• 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.

*** The AMD RDNA 4 Rumour Mill ***

Sorry for sounding miserable, but a girl I spoke to a month ago, threw herself out of the window in the flat above me. (She's 11th floor, directly above me) Her brains were scattered all over the downstairs. Point is, you guys arguing about GPUS is all good and well, it's absolutely fine. But stop for a moment and think of people like I described. Sorry for being a downer. Hope everyone here is well.
 
Alexrose1uk said:
Agreed, 1440p on a 27" screen looks very decent, and now with some pretty amazing deals on 144Hz+ QHD gaming monitors, its that ideal balance between 4K and better than 1080p clarity, whilst still being achievable on midrange and up hardware in modern titles. It's part the reason the pro consoles of this and last generations internally targetted approximately 1440-1600p over true native UHD in most cases, as it offers a noticeable clarity and detail boost (I realise not as much as 4K), but without requiring excessive horsepower to drive it well. I think AMD, for all thier bad decisions, did make a fairly good decision targetting 1080p and 1440p, more than 4K. 4K is more marketing halo buzzwords, and most people probably wouldn't even be able to tell you which was better, if you had a 1440p game running at decent settings, framerate and refresh rate, over 4K, but running with low settings and framerate; they MIGHT notice the sharpness, but likely if the visual settings were notably better on the QHD, they'd likely think that was the 4K. The amount of people who don't read or care is massive, compared to the relative niche that care about such things, and even amongst those of us who do, there are vast differences in the level of 'pixel peeping' people are willing to put in; especially as some performance sinks are barely visually noticeable beyond a certain level; even if they do enhance overall presentation.

As mentioned on this page as well, deals on good quality monitors are really moving forwards in a way that they just aren't in the GPU space right now.

A few years ago you'd have been lucky to get a half decent QHD screen with a not awful IPS panel that went over 120Hz, for less than £300 and QHD screens at above 60Hz without awful panels were prohibitively expensive.
By contrast, a few weeks ago, I paid £225 on offer for an IPS, 180Hz panel, with a MiniLED backlight that also hits around 1250-1300 nits brightness. It's not perfect by a longshot - I wish the zones on it were more granual/smaller (it's no where near the granularity that OLED offers), more control was allowed when it's in HDR mode, and it went a little brighter as base brightness for HDR, but my god, once you dial it in (as Windows HDR is still kinda ****), it's not perfect, but its closer to OLED or a high end very high zone-level screen than any other cheap LED I've seen, and it doesn't have any burn in risks that'd come with a fancy OLED; and frankly a little light haloing on a black or monotone screen can be ignored, as it looks fantastic when gaming or in motion; at least until considerably superior screens have reached a decent price in maybe 5+ years.

I mean, for lack of a better words, what you can get in monitors at a reasonable and acceptable price range has moved forward at such a pace in the last 5-10 years, it's left GPU tech behind big time.
Click to expand...
What was the monitor you bought f you don't mind me asking?

Was it this guy?

Xiaomi Mini LED Gaming Monitor G Pro 27i​

 
Last edited:
Raelgun said:
Makes me laugh that so many people bought a 4K screen to not play at 4K.
Click to expand...
Willing to bet most of those 4k screens are 27" or similar. Completely pointless as any detail including text is so miniscule you'll have to upscale just to see it. They get sucked in by the "its 4K! Its a must have!" marketing hype but can't afford a decent sized screen that might show it off to some advantage
 
Last edited:
Blackjack Davy said:
Willing to bet most of those 4k screens are 27" or similar. Completely pointless as any detail including text is so miniscule you'll have to upscale just to see it. They get sucked in by the "its 4K! Its a must have!" marketing hype but can't afford a decent sized screen that might show it off to some advantage
Click to expand...
32 inch is sweet spot for 4k monitor?
New marketing is now to buy 27/4k monitor to get rid oled text fringing:cry:
 
ooStevo said:
Sorry for sounding miserable, but a girl I spoke to a month ago, threw herself out of the window in the flat above me. (She's 11th floor, directly above me) Her brains were scattered all over the downstairs. Point is, you guys arguing about GPUS is all good and well, it's absolutely fine. But stop for a moment and think of people like I described. Sorry for being a downer. Hope everyone here is well.
Click to expand...
Sorry to hear it.Take care mate.
 
I'm ok. Thanks for the kind words. When they went into her flat,it was immaculate. Clean,tidy,freshly cleaned. There was a small ladder at the window (she was about 5"4) She also left a note,but no one has told me what it said. I'd spoken to her in the shop next to us,just maybe 3 weeks earlier. Might've been One and a half weeks,i can't remember cos i was dying of covid at the time. She even said to me she was'nt feeling well,but cos i was unwell i did'nt pick up on it. I feel really guilty. But this is'nt the place for this conversation. Sorry mods. Please don't delete this post,i feel bad enough as it is.
 
GhostDog1981 said:
On a different note will the upcoming 8700xt=7800xt and likewise 8800xt=7900GRE ? Then there is no incentive for 6000 series or 7000 series owners to upgrade at all.
Click to expand...

From what I've read there's no reason to upgrade right now if you are on 6000 or 7000, 8000 is mainly to bump up AMD's marketshare. 9000 will see the return of the high end apparently.
 
I keep seeing 7900xt for around the £600 -650 level and I am tempted, 7900xt is just about exactly the performance I'm after for my next upgrade and I hope the 8800xt can match it for less money.

What do we think? Wait or pull the trigger? I can definitely see the 8000 series fall short on performance, like there may be no 8800xt and it caps out at 8700xt (with 7800xt performance) like 5000 series. But that's not end of the world assuming the 7900xt doesn't have a sudden price hike.

I'd much rather spend 550 than 650, but sure as heck won't be spending 700+ so if I wait and prices go up then next gen just gonna be a write off for me
 
Last edited:
StarShock said:
I keep seeing 7900xt for around the £600 -650 level and I am tempted, 7900xt is just about exactly the performance I'm after for my next upgrade and I hope the 8800xt can match it for less money.

What do we think? Wait or pull the trigger? I can definitely see the 8000 series fall short on performance, like there may be no 8800xt and it caps put at 8700xt (with 7800xt performance) like 5000 series. But that's not end of the world assuming the 7900xt doesn't have a sudden price hike.

I'd much rather spend 550 than 650, but sure as heck won't be spending 700+ so if I wait and prices go up then next gen just gonna be a write off for me
Click to expand...
How certain are we there will be a 8800xt?
 
StarShock said:
I'm not certain at all. This is part of the problem.

If not I can get a 7900xt as and when we do know what's happening. But I will be upset if the 7900xt costs more in 2 months than it does now :(
Click to expand...
If you are in need of an upgrade I would pull the trigger now 638 for a pulse 20GB vram job done.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom