Dell's Jaw-Dropping 8K Monitor Now Available to Order

The cool thing is, I just say the daily Newegg emailer and 2560 x 1440 monitors are now selling for $199, on sale. (Acer in this case.) As new stuff comes out, other stuff sees a price reduction, which is always a positive in my book. :)
 
ianken said:
$5K is too much.

OLEDS burn in. I know this because I have some that are burnt in. Never again, don't care how inky the blacks are.

As to 8K being "too much" it's not if you're working on 4K video and want to see all the pixels without scaling AND the apps you're using.
Click to expand...
If this were an OLED it would be at least four times the price.
 
Armenius said:
I played through the original Call of Duty at 5K DSR on a GTX 970 ;).
Click to expand...

I was able to do it with Mass Effect 2 and 3. It was amazing. I tried Mortal Kombat XL at 8K DSR and that got me about 15-20FPS on my Titan X (Maxwell) SLI setup. I haven't tried it on the 1080Ti's.
 
looks sturdy.
Click to expand...
Yea, I see no reason for dude in white shirt to become wobbly... good stance technique for sure... 2x better than dude in blue shirt
 
Where do we stop seeing the difference between resolutions? I had a chance to play on my friend's 4k 32" screen, and I am not even sure 8k is needed to worry about something like AA anymore.
 
MrTryfe said:
Where do we stop seeing the difference between resolutions? I had a chance to play on my friend's 4k 32" screen, and I am not sure even 8k is needed to worry about something like AA anymore.
Click to expand...

That really depends upon the person. Supposedly, the human eye is roughly 300 PPI, or 4k on a ~14.5" monitor. So 8k on a 32" monitor would still have pixels distinguishable, but barely. For televisions, it would be different, but you probably wouldn't be 2' away from your 65" TV.

*EDIT*

And while 1440p on a 27" monitor might look good enough, if you run 4k on a 27" monitor, you'll probably notice the text looks slightly smoother. I'd assume 8k would be the same way. From a quick glance, or if the object is moving, you probably wouldn't be able to tell the difference, but on static images, your intuition might be telling you one looks better than the other.
 
Last edited:
Oy vey.. the absurdity.. then again however buys it now pays for it to be cheaper later.
 
MrTryfe said:
I am not even sure 8k is needed to worry about something like AA anymore.
Click to expand...
AA will still be useful to get rid of aliasing in some cases, like hair or like looking through a screen door/window
 
Nytegard said:
That really depends upon the person. Supposedly, the human eye is roughly 300 PPI, or 4k on a ~14.5" monitor. So 8k on a 32" monitor would still have pixels distinguishable, but barely. For televisions, it would be different, but you probably wouldn't be 2' away from your 65" TV.

*EDIT*

And while 1440p on a 27" monitor might look good enough, if you run 4k on a 27" monitor, you'll probably notice the text looks slightly smoother. I'd assume 8k would be the same way. From a quick glance, or if the object is moving, you probably wouldn't be able to tell the difference, but on static images, your intuition might be telling you one looks better than the other.
Click to expand...
I run a 4k 28" monitor with gsync and have to say there is no comparison between that and 2560 resolutions like I ran for around 7 years straight. The 4k adds so much smoothness to fonts and everything else it's a joke. The difference is anything but slight :).

Also, you don't need a 40 inch screen at 1.5 to 2 feet like some say... That only starts to defeat some of the point of a high res display like 4k, I get it if you're only doing work, but having had 4k in 24, 28, and 32 inch forms, my favorite is the 32 but I wouldn't want anything larger. 28 inch is a very close second though, almost a tie.

You still need some AA at 4k, and due to moire patterning, you will at 8k too.
 
Quartz-1 said:
But with an 8K screen with high ppi, you have the option of running games at 4K and 1080p
Click to expand...

PPI is a woefully underrated spec that visual nuts have doted on for a long time. It's hard to measure things like crispness and cutting detail in a bar chart for a website the way you can list off color conformity, brightness, and response time. To explain out that much ppi is like having a high end smartphone display that is 32" diagonal instead of 4-5". Most gamers would see a benefit of running their 4k Beast rigs on a setup like this that would just give that additional GODDAMN pop that people love about a nice crisp display. 8k gaming at high fidelity is so far away that it's almost laughable, but as we actually start to enter playable 4k framerates, better quality screens do nothing but add to the list of reasons for upgrading.

Obviously this is a professional line editing or display device (think high end architecture presentations for your proposed tallest building on the planet), and at FIVE THOUSAND DOLLARS it is cost prohibitive for the mainstream currently. Unless it was five thousand shmeckles, which i think i might be able to work with.
 
