I'll return..

@@Tholi I'll be back too...

I'll have to rewatch later!

too bad i have a 1080p monitor so i wont be able to see all those pixels

for all 4 people that own an 8k display

I remember doing this! I had a GTX 770 4GB and I was taking screenshots at up to 8192x4608, which is *even higher* than the 8K seen in this video, lol. The fact that it ran at all to begin with kind of blew my mind.

Who are ''we''? Majority of people have 1080p and 4090 run some games below 60FPS at 4K

​@@-Ice_Cold- i mean from 2 fps average to 50 fps is a 25x improvement

@@-Ice_Cold- those games are very poorly optimized then, or their systems are.

German programming be like that. I remember Buying a 1070 and Playing this Game on 3 1080 Monitors so that I could see The Bow in It's entirety. XD

I am confident even NASA computer cannot do that

Nobody is running jedi survivor

@Deathheart161 5090 in about 3-5 months, 6090 two years after that if they keep their regular two year cycle and naming scheme.

@@LinuxPlayer9 how dare you steal my joke before I even made it

Jedi survivor is just a terrible PC port. Game stutters at 480p minimum settings.

perhaps at 16k well reach the point where even TAA is not unbearable

@@OfficialFo at 16k TAA gonna look like 1080p MSAAx2 😂

@@hombrepepega3472 honestly every step we take is just to recreate old methods it seems

@@hombrepepega3472 With all the benefits of TAA? Yes please!

@@OfficialFo at 16k we don't even need any AA enabled because we already have built in SSAA

Agreed. It's just cozy no bullshit content

Watching this video in 720p and can confirm, that 8k resolution looks crystal sharp

It runs with about 70-80 Fps from my testing with maximum settings (without AA).

​@Scorpion95 at 8k?? That's crazy good wtf what kind of wizardry did they pull when optimizing

@@SolarFlare307 Yep at 8K. It runs really really good. At 4k got about 240 Fps but I´m partly CPU (Ryzen 3950X) limited

I tried it at 8k and it had some odd artifacts, as if the shaders the game uses are a bit broken at 8k. Performance was solid though

​@@prgnify Would be weird to have megatexture artifacts since Doom Eternal uses id Tech 7, and they actually dropped support for the usage of megatextures since that iteration. Digital Foundry's video on Doom Eternal explains that they moved away from megatextures due to it being more artist friendly to create assets.

Truly a pinnicle of the Amazon reviews lore.

bringing up bad memories

The fartist lives on.

Devs don't seem to be in a rush to optimise their games to work comfortably at any resolution so often it seems

@@TheSyntheticSnake Keep in mind that it's not the fault of devs, shareholders need infinite growth regardless and only think short term, they don't give a damn if the game is garbage as long as 'graph go up'.

I mean I cant exactly blame them lol, how many people are running 8k monitors and have the power to actually do it in the first placd

@@kristoffer3000 True to a degree, but you do get cases where the devs themselves are the issue. Bethesda and From spring to mind with their outright denying that there's anything wrong

@@TheSyntheticSnake Well yeah but they're more cult-like than anything else.

The difference is easily noticeable in the lack of framerate

you might slightly notice some shimmering at like 20-30 cm distance from the monitor of 27 inches, because the ppi of such monitor would be 326, and the eyes' ppi for such distance is calculated to be 338. 10k resolution would be practically perfect for gaming without any aliasing and shimmering, just cus it actually has higher ppi than our eye can handle. even on 31.5 inch display 10k would work perfectly.

You can still get temporal aliasing from materials that are so high detail that even 8K won’t resolve them properly. Modern games use TAA for a ton of tricks that you can really brute force with a higher resolution. Luckily TAA looks a ton more crisp if you give it a higher resolution to sample. Similar to what he was saying about FXAA in this video.

That's why 2x MSAA at 8K is plenty and going any higher makes no sense most of the time.

