Thursday, October 16th 2014

8K A Great Challenge: NVIDIA and AMD

Even as 4K Ultra HD (3840 x 2160) is beginning to enter the consumer mainstream, with 28-inch displays being priced around $600, and Apple toying with 5K (5120 x 2880), with its next-generation iMac Retina desktops, Japanese display maker Sharp threw a spanner in the works, by unveiling a working prototype of its 8K (7680 x 4320 pixels) display, at the CETAC trade-show, held in Japan.

Two of the industry's biggest graphics processor makers, NVIDIA and AMD, reacted similarly to the development, calling 8K "a great challenge." Currently, neither company has a GPU that can handle the resolution. 8K is four times as many pixels as 4K. Driving an Ultra HD display over DVI needs two TMDS links, and DisplayPort 1.2 and HDMI 2.0 have just enough bandwidth to drive Ultra HD at 60 Hz. To drive 8K, both NVIDIA and AMD believe you would need more than one current-generation GPU, the display should connect to both cards over independent connectors, and somehow treat the single display as four Ultra HD displays. We imagine Sharp demoed its display at a very low refresh rate, to compensate for the bandwidth limitation. After 10 years of Full-HD tyranny, display resolutions are finally beginning to see their normal rate of development. It's time now for GPU developers and display interconnects to keep up.


Source: Expreview
Add your own comment

93 Comments on 8K A Great Challenge: NVIDIA and AMD

#1
techy1
"Currently, neither company has a GPU that can handle the 4K resolution" - that would be more correct... cuz there is no real price/performance increase over last generations... just a bunch of rebrands, an Efficiency and performance increase that was coupled with price increase.... in terms of 4K gaming we are just were we was in 2012 and that was: "expensive future - multi GPU setup and then it is not guaranteed that gaming will be solid 40 frames" .... and now they are talking about 8K and running 5K on rebranded mobile GPU's (apple) (facepalm)
Posted on Reply
#2
RejZoR
Full HD Tyranny? Really? I have a 24 incher 1080p and i see absolutely nothing wrong with it. Only time when i wanted 4K was when i hooked up a 42 inch LCD TV to my PC and played games on it at distance of 0,5m. It was awesome because the screen was so big i could only see ingame stuff and not the room around. But 1080p was realyl not enough for such small distance on such huge screen. But for 24 inch screens, 4K is nearly completelly unnecessary apart from those 3 people who actually really need such high resolution on such small screen... So, stuffing 8K into anything smaller than 40 inch is absolute nonsense for any distance.
Posted on Reply
#3
Naito
Really!? I haven't even moved to 1440p yet! Even though I would love to! :(
Posted on Reply
#4
erocker
I'm fine with this. If it'll run 8k, it will run 4k and lower better as well.
Posted on Reply
#5
Frick
Fishfaced Nincompoop
Naito said:
Really!? I haven't even moved to 1440p yet! Even though I would love to! :(
That is what needs to be done IMO. Sub €200 1440p monitor please.
Posted on Reply
#6
Roel
techy1 said:
"Currently, neither company has a GPU that can handle the 4K resolution" - that would be more correct...
A midrange GPU with Displayport handles 4K perfectly. You are only looking at framerates in demanding games which is not what they meant.
Posted on Reply
#7
capolavoro
Naito said:
Really!? I haven't even moved to 1440p yet! Even though I would love to! :(
I know that feel bro.. Still stuck with 1080p eventho I had GTX690 .-.
Posted on Reply
#8
Naito
Reader said:
4K or 8K or 16K.....
All of them are marketing hoaxes.
Producers try to fascinate the "rich idiots".
Producers try to earn MORE thanks to INEFFICIENT technologies.
GPUs are not enough for the 4K and they intend to offer 8K!
It is very clear that " THEY WANT YOUR MONEY", "THEY WANT MORE MONEY".
Except the hi-end gaming laptops still more than 80% of the laptops offer 1366X768 pixel resolution.
Before 1080p becomes a standard, producers started to produce 4K and now 8K.
1920X1080p has never become a standard.
1920X1080p resolution must have been a standard before 4K technology.
USB 3.0 was announced in 2008 but still producers offer USB 2.0 products.
USB 3.0 has never become a standard.
And USB 3.1 was announced before USB 3.0 becomes a standard.
On the other hand cameras.
Canon had only 1 camera that is capable of recording 1080p 60fps.
It was 1DC.
And a few weeks ago Canon EOS 7D Mark II was announced. Capable of recording 1080p 60fps.
Giant Canon has only 2 cameras capable of recording 1080p 60fps.
But nowadays producers offer 4K Cameras.
1080p 60fps video recording capability must have been a standard for the cameras before 4K.
Before UHS-I technology becomes a standard UHS-II was announced.
Technological improvements are TOO FAST to be released.
But Technological improvements are TOO SLOW to become the standard.
Never forget that "If a technology does not become a standard it will always be LUXURY and UNATTAINABLE."
A technology must become a standard to be able to be AFFORDABLE.
There is nothing wrong with the cutting-edge of technology. Whether it's just a concept or demonstration or actually comes to fruition, technology needs to progress one way or another. Standards are often slow to implement, because you're pretty much trying to regulate entire industries, so it is not uncommon to see new standards announced before current ones are finalized. It can take many years.
Posted on Reply
#9
natr0n
I bet we will need 512 bit + cards for 8k.
Posted on Reply
#10
Sony Xperia S
Reader said:
4K or 8K or 16K.....
All of them are marketing hoaxes.
Dull outgiving from you. Go and check your eyes and once fully healthy come again and say whether or not you see dramatic image quality improvement with higher ppi displays.

