Let's Play PC Games at 8K Resolution

Megalith

24-bit/48kHz
Staff member
Joined
Aug 20, 2006
Messages
13,003
Digital Foundry decided to test the viability of 8K gaming with a GTX 1080 Ti SLI setup, and the lesson seems to be that more VRAM can’t come soon enough. Obviously, gamers can get away with playing at or close to 8K with some thoughtful tweaking of the settings (Battlefield 1 supposedly works great at 7K), but the current hardware lineup merely gives us a compromising taste of what's to come.

…using today's top-tier graphics technology, is 8K PC gaming viable? We broke out a pair of Asus Strix GTX 1080 Tis, ran them in SLI and gave it a try. The results were unpredictable, unstable, but at the same time, also quite awe-inspiring. After all, an 8K screen is effectively equivalent to a 2x2 arrangement of ultra HD displays, representing an immense 7680x4320 resolution. To put that into perspective it's also equivalent to 16 full HD screens lined up in a 4x4 arrangement. To make life a little more complicated, we tested at full 8K, specifically 8192x4320.
 

GoldenTiger

Fully [H]
Joined
Dec 2, 2004
Messages
19,663
Eh, they just used dsr, that is a whole different animal from real 8k for performance and iq.
 

Nenu

[H]ardened
Joined
Apr 28, 2007
Messages
19,339
They arent evaluating visuals other than discrepancies.

DSR 8K will be very close in performance to real 8K.
In the same way that 4K DSR on a 1080p screen needs the same power as 4K screen users.
 

tetris42

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Apr 29, 2014
Messages
4,518
Actually, dsr is more demanding than native.
This has been my experience as well. I've seen a framerate drop of around 5fps compared to native for around 60fps content compared to plain downsampling. It probably varies on the game though.

Nenu said:
There might be a tiny difference if not using an integer size increase but its not worth considering.
What I have read confirms this.
ie
One of the guys in this thread put it to the test
https://steamcommunity.com/discussions/forum/11/364040166689313959/
The tests from that link are with 0% smoothing. That's going to look like ass using Nvidia's algorithm, mine was done with 20%.
 

SighTurtle

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jul 29, 2016
Messages
1,412
I mean a 8K display is $5k. Who the hell has that lying around? I doubt Digital Foundry could justify that price.
 

westrock2000

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jun 3, 2005
Messages
9,201
How about we get 4K to work at full graphic capability on a single card first.
Heck I would be impressed with something that looks as good any live action movie at 480p.

I really don't understand the horniness for pixels.
 

GoldenTiger

Fully [H]
Joined
Dec 2, 2004
Messages
19,663
Heck I would be impressed with something that looks as good any live action movie at 480p.

I really don't understand the horniness for pixels.
More res means more space for details. Especially obvious on anything not right in front of the camera. 4k vs 2560 was huge. I used 2560 panels from 2008 thru 2014, and have been on 4k since.
 

tetris42

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Apr 29, 2014
Messages
4,518
I must be a luddite to be happy with 1080p.
Hell, I'm happy with that as long as it has quality antialiasing so I don't see shimmering everywhere. Unfortunately, that's less and less the case nowadays so you practically have to be running 4k performance or higher to brute force that.

Heck I would be impressed with something that looks as good any live action movie at 480p.

I really don't understand the horniness for pixels.
I don't know if I'd go that low, but yeah, if the image is clean enough, I'm happy at lower resolutions also.
 

GoldenTiger

Fully [H]
Joined
Dec 2, 2004
Messages
19,663
This has been my experience as well. I've seen a framerate drop of around 5fps compared to native for around 60fps content compared to plain downsampling. It probably varies on the game though.


The tests from that link are with 0% smoothing. That's going to look like ass using Nvidia's algorithm, mine was done with 20%.
Yeah, no smoothing applied would make it run better but look terrible.
 

westrock2000

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jun 3, 2005
Messages
9,201
More res means more space for details. Especially obvious on anything not right in front of the camera. 4k vs 2560 was huge. I used 2560 panels from 2008 thru 2014, and have been on 4k since.
Is it more detailed then a 1080p live action movie scene? Are the plant sprites better looking then individual foliage in real life?
 

oldmanbal

2[H]4U
Joined
Aug 27, 2010
Messages
2,250
I think anyone that owns high end hardware already knew the outcome of this video, but still clickbaitable regardless.
 

