8k will probably become commonplace sometime around advanced 2-3nm++ (2030).

Screen size also plays a part. The bigger the screen, the higher-res display you need to maintain the pixel density of smaller screens.

8k will make more of a difference to console gamers and pc gamers who plug in their PC's to televisions rather than monitors. For PC users who use their PC's for more than gaming (most of us) and sit at arms-length in front of their displays, 8k is not worth much, no matter what you say. I might be able to turn off anti-aliasing altogether. But then I'm also having to disable practically all advanced graphics effect to keep in the 30-60fps range on most modern AAA titles.

The fact is, for most PC users, they are not going to want, or need, an absolutely huge display at arms-length in front of their face. You actually see *less*, because you have to turn your heard to see things at the edges of the screen. And for that "privilege", what do they have to spend? What do they have to do to their graphis setting to keep an acceptable framerate?

In short, the disadvantages of 8k far outweigh the advantages in my own personal opinion.

I love my 4k, 32-inch, display over my 27-inch 1080 one, and I will admit going back to my 1080 one to game is a little painful. But nowhere near as painful or impactful as going from an HD monitor to a standard def one.

I repeat, every time resolution is doubled, the bang per buck is lessened. With 8k it has reached a point where you are spending too much cash for extremely little difference and actually, some huge disadvantages as well as I see it.

I've heard similar arguments in the Hi-Fi world claiming that the human ear is actually capable of hearing beyond the 20Hz - 20KHz and that it is worth spending huge amounts of cash on an amplifier that is capable of say 18Hz to 23KHz. Again, not really. When you equate how much extra you are spending to how much more fine detail you *may* be able to actually hear. Even if you have exceptionally good hearing, the amount of cash you are spending for very little is absurd.

People who make these kinds of arguments are normally folks who have spent a lot of cash and are hurt about people disqualifying their bragging rights.

nah i dont agree , i m pretty sure you wouldnt get more enjoyment at all , and how would that be a different topic ?
it clearly part of this or similar topics as enjoyment is what we want to get from these technologies not just bigger numbers

I agree, in a way and you kind of ninja'd me while I was editing my post.
In the end it boils down to each's needs but these are subjective choices that are personal and I respect.
Different thing is the ability of the human eye, I'm far from having a perfect eyesight even with glasses but I would't mind at all an 8K monitor.

this is my opinion too
imho people who buy these are the ones who just want to show off how much better they are than the others
they think if they buy these unnecessary expensive placebo luxury items they actually better than those who done , oh look how much better my hearing is than yours i need 5-30kHz sound system all the way with special amplifier and cables and error reduction cause my ears are so perfect they can hear the pesky flies farting from miles away

this is what i get all the time when i argue with them, but somehow when testing is involved they usually run or the results show they don't notice the differences at all

and all this is just still about noticing the differences not how much they enjoyment they get
do we really need superduper lossless perfect recordings for music to enjoy them? imho not at all

On stupid questions:
GeraltOfRivia - I don't know who you are, and I'm guessing you're fairly young. You generate a lot of questions every day. But your questions generate pages of reading content every day and are actually gaming-related. So you'll see folks some and complain because they are a flood of topics with your name beside them.

But I'd rather have your topics than Donald Trump's hair, Hershey's chocolate being made from 1.7 million children kidnapped from their homes and enslaved, or other random oddities we see.

Your topics are light, often a bit odd and left-field, and sound to me like they are generated from a hyper youth, but that's okay. You be you, but do continue to mature. Maturity will open far more doors than immaturity throughout your life.

On 8k gaming
I'm not confident standard signals processing works too describe our eyes. We are too dynamic. We lean in, we glance around, we process differently at different parts of our eyes.

Also, we're not using our displays to maximum benefit. We have little going on vertically.

I think we have more to go in our visuals.

But most folks won't be going 8k for a long time. We're hitting Moore's Law limits soon and displays are still rather expensive. Color representation, anti-glare, price, and built-in post-processing are higher on my list than resolution at this point.

imho it is not even subjective as you could just do some test and get the results

it is not about who would mind it at all, it is about what you have to give up to get 8k
and that is a lot atm, it is way more expensive and requires more calculations

So you are telling me that I wouldn't get more when I'm telling you that I would get more?
OK for you it isn't worth it, I respect that.

Believe it or not there ispeople who would like to have devices capable of displaying content that hit the limit and go even beyond the human eyesight.

And that is another topic, which has nothing to do with the ability of the human eye to tell details apart...

I've been using a 1080p monitor for years and I am perfectly happy with it. I don't see a need to ever increase my pixel count, unless an earthquake strikes my basement, destroying my monitor, and they have stopped making 1080p ones by then.

In terms of graphics, I value FPS and view distance (for open-world games) much more highly than pixel count.

You do actually get better detail on distant objects with 4k, for example thin tree branches are completely detailed at huge distance. This is because of pixel-density. For best results maybe a 27-inch 4k display, you might be able to disable anti-aliasing entirely on such a small 4k screen.

But hey, you say you're perfectly happy with 1080p and good on you! That's what this really all comes down to, is how you, individually, are happiest.

If someone wants to spend big on 8k for, what I personally believe, is very little benefit and quite a few trade-offs that I personally would not want to make, then that's up to them. The most you can do is inform people about what you know on the subject, and what you personally have experienced, and leave folks to make their choices from a more informed perspective. This way, I hope that people are happy with the choices they make, and if they are, all well with the world :)