I think this may be the first time EVER I've heard the argument that MSAA is changing the game's resolution. Yes, it samples some pixels multiple times. No, I don't think anyone has ever, ever considered that a different resolution until your comment. SSAA, sure. You can say what resolution that's comparable to. But MSAA with a continually changing number of samples? Nah

@@2kliksphilip MSAA is just supersampling parts of the screen instead of the whole thing, so mathematically, it's obviously rendering at a higher resolution, although the increase in resolution will differ for each frame.

@@2kliksphilip MSAA does super sample the entire frame buffer. the difference to SSAA is that it only super samples ztest + stencil & color blending. the pixel shader gets only run once per pixel and copied to all MSAA samples. MSAA is an extreme memory bandwidth hog, especially at high resolutions. A 8x MSAA render texture is 9x larger than a no MSAA render texture, its kinda nuts. 9x because it also reserves an extra sample to resolve into once done rendering.

Multi-sampling AA works on sub-pixel (or neighboring pixels in some modes) level and doesn't change the screen dimensions, i.e. resolution. It takes extra video memory for the sub-pixel data that needs to resolve and blend, similar to switching to higher screen resolution, but doesn't touch the screen coordinates. MSAA is the fastest mode that skips the pixel shader and texture stages and only affects the rasterized geometry data. TrAA was brought to deal with transparent (color keyed) textures -- foliage, fences, particles. It extends MSAA and apples it to those specific texture maps. Slightly slower than MSAA with improved textures, still skipping the shader stage. SSAA forces the entire rendering pipeline to work at the sub-pixel "frequency". This effectively should have similar performance cost as if switching to equivalently higher resolution: 4xSSAA at 1920x1080 to 3840x2160 NoAA.

DDR7 ? always bs as it is, there is already better Ram and it is called HBM and even that wont give you the ability for 8k because you need such more powerfull GPU's then the RTX 4090 to make it ready for 8k that it will be kinda stupid and who will turn resolution to 8k but settings to minimum ? just to have 8k but game looks like garbage ?

*seamless transition*

I was looking for this comment haha, it was so unexpected but noticeable which made it hilarious

That's pretty easy, since it's a fixed camera path. Just trim the clips to where the benchmark begins, put them on top of each other in the timeline, and cut the topmost clip where you want the transition to be.

RT Always OFF!

I think it is the fur

@@embudo-xx4qu Fluffykins has some awesome fur. I've always wondered how Philip manages to keep it that way

You can use a tv.

I haven't even seen an 8k TV being sold

1080p will look excellent on an 8k tv with integer scaling.

​@@UncleJemimathere are many 8k tvs

Dell 8k

Unironically would obliterate frames unless using stuff like nvidium

@alexlxpg4985 Older versions might run better. I can say for a fact release 1.0 and lower will but not sure about anything above.

It was a game ahead of its time. Sure, it had poor optimisation, but nowadays, most of those problems are fixed.

Art direction and style does a lot for percieved quality for sure. We have better tech available today, but that doesn't just automagically make things look better.

Bro seriously

AAA decline, graphics have got worse

@@RichardPhillips1066 TAA is to blame for a lot of that, it's so damn bad.

It is! The game is called Stray.

Console fanboys are just trying their absolute hardest to cope with reality. Good on you for not touching that echo chamber ever again 👍

We're all waiting brother May the day come soon

have fun with waiting for it, will never be ported, or you really think that FromSoftware will take the money and time to port a 10 years old game to the pc ?

4K is my endgame.

what content did you watch? there are no 8k movies

That's what they say every single time the technology increases in anything. "There's no point for A, B is enough for me"

Been using 4K since 2016 lmao you a legend :)

2080 could run 4k so can other 30 series cards

That's not what MSAA is, but that is what SSAA is or DSR for a more recent driver level implementation. DLAA also kind of works from higher res and then down sampling. If you want it, it's available, but you might not like the frame rate that you get in modern games with SSAA derivatives.

what you need is DLAA

@@SeelBees DLAA does not perform any upscaling or downsampling, it is just applying the algorithm to the native image with no upscaling, so it tends to look much worse than DLSS quality with 2x DSR applied, since that actually upscales to the DSR res then downsamples back to your screen.

@@epoch151 true, that was misrepresentation on my side. DLDSR is working from higher res, DLAA works on native res image.

