• 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 Polaris architecture – GCN 4.0

Overlag said:
60hz urrg.
Click to expand...

Still a very Good price for a 4K screen, FreeSync is a bonus.

Your probably still going to need 3 Big Polaris GPU's to run 140 FPS @ 4K.

If you can afford that you can afford to spend £800 on a 144hz 4K Screen, when they arrive.
 
Toss3 said:
Where did you get that the Polaris 11 would perform on the same level as the 290? Remember that is has got 2.5 times the performance per watt, so it's probably going to be closer to the GTX 980 ti.
Click to expand...

AMD mentioned that they were trying to reduce the entry point of VR capable cards from the current $350 price-point to a lower one. The R9 390 series is around $350,so it looks like the 232MM2 GPU if actually produced is probably going to R9 390/R9 390X class but at a lower price point.
 
Awesome as a dual screen replacement. Be able to use it for gaming and production. Is essentially two 16:9 together. And the 3840x1600 is not a bad resolution.
 
CAT-THE-FIFTH said:
AMD mentioned that they were trying to reduce the entry point of VR capable cards from the current $350 price-point to a lower one. The R9 390 series is around $350,so it looks like the 232MM2 GPU if actually produced is probably going to R9 390/R9 390X class but at a lower price point.
Click to expand...

doubtful that is the VR entry gpu sized card.
performance should be more at the furyx/980ti level with 232mm2 chip.
 
flopper said:
doubtful that is the VR entry gpu sized card.
performance should be more at the furyx/980ti level with 232mm2 chip.
Click to expand...

Well as was said earlier, if this 232mm^ chip is FuryX performance then the big Polaris (coming much latter) will be an absolute monster.

Personally I cannot see a 232mm^ getting the job done.
 
32:9? That's plain daft for anything apart from productivity apps.

I mean, when gaming, at what point do you stop and think "this monitor is too wide; I can only see a part of it without moving my head".

And do we really want the extra expense (gpu workload) of precisely rendering terrain that's only visible in our peripheral vision?
 
FoxEye said:
32:9? That's plain daft for anything apart from productivity apps.

I mean, when gaming, at what point do you stop and think "this monitor is too wide; I can only see a part of it without moving my head".

And do we really want the extra expense (gpu workload) of precisely rendering terrain that's only visible in our peripheral vision?
Click to expand...

We need foveated rendering on monitors too :D
 
andybird123 said:
We need foveated rendering on monitors too :D
Click to expand...

Eww, just like others have said. Another useless effect like chromatic aberration, motion blur and depth of field. All of them disabled on first game load.

But a 32:9 curved monitor would be just right i reckon. would make a nice replacement for double and triple monitor gaming setups.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom