Xtreme Gaming Network

4K vs Triple Screen

Author Topic: 4K vs Triple Screen  (Read 22713 times)

Offline Bird

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2318
  • Karma: -666
  • Ysu
    • View Profile
Re: 4K vs Triple Screen
« Reply #15 on: December 29, 2014, 02:03:48 PM »
and remember that you will need at least as good a graphics card to run the Rift as you do to run triples. Perhaps the next version of the Rift if it is 4k will require an even better graphics card.
That's an understatement.   Can you imagine powering 2x4k screens at any decent frame rate? :)  You need two 980s as a minimum for that

Offline marty

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3747
  • Karma: -63
    • View Profile
Re: 4K vs Triple Screen
« Reply #16 on: December 29, 2014, 06:50:29 PM »
and remember that you will need at least as good a graphics card to run the Rift as you do to run triples. Perhaps the next version of the Rift if it is 4k will require an even better graphics card.

Thats kind of one reason I dont think they will make a 4k rift as the hardware needed to run it properly would be pretty extreme. With my 2x titans in SLI I can get AC running at well over 200fps but with a full field of cars it was dropping between 100-80, at this point the game was stuttering quite a bit. So I ended up capping the fps at 61 which gives me least tear and smoothest images. V-sync gives the nicest smoothest motion but at the expense of extra input lag that is very noticeable when right on the limits of the car. This is why I think G-sync or similar tech is almost more important then res. I have driven on a friends setup with a g-sync screen and its pretty awesom. Min lag no tearing and smooth motion.

In terms of 4k gaming the other issue is vram and where I am not sure how good even 980's would be at this. I regularly have 4.5+ GB used of vram when at 4k or my triples setup and in a 980 this would need reduced settings or it would grind to a hault. This is where Titans still are the better option for very high res and on water running at speeds that can outdo 980's still better for that option for me. Next gen NV cards are going to have way more vram then current and I think they will be starting at 6GB maybe going higher. Running higher res just eats up vram, if you have a nv card and I think even AMD does it now you can run DSR or whatever amd call it.

This will upres the game for you and you can run at up to 4x your res. I tried 8K and maxed settings it crashes but turn a couple settings down it runs around 30-40 fps so for 8k we need a pretty big gfx jump. If your running a 1080 screen atm you can use dsr x4 and see what sort of performance you would get at 4k, you can also change the video.ini in AC to another res and do the same. It may crash on some monitors though but I think the drivers should down sample before the monitor and so still output at native res.

Offline Guybrush Threepwood

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2133
  • Karma: 69
    • View Profile
Re: 4K vs Triple Screen
« Reply #17 on: December 29, 2014, 07:10:17 PM »
Don't 3D screens just duplicate each rendered frame, rather than rendering 2 screens simultaneously and separately?

I'd imagine OR would work the same way.  But even that being the case, I doubt 4K capable computers would be accessible enough for the OR to warrant a 4K screen.

Offline Wally

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11033
  • Karma: 152
  • AC Admin
    • View Profile
Re: 4K vs Triple Screen
« Reply #18 on: December 29, 2014, 08:51:31 PM »
Don't 3D screens just duplicate each rendered frame, rather than rendering 2 screens simultaneously and separately?

I'd imagine OR would work the same way.  But even that being the case, I doubt 4K capable computers would be accessible enough for the OR to warrant a 4K screen.

I think they would have to render both frames, from both eyes' viewpoints. Without the glasses, you can see that nearer objects are rendered further apart than more distant objects, so it's not just a duplicated frame. It halves your frame rate.
“You can please some of the people all of the time, you can please all of the people some of the time, but you can’t please all of the people all of the time”

Offline marty

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3747
  • Karma: -63
    • View Profile
Re: 4K vs Triple Screen
« Reply #19 on: December 30, 2014, 02:44:34 AM »
Don't 3D screens just duplicate each rendered frame, rather than rendering 2 screens simultaneously and separately?

I'd imagine OR would work the same way.  But even that being the case, I doubt 4K capable computers would be accessible enough for the OR to warrant a 4K screen.

The OR may be a 4k or 1440 screen but each eye is only half the screen, say the current build uses a 1920x1080 or 2560x1440 this is only 960x1080 and 1280x1440. With a traditional 3d setup such as with LCD shutter glasses you view the entire screen with each eye but each refresh flashes to the other eye so yes it does need to render the scene twice but only from 2 perspectives its not quite the same as 2x the res. But the way the rift and other such devices work the screen is split in half and so each frame is fully rendered from 2 perspectives but only for half of the screen.

Also it seems the rift doesnt even render to all the pixels only rendering to the pixels in view of the lens so the actual pixels being pushed will be slightly lower then the full screen res maybe 20% or so with just static black pixels. Im not sure if this is how its actually rendered or if its a pic inside the glasses but it looks to me like a screen grab. This shows how much of the full res is being rendered, but still rendering the scene from 2 perspectives will always take a bit of a hit over just a single view point.



Regular nvidia 3D when I used it a while back was getting about a 30% performance hit over rendering a regular image. The rift would be somewhere close to this but then not using 100% of the pixels on screen should claw some of this back and may get it closer to rendering the same as a single screen the same res with some optimization.

Offline gawaterman

  • RestrictedRacing
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • Posts: 406
  • Karma: 17
    • View Profile
Re: 4K vs Triple Screen
« Reply #20 on: January 01, 2015, 04:13:29 PM »
Anyone in Adelaide (Wally?) there is a brand new one for sale here
http://forums.overclockers.com.au/showthread.php?t=1152456

Offline Wally

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11033
  • Karma: 152
  • AC Admin
    • View Profile
Re: 4K vs Triple Screen
« Reply #21 on: January 01, 2015, 04:39:42 PM »
Anyone in Adelaide (Wally?) there is a brand new one for sale here
http://forums.overclockers.com.au/showthread.php?t=1152456
It's not on my purchasing radar for a while yet.
“You can please some of the people all of the time, you can please all of the people some of the time, but you can’t please all of the people all of the time”

Offline marty

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3747
  • Karma: -63
    • View Profile
Re: 4K vs Triple Screen
« Reply #22 on: January 01, 2015, 11:17:46 PM »
Don't 3D screens just duplicate each rendered frame, rather than rendering 2 screens simultaneously and separately?

I'd imagine OR would work the same way.  But even that being the case, I doubt 4K capable computers would be accessible enough for the OR to warrant a 4K screen.

Yes it would just render the scene for the 2 point of views but only half res to each eye so it doesnt need to render the full res twice, In a device like rift each eye will only see its half of the screen and this is a limitation of such a device in terms of completely filling your vision. They can use some lenses to make your eyes both see the image by looking straight ahead but focus the light away from your nose a bit but unless using 2 separate lenses even closer to your eyes the system the rift uses of basicly a mobile display with lenses splitting the screen in 2 still has some limitations in terms of fov. Its still much better then earlier HMD devices.

In terms of 4k here are a couple screens I took the other day. I think a rift type device would need to be 4k before Id consider getting it myseld and preferably not with a facebook logo.




Rolz

  • Guest
Re: 4K vs Triple Screen
« Reply #23 on: January 06, 2015, 12:39:22 PM »
Went from 3x24" to the Rift.

I didn't like the resolution if puts out... 1080p doesn't work for me... had the worst time seeing the corners, brake points etc..   :'(
Will need to have an "UltraRetina" type dpi for it to work for me.

Went back to the 3x24" but then got a new desk and the 24"s couldn't be mounted so I got 3x27" and am now in love with it the setup...  ;D

VR will be the future, but not just yet...

Offline marty

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3747
  • Karma: -63
    • View Profile
Re: 4K vs Triple Screen
« Reply #24 on: January 07, 2015, 03:27:21 PM »
Went from 3x24" to the Rift.

I didn't like the resolution if puts out... 1080p doesn't work for me... had the worst time seeing the corners, brake points etc..   :'(
Will need to have an "UltraRetina" type dpi for it to work for me.

Went back to the 3x24" but then got a new desk and the 24"s couldn't be mounted so I got 3x27" and am now in love with it the setup...  ;D

VR will be the future, but not just yet...

Ultra Retina, I love the apple marketing terms being used what's wrong with using the standard term for resolution. HD, UHD, 4k, 8k etc even better just give the actual res in numbers. Retina was just some clever marketing for Apple to try and make their technology sound better when its just another high res display, they call everything retina when they have a different resolution and most times hide the actual resolution as well as possible so its hard to actually compare devices until you really dig through the hidden specs.

3x27 or 28 is pretty awesome to race in and I cant imagine running a 1080 screen in a rift type device, 4k in that or nothing for me and 4k wont sell many as current hardware to run such a device properly is still pretty expensive.

Offline Bird

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2318
  • Karma: -666
  • Ysu
    • View Profile
Re: 4K vs Triple Screen
« Reply #25 on: January 07, 2015, 03:29:39 PM »
Apple's secret is selling overpriced crap with fancy design to unsuspecting non-technical people, so don't be surprised. :)
Even a little while ago they kept charging something like 5x price for a larger HDD.

Rolz

  • Guest
Re: 4K vs Triple Screen
« Reply #26 on: January 08, 2015, 03:13:29 PM »

Ultra Retina, I love the apple marketing terms being used what's wrong with using the standard term for resolution. HD, UHD, 4k, 8k etc even better just give the actual res in numbers. Retina was just some clever marketing for Apple to try and make their technology sound better when its just another high res display, they call everything retina when they have a different resolution and most times hide the actual resolution as well as possible so its hard to actually compare devices until you really dig through the hidden specs.

3x27 or 28 is pretty awesome to race in and I cant imagine running a 1080 screen in a rift type device, 4k in that or nothing for me and 4k wont sell many as current hardware to run such a device properly is still pretty expensive.

I just use the UltraRetina so non-tech (and I wasn't assuming anyone here wasn't) people have a more of an idea on what I'm on about... Yeah Apple references suck, but when trying to get a point in layman's terms without watching eyes glaze over I bring it down to low level.  :P

Apologies if I'd offended anyone  :)

Offline Gratulin

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2159
  • Karma: 44
    • View Profile
Re: 4K vs Triple Screen
« Reply #27 on: January 08, 2015, 04:48:00 PM »
Not sure how we got onto Apple :D  - lucky you didn't mention AMD ;)

For me Retina screens now only need to be the equivalent of a VGA screen for me to totally miss all the pixels LOL

 

SimplePortal 2.3.5 © 2008-2012, SimplePortal