You need such big resolutions in order to deliver crispy clear retina image.

Reader said:
Producers try to fascinate the "rich idiots"..
yeah, wondering who you belong to :rolleyes:
Posted on Reply
#11
Rojan
I think it's not just the hardware we need; we also need the software. Any advancement in resolution (relative to pixel density) is futile unless the OS can adopt and scale it properly. If Android, iOS and OS X can do it, why can't Windows? I mean, I bet Android is ready for 10" 2160p/2400p in terms of scaling.

RejZoR said:
But for 24 inch screens, 4K is nearly completelly unnecessary apart from those 3 people who actually really need such high resolution on such small screen...
Not entirely. 24" 2160p is the same as 12" 1080p in pixel density (~183 PPI), not that ridiculous if you think about it. While this pixel density wouldn't be great for text reading, it would benefit a lot in gaming in terms of sharpness. Well, that's all I can think of.
Posted on Reply
#12
Sony Xperia S
Rojan said:
Not entirely. 24" 2160p is the same as 12" 1080p in pixel density (~183 PPI), not that ridiculous if you think about it. While this pixel density wouldn't be great for text reading, it would benefit a lot in gaming in terms of sharpness. Well, that's all I can think of.
do not listen to them, they are evil who try to spoil the advancement. I'm not gonna torture my eyes with low resolution, low pixel density displays because my eyes are strong enough to sense it.