Quartz-1 said:
It will be interesting to see if games like Doom can run just fine at 8K. But with an 8K screen with high ppi, you have the option of running games at 4K and 1080p
Click to expand...
Sorry but 1080p is only 1/16 of the native 8k resolution and will look like blurry vaseline smeared shit on that screen.
 
Last edited:
oldmanbal said:
8k gaming at high fidelity is so far away that it's almost laughable,
Click to expand...

I disagree. I fully expect older games to play with high quality at decent frame rates. I would not be surprised if games like Command and Conquer 3 and Starcraft and games from the mid 2000s were to play at full detail at 8K. How fun a game is to play is much more important than graphical quality.

misterbobby said:
Sorry but 1080p is only 1/16 of the native 8k resolution and will look like blurry vaseline smeared shit on that screen.
Click to expand...

That depends upon the size of the display and your disatance from it, doesn't it?
 
Quartz-1 said:
I disagree. I fully expect older games to play with high quality at decent frame rates. I would not be surprised if games like Command and Conquer 3 and Starcraft and games from the mid 2000s were to play at full detail at 8K. How fun a game is to play is much more important than graphical quality.



That depends upon the size of the display and your disatance from it, doesn't it?
Click to expand...
Yes those factor in but this is a monitor not a TV with a proper scaler so running 1/16 the native resolution will look terrible.
 
misterbobby said:
Yes those factor in but this is a monitor not a TV with a proper scaler so running 1/16 the native resolution will look terrible.
Click to expand...
Yeah, especially since monitors all seem to have simple bilinear filtering. Unless it's a game emulator, there's basically NOTHING out there to have general nearest neighbor filtering for pixel art, which does nothing for old Windows games. It'll be like this:

point-vs-linear.png


the left is what it WOULD look like in an ideal world, the right is what we'll actually get.
 
misterbobby said:
Yes those factor in but this is a monitor not a TV with a proper scaler so running 1/16 the native resolution will look terrible.
Click to expand...

Running games at 1080p on my 28" 4K monitor doesn't make them look terrible. The 2x2 pixel block is sufficiently large to be distinguishable at the distance I am using; I got the same effect with a 27" 1080p monitor.
 
Quartz-1 said:
Running games at 1080p on my 28" 4K monitor doesn't make them look terrible. The 2x2 pixel block is sufficiently large to be distinguishable at the distance I am using; I got the same effect with a 27" 1080p monitor.
Click to expand...
Well that is your opinion but even 1/4 native res looks like blurry shit to me in comparison to native. And that is referring to 1080p on a 27" 4k monitor.
 
Quartz-1 said:
Running games at 1080p on my 28" 4K monitor doesn't make them look terrible. The 2x2 pixel block is sufficiently large to be distinguishable at the distance I am using; I got the same effect with a 27" 1080p monitor.
Click to expand...
I'm on a 27" 1440p. Any game that's not native resolution looks blurry and bad.

You say the 2x2 pixel block looks good, but unless you somehow have a nearest neighbor scaler (in which case, please share), that's not what it's doing, it's blurring it through filtering.
 
tetris42 said:
You say the 2x2 pixel block looks good
Click to expand...

No, I didn't; I said they don't look terrible.

but unless you somehow have a nearest neighbor scaler (in which case, please share), that's not what it's doing, it's blurring it through filtering.
Click to expand...

I don't know exactly what's going on but when playing Borderlands 2 it sure looked like 2x2 pixel blocks to me.
 
Quartz-1 said:
I disagree. I fully expect older games to play with high quality at decent frame rates. I would not be surprised if games like Command and Conquer 3 and Starcraft and games from the mid 2000s were to play at full detail at 8K. How fun a game is to play is much more important than graphical quality.
Click to expand...

I was trying to convey that playing a native, future title at 8k, is far from coming to pass. I'm not talking about upscaling tetris to 8k, but a new cutting edge title. It will be something to behold.
 
I think you'll be pleasantly surprised. I was playing then-current games at 4K on a single 780 Ti three years ago. Granted I was playing them with medium to high, not max, details, and AA was definitely off as it wasn't needed. And Nvidia's Hairworks will still cripple most GPUs. Give it a few years and 8K will be today's 4K.
 
Yep, my first 4k was powered by a gtx 780 non ti, it was fast enough for non brand new games to run at high detail and medium (not so bad as everyone pretends) on brand new ones.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top