Is 8GB going to be the new standard graphics memory next year?

[Brackle]

Might be longer. My GTX 970 still has trouble maintaining 60 frame rates at 1080 in some games. The push for 4K is rather dumb anyways; aside from a few hardware geeks and display manufactures no one cares.

I'll go to 1440P when $250-300 GPUs can get 60 frame rates with most games. Otherwise I'll take the frame rates over pixels.

well thats expected. the 970 GTX wasnt intended for 4k use. If you want to go single card for 4k use, either 1 980 GTX or 1 295x2 (which is a single card).

Not sure how you came up with 1 970 gtx being able to maintain 60fps at 4k LOL not even 2 970 gtx can maintain 60fps at 4k.

With the new 20nm and HBM tech coming out next year, it will happen.

 

[chrcoluk]

you know whats ridiculous (to me anyway), is that 1440p HASN'T already been the gaming standard for almost FIVE years already.

I went 1440p in January 2010, yes, 2010, with the Dell 27" u2711. Replaced it this year with the flat screen 34" LG.

Jesus, 1440p was available (with a damn good pic and response time that was fine for gaming) in 2-0-1-0. I can't believe 1080p monitors are even for sale on anything other than 2nd hand e-bay.

Please let 1080p finally die and usher in fast response / big 4K displays. Who wouldn't love gaming on a 32" 4k @ 120hz.

But yeah, I think reasonably priced 1440p will win out over 4k as the accepted gaming standard for a good long while. Shooter guys still generally prefer the 120/144hz of panels like the Asus PG278Q over the awesome pic / density of a 4K or the amazing field of view of 34" 21:9.

2015 should be finally interesting for monitor purchasing!

Sorry we not all obsessed with high density pixel count.

I dont need 4k to game, and it will make desktop use much harder due to small text, I see extra pixels as a hindrance as it will require extra GPU power.

 

[Brackle]

Sorry we not all obsessed with high density pixel count.

I dont need 4k to game, and it will make desktop use much harder due to small text, I see extra pixels as a hindrance as it will require extra GPU power.

No, but the industry is, and if they move forward we have no choice. Same thing goes with Apple iphones. Once a new one comes out, they stop support for the older versions.

Thats why plasma tv's aren't around much anymore. LCD LED tech took over and left plasma behind.

It will happen with 1080p.

Edit: and pixel and small density problems, you dont think they will fix that issue in 4-5 years? Come on man

 

[GoldenTiger]

you know whats ridiculous (to me anyway), is that 1440p HASN'T already been the gaming standard for almost FIVE years already.

I went 1440p in January 2010, yes, 2010, with the Dell 27" u2711. Replaced it this year with the flat screen 34" LG.

Jesus, 1440p was available (with a damn good pic and response time that was fine for gaming) in 2-0-1-0. I can't believe 1080p monitors are even for sale on anything other than 2nd hand e-bay.

Please let 1080p finally die and usher in fast response / big 4K displays. Who wouldn't love gaming on a 32" 4k @ 120hz.

But yeah, I think reasonably priced 1440p will win out over 4k as the accepted gaming standard for a good long while. Shooter guys still generally prefer the 120/144hz of panels like the Asus PG278Q over the awesome pic / density of a 4K or the amazing field of view of 34" 21:9.

2015 should be finally interesting for monitor purchasing!

This... went 2560x1600 at the end of 2008, went 4K finally in May this year. No looking back, would have loved to have upgraded sooner . I don't quite get how people could sit at 1080p or just be finally getting it now, at the end of 2014 and almost beginning of 2015.

 

[gungravevn]

4k is new I wouldnt invest on it too much. Not many contents are in 4k atm. I am happy with 1080P TV and my 1440p monitors.

 

[MacLeod]

I don't get how me gaming at 1080 is somehow a problem and it's driving me nuts being told I'm somehow doing it wrong because I'm still at 1080. Sorry I didn't want to shell out $500 for some POS Korean brand that I'd never heard of before and that you could only buy out of the back of some guys trunk with no warranty. 1440 screens are just now becoming available from mainstream manufacturers with real warranties so that's why a lot of people didn't give a shit about 1440 until recently.

And mainly I see absolutely no reason to get a monitor that is only 2 inches larger than my current one but won't look any better and will cut my frame rates in half. Now if you're talking a 32" screen at 1440 then I get that but then I consider that I sit less than arms length from my monitor and at that distance 27" is as big as I want.

So while I understand why people like 1440 or 4K, they're not nearly worth the investment you need to put out. 1080 looks fantastic, is readily available at great prices from reliable manufacturers and can be handled easily on a $250 GPU. I'm sure eventually it'll be a thing of the past but I don't forsee that happening anytime soon with 1440 and definitely not anytime soon with 4K.

 

[Brackle]

I don't get how me gaming at 1080 is somehow a problem and it's driving me nuts being told I'm somehow doing it wrong because I'm still at 1080. Sorry I didn't want to shell out $500 for some POS Korean brand that I'd never heard of before and that you could only buy out of the back of some guys trunk with no warranty. 1440 screens are just now becoming available from mainstream manufacturers with real warranties so that's why a lot of people didn't give a shit about 1440 until recently.

And mainly I see absolutely no reason to get a monitor that is only 2 inches larger than my current one but won't look any better and will cut my frame rates in half. Now if you're talking a 32" screen at 1440 then I get that but then I consider that I sit less than arms length from my monitor and at that distance 27" is as big as I want.

So while I understand why people like 1440 or 4K, they're not nearly worth the investment you need to put out. 1080 looks fantastic, is readily available at great prices from reliable manufacturers and can be handled easily on a $250 GPU. I'm sure eventually it'll be a thing of the past but I don't forsee that happening anytime soon with 1440 and definitely not anytime soon with 4K.

Hmm I own 2 of the korean monitors, and had another 4 friends buy them. All of them work flawlessly and all of them hit 100hz+, and all had no dead pixels. Just because you think its a POS doesn't mean it is. Plus you can get a warranty on them. I know you can because I have a 3 year warranty on the Korean monitor I have.

1080p looks fantastic. But 1440p and 4k look way better.

1080p monitor for $100-110
1440p monitor for $280
4k monitor for $350

You also have to realize, no one is saying 1440p/4k is the new standard now, but give it 4-5 years and you will be able to get 4k monitors for around $100-110, just like you can get 1080p monitors for that price now.

 

[GoldenTiger]

I don't get how me gaming at 1080 is somehow a problem and it's driving me nuts being told I'm somehow doing it wrong because I'm still at 1080. Sorry I didn't want to shell out $500 for some POS Korean brand that I'd never heard of before and that you could only buy out of the back of some guys trunk with no warranty. 1440 screens are just now becoming available from mainstream manufacturers with real warranties so that's why a lot of people didn't give a shit about 1440 until recently.

And mainly I see absolutely no reason to get a monitor that is only 2 inches larger than my current one but won't look any better and will cut my frame rates in half. Now if you're talking a 32" screen at 1440 then I get that but then I consider that I sit less than arms length from my monitor and at that distance 27" is as big as I want.

So while I understand why people like 1440 or 4K, they're not nearly worth the investment you need to put out. 1080 looks fantastic, is readily available at great prices from reliable manufacturers and can be handled easily on a $250 GPU. I'm sure eventually it'll be a thing of the past but I don't forsee that happening anytime soon with 1440 and definitely not anytime soon with 4K.

Dell 3007WFP-HC for $680ish in 2008. Try again . 2560x1600 IPS panel back then, even... old school stuff nowadays. Even had a 5-year warranty from Dell. Nowadays, even back in 2013, you could get a Korean 1440p PLS panel made by Samsung with a 3-year warranty from Squaretrade for $350 total.

1080 looks very poor compared to 2560x1440 or 4K in gaming, and is anemic on desktop workspace, especially. A $300 GPU already can handle 2560x1440 pretty well like a GTX 970 4GB video card, too. No one's saying you're "wrong" for enjoying 1080p but it is definitely very outdated by now and provides much smaller desktop room.

 

[hbjdk]

Good point. Perhaps I was a little harsh just wishing 1080p to be killed already. I took some shit in another thread when I made a comment like "does anyone on this forum even game at 1080p anymore?!?!" A few peeps railed me, reminding me that not everyone has $$$ coming out there ass for 1440p + monitors and graphics cards.

That was me It's good to see you're able to take criticism well and reflect on it. I respect that quality a lot in a man. Hat's off to you

Although I can't personally afford a system based on 1440p (let alone 4K) I can honestly say I am just happy for you guys who can. Personally I'm just grateful I've been able to get a brand new pc with a GTX 770/2 GB after using my previous Q6600 for 6,5 years. Then whenever it's time for me to upgrade again, I will be able to take advantage of whatever new technology is the affordable standard at that time - be it 4K or whatever.

(Btw. the graphics in Battlefield 4 is amazing. I've had so much fun with this game ever since I got my new pc in May!)

It's exciting times we live in

 

[mr_zen256]

I think an often overlooked factor when talking about high resolution gaming is the graphical demand of any given game. My old GTX 580 kept up like a champ gaming at 2560x1600 for a lot of games, albeit without AA.

This was very dependant on the game of course. Crysis being a good example of being unplayable at high resolutions with all the bells and whistles turned on. On the flip side, the 580 would chew up and spit out any Unreal Engine 3 game thrown at it.