OpStar

Gawd
Joined
Sep 20, 2004
Messages
598
Making the jump to 4k was one of the best upgrades I've done so far!
 

Nenu

[H]ardened
Joined
Apr 28, 2007
Messages
19,339
How about we get 4K to work at full graphic capability on a single card first.
Not much good for those wanting to push the boundaries.
If nobody was doing this it would be tricky to work out and is sometimes handy info anyway for us meagre mortals.
If its not your thing probably best to not post in a thread specific to the topic.
 

DejaWiz

Fully [H]
Joined
Apr 15, 2005
Messages
19,994
So, more horsepower and VRAM, then? It's a good thing that GPUs evolve to provide both.

My aging 6GB GPU still has more memory alone than my entire previous system (X2 6400+ BE with 4GB system RAM + GTX 570 1.25GB VRAM).

I'm certain at some point, a future GPU that I own will have more memory by itself than my entire current system...
 

Hagrid

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Nov 23, 2006
Messages
8,958
Not much good for those wanting to push the boundaries.
If nobody was doing this it would be tricky to work out and is sometimes handy info anyway for us meagre mortals.
If its not your thing probably best to not post in a thread specific to the topic.
Pushing the boundaries. OK. Lets get a 100K monitor!
See, the video card market still can't push 4K.
What is the cut off for when our eyes can no longer tell the difference?

What isn't my thang?
 

Nenu

[H]ardened
Joined
Apr 28, 2007
Messages
19,339
Pushing the boundaries. OK. Lets get a 100K monitor!
See, the video card market still can't push 4K.
What is the cut off for when our eyes can no longer tell the difference?

What isn't my thang?
You can buy an 8K display.
4K surround guys will be interested to see where boundaries lie.
There is plenty of interest in seeing how quickly the next major milestone becomes feasible and yet this one is possible now to some extent.
Without any reports it cant be tracked.

You did notice they used dual 1080ti cards?
Also you are speaking as if the 1080ti isnt capable of 4K gaming.
 

DejaWiz

Fully [H]
Joined
Apr 15, 2005
Messages
19,994
Anyone else remember the days when 1280x1024 monitors came out and many people struggled to actually play games at that resolution because the hardware was barely able to (or physically limited to) render at 640x480, 800x600, or 1024x768? :D
 
Last edited:

Hagrid

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Nov 23, 2006
Messages
8,958
No,
You can buy an 8K display.
4K surround guys will be interested to see where boundaries lie.
There is plenty of interest in seeing how quickly the next major milestone becomes feasible and yet this one is possible now to some extent.
Without any reports it cant be tracked.

You did notice they used dual 1080ti cards?
Also you are speaking as if the 1080ti isnt capable of 4K gaming.
It is more about single card solutions. Not everything is made for 2+ cards which sucks. So that same setup with dual 1080 TI's will run crappy on certain games with no/bad multi gpu support.
But at what point is there a difference that our eyes can see?
8k+ for big screens would be nice.
 

heatlesssun

Extremely [H]
Joined
Nov 5, 2005
Messages
44,154
No,

It is more about single card solutions. Not everything is made for 2+ cards which sucks. So that same setup with dual 1080 TI's will run crappy on certain games with no/bad multi gpu support.
But at what point is there a difference that our eyes can see?
8k+ for big screens would be nice.
A single 1080 Ti is plenty capable of driving modern and new games at 4k at high end settings at 60 FPS or better or close enough to it to provide a good gaming experience. Doom, Resident Evil 7, BF 1, Forza Horizon 3, Gears of War 4, Rise of The Tomb and Sniper Elite 4 are ones I play that perform well very with a single card. The BF 1, ROTR and SE 4 also all scale very well blowing well past 60 FPS and hitting close an average of 100 FPS in my observation.
 

Nenu

[H]ardened
Joined
Apr 28, 2007
Messages
19,339
No,

It is more about single card solutions.
Not sure why you are in this thread then, this isnt about single cards, its about whether 8K is possible yet.

Not everything is made for 2+ cards which sucks. So that same setup with dual 1080 TI's will run crappy on certain games with no/bad multi gpu support.
To be expected.
It isnt being presented as a work all solution, its for the curious.

