Samsung's first 6K gaming monitor pushes even the RTX 5090 beyond its comfort zone. We test Nvidia's uber expensive flagship to see what gaming above 4K really costs in performance and image quality.
The RTX 5090 Is No Longer Fast Enough
- Thread starter Scorpus
- Start date
It's time for some simple 12K benchmarks.
Title a bit misleading, With DLSS4, the 5090 still provided a smooth gaming experience in every chart at 6K. At 4K even, the new transformer Performance mode is largely indistinguishable from Native, and I'd imagine this would only be even better at 6K.
What IS nice to know is that this resolution should be avoided by anyone without a 5090, or possibly a 4090.
Still, and to be fair I have yet to try it, so I don't know what I'm missing, but for the past 10 years, I have never found myself really wanting more than 4K for gaming. Maybe 5K ultrawide, but I'm not paying triple the price of 4K. Compared to VGA, SVGA, 720, 1080, and even 1440, where each time I could still see blur/pixelation. 4K finally got there.
What IS nice to know is that this resolution should be avoided by anyone without a 5090, or possibly a 4090.
Still, and to be fair I have yet to try it, so I don't know what I'm missing, but for the past 10 years, I have never found myself really wanting more than 4K for gaming. Maybe 5K ultrawide, but I'm not paying triple the price of 4K. Compared to VGA, SVGA, 720, 1080, and even 1440, where each time I could still see blur/pixelation. 4K finally got there.
Badvok
Posts: 396 +219
And from Team Red we have ... (insert GIF of tumbleweed blowing across the scene).
yRaz
Posts: 9,618 +16,974
I can't wait for the elitists to start making fun of 4k gamers and how they're just poor. 4k only makes sense because that's what most TVs run at natively, otherwise there is no real reason to go beyond 1440p. I wonder if they're gonna try to start pushing 6k to move hardware while 1440p and even 1080p hardware(if you consider value) is unaffordable for most people. I'd also hate to see what the compression is like in game streaming 6k
It's intentionally sarcastic, it opens with a satirical paragraph. I for one enjoyed it.
Maybe I'm an elitist then. I tried 1440p @27" and found a significant increase in detail when moving to 4K. I'd love to be happy with 1440p, far less cost and power use. And if I were a competitive shooter, yup, 1080p @240Hz+ for sure. But even 10 years ago, as an RPG enthusiast, I did everything I could to get closer to 4K - 3840x1600, 3200x1800 (this is a nice option if okay with the boxing).
That said, I do not understand the obsession with going much beyond it for gaming. OLED, HDR, and HFR are a far bigger deal for game immersion and feel. Photo work is often 6000x4000+, so 6K would be awesome for that, and medical, architecture, etc.
yRaz
Posts: 9,618 +16,974
Something I've noticed and this is a big reason why I say this, pixel size and the spacing between pixels provides vastly different experiences. 1080p on a duel mode monitor looks like a much higher resolution than a native 1080p display. There is a smoothness to the image without it looking soft or dull and it makes it feel much sharper than it is.
To my old eyes, using frame gen on my Samsung Odyssey Neo G9 57" Monitor at 7680x2160 (8K2K) looks absolutely beautiful. With all settings maxed including path tracing, "Psycho" settings, 4K texture mods throughout etc. I'm getting a solid 200+fps. The downside? My 8Pack Polaris MK2 extreme overclocked system cost me £13,000.00 
https://www.reddit.com/r/ultrawidemasterrace/s/K2XHBL3wVL
https://www.reddit.com/r/ultrawidemasterrace/s/K2XHBL3wVL
Just for a reality check here, with 20/20 vision one will only be able to see a visual difference between 4K and 6K at a distance of 24 inches.
Really, the reasons 8K TVs largely went off the market:
1) Cost. Not that this hasn't stopped other new tech to come on the market at eye-watering prices, but this combined with the rest made it a bit much...
2) Lack of content. Producing stuff in 8K is expensive and not commonly done (other than movies), there's no disk formats that support 8K, no streaming sites that do 8K, and to get 8K 60fps without compression *on the HDMI link*, you have to have HDMI 2.1. And, as alluded to here, even for gaming, running 8K will kick most cards to the curb in too many games.
3) The viewing distance thing. I mean, there were probably those demo videos where they'd have some 8K footage they intentionally oversharpened, but I think even the videophiles were finding that if they got the same clip side-by-side in 4K and 8K, well, they don't want to sit like 3 feet away from their 50" TV, and that's the distance where one could see the difference.
The big thing I saw people comment on (from people who will spend a fortune on their home theater) was just not being interested in buying a set that has no content to actually view on it, with no prospect of content to watch on it down the road either. The stores would have a specialized device feeding them short segments of 8K video, and the buyers realized they were not even going to have those demo loops to enjoy when they got it home, let alone anything else to watch in 8K.
Really, the reasons 8K TVs largely went off the market:
1) Cost. Not that this hasn't stopped other new tech to come on the market at eye-watering prices, but this combined with the rest made it a bit much...
2) Lack of content. Producing stuff in 8K is expensive and not commonly done (other than movies), there's no disk formats that support 8K, no streaming sites that do 8K, and to get 8K 60fps without compression *on the HDMI link*, you have to have HDMI 2.1. And, as alluded to here, even for gaming, running 8K will kick most cards to the curb in too many games.
3) The viewing distance thing. I mean, there were probably those demo videos where they'd have some 8K footage they intentionally oversharpened, but I think even the videophiles were finding that if they got the same clip side-by-side in 4K and 8K, well, they don't want to sit like 3 feet away from their 50" TV, and that's the distance where one could see the difference.
The big thing I saw people comment on (from people who will spend a fortune on their home theater) was just not being interested in buying a set that has no content to actually view on it, with no prospect of content to watch on it down the road either. The stores would have a specialized device feeding them short segments of 8K video, and the buyers realized they were not even going to have those demo loops to enjoy when they got it home, let alone anything else to watch in 8K.
From team red we have GPU's that are $300-400 less than team green.
A 6K monitor is a pointless niche,it's too expensive and wouldn't be much of a noticeable difference in resolution over a 4K monitor.
Yeah but you get what you pay for..
I'm not sure this is true. On VR headsets I can tell the difference between video that is shot in 4k vs 6k. Obviously the display itself has a capped resolution, so maybe that speaks more to VR camera quality or compression artifacts than the display.
It's only true in highly specific conditions, such as viewing stationary test images vs video (pixelworks whitepaper). See also https://ff.de/8k-resolution-hype-or-benefit/
https://clarkvision.com/articles/eye-resolution.html
We are reaching the point of diminishing returns so there's always going to be a smaller market as a growing portion of the population (those with bad eyesight) won't ever see the difference with each jump.
I must confess, I am deeply troubled by this development.
Apparently Nvidia’s RTX 5090, a card capable of rendering modern games at resolutions and settings that would have been considered witchcraft a few years ago, is now “no longer fast enough” because we have finally located a sufficiently unreasonable number of pixels to throw at it.
This is devastating news.
For decades, computer hardware reviewers have heroically searched for the point at which common sense leaves the building, and I believe 6K gaming with path tracing may finally be where they planted the flag.
4K contains roughly 8.3 million pixels.
6K, depending on the exact resolution being used, is pushing somewhere around 20 million.
So naturally, when the workload increases to well over twice the pixels of 4K and performance declines, the obvious conclusion is that the $4,700 flagship GPU has somehow become inadequate.
By this standard, I can also prove a Ferrari is underpowered by towing a house with it.
Perhaps next week we can strap twelve monitors together, render Cyberpunk at 14K with path tracing, supersampling, eight texture mods and a weather simulation, then solemnly announce:
“RTX 5090 struggles badly.”
I see @Puiu has already proposed 12K benchmarks, and frankly I applaud the scientific rigor. Why stop there?
Let us proceed immediately to 24K.
If the card catches fire, we can title the article...Nvidia’s Flagship Shows Serious Thermal Limitations at 96 Million Pixels.
Meanwhile, we've also managed to resurrect one of my favorite internet commandments...
“Anything beyond 4K is literally beyond the capability of the human eye.”
Ah yes, the human eye, that remarkable biological device which apparently has a fixed HDMI specification.
There is no magic resolution called “4K” at which the retina throws up a little dialog box saying, Maximum supported resolution reached.
What you can resolve depends on screen size, viewing distance, pixel density, visual acuity, field of view, display structure, content and several other annoyingly inconvenient variables.
A 27-inch 4K monitor viewed from three feet away is not remotely the same visual problem as a giant desktop display, an ultrawide sitting two feet from your face, or a VR headset occupying most of your field of vision.
So no, 6K is not inherently invisible.
It may be largely pointless for many gaming setups, which is a very different statement.
And frankly, @PaladinNH probably has the most sensible observation in this entire discussion.
At this stage, OLED, HDR, contrast, refresh rate and motion clarity can easily provide a larger perceptual improvement than simply throwing more pixels at the wall.
There are diminishing returns.
That does not mean the returns become zero because somebody on the internet drew an imaginary line at 3840×2160.
Then we arrive at the inevitable socioeconomic portion of the discussion, where owning a 4K monitor apparently risks qualifying one as an “elitist.”
Wonderful.
We have now reached the point where monitor resolution has developed a class system.
1080p: Working man.
1440p: Respectable middle class.
4K: Bourgeois oppressor.
6K: Apparently you own a railroad.
And then @ZenShot casually wanders into the thread with a £13,000 overclocked system driving a 57-inch 7680×2160 display at 200+ FPS with frame generation, path tracing and texture mods.
Sir, you are not participating in the same hobby as the rest of us.
You have constructed a private graphics research facility.
But here is the part worth remembering...None of this demonstrates that the RTX 5090 is “no longer fast enough.”
It demonstrates that no matter how fast hardware becomes, somebody can always invent a workload capable of crushing it.
That is actually useful for testing architectural limits.
It is considerably less useful as evidence that consumers suddenly require 6K gaming.
The 5090 did not become slow.
The benchmark simply became ridiculous.
And somewhere, as we speak, a reviewer is undoubtedly preparing an 8K path tracing benchmark so we can discover the shocking truth that rendering more pixels requires more computing power.
Science marches onward. I need a beer!
Apparently Nvidia’s RTX 5090, a card capable of rendering modern games at resolutions and settings that would have been considered witchcraft a few years ago, is now “no longer fast enough” because we have finally located a sufficiently unreasonable number of pixels to throw at it.
This is devastating news.
For decades, computer hardware reviewers have heroically searched for the point at which common sense leaves the building, and I believe 6K gaming with path tracing may finally be where they planted the flag.
4K contains roughly 8.3 million pixels.
6K, depending on the exact resolution being used, is pushing somewhere around 20 million.
So naturally, when the workload increases to well over twice the pixels of 4K and performance declines, the obvious conclusion is that the $4,700 flagship GPU has somehow become inadequate.
By this standard, I can also prove a Ferrari is underpowered by towing a house with it.
Perhaps next week we can strap twelve monitors together, render Cyberpunk at 14K with path tracing, supersampling, eight texture mods and a weather simulation, then solemnly announce:
“RTX 5090 struggles badly.”
I see @Puiu has already proposed 12K benchmarks, and frankly I applaud the scientific rigor. Why stop there?
Let us proceed immediately to 24K.
If the card catches fire, we can title the article...Nvidia’s Flagship Shows Serious Thermal Limitations at 96 Million Pixels.
Meanwhile, we've also managed to resurrect one of my favorite internet commandments...
“Anything beyond 4K is literally beyond the capability of the human eye.”
Ah yes, the human eye, that remarkable biological device which apparently has a fixed HDMI specification.
There is no magic resolution called “4K” at which the retina throws up a little dialog box saying, Maximum supported resolution reached.
What you can resolve depends on screen size, viewing distance, pixel density, visual acuity, field of view, display structure, content and several other annoyingly inconvenient variables.
A 27-inch 4K monitor viewed from three feet away is not remotely the same visual problem as a giant desktop display, an ultrawide sitting two feet from your face, or a VR headset occupying most of your field of vision.
So no, 6K is not inherently invisible.
It may be largely pointless for many gaming setups, which is a very different statement.
And frankly, @PaladinNH probably has the most sensible observation in this entire discussion.
