Have you been living under a rock? LG OLED's last years upon years of heavy use with no burn in. Had my CX48 for over 3 years, very heavy use, no burn in. Also professional tests have been done by Rtings.com - after thousands of hours of unrealistic tests, they conclude burn in is not an issue https://www.rtings.com/tv/learn/real-life-oled-burn-in-test
-
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.
NVIDIA 4000 Series
- Thread starter MrClippy
- Start date
Have you been living under a rock? LG OLED's last years upon years of heavy use with no burn in. Had my CX48 for over 3 years, very heavy use, no burn in. Also professional tests have been done by Rtings.com - after thousands of hours of unrealistic tests, they conclude burn in is not an issue https://www.rtings.com/tv/learn/real-life-oled-burn-in-test
Edited my post to show I was referring to ultrawide 1440P which are 21:9 aspect ratio monitors (3440 x 1440 etc)
Where did I say it could? I played Cyberpunk through at 4k, RT ultra, all else ultra, with DLSS 3.0, steady 120FPS, beautiful experience. Have not tried path tracing, though that'll have to wait for 5090 for 4k to be ~120FPS I imagine.
It's none of those reasons, the driver overhead limits your max fps but strictly speaking that doesn't deal with across resolutions scaling.
The reason it's scaling less at lower resolutions is because the easiest way (and universal across all games) to put all the shader cores to work is to simply increase the number of pixels that they have to work on. Thus a GPU with so many cores like a 4090, the only way you can get close to actually utilising all those (or near all) cores is to increase the resolution - otherwise the game has to individually have specific settings, or be coded in a way, that properly distributes work across all said cores. Due to how unique and different each game engine & even just how each game might use a particular engine are, that means you generally won't see a high utilisation of the card except by upping the resolution. Plus some (rendering) work (in games) has to be done in a certain order/at a certain time, so you'll never get that full parallelization that you might get in for ex. rendering a scene with blender, super-computer simulations with tailor-made software etc.
There's a lot more to it, but that's the gist. If you want some interesting reading you can look into the changes AMD did from GCN to RDNA wrt bundling work et al; Vega f.ex. was a monster on paper, with lots of cores, but had trouble putting them all to work, so in practice it ended up disappointing in games compared to on-paper specs. Actually utilising the hardware is no small task, and a lot of work has to go into how the hardware is designed as well as thinking about the software it's meant for and what the needs/can use. A lambo going off-road is not gonna be very speedy.
Difference Between AMD RDNA vs GCN GPU Architectures
With the launch of the Big Navi graphics cards, AMD has finally returned to the high-end GPU space with a bang. While the RDNA 2 design is largely similar to RDNA 1 in terms of the compute and graphics pipelines, there are some changes that have allowed the inclusion of the Infinity Cache and the …
www.hardwaretimes.com
Soldato
- Joined
- 14 Aug 2009
- Posts
- 3,194
You said 1080p and 1440p is old and that 4k truly matters.
Well, if you want native or as close as possible, 4k is too much in my example. Ergo those resolution are quite relevant.
Permabanned
I'm aware that you're trolling, you do it on every forum using the same pattern. You present yourself as a high-end consumer and then talk about how things are outdated and how everyone should migrate to something better, etc. However, I'm quite certain that you don't actually possess any of what you write, and it's just part of your trolling. We all know how much trust can be placed in people on the internet, especially confirmed trolls. But let's get back to the topic. I chose 1440p not because I can't afford 4K, but because the current hardware isn't good enough for what I consider an optimal gaming experience in 4K resolution. Future games will further expose the weaknesses of the 4090, which already struggles in many games. That's why I opted for a middle ground with very high frame rates. When the 5090 is released, then I'll consider 4K resolution, and hopefully, I'll be able to tell a different story.
edit: I forgot to mention that I don't consider DLSS 3.0 fake frames as actual frames because they aren't. It's a partial, semi-solution that I don't take into account, except for DLSS 2.0 with the quality setting.
Last edited:
That's underwhelming, something seems off with that Asus block.
Suspended
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 31,179
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 30 Jul 2012
- Posts
- 2,775
1440p sucks in my opinion. Grown used to the studio display for pixel goodness, Dell has a 6K monitor soon that will likely be only 60hz.
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 30 Jul 2012
- Posts
- 2,775
Surprised any AIB are bothering to be honest.
You can buy the 6K monitor now, as its the U3224KBA
Suspended
- Joined
- 25 Nov 2005
- Posts
- 12,648
It's not really a smart choice because it's outrageously expensive, the smart choice is taking the £1500 you would spend on a 4090 and investing it into Nvidia, then waiting for the 50xx series, then selling your Nvidia profits to get the 50xx card for free
Soldato
- Joined
- 30 Jul 2012
- Posts
- 2,775
Did not know it had released yet. Ugly camera on it though.You can buy the 6K monitor now, as its the U3224KBA
Suspended
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 31,179
4slot THICC coolers incoming!!!
Suspended
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 31,179
Fixed
Suspended
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 31,179
I know, I feel sick every time I look at it
