Read more.Quote:
Intel and Nvidia have had PlayReady 3.0 compatible hardware ready for months.
Printable View
Read more.Quote:
Intel and Nvidia have had PlayReady 3.0 compatible hardware ready for months.
Fantastic! It was very disappointing that it was just Nvidia and Intel for so long but it's a shame it still needs Edge though.
I have been looking into getting a 4k monitor for Netflix etc. however being a gamer with 1440p targeted hardware, I don't want to purchase a display to find that dropping the resolution creates a blurry mess when gaming at 1440p/1080p - sorry it is a little off topic, but does anyone have experience of gaming at lower resolutions on a 4k monitor, any suggestions?
So the difference between 720p and 1080p is gigantic, but the difference between 1080p and 1440p is practically nothing? :mad: Not everyone wants 4k, damnit. Get your subtle mindgames out of here.
I used to have a weaker GPU (GTX780) and a 1440p monitor, and there was a noticeable difference between the games that played perfectly at the native resolution and the ones that forced me down to 1080p. However, the image, while softer, was by no means bad or tiring.Quote:
Originally Posted by EvilCycle
I now use a 4k GSync display with a GTX1070. Remarkable numbers of games, even highly complex new titles, play great at 4k, but I often use a lower res to allow me to max them out. It never occurs to me to run in 1440p, because 1080p is the obvious solution. 4k is four 1080p displays in a rectangle, which means that every pixel of 1080p graphics is represented perfectly by a square of 4 pixels in the 4k screen. There's none of that softening from trying to display an ill-fitting pixel ratio across the monitor's cell grid.
Thank you for the reply Otherhand, that is some good points to think about when using 1080p on a 4k screen that I hadn't thought of. In the past my experience with a higher resolution monitor than the last one has been more incremental than this so it hasn't had that benefit of fitting within pixel ranges as such.
I can't tell the difference between 1080p and 4k on my tv if i'm honest. A computer monitor though I do notice probably as its closer to my eyesQuote:
Originally Posted by Ozaron
I find it really beneficial with basic display tasks and normal apps, for the extra screen space, and in games it's most appreciable in games where you spend a lot of time with your eyes trained on the far distance. Rocket League is much better in 4k (although if it was a choice between 4k at 60fps and 1080p at 144fps, I'd go for the better framerate), and of course first-person shooters are much better. You really notice how limited 1080p was when you can see characters and text clearly at a distance.Quote:
Originally Posted by rob4001
Don't go 4k, go Ultrawide (3440x1440). A bit less taxing than 4k but feels like you are getting all the pixels still.
Interesting advantage of it and 4k is you don't need so much anti-aliasing. More, smaller pixels means smoother curves. In a lot of games I turn AA off, that plus reducing shadows gives a significant FPS boost.
Probably good advice for strict games-only users, but I needed true 4k for desktop apps primarily. Plus, even if I was in a position to think about 2160p UW, I'd be hesitant about going with that aspect ratio in case games didn't work with it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fizzl
Are you finding that games support 1440p Ultrawide reliably?
Really depends on the panel. Try before you buy.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozaron
In case this is a misunderstanding, I OWN a 1440p panel, I'm referencing the image in the article, which clearly shows 2K as a very small window around 1080p. The image is subtly downplaying how good 2k/1440p is, which is why I claimed there were mindgames.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wrinkly
Edit: see below, it's just they ignored 1440p entirely to upsell 4K.
Look at a 4K with HDR and an OLED screen (which gives a very high dynamic range) - Then you will notice the difference! (but you will need to shell out in excess of £1600 - £2000 to do so).Quote:
Originally Posted by rob4001
Doesn't even need to be OLED. In fact, LED/LCD screens give much more impact with HDR as they can turn the brightness 'up to 11'*Quote:
Originally Posted by peterb
*Doesn't actually go up to 11.
2K =/= 1440pQuote:
Originally Posted by Ozaron
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2K_resolution
It's a hair bigger than 1920x1080, which matches the image netflix gave. So they aren't downplaying 1440p, they're pretending it doesn't exist
I'm surprised at you Xlucine... truly.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xlucine
bigger? it's not bigger... this is pixel density not size.
both 1080 and 1440 could be on the same physical sized screen, and the 1440 would have more pixels squeezed tighter together.
Moreover, if we DD assume all pixels were the same size and scaled up the images on each...
1440-1080 = 360 larger
360/1080*100 = 33.33% increase in pixels
33% isn't a "hair". I'd take 33% improvement in my car's fuel consumption. I'd take 33% improvement in my frame rates.
that Netflix image is v missleading
(and the official 2k is actually 1080x2048 but lets carry on)
this is closer to accurate
https://goo.gl/images/AQXXBn
http://codingsupply.com/wp-content/u...resolution.png
vs
https://hexus.net/media/uploaded/201...08d0925c40.jpg