"Nextgen" GPUs

[SirJames]

I think that people overlook the fact that it's not just the same image being displayed with high-pixel density, but that the image itself is being generated with far more detail and depth,

What do you mean here?

It sounds like "I think that people overlook the fact that resolution is not just resolution, but detail settings too"

If you want the full detail settings in recent or even upcoming games then even a GTX 1080 will only get you a rubbish ~45 frames at 4k.

 

[joxer]

I don't think the requirements of a competition FPS player tell us much about what a gamer needs. Those guys often strip their graphic settings down to the basics to get extreme FPS, to maximize their edge. That's not necessarily how most of us want to enjoy our games.

Obviously I'm not the most of you then.
I want 60+ FPS without graphic settings stripped down.
Oh wait, but I already have it on my PC. In any game. The only game I don't have it yet, where FPS isn't locked to 30 because of pathetic console code, is TW3. Maybe I'd have a problem also with games I refuse to buy (Dark Souls and it's clones for example), dunno.

I also said in one of previous posts, 4K for an adventure like Myst, great. You see a pic and enjoy a pic, as much pixels as possible can do such game justice.
For genres where shitstorm happens frequently, just no. I want 60 or more FPS on a small monitor capable of max 1440p so I can see what's going on in all corners without pumping my neck muscles.

I also have to say that I'm not a competition player - I'm into singleplayer games. I don't lack of skill and I don't need mushrooms autoaim, it's just I can't stand fights for no reason and no fat story behind. A sort of wasted potential but what can I do when being mindless is no fun to me.

What do you mean here?

It sounds like "I think that people overlook the fact that resolution is not just resolution, but detail settings too"

If you want the full detail settings in recent or even upcoming games then even a GTX 1080 will only get you a rubbish ~45 frames at 4k.

4K resolution means no need for antialiasing. Basically less work for GPU. And not quite understandable GPU "tests" where AA is still set on highest possible while on 4K - nothing to gain there apart from an useless benchmark as you're not sitting few inches close to a huge TV.

EDIT:
Just peeked at local 2nd hand reseller, GTX 970 is offered for 230€ and there are a few just a bit higher price (10-20€) being sold. New ones are 310€ and more. I know it's (quoted some comment from somewhere) "FailForce 970 3.5 GB Gimped Edition, the way it's meant to be Paid, NGreedia approved" but nevertheless it's a good difference to see.

 

[Ripper]

What do you mean here?

It sounds like "I think that people overlook the fact that resolution is not just resolution, but detail settings too"

If you want the full detail settings in recent or even upcoming games then even a GTX 1080 will only get you a rubbish ~45 frames at 4k.

I mean that the scene is actually generated with more detail, with more visual information. If you look out of a window at the world outside, it is comprised of an immense amount of detail. If we were to look at that same scene on a 1080p monitor, then, although the resolution is constrained, the scene still looks very much like reality; we only perceive that detail at the limits of the resolution, but its presence is part of what we recognise as a view of reality.

When a game scene is created at a much higher resolution, you are not just increasing the resolution of that image, but increasing the amount of granular detail present in that computer-generated world. It becomes closer to the amount of detail that would make up a view of the real world.

There are factors that limit this effect, like the quality of textures and the complexity of the models. And, of course, things like the quality of the lighting are more significant to the reality of the image. So, you really need to combine ultra high resolution with the highest settings, which, as you say, is currently a challenge. It wouldn't make much sense to run 4k while skmimping on the detail and lighting quality.

 

[joxer]

Wanna see some rx480 pics? Here they are:
http://imgur.com/a/3iTkS

Don't worry about fans/temperature, on pics is just a reference card so it's not like you'll have to buy a fire extinguisher with one.

-

Some bad news for those who plan to buy 1070/1080 GPU but have monitor with only DVI:
http://www.techpowerup.com/223669/geforce-gtx-pascal-faces-high-dvi-pixel-clock-booting-problems

It's still unclear why windows won't boot exactly in described case nor how the whole thing got past testing process.

 

[azarhal]

Some bad news for those who plan to buy 1070/1080 GPU but have monitor with only DVI:
http://www.techpowerup.com/223669/geforce-gtx-pascal-faces-high-dvi-pixel-clock-booting-problems

Funny enough, that won't be a problem on the RX 480…Reference doesn't even have DVI connectors (DisplayPort and HDMI only).

