Moore's law is dead. Graphics card won't be able to drive 4k at 60fps or even 120fps any time soon.
So, 1080p upscaling would be the best solution. It fits perfectly into 3840x2160 and would look as sharp as today's games with a noticeably better desktop experience.
One problem. Monitor resolution needs to be able to shift quickly and seamlessly between the two modes OR all graphics intensive programs need to have an upscaled 4k mode.
Is anyone aware of any work done on either front or does 4k gaming have to wait 10+ years?
How big would the performance hit be for software upscaling of 1080p to 2160p?
Shitty stupid assumption by 14-year-old. Look at target render resolutions from older titles, and realize that we're rendering 1080p because it's as far as we can push today's graphics, it's that today's graphics devote 50% of processing power to rendering realistic turban sweat on the Arab you're shooting because there's literally nothing else to do with it while we're stuck with 1080p displays.
290x and 980 both do AAA titles at 4k, 40 FPS.
With 2xSLI you're talking 60 easily.
I'd expect the next gen of AMD cards with HBM to offer a huge performance boot in high resolution titles.
but the vast increase in computing power mainly contributes to the dev's laziness by not having to optimize shit anymore.
> "Oh shit, those 256X256 maps are trashing the performance, if I lower them to 128X128 It should get to the 30fps lim"
> "Oops, I forgot to retopologize those 6 billion polygon models... meh, no one will notice anyway "
4K isnt ready, but it will in 2016. AMD 3XX and GM200 will both add 50% extra performance, the 980 is already extreme. Older games run in 4K easily, newer ones like BF4 are playable in 2K @75 FPS.
I personally wait for the Pascal architecture which will feature a completely new memory architecture, making it capable of higher resolutions. AMD already introduced 1st gen HBM, I dont think it will be faster than GDDR5, but they continue their development.
For 2015 1080p or 2K is a good resolution, you should note that many players still have cards like the 560ti, and they are shit for these resolutions.
High end graphics cards and SLI/crossfire is not of sufficient relevance to the market though. Too expensive, too little market penetration.
And is low graphics vs medium/high graphics worth the added pixels? It's not like the visual accuracy 1080p allows for is even maxed out by contemporary games. You can often still see edges in what should be curves and it's not for a lack of pixels.
And if we're talking 120Hz there is absolutely no question. You will not drive those on 4k.
>High end graphics cards and SLI/crossfire is not of sufficient relevance to the market though
I agree, but neither is 4K really. A decent 4K monitor will run about the same price as a consumer-friendly gaming rig would. I'm not talking DIY PC, I'm talking "walk into Best Buy and pick one out". SLI rigs are setups for people with too much money or for people who are seriously invested in getting the best rig they can out there. And 4K is a similar sale. As for 120 Hz, I don't think there even are any 4k 120Hz monitors out there. I know for a fact the only connector that could dream of doing that is DisplayPort 1.3, which many 4k monitors don't even support.