It may be worth it on a 4K TV for some, but on a 1080p display using resources rendering at 4K then scaling it down to 1080 is a big waste. Why not just render native 1080p then use the extra power for better framerate? Makes more sense.
Rendering at 4K requires that 4 times as many pixels be rendered per frame. If you render 1/4 as many (1080p) and doubled the frame rate to 60 you would still have power to spare. (yes I know it isn't exact because CPU etc, but i...
Bugthesda.
@ONESHOTV2
Yes it is the devs fault for choosing the "resolution that it can't handle" instead of better effects and framerate. They made the decision and it is a dumb one all so they can boast the magic "4K" number. They could have given an option to shut off supersampling for better FR especialy on 1080p TV setting.
Yeah but it is a waste of GPU power. Yeah the edges look smoother, like decent AA, but from a distance it is a minor improvement at 1080p. They should have just rendered native 1080p on a 1080p TV and improved framerate, shadows, LOD etc. That would have been MUCH more noticeable than softer edges.
Mario would probably be better than Trump...
I want to see his birth certificate, I heard he was born in Italy.
The "MSM" is what made Trump what he is. With out them having their noses up his butt and giving him hours of free air time constantly he wouldn't even have won the primary.
Considering that most devs are opting for res instead of frame rate or graphical effects (draw distance, better lighting etc) I say no. Some games even have LESS particles, effects, etc on the pro due to the decision to render at a higher res then upscale to 4K or downsample on 1080p TVs.
If all games gave the choice to render on "ultra" settings and/or 60 FPS at 1080p then I would say it is then worth it.
Yeah but that is a waste of power. You could have things you notice more at 1080p if it just rendered native, like better draw distance, framerate, shadows, lighting etc.
To me that would be much better than softer AA looking edges from super sampling.
Since the supersampled higher res requires more power to render than 1080p native it is a waste of resources. If rendering to a 1080p 60 FPS target you would be better off with 1080p native then using the extra power for better shadows, lighting, draw distance etc.
Ok you convinced me, I will go vote for Hillary.
I wish people would stop calling them "LED" sets. They are not LED, they are LCD. That is the primary tech, LED is only the back light (which I am sure you know). The didn't call LCD TVs CCFLs before LED backlights.
@Muzikguy
If you just go by numbers 4K sounds like a huge improvement as it is 4x the pixels.
The thing is the smaller the pixel size you go the less you see a difference. Since the pixels are bigger at 720p vs 1080 it is easier to see. 900p vs 1080p a little harder but is noticeable especially since 900p is not an even number vs 1080p (scaling filter artifacts). 1080p vs 4K is harder to see on a same sized screen at the same distance. It is noticeabl...
Actually at 1080p 60 FPS you could have even better gwaficks due to more headroom with the GPU.
I would really like to see a game that uses the enhanced GPU to max out 1080p and just adds a bunch of effects and graphic detail at a stable frame rate. I would notice that much more than slightly crisper edges that you can't see much at a distance anyway.
Can you really notice the slightly softer edges of super sampling unless you sit 2 ft from your TV?
To me the resources would be better used for better LOD, graphics effects like particles, smoke etc, and maybe better lighting and shadows and stable frame rate. I would notice that much better than anti aliased looking softer edges.
@NextGenCeo
The CPU in the Pro is running faster.
The better GPU can also be used to offload some tasks but then that requires major code change.
@bruce755
So what is Trump's excuse? Was he born a selfish hot headed thin skinned retard or did he just get that way in old age?
Well 4K renders 4 times the pixels as 1080p. You can do it with games that aren't graphically intensive or you can cut out some effects like particles etc to get there (like COD or TR). This just means it is easier to up the res than adding more effects etc. If they maxed out graphical effects at 1080p then the game would have to just be upscaled to get "4K".
No because "bullshots" weren't about resolution at all. Most bullshots showed better lighting, HBAO, Shadows, LOD, tessellation, surface attributes, environmental detail, sub surface scattering etc. Downscaled sub 4K res (super-sampling) will only have the effect of having decent anti aliasing, that is it. As a matter of fact rendering at the higher res is more resource intensive so many of the other nice graphical effects which are more noticeable that could have been added ...
Delete patch?