resolution you'll ever need and 1080p is still serviceable. Anything more is cope

>>713467991
The difference becomes quite noticeable on screens 42" or larger. It is basically night and day on my 4k 77" TV. Even though it isn't an 8k TV, the image is much, much clearer.

>>713468409
Yeah, maybe if you're playing a 22" screen. Sounds like you're the one coping LOL

>>713468854
You'll be chasing your stupid numbers forever with diminished gains that makes your games run like shit

>>713466978 (OP)
Unless you are running potato resolution 2x or 4x'ing the resolution isn't going to add anything meaningful to the game play experience. Please understand diminishing returns.

>buy 8k monitor
>have to upgrade my videocard to support it
>forget that there's no good games to play

>>713469083
>your games run like shit
But anon I was running GTA V Enhanced Edition in 8k at 80fps. I don't understand what you are saying. Enjoy your 720p @30fps on your PS4 though!

>>713468854
Do the people that care about this kind of shit even play the games? Who cares if you can count the individual fucking cotton fibers in Arthur's jacket? What's next for 16k? You'll be able to see the chicken grease stains on the fibers from the fingers of the nigger that picked the cotton?

>>713466978 (OP)
I play in 1080p

>>713466978 (OP)
I tried to DSR to 8k and honestly don't see the difference between 4k and 8k. My screen is only 32 inches so maybe with a 50 inch screen I'd see a difference.

>>713466978 (OP)
When they can afford it.

>>713469930
This is a 4k screenshot overlaid onto an 8k screenshot. Try zooming in on the smaller details in the distance and you'll see the difference. It is clearly noticeable on displays larger than 42".

>>713470067
Dude my 4k monitor gets pretty warm, they're going to have to start putting fucking fans in these things soon.

>>713468409
>1440p is the highest resolution you'll ever need
no it's not
>1080p is still serviceable.
no it's not

>>713466978 (OP)
>8k just for screenshots.
No.
When games can finally run with native resolutions in 4k without looking like a blurry mess when doing anything but taking still screens, maybe I'll consider 8k.

the game can look like doodoo water as long as it plays good
caring about graphics is gay

>>713466978 (OP)
The monitor sizes needed for them are too big. Even 1440p is stretching it.

>>713469819
>Do the people that care about this kind of shit even play the games?
not him but yes, there are people who hate when the picture looks fuzzy or unclear or blurry or shimmery in motion

>>713469616
on what hardware

>>713470483
this might be the biggest poor-cope i have ever read on this website.

>>713470780
Wow a generic cyberpunk benchmark screenshot you sure showed him

>>713470773
That was without running my 4090 in its overclocked state, too. It doesn't take as much as you might think.

>>713470858
Benchmark?

>>713466978 (OP)
The step to 4k already had diminishing return on 60" displays. I probably gonna need 100"+ to feel a difference at normal viewing distance. But it's not like I need to care yet, there's nothing in 8k. So all you can do is watch a bunch of test videos they made or let the upscaler go crazy which at that resolution probably will be more noticeable, too.
Wake me when it starts to have something to play.
>games
Under 120 fps more frames should always be preferred to more pixels.

>>713468409
>and also my games are blurry must be le TAA

>>713468409
>1440p is the highest resolution you'll ever need and 1080p is still serviceable
Maybe if you're playing games from several generations ago. 1080p looks awful now.

>>713468610
PPIfags swear it's better on a smaller screen because more pixels jammed together indiscernably = more clarity.

I just upgraded to a 1440p monitor, so maybe in another 15 years.

ps2 graphics at 480p have enough fidelity to create most games except pc autism spreadshit simulators.

the whole graphics race was a mistake. noita did revolutionary gameplay with simple graphics. minecraft too.

>>713468320
What game is this

>>713472639
Guessing T.H.I.R.D.W.O.R.L.D. 2.

>>713469819
>You'll be able to see the chicken grease stains on the fibers from the fingers of the nigger that picked the cotton?
Are you seriously saying that what you just said isn't good and amazing?
Being able to see the nigger grease would be a huge improvement, I would know what clothes to avoid so as to not catch aids.

