The 5K Display is Coming

CommanderFrank

CommanderFrank

Cat Can't Scratch It
Joined
May 9, 2000
Messages
75,399
Have you had enough of the hype over 4K displays to last you a lifetime? Well, that’s a good thing because the 5K display is here. :D Move over 4K displays, make way for the 5K display in both Mac and PC flavors.

For its size, the 5K monitor is the most impressive display on the market, boasting 242 pixels per degree. That’s over 25% better than a 4K monitor.
Click to expand...
 
Unless you want to edit 4k video with controls natively, i think the ppd is way too high.

100 ppd should be more than enough for anyone with 20/20 vision.
There are more important things than number of pixels, once you have exceeded the limits of human eyesight.

Also, fuck otterbox and their screen covers that degrade quality down to 100ppd.
 
Ashbringer said:
I'm sticking with 1080P. Screw your 4k and 5k crap.
Click to expand...
My 46" could be better. In fact for Computers 1080 was a step back from where they were before 16:9 became dominant. Even my last CRT trumped 1080 in actual total pixels.


But the 5k thing is a one-upsmanship thing by apple which will cause proliferation of resolutions in displays and drive cost to all consumers There's nothing wrong with offering better but make it a significant improvement. Not a small change that breaks standardization.. .
 
I'm more interested in 8K, 5K doesn't sound too appealing especially if you already own a 4K monitor.
 
The move to 4-5k, and probably 8k in the next 2 years, is going to make AMD/Nvidia regret sitting on their collective asses for the last 3 years.

We are going to need GPU's many times more powerful than the best single GPU offers at the moment. 5k gaming is going to require 4x the performance of the 290x/GTX980 we have now, and 8k will need an order of magnitude more performance. And also we will need huge amounts of onboard or stacked memory, with massive amounts of bandwidth. We will be looking at 4096bit wide memory busses with 32GB of memory for effective performance in games made in 3 years time supporting 8k rendering.

A very challenging time for the big names in graphics.
 
I honestly thing AMD and NVidia love the move to 4K.

We all need multiple video card setups to handle 4K monitors. That's more sale right in their pockets.
 
JacobC1983 said:
I honestly thing AMD and NVidia love the move to 4K.

We all need multiple video card setups to handle 4K monitors. That's more sale right in their pockets.
Click to expand...

They might love it right now, but when 4k hits the mainstream, there will not be many OEM's wanting to pay for two cards or two GPUs.

4k will end up being the standard for midrange computers in 2 years. I can't see the GPUs built in to processors being ever able to cope with effective performance for many years to come.
 
GPU technology is not really keeping up. I guess certain tasks are fine - but not gaming. I have been reading MaximumPC and a few other sites when they test. Basically, you need about $2000 or so of GPU's to do it. Yikes.
 
1080p looks horrible. I went from one 2560x1440 display to 3 1080p panels in an eyefinity array, I was playing AC3 at the time.

It's insane how much better the game looked at 1440p vs 1080p. The textures lost so much of their detail at 1080p that it was almost an eyesore.
 
Most monitors at 1440p have better dpi/ppi than 1080p. Thats why the quality is that much better with most 1440p monitors.
 
I'm waiting for OVER 9K!!!!!!!!

Then it's going to get annoying really quickly and the internet dies
 
People talking about limits of vision need to think big, literally, and factor in viewing distances.

I have a motorized projector screen that pulls down flush over my 55" ultra-thin TV (used for daytime since the LED is so bright), and honestly I would have been happy even with a 150"+ screen as I'm convinced its difficult to really go TOO big.

Doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that the bigger you go, the more pixels you need to keep the same pixel density, and it gives you greater freedom for how far you want to sit away.

For example, if you're playing some game that allows for four players, you could do four way split screen, so each person has a 50" display of their own to look at, in great clarity from 7' away. And same thing for computer monitors, you're going to be sitting very close, so pixel density again matters.
 
steakman1971 said:
GPU technology is not really keeping up. I guess certain tasks are fine - but not gaming. I have been reading MaximumPC and a few other sites when they test. Basically, you need about $2000 or so of GPU's to do it. Yikes.
Click to expand...

A single 780 Ti is entirely adequate for gaming at 4K.
 
Cute that Dell still thinks they can sell their 5K monitor for $2500 when Apple is doing an entire computer with a 5K screen for that much.
 
Le sigh. We need to start seeing higher quality pixels instead of this more, more, more pixels crap.
 
SuperSubZero said:
Cute that Dell still thinks they can sell their 5K monitor for $2500 when Apple is doing an entire computer with a 5K screen for that much.
Click to expand...
Makes sense that all 5K displays would be equal, since we know for a fact that all 1080p screens are identical in cost and quality. Wait, what?
 
Quartz-1 said:
A single 780 Ti is entirely adequate for gaming at 4K.
Click to expand...
Nope, not "entirely adequate." With some games you'll get lucky, with others enjoy your 15fps. Here are some benchmarks:

http://www.tweaktown.com/articles/6...0-ti-3gb-vs-amd-radeon-r9-290x-4gb/index.html

A breakdown of 12 games tested:

Able to run 60+ fps: 3 games
Able to run 30-60fps: 6 games
Cannot run at 30fps: 3 games

This is with AA and AF disabled also. If you got those results at 1080, you would think we're talking about lower-end midrange card. There is currently no single GPU solution that is "entirely adequate" to handle 4k gaming.
 
tetris42 said:
Nope, not "entirely adequate." With some games you'll get lucky, with others enjoy your 15fps. Here are some benchmarks:
Click to expand...

Stuff benchmarks; I'm rocking it right now. Yes, I'm not getting ultra quality on newer games, but I am on older ones.
 
The prices that Dell and a few others are charging show you just how out of touch manufactures and distributors are with the PC community. The obvious guess here is that they are pricing these 4k and soon, 5k monitors to the corporate world where med sized businesses and mega corporations have the budget to purchase them.

With that said, people have to understand that the majority of PC's sold to the average end user cannot yet push 4k.

I don't see prices or wide availability coming anytime soon.

Thinking back and I could be wrong as it's been several years but I think 1080i HDTV's were on the market for about 4 - 5 years before we saw non-interlaced sets. I wish I could comment on 1090p monitors but I just don't remember. Meaning, I wonder how long it took for 1080p to really get a foot hold in the market. Not that I think we could use that metric to establish a 4k or 5k time frame.

Just curious
 
Would really like to see a 5K display in 21:9 form factor in a 30 to 34" monitor.
 
Quartz-1 said:
Stuff benchmarks; I'm rocking it right now. Yes, I'm not getting ultra quality on newer games, but I am on older ones.
Click to expand...
Well by that definition, almost ANY videocard is "entirely adequate" for 4k gaming. I bet there are plenty of graphics cards out there that could handle Quake 3 on ultra at 60fps @ 4k.
 
4k 5k....someones been measuring....LOL

in all seriousness, 4K and 5K are good for workstations as you can resize without image loss. However for the rest of us, I don`t really care. Theres a thread hear complaining about how GTX980 (current high end card) cant handle 4K without needing additional Vram. ..... at 5K imagine that.
 
I dont understand how these companies are able to make any money with these releases. 3D TV's were THE thing a year ago or so, no one bought them because of price, so people forgot about them. 4K came out, cost is ridiculous even for a middle class family, sales are super low. Now 5k is announced which will most likely kill 4K TV production. How does that make sense?
 
Igroock said:
I dont understand how these companies are able to make any money with these releases. 3D TV's were THE thing a year ago or so, no one bought them because of price, so people forgot about them. 4K came out, cost is ridiculous even for a middle class family, sales are super low. Now 5k is announced which will most likely kill 4K TV production. How does that make sense?
Click to expand...

I think we'll see a segregation of technologies between content creation and home entertainment. 4K/8K will be for televisions and entertainment devices while content creation devices will be one "K" higher (5K/9K).

Riley
 
I don't think the average man in the street will buy a 4k tv unless its the same price as a 1080p one.
 
while all this stuff is nice and all.. sometimes things are really becoming 'a little much'.
Video card are getting a bit absurd @>500$ for high end... so what, soon need 4 of those to get the 8k or whatever ?... c'mon
Now considering the iMAC is a fairly reasonable $2500.. the specs are not too bad either (for apple) the display I am sure is great.. although some I checked out in the past @ apple store with the 'cinematic(?)' whatever were nice.. but not that you know 'awesome', just once again you can get that bigger cheaper, mostly the same or better for less with PC.

I don't know I will wait for oleds to mature some more.. I think that will be my next TV, maybe.
 
I kinda hope to see a push in vector UIs as a standard. Also, it'd be cool to get a display at 6.66k.
 
Uvaman said:
while all this stuff is nice and all.. sometimes things are really becoming 'a little much'.
Video card are getting a bit absurd @>500$ for high end... so what, soon need 4 of those to get the 8k or whatever ?... c'mon
Now considering the iMAC is a fairly reasonable $2500.. the specs are not too bad either (for apple) the display I am sure is great.. although some I checked out in the past @ apple store with the 'cinematic(?)' whatever were nice.. but not that you know 'awesome', just once again you can get that bigger cheaper, mostly the same or better for less with PC.

I don't know I will wait for oleds to mature some more.. I think that will be my next TV, maybe.
Click to expand...

High end video cards have been $500+ for a very ling time, so how are they getting absurd? $2000+ has always been the price for these large higher end displays from the big OEMs.

Basically nothing is new except now you get more for the same amount of money you used to pay. How can one complain about that?
 
Anyone find it funny how most of the people clamoring for 4K or 5K don't even do photo or video editing?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top