Of course, now days we have games being released with much more demanding graphic features which scales with the capabilities of graphics cards. For single card solutions, calling even the most high end cards 4K ready would be misleading since it is entirely dependant on the software it is rendering.

Considering graphics quality level is only going to keep getting more demanding as more advancements are made, I don't see 1080p gaming disappearing any time soon. Especially for single card gamers.

 

[Flogger23m]

well thats expected. the 970 GTX wasnt intended for 4k use. If you want to go single card for 4k use, either 1 980 GTX or 1 295x2 (which is a single card).

Not sure how you came up with 1 970 gtx being able to maintain 60fps at 4k LOL not even 2 970 gtx can maintain 60fps at 4k.

With the new 20nm and HBM tech coming out next year, it will happen.

A 980 won't be getting near 60 frame rates at 4K either. You'd want at least three GPUs for 4K. Like I said, we have a long way to go. 1440P is our next stop (even if TVs are going straight to 4K), and I think this will come into fruition in the next 4 or so years.

 

[masterosok]

It seems kind of funny to me that the people who have invested in 1440p or 4k gaming seem to have the same "but it looks so much better why you no has" opinion.

When someone says "I don't see how anyone can game at 1080p" it just rings stupid to me. Most people if they had the choice and weren't confided to a budget would likely elect to game in higher than 1080p resolutions. Its pretty clear the reason why the majority of those that do not have this equipment don't have it. I am not claiming everyone that has invested in this equipment has that type of opinion but its prevalent.

 

[Liger88]

It seems kind of funny to me that the people who have invested in 1440p or 4k gaming seem to have the same "but it looks so much better why you no has" opinion.

When someone says "I don't see how anyone can game at 1080p" it just rings stupid to me. Most people if they had the choice and weren't confided to a budget would likely elect to game in higher than 1080p resolutions. Its pretty clear the reason why the majority of those that do not have this equipment don't have it. I am not claiming everyone that has invested in this equipment has that type of opinion but its prevalent.

I have to agree. Those who don't have obligations and lack resources aren't going to care if there is something bigger and badder out there. It's not that we don't want it, we all lust for things we can't have, but an economical issue. Supply and demand works both ways. One side has to break before it can go mainstream. The demand was never there for 2560x1440 and neither was the supply (pushing it as a standard > lower entry price).

If neither side budges then the price and market reaches a stalemate. Why isn't every monitor IPS? Why not 120hz? Why not 1440p? We know these are better. It's the invisible hand that you cannot see. Companies need to make profit and consumers want the best value and or have a predetermined price they'll ever pay for something.

 

[n=1]

Some may prefer 120Hz over more pixels, and before the ROG Swift (an $800 TN panel btw) if you wanted 120Hz beyond 1080p Korean panels were the only option.

And before the inevitable "but you can't game at 120 FPS at 4K or even 1440p anyway", let me just say some of us want 120Hz because it's an overall better experience compared to 60Hz even for daily use.

Now if the ROG Swift was a 120Hz 4K panel I'd buy it in a heartbeat even if it cost the same as the 5960X.

 

[GoldenTiger]

A 980 won't be getting near 60 frame rates at 4K either. You'd want at least three GPUs for 4K. Like I said, we have a long way to go. 1440P is our next stop (even if TVs are going straight to 4K), and I think this will come into fruition in the next 4 or so years.

So wrong. A single gpu has been able to handle 2560 resolutions for a long while now. At this point a pair of oc'd gtx 970 cards in sli can handle 4k, in a year or two that power will take one gpu costing 400 bucks, instead of two costing 670 dollars.

The key to 4k is you basically don't need antialiasing due to how huge the res is, or at most fxaa or 2x MSAA. So the performance gap doesn't end up being as huge as you'd think. And man, does it look incredible. It's like putting on a pair of glasses compared to 1440p let alone 1080p. There is no question of this, it's only a matter of what you can afford.

 

[misterbobby]

So wrong. A single gpu has been able to handle 2560 resolutions for a long while now. At this point a pair of oc'd gtx 970 cards in sli can handle 4k, in a year or two that power will take one gpu costing 400 bucks, instead of two costing 670 dollars.

The key to 4k is you basically don't need antialiasing due to how huge the res is, or at most fxaa or 2x MSAA. So the performance gap doesn't end up being as huge as you'd think. And man, does it look incredible. It's like putting on a pair of glasses compared to 1440p let alone 1080p. There is no question of this, it's only a matter of what you can afford.

Its not possible to maintain 60 fps on max settings at 2560 in every game which would likely be his goal.

 

[GoldenTiger]

Its not possible to maintain 60 fps on max settings at 2560 in every game which would likely be his goal.

