• Notice regarding image hosts and attachments. See here.

  • Competitor rules

    Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.

AMD's gaming scientist Richard Huddy on the firm's 300-Series graphics cards and more

This whole 8k gaming thing... Is there a point of more pixels once it gets past the retina stage?

I can understand 4k vs 1080p for example, but 8k and beyond at a desktop sized monitor just seems insane. I have no doubt GPUs will advance to the stage where they can push 8k with ease, in which case why not, but eh.. It does seem a bit too much.

I'd personally rather have a huge Ultrawide that covers my FOV entirely, rather than a 16:9 8k monitor. :eek:
 
LambChop said:
One thing for sure is that slap head is always good for a laugh. On a serious note, there's a real real risk that he actually believes what he says. That in itself is pretty worrying.
Click to expand...

Thats a bit harsh.

P.S no I'm not bold.
 
Joe! said:
This whole 8k gaming thing... Is there a point of more pixels once it gets past the retina stage?

I can understand 4k vs 1080p for example, but 8k and beyond at a desktop sized monitor just seems insane. I have no doubt GPUs will advance to the stage where they can push 8k with ease, in which case why not, but eh.. It does seem a bit too much.

I'd personally rather have a huge Ultrawide that covers my FOV entirely, rather than a 16:9 8k monitor. :eek:
Click to expand...

truth be told i'm much happier using my current monitor 1440P 144hz Acer than i was using 4K, i mean 4K looks great, but it wasn't "All that" imo.
 
Joe! said:
This whole 8k gaming thing... Is there a point of more pixels once it gets past the retina stage?

I can understand 4k vs 1080p for example, but 8k and beyond at a desktop sized monitor just seems insane. I have no doubt GPUs will advance to the stage where they can push 8k with ease, in which case why not, but eh.. It does seem a bit too much.

I'd personally rather have a huge Ultrawide that covers my FOV entirely, rather than a 16:9 8k monitor. :eek:
Click to expand...

Maybe in the future they might get 8K in VR headset screens.
 
Just so you guys are aware he does have a forum account here and personal insults will not be tolerated.
 
uksoldierboy said:
truth be told i'm much happier using my current monitor 1440P 144hz Acer than i was using 4K, i mean 4K looks great, but it wasn't "All that" imo.
Click to expand...

I went from 4k to 3440x1440 - I found 4k to not be visually appealing enough for it to warrant the power it needed.

fs123 said:
Maybe in the future they might get 8K in VR headset screens.
Click to expand...

Fair enough - Never used VR myself but the OR CV1 is 1080x1200 in each eye isn't it?
 
Huddy said:
It also delivers about 50 per cent more bandwidth than the fastest GDDR5 cards.
Click to expand...

** Baiting **

390X = 384GB/s
Fury X = 512GB/s

I make that 33% and you only get half as much (4GB 512GB/s v 8GB 384GB/s on 390X). HBM was a lot more attractive when it was originally supposed to be clocked higher (640GB/s) and before we knew it was limited to 4GB.

The main benefits of HBM this generation have been purely physical for AMD, like Huddy says with heat reduction etc Fury probably wouldn't have been possible for AMD with GDDR5.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Hopefully everyone will be buying Fury Xs and Furys, so everyone will be in a state of pure ecstasy, but that’s me with the marketing hat on there.
Click to expand...
You heard it here first guys, buy a Fury X and you will be feeling like this...

 
humbug said:
Why don't AMD build the thing for retail and sell it through their channels with their own branding?

A super premium Games Console.

Its not like Microsoft or Sony are going to feel the AMD knife in the back as its a completely different league of product.

what harm can it do to build a couple hundred of them and then release them into channels to test the water? i'm sure OcUK would take a dozen.
Click to expand...

For one thing they haven't got a cpu for it yet, The one on stage used an Intel i7 apparently, The fastest they currently have is a 9590 and that would not be suited for that build and it isn't fast enough to make the Quantum what they want it too be.
 
CAT-THE-FIFTH said:
He just confirmed Arctic Islands is out next year too! :p
Click to expand...

But not for at least 12 months... as he says people will be buying Fury and FuryX cards for the next 12 months (which they wouldn't if there was something better).

So probably Q4 for AMD's new cards.
 
I went from 4k to 3440x1440 - I found 4k to not be visually appealing enough for it to warrant the power it needed.
Click to expand...

I'm looking to move too a 34" 100+hz 21:9 3440x1440 next. I'd be happy with a 4k 16:9 @ 40" if it was at 75hz or higher with one of the syncs but the current crop of 28" 4k models are too small for the pixel quantity for me.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom