NVIDIA ‘Ampere’ 8nm Graphics Cards

Richdog · 5 Dec 2019 at 09:49

andybird123 said:
If you take a look at the charts people are posting, if you are sitting at a desk you are about 2ft from your screen, at 2ft and 20" the line falls squarely in the "UHD worth it" section - anything above 30" and its "higher than UHD worth it"

Charts are one thing and practical usage is another. Gaming at 4k is so much more than just "4k resolution is awesome yo", it requires a significant investment in specs to drive it and in my view there is no way that the perceptible improvement in resolution and graphical fidelity sitting so close to the screen at a desk is worth the limited time that your GPU will be capable of running 4k in the latest games. It's just bad value and I would say that games benefit much less from 4k than productivity (editing, spreadsheet, documents etc) where the additional working space really matters.

Smart people use the far more balanced 1440p and AA.

Grim5 · 5 Dec 2019 at 09:55

Richdog said:
Charts are one thing and practical usage is another. Gaming at 4k is so much more than just "4k resolution is awesome yo", it requires a significant investment in specs to drive it and in my view there is no way that the perceptible improvement in resolution and graphical fidelity sitting so close to the screen at a desk is worth the limited time that your GPU will be capable of running 4k in the latest games. It's just bad value and I would say that games benefit much less from 4k than productivity (editing, spreadsheet, documents etc) where the additional working space really matters.

Smart people use the far more balanced 1440p and AA.

pc gaming and value don't mix, that's what consoles are for, 4k gaming for $400

Grim5 · 5 Dec 2019 at 10:01

z10m said:
And next year Apple is rumoured to put MicroLED panels in iPads and MacBooks.

So I went and checked this and you are wrong. The rumour is for Mini LED which is completely different to MicroLED...

MiniLED is just a conventional LED screen where the dimming zones are half the size of normal FALD allowing 900 or so dimming zones per screen. It's completely inferior to OLED though which is what they should have used.

Richdog · 5 Dec 2019 at 10:07

Grim5 said:
pc gaming and value don't mix, that's what consoles are for, 4k gaming for $400

Of course PC gaming and value mix... when you don't game at 4k and build a good value (for a PC) gaming rig.

Current consoles provide inferior graphics fidelity even at '4k' than a mid-range PC running at 1440p and there is no reason to think this will change with the next generation as the GPU horsepower will not be able to drive 4k at the kind of details we are used to seeing on the PC (equivalent to Ultra settings) and I would much rather have a lower 1440p resolution and higher graphics fidelity than higher 4k resolution and lower graphics fidelity.

I am not biased against consoles, I have a PS4 and a gaming notebook and each has their strengths and weaknesses.

Dicehunter · 5 Dec 2019 at 10:31

4K8KW10 said:
Yes:

It's true that the reference is 30-year-old but it doesn't specifically say that 1080p (2.073 MP) is the final, best resolution and once we have it, that is the end of the times.
You can improve resolutions infinitely in time, today you protect 1080p (2MP) as being good enough, in 5 years we will say the same about 4K (8MP), in 50 years we will be at 16K, and 1080p will have looked to us in the same way as 320x240 from the 80s or 90s looks to us today.

Also, you can't simply infinitely increase the distance between the monitor and your sitting position in order to offset the low resolution, you have a desk and you should stay in front of it.

Your sig is very anti-social and shows what type of person you are, I've interacted several times with most people on your "troll list" over the years and none of them are trolls, They simply call out BS when BS is presented and you sir present BS on a regular occasion.

Perfect_Chaos · 5 Dec 2019 at 10:44

Richdog said:
Current consoles provide inferior graphics fidelity even at '4k' than a mid-range PC running at 1440p and there is no reason to think this will change with the next generation

That Dave guy seems to think 4K will be the best thing since sliced bread from his last post, 1440p becoming "peasant resolution"

But something just reminded me I'm sure he bought a Vega 56 or 64 for MORE than the cost of a 980Ti while being less powerful, yet he was again quite condescending :rolleyes:

"peasants"

I think next consoles will be decent but i think the next gen Nvidia cards will be noticably more powerful, at least the 3070 and above. No chance 4K will be the norm soon since even if you own a high hz screen at that res, many new demanding games wouldn't even hold a high frame rate consistently enough anyway.

TNA · 5 Dec 2019 at 11:15

Richdog said:
Charts are one thing and practical usage is another. Gaming at 4k is so much more than just "4k resolution is awesome yo", it requires a significant investment in specs to drive it and in my view there is no way that the perceptible improvement in resolution and graphical fidelity sitting so close to the screen at a desk is worth the limited time that your GPU will be capable of running 4k in the latest games. It's just bad value and I would say that games benefit much less from 4k than productivity (editing, spreadsheet, documents etc) where the additional working space really matters.

Smart people use the far more balanced 1440p and AA.

Smart people eh... Lol.

Dicehunter said:
Your sig is very anti-social and shows what type of person you are, I've interacted several times with most people on your "troll list" over the years and none of them are trolls, They simply call out BS when BS is presented and you sir present BS on a regular occasion.

He has been told this by so many people now. But he still thinks we are all wrong and are the crazy trolls for some reason.

Perfect_Chaos said:
That Dave guy seems to think 4K will be the best thing since sliced bread from his last post, 1440p becoming "peasant resolution"

But something just reminded me I'm sure he bought a Vega 56 or 64 for MORE than the cost of a 980Ti while being less powerful, yet he was again quite condescending "peasants"

I think next consoles will be decent but i think the next gen Nvidia cards will be noticably more powerful, at least the 3070 and above. No chance 4K will be the norm soon since even if you own a high hz screen at that res, many new demanding games wouldn't even hold a high frame rate consistently enough anyway.

4K won’t be mainstream like 1080p for probably another 10 years.

We all have preferences. I prefer to stick to 30-60fps on my pc and game with high image quality. There are others who prefer a balance of fps and image quality at 1440p and then you got the very competitive gamers who go for 1080p and need 240hz/fps. People need to understand there is not best, no right or wrong for everyone. Many can’t seem to grasp this and go on like what they have is best overall or say certain people are not “clever” enough due to preferences. Then you have the people who go out of their way to deny that 4K does not bring any image quality benefits on monitors, makes me laugh.

KillBoY_UK · 5 Dec 2019 at 11:57

TNA said:
Smart people eh... Lol.

He has been told this by so many people now. But he still thinks we are all wrong and are the crazy trolls for some reason.

4K won’t be mainstream like 1080p for probably another 10 years.

We all have preferences. I prefer to stick to 30-60fps on my pc and game with high image quality. There are others who prefer a balance of fps and image quality at 1440p and then you got the very competitive gamers who go for 1080p and need 240hz/fps. People need to understand there is not best, no right or wrong for everyone. Many can’t seem to grasp this and go on like what they have is best overall or say certain people are not “clever” enough due to preferences. Then you have the people who go out of their way to deny that 4K does not bring any image quality benefits on monitors, makes me laugh.

ie "each to there own"

Poneros · 5 Dec 2019 at 12:07

For me about 1.2m is the sweet-spot for 4K 55''. I can get closer but then the resolution clearly isn't high enough & it's also a bit too close for some games (or general use). Mind you, this is on PC where you can generally change FOV. On consoles where the fov is that of a letterbox opening it would just make you sick, but those are obv. optimised for people sitting >2m away and it's also why they go for broad-strokes tech (eg super-blurry AA solutions) because people wouldn't see the details anyway. That's why they can also get away with "4K" marketing even though it's 99% of the time dynamic and way under.

For open-world 3rd person games like AC, pushing resolution & size & closeness while maximizing FOV while minimizing fish-eye effect? It's unbelievably good and my favourite experiences of this "gen". Personally I very much look forward to upping to 75" true 8K (not Samsung crap) in a few years as the prices drop. The only thing better is if we'd get an ultra-wide model as well like seen at IFA, but I'm not holding my breath.

