Re: AMD weighs in on HD versus 4K

On Wed, 28 May 2025 05:22:56 -0400, Xocyll <Xocyll@gmx.com> wrote:

Dimensional Traveler <dtravel@sonic.net> looked up from reading the
entrails of the porn spammer to utter  "The Augury is good, the signs
say:
>

On 5/27/2025 9:02 AM, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:

 
Recently, Frank Azor -one of the bigwigs at AMD- pointed out that the
vast bulk of PC gamers (and even more with consoles) still play in HD
resolutions rather than $K or higher. Close to 60% of gamers on Steam
still have 1080p monitors. Many of the most-played games don't even
use the added RAM necessary for HD. As such, Azor says, AMD's primary
focus won't be on catering to the UHD/4K gamer, but to the larger
market where 4-8GB VRAM are sufficient.
 

I feel the same about TV/Streaming/Movies and such.  HD is just fine,
I'm not shelling out for the overpriced 4K TVs and re-buying all my
DVDs/Blu-Rays for 4K discs.  Most people can't even see a difference
between HD and 4K.

>
Hell I don't even buy Blu-Ray if DVD is an option - I literally see no
difference between them, so 4K Ultra was never in consideration.
>
Maybe if I had one of those huge-ass TVs I'd see a difference, but the
39" I have, you see none.
>

Ditto. I've gone to the stores and stared at the UHD screens and tried
to see the difference. Maybe, if I look really hard, I can see a
difference... although I could be fooling myself. But it's not
something I'd spot without effort.

Admittedly, my eyes aren't what they used to be. I'm not denying there
is a difference, and for some it might be night-and-day. But any
differences between HD and 4K are so slightly as to not be worth the
premium... be it in price of the monitor or the necessity of having a
GPU that can push those resolutions at an acceptable framerate.

     [Although... I recall that I said pretty much the same thing
      about 128O x 1O24 resolutions too, back in the day. I stuck
      with that for the longest time... pretty much until I
      switched to 192O x 1O8O. So take my comments with a grain
      of salt. Then again, my monitors were significantly smaller
      back then, so I'm not sure they were totally without merit.]

I have similar issues with anti-aliasing and RTX features, although
not as extreme. There, I can often SEE the difference... but only when
I sit and stare at them. Once the action gets hot'n'heavy (or, you
know, I'm just walking down the hallway) I barely notice if AA is on,
or if the lighting is ray-traced or baked-in.

A lot of the power of my GPUs is being wasted for inconsequential
stuff we barely notice. It's style more than tech --the artistry of
the developer more than the underlying engine-- that makes a game look
good or not. That's why we can still play retro-games and be impressed
by the visuals, despite the blocky pixels.