• 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 VEGA confirmed for 2017 H1

Status
Not open for further replies.
As for 24fps vs 48fps, it's a fairly different situation. For one, it's not about image quality. And there are legit arguments that it detracts from 'cinematic quality' of video, especially movies. My opinion is split on it. I greatly appreciate the lack of jerkiness with panning shots and whatnot, but I also feel the 'soap opera effect' does rear its ugly head and makes certain things look a lot more fake.

Part of the problem is expectation of the viewer after decades of 24 fps. The other part of the solution is that the set designers, make-up and cgi guys simply have to do a better job (as in a higher minimum standard). I know they've got it quite tough already but it should be do-able in the big budget films that choose 48 fps.
 
I agree in principal. Something along the lines of the 40" 4k Philips monitors would be my next move if I needed to upgrade today,
but luckily I don't as they need a few more years to develop their 4k monitors to the point where it isn't a trade off as it is now,
Having to choose a monitor with this or a monitor with that rather than having it all on one monitor is the problem 4k has today,
I'm not talking about Freesync or G-sync I mean choosing between things like 4k or 144hz.

Eventually we'll get 4k & 4kuw monitors that have it all I just wonder how keen they are on giving us that,
because once we can get them fully tricked out they'll then need to find the next must-have tech to get us to upgrade again.

My ideal monitor would have the following specs, 40" 144hz IPS panel, HDR, Full range adaptive sync with LFC support or
G-sync, low response times and a 4k 16:9 or UW4k 21:9 resolution.

Yeah i have one of the 4k 40" philips.. I love the look and the detail but i agree at 60hz its a nightmare for shooters.. Although I am now at the age where i like my games to look great.. back in the day i would run first person shooters at the lowest detail and so on for that "extra edge" those days are gone hahaha.
 
HDR will be great once we get proper versions of it on a monitor and support for it starts to improve. Right now I am not too excited by it as it is, but I know it will be a big deal in a couple of years time. My take on it anyway.
Yea, monitors look to be well behind on adopting HDR. I get that makes many PC users less excited, but it *will* come and it will be glorious. People saying it's not a big deal are going to eat their words at some point.

As for those of y'all wanting IPS HDR monitors - you really dont. IPS has inherent problems with contrast, which defeats a lot of the purpose of HDR. What will be ideal will be VA displays, OLED(despite not being quite as bright at the top end) and upcoming QLED(quantum dot film) displays.
 
Yea, monitors look to be well behind on adopting HDR. I get that makes many PC users less excited, but it *will* come and it will be glorious. People saying it's not a big deal are going to eat their words at some point.

As for those of y'all wanting IPS HDR monitors - you really dont. IPS has inherent problems with contrast, which defeats a lot of the purpose of HDR. What will be ideal will be VA displays, OLED(despite not being quite as bright at the top end) and upcoming QLED(quantum dot film) displays.
Yeah good point. Would love a Freesync 2 OLED, but that won't be happening this year it seems, but QLED Freesync 2 would be very good in the mean time for my next monitor.

My next monitor will be just something to keep me happy until OLED ones arrive at a decent price (under four figures). So will probably upgrade again circa 2019.
 
If good HDR isn't a game changer, then nothing ever is a game-changer. I dont know what to say with that kind of standard of judgement. TV's are just gonna be TV's and monitors are gonna be monitors and nothing will ever actually matter that much.

A totally ridiculous stance, but hey, you're free to hold it. I'm on a hardware enthusiast board talking to other hardware enthusiasts. I wasn't really talking about the 'average consumer' here. I guess I made the mistake of thinking people here, the likes of which spend £600+ on GPU's, would care about image quality. Maybe that's a bad assumption?

You are twisting my words, in fact, you are making up stuff. I didn't say HDR was bad, I didn't say progress was bad. I just don't think HDR is anywhere close to game changing. and besides why would that mean that I don't care about image quality? If you read my posts properly and not jumped to conclusions, then you would have seen that image quality is very important to me, why else would I have bought one of the best TV's ever made?