>>713471893
>It looks fine on my screen

>>713467531
op in a game is like a faggot in gay porn. it is expected to be there but it's not getting him a >you

>>713470182
some early 1080p TVs had fans in them already

>>713470483
>the game can look like doodoo water as long as it plays good
>caring about graphics is gay
t. tranny indie dev

>>713468320
Post 8K monitor with timestamp or your a shill

>>713469616
see>>713473578

>>713468320
holy fuck dude just go outside

>>713472639
S.L.O.P.P.E.R. 2

>>713466978 (OP)
when game devs can fix their bloated games and get them to smoothly run in 1440/120 first

>>713466978 (OP)
waste of energy. 480p was more than enough for the best games ever made.

>>713466978 (OP)
Jeet's Law:
>The stronger the hardware the less optimized the software.
Therefore 8k gaming is technically impossible

>>713467021
my smartphone has an 8k screen

but how does 8k improve gameplay?

>>713466978 (OP)
Man I miss when Valve made games. You could tell they were actually proud of them, too

Man, I just wasted half an hour into this rabbit hole. Basically no sufficiently large enough display available that has display port 2.1
So you will shill out thousands to be cucked to 60hz in 8k, please buy again.
Apparently there should be 8k monitors with dp 2.1 but you not gonna notice much on a small panel.
Apparently the 4090 doesn't even have one. Well not that it matters, since I don't think you'll run anything 8k 120hz anytime soon. Maybe with fakeframes but if you could 8k is getting cucked by the cable.
Well at least now I can sleep calmly knowing I don't have a 8k screen. Lmao.

>>713473578
>>713473704

>>713466978 (OP)
>start accepting 8k as the new normal
pool rate?

>>713466978 (OP)
4k and 8k look almost the same to the eye on a standard size monitor (say 24-27") at normal sitting distance. The human eye has an innate max res in of itself.

8k is for if you have a like, 85" TV. In which case 4k suddenly looks blurry again like how 1080 vs 4k is on a 60" TV, etc.

>>713474457
>I only buy gameplay processing units
If you're poor, why do you even come to these threads?

>>713466978 (OP)
Why would I need 8k res?

>>713475974
See pic >>713475478
Noticeable difference on my 77" screen. I can even see the difference on my 42" screen, mainly due to using the 8k resolution as a form of anti-aliasing. The poor fags have been awful quite since I posted my screen.

>>713468610
No it doesn't.
55" was minimum at 5 feet for 1080p. You need at least 70" for the benefit of 4k. Now you need at least 100" for 8k. But most of you fags refuse to even buy a projector, which will give you 120"+ and makes 1080p, 4k, 8k all look amazing.

im not going back from 144hz, so i'll wait until 8k high framerate is popular and viable enough

>>713468854
>Mfw see this on my phone screen
>Only 720p looks noticably blurrier
>The other 3 look exactly the same

One day you retards will learn that it's not the resolution but the screen size and ppi that changes everything.

>>713469819
Its retards chasing a losing game. Worst of all when they say you NEED to switch and then recommend a tiny fucking monitor that does not actually take advantage of the resolution.

>>713477159
>I can't tell the difference on my literal 4 inch screen!

>>713475414
People shilling this don't realize 8k is basically for advertising screen billboards.

>>713477430
Exactly. So when you're shilling 4k and a 23" monitor I fucking laugh at you because you won't see a difference until you start using a 60" screen and turn off all the post processing shit modern TVs do now.

>>713466978 (OP)
>>713468320
>>713468610
>>713469616
>>713470067


1080p looks just as good as these on my 27 inch monitor, with decent AA settings and or upscaling.

there is no need for anything more then 2k.

Hell 1080 120fps is still gorgeous for me, and I WORK in graphic design, working at high resolutions. its just cope for your expensive monitors

>>713470067
I don't need to see detail on distant objects.
It doesn't impact gameplay.
It may be more artful to have fog or something obscuring distance. Try playing GTA:SA with original PS2 fog vs the PC version with fog removed and huge draw distance. It looks like shit on PC and the illusion is ruined. Art is about illusion, smoke and mirrors, not extreme realism.
It adds exponentially to production cost at the cost of other aspects of the game.
I don't like the impact a 4k standard has had on the industry, so FUCK 8k. I'd rather go back to 480p than 8k.

>>713477025
>" was
I run a 55" 4k at anywhere between 4-7' depending on how I'm sitting. I have a 83" 4k at 15+' as well.

>>713466978 (OP)
1080p, thanks. (Not buying another GPU, old one works good)

>>713469616
Woah, those low res textures really pop. And that jpg tree is just amazingly sharp.

I'HM SPAKING IN AN ACCENT BEYOND THE RANGE OF THE BOARDS HEARING

>>713466978 (OP)
Trying to seriously discuss image quality or resolution is fucking impossible on /v/ because
>vast majority of people are STILL on 1080p, a resolution from over two decades ago, trying their hardest to be blissfully ignorant
>a large portion of /v/ermin are phoneposting and say there's no difference between resolutions because their 6 inch 1080p screen doesn't show any

>>713466978 (OP)
I’m not even sure what 4k or 8k even really mean. I do have a tv capable of 4k but I just play ps5 and it looks great all the time. I guess it will be standard when I buy a tv and its the standard.
Oh and lol@pc keks waiting for ps handmedowns, solol ds2 nonsense around the corner, its worth a bit of hype

>>713475478
>huge 8k monitor
>has to sit far away from screen because hurdur too big and would have to move the head around the screen just to look at things
>can't see details because too far away
congrats, you are the perfect consumer, retard. Now wait for the 16k/100'' that requires you to sit in the other room to see the whole thing

>>713466978 (OP)
When the electricity to power it is as free as the air we breath.

>>713466978 (OP)
Nigger i'm still on 1080

>>713479807
Or, consider the following:
>Can sit on the couch ten feet away and enjoy gaymes in the highest possible graphical fidelity without sacrificing any of the small details that make gaming great

>they are already shilling 8k
modern games can't even handle 60 fps on 1080p

>>713480314
>small details that make gaming great
has this ever been the case? Would anyone honestly rather have devs make highly detailed small props over more gameplay systems?

>>713466978 (OP)
unless i suddenly get a signficant raise, i'm not really trying to play above 1440p. anything higher than that gives diminishing returns in my opinion when compared to how much stronger your hardware needs to be to produce the same framerates at 4k or 8k. so to answer your question, i guess when PC parts are more affordable or when the performance difference between 1440p and 4k isn't so drastic. i'd need to start upgrading my PC on a too much more frequent a basis to play at 4k.

>>713480314
>sit on the couch ten feet away
>enjoy gaymes in the highest possible graphical fidelity without sacrificing any of the small details
you are not gonna enjoy those small details 'that make gaming great' by sitting 10 feet away

>>713466978 (OP)
I already do 8k in VR. And yes, it's a huge difference from 4k.

>>713479197
weird cope but lol I get you. when I was a kid my 480p monitor was enough for me too. :^)

>>713475478
I know that "gun".
It's a Red Ryder, nice useless toy to go with your useless monitor.

>>713480481
At the bare minimum, I'm upscaling from 1440p, so that's a lie.

>>713478096

>>713478060
You can't even look at a complete 8k image on a 1080p monitor.
>and I WORK in graphic design, working at high resolutions
I bet you still work on a shitty monitor but with it zoomed in close lmao

>>713466978 (OP)
Stop trying to push people to upgrade their GPUs you fucking shill.
I know who you work for Rakesh.

>less is m-
more is more, methinks.

>>713467021
I have a 32k monitor.

>>713482441
I get infinity fps at 32K on my PS5 Pro.

>>713480970
With a 77" 8k screen you can. That's the point I am making you fucking retard.

>>713481519
You are correct. Its a toy I got for my 7 year old son for Christmas. Why do you have one?

>>713466978 (OP)
I'll consider 8k when graphics cards manufacturers get their shit in order and start making cards that can actually render demanding games at 8k and 60+ FPS at the very least. We are currently far, FAR away from anything reaching that performance levels, the fastest cards like the 5090 and 4090 get like 20-30FPS in shit like Cyberpunk (years old) at native 4k.

>>713477025
>You need at least 70" for the benefit of 4k.
Nah lmao, not everything is used at TV viewing distance. A monitor on a desk can be used at 2' or even closer viewing distance, at that point you can very clearly notice the benefit even on a 27" screen.

I don't want to sit 10 feet away from my screen

>>713466978 (OP)
>this thread again
Whatever they're paying you it's not worth being such a gigantic faggot. Give it up.

I think 10 feet is a bit too far. You have to get close and risk hurting your eyesight a little bit to enjoy details like the bullet holes.

>>713466978 (OP)
this post was made by elon musk

Probably when "midrange" GPUs stop costing 1000 shekels.