But at what point is there a difference that our eyes can see?
Depends how close you are and/or how big the screen is.
And whether the game handles closer viewing, it invites new styles of gaming on massive screens.
Full view immersion is possible if you have the space.

Its interesting to keep an eye on.
 

Hagrid

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Nov 23, 2006
Messages
8,958
A single 1080 Ti is plenty capable of driving modern and new games at 4k at high end settings at 60 FPS or better or close enough to it to provide a good gaming experience. Doom, Resident Evil 7, BF 1, Forza Horizon 3, Gears of War 4, Rise of The Tomb and Sniper Elite 4 are ones I play that perform well very with a single card. The BF 1, ROTR and SE 4 also all scale very well blowing well past 60 FPS and hitting close an average of 100 FPS in my observation.
I didn't know the 1080ti could play 4K at the highest settings possible with 60 + frame rate. My bad!
 

Hagrid

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Nov 23, 2006
Messages
8,958
Not sure why you are in this thread then, this isnt about single cards, its about whether 8K is possible yet.


To be expected.
It isnt being presented as a work all solution, its for the curious.


Depends how close you are and/or how big the screen is.
And whether the game handles closer viewing, it invites new styles of gaming on massive screens.
Full view immersion is possible if you have the space.

Its interesting to keep an eye on.
I would assume I'm in the thread getting my opinion just like everybody else. If that didn't happen there would be no forms on the net?
How big what a game be with 8K graphics? The new ones are getting close to 50 to 60 gig. Maybe double that or so? Thats crazy.
Of course I'll be watching as well since I have a 4K monitor and love it.
 

James Robinson

Limp Gawd
Joined
Dec 4, 2016
Messages
292
I didn't know the 1080ti could play 4K at the highest settings possible with 60 + frame rate. My bad!
Considering that's not what he said....

The problem (once again) is not the tech, but its effective use vs what investment analysts claim has the best potential to generate revenue for the coming quarters. Vendors push and abandon tech ideas like some of you rebuild your boxes. They have no loyalty to you OR your needs beyond what they have to say or do to get you spending those hard earned duckets. Remember when both major players were promising the ability to use a second card to use as a physics engine?.

We don't need to crunch more numbers faster, we need to crunch the current numbers more efficiently and effectively. Only way that's ever going to happen is if folks stop buying every slight upgrade piece of junk they wave in front of your nose.

4K gaming is JUST now finally becoming an effective reality for the majority of gamers regardless of their dedication. The panic to be included is starting to fade, so they have to push the next big thing to get the Pavlovs salivating.

Still waiting for them to put out some games worth the time and cash they claim they deserve. Like the 4k port for FF VII *pant*

Would also kill for someone to go back and redo all the SSI Gold Box games in 4K with Unreal 4 engine or at least take advantage of everything Newest Glide/Vulkan and DX12 have to offer...
 

Hagrid

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Nov 23, 2006
Messages
8,958
I know. :) he basically stated what I had said about not maxing 1 card in 4k.

Old games in 4k? Hell ya! I would pay but can they be in VR as well? :)
 

John721

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Mar 8, 2006
Messages
1,623
May as well just skip 8k and go right for 11k. Two advantages, one, it's over 9k. Two, it goes to 11.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Nenu
like this

DoggyDaddi

Gawd
Joined
Sep 10, 2002
Messages
783
"We put 1 atom of every spice known to man in this cake... that's 8k spices...."

"Hmm... tastes like cake..."
 

travbrad

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jan 11, 2005
Messages
1,253
I must be a luddite to be happy with 1080p.
I'm happy with 1080p too, but it's more because it's a lot easier/cheaper to keep up on graphics cards that can handle 1080p. Smoothness is more important to me than ultimate graphical fidelity, and I wouldn't even get 60FPS at 1440p in some games, let alone anywhere near 144. That's the one thing I miss about CRTs. You could use lower resolutions for more demanding games without it looking like your monitor is smeared with grease.
 

Dekoth-E-

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Mar 23, 2010
Messages
7,599
What are people gaming on these days? 100" monitors? Seriously you don't even remotely benefit from 4k below 60", much less what sits on most desks.
 
Top