I need my 24 inch 4K monitor NOWWWWW!!!
Posted on Reply
#13
rooivalk
Producers try to earn MORE
It is very clear that " THEY WANT YOUR MONEY", "THEY WANT MORE MONEY".
lol hippie, they're business, they want moar money.
1920X1080p resolution must have been a standard before 4K technology.
Standard here means De Facto Standard = market dominance = probably not 100% absorption. It's not like International Standard / Imperial Unit where each other shouldn't be used interchangeably (it's messy and prone to error) in one institution or project.
That's why there's also term Competing Standards.
Except the hi-end gaming laptops still more than 80% of the laptops offer 1366X768 pixel resolution.
1080p and 720p are both standards, dominant standards in their own area (big/small computer display).
USB 3.0 has never become a standard.
It's new standards. Again, standard doesn't need to have 100% absorption. It could be 0% = failed standard.
Never forget that "If a technology does not become a standard it will always be LUXURY and UNATTAINABLE."
A technology must become a standard to be able to be AFFORDABLE.
fact: 1080p (your so called 'not yet a standard') has become so cheap, you can find decent one cheaper than 15" 1024x768 years ago.
Technological improvements are TOO FAST to be released.
But Technological improvements are TOO SLOW to become the standard.
It could be, but in this case that's because your skewed/forced definition of standard in display industries.
Posted on Reply
#14
Tardian
8K is unlikely to be feasible for gaming for some time. An immediate use is for photographers with 36mp DSLRs such as Nikon D810, Sony A7R or for those who use image stitching for large high quality photographs. Given how quickly 4K has become available to videographers (e.g. Panasonic, GoPro etc.) then 8K video may be available soon.
Posted on Reply
#15
RejZoR
There is no problem to churn out a display with 50k resolution. But you'll be having VERY hard time delivering enough compute power to work with that when most graphic cards don't even meet 1080p performance levels that i'd treat as adequate. If a modern game doesn't run at 150+ fps even on 1080p (well, some of us have a high speed 144Hz monitors you know), then doing 8K on same graphic card would equal to a PowerPoint slideshow. Thanks but no thanks.
Posted on Reply
#16
jigar2speed
RejZoR said:
Full HD Tyranny? Really? I have a 24 incher 1080p and i see absolutely nothing wrong with it. Only time when i wanted 4K was when i hooked up a 42 inch LCD TV to my PC and played games on it at distance of 0,5m. It was awesome because the screen was so big i could only see ingame stuff and not the room around. But 1080p was realyl not enough for such small distance on such huge screen. But for 24 inch screens, 4K is nearly completelly unnecessary apart from those 3 people who actually really need such high resolution on such small screen... So, stuffing 8K into anything smaller than 40 inch is absolute nonsense for any distance.
Couldn't agree more, i game on my 42" LED and i do feel that at 2 feet distance 42" - 4K screen is viable solution, but at the same distance if i am gaming on 24 inch Full HD screen its more than enough.
Posted on Reply
#17
Sony Xperia S
jigar2speed said:
Couldn't agree more, i game on my 42" LED and i do feel that at 2 feet distance 42" - 4K screen is viable solution, but at the same distance if i am gaming on 24 inch Full HD screen its more than enough.
Do you understand what I'm telling you or not?

You have NO right to tell the others what "enough" is because your requirements and quality as a person may be lower than those others.

Actually, you need to make the standard higher and if it is higher for you all right, but you CAN'T and SHOULDN'T make the standard lower for everyone because there will always be someone for whom it is NOT enough.

Now understand?
Posted on Reply
#19
RejZoR
Sony Xperia S said:
Do you understand what I'm telling you or not?

You have NO right to tell the others what "enough" is because your requirements and quality as a person may be lower than those others.

Actually, you need to make the standard higher and if it is higher for you all right, but you CAN'T and SHOULDN'T make the standard lower for everyone because there will always be someone for whom it is NOT enough.

Now understand?
It's not WE who are telling you what to use or what not o use, framerate will forcibly tell you that. Unless if you enjoy gaming at sub 20 fps or by lowering game details. I know i don't...
Posted on Reply
#20
ZoneDymo
RejZoR said:
Full HD Tyranny? Really? I have a 24 incher 1080p and i see absolutely nothing wrong with it. Only time when i wanted 4K was when i hooked up a 42 inch LCD TV to my PC and played games on it at distance of 0,5m. It was awesome because the screen was so big i could only see ingame stuff and not the room around. But 1080p was realyl not enough for such small distance on such huge screen. But for 24 inch screens, 4K is nearly completelly unnecessary apart from those 3 people who actually really need such high resolution on such small screen... So, stuffing 8K into anything smaller than 40 inch is absolute nonsense for any distance.
you are the most peasanty of the pc masterrace yo
Posted on Reply
#22
RejZoR
ZoneDymo said:
you are the most peasanty of the pc masterrace yo
We are the master race. PC world did just fine when consoles were doing their own march in their own world. And consoles were doing just fine as well. As soon as they started porting shit from consoles to PC and consoles became primary target platform (which is still ironically coded on PC's), all went to, well, shit.
Posted on Reply
#23
Sony Xperia S
With this current philosophy from those major GPU makers, it's no wonder to be a great challenge.

They need to open their eyes for completely new techniques like the Unlimited Detail.

Youtube: 00gAbgBu8R4
Posted on Reply
#24
Easy Rhino
Linux Advocate
i'm sorry but all of your points are irrelevant. give me a fun game to play FIRST and then maybe i will consider if it requires a 4K or 8K resolution over my 1080p monitor. Focus on game play and fun, not on uber graphics.
Posted on Reply
#25
de.das.dude
Pro Indian Modder
i think they need to push higher resolutions on larger screens rather than small ones. 1080p on my 21.5" is perfectly acceptable.
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment