News - Nvidia GeForce GTX Battlebox systems aim to push 4K gaming

[HEXUS]

Working with PC system builders worldwide to make “a new breed of gaming machine”.

Read more.

[DemonHighwayman]

This just sounds like it is doomed to failure, I'd think anybody with the dosh to buy a system like this would be a pc enthusiast and most pc enthusiasts build there own systems.

This just smells like some idea dreamed up by a board member to show investors they are thinking of new ways to increase income.

[Tpyo]

This just sounds like it is doomed to failure, I'd think anybody with the dosh to buy a system like this would be a pc enthusiast and most pc enthusiasts build there own systems.

I'm sorry but I have to disagree. If massively overpriced pre-built gaming rigs from the past have taught enthusiasts anything, it is that there are plenty of people out there who have far more money than sense.

EDIT: because I fluffed the quote tags

[crossy]

This just sounds like it is doomed to failure, I'd think anybody with the dosh to buy a system like this would be a pc enthusiast and most pc enthusiasts build there own systems.

Hmm, there will always be someone out there wanting to spend his trading floor bonus and this'd be an ideal way to do it. And arguably more fun than a Rolex. For the rest of us I guess it sits as a mark to aim for - at a (lot) less cost of course.

This just smells like some idea dreamed up by a board member to show investors they are thinking of new ways to increase income.

PR department at work I think. Just waiting for the "NVidia-based off-the-shelf systems deliver the higher performance in AAA titles" PR releases.

Actually I've got a question about the basis of this. I'm quite happy using an itty-bitty 22" monitor at 1080p res. Assuming I'm not planning to either mount a monitor on the wall, or move the PC to the living room - what's the big deal about 4K gaming? To my jaundiced eye it looks like something that's like climbing Mount Everest - we do it purely because we CAN, rather than it having any inherent benefit.

Oh, and the chances of ME getting a 30"+ monitor (unless it was for the works PC) is tending to zero, SWMBO would tap dance on my head! And I guess that means that 4K gaming isn't going to be for me.

[flufflogic]

To be honest, you'd be better off configuring your own somewhere like DinoPC or Cyberpower.

[davidcrofter]

4k Gaming is looking a mighty expensive proposition - you are looking at £1200 minimum to get a rig up and running and then of course you have to buy the games ... this looks like it will be one for the gaming enthusiasts and not for joe public.

Certainly looks like a niche market and not mainstream and that is not a great sign for the integration of 4k.

[CampGareth]

Actually I've got a question about the basis of this. I'm quite happy using an itty-bitty 22" monitor at 1080p res. Assuming I'm not planning to either mount a monitor on the wall, or move the PC to the living room - what's the big deal about 4K gaming? To my jaundiced eye it looks like something that's like climbing Mount Everest - we do it purely because we CAN, rather than it having any inherent benefit.

"let's stop with these technological advancements" sounds about as silly to me as 4K gaming does to you But seriously, I am a computer science student, I do work on my computers and I easily see the benefit of having more screen real estate. I have a 1080p monitor and a 2560x1440 beastie, the former just feels too small to really have multiple windows open on it at once. I used to not see the point of high res monitors where you'd have to scale as the DPI was too high, however on my 110 and 140dpi monitors text looks a bit jagged, I can see individual pixels from a distance and I don't like that because that same effect will happen in every game I play regardless of how much anti-aliasing I throw at the problem. The only solution to 'edges look a bit rubbish' is more resolution, much more.

[Hicks12]

4k is a good step in regards to gaming simply because of the improved pixel count, if this gets mainstream then VR will do very well as we would be near the step required to remove the screen door effect on things like the Oculus rift! also standard gaming would look better BUT I cannot see it happening this generation, the latest consoles wont cope with that resolution requirement and I would reckon we are about a whole console cycle out of getting this to the public so I can see why its being pushed now so the technology advances enough in that timeframe.

In regards to Nvidias implementation I would say its pretty shocking... claiming its amazing at 4k resolution yet in their own graphs I see only 3 games that meet or exceed(by a small amount) the minimum 60fps its pretty shocking especially since its only the 2x titan gpu that can manage it lol. I would have waited until next year to do something like this because maybe by then they would have had the required performance.

I will keep my money saved for a new GPU (likely AMD...woo) for the next upgrade in 2015 onwards and decide if the general performance has improved a lot .

[Tyotukovei]

4k Gaming is looking a mighty expensive proposition - you are looking at £1200 minimum to get a rig up and running and then of course you have to buy the games ... this looks like it will be one for the gaming enthusiasts and not for joe public.

Certainly looks like a niche market and not mainstream and that is not a great sign for the integration of 4k.

It clearly says in the article "enthusiast PC gamers"; which for the intents of marketing, means the niche market of people with more money than they know what to do with. Also, the trickle down of high end parts and capabilities to lower price brackets takes time. None of these parts are cheap, and anything less than "enthusiast PC gaming" parts are not going to be hacking it at 4K. Joe public is going to have to wait for the price drop.

[CK_1985]

Not surprised at the general lack of enthusiasm here - I'd guess the venn diagram of people who could afford this system and people who are regular contrbutors to hexus forums has little if any union... But I'm sure these will be absolutely perfect for a certain type of person, and will probably sell depressingly well!

Little sidenote though - the Scan system that meets this spec has water-cooled GPUs, which means the illuminated SLI finger is rendered somewhat pointless. Just a thought

[kalniel]

This just sounds like it is doomed to failure, I'd think anybody with the dosh to buy a system like this would be a pc enthusiast and most pc enthusiasts build there own systems.

This just smells like some idea dreamed up by a board member to show investors they are thinking of new ways to increase income.

But at the same time, there's not really anything to 'fail'. This gets them some extra marketing from the like of Hexus who post the news, and retailers who will advertise the systems.

[DeadllHead]

4k Gaming is looking a mighty expensive proposition - you are looking at £1200 minimum to get a rig up and running and then of course you have to buy the games ... this looks like it will be one for the gaming enthusiasts and not for joe public.

Certainly looks like a niche market and not mainstream and that is not a great sign for the integration of 4k.

David I think £1200 for minimum spec is a bit low. A 4k monitor alone is £3k and your looking at £1k just for a couple of GTX780. Believe me at 4k resolution you need a beast of a pc and they don't come cheap.

[Pleiades]

David I think £1200 for minimum spec is a bit low. A 4k monitor alone is £3k and your looking at £1k just for a couple of GTX780. Believe me at 4k resolution you need a beast of a pc and they don't come cheap.

Well cheap Chinese TVs from makers like Seiki are coming eg http://www.amazon.com/dp/B00DOPGO2G/ & hopefully will drive prices down fast...

Not that bad really for under £500 even though 3840x2160 is at *cough* 30hz

Obviously anyone paying top whack for PC components will get something a lot better...

[crossy]

"let's stop with these technological advancements" sounds about as silly to me as 4K gaming does to you But seriously, I am a computer science student, I do work on my computers and I easily see the benefit of having more screen real estate. I have a 1080p monitor and a 2560x1440 beastie, the former just feels too small to really have multiple windows open on it at once. I used to not see the point of high res monitors where you'd have to scale as the DPI was too high, however on my 110 and 140dpi monitors text looks a bit jagged, I can see individual pixels from a distance and I don't like that because that same effect will happen in every game I play regardless of how much anti-aliasing I throw at the problem. The only solution to 'edges look a bit rubbish' is more resolution, much more.

Whoa dude - I never trotted out a luddite argument - instead I was asking a genuine question. Let me rephrase it ... "at the typical monitor size (21-23") what is/are the benefits of jumping to 4K?".

4K for movies I can see the point of - because chances are you'd be looking at that on a large screen and it's a shared experience. But the techno-cynic in me doesn't see the point of 4K for gaming AT THIS POINT. Is there the app support? And - as Hicks12 points out - you've got to throw some very serious graphics hardware at the problem to even get into the "acceptable" range for frames/sec.

To quote the Dragon's ... I'm out

PS while not having the benefit of a degree myself (thanks for nothing Baroness T), I've also got a multiscreen setup for work. Although the bosses are too tight to supply anything larger than 19". But with umpteen terminal windows, browser and PDF sessions open I can DEFINITELY see the attraction of a 30" 4K monitor. Actually a 42" mounted on the wall behind my desk with a LeapMotion to control it MinorityReport-style would be excellent. Maybe if the numbers come up this weekend...

[WritersBlock]

I've always been a fan of more resolution, so I can't wait.

Not a gamer other than still playing everquest - yes the original - and can't see that taking advantage of the extra res any time soon. I play 2560x1440 though, so who knows.

More desktop space allows me to do more; in addition, if a monitor is not too massive then not actually being able to see individual pixels would be great.

[flufflogic]

I'm still on a 1280x1024 monitor, so clearly these would be useless for me!