Quartz · 5 Dec 2019 at 12:33

Richdog said:
Gaming at 4k is so much more than just "4k resolution is awesome yo", it requires a significant investment in specs to drive it

Not these days it doesn't.

Richdog · 5 Dec 2019 at 12:37

Quartz said:
Not these days it doesn't.

Really... so what do you see as the minimum complete PC specs for 4k gaming with modern titles?

z10m · 5 Dec 2019 at 12:39

Grim5 said:
So I went and checked this and you are wrong. The rumour is for Mini LED which is completely different to MicroLED...

MiniLED is just a conventional LED screen where the dimming zones are half the size of normal FALD allowing 900 or so dimming zones per screen. It's completely inferior to OLED though which is what they should have used.

Oh you are probably right. Didn't look in to it a lot.
Apologies for the confusion...

andybird123 · 5 Dec 2019 at 12:43

Richdog said:
Charts are one thing and practical usage is another. Gaming at 4k is so much more than just "4k resolution is awesome yo", it requires a significant investment in specs to drive it and in my view there is no way that the perceptible improvement in resolution and graphical fidelity sitting so close to the screen at a desk is worth the limited time that your GPU will be capable of running 4k in the latest games. It's just bad value and I would say that games benefit much less from 4k than productivity (editing, spreadsheet, documents etc) where the additional working space really matters.

Smart people use the far more balanced 1440p and AA.

thats not what people were discussing

TNA · 5 Dec 2019 at 12:51

KillBoY_UK said:
ie "each to there own"

Well in a way yes, it does come down to that. But just saying that alone sometimes is not enough, need to break it down into a bit more detail for some

No doubt someone will be along soon saying what they have is best or they are “clever” for using x and we are divs for not seeing that. Lol.

keyser · 5 Dec 2019 at 12:58

I'm on a new 27" 1440p IPS monitor, pretty happy with it. It's not as good as a 4K 32" HDR 144hz freesync local dimming flawless monitor but I don't think they exist. Yet. It's the flawless part that is hard to come by. I think I could tell the different between those two styles of monitors

The issue I have is I don't want a low frame rate when gaming. I need around 90 FPS, so that's rules out 4K. However I might get an OLED 55" as a secondary monitor so maybe best of both worlds that way.

TNA · 5 Dec 2019 at 13:05

keyser said:
I'm on a new 27" 1440p IPS monitor, pretty happy with it. It's not as good as a 4K 32" HDR 144hz freesync local dimming flawless monitor but I don't think they exist. Yet. It's the flawless part that is hard to come by. I think I could tell the different between those two styles of monitors

The issue I have is I don't want a low frame rate when gaming. I need around 90 FPS, so that's rules out 4K. However I might get an OLED 55" as a secondary monitor so maybe best of both worlds that way.

Yeah, understandable. Makes sense.

Got my OLED TV a few days back, it really does look stunning

Quartz · 5 Dec 2019 at 13:05

Richdog said:
Really... so what do you see as the minimum complete PC specs for 4k gaming with modern titles?

A 1660 Super should get you a decent frame rate at a mixture of medium and high settings. Add in everyone's favourite Ryzen 3600, RAM, and the usual trimmings and you're pretty much done.

Gregster · 5 Dec 2019 at 13:08

Thread needs a name change lol. Good ol 4k8k started this

Richdog · 5 Dec 2019 at 13:10

Quartz said:
A 1660 Super should get you a decent frame rate at a mixture of medium and high settings. Add in everyone's favourite Ryzen 3600, RAM, and the usual trimmings and you're pretty much done.

I find it completely bizzarre that you favour resolution over graphical fidelity. Better a lower and more sensible resolution and "Ultra" detail graphics than a higher resolution and worse "Medium" graphics. You are advocating running a worse-looking game with a mid-ish-range GPU just to get 4k resolution... and that to me just flies in the face of logic and common sense.

Quartz · 5 Dec 2019 at 13:12

Richdog said:
I find it completely bizzarre that you favour resolution over graphical fidelity.

Because the graphical difference between max settings and medium / high settings is often not that much. Try it yourself.