VR also makes SLI make sense again as you can split the two screens for each GPU which then renders less pixels and possibly gives even higher framerates.

@@fungo6631 Haha, never though it this way, but it seems logical.

@@fungo6631 Yes and no. SLI was made to use multiple GPUs to render a set of frames cooperatively. In VR the GPU renders 2 different sets of frames, one for each eye. Assuming you can hook up the the 2 screens to different cards and have 2x 16xPCIe slots, SLI is technically unnecessary as each GPU will have its own set of frames to generate. Since 2 cards need to be coordinated, this will most likely increase the CPU workload.

@@LAndrewsChannel All you need is to slightly change the transformation matrix as the scenery is largely the same with just a slightly different camera position for each eye. I suppose something like Infinity cache could help here. In any case, I believe GPU bandwidth constrained use cases would benefit the most as VR resolutions tend not to be dual monitor aspect ratios, so each GPU would only draw half the pixels.

​@@fungo6631 It doesn't matter that the "scenery is largely the same", you still need to go through the whole pipeline after changing the view to get the frame for the other eye, you can't just "reuse" pixels and not render half of them. The only "reuse" is that of the world's geometry. Please look up NVidia's pages on multi view rendering and VR SLI. Many smart people worked on those and if there was a better way to do it with the current hardware I am pretty sure they would do that instead.

As long as you're not playing Alan Wake 2 you should be fine, unless you enjoy the 20fps experience

Good luck running the most demanding games

No shit sherlock. Nobodys asking if a 750ti can run doom at 8k. They want to know if current games are playable.

literally the same reaction

😥

Nobody's running RT native when upscaling makes far more sense

People that claim this usually play less demanding games or are fine with 60/30fps at native or use upscaling+FG without a second thought. In The Talos Principle 2, DLSS->DLAA on the LOW preset gets you ~130fps at 4k kzfaq.info/get/bejne/sM98oJR2xp7cdI0.html

@@2kliksphilip I get that. My point is that it's a bit early to call any card overkill for 4K until that's possible. We're clearly nowhere close to enough GPU power for truly native 4K gaming especially at higher refresh rates.

If only there was a way to get RT working okay on the 4090 at 4K. Some way of scaling up the graphics, using some kind of upscaling the pixels in some scalable way

@@2kliksphilip I want to make it clear that I'm not against upscaling. It's a technology that has its uses and that can be of great value under the right circumstances. I'm also not saying RTX 4090 owners shouldn't use it in RT games at 4K. However the fact is that having to use upscaling at 4K with the RTX 4090 is proof that it's not "overkill for 4K" in the same way that the GTX 1080 Ti was overkill for 1080p in 2017 (I actually think it made a lot of sense for 1440p given that even in GPU heavy titles it was able to maintain enough fps to almost max out the refresh rate of 1440p gaming monitors at the time). The upscaling setting can be thought of as another quality setting where off is the equivalent of the high setting and performance is the equivalent of the low setting (yes I'm aware it's not that simple and that there are some cases where DLSS can make more accurate guesses about the image compared to native rendering but it's not guaranteed to do that). Finally if the RTX 4090 was truly overkill for 4K instead of talking about using DLSS at 4K we would be talking about using DLAA (anti-aliasing via DLSS) at 4K or running games at 4K with over 100% resolution scaling.

Thank you for the lovely comment! And thank you for understanding I do this stuff, not because it's sensible, but because it isn't. And will be great to look back on in 3, 5 or 10 years time when the situation will have drastically changed.

Less aliasing and less blur. It's 100% diminishing returns, I don't think anyone is seriously suggesting it as a standard.

@@existentialselkath1264 i am going to sit 1mm from my 50 inch screen and complain there isnt enough pixels

@@burger406 personally, I don't see the point in an 8k screen, but rendering at 8k (when achievable) certainly has its advantages. Play a game at 4k without anti aliasing and it'll still be a shimmery mess. However, enabling anti aliasing usually means blurring in motion, trailing artifacts, etc. If instead you can supersample to an even higher resolution like 8k, you get less aliasing, no artifacts, and a much clearer image worthy of your 4k screen.