 

[joxer]

I almost said don't rx480 if your monitor can't... But you get DP-to-DVI cable in the box.

 

[Gorath]

The performance expectation for the RX480 just got even more complicated. A Czech site (DDWorld) had game benchmarks online for a short time. Only 3 titles, GTA V, SW BF and The Division.
3DCenter.de draws the conclusion that the posted values only make sense if the card came accompanied with a new driver which elevated the whole ATI portfolio including the older cards by several percent!
If you look at the 3 posted tables for FullHD and higher, you'll see that the RX480 did very well against nVidia hardware, but rather badly compared to older ATI cards!
It was only 4-5% slower than a GTX980.

It's also unclear why the chip was clocked so low while the memory ran at the expected 4GHz.

 

[Kordanor]

Hrm, compared to the nvidia cards it's pretty much the same as the benchmark over here:
http://videocardz.com/61005/new-amd-radeon-rx-480-3dmark-benchmarks

But yeah, the 390 result is a little weird. Then again the difference is so slim that it's not worth the price difference anyways. You could actually take the 390 completely out of the benchmark as it's obsolete.

 

[azarhal]

Now the question is if those benchmarks were made with the beta driver AMD sent on a disk to the press that has support for the RX 480 or the one in Crimsom that doesn't support the RX 480…

There have been quite a few leak this week by people who have connections with stores that received their supplies but they don't have the right drivers.

 

[Kordanor]

But does it really make any difference? I mean it's a few percent below the gtx 980.
Isn't that all that matters?

So if you have a graphics card of the last generation upgrading to a RX 480 is no good option anyways. And if you want to upgrade to something with as much power of a gtx 970 or 980, then the RX 480 seems to be the only reasonable option.

 

[sakichop]

Until amd can beat nvidia at the top end I have no interest in them.

I'll be waiting for the 1080ti or next Titan. Since for gaming there's pretty much no reason to upgrade anything but your graphics card I'll just buy the top end card every year or 2 and enjoy my gaming.

 

[Caddy]

In 2 days the RX 480s mysteries will be revealed.

 

[Caddy]

Until amd can beat nvidia at the top end I have no interest in them.

I'll be waiting for the 1080ti or next Titan. Since for gaming there's pretty much no reason to upgrade anything but your graphics card I'll just buy the top end card every year or 2 and enjoy my gaming.

If nVidia supported Freesync and didn't have inflated prices this would be a good strategy.

 

[sakichop]

If nVidia supported Freesync and didn't have inflated prices this would be a good strategy.

I've got a 21:9 gsync monitor so I don't care about free sync.

Can't do anything about the pricing. Until someone competes with nvidia in the high end they will set the price. Anyway I used to spend 1-2 grand every year or 2 on MB,mem,cpu. Now that those are all stagnant I'll just put all that towards videocards.

 

[Gorath]

The benchmark results turned out to be fake. On the other hand, if they were true, the Czech site couldn't admit it because they're under NDA.

 

[Caddy]

I've got a 21:9 gsync monitor so I don't care about free sync.

You and some others might not care, but many people don't want to pay a $300 premium on their ultrawide LCD, just so they can have something that AMD provides for free.

 

[sakichop]

You and some others might not care, but many people don't want to pay a $300 premium on their ultrawide LCD, just so they can have something that AMD provides for free.

I can understand that, I was just saying what works for me not what everyone should do.

Also, So it's clear. I'm not pro nvidia, I go with whoever has the fastest card at the time. It just happens that right now that's nvidia.

 

[azarhal]

But does it really make any difference? I mean it's a few percent below the gtx 980.
Isn't that all that matters?

Drivers are what enable/disable features, without it the new hardware features of RX 480 are disabled because the driver doesn't know what they do. There was also a lot of talks about PC crashes without them as well.

 

[Caddy]

I can understand that, I was just saying what works for me not what everyone should do.

Also, So it's clear. I'm not pro nvidia, I go with whoever has the fastest card at the time. It just happens that right now that's nvidia.

I have nothing against Team Green either. In fact i've always considered their drivers and hardware more refined, whereas AMD has always seemed more raw for lack of a better word.

 

[azarhal]

RX 480 embargo has been lifted. Link to Neogaf review threads.

Warning, the results are all over the place: in some games it beats a 390X and hang with Fury X, sometimes it's below a 290x.