All G-Sync monitors are 3D Vision compatible
  2 / 5    
[quote="Likay"]I disagree a little. The difference between 720 and 1080 is not so big and the difference between 1080 and 4k is going to be a lot less. Imo there are other areas where focus should be but the hype for the "enourmous" visual quality difference between 1080 and 4k is what really sells. Just saying...[/quote] I can't give you a perfect example because I assume your monitor is only 1080p, but this is the best example I can use to show the increase in detail and quality. One screenshot was taken at 4k with SMAA, the other at 2k (1080p) with SMAA. I took a snippet from both and made a GIF out of it to show the difference in quality and detail available in the 4k image over the 1080p one including the reduced aliasing. [url=http://i.imgur.com/W9bMQEP.gif][img]http://i.imgur.com/W9bMQEP.gif[/img][/url] To best represent the actual difference, you should view the image at full size in it's own tab.
Likay said:I disagree a little. The difference between 720 and 1080 is not so big and the difference between 1080 and 4k is going to be a lot less. Imo there are other areas where focus should be but the hype for the "enourmous" visual quality difference between 1080 and 4k is what really sells. Just saying...


I can't give you a perfect example because I assume your monitor is only 1080p, but this is the best example I can use to show the increase in detail and quality.

One screenshot was taken at 4k with SMAA, the other at 2k (1080p) with SMAA. I took a snippet from both and made a GIF out of it to show the difference in quality and detail available in the 4k image over the 1080p one including the reduced aliasing.

Image

To best represent the actual difference, you should view the image at full size in it's own tab.

#16
Posted 01/11/2014 06:30 PM   
I agree that the visuals show an improvement and aa difference is massive especially if game is reliant on no aa other then smaa. But part of that demonstration is the image is blown up. It will always look better in 4K[obviously] but its not really as nite and day as in example unless you are sitting at extreme close distance to display. If you shrink it down to how in-game size of character would be [with browser] then you get a fair judgement based on your sitting position. I just don't think this difference is at this time worth the massive increase in GPU usage. 2D-60hz 4K is like twice as much performance cost as 3D- 1080P 120HZ [GPU]. Thats alot. [quote="Gungrave"] Sure right now it may seem funny, however the technology is not going to instantly develop. [/quote] Its not just that, 1080P has been the standard for MANY years. The reason is so many games themselves have been improving visually during this time. Our graphics cards couldn't overpass the changes enough for a massive move to an increased resolution. Not to mention for the last 6-8 years we been on PS3/XBOX 360 generation. Your graphics cards have to surpass whatever graphical features that come as well as the massive resolution increase. Not to mention that "features" are now much more prevalent now then ever before tessellation, physx, etc. "The 1%" of pc gamers right now can afford 4k@60hz.
I agree that the visuals show an improvement and aa difference is massive especially if game is reliant on no aa other then smaa. But part of that demonstration is the image is blown up. It will always look better in 4K[obviously] but its not really as nite and day as in example unless you are sitting at extreme close distance to display.

If you shrink it down to how in-game size of character would be [with browser] then you get a fair judgement based on your sitting position. I just don't think this difference is at this time worth the massive increase in GPU usage.
2D-60hz 4K is like twice as much performance cost as 3D- 1080P 120HZ [GPU]. Thats alot.

Gungrave said:
Sure right now it may seem funny, however the technology is not going to instantly develop.

Its not just that, 1080P has been the standard for MANY years. The reason is so many games themselves have been improving visually during this time. Our graphics cards couldn't overpass the changes enough for a massive move to an increased resolution. Not to mention for the last 6-8 years we been on PS3/XBOX 360 generation. Your graphics cards have to surpass whatever graphical features that come as well as the massive resolution increase. Not to mention that "features" are now much more prevalent now then ever before tessellation, physx, etc. "The 1%" of pc gamers right now can afford 4k@60hz.

Co-founder of helixmod.blog.com

If you like one of my helixmod patches and want to donate. Can send to me through paypal - eqzitara@yahoo.com

#17
Posted 01/11/2014 06:58 PM   
Yeah if its possible to have the 2k and 4k *full* images then that's a better example - we all know that if you zoom in far enough then 4k is going to look much better than 2k. But that's not how we experience a game.
Yeah if its possible to have the 2k and 4k *full* images then that's a better example - we all know that if you zoom in far enough then 4k is going to look much better than 2k. But that's not how we experience a game.

Rig: Intel i7-8700K @4.7GHz, 16Gb Ram, SSD, GTX 1080Ti, Win10x64, Asus VG278

#18
Posted 01/11/2014 07:14 PM   
[quote="eqzitara"]I agree that the visuals show an improvement and aa difference is massive especially if game is reliant on no aa other then smaa. But part of that demonstration is the image is blown up. It will always look better in 4K[obviously] but its not really as nite and day as in example unless you are sitting at extreme close distance to display. If you shrink it down to how in-game size of character would be [with browser] then you get a fair judgement based on your sitting position. I just don't think this difference is at this time worth the massive increase in GPU usage. 2D-60hz 4K is like twice as much performance cost as 3D- 1080P 120HZ. Thats alot.[/quote] The biggest issue is that it's not a perfect example and since most don't have 4K monitor to actually view it on they can't see the actual difference, that's why the only practical comparison is a relative difference. Viewing it shrunk isn't a great example either, because then you're just viewing 1080p downsampled content rather than 4k actual.
eqzitara said:I agree that the visuals show an improvement and aa difference is massive especially if game is reliant on no aa other then smaa. But part of that demonstration is the image is blown up. It will always look better in 4K[obviously] but its not really as nite and day as in example unless you are sitting at extreme close distance to display.

If you shrink it down to how in-game size of character would be [with browser] then you get a fair judgement based on your sitting position. I just don't think this difference is at this time worth the massive increase in GPU usage.
2D-60hz 4K is like twice as much performance cost as 3D- 1080P 120HZ. Thats alot.


The biggest issue is that it's not a perfect example and since most don't have 4K monitor to actually view it on they can't see the actual difference, that's why the only practical comparison is a relative difference.

Viewing it shrunk isn't a great example either, because then you're just viewing 1080p downsampled content rather than 4k actual.

#19
Posted 01/11/2014 07:09 PM   
I tried to make a point where the difference between 1080 and 4k is a lot less than a comparison 720/1080 but obviously immediatetly attracted the "resolutiondiggers"... As seeing the difference between 720 and 1080 today (and no, i do not sit with my nose tied to the monitor or projectorscreen) i still see that there are better areas to focus on. The image posted as an example above is a joke because it's a small crop of a bigger image. In other words the example is worthless. I could just make an image in 80000000x60000000 and compare with 800000000x600000000 where noone will se any difference regardless screen but still will see a difference from small crops.
I tried to make a point where the difference between 1080 and 4k is a lot less than a comparison 720/1080 but obviously immediatetly attracted the "resolutiondiggers"... As seeing the difference between 720 and 1080 today (and no, i do not sit with my nose tied to the monitor or projectorscreen) i still see that there are better areas to focus on. The image posted as an example above is a joke because it's a small crop of a bigger image. In other words the example is worthless. I could just make an image in 80000000x60000000 and compare with 800000000x600000000 where noone will se any difference regardless screen but still will see a difference from small crops.

Image

Mb: Asus P5W DH Deluxe

Cpu: C2D E6600

Gb: Nvidia 7900GT + 8800GTX

3D:100" passive projector polarized setup + 22" IZ3D

Stereodrivers: Iz3d & Tridef ignition and nvidia old school.

#20
Posted 01/11/2014 07:20 PM   
Is every Gsync monitor still going to be a TN panel? Because I find it mindboggling that people who are anal enough to care about things like 4K and G-sync are somehow ok with having a screen that looks like it came from a 1990's laptop. I'd have to agree that I don't see 4K as being too impressive on monitors or anything other than giant 80" TVs or projectors. Ditching TN is what gaming monitors really should be focusing on right now, that's where the real night and day difference is.
Is every Gsync monitor still going to be a TN panel? Because I find it mindboggling that people who are anal enough to care about things like 4K and G-sync are somehow ok with having a screen that looks like it came from a 1990's laptop.

I'd have to agree that I don't see 4K as being too impressive on monitors or anything other than giant 80" TVs or projectors. Ditching TN is what gaming monitors really should be focusing on right now, that's where the real night and day difference is.

#21
Posted 01/11/2014 11:19 PM   
I think TN is still the best compromise for gaming. Yes, viewing angles and colour accuracy aren't amazing, but it's not the most important thing to me and it doesn't 'make my eyes bleed'.
I think TN is still the best compromise for gaming. Yes, viewing angles and colour accuracy aren't amazing, but it's not the most important thing to me and it doesn't 'make my eyes bleed'.

GTX 1070 SLI, I7-6700k ~ 4.4Ghz, 3x BenQ XL2420T, BenQ TK800, LG 55EG960V (3D OLED), Samsung 850 EVO SSD, Crucial M4 SSD, 3D vision kit, Xpand x104 glasses, Corsair HX1000i, Win 10 pro 64/Win 7 64https://www.3dmark.com/fs/9529310

#22
Posted 01/12/2014 06:05 PM   
[quote="rustyk"]I think TN is still the best compromise for gaming. Yes, viewing angles and colour accuracy aren't amazing, but it's not the most important thing to me and it doesn't 'make my eyes bleed'.[/quote] Different people value different things. Not everyone plays twitch games that need precision timing, so for some like those who prefer more relaxed single player games they don't mind an 8ms response time and would prefer lush visuals. I think that gaming varies so much that there isn't really a "best" for gaming because there are so many different varieties of games being offered to people.
rustyk said:I think TN is still the best compromise for gaming. Yes, viewing angles and colour accuracy aren't amazing, but it's not the most important thing to me and it doesn't 'make my eyes bleed'.


Different people value different things. Not everyone plays twitch games that need precision timing, so for some like those who prefer more relaxed single player games they don't mind an 8ms response time and would prefer lush visuals.

I think that gaming varies so much that there isn't really a "best" for gaming because there are so many different varieties of games being offered to people.

#23
Posted 01/12/2014 06:31 PM   
Hows this. Build a 4K, Gsync, PLS/IPS display, and have it do passive 3D. The vertical resolution being cut in half wont matter seeing as you have more pixels to play with, sure there may be ghosting but its better than having a shitty TN display for your balls to the walls 4K screen that is meant to be beautiful. 4K will make a massive difference, anytime resolution goes up its a good thing. Hopefully 4K will become as mainstream as 1080p is now, so in a few months time we will be drowning in options for 4K Gsync displays.
Hows this. Build a 4K, Gsync, PLS/IPS display, and have it do passive 3D. The vertical resolution being cut in half wont matter seeing as you have more pixels to play with, sure there may be ghosting but its better than having a shitty TN display for your balls to the walls 4K screen that is meant to be beautiful.

4K will make a massive difference, anytime resolution goes up its a good thing. Hopefully 4K will become as mainstream as 1080p is now, so in a few months time we will be drowning in options for 4K Gsync displays.

#24
Posted 01/12/2014 06:40 PM   
[quote="Cookybiscuit"]Hows this. Build a 4K, Gsync, PLS/IPS display, and have it do passive 3D. The vertical resolution being cut in half wont matter seeing as you have more pixels to play with, sure there may be ghosting but its better than having a shitty TN display for your balls to the walls 4K screen that is meant to be beautiful. 4K will make a massive difference, anytime resolution goes up its a good thing. Hopefully 4K will become as mainstream as 1080p is now, so in a few months time we will be drowning in options for 4K Gsync displays.[/quote] Few months? You should probably be looking more at a few years. 4K will eventually take over, but it's still a ways away.
Cookybiscuit said:Hows this. Build a 4K, Gsync, PLS/IPS display, and have it do passive 3D. The vertical resolution being cut in half wont matter seeing as you have more pixels to play with, sure there may be ghosting but its better than having a shitty TN display for your balls to the walls 4K screen that is meant to be beautiful.

4K will make a massive difference, anytime resolution goes up its a good thing. Hopefully 4K will become as mainstream as 1080p is now, so in a few months time we will be drowning in options for 4K Gsync displays.


Few months? You should probably be looking more at a few years. 4K will eventually take over, but it's still a ways away.

