#
@PredatorRules: Make use of the multimonitor tools that AMD has and I think you can blow the image on to 4 4K monitors to get 8K... I assume that every gamer with respect for himself/herself has a set-up with 4 or more 4K monitors with the horsepower to run it as well. :P
and at 60fps for what it matters or else it ain't worth it ( damn it GS bring smileys back )
Not to derail to much, but I've heard, can't remember the exact reason why, that if you want a crisp image at 4K, you also need to double the FPS of what you have at 1080P. Something about the now the objects would move over twice as many pixels which would defeat the crispyness that 4K gives, to make up for it you need to double up the FPS as well.
Came over something like that on a Norwegian forum...
I understand what you're saying. Because there are more pixels your eye should be able to tell apart more minute changes in motion, or dPx/dt. A finer time step is needed to actually see the more minute movements. While agree this is true, it seems like this is a very circumstantial because depending on how fast any object is moving its "smoothness" will deteriorate at some point given a certain FPS. I think the biggest 4k benefit here is the added details. If there is a benefit to viewing motion it's extra. Higher FPS is always better if you can get away with it.
@GummiRaccoon: Yep, running 4k at the same size as 1080p is the equivalent of running 4x supersampling. The need for AA is drastically reduced.
Log in to comment