Discussion in 'Videocards - AMD Radeon' started by AMDMatt, Jan 8, 2015.
CF 290X run 4k fine better than SLI 980 even (crap memory bandwidth on 900 series.)
CF/SLI means trouble: drivers, cost, extra heat, noise and micro-stuttering. So :banana: that.
But of course...it has to be AMDMatt who need to start this poll. Who else. AMD still don't kinda want to bring a downsampling to all their gpu's, right? They just like "Who cares? What if we don't need to try harder to bringing such option to our customers...what if they (we) just buy themselves a 4k monitor instead". Meh.
Call me a sarcastic pessimist if you wanna...I know I am.
PS. Yes, Matt...I'm talking about you again. Try to poke your guys in software department harder...would you.
Dang it and I thought the jump up in display quality for games was noticeable in my Samsung 1440 over my Samsung 1080 (both native res.) The visuals just keep going up and up. I'll think about it, maybe scrounge up enough money.
I'm still satisfied with my 1080p.
Before buying a 4K monitor i need to have at least 2 GPUs to properly play at 4K/60 FPS, it's a know fact that multi-GPUs solution are bad for frametimes stability so an adaptative sync solution is mandatory for CFX or SLI.
Right now i have a CFX so i can't use a 4K with Freesync because Freesync CFX is delayed with no ETA, it's obviously not posible to use G sync without Nvidia GPUs.
I will think about this purchase if i switch to a Nvidia SLI which support G sync with SLI or when AMD add support for CFX in Fresync untill then it's not posible for me.
This is not the best subject for AMD public image in regard to his driver support.
DX12 and FURY/FURY X are way better subjects.
I definitely want to switch to 4K, but for me to upgrade from my 2560x1440 screen several things need to happen:
1. Monitors need to get cheaper
2. The graphics horsepower needs to get cheaper, right now it seems 980 Ti SLI is the cheapest option and that's a bit pricy
2. Ideally I want 120Hz+ refresh rate, though throwing enough GPU at it may be too expensive, so 60Hz would be fine too
3. FreeSync or GSync are required, won't buy a new monitor that doesn't have those
4. No TN panels for me
I may give up on some of those points, but I seriously doubt I'll move to 4K before Pascal/AMD equivalent are out. Also for AMD cards to even be an option CF FreeSync would need to be supported.
Happy using dsr here, I might go native in the future but this yamakasi is fine for now,
The ASUS ProArt PA329Q is looking like the best 4K monitor that i've seen so far. Is there anything that compares? In terms of panel, image quality, colour accuracy.
I'd love a nice 4K panel that is calibrated properly but that won't happen until Microsoft learns how make a UI fudging scale :bang: For OS X it's seriously awesome including most Linux distros but those don't offer any real gaming etc. Few days ago a customer wanted a 4K panel which I tried at home under OS X (Hackintosh) and WOW awesome stuff!
nvm (i already responded)
already have one and the performance is okay but tbh it's kind of a waste because the textures for most new games are still bad and look like dog **** regardless of resolution. that and bad scaling with windows 8 and most applications that aren't bleeding edge.
Ultra wide for me
I'm more interested in freesync. 4k is for the rich kids.
Not in the next few years. I'd prefer to have a 1080p monitor so that I can target a lower native res, and have less trouble with framerates etc.
I just got 1440p, and even that is a lot more demanding than 4k. Next year I'll upgrade to a 14nm card, hopefully it will be a lot faster without demanding too much power. It's only then I will be able to run 1440p as well as I want.
I always feel I'm being misdirected when I'm told "heh, just spend a bit more on this 4k monitor and more still on some GPUs to drive it and you'll have super amazing visuals".
Then I think about the fact I can watch real-life video on my 720p TV and it looks real (because it is), so it's obviously not a lack of pixels that makes my games look unreal. Clearly there's other deficiencies that need to be addressed to make games look realistic and throwing all the pixels in the world at the problem isn't going to fix that.
No, i had one, i return it. didn't enjoy it & no 4K LG 21:9 Freesync monitor as a yet.
All i can say is once you go to 21:9, you never want to go back to 16:9.
i use 4K in Feb 11, 2015 & return it the next week.
Sure the image was great & very sharp but does not have the FOV of what 21:9 has. it give you more space area on web sites & desktop, games look way better because of it's FOV, movies look perfect because no black bars.
Once single gfx cards can run a 4k screen at high visuals, it will be time to upgrade, running at 1600p on a 30"