#25
Posted 01/12/2014 07:07 PM   
They are already under $1000.
They are already under $1000.

#26
Posted 01/12/2014 08:12 PM   
[quote="Alo81"] Different people value different things. Not everyone plays twitch games that need precision timing, so for some like those who prefer more relaxed single player games they don't mind an 8ms response time and would prefer lush visuals. I think that gaming varies so much that there isn't really a "best" for gaming because there are so many different varieties of games being offered to people. [/quote] You know, I couldn't agree more :-) After I posted my comment I sat there thinking that what I said only really applies to FPS games. For something a bit slower paced it would be nice to have something other than TN. [quote="Cookybiscuit"] Hows this. Build a 4K, Gsync, PLS/IPS display, and have it do passive 3D. The vertical resolution being cut in half [/quote] Sounds pretty good to me to be honest. Isn't one of the problems with passive that the frame retarder pattern is clearly visible on lower res screens? A 4k panel would go a long way to helping. Of course, other problem is GPU power. Scary what you'd need, plus you'd probably be throwing half of what you're rendering away, which would be annoying...
Alo81 said:

Different people value different things. Not everyone plays twitch games that need precision timing, so for some like those who prefer more relaxed single player games they don't mind an 8ms response time and would prefer lush visuals.

I think that gaming varies so much that there isn't really a "best" for gaming because there are so many different varieties of games being offered to people.


You know, I couldn't agree more :-)

After I posted my comment I sat there thinking that what I said only really applies to FPS games. For something a bit slower paced it would be nice to have something other than TN.

Cookybiscuit said:
Hows this. Build a 4K, Gsync, PLS/IPS display, and have it do passive 3D. The vertical resolution being cut in half


Sounds pretty good to me to be honest. Isn't one of the problems with passive that the frame retarder pattern is clearly visible on lower res screens? A 4k panel would go a long way to helping.

Of course, other problem is GPU power. Scary what you'd need, plus you'd probably be throwing half of what you're rendering away, which would be annoying...

GTX 1070 SLI, I7-6700k ~ 4.4Ghz, 3x BenQ XL2420T, BenQ TK800, LG 55EG960V (3D OLED), Samsung 850 EVO SSD, Crucial M4 SSD, 3D vision kit, Xpand x104 glasses, Corsair HX1000i, Win 10 pro 64/Win 7 64https://www.3dmark.com/fs/9529310

#27
Posted 01/12/2014 08:53 PM   
[quote="Cookybiscuit"]They are already under $1000.[/quote] GPU cost alone make 4k@120hz not realistically possible. Passive doesn't do anything to performance cost. Most 3D gamers can't probably maintain 1080P 120hz in most games at the moment. You need nearly 3 X in more gpu cost in order to have a system CAPABLE of this setup. Your setups life span is cut in half as well.
Cookybiscuit said:They are already under $1000.

GPU cost alone make 4k@120hz not realistically possible. Passive doesn't do anything to performance cost.
Most 3D gamers can't probably maintain 1080P 120hz in most games at the moment. You need nearly 3 X in more gpu cost in order to have a system CAPABLE of this setup. Your setups life span is cut in half as well.

Co-founder of helixmod.blog.com

If you like one of my helixmod patches and want to donate. Can send to me through paypal - eqzitara@yahoo.com

#28
Posted 01/12/2014 09:54 PM   
Maxwell will arrive right on time.
Maxwell will arrive right on time.

#29
Posted 01/12/2014 10:06 PM   
So if by some miracle your friend Maxwell is twice as good as current gpu's at similiar/same cost. It will cost $2000 instead of $4000. Not to mention there should be an increase in "graphics" of games due to console jump [in theory] so if it were to last much more then a year I'd be thoroughly surprised.
So if by some miracle your friend Maxwell is twice as good as current gpu's at similiar/same cost.
It will cost $2000 instead of $4000. Not to mention there should be an increase in "graphics" of games due to console jump [in theory] so if it were to last much more then a year I'd be thoroughly surprised.

Co-founder of helixmod.blog.com

If you like one of my helixmod patches and want to donate. Can send to me through paypal - eqzitara@yahoo.com

#30
Posted 01/12/2014 10:15 PM   
  2 / 5    
Scroll To Top