Soooooo, anyone now considering an 8K TV after the 3090 DLSS demo?

Gatecrasher3000

Limp Gawd
Joined
Mar 18, 2013
Messages
368
Before you all bight my face off, just know this post is not meant to be taken too seriously, I'm just talking shop, as if money/reason were not an issue.

Anyways, 8K, I've seen a 8K TV at a high end home theatre store near my house, and I can truly say it was breathtaking. Now, it's probably safe to say none of us were even considering gaming on a 8K TV before the 3000 release, and 99.9% probably haven't change our minds. But damn, the DLSS 2 demos just keep getting more and more impressive, examples like getting 60 FPS on 1440p/no RT with DLSS turned off, compared to 60 FPS on 4K/RT ON with DLSS 2 turned on...
Three days ago, asking if the 3000 series would have been capable of pushing 8K, we all would have said no, but if DLSS 2 keeps making improvements, then the answer changes to...'kind of', and to me the 'kind of' part of technology is the most fun part.
Probably makes more sense to wait for Hopper, and for 8K TV prices to come down, but hey, just wondering if any of us was [H] enough to give it a try.

Watching the guys from Kinda Funny Games talk about the 8K 3090 Demo they were invited to sounds really wild:
 

maverick0817

Limp Gawd
Joined
May 3, 2009
Messages
295
Before you all bight my face off, just know this post is not meant to be taken too seriously, I'm just talking shop, as if money/reason were not an issue.

Anyways, 8K, I've seen a 8K TV at a high end home theatre store near my house, and I can truly say it was breathtaking. Now, it's probably safe to say none of us were even considering gaming on a 8K TV before the 3000 release, and 99.9% probably haven't change our minds. But damn, the DLSS 2 demos just keep getting more and more impressive, examples like getting 60 FPS on 1440p/no RT with DLSS turned off, compared to 60 FPS on 4K/RT ON with DLSS 2 turned on...
Three days ago, asking if the 3000 series would have been capable of pushing 8K, we all would have said no, but if DLSS 2 keeps making improvements, then the answer changes to...'kind of', and to me the 'kind of' part of technology is the most fun part.
Probably makes more sense to wait for Hopper, and for 8K TV prices to come down, but hey, just wondering if any of us was [H] enough to give it a try.

Watching the guys from Kinda Funny Games talk about the 8K 3090 Demo they were invited to sounds really wild:
I'd only buy an 8k oled and they're like $20k, so not anytime soon. Lol
 

grim4593

Limp Gawd
Joined
Nov 30, 2014
Messages
313
I don't much see the point. It is still a pain to get 4K content these days since a lot that is offered is still only 1080p.When all you can buy are 4K TVs in stores I hate how major studios still want to charge a premium for 4K content. I have the perception that 4K content on Youtube is outpacing 4K content from studios too.
On the other side of it bandwidth is an issue. I currently have Comcast with a 2TB/month limit. Especially since the kids are home all day we are watching a lot of Youtube, Disney Plus, and Netflix and get close to that limit every month. Aside from updates for Steam and Origin I don't really do anything unusual that would increase usage.
So until the studios offer 8K content and ISPs address the bandwidth issues I don't see 4K content going much farther, much less 8K.
 

Nenu

[H]ardened
Joined
Apr 28, 2007
Messages
19,837
No, no point in 8K.
It will take all my wall space to be worth the res change which is too big, and the cost ... the cost all round, makes it not even worth it for a bit of fun.
I dont need it at all.
 

aeliusg

Gawd
Joined
Jan 14, 2016
Messages
796
PPI of the 88" ZX is 100, the 77" is 110. That's the same as 1920x1080 at 22" or 20" respectively. You can be at 3 or 2' away and it will look like a personal IMAX. The 88" is $30k and the 77" is 20k. I'm sure some people have made that much just off of stocks during this big crisis.
 

kasakka

2[H]4U
Joined
Aug 25, 2008
Messages
2,401
Give me one in the 48" OLED size and I will buy one as long as it's not as massively expensive as the current ones. To me 8K does not makes sense in a TV unless you live in a mansion with a massive living room. I've seen them in stores and they are incredible but 8K content is non-existent. Games will become playable at 8K only with DLSS. I've tried for example RDR2 at 8K and it looks incredibly on my LG CX 48" but runs at sub 30 fps on a 2080 Ti. Let's say a 3090 puts it at a solid 30-40 fps, that's still not a great experience.

