TechSpot

4K resolution

By myrmidonks
Oct 25, 2010
Post New Reply
  1. I was wondering if people could post their FPS while watching 4K video on YouTube or other 4K sites with the specs of their GPU as well.

    To start:

    Video: Surf NYC (4K resolution)
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9dgSa4wmMzk

    CPU: Intel Core i7-920 (D0) @ 2.66Ghz (stock)

    RAM: 8 gb DDR3 @ 1066 MHz

    GPU: Visiontek Radeon HD 5870
    Core clock: 850MHz
    Memory clock: 1200 MHz

    Using Fraps, I got these results:

    Min. Max. Avg. (frames per second)
    14 28 20.992

    I'm curious to see what other people get as results. I believe an alternative to using Fraps is right clicking in the video window and click "show video info". (YouTube). However this does not show an average frame rate, and only updates once a second.
     
  2. SNGX1275

    SNGX1275 TS Forces Special Posts: 10,715   +397

    1fps specs in pulldown to the right.

    CPU 100%
     
  3. ShiftedReality

    ShiftedReality TS Member

    mine 4k res full screen result: 1920x1080

    Min. Max. Average.
    21 32 29
     
  4. hellokitty[hk]

    hellokitty[hk] Hello, nice to meet you! Posts: 3,435   +145

    Constant 24 FPS.
    Specs as listed, 24 inch monitor at 1920x1200.
    HD mode and fullscreen, averages about 15.
     
  5. dustin_ds3000

    dustin_ds3000 TechSpot Chancellor Posts: 869   +8

    Min. Max. Average.
    0 35 19.643

    Took me a whole 5 minutes to even download the whole thing.
     
  6. nismo91

    nismo91 TS Evangelist Posts: 900   +15

    1fps. 100% CPU usage, 5% GPU usage. notebook 9600M GT.

    -edit:

    Original resolution at 4096x1706. IE8 / FF 3.6.11 / FF 4b6.
     
  7. fimbles

    fimbles TS Evangelist Posts: 1,160   +198

    24 fps avg.

    Phenom 9850 be 2.5 ghz.
    19 inch 16.10 monitor.. 1440 x 900
    BFG gtx 275 oc edition.
     
  8. LNCPapa

    LNCPapa TS Special Forces Posts: 4,210   +424

    Looks like a constant 25 fps
    24 inch monitor at 1920x1200.
    HD mode and fullscreen look like 25 fps also - occassional fluctuation to 26 fps.
    Did not use fraps - just "show video info".

    This was on my i7 940 w/ 4850
     
  9. Relic

    Relic TechSpot Chancellor Posts: 1,379   +16

    Got an average of 25 FPS on both
    HD/Original Full screen on 1650x1080
    Phenom II x4 955 with 4770
    Downloaded extremely fast too :D .
     
  10. TeamworkGuy2

    TeamworkGuy2 TS Enthusiast Posts: 191

    1080p -fullscreen
    Using "Show video info", I got:
    Min. 3 fps
    Avg. 11 fps
    Max. 25 fps

    Original -fullscreen
    Using "Show video info", I got:
    Min. 0 fps
    Avg. 0 fps
    Max. 0 fps

    19 in. Monitor at: 1024 x 768
    Mozilla Firefox 3.6.11 (latest version)
    --------------------------------
    CPU usage ~98%
    GPU usage unknown

    CPU: Intel Pentium 4 @ 2.8Ghz (stock)
    GPU: stock Dell Radeon X300 128 MB
    RAM: 2.5 GB DDR2 @ 533? MHz
     
  11. nismo91

    nismo91 TS Evangelist Posts: 900   +15

    Try "Original" instead of "1080p". :D
     
  12. SNGX1275

    SNGX1275 TS Forces Special Posts: 10,715   +397

    How'd you manage that, your specs aren't that different from mine.

    If I drop mine to 1080p I have ~55% CPU usage and 24-25fps.
     
  13. ShiftedReality

    ShiftedReality TS Member

    It's interesting seeing similar setups getting different results. Maybe its the browser used or flash version or driver differences.
     
  14. TeamworkGuy2

    TeamworkGuy2 TS Enthusiast Posts: 191

    In response to nismo91, I updated my original post.
    It now reflects both 1080p and original quality,
    also added that I ran that set from Firefox and this set from IE (IE was actually a little faster on 1080p)
    *Flash was updated on both browsers last week
    ** Nice slide show on original quality

    1080p -fullscreen
    Using "Show video info", I got:
    Min. 4 fps
    Avg. 18 fps
    Max. 27 fps

    Original -fullscreen
    Using "Show video info", I got:
    Min. 0 fps
    Avg. 0 fps
    Max. 0 fps

    19 in. Monitor at: 1024 x 768
    Internet Explorer 8 (up to date)
    --------------------------------
    CPU usage ~95%
    GPU usage unknown

    CPU: Intel Pentium 4 @ 2.8Ghz (stock)
    GPU: stock Dell Radeon X300 128 MB
    RAM: 2.5 GB DDR2 @ 533 MHz
     
  15. nismo91

    nismo91 TS Evangelist Posts: 900   +15

    I've tried updating to Adobe Flash 10.2.xx beta. And use Firefox 4 beta 6, Firefox 3.6.11, and IE 8 for Vista SP2. Increased from average of 1fps to 4fps. and up to 15% GPU usage.

    I even resorted in downloading the 220MB movie and play it in MPC.
    - 300MB video memory used
    - average of 15fps
    - GPU acceleration enabled (DXVA), 500MB memory used and driver stopped working :D
     
  16. SNGX1275

    SNGX1275 TS Forces Special Posts: 10,715   +397

    I think in at least my case compared to [hk]'s is that he didn't run it at 'original' resolution...
     
  17. hellokitty[hk]

    hellokitty[hk] Hello, nice to meet you! Posts: 3,435   +145

    Woops, actually I get less than one using chrome.
     
  18. LinkedKube

    LinkedKube TechSpot Project Baby Posts: 3,481   +44

    Hmm I'm using different browsers and still getting 0 fps.
     
  19. captaincranky

    captaincranky TechSpot Addict Posts: 11,704   +1,887

    Forgive my ignorance, but I thought that the term, "4000K" referred to the "average data transfer rate", and had nothing to do with "resolution".

    "Resolution" attaching itself to describe how many pixels are on the screen, and in what order.

    Or substitute the term, "bandwidth", for "data transfer rate" which everybody is so fond of nowadays. As in KBs (kilobytes per second).
     
  20. SNGX1275

    SNGX1275 TS Forces Special Posts: 10,715   +397

    The whole thing is a bit 'off'. The max width now on videos (this one) is 4096 pixels, the max height is 3072 pixels. The height on this is 1706 pixels.

    In the HDTV world Youtube's format could possibly be called 3072p. But I guess 4000 sounds better than 3000 when you are talking high numbers.

    Edit: I just looked on wikipedia, and apparently this is one of the "extra high definition video modes". It threw me off a bit because it apparently breaks what I thought was standard - using the vertical resolution with an "i" or "p" after it to indicate interlaced or progressive scan.
     
  21. captaincranky

    captaincranky TechSpot Addict Posts: 11,704   +1,887

    And what exactly would you show these on? The VGA would have to dither the display down, (at least) 2:1. What's the point?

    We a similar discussion to this about wallpaper. Your stand was, "wallpaper should be at the native screen resolution". In this case, I took the other side with, "no, you can use up to 2X screen res without artifacting, the video card will dither it down". There is a big difference displaying wallpaper, since there is no frame to frame differential information.

    That said, 2X screen resolution equals 4 times the pixel count, hence the difficulty of maintaining frame rate. The only way you could show this at 1:1 would be (barely) on 4 monitors stacked 2 on top of 2. Does this make any sense?
     
  22. LNCPapa

    LNCPapa TS Special Forces Posts: 4,210   +424

    This could display it or one of the crazy 100+ inch 4K TVs could also display it. One day I'll get one of those.

    Sorry - I couldn't resist throwing in a bunch of links on that one.
     
  23. captaincranky

    captaincranky TechSpot Addict Posts: 11,704   +1,887

    Well, the first big screen plasma TVs from Pioneer were $10,000+ when they hit the consumer market. That said, with offerings @ $76,000 (Sony 56"), and Panasonic @ $1/2 million plus,(152"), it seems the trickle down might take quite a bit longer on these babies.

    But, that doesn't address itself to the this fact. With the panels we have now, the signal has to be "downsampled" 2: 1 (Appx) to be displayed.

    Upsampling has a lot more practical application, than taking half the resolution and throwing it away, while meanwhile requiring that much bandwidth to transmit.

    I suppose it does point to the fact that video codecs have become much more compact, so that you can download it at all.
     

Similar Topics

Add New Comment

You need to be a member to leave a comment. Join thousands of tech enthusiasts and participate.
TechSpot Account You may also...