Will Haswell be significantly better than Ivy Bridge?

I have, several times. Especially on PC monitors 27" or larger, and TVs over 40". Screen quality and image processing plays just as big of role as the size does, just like the source.

Upscaled DVDs are just that, upscaled. Nothing is done to the image but stretch it to match the resolution to your TV which is essentially the exact thing I'm complaining about with 1080p content being stretched too much to fit these large TVs.

Although, one small step in making 1080p look slightly better was The Hobbit that was filmed at 48fps. It reduced pixelation by playing back at a faster speed.
 
1080p video looks decent enough. 1080p UIs on 24" monitors look bloody terrible; that's where 4K is really shining.
 
Higher resolution is always better no matter the reasoning behind it. I don't see why anybody wouldn't want it to begin with.

Well, it always looks better. I'm glad I'm not running current games at 4K with my 560 Ti, though :p
 
Well, it always looks better. I'm glad I'm not running current games at 4K with my 560 Ti, though :p
You'd be surprised how many games you could run @ 4k because PC 4k isn't going to be 4096. It's like the transition to 1080p and everybody claiming you couldn't play games maxed at that res with the current cards which at the time were 200 series and 4000 series. Load of bull lol.

We have derailed the **** out of this thread lol. :cool:
 
I have, several times. Especially on PC monitors 27" or larger, and TVs over 40". Screen quality and image processing plays just as big of role as the size does, just like the source.

Upscaled DVDs are just that, upscaled. Nothing is done to the image but stretch it to match the resolution to your TV which is essentially the exact thing I'm complaining about with 1080p content being stretched too much to fit these large TVs.

Although, one small step in making 1080p look slightly better was The Hobbit that was filmed at 48fps. It reduced pixelation by playing back at a faster speed.


Now wait. A pc monitor at 1080 is running out of its native resolution, so that is not what we are talking about. We also weren't talking about large tv's, as those show even in the chart that you will get a benefit with 4k.
 
What? Most all PC monitors on the market have a native res of 1080p now. It's the most common thing which is why people are wanting 4k to come quicker.

A large TV would be anything 40+" which I've mentioned several times. 1080p also looks terrible on 27" PC monitors because you are so close.
 
I thought there were higher resolutions when you went larger then 22" on pc monitors... I can understand the need for 4k there.
 
I thought there were higher resolutions when you went larger then 22" on pc monitors... I can understand the need for 4k there.
Only in certain circumstances.

For instance, my Samsung secondary is 23" and 2048x1152 but it's not much better than 1080p where visual quality is concerned and my NEC beats it hands down in the color department. It also got discontinued rather quickly.

There are several expensive 27" LCDs that are 2560x1400 but those haven't been very popular because of price. 30" LCDs from Dell, HP, and NEC have a res of 2560x1600 but they are all usually over a grand. For another grand you can have a 31" Asus 4k screen when it comes out which makes more sense in my eyes. You also have Apple Retina displays and I haven't even looked to see what those cost. In most all cases, the standard res is 1080p for 22 and above.

I actually know some people that use 1080p large TVs for PC monitors and I don't see how they do it. Would drive my eyes insane with both the closeness of the large screen and the fuzzy text.
 
I could do a 32" 1080p set for a pc monitor, but it would have to be pushed to the back of the desk with me leaning back in the chair. And if it's going to be like that, you might as well get a 24" 1080p monitor that you can situate normally to, and get the power savings on top of it.
 
Back
Top Bottom