GPUs Keep Getting Faster, But Your Eyes Can't Tell 291
itwbennett writes "This brings to mind an earlier Slashdot discussion about whether we've hit the limit on screen resolution improvements on handheld devices. But this time, the question revolves around ever-faster graphics processing units (GPUs) and the resolution limits of desktop monitors. ITworld's Andy Patrizio frames the problem like this: 'Desktop monitors (I'm not talking laptops except for the high-end laptops) tend to vary in size from 20 to 24 inches for mainstream/standard monitors, and 27 to 30 inches for the high end. One thing they all have in common is the resolution. They have pretty much standardized on 1920x1080. That's because 1920x1080 is the resolution for HDTV, and it fits 20 to 24-inch monitors well. Here's the thing: at that resolution, these new GPUs are so powerful you get no major, appreciable gain over the older generation.' Or as Chris Angelini, editorial director for Tom's Hardware Guide, put it, 'The current high-end of GPUs gives you as much as you'd need for an enjoyable experience. Beyond that and it's not like you will get nothing, it's just that you will notice less benefit.'"
Lets not forget (Score:5, Insightful)
they need to handle more stuff happening on the screen.
we will need those phat GPUs: (Score:2, Insightful)
-Multimonitor gaming
-3D gaming (120 Hz refresh rate or higher)
-4K gaming
keep em coming, and keep em affordable!
Err, wha? (Score:4, Insightful)
One thing they all have in common is the resolution.
So 2560x1440 and 2560x1600 27"s only exist in my imagination?
Your eyes... (Score:5, Insightful)
... can certainly tell. The more onscreen objects there are the more slowdown there is. This is why I like sites like HardOCP that look at MIN and MAX framerates during a gameplay session. No one cares that a basic non-interactive timedemo gets 100's of frames a second, they are concerned with the framerate floor during actually playing the game.
Seriously? (Score:5, Insightful)
For games, GPU's have to process 3D geometry, light, shadows, etc. Number of pixels is not the only factor. This is so lame.
Re:Lets not forget (Score:5, Insightful)
Exactly, the games themselves have been pared down to fewer objects because our older cards couldn't handle it. Now there are new cards and people expect games that can use that horsepower to be available instantly? Sounds unreasonable to me.
When your graphics card can handle 3x 4K monitors at 120Hz and 3D while playing a game with fully destructible and interactable environments (not this weak-ass pre-scripted 'destruction' they're hyping in BF4 & Ghosts) the size of new york city without breaking a sweat, the bank, or the power bill, THEN you can talk about the overabundance of gpu horsepower.
Re:Your eyes... (Score:5, Insightful)
Higher refresh requires more powerful GPU, no matter the resolution.
Re:There are other applications (Score:5, Insightful)
Not to mention that the world hasn't standardized on 1920x1080. I've got half a dozen computers / tablets and the only one that is 1080p is the Surface Pro. The MacBook Pro with Retina Display is 2880x1880. Both of my 27" monitors are 2560x1440. I don't have any idea what this dipshit is thinking, but his assumptions are completely wrong.
Re:There are other applications (Score:3, Insightful)
Err, wrong.
24-30FPS is enough *with proper motion blur*
Without motion blur, you need about 3x that.
Re:There are other applications (Score:5, Insightful)
We only get good enough framerate at 1920x1200 (the One True Resolution) because of a lot of shortcuts. Improved computing power could allow games to make the transition to better lighting models (whatever they call the new ray0tracing stuff) that are both easier for artists/world builders and look better and more natural. It would also be nice to stop thinking of everything in polygons, but there's so much tooling there beyond the GPU (and if you push the poly-count high enough it doesn't matter visually).