Sharp's Colossal 120-Inch 120Hz 8K Display Is The Perfect Gaming Companion For GeForce RTX 3090

erek

erek

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Dec 19, 2005
Messages
10,874
"Other features and specs include a 3,500:1 contrast ratio, 6ms response time (gray-to-gray), and a 600 nits typical brightness rating (it gets brighter for HDR content, though Sharp does not mention the peak rating). It also features a direct LED lighting with 2,048 LEDs.

Before someone pounces on the nomenclature, this is technically not a television. It does not have a built-in tuner, and is primarily intended for business environments. But it could still be used as one, with a set-top box and/or streaming stick. It is also capable of upconverting content to 8K, just like Sharp's Aquos 8K TV line.

Sharp will start taking orders for this display later this month, with units being built to order. Feel free to inquire with Sharp if you have deep pockets and an empty space in your living room that's begging for a 120-inch 8K display."

https://hothardware.com/news/sharp-colossal-120-inch-120hz-8k-display
 
pendragon1 said:
and years until we have something that can drive games at 8k/120...
Click to expand...
It’s 4K 120hz and 8k 60hz on that tv with HDMI 2.1 so maybe a RTX 3090 would work. Then again the person that can afford this probably isn’t playing a game on it from a pc.
 
DBZ33 said:
It’s 4K 120hz and 8k 60hz on that tv with HDMI 2.1 so maybe a RTX 3090 would work. Then again the person that can afford this probably isn’t playing a game on it from a pc.
Click to expand...
yeah i just noticed that too. i hate how they pull that crap its says its a 8k/120 it better be. the 3090 isnt going to be able to drive 8k/60 properly either. not without tricks or dropping settings.
 
Last edited:
pendragon1 said:
yeah i just noticed that too. i hate how they pull that crap its says its a 8k/120 it better be. the 3090 isnt going to be able to drive 8k/60 properly either. not without tricks or dropping settings.
Click to expand...

No kidding. The "OMG8KGAMING" hype that we've seen not just form this but the Xbox is annoying. No, you are NOT going to be realistically gaming in 8k any time soon, even if you have the money for an 8k display. It is just too much for graphics chips to handle at a good framerate these days. Remember that 8k is 4x the pixels of 4k not 2x. So if you can run a game at 4k60, well that's 8k15. Given that some games struggle to hold a good 60fps at 4k on current high end cards, 8k is just not realistic.

For example: Let's assume that a 3090 is just straight out twice as fast, or more, than a 2080Ti. That isn't the case from the look of it (unsurprising, generational jumps are almost never double) but let's just assume that optimistic case. Well what kind of FPS do we see at 4k from a 2080Ti? Ac Odyssey about 65fps, Shadow of the Tomb Raider, about 55fps, Witcher 3 about 76fps. So double that at 8k would be 32fps, 27fps, and 38fps respectively. So 30ish FPS with plenty of dips below (these are average frame rates). Ya that sounds great :p.

Realistically what the 3090 (and 3080) are going to allow is solid 4k gaming. Being able to hold 60fps locked in most titles, or to get higher framerates with 120hz VRR displays. I'm excited and want one, but the 8k hype train needs to stop. It isn't happening any time soon.
 
Even if it were a 10th of the price I actually don’t have room for anything over 80”, by the time I add speakers that’s basically the full wall.

Should get a better job, or move to Tennessee or something.
 
Iratus said:
Even if it were a 10th of the price I actually don’t have room for anything over 80”, by the time I add speakers that’s basically the full wall.

Should get a better job, or move to Tennessee or something.
Click to expand...
You just need to move out of NY or whatever closet apartment, as 120" diagonal isn't that big of a wall. When these become cheap enough, I'll finally get rid of my projectors.
 
  • Like
Reactions: erek
like this
It’ll be sick for the 0.001 percent of the population that can afford it. I question whether even the RTX 3090 will be able to drive a meaningful 8k gaming experience.
 
1599915934890.png
 
Sycraft said:
No kidding. The "OMG8KGAMING" hype that we've seen not just form this but the Xbox is annoying. No, you are NOT going to be realistically gaming in 8k any time soon, even if you have the money for an 8k display. It is just too much for graphics chips to handle at a good framerate these days. Remember that 8k is 4x the pixels of 4k not 2x. So if you can run a game at 4k60, well that's 8k15. Given that some games struggle to hold a good 60fps at 4k on current high end cards, 8k is just not realistic.

For example: Let's assume that a 3090 is just straight out twice as fast, or more, than a 2080Ti. That isn't the case from the look of it (unsurprising, generational jumps are almost never double) but let's just assume that optimistic case. Well what kind of FPS do we see at 4k from a 2080Ti? Ac Odyssey about 65fps, Shadow of the Tomb Raider, about 55fps, Witcher 3 about 76fps. So double that at 8k would be 32fps, 27fps, and 38fps respectively. So 30ish FPS with plenty of dips below (these are average frame rates). Ya that sounds great :p.

Realistically what the 3090 (and 3080) are going to allow is solid 4k gaming. Being able to hold 60fps locked in most titles, or to get higher framerates with 120hz VRR displays. I'm excited and want one, but the 8k hype train needs to stop. It isn't happening any time soon.
Click to expand...
A 3090 is not going to render at 8k with DLSS on.....
 
pendragon1 said:
so its not really 8k then, right? thats why i said "without tricks or dropping settings".
Click to expand...
If 8K became more mainstream, perhaps we'd see more stylized rather than realistic games, where they could be ultra-crisp and high framerate, but look more like anime with simplistic/minimalist artistic choices. That would seem to be a good solution to the VR issue as well, where high framerates and resolution are required.

 
600 nits isn’t enough for HDR. This is another compromised display.

Also, a 3090 is not enough to push 8k120hz properly. Finally, what connection standard are they using that has bandwidth to drive 8k120hz with full 8 bit RGB? 3090 only has hdmi 2.1 and DP 1.4.

This is pretty much false advertising.
 
It is also a Sharp TV. They were crap TVs when they weren't a China owned brand. The picture on this is probably horrible.
 
Mchart said:
600 nits isn’t enough for HDR. This is another compromised display.
Click to expand...
This is a concern, but only a minor one; more that it's lower than what LCDs usually can do, which makes them... less unsuitable for brightly lit areas that OLEDs. However, 600 nits is about OLED-level in comparison to higher-end LCDs.
Mchart said:
Also, a 3090 is not enough to push 8k120hz properly.
Click to expand...
Properly is going to vary a lot. Obviously stuff like DLSS will be needed, RT will need to be dialed back, and plenty of current AAA titles will need to be tuned for 8k. Still, playable while looking good should be well within reach.
Mchart said:
Finally, what connection standard are they using that has bandwidth to drive 8k120hz with full 8 bit RGB? 3090 only has hdmi 2.1 and DP 1.4.
Click to expand...
This is the bigger question. 8k60 I can see, but 8k120? I know DisplayPort supports using more than one interface for a single output, does HDMI?

Or is this '8k120' including motion smoothing effects, with the display only accepting 8k60 input?
Mchart said:
This is pretty much false advertising.
Click to expand...
It's incomplete advertising at the very least!
 
LazyGamer said:
This is a concern, but only a minor one; more that it's lower than what LCDs usually can do, which makes them... less unsuitable for brightly lit areas that OLEDs. However, 600 nits is about OLED-level in comparison to higher-end LCDs.

Properly is going to vary a lot. Obviously stuff like DLSS will be needed, RT will need to be dialed back, and plenty of current AAA titles will need to be tuned for 8k. Still, playable while looking good should be well within reach.

This is the bigger question. 8k60 I can see, but 8k120? I know DisplayPort supports using more than one interface for a single output, does HDMI?

Or is this '8k120' including motion smoothing effects, with the display only accepting 8k60 input?

It's incomplete advertising at the very least!
Click to expand...
I guess my standards are different. There is no way in hell a 3090 is pushing 8k/120 stable in any modern demanding title without having to downgrade settings by quite a bit.
 
Mchart said:
I guess my standards are different. There is no way in hell a 3090 is pushing 8k/120 stable in any modern demanding title without having to downgrade settings by quite a bit.
Click to expand...
I'm with you that the 3090 will fall short at 8k120, no question.

If someone does it anyway, they'll almost certainly have to pick between frame rates below 60FPS and turning settings down.

My point is that, in my opinion, turning settings down isn't that big of a deal if the other option is unplayable, and most games still look pretty good these days even on the lower range of settings, certainly on medium, and if the 3090 can do that at 8k120 with the assistance of DLSS, well, that works for me.

Not that I'm terribly interested in paying up for the 3090, an 8k panel, or a 120" panel of any sort!
 
LazyGamer said:
I'm with you that the 3090 will fall short at 8k120, no question.

If someone does it anyway, they'll almost certainly have to pick between frame rates below 60FPS and turning settings down.

My point is that, in my opinion, turning settings down isn't that big of a deal if the other option is unplayable, and most games still look pretty good these days even on the lower range of settings, certainly on medium, and if the 3090 can do that at 8k120 with the assistance of DLSS, well, that works for me.

Not that I'm terribly interested in paying up for the 3090, an 8k panel, or a 120" panel of any sort!
Click to expand...
3090 will barely be able to reach 4k/120hz, finally, for a card. 8k60 is within reason, but anything higher is a fools claim.

And as we've seen from leaked benchmarks, even high-end CPU's are going to be a bottleneck in a lot of these games for higher frame rates now.
 
DBZ33 said:
Are you excited about how much this will cost? Sony has a 98” 8k that cost over $70k so imagine what this will be? It will be years before 99% of the public will be able to afford something like this.
Click to expand...
Protip key to life: don't be 99% of the public
 
Mchart said:
3090 will barely be able to reach 4k/120hz, finally, for a card. 8k60 is within reason, but anything higher is a fools claim.

And as we've seen from leaked benchmarks, even high-end CPU's are going to be a bottleneck in a lot of these games for higher frame rates now.
Click to expand...
I guess I'll wrap up by saying that I don't really disagree. It's a stretch at the very best!
 
Ducman69 said:
You just need to move out of NY or whatever closet apartment, as 120" diagonal isn't that big of a wall. When these become cheap enough, I'll finally get rid of my projectors.
Click to expand...

Nah man, even with plenty of space, there's just only so large you want a TV, or I should say most people want a TV. It comes down to how much of your field of view you want taken up by your TV. Most people seem to prefer around 30 degrees (the SMPTE standard) and some like it up to about 40 degrees (the THX standard). It then comes down to how far away you want to sit. So for an 75" TV that would be 10 feet for 30 degrees, 7.5 feet for 40 degrees. That's pretty normal sitting distances. A 120" would be between 12-16 feet.

Not saying there aren't people who want that... but not only does not everyone have a room that large, not everyone wants to sit that far away. In my great room my couch is about 8 feet from my TV. That gives me a good amount of space in front of the couch for a coffee table and such, but also plenty of space behind for walkway, bookshelf, etc. So for that I want a 65" (what I have) for 30 degrees, 80" for 40 degrees.

Ducman69 said:
If 8K became more mainstream, perhaps we'd see more stylized rather than realistic games, where they could be ultra-crisp and high framerate, but look more like anime with simplistic/minimalist artistic choices. That would seem to be a good solution to the VR issue as well, where high framerates and resolution are required.
Click to expand...

I mean while I don't mind stylized games, if that's what the art team is interested in... why is that a good thing? Why should we focus on resolution, which really is getting to be not that big a deal, rather than aesthetics? It seems like 8k really is largely resolution for its own sake at this point. I'm not saying there would be no perceptible difference, but I bet it is veeery minor in most normal setups.
 
pendragon1 said:
8k/60 projectors?
Click to expand...

Point, but really I was referring to screen size......you also have to be able to get this thing around in your home, the ultra rich won't have a problem but the people who spend a fortune on a set like this sometimes forget about that pesky stairwell or hallway turn they might not be able to make with a panel that large. Or you're just leaving it in your garage.

In the end when you start looking at 100+ inches you should consider front projection if simply for the ease of use. There are always tradeoffs, 8k notwithstanding, but in the end its a more livable solution......and ridonkulously cheaper.
 
Sycraft said:
Nah man, even with plenty of space, there's just only so large you want a TV, or I should say most people want a TV.
Click to expand...
The action would just need to be more centered on the screen, after all, IRL is a massive field of view. This would just require any media to be shot at that 8K higher FOV, and the software recognizing what its displaying at and cropping for lower resolution accordingly. The only real issue would be legacy videos or games, but I'm sure a mode could be set for that accordingly. I'm about 10' away from my 100", but would love for it to be larger for greater immersion if I had sufficient resolution that the picture was still crisp and lifelike.
Sycraft said:
I mean while I don't mind stylized games, if that's what the art team is interested in... why is that a good thing? Why should we focus on resolution, which really is getting to be not that big a deal, rather than aesthetics?
Click to expand...
I'm guessing you're not into VR, because in that example that I specified you need really high resolutions to get a good experience. There are technical limitations, so you could try to achieve photo-realism at low resolution, or you could abandon it and go for greater immersion with a stylized world. I find that it'd be more interesting to actually feel like I was inside Mario Kart than to have a more photo-realistic racing game on a 24" 1080p screen. Its also all about PPI, and while there are diminishing returns, as the screens become larger and you sit closer, the need for 8K arises.

For example, right now while you're looking at your screen, most of your field of view is just looking at bezels and walls, right? That's lame. Why should you be watching a newcaster only in your focused vision bubble, and be looking at plaster around it? That "periscope" type of experience isn't very immersive, and that's one of the appeals of VR is that you feel like you're in the environment rather than just watching it.
 
People don't seem to understand that VR is in 3D.......they think its just screens that are flat that move in the direction you look, like you're using one of those iTracker type devices....when everything is in full 3D everything changes. Racing, for example, is always a flat plane....you can't detect elevation changes on a flat screen easily, but in VR you feel like you're driving up and down steep hills when the game is sending you there,
standing on the edge of a tall precipice will trick your brain into actually thinking you're there and make you tingly if you get that kind of height anxiety. Long story short, VR is all about the 3D.
 
HeadRusch said:
Or just...get a projector? :p
Click to expand...
Yeah, for real. I used to have a 125" image on my 1080p projector. Really quite nice.

Sadly my current living room is too small and oddly shaped, so I had to settle for a 55" 4K, but it's fine.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top