Hardware Discussion Thread

marco_polo · 14-01-2013 08:53PM

challengemaster wrote: »

Right, say someone hasn't been paying attention....

What's all this 4k stuff?

Its just a resolution in the region of 4096 × 2160 pixels (not sure if hdtv is exactly the same as cinema version)

Serephucus · 14-01-2013 08:53PM

4K is the buzzword for resolutions using approximately four thousand pixels horizontally. An example of this is UHD resolution, which is 3840x2160.

Headshot · 14-01-2013 08:54PM

Suppose to be the next big thing in tv quality. Much better picture quality than HD but the funny thing is there is nothing like dvds, games etc that can take advantage of 4K at the moment

At least it wont be as bad as the 3D gimmick, which didnt even show up at CES lol

glynf · 14-01-2013 08:57PM

The new Res standard for ultra high definition television, its double the horizontal and vertical res. of the 1080p. Thing is its a bit of a non runner in a way as a lot of TV transmission stuff is jumping straight to 8K instead.

The good news is manufacturers are bringing out 30" displays at 4K/3840×2160.
Which is a sh!t load of pixels indeed, ideal for editing etc. but also gaming.

challengemaster · 14-01-2013 09:07PM

Serephucus wrote: »

4K is the buzzword for resolutions using approximately four thousand pixels horizontally. An example of this is UHD resolution, which is 3840x2160.

Strange, as usually resolution goes by vertical pixels... (720, 1080, 1440)

glynf wrote: »

The new Res standard for ultra high definition television, its double the horizontal and vertical res. of the 1080p. Thing is its a bit of a non runner in a way as a lot of TV transmission stuff is jumping straight to 8K instead.

Lol. It's a bit of a non-runner in another way too, considering the vast majority of content on TV isn't in HD yet...

AlmightyCushion · 14-01-2013 09:19PM

challengemaster wrote: »

Lol. It's a bit of a non-runner in another way too, considering the vast majority of content on TV isn't in HD yet...

Most TV content isn't even HD let alone 1080p yet but that hasn't stopped most TVs on the market sporting 1080p panels. Once they start coming down in price they'll eventually start taking over regardless of if TV content has caught up yet or not.

glynf · 14-01-2013 09:25PM

True, I don't care less about the TV functionality but what I like about 4K res on a 30" screen-high pixel density. Brilliant for games and a pair SLI'ed GTX 670's or greater should comfortably run games at 3840×2160.

14-01-2013 09:27PM

Its becoming super easy to make high-DPI displays so for TVs is more of a 'why not' thing.

OLED is hitting the market and long term could be a major threat to LCD so one way for LCD to stay relevant is to put the R&D into super-high resolution now while OLED manufacturing is still struggling with yield on 1080p panels.

So in a couple of years time you have an amazing looking 1080p OLED and a ****ty-looking 4K LCD for the same price; dumb consumer looks at the numbers and goes for the LCD in a repeat of the Plasma vs LCD war.

Serephucus · 14-01-2013 09:28PM

Yeah, personally that's what I'm waiting for: 27" 1080p OLED panel.

Squeaky the Squirrel · 14-01-2013 09:52PM

glynf wrote: »

Thing is its a bit of a non runner in a way as a lot of TV transmission stuff is jumping straight to 8K instead.

Where you see that?

First Ultra HD channel goes live in Europe

And the new codec to keep file sizes same or smaller size ready to go aswell.

Need big TVs just to see the difference I'd imagine aswell. Be near a decade before this is anyway mainstream with content and prices. Would need to be OLED aswell or you'd be getting one of those 14 stone 85 inch yokes samsung rolled out awhile back. 14 stone!!!

Anyone have shares in Dell? Looking to be taken off stock exchange, big price jump today. Back to it's glory days of a decade ago. I'm still using speakers, Keyboard and Mouse from a Dimension 2400. 10 years old (ish)

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-01-14/dell-is-said-be-in-buyout-discussions-with-private-equity-firms.html

14-01-2013 10:01PM

Squeaky the Squirrel wrote: »

Where you see that?

NHK in Japan, who are pretty influential when it comes to cutting edge broadcasting tech, have said they're going straight to 8K because its too expensive to upgrade their whole infrastructure to 4K only to have to upgrade to 8K some years later.

ED E · 14-01-2013 10:15PM

If these start hitting the stores at consumer prices it might push AMD and nVidia to strive forward to get performance at those resolutions. Might see a huge jump in performance for 8XX and 9XXX cards?

Too pov for any of it anyways ^^

Tea_Bag · 15-01-2013 02:55PM

I think everyone is getting a little too excited here. the 4k screens they're showing off are 56"+, waaay to big to be used for gaming. getting those pixels to fit in a <30" display is going to be even more expensive. it's the same reason 99% of laptops are still 720p when 25*14 is becoming mainstream in desktops.

I'd put us at 6-10years before we can afford to get them.

15-01-2013 03:08PM

Tea_Bag wrote: »

I think everyone is getting a little too excited here. the 4k screens they're showing off are 56"+, waaay to big to be used for gaming. getting those pixels to fit in a <30" display is going to be even more expensive. it's the same reason 99% of laptops are still 720p when 25*14 is becoming mainstream in desktops.

I'd put us at 6-10years before we can afford to get them.

It's actually becoming very easy and cheap to make high-DPI LCD displays. Thanks to the mobile and tablet sector, a huge amount of R&D has been put into it. They have gotten very good at it.

Certainly we're not going to have affordable 4K monitors tomorrow but within 3 years a 27" 4K monitor should be the same price as a branded 27" 2560.

PseudoFamous · 15-01-2013 05:23PM

Tea_Bag wrote: »

I think everyone is getting a little too excited here. the 4k screens they're showing off are 56"+, waaay to big to be used for gaming. getting those pixels to fit in a <30" display is going to be even more expensive. it's the same reason 99% of laptops are still 720p when 25*14 is becoming mainstream in desktops.

I'd put us at 6-10years before we can afford to get them.

as an example, ipad 3rd and 4th gens already have 2K resolution. They're 10 inches. We can do that pixel density with ease.

Vicxas · 17-01-2013 02:16PM

With the Hasweel CPUs due to be announced for March/April. Should any potential upgraders wait until they start to push down the Ivybridge processors in price?

Serephucus · 17-01-2013 02:51PM

CPUs don't really go down in price*. They might reduce slightly, if someone bought a bunch of them and has to get rid of them quickly (unlikely), but they tend to just go EOL pretty quick instead. The only reason you'd wait for Haswell is to buy Haswell.

*The exception being if Haswell does really well, and a bunch of people throw 3570Ks on Adverts.

Vicxas · 17-01-2013 03:10PM

Doubtful, the Haswell seems only aimed at integrating the onboard GPU performance from what ive read.

Serephucus · 17-01-2013 03:12PM

It's quite a bit more than that. Performance improvement, and a much bigger focus on overclocking.

marco_polo · 17-01-2013 03:51PM

Vicxas wrote: »

With the Hasweel CPUs due to be announced for March/April. Should any potential upgraders wait until they start to push down the Ivybridge processors in price?

Even now the i5-2500k is only €15-20 less that the i5-3570K so it won't drop them by much and it will be over a relatively long period.

What you usually see after lauch day is not the that price of the older chip plummeting, but the price of the replacement chip skyrocketing.

Squeaky the Squirrel · 17-01-2013 05:06PM

Ophelia

^What could it be?:pac:

Turn volume down first.:eek:

beno619 · 17-01-2013 06:18PM

I'm waiting Haswell and it's painful

playing BF3 on my xps with an gt 540m :L
I hope it's worth the wait..

Squeaky the Squirrel · 17-01-2013 06:39PM

beno619 wrote: »

I'm waiting Haswell and it's painful playing BF3 on my xps with an gt 540m :L
I hope it's worth the wait..

That yoke that's coming after Haswell, yea, I think you should hold out for that. Meant to be insanely powerful.

beno619 · 17-01-2013 07:33PM

Squeaky the Squirrel wrote: »

That yoke that's coming after Haswell, yea, I think you should hold out for that. Meant to be insanely powerful.

Broadwell ? Any indication of how long the new socket will last? that's the main reason for holding out, don't want to be left behind on 1155.

Squeaky the Squirrel · 17-01-2013 08:49PM

beno619 wrote: »

Broadwell ? Any indication of how long the new socket will last? that's the main reason for holding out, don't want to be left behind on 1155.

Ahh, I just messing beno, waiting for next big release is balls, you'll be forever waiting. Just buy best you can now and be done with it.

My opinion.

challengemaster · 17-01-2013 10:47PM

beno619 wrote: »

Broadwell ? Any indication of how long the new socket will last? that's the main reason for holding out, don't want to be left behind on 1155.

He was in fact, taking the mickey :pac: He has a point though, there's a rather pointless ideology in PC components of "Sure i'll wait for the newer one", as things get replaced so quickly.

New socket is rumored to last til 2015

beno619 · 18-01-2013 01:32AM

Haha I wasn't sure, my sarcasm sensors are a little off, Well its going to be my 1st build and I just hate to think that 3 months after dropping a grand on a shiny new machine it's technically be old tech, it also helps that I can't afford it right now

challengemaster · 19-01-2013 05:58PM

Actually just because AMD builds are being recommended more and more....

Anyone know why (or care to hazard a guess) AMD have gone for 6 & 8 core, while intel isn't going higher than 6 cores for the foreseeable future.

Tea_Bag · 19-01-2013 06:35PM

There were 2 routes to take, get more cores, then start optimising them, or start optimising the cores you already have, and add on a few more later. they just went opposite routes. that's why I think AMD will have at least 1 more push in them.

intel's architecture has matured, and they'll soon have no where to go but start from the ground up, or add more cores.
AMD is at the youth of their steamroller arch, and it has so much room for optimisations, while already having the 8 cores to boot.

Tea_Bag · 19-01-2013 06:36PM

There were 2 routes to take, get more cores, then start optimising them, or start optimising the cores you already have, and add on a few more later. they just went opposite routes. that's why I think AMD will have at least 1 more push in them.

intel's architecture has matured, and they'll soon have no where to go but start from the ground up, or add more cores.
AMD is at the youth of their steamroller arch, and it has so much room for optimisations, while already having the 8 cores to boot. yet as we see, their new chips are only slightly behind intels. imagine what happens after their tock?

Hardware Discussion Thread

Comments