Caporegime
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.
-
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
- Thread starter Boomstick777
- Start date
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.
Soldato
Pfft, 16:9 screens, even 21:9 is peasant tier now with the launch of 32:9 screens 
Soldato
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.
Pfft, 16:9 screens, even 21:9 is peasant tier now with the launch of 32:9 screens
lol i saw that
49inch
i wonder how sucky that is for watching normal 16:9 content tho
my guess is pretty sucky!
Soldato
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.
doubtful that is the VR entry gpu sized card.
performance should be more at the furyx/980ti level with 232mm2 chip.
Soldato
Be funny if 14nm lets us go back to the voodoo days. Having 4 small polaris gpus on one card for giggles.
Soldato
lol i saw that
49inch
i wonder how sucky that is for watching normal 16:9 content tho
my guess is pretty sucky!
There would be much suck, yes.
I'm sure eventually this will be done with 2.5/3D.
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?
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?
Soldato
- Joined
- 30 Nov 2011
- Posts
- 11,376
We need foveated rendering on monitors too
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GKR8tM28NnQ
Sure, add it to the list of effects I will immediately turn off, like motion blur, chromatic abrasion, DOF
I'm not paying to make my games look like ****
Soldato
Sim Racing games would be good with ultra wide.
today there is only 1 way to play Sims...VRrr
Soldato
We need foveated rendering on monitors too
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.