• 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.
akarypid said:
Why do they do that? Is it a performance thing? A compatibility thing?

Or to put the question another way: why does AMD then NOT do that?

P.S. Honest question; please don't fight over this!
Click to expand...

They was a time that not all monitors/TV supported the Full Range so having limited as the Default setting is the correct way. AMD choose Limited ycbcr has there default colour range. Now most TVs / Monitors support the full range.
 
shankly1985 said:
They was a time that not all monitors/TV supported the Full Range so having limited as the Default setting is the correct way. AMD choose Limited ycbcr has there default colour range. Now most TVs / Monitors support the full range.
Click to expand...

Interesting. I'd noticed this in comparison videos several times and wondered why that is. It certainly sucks nowadays for the 99% of users and end up with dim colors (for no reason anymore). They really should make full range the default now. My guess is most people aren't even aware they can fix that!
 
TNA said:
Maybe his system is broken and he is blaming it on developers :p

You on ultrawide shanks? Could be ultrawide is broken :D;)
Click to expand...

TNA said:
Must be his "the way it's meant to be played, immersive" ultrawide causing the issue then :p
Click to expand...

21.9 is the master race, 16.9 is for peasants, time to move on to the future ;) :D :p

Unfortunately it is an issue with the game, I have tried a DDU and newest drivers (as well as 16.11.5) and still have the same issues, even in 16.9 peasant mode, the missing graphical effects are still there.
 
Gregster said:
100% this. Even the die hard NVidia fans should be wanting AMD to do really well, as regardless of brand loyalty, a monopoly (which it is as it stands at the top end right now) isn't good for anyone's wallet. Competition brings price competition and innovation. With only one competitor, you will only see Intel style drip feed 5%-10% gains each gen.
Click to expand...

and that's exactly why most people don't bother upgrading their CPUs and Motherboards that often. Upgrade once every 7-8 years, job done.
 
Nexus18 said:
21.9 is the master race, 16.9 is for peasants, time to move on to the future ;) :D :p

Unfortunately it is an issue with the game, I have tried a DDU and newest drivers (as well as 16.11.5) and still have the same issues, even in 16.9 peasant mode, the missing graphical effects are still there.
Click to expand...
Yeah but, you have like nearly half the pixels, what is more peasant than that? :p

Not had the issues you have had in that picture myself and seems neither has shanks, maybe time for a format? ;)
 
Nexus18 said:
21.9 is the master race, 16.9 is for peasants, time to move on to the future ;) :D :p

Unfortunately it is an issue with the game, I have tried a DDU and newest drivers (as well as 16.11.5) and still have the same issues, even in 16.9 peasant mode, the missing graphical effects are still there.
Click to expand...

Hahaha. Come back to me in 4 years with that statement. It might be hard to see but trust me Ultrawide is a stop gap. a fad if you will. 16:9 is actually a far better resolution (if the screen is big). 16:9 4K is the future for sure. The market is driven by what is popular is most people's home.
 
Have I rustled some jimmies from you 16.9 peasants? :D Don't be jelly of the master race :D

ZjMXkTL.jpg

TNA said:
Yeah but, you have like nearly half the pixels, what is more peasant than that? :p

Not had the issues you have had in that picture myself and seems neither has shanks, maybe time for a format? ;)
Click to expand...

Again, resolution and aspect ratio are 2 different things, you could have high resolution and 21.9 aspect ratio ;) Give me the superior aspect ratio over pixels any day of the week though :D :p

I thought you had issues too?

TNA said:
I am just happy they made a great game to be honest. It can be played easily 2-3 times. I have completed it once, will do again once I get my RX Vega :D

By then they likely would have solved any issues. But going forward I will just wait 6 months before buying and get games much cheaper with bugs fixed.
Click to expand...

At least it read like you did anyway.

No way am I doing a format for a broken game (especially when every other game on my system runs perfectly, even mafia 3 runs amazingly well now.....), I can get the light shaft rays back by using the overall preset setting of very high, not my problem if developers can't get their game to work, heck what can you expect from Bethesada though, they couldn't even get a basic resolution setting to work on release for fallout 4..... :o

beany_bot said:
Hahaha. Come back to me in 4 years with that statement. It might be hard to see but trust me Ultrawide is a stop gap. a fad if you will. 16:9 is actually a far better resolution (if the screen is big). 16:9 4K is the future for sure. The market is driven by what is popular is most people's home.
Click to expand...

16:9 is actually a far better resolution (if the screen is big)
Click to expand...

*facepalm*

16.9 is not a resolution, it is an aspect ratio ;)

Tell that to people on here:

https://www.reddit.com/r/ultrawidemasterrace/

I've seen more people go from "4k" to 21.9 than the other way round.

I've used all kinds of displays, 4k in both 16.9 27-55" and 21.9 screens, in terms of just immersion, you can't beat 21.9, it is just better.


But once again, people really need to stop just thinking "4k" is what makes screens look sharp etc. It is is completely down to the PPI (which is brought from a higher resolution) and viewing distance, superb article that explains this here:

http://www.anandtech.com/show/7743/the-pixel-density-race-and-its-technical-merits

I will be getting an 55" 4k OLED HDR TV soon, however, I will be putting a custom 21.9 res. on it so as to avoid the cramped look of peasant 16.9 for gaming ;)

TonyTurbo78 said:
He just needs to upgrade his potato pc mate and drop that rubbish ulrawide poop that is rarely optimised properly for gaming. ;)
Click to expand...

My potato PC runs well optimised games fantastically, I ain't going to throw away £500+ just for a few more FPS and to run "ultra" that brings no benefit to IQ :D Got better things to spend my money on :p

Heck, I'm even happy with my 290s performance, the only reason I'm wanting to upgrade is for a cooler and quieter running GPU :p
 
Nexus18 said:
Have I rustled some jimmies from you 16.9 peasants? :D Don't be jelly of the master race :D

ZjMXkTL.jpg



Again, resolution and aspect ratio are 2 different things, you could have high resolution and 21.9 aspect ratio ;) Give me the superior aspect ratio over pixels any day of the week though :D :p

I thought you had issues too?



At least it read like you did anyway.

No way am I doing a format for a broken game (especially when every other game on my system runs perfectly, even mafia 3 runs amazingly well now.....), I can get the light shaft rays back by using the overall preset setting of very high, not my problem if developers can't get their game to work, heck what can you expect from Bethesada though, they couldn't even get a basic resolution setting to work on release for fallout 4..... :o





*facepalm*

16.9 is not a resolution, it is an aspect ratio ;)

Tell that to people on here:

https://www.reddit.com/r/ultrawidemasterrace/

I've seen more people go from "4k" to 21.9 than the other way round.

I've used all kinds of displays, 4k in both 16.9 27-55" and 21.9 screens, in terms of just immersion, you can't beat 21.9, it is just better.


But once again, people really need to stop just thinking "4k" is what makes screens look sharp etc. It is is completely down to the PPI (which is brought from a higher resolution) and viewing distance, superb article that explains this here:

http://www.anandtech.com/show/7743/the-pixel-density-race-and-its-technical-merits

I will be getting an 55" 4k OLED HDR TV soon, however, I will be putting a custom 21.9 res. on it so as to avoid the cramped look of peasant 16.9 for gaming ;)



My potato PC runs well optimised games fantastically, I ain't going to throw away £500+ just for a few more FPS and to run "ultra" that brings no benefit to IQ :D Got better things to spend my money on :p

Heck, I'm even happy with my 290s performance, the only reason I'm wanting to upgrade is for a cooler and quieter running GPU :p
Click to expand...
You keep telling yourself that because you paid over the odds for a fad aspect ratio. 16:9 fills more of your vision if a good size and is MORE immersive. Not less. Obviously I mentioned 4k because to be immersive you need a big screen and be close to it. And if you want to be close to it you need it to be 4k.

16:9, big, 4k screens are unquestionably the future. There is a reason 16:9 has taken off as the most popular aspect ratio. Because it's the best for our eyes for immersion. You my friend have just been gobbled up by clever marketing.

Sure your 21:9 will look better than a 16:9 of the same size. But a bigger 16:9 is just more immersive. You don't loose that vertical real estate.
 
Nexus18 said:
Have I rustled some jimmies from you 16.9 peasants? :D Don't be jelly of the master race :D

ZjMXkTL.jpg



Again, resolution and aspect ratio are 2 different things, you could have high resolution and 21.9 aspect ratio ;) Give me the superior aspect ratio over pixels any day of the week though :D :p

I thought you had issues too?



At least it read like you did anyway.

No way am I doing a format for a broken game (especially when every other game on my system runs perfectly, even mafia 3 runs amazingly well now.....), I can get the light shaft rays back by using the overall preset setting of very high, not my problem if developers can't get their game to work, heck what can you expect from Bethesada though, they couldn't even get a basic resolution setting to work on release for fallout 4..... :o





*facepalm*

16.9 is not a resolution, it is an aspect ratio ;)

Tell that to people on here:

https://www.reddit.com/r/ultrawidemasterrace/

I've seen more people go from "4k" to 21.9 than the other way round.

I've used all kinds of displays, 4k in both 16.9 27-55" and 21.9 screens, in terms of just immersion, you can't beat 21.9, it is just better.


But once again, people really need to stop just thinking "4k" is what makes screens look sharp etc. It is is completely down to the PPI (which is brought from a higher resolution) and viewing distance, superb article that explains this here:

http://www.anandtech.com/show/7743/the-pixel-density-race-and-its-technical-merits

I will be getting an 55" 4k OLED HDR TV soon, however, I will be putting a custom 21.9 res. on it so as to avoid the cramped look of peasant 16.9 for gaming ;)



My potato PC runs well optimised games fantastically, I ain't going to throw away £500+ just for a few more FPS and to run "ultra" that brings no benefit to IQ :D Got better things to spend my money on :p

Heck, I'm even happy with my 290s performance, the only reason I'm wanting to upgrade is for a cooler and quieter running GPU :p
Click to expand...

Preach it brutha! Praise the ultrawide master race! Amen y'all!

Seriously though. 21:9 > all
 
beany_bot said:
Sure your 21:9 will look better than a 16:9 of the same size. But a bigger 16:9 is just more immersive. You don't loose that vertical real estate.
Click to expand...

You don't loose vertical real estate but gain horizontal real estate with 21:9. I have gone from gaming on a 65" display to a 34" ultra wide and much prefer the 21:9 aspect ratio, 16:9 now feels cramped and restricted. I am sitting much closer to the 34" than the 65" so it counter balances the differences in sizes.
 
Last edited:
beany_bot said:
You keep telling yourself that because you paid over the odds for a fad aspect ratio. 16:9 fills more of your vision if a good size and is MORE immersive. Not less. Obviously I mentioned 4k because to be immersive you need a big screen and be close to it. And if you want to be close to it you need it to be 4k.

16:9, big, 4k screens are unquestionably the future. There is a reason 16:9 has taken off as the most popular aspect ratio. Because it's the best for our eyes for immersion. You my friend have just been gobbled up by clever marketing.

Sure your 21:9 will look better than a 16:9 of the same size. But a bigger 16:9 is just more immersive. You don't loose that vertical real estate.
Click to expand...

Nope.

And 4:3 was very popular for a long time, that must mean that was because it was best for our immersion ;)

Edit: Just to quash your theory about 16:9 being more immersive the bigger it gets. You know the biggest screens most people see? Ya know, at cinemas and things. Guess what aspect ratio they use? (It ain't 16:9)
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom