AMD Polaris architecture – GCN 4.0

[Nexus18]

The improvements in res. that people think they see over 1080P is dependent on the size of the screen and thus the PPI is what makes the difference for clarity/sharpness, not solely just res...... Take out your 1080P or even a 720P phone/tablet and compare its screen to your monitor/tv in terms of sharpness/clarity.

A 23/24" 16.9 1080P display has a PPI of about 90 where as a 27" 16.9 1440P has a ppi of about 110

 

[tommybhoy]

Lols, pretty sure a pre-emptive statement that his fps don't go below 40fps, is entirely different than claiming he said that he plays 1440p@40fps.

Take it Daves 'not liked' and went against the establishment in the past?

Pretty daft statement to make yes, but I'm sure others have said a lot worse than '1080p is for peasants' but don't let that get in the way...

Fwiw, I went back to high fps/iq 1080p, personally it's better than an over rated 1440p(using 2 290X's on working profiles) or higher- it goes down to personal preference.

 

[Ayahuasca]

There's nothing wrong with preferring a higher resolution but going about it in that way isn't going to sit well with people is it.

It's not like the hardware he's using cost a great deal more than those gaming with high settings at 1080p either so not sure what's peasant about it.

Now we just need a 4k user to come and call Dave a peasant

 

[tommybhoy]

 

[muziqaz]

I thought console users where peasants. Now 1080p@60fps is peasantry. Time goes fast

 

[Overlag]

Id rather have 1440p with 0-2x FSAA than 1080p with 4-8.

1080p was "ok" if the screen was only 21inches but once you get onto 27 the pixels are far too big.

 

[Gregster]

Well hopefully big Polaris will be able to cope with 1440P and max settings with ease. A few games now make my Titan X cry at 1440P if I try and max settings

With the Polaris chip they had competing and beating the GTX 750Ti for power usage, it is looking good for the future (whenever that maybe)

 

[Sayso]

hehe with my eyes i use a 27" 1080 screen in all its lovely blurry goodness on a £250 card...what jaggies!! all it takes is getting something wedged in one of your eyes for years of cheap gaming

 

[Gregster]

hehe with my eyes i use a 27" 1080 screen in all its lovely blurry goodness on a £250 card...what jaggies!! all it takes is getting something wedged in one of your eyes for years of cheap gaming

Not good but I think I will be joining you soon. I sit about 160ft up and have to see 3 inch squared holes and I feel a bit like Luke Skywalker now and using the bloody force to see them (guessing)

 

[Frenzy]

Id rather have 1440p with 0-2x FSAA than 1080p with 4-8.

1080p was "ok" if the screen was only 21inches but once you get onto 27 the pixels are far too big.

I don't notice them, I use a 1920x1200 24inch at work along with a 1920x1080 23inch. At home I use a 27inch 1920x1080 and also a 92inch projector at 1920x1080.

Also downscaling from 4k to 1080 is amazing.

Saying that I want a x34 predator

 

[Mtom]

Well hopefully big Polaris will be able to cope with 1440P and max settings with ease. A few games now make my Titan X cry at 1440P if I try and max settings

With the Polaris chip they had competing and beating the GTX 750Ti for power usage, it is looking good for the future (whenever that maybe)

950 not 750ti

 

[Gregster]

950 not 750ti

Ahhh yer sorry, just woke up from nights and not with it yet

 

[oweneades]

There's nothing wrong with preferring a higher resolution but going about it in that way isn't going to sit well with people is it.

It's not like the hardware he's using cost a great deal more than those gaming with high settings at 1080p either so not sure what's peasant about it.

Now we just need a 4k user to come and call Dave a peasant

I think I am internally conflicted:

1) Runs Titan/690 on 1080p screen, or;

2) Runs 970 on 60Hz 4K TV


I think I just want to see the world burn..

EDIT: I think I will just go and sink more time into Xenoblade Chronicles X, a game which renders internally at 720p.... simply because it is fun.

 

[Freddie1980]

I thought console users where peasants. Now 1080p@60fps is peasantry. Time goes fast

Where does that leave console gamers?!? They have to save up to be poor!

 

[AlamoX]

a new Rumor about Polaris from 3dcenter, after being spotted on Zauba...again

Spoiler

here is some of the article traduction :

Again a new sign of life with another, as yet unknown AMD graphics card on the way to India (in the local test laboratories) is in the import / export database Zauba emerged: There was for 1 February 2016, the import of a "102-C99398 -00 "graphics boards listed in India - where the initial" 102 "on AMD suggesting as a manufacturer and the" C993 "then typically the generation and model of each graphics card indicates (without but that would be known outside of AMD, which is intended to mean what here ) . Usually are doing an initial "C9xx" marking the upcoming Polaris generation since Fiji-based graphics cards and all older AMD below the mark "C8xx" runs.

Very interesting is, of course, the customs value of converted almost exactly 1,500 euros per card. Normally, this should indicate a dual chip solution, but the anticipated Radeon R9 Fury X2 usually runs under "C8xx" marks, it therefore can not really be. A more targeted resolution would be if one assumes that the customs value of all sent Polaris models of AMD were deliberately set too high - partly because a (far) standing before release product, of course, has no real market value, on the other hand because their value for AMD, at least at present but of course still likely to be far higher than the subsequent sale price could reflect it. Thus, one could the customs values ​​do not take (the proverbial as literally) at face value, but may have to be interpolated accordingly from the mentioned values ​​of all recently sent "C9xx" graphics boards
From this consideration, take better first graphics boards "C913" and "C924" out there that clearly were delivered too early for retail versions of the Polaris generation - this is probably pure test boards. After that result from this listing of all spilled over Zauba AMD supplies with "C9xx" marking pretty sure two fundamentally different graphics chips, "D000", "C980" and "C981" as different versions of the smaller Polaris chips with mainstream claim - and " C993 "has been the only version of the larger Polaris chips with high-end claim. This resolution would also respect adjust the reported quantities and known over time, after which the smaller Polaris chip ( by AMD already demonstrated as a run ) earlier ripe is larger than the Polaris chip. The now supplied this two piece graphics boards would also fit in well with a project, which should then go in the summer in the sale.

As I said whose absolute height is not fit but the customs values ​​are relative to this Auslegeung - but here AMD could to conceal his intentions to cheat (and the customs authorities are to high customs values ​​certainly never anmängeln) . Probably can the customs values ​​coarse / 2.5 or / 3 share in order to arrive at the approximate (planned) Sales prices of these graphics cards. This would yield between 140-260 euros for the different variants of the smaller Polaris chip, and between 500-600 euros for the previously single variant of the larger Polaris chips. Currently, these are of course all just trite speculation arising from an unrelated data available - other people & publications can therefrom other inferences and presumptions draw, should you bet so certainly not.

 

[Dave2150]

So you are happy lowering settings to get playable frame rates but want to have a pop at people who play at 1080P? I would give more credit if you was running a pair of cards to maintain settings but you might as well game at 1080P if you are always lowering settings. You do make some silly statements at times.

I'm a PC gamer. That means I can confgure my game settings to my liking. You'll find that most PC gamers do this, well those with the mental faculties to understand why configuring settings is advantageous.

I mentioned in my post that I configure my settings so that the minimum FPS I get in games is 40, as that's the lowest limit of my monitor's freesync range.

Depending on the game, having a minimum FPS of 40 could mean a maximum FPS of 100, or 140, with an average FPS of a healthy 70-90. That's what I shoot for.

I do think that those still playing at 1080P are rather foolish, as 1440P is so superior in terms of image quality. Perhaps you haven't compared gaming at 1080P to 1440P, if not you really should, as the difference is remarkable.

The only settings I usually lower are Gameworks settings. For example, I lowered the tessellation in the Witcher 3 down one notch (via the AMD drivers) for a massive performance increase with no obvious IQ decrease. Many people did the same, since the gameworks features are so badly optimized. I also disabled the useless godrays in Fallout 4. This kind of thing.

At the end of the day, with my eyes, playing games at 1440P at a healthy FPS with only badly optimized setting disabled looks far better than 1080P. Though I can understand people with 4GB cards sticking with 1080P in the latest titles such as Tomb Raider, as even at 1080P 4GB just doesn't cut it anymore. Glad I have a card with 8GB

 

[Klo]

I'm a PC gamer. That means I can confgure my game settings to my liking. You'll find that most PC gamers do this, well those with the mental faculties to understand why configuring settings is advantageous.

I mentioned in my post that I configure my settings so that the minimum FPS I get in games is 40, as that's the lowest limit of my monitor's freesync range.

Depending on the game, having a minimum FPS of 40 could mean a maximum FPS of 100, or 140, with an average FPS of a healthy 70-90. That's what I shoot for.

I do think that those still playing at 1080P are rather foolish, as 1440P is so superior in terms of image quality. Perhaps you haven't compared gaming at 1080P to 1440P, if not you really should, as the difference is remarkable.

The only settings I usually lower are Gameworks settings. For example, I lowered the tessellation in the Witcher 3 down one notch (via the AMD drivers) for a massive performance increase with no obvious IQ decrease. Many people did the same, since the gameworks features are so badly optimized. I also disabled the useless godrays in Fallout 4. This kind of thing.

At the end of the day, with my eyes, playing games at 1440P at a healthy FPS with only badly optimized setting disabled looks far better than 1080P. Though I can understand people with 4GB cards sticking with 1080P in the latest titles such as Tomb Raider, as even at 1080P 4GB just doesn't cut it anymore. Glad I have a card with 8GB

I too am a PC gamer, which means if I wish to game at 800x600 I can

Joking aside, everyone is different, and I would take higher settings at 1080p to lower settings at 1440p. But each to their own!

 

[Dave2150]

There's nothing wrong with preferring a higher resolution but going about it in that way isn't going to sit well with people is it.

It's not like the hardware he's using cost a great deal more than those gaming with high settings at 1080p either so not sure what's peasant about it.

Now we just need a 4k user to come and call Dave a peasant

I'll be jumping to 4K next generation. I was astounded by the difference between 1200P and 1440P. Even more astounded when I tried 4K gaming over a mate's house.

I don't like MGPU systems, and since there's no single card that can comfortably run the latest games at 4K, I decided to wait for big Polaris/Pascal before making the jump to 4k. Since I'll need a new monitor, I'm free to choose which ever I like (Gsync/Freesync wise).

Though I have a feeling I'll be getting Pascal, namely down to the depressingly large number of Gameworks titles rolling out. I just don't think AMD can compete with that. Sad times indeed, though no matter how much brand loyalty to AMD I have, NVIDIA is looking like the only way forward at the moment.

 

[Dave2150]

I too am a PC gamer, which means if I wish to game at 800x600 I can

Joking aside, everyone is different, and I would take higher settings at 1080p to lower settings at 1440p. But each to their own!

Even if those "lower settings" are only a few minor tweaks, such as gameworks effects, or extreme tessellation that makes no difference to IQ?

I obviously run textures, shadows, lighting, HBAO etc all at max. Those are the main goodies IMO. They all look so much better at 1440P.

 

[Orangey]

If they are getting chips back for the big boy already that's a good sign.