At this stage, OLED, HDR, contrast, refresh rate and motion clarity can easily provide a larger perceptual improvement than simply throwing more pixels at the wall.
There are diminishing returns.
That does not mean the returns become zero because somebody on the internet drew an imaginary line at 3840×2160.
Then we arrive at the inevitable socioeconomic portion of the discussion, where owning a 4K monitor apparently risks qualifying one as an “elitist.”
Wonderful.
We have now reached the point where monitor resolution has developed a class system.
1080p: Working man.
1440p: Respectable middle class.
4K: Bourgeois oppressor.
6K: Apparently you own a railroad.
And then @ZenShot casually wanders into the thread with a £13,000 overclocked system driving a 57-inch 7680×2160 display at 200+ FPS with frame generation, path tracing and texture mods.
Sir, you are not participating in the same hobby as the rest of us.
You have constructed a private graphics research facility.
But here is the part worth remembering...None of this demonstrates that the RTX 5090 is “no longer fast enough.”
It demonstrates that no matter how fast hardware becomes, somebody can always invent a workload capable of crushing it.
That is actually useful for testing architectural limits.
It is considerably less useful as evidence that consumers suddenly require 6K gaming.
The 5090 did not become slow.
The benchmark simply became ridiculous.
And somewhere, as we speak, a reviewer is undoubtedly preparing an 8K path tracing benchmark so we can discover the shocking truth that rendering more pixels requires more computing power.
Science marches onward. I need a beer!
Megalomaniac
Posts: 1,237 +1,308
And, at the current rate, with a price tag equal to the model number, I'm sure.
godrilla
Posts: 2,371 +1,796
1st 4k consumer monitor came out in 2013 ( 13 years ago. While im glad that we are moving higher PPI ( via higher resolution above 4k ) sometimes the PPD ( pixel per degree ) is left out of the conversation. While some are chasing the highest resolution although at the cost of hdr, response time, and latency especially for gaming with this new 6k monitor many rather further improve their pixel per visual degree by improving their hdr experience, not compromising on visual quality from lowering down settings and enjoying a display like the C6 48 tandem oled for gaming that perfectly scales with 2025 Nvidia flagship 5090. I fixed my Cyberpunk 2077 hdr experience and can't wait for the ray reconstruction update dropping later this month for new transformer model dlss 4.5 compatibility.
Attachments
Quixotic
Posts: 24 +15
Nevermind 8k, just try PCVR and you will again see how it already falls short in rendering and encoding for, as an example, the Quest 3 optics.
Adding in the recognition that PCVR enthusiasts (especially flight and racing simmers) has been at this realisation since the 5090 was released, would add considerably to the weight of the argument. It's not some theoretical ceiling. VR draws two viewpoints at crazy resolutions to offer the unparalleled sense of depth and immersion.
The answer in VR however is more elegant than brute force: dynamic foveated rendering. Perhaps we will see something similar for desktop display users in the future.
The answer in VR however is more elegant than brute force: dynamic foveated rendering. Perhaps we will see something similar for desktop display users in the future.
godrilla
Posts: 2,371 +1,796
Yeah the Pimax Crystal super while not true 8k is also insanely difficult to run at 4k per eye resolution.
BogdanR
Posts: 604 +1,041
… the reality of the Red Team not claiming 8k compatibility 3 GPU generations ago?
Chris Rchr
Posts: 26 +37
I don’t mind DLSS in itself, but what it allows is for a raw power limitation to be spun into a marketing point about resolution. An RTX 5090 that ends up using DLSS Performance mode to render 4K in certain games is actually only calculating at around 1080p internally. Man, that is a steep price for a GPU delivering that kind of rendering resolution. What’s more, the article doesn't show any native-resolution data—which would have really sealed the deal on how incapable these GPUs are of doing their job without AI assistance. Just as well, really. It’s a scary prospect for future games...
Similar threads
Latest posts
-
The RTX 5090 Is No Longer Fast Enough- godrilla replied
-
Millions of cars are under recall for catching fire while parked- BadThad replied
-
Walmart will finally accept Apple Pay and Google Pay starting August 24- Megalomaniac replied
