Discussion in 'Videocards - AMD Radeon' started by gerardfraser, Jun 11, 2016.
I wonder what Novigrad has to say about that...
I look at games. going from 1080p to 1440p makes for a fair difference. going 4k even more so compared to 1080p. High res is not bogus. If it was we would still game at 320x240. Or 800x600. Or 1024x768. But we don't. You don't. And you won't game at 1080p forever. Resolution makes a big difference. You're being ignorant.
i wonder what a proper review has to say.. with "new" drivers... same settings... same rig...
It makes much larger difference for rendered content than films shot with camera.
Hairworks off .... not much difference.
Yeah I know, that's why I said I will look at games rather than films
1080p is great for 24" monitors but on anything above that it's just not enough imo.
The main issue about resolution is that you start to have diminishing returns from a point on. A 24' monitor is a completely acceptable size for 95% of the people using a PC, therefore 1080p isn't going anywhere, anytime soon. Also good 1080p TVs are almost 1/4 of the price of an equivalent 4k TV. Especially on TV sets the differences can be massive, but there you have diminishing returns the more far away you go from the TV. 4k will eventually be the new norm, it will take it more than double the time that it took 1080p to be the new norm. Keep an eye on the Steam HW survey.
i can't stand FHD, despite having awesome FHD monitor, i caved and bought MG278Q QHD monitor, it's so much better than FHD, 4k is a joke atm as we not there yet...
On topic, does anyone really believe those 480 videoes? if rumors are right, NDA will be lifted tomorrow.
Look, I don't have to look at the Steam HW survey, I know that 1080p is the most used resolution, that's not the topic here. I know that.
There's not many 24" monitors with 1440p if any. But once you step up to 27", you'll soon realise that 1080p just isn't crisp enough. 1440p brings it up to what more people would desire from their monitors.
Saying 1440p or 4k are bogus is nonsense, full stop.
ATM I have no reason not to believe that TW3 video. That being said, it comes from a source I don't know much about so I'll reserve my judgement. IF that is the real performance of the 480 then I guess the old saying is true. You get what you pay for.
Aye, what I basically meant that it does make difference and he shouldn't just directly compare games and camera footage.
In my opinion 1080p is barely adequate at 23". Text rendering is hardly optimal and it's a pain to read small kanji and kana characters.
But he can. Because that's as good as you can potentially get one day.
But if people will demand 8k in next 5 years, you'll going to have exactly same details as you have today. All you get are sharper edges on geometry.
And that's what everyone gets on 1440p these days. Textures are not getting any sharper because on close range they do not have sufficient resolution and on long range we will not get it any better due to 16x AF limitation.
I don't really want to go into this since this is not the thread for this talk but please go ahead and use video camera to record razor sharp 1px width line. It will never look as sharp as rendered image.
There's more benefits than sharpness. Less pixel crawling for example. Higher resolution actually makes 16x anisotropic filtering even higher quality.
The point to me it's that 1080p on my 23' it's good enough for me, and it's not worth that 25% performance more it costs, mainly cause content and texture are made for 1080 in mind...and you do not benefit so much of the greater resolution.
But the resolution improvement where there are a lot of geometry it's evident. And it becomes even more evident on screen greater than 26-27'
just for info
1080p on a 23' it's 95ppi vs 1440p 130ppi
Our eyes can distinguish well the difference in crispness between the two at 60-70 cm
The useless thing for me it's the over fullHD resolution on phones XD everything over 300-400 ppi it's almost not visible.
AF is per pixel angle based filtering. You may potentially get higher detail per inch of screen if you increase resolution and keep same screen size. But if screen pixel density is same on 1080p and 1440p, then resulting image will have same per pixel and same per inch image quality.
But the PPI doesn't remain the same, at 1440p it's higher! What are you even on about?
1440p does grant you more pixel density, full stop! You really do twist things whatever way it suits you. Sometimes it's better just to admit you're wrong instead of trying to dig yourself out of a hole.
You guys are having an amusing argument, the whole PPI argument is entirely subjective anyway, depends on your viewing distance and how good your eyes are to notice individual pixels. Anyway, you guys, chill before you get the thread locked.
Think hes trying to say if both monitors have 100 PPI pixel density is the same.
22in 1080 =100 PPI 30inch 1440P =100 PPI.
In this case they would have the same density.
Still, his arguments don't make any sense. Generally 1440P screens always have a better PPI than 1080P
Raja Koduri mentioned Vega on twitter and everyone went nuts, people saying Vega is coming out, Vega is coming out! lol.
He said Vega hit a major development milestone and is still a long way away