Why do I think HDR isn't game changing, several reasons.

The average joe, most of them won't notice. But since they don't matter to you, let's move on.

For the enthusiasts that are on this and other forums, the people that you are making assumptions about, more than likely already have a top of the line TV and/or top of the line monitor. The jump to HDR will be an improvement just not a massive improvement. Certainly not what I would consider "game changing"

Maybe it's just our definition of what "game changing" is. For me "game changing" means something that radically alters the way we play games or watch movies. HDR is a welcome update to image quality but I couldn't say it's massive leap forward. I think Gsync and Freesync are more game changing than HDR, even though I don't even consider them to be truly game changing either.

Personally for me, VR is a game changer.
 
Why do people keep complaining about how long it's taking Vega to come when we have known for at least 8 months when the release date will roughly be?

If it's on schedule expect it at around the tail end of next month/start of June most likely.
 
But if they barely notice the difference, does it matter? All these technologies slowly increase image quality, but few are a big step change. 48fps films are an image quality improvement but most still prefer 24fps.

That's my point, HDR is an improvement certainly, but, not a groundbreaking, game changing one.
 
You are twisting my words, in fact, you are making up stuff. I didn't say HDR was bad, I didn't say progress was bad. I just don't think HDR is anywhere close to game changing. and besides why would that mean that I don't care about image quality? If you read my posts properly and not jumped to conclusions, then you would have seen that image quality is very important to me, why else would I have bought one of the best TV's ever made?

Why do I think HDR isn't game changing, several reasons.

The average joe, most of them won't notice. But since they don't matter to you, let's move on.

For the enthusiasts that are on this and other forums, the people that you are making assumptions about, more than likely already have a top of the line TV and/or top of the line monitor. The jump to HDR will be an improvement just not a massive improvement. Certainly not what I would consider "game changing"

Maybe it's just our definition of what "game changing" is. For me "game changing" means something that radically alters the way we play games or watch movies. HDR is a welcome update to image quality but I couldn't say it's massive leap forward. I think Gsync and Freesync are more game changing than HDR, even though I don't even consider them to be truly game changing either.

Personally for me, VR is a game changer.
VR will be a game changer also once decent content comes out for it. Right now I think people's VR headsets are gathering dust from what I have been seeing. I am waiting for the next gen ones myself.

Only a few games on it I would be interested to play at the moment, so not worth it at all as it is for me.
 
Perfect monitor for me would be HDR IPS Adaptive Sync with a resolution of 54" 5120x1440 (32:9).

horrible ppi. I would want it higher res than that at that size. Yuk. Im not even sure without getting my calculator out whether that would even look as good as a small 1080p monitor.

For me I want 30" to 40" 4k maybe widescreen, HDR oled screen with 100 to 120Hz and option of freesync or gsync and a price tag of around £1000.

Thats when i will next upgrade.
 
Yeah i have one of the 4k 40" philips.. I love the look and the detail but i agree at 60hz its a nightmare for shooters.. Although I am now at the age where i like my games to look great.. back in the day i would run first person shooters at the lowest detail and so on for that "extra edge" those days are gone hahaha.
I'm currently only on a 75hz panel but with Freesync which feels a lot better than 60hz did, It's only an extra 15 hz but it makes a big difference for some reason. I spent about a month on two 144hz panels before getting the 75hz one and the 75 still seemed great when I switched. I do want a fster one when I upgrade again though.
 
I'm currently only on a 75hz panel but with Freesync it feels a lot better than 60hz did, It's only an extra 15 hz but it seems to make a big difference. I spent about a month on two 144hz panels before getting the 75hz one and the 75 still seemed great when I switched. I do want a fster one when I upgrade again though.

Same, but I couldn't drop below 75Hz now tbh. I try to keep things above 70fps, nice and smooth :cool:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom