Are we likely to get stuck in 4K resolution for next gen and one after that? Tech slowdown?

What do you mean? I'd be very impressed if the human eye playing a game from a monitor or couch can actually perceive a difference above 4k.

Meh.. some people say you can't see the difference between 30 and 60 fps or 60 and 120 fps.. but you can. 4k is a pretty large upgrade over traditional HD, so I'm guessing something like 8k would be noticeable as well. I'm sure that at SOME POINT it would be about impossible to tell, but I think it's still a couple upgrades away. Perhaps I'm wrong.. I don't know yet, but something tells me people could tell the difference if they knew what they were looking for.

Let's get console games to properly run at 4k first.

Perhaps marketing is gonna mess with the average joe "You need our new 8K set!". Then lock newer TV features to those only (very high native refresh rates, higher brightness, wider colors).

AFAIK it's technically possible to have had true HDR 1080p with Wide Color Gamut but manufacturers aren't doing this. Maybe partly because 4K panels itself aren't that expensive anymore but adding certain tech in them are.

https://www.digitaltrends.com/home-theater/8k-tv-everything-you-need-to-know/

It'd mostly depend on display manufacturers and their marketing as far as pushing higher standards of resolution.

The next gen consoles should at least try to do 1080p/60fps properly because the current gen consoles completely shit the bed on that one. Then they had the nerve to release "4K" (fail again) refreshes with the same shit CPU. LOL

Don't worry, there always gonna be some tech tricks to hook the masses, and it won't be what SW expects!!!

As far as i'm concerned, games matters more than tech, so if next gen comes with lotta games, i'm fine with that.

Tech aspect is secondary in my book.

Read https://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=Sony-LLVM-Ryzen-Improvements

Sony has submitted znver1 improvements to LLVM. znver1 = Ryzen.

Not quite. 4K will likely be the standard for a long time because most people can't see past 6K. 8K is something that only a tiny minority of humans can appreciate with 20/10 vision.

The only time an average person can percieve 8K is if they lean in close enough that they can't see the whole display anymore - which is never needed for entertainment. 8K and higher displays will likely only be used for enterprise use and photography where zooming in is needed. Though technically VR demands close to 32K before you each retinal resolution.

Dunno, you can already go and buy a 8k TV, right now. Besides I can still see jaggies in 4k material (games) so while a 4k picture looks more realistic there's still way to go.

I hope so. Technology needs time to catch up - the resolution is incredible, but running with all the eyecandy at 60+ is no small feat. If resolutions keep rising then image quality (or frame rate) will suffer.

We're hitting really minimal returns now from resolution and IMO horsepower should shift towards framerate and image quality instead with next gen hardware. Enough of this 25-30fps with bad frame pacing

Yup we'll never see a jump as big as PS1 > PS2, SNES > PS1

holy crap dude, slowdown. Consoles can't even do 1080p very well and they already made the jump to 4K and, suprise, can't do that any better.

I hope the next gen is one of humility and quality, not extravagence and excess.

Agree with all this.

I suggest you do some research. That human eye cannot discern 4k from 8k from a playable distance, so 30 vs 60 fps isn't comparable.

4K is like looking through a window. There's no need to go beyond it.

I'd be more than happy with 4k/60fps going forward.

8K/60 is barely possible on PC now. Don't count on going over the 4K rez for consoles.

I fully expect 8K to be the performance target for next-next gen. I believe 4k/120fps will be the real target next gen if for nothing else than making VR support way easier to universalize in game engines.

I'm quite happy with 1080p...

Well, I'm going to agree to disagree. Some people don't play on 17" monitors. I guarantee you I could tell you the difference on my 70" bigscreen. Or the 82" inch tv I plan on getting soon, as a home warming gift to myself... lol. I could sure as hell tell the difference between 1080p and 4k.

I've seen the so called research, and this is what I have to say. Different people see differently, and like I said before, if you know what you are looking for or you have played on one for a long time, you will be able to tell a difference. Especially on a larger screen (which is a special scenario sure, but I fit into it).

It's not like there wouldn't be an improvement. They wouldn't bring them to market if it wasn't an upgrade. The viewing angle increases, as well from what I read.

I'm not saying this link is legit proof, obviously, but it is talking mainly about 70" inch tv's from around the same distance I am playing from.https://www.redsharknews.com/production/item/5310-8k-really-is-better-than-4k-heres-the-proof

Regardless of whether the it is a large noticeable difference or not, I would love to see it for myself and be my own judge. Honestly... if I couldn't tell any difference at all, I wouldn't even consider getting one.

Yes, for 6 years

Maybe 8K with those fancy tricks such as CB/DLSS and not native. Still, it'll probably be a ecent step up from native 4K.

I wish I'm as optimistic but what I expect are:

Most are targeting 4K/30 FPS. Yes 30 FPS still as it's been the common target to get the maximum image quality but as usual 30 FPS perfectly stable will be uncommon.

Some action games will try to hit to hit 4K/60 FPS. Dynamic resolution will be common.

1080p/reprojected 120 FPS for each eye might probably be the common target for VR with the PS5/XB2. 2K+CB/DLSS/fancy upscaling to 4K at best.

Isn't current PSVR 960x1080p for each eye? Some games even take a nosedive in image quality other than resolution.

I think a PS5 game with 1920x1080p for each eye, reprojected 120fps and has the graphics/image setting of the best looking base PS4 games would be pretty good for most PS5/XB2 VR titles.

For next-next gen, I'd expect upscaled/cbd/dlssd/etc. to 8K but not native.

1080p is absolute ass for a vr headset per eye.

4k minimum unless you like seeing pixels.

Can't wait for sub 4K resolution and sub 30 fps for the entirety of next gen.

I'd rather they focussed on a steady 1080/60.

120fps? maybe with interpolation, but that would be like 4 times the one X so 24tflops in amd grounds

8K is def not wasted on 82", it's a big boost in pixel density compared to 4K: 107.46 PPI vs 53.73 PPI, in comparison 27" 1440p has PPI of 108.79

Since they pushed for 4k, hopefully that's the end of it. We could have went for 1440p and turned up graphical options such as lighting, textures, and all that jazz. Let's do the same thing with 4k.

PC wise I'll be looking forward to 4k 120hz

Maybe for next gen?

I'm still looking into VR headset resolutions:

https://www.androidcentral.com/what-does-sony-need-do-fix-playstation-vr

Increasing the resolution inside the headset would instantly make the games more enjoyable, reduce eye strain, and sharpen the graphical quality considerably. Where the Rift and Vive use one screen per eye, each with a resolution of 1080 x 1200 pixels, the PSVR only has a single screen at 1080 x 960, and you can feel the difference. The PSVR will need to push the resolution up if it wants to compete in a room scale world. With better screens being made almost daily and Sony having a screen division this shouldn't be too difficult for them to accomplish and will go a long way to making the PSVR 2.0 a contender.

What I mentioned earlier is even better than current common resolutions probably some sort of anamorphic/reverse anamorphic?.

The aforementioned Rift and Vive seems to deliver almost 2.6m pixels. My suggestion earlier was 1920x1080 per eye and that's a total of more than 4.1m pixels.

That seems pretty grounded specially if Sony will still target a more low cost of entry next gen VR headset.

Who knows, Sony could create a PS5 VR Pro too. One that might have 4K screens but might be sub optimal as a lot of 3D games with good graphical settings will likely be sub native.

Even the Vive Pro only seems to have 1440x1600 per eye and costs $ 799.

If Sony would still target $ 199 headset only / $ 299 bundles for next gen maybe 1280x1440 per eye would be more realistic (even less than 1920x1080 per eye) but I do hope it's able to do true HDR/WCG and other image boosting qualities outside of resolution. Throw in other tech QoL for VR too if it can fit in that budget.

Maybe Sony should raise the prices to have a better base VR headset and to combat the new tariffs.

They need to focus on native 4k with HDR support next gen, there's still way to many people on 1080p TV's to make moving beyond 4k worthwhile from a user adoption rate point of view.

Maybe there'd be newer techniques like some DLSS or AMD's future equivalent?

I'm not sure but didn't DF say something like a 2K DLSS even looks better than 4K native + TAA?

I guess 4K native as a target for image quality should be the baseline regardless of how developers and hw makers do it outside of traditional resolution bumps/common techniques.

I would honestly prefer we get to 60FPS as standard before we worry about 4K...

Many dont care about 4K, so 8K looks pointless. Its a shame PS5 will use most of its power for native 4K. Games will end up looking like PS4 games. Things are pretty boring right now, gaming all about crap games now and watching nerds stream focknite.

Oculus are aiming for at least 4000 x 4000 per eye for 2022. If PSVR2 comes out a couple of years after PS5, then Sony could manage a similar resolution.

Foveated Rendering next gen will ensure that VR games are just as easy to render as non-VR games, and the generation after that, they will be the easiest games to render.

Turning 32 megapixels as bolded above into a mere 1.6 megapixels of rendering would be potentially easier to render than today's headsets.

4K is more than enough for me, and a good 4K look with amazing textures and effects is a sight to behold, I have a hard time going back to 1080P honestly.

Tried the 1080P -60 fps in FH4 the graphical difference was too much and I honestly barely felt the difference between the performance, 4K-30 fps it is and it looks stunning on my 55 inch.

Couldn't care less about higher res, they can work on making 60fps standard and adding tons of special effects, better textures, etc..

I certainly do not need a higher res and we aren't even close to maxing the full 4K potential imo, on consoles anyways.

Preach!

I'll have to look into what Foveated Rendering is but atm I doubt that a PS5 game that's 4K 30 FPS will have a VR equivalent of 120 FPS reprojected 4K and similar image qualities.

Does this just mean an improvement of what happened with RE7 where only the center portion is high/native resolution?

Correct me if I am wrong but Oculus also has a loose baseline that is the quicker evolving PC hardware as opposed to the PS5/XB2. They don't have to constrain near as much as a console focused headset.

I'm guessing that future Oculus is built more with higher end rigs if games were to be for that resolution.

Foveated Rendering has to be combined with eye tracking to extract it's full potential. With this you only render pixels around the fovea and decrease resolution outwards. The result is rendering 1/20th the pixels you normally would have rendered and yet your eye cannot tell any difference because it's all lost detail in the first place. So not only is it a game changer for optimization, but it's unlike other techniques found in gaming like checkerboard rendering which isn't native. This is all still native.

4000 x 4000 per eye is 32 megapixels. 1/20th of 32 is 1.6 megapixels which is around the same amount as today's headsets. On the other end, the standard for normal gaming is going up with either 4K 30 or 4K 60 FPS being a likely standard for next gen which means that the gap only gets shorter between VR and standard games until eventually the situation reverses and normal games can't keep up graphically and framerate wise.

@WitIsWisdom: 8k is about worthless unless your gaming on 75 inches are more.

That gpu power would be better reserved for asset quality.

Please tell me if I got it correct:

The large resolution 4000x4000 is to compensate for eye tracking correct? Only 1/20 of the gets the sharp/native resolution at any point?

That kinda makes sense.

I doubt we'll see good eye tracking with next gen's VR unless MS goes for gold premium market but I am now more excited about PC VR as that's where we'll probably see it implemented first in popular games.

Now that you've mentioned that only the fovea gets to see details. I also vaguely remember that we are worse at discerning pixels of fast movements but I also vaguely remember that higher resolution rendering helps in motion to retain good image quality.

Can't find any related articles though.

4k is awesome, but there is no point going beyond 4K. Average TV size in homes has increased a lot after flat screens arrived, but most people are not going to have bigger TV's than 65" in their homes, especially not the kids. Going beyond 4K would require 85" at least.

But where I do see developers using the next gen power is graphical effects and performance, aiming for photo realism. And let's not forget VR, because that requires a lot of processing power. VR has tons of potential.

Stuck in 4K? We're not even there yet.

Not everybody, no. I assume there are a few titles that are 4K native on current gen mid refreshes.

Yes, you need a high resolution display for large gains. The FoV is also important, as the higher it is, the higher the gains are.

Foveated Rendering takes advantage of how our eyes work. You could say it's actually the first biologically-involved rendering system. Everything in our periphery outside the fovea is blurry and filled in by your brain which is why it doesn't actually seem like a blurry mess. Your brain will fill in the gaps just the same for pixels covering your vision.

This is the latest video on foveated rendering from Oculus, along with their many other breakthroughs coming in the near future: https://youtu.be/o7OpS7pZ5ok?t=5438

Thanks for the link.

AMD's GPUs would need substantial rasterization power improvements and Vega 64's 64 ROPS (read/write) wouldn't be enough for 4K/120 fps i.e. I like to see 128 ROPS as baseline improvement.

I'm very curious to see how technology is advanced in the future now that Moore's Law has just about reached its end.

Since the DVD and the HD tv came out progression are quite minimal. People still buy DVD instead of Bluray ... the Bluray can't even dethrone the DVD unlike when the DVD came out it was a massive extinction of the VHS because it was a tru progression.

Video game consol have still a hard time putting 1080 at 60 fps so yeah ... shit got too fast and no one was ready.

Will never be standard on consoles.