AMD crashes in latest Steam survey

gpuerrilla · 6 Sep 2021 at 09:43

alec said:
This is not true
24fps was found as the LOWEST fps human eye could still perceive as somewhat smooth, chosen for motion pictures. But the higher fps goes, the nicer it looks (and feels, for interaction).
Upper bound (as in, you could still feel a difference) would be somewhere beyond 1000fps.

I would always prefer going from 60 to 120 fps to going from 1080p to 1440p, even for desktop work.

What I mean is its subjective from person to person, we have an idea that 30 is low but perfectly playable - what is interesting will be what is ample as there is clearly a diminishing return once you get beyond a value like 200fps where even the most genetically gifted eyeballs will not determine any benefit. We also have displays where the gsync/freesync hz has to stay within a range and to avoid tearing you cap. I myself play on a 4k monitor and 60fps is pretty crisp for me.

jigger · 6 Sep 2021 at 12:02

d_brennen said:
I've been looking for a good condition Sony CRT for retro kicks lately. Prices are insane

Yeah, seen one on a popular Auction site. I’ve still got a Sony DGM900 in the loft. My back is aching just thinking about moving it.

Calin Banc · 6 Sep 2021 at 12:51

Th0nt said:
What I mean is its subjective from person to person, we have an idea that 30 is low but perfectly playable - what is interesting will be what is ample as there is clearly a diminishing return once you get beyond a value like 200fps where even the most genetically gifted eyeballs will not determine any benefit. We also have displays where the gsync/freesync hz has to stay within a range and to avoid tearing you cap. I myself play on a 4k monitor and 60fps is pretty crisp for me.

FPS in games is not the same as FPS in video.
In games, 30fps can be playable or a mess, depends on stutters, input lag, type of game you're playing. Sure, I was playing BF2 back in the day with 24-30fps somewhat good, but just is not the same as 60fps locked. i wouldn't call that experience as good, especially in FPS games.
Even some games can be a stutter mess at relatively high FPS due to stutters.

With that sad, 1080p@60fps is probably good enough for most. Even with RT.

4K8KW10 · 6 Sep 2021 at 13:01

Calin Banc said:
With that sad, 1080p@60fps is probably good enough for most. Even with RT.

If they see 2160p, they won't want to return to 1080p.
1080p looks like 540p in reality. It's just a very low resolution.

"Good enough" is an illusion because they haven't seen what's better.

Twinz · 6 Sep 2021 at 13:13

4K8KW10 said:
If they see 2160p, they won't want to return to 1080p.
1080p looks like 540p in reality. It's just a very low resolution.

"Good enough" is an illusion because they haven't seen what's better.

I think it has more to do with pixel density and viewing distances. 1080p on my desk looks good, but 1080p on my face (Oculus Rift CV1) looked like Minecraft.

Moving up to 4k on my face with an HP Reverb looks good, but not as good as my son's 4K OLED TV.

But that's viewing distance again. My 1080p TV in my den doesn't look as good as my son's 4k TV but I'm sitting far enough away that I don't feel a burning need to upgrade the TV either.

Calin Banc · 6 Sep 2021 at 14:17

4K8KW10 said:
If they see 2160p, they won't want to return to 1080p.
1080p looks like 540p in reality. It's just a very low resolution.

"Good enough" is an illusion because they haven't seen what's better.

Twinz said:
I think it has more to do with pixel density and viewing distances. 1080p on my desk looks good, but 1080p on my face (Oculus Rift CV1) looked like Minecraft.

Moving up to 4k on my face with an HP Reverb looks good, but not as good as my son's 4K OLED TV.

But that's viewing distance again. My 1080p TV in my den doesn't look as good as my son's 4k TV but I'm sitting far enough away that I don't feel a burning need to upgrade the TV either.

Exactly. Depends from what distance you look at it.
I have at work 22" 1080p which obviously is sharper than my 27" 1080p from home, but not by much. When weaker hardware is involved, 1080p with high details, high FPS, I would say is preferable to 4k low(er) details, low(er) fps.

i know some would prefer high IQ lower FPS (so 4k@30fps or whatever), but if you'd make a blind test, so starting to play directly in 1080p (after a break, not switching direclty from 4k), from a "proper" distance, I think you'd notice less than playing in 30fps or so variable fps.

Probably a bigger difference than 4k vs 1080p or 1440p, would be the type of panel and quality.

Zarax · 6 Sep 2021 at 15:38

4K8KW10 said:
If they see 2160p, they won't want to return to 1080p.
1080p looks like 540p in reality. It's just a very low resolution.

"Good enough" is an illusion because they haven't seen what's better.

Pixel density is the key here.
I think you're talking about a 24" monitor or larger. Now scale this down to 14-15" (the average laptop) and see how much difference it makes.

Steam takes into account all kinds of PCs and the mass market are often laptops...

4K8KW10 · 6 Sep 2021 at 15:44

The thing is that the lower resolution means larger objects on the screen. So, when the user switches to 2160p, they get more objects on the screen:

Twinz · 6 Sep 2021 at 16:48

4K8KW10 said:
The thing is that the lower resolution means larger objects on the screen. So, when the user switches to 2160p, they get more objects on the screen:

They need to be large enough to see from the distance you are viewing the screen. As long as there are enough pixels to draw the "thing" you want on the screen clearly and smoothly, adding more pixels beyond that point is just adding excess work.

My Reverb can render an entire scene on its display, but it would be usless if I tried to view that scene from the distance I usually look at my monitor. Sure there would be a lot of objects, but they would be too small.

FredFlint · 6 Sep 2021 at 16:55

4K8KW10 said:
The thing is that the lower resolution means larger objects on the screen. So, when the user switches to 2160p, they get more objects on the screen:

If you mean desktop then yes but if you are talking about games then that’s not how it works as games use device coordinates not screen coordinates.

4K8KW10 · 6 Sep 2021 at 17:01

FredFlint said:
If you mean desktop then yes but if you are talking about games then that’s not how it works as games use device coordinates not screen coordinates.

I mean games as well. Try F1 2018 both at 1080p and 2160p to see how much more pleasant to the eyes is the 2160p. You get smaller everything and much nicer / richer to play environment.

Calin Banc · 6 Sep 2021 at 17:03

4K8KW10 said:
The thing is that the lower resolution means larger objects on the screen. So, when the user switches to 2160p, they get more objects on the screen:

No.
in games is just pixel density, FoV remains the same.
Actually, to get MORE on screen, you'll need 3 monitors. So for 3x1080p, you'll actually have larger FoV than standard 4k and better performance (since is only around 75% of 4k). Of course, that means that 3x1080p screens will have need a more powerful CPU than one single display since there will be more objects to be rendered.

4K8KW10 · 6 Sep 2021 at 17:04

Calin Banc said:
in games is just pixel density, FoV remains the same.

No. FOV doesn't remain the same. At 2160p you get more objects on the screen.

In the Games.

Calin Banc · 6 Sep 2021 at 17:04

4K8KW10 said:
No. FOV doesn't remain the same. At 2160p you get more objects on the screen. In the Games.

At the same FoV/aspect ratio, you won't.

4K8KW10 · 6 Sep 2021 at 17:05

Calin Banc said:
Actually, to get MORE on screen, you'll need 3 monitors. So for 3x1080p, you'll actually have larger FoV than standard 4k and better performance (since is only around 75% of 4k). Of course, that means that 3x1080p screens will have need a more powerful CPU than one single display since there will be more objects to be rendered.

Nonsense.

Calin Banc · 6 Sep 2021 at 17:06

4K8KW10 said:
Nonsense.

I'll put some pics once I get home

4K8KW10 · 6 Sep 2021 at 17:08

Calin Banc said:
I'll put some pics once I get home

I will ignore.
4K is 4 monitors, not 3 1080p monitors.

Twinz · 6 Sep 2021 at 17:22

I have a 1080p 65" TV and my son has a 65" 4k OLED. I would like the blacks on my TV to look more like his TV and might even shell out money for an upgrade soon. I will most likely end up with a 4K TV because I don't know of any OLED's that aren't 4K. -But I'm not looking to spend money on 4k resution.

I have seen the difference between 1080p and 4k and the resolution improvement itself just doesn't move the needle that much for me.

mrbazmondo · 6 Sep 2021 at 17:31

I'm pretty sure 2*2=3....
I can't wait to see the picture of the L shaped monitor.

Zarax · 6 Sep 2021 at 18:04

Twinz said:
I have a 1080p 65" TV and my son has a 65" 4k OLED. I would like the blacks on my TV to look more like his TV and might even shell out money for an upgrade soon. I will most likely end up with a 4K TV because I don't know of any OLED's that aren't 4K. -But I'm not looking to spend money on 4k resution.

I have seen the difference between 1080p and 4k and the resolution improvement itself just doesn't move the needle that much for me.

HDR has as much if not more impact than just upgrading to 4k...