For me the value of 8K is entirely in large desktop size displays somewhere in the 40-50" range. This would give you a lot of scaling options not only for the desktop but also games. 1080p, 1440p and 4K with integer scaling would be possible. Very sharp text on the desktop with a lot of desktop space.
 

MistaSparkul

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jul 5, 2012
Messages
1,838
8k is definitely somewhere in the future. For me it will be when the resolution comes down to the smaller sized OLEDs like the 48" and come equipped with HDMI 3.0 or something that allows 8k120Hz. Of course GPU power by then will also have evolved to make games playable at that resolution and frame rates with DLSS 2.0/3.0. For now, I will just grab the 3090 and happily enjoy 4k120Hz on my CX48.
 

burburbur

Weaksauce
Joined
Mar 14, 2017
Messages
93
I don't much see the point. It is still a pain to get 4K content these days since a lot that is offered is still only 1080p.When all you can buy are 4K TVs in stores I hate how major studios still want to charge a premium for 4K content. I have the perception that 4K content on Youtube is outpacing 4K content from studios too.
On the other side of it bandwidth is an issue. I currently have Comcast with a 2TB/month limit. Especially since the kids are home all day we are watching a lot of Youtube, Disney Plus, and Netflix and get close to that limit every month. Aside from updates for Steam and Origin I don't really do anything unusual that would increase usage.
So until the studios offer 8K content and ISPs address the bandwidth issues I don't see 4K content going much farther, much less 8K.

I don't ever see universal 4K or significant amounts of 8K streaming content being feasible without a massive build out of additional infrastructure. I think the future is going to be something like DLSS where lower resolution content is going to be streamed and upscaled very well by client-side hardware. Transmitting true 8k content at any kind of sensible bitrate is just not going to be possible at scale on current internet infrastructure.
 

Skott

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Aug 12, 2006
Messages
4,198
No, 8k is still too far out IMO. For me 4k gaming @ 120Hz will be fine.
 

Vega

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Oct 12, 2004
Messages
6,671
8K is completely pointless outside of displays used for medical/CAD etc where you can lean in and look at fine details.

Trying to look at an entire screen that is large enough to make 8K's high PPI worth it clarity wise would have you sit so close you can't even see the whole screen, making it pointless.

8K in gaming would be a complete gimmick too. I'd much rather have 4K at 240 Hz than 8K at 120 Hz.

8K is more of a marketing push than anything useful. Heck, in some circles 16K is even being talked about which is just stupid.
 
Joined
Apr 1, 2008
Messages
2,701
If there were smaller sizes I might consider it. Right now most if not all 8K TV's are over 65" and it's too big. Around 55" or less would be ideal for me, and I'm using a 55" 4K OLED TV as a monitor.
 

jbltecnicspro

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Aug 18, 2006
Messages
6,676
Of course not. I don't see why I would ever get 8k unless I'm watching large format. I think that for the most part 4k is just fine.
 

Krisium

Weaksauce
Joined
Feb 16, 2016
Messages
95
For me the value of 8K is entirely in large desktop size displays somewhere in the 40-50" range. This would give you a lot of scaling options not only for the desktop but also games. 1080p, 1440p and 4K with integer scaling would be possible. Very sharp text on the desktop with a lot of desktop space.

This is exactly my interest in 8k. Not 8k content - I'll consider that a bonus like if I can run a very old 3d game at 8k or the odd 8k video. It's integer scaling of 1080p, 1440p, and 4k. Use 1440p (9:1) for the demanding games and 4k for those a bit less demanding.
 

defaultluser

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jan 14, 2006
Messages
14,295
I'm a content consumer, and I can't see any benefit of going 8k. I can barely tell the difference between my 4k tv at 1080p mode, and I can't see myself upgrading above 1440p on the desktop (or 4k, if I suddenly have money to burn).

I will need a GPU upgrade anyway for the demaning new games, and Ito give RTX a try.
 

frisbfreek

Weaksauce
Joined
Jul 13, 2004
Messages
94
Give me one in the 48" OLED size and I will buy one as long as it's not as massively expensive as the current ones. To me 8K does not makes sense in a TV unless you live in a mansion with a massive living room. I've seen them in stores and they are incredible but 8K content is non-existent. Games will become playable at 8K only with DLSS. I've tried for example RDR2 at 8K and it looks incredibly on my LG CX 48" but runs at sub 30 fps on a 2080 Ti. Let's say a 3090 puts it at a solid 30-40 fps, that's still not a great experience.

For me the value of 8K is entirely in large desktop size displays somewhere in the 40-50" range. This would give you a lot of scaling options not only for the desktop but also games. 1080p, 1440p and 4K with integer scaling would be possible. Very sharp text on the desktop with a lot of desktop space.

This is exactly my interest in 8k. Not 8k content - I'll consider that a bonus like if I can run a very old 3d game at 8k or the odd 8k video. It's integer scaling of 1080p, 1440p, and 4k. Use 1440p (9:1) for the demanding games and 4k for those a bit less demanding.

I agree with both kasakka and Krisium. Unless one is sitting really close to their TV, or their TV covers the whole wall, 8K TVs won't really add much benefit over 4K. However, monitors are used at much larger total visual angles (sometimes 60+ degrees), so it's much easier to see the difference between 8K and 4K with the right monitor size (37"+). At the same time, it's hard to view large TVs (55"+) on a desk; at some point the top of the TV is too high to view comfortably even if the display sits right on the desk. So for computing, there's a sweet spot of ~37-55" (these bounds are obviously arguable) for 8K. I would gladly take an 8K monitor in the 37-43" range to have sharper text and graphics for work, but I just can't fit a 65" TV into my work space.

And yeah, 8K for gaming only makes sense with DLSS right now... but the demo was cool!
 

LazyGamer

Weaksauce
Joined
Sep 1, 2020
Messages
125
It's integer scaling of 1080p, 1440p, and 4k. Use 1440p (9:1) for the demanding games and 4k for those a bit less demanding.
8k, or really, whatever PPI that is at 55", is all about scaling!

It's the basics of what Apple did with their 'Retina' branding, where pixels become invisible at recommended viewing distances. Just now with everything.
 

Mad Maxx

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Apr 12, 2016
Messages
5,476
I don't watch much TV anymore. By the time I'd be interested in an 8K TV, the new rage will be 16K TVs.
 

mehguy5

n00b
Joined
Jul 12, 2020
Messages
13
I can barely tell the difference between my 4k tv at 1080p mode

Then you're not sitting close enough. Did you see how close Nvidia had them sit in front of the 8K TV? They had to noticeably tilt their heads a lot.
 

Attachments

  • 8kdistance.png
    8kdistance.png
    744.5 KB · Views: 0

KazeoHin

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Sep 7, 2011
Messages
8,358
I personally run a 4K monitor, but not for the added detail, but rather for the added desktop real-estate. 43" 4K means 43" of 100PPi desktop real estate, tons of windows, all with tons of readable text and usable UI. Playing games, just crank the FOV to max and I have a full-view experience without any loss of detail compared to a 21" 1080p monitor at the same range.

Going 8K I would want at LEAST 80" and curved. I don't want to deal with scaling.
 

sphinx99

Gawd
Joined
Dec 23, 2006
Messages
934
I’m not opposed but would need to see native 8k content on an 8k display first. I have not seen it to date and don’t feel I’m in a position to judge. That said i would prefer brightness, HDR and wide color support over beyond-4K resolution. I also would prefer to scale up to ~200Hz refresh rate before moving up the DPI ladder again.
 

UnknownSouljer

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Sep 24, 2001
Messages
7,098
If I could get an 8k dream monitor right now, I would.
But the problem is, even options for a 32", 4k 120Hz, 10-bit display, with good uniformity, and gamut coverage is already nearly impossible (HDR on top would be nice, but I still don't think is necessary yet). Especially for a reasonable cost (in fact I literally know of zero at this point). If I could get an 8k display with the rest of the specs the same as above, with possibly OLED, then sure. But first off they don't offer OLED that small (regardless of resolution). It would cost 2x-3x as much. And there definitely isn't anything that can drive 8k at 120Hz. Even with DSC.
 
Last edited:

defaultluser

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jan 14, 2006
Messages
14,295
Then you're not sitting close enough. Did you see how close Nvidia had them sit in front of the 8K TV? They had to noticeably tilt their heads a lot.

I'm not changing my TV's mounting distance. when I game, browse the web, or watch a movie, I'm sitting on my sectional.

At 10 feet away, and 300% scaling, it's very usable. I can still (just barely)_ seee the differencee between 4k and 1080p in games, abut I donnt expect big yhings goung quadruplle my current TV's native es.
 

jmilcher

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Feb 3, 2008
Messages
5,254
I personally run a 4K monitor, but not for the added detail, but rather for the added desktop real-estate. 43" 4K means 43" of 100PPi desktop real estate, tons of windows, all with tons of readable text and usable UI. Playing games, just crank the FOV to max and I have a full-view experience without any loss of detail compared to a 21" 1080p monitor at the same range.

Going 8K I would want at LEAST 80" and curved. I don't want to deal with scaling.

I had more than a few 43” 4K monitors and all had terrible banding. Tv’s were worse. Went back to 1440 27”. Too bad I did like the real estate
 

SH1

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jun 30, 2006
Messages
1,469
Well, you kind of have to increase the resolution of a flat screen TV if it gets big enough? Otherwise, you can see the individual dots or at least a texture such that it doesn't look filmlike anymore. Or sit farther away, but then you don't get the full benefit of the screen. Something that always bothered me about large 1080P screens. 4K has helped a lot there already, but I guess even that's only to a point.
 

sharknice

2[H]4U
Joined
Nov 12, 2012
Messages
2,600
8K is completely pointless outside of displays used for medical/CAD etc where you can lean in and look at fine details.

Trying to look at an entire screen that is large enough to make 8K's high PPI worth it clarity wise would have you sit so close you can't even see the whole screen, making it pointless.

8K in gaming would be a complete gimmick too. I'd much rather have 4K at 240 Hz than 8K at 120 Hz.

8K is more of a marketing push than anything useful. Heck, in some circles 16K is even being talked about which is just stupid.

If DLSS performs so well that higher resolution is basically free count me in.

I don't think 4k is high enough for people with very good vision, and I would love to be able to have a true "retina display".
Imagine you're sniping in some game and you just see a tiny blur in your scope but you could just lean forward IRL and make out more detail so you can aim for a headshot.

But if we're sacrificing higher HZ it's not worth the trade-off.

I think screens so big they cover your entire peripheral vision will be a normal thing decades in the future when they get cheap enough and hardware is powerful enough to drive them. But it's just not nearly worth the trade-offs yet.
 

madpistol

Gawd
Joined
May 17, 2020
Messages
592
We've conquered 1080p. 1080p is easy for most GPUs now.

1440p is the new "standard" of gaming; great image quality, but not too hard to drive for most video cards.

4K is still really hard to drive @ 120hz. Only the best GPUs out there can do this, and even then, if you max out a lot of newer games, you have to turn down the resolution to hit 120+ fps.

So 8K? I'd rather conquer 4K first.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Skott
like this

cjcox

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jun 7, 2004
Messages
2,012
Hey, I need a 508" screen to game on with about 8,000 nits so I can enjoy gaming while sitting 8" from it.

If you can't feel the heat, can't feel the electricity and your neighbors house lights aren't dimming.... you just aren't doing it right.
 

mnewxcv

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Mar 4, 2007
Messages
8,635
8K is completely pointless outside of displays used for medical/CAD etc where you can lean in and look at fine details.

Trying to look at an entire screen that is large enough to make 8K's high PPI worth it clarity wise would have you sit so close you can't even see the whole screen, making it pointless.

8K in gaming would be a complete gimmick too. I'd much rather have 4K at 240 Hz than 8K at 120 Hz.

8K is more of a marketing push than anything useful. Heck, in some circles 16K is even being talked about which is just stupid.
even for medical/cad, the source material needs to be 8K. Making the move from 4K to 8K isn't as simple as just replacing a display usually. I'll be happy to make the move from 1080p to 4K this gen.
 

Ready4Dis

2[H]4U
Joined
Nov 4, 2015
Messages
2,483
Honestly... the size of my monitor and the amount of pixels, I couldn't tell the difference between 4k and 8k anyways, and I imagine most people are in a similar situation. Get HDR working right (i haven't messed with it to much lately, but last I checked there were still a lot of software issues with windows and other things), get better blacks, fix ghosting issues, give me better RGB coverage, give me more nits... those are much more noticeable than trying to make pixels smaller when my eyes can't make out individual pixels anymore anyways. Then I can could just run 4k native and not have to bother with DLSS and worrying about which games support it. Once they drop to the $200 price and they have spot on everything else, I may think about it. ;). If you can't tell, I don't care much for higher resolution, so take my response with a grain of salt (i'm sure you already figured this out anyways).
 

BlueLineSwinger

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Dec 1, 2011
Messages
1,038
I know a lot of the marketing for the RTX3090 references 8k displays. But I honestly don't see that happening any time soon.

What I do see happening, however, is dual 1440p/4k setups: new VR headsets with increased per-screen/eye resolution and refresh that even the RTX3080 might have trouble with. If the RTX3090 can supposedly handle 8k at respectable quality settings, it should absolutely kill at 2x4k (still half of 8k pixel count).
 

LazyGamer

Weaksauce
Joined
Sep 1, 2020
Messages
125
I know a lot of the marketing for the RTX3090 references 8k displays. But I honestly don't see that happening any time soon.
It's about like Canon marketing 8k in their latest camera... yeah, the 3090 will be able to "run" 8k, but it isn't going to be optimal or even that broadly useful, like the Canon.
 

kasakka

2[H]4U
Joined
Aug 25, 2008
Messages
2,401
I know a lot of the marketing for the RTX3090 references 8k displays. But I honestly don't see that happening any time soon.

What I do see happening, however, is dual 1440p/4k setups: new VR headsets with increased per-screen/eye resolution and refresh that even the RTX3080 might have trouble with. If the RTX3090 can supposedly handle 8k at respectable quality settings, it should absolutely kill at 2x4k (still half of 8k pixel count).

Nvidia just introduced DLSS 2.1 with support for VR so that might make things interesting there too. Everything Nvidia claims about 8K is really 8K DLSS 2.x, getting good framerates is just not possible otherwise.
 

Aegir

Gawd
Joined
Apr 15, 2020
Messages
565
The beauty of 8K at 60 FPS is not so much "8K at 60 FPS".

It more realistically implies 4K at 120 FPS. And that's what I'm looking for. Well, if I had a 4K screen that went to 120Hz.
 

Nenu

[H]ardened
Joined
Apr 28, 2007
Messages
19,837
The beauty of 8K at 60 FPS is not so much "8K at 60 FPS".

It more realistically implies 4K at 120 FPS. And that's what I'm looking for. Well, if I had a 4K screen that went to 120Hz.
We already have that though.
TVs have had 4K120 panels for a long time but the limitation has been HDMI not capable of passing that without colour compression, so they used 120Hz for interpolation only.
Since we now have HDMI 2.1, 4K120 TVs are here, this will translate to monitors as well.
There is no need to buy an 8K display.
 

gan7114

Limp Gawd
Joined
Dec 14, 2012
Messages
275
8K will be the resolution where the majority of PC users begin using scaling.

Historically, PC users have preferred desktop real estate over scaling. The "standard" pixels-per-inch for Windows UI has always been 96ppi (for manufacturing reasons, this becomes 93-109ppi across various sizes). So for 1080p, that meant 20-24" monitors. With 4K, we prefer 40-48" monitors. These sizes, with their unscaled resolutions, are still comfortable to use and provide for near-max real estate on the desktop.

But at unscaled 8K, that would require using a display that is 80-96" large. From an ergonomic standpoint, that is simply too large and uncomfortable for desktop use where the average user sits 16-30" away. My prediction is that PC users will continue to use 40-48" monitors, and instead of unscaled 8K we'll be using 200% scaled 4K.
 

somebrains

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Nov 10, 2013
Messages
1,591
No, bc I play shooters.
No, bc I look at walls of code on a dedicated 27" ips monitor.
No, bc text quality bugs me so much during a work day that I stopped using MacOS bc I'm tied to Retina or eye cratering jaggy.

So no TV as of output for me.
Made that mistake a couple years ago and won't do it again.
 

mehguy5

n00b
Joined
Jul 12, 2020
Messages
13
8K will be the resolution where the majority of PC users begin using scaling.

Historically, PC users have preferred desktop real estate over scaling. The "standard" pixels-per-inch for Windows UI has always been 96ppi (for manufacturing reasons, this becomes 93-109ppi across various sizes). So for 1080p, that meant 20-24" monitors. With 4K, we prefer 40-48" monitors. These sizes, with their unscaled resolutions, are still comfortable to use and provide for near-max real estate on the desktop.

But at unscaled 8K, that would require using a display that is 80-96" large. From an ergonomic standpoint, that is simply too large and uncomfortable for desktop use where the average user sits 16-30" away. My prediction is that PC users will continue to use 40-48" monitors, and instead of unscaled 8K we'll be using 200% scaled 4K.

I don't know what reality you're living in. But in the real world the vast majority of 4K monitors are around 27-32" and people are already using scaling at that size.
 
Top