60fps goes without saying, and yes, it is perfectly doable if you drop some antialiasing which is perfectly acceptable at 2560 where 2 to 4x is awesome. Been gaming 2560 from 2008 so plenty well acquainted with it. Rarely I had to GASP drop a slider one notch for shadows and have a suffering 98 percent of max potential image quality, but it was still far far better than 1080 or below.

 

[Vatican]

I have trouble getting 60+ fps consistent on 1440p on a gtx 670. Will a jump to a single GTX 970 solve this issue? My monitor does 120hz so it'd be nice if it can hit higher on most games.

 

[mr_zen256]

I have trouble getting 60+ fps consistent on 1440p on a gtx 670. Will a jump to a single GTX 970 solve this issue? My monitor does 120hz so it'd be nice if it can hit higher on most games.

Again. It entirely depends on the game and the graphics settings you use. I'd recommend searching for benchmarks on common games you play or maybe mention a few here so peeps can give you an idea of what to expect.

 

[MacLeod]

Dell 3007WFP-HC for $680ish in 2008. Try again . 2560x1600 IPS panel back then, even... old school stuff nowadays. Even had a 5-year warranty from Dell. Nowadays, even back in 2013, you could get a Korean 1440p PLS panel made by Samsung with a 3-year warranty from Squaretrade for $350 total.

I dont ever remember those Dell 30's ever being below $1000. Ill take your word for it though because my memory sucks. Those 2560x1600 Dell's were my dream monitor for a long time.

The Korean monitors never appealed to me. I have no interest buying a screen by a company Ive never heard of and ships from overseas via a 3rd party with either no warranty or a questionable one. Especially not when there were plenty of 1080 options that were offered by reputable mainstream manufacturers and sold thru reliable retailers and looked as good.

1080 looks very poor compared to 2560x1440 or 4K in gaming, and is anemic on desktop workspace, especially.

I guess Im glad Im getting old and my eyes are getting bad because I can see ZERO difference between my 1080 25" and the 1440 27" screens Ive seen and played on. Granted 1440 would be a little crisper at 27" with the extra pixels but Id hardly call it anemic. We're talking marginal amounts here but we're talking doubling the price and nearly halving frame rates.

A $300 GPU already can handle 2560x1440 pretty well like a GTX 970 4GB video card, too. No one's saying you're "wrong" for enjoying 1080p but it is definitely very outdated by now and provides much smaller desktop room.

Agreed that the 970 changed everything. A day before it released though you were looking at $500 minimum to get the frame rates on 1440 that I get with my 670 at 1080. And with a 970 youre still looking at having to play the really demanding games like Crysis 3 at High instead of Very High like you could at 1080 with higher frame rates even. The screen real estate is a non issue too IMO. Yeah youre getting more space but thats essentially because everything is just smaller! A 27" 1440 is the same size as a 27" just 1080 but with a LOT smaller text. Thats not necessarily a good trade off IMO. But again, old eyes here.

I just dont see 1080 as outdated. Rather I see 1440 and above as a luxury. Yeah its nice and all but for the marginal benefits it isnt worth the doubling of price and halving of frame rates. Maybe that will change in the future when you can get good quality 1440 monitors for $200 and $300 like you can 1080's and a $200 GPU will get you 60+ FPS in games like it will at 1080. Until then, I think itll continue to stay a luxury. But then I thought texting was just a fad and would die out so what do I know.

 

[GoldenTiger]

Granted the price I got my 30" panel for back then was a hell of a deal . When I say that 1080p is outdated, I'm talking in regards to being high-end or luxury. Useful or current, heck even good? Sure is .

 

[misterbobby]

60fps goes without saying, and yes, it is perfectly doable if you drop some antialiasing which is perfectly acceptable at 2560 where 2 to 4x is awesome. Been gaming 2560 from 2008 so plenty well acquainted with it. Rarely I had to GASP drop a slider one notch for shadows and have a suffering 98 percent of max potential image quality, but it was still far far better than 1080 or below.

Even with only 2x AA you cant stay above 60 fps in all games at 2560x1440 with a single card. And games are only going to get more demanding.

 

[Vatican]

really hard to go back to 1080p after being with 1440p

 

[MacLeod]

Granted the price I got my 30" panel for back then was a hell of a deal . When I say that 1080p is outdated, I'm talking in regards to being high-end or luxury. Useful or current, heck even good? Sure is .

Then we sir are in complete agreement. You may go in peace.

 

[Poranosaurus]

Until the day a ~350$ graphic card can run new released games at whatever resolution at 50+ fps, I don't see said resolution dethrones 1080p.

 

[mr_zen256]

After using a 30" 2560x1600 panel, I actually didn't mind going back to 1920x1080 considering the frame rate boost at the lower res. Although it will never be as good as true high resolution gaming, technologies such as DSR does give our paltry 1080p displays a new lease of life if you're willing to sacrifice a good chunk of frame rate.