Titan X Capable of 4K 60 FPS

>falling for the 4k meme

it's amazing that just a year or two ago most of /g/ was insisting that 4k wouldn't ever take off. they were honest to god pushing 21:9 like that wouldn't be an expensive fedora tier joke after a few months.

>>55893365
I almost fell for 21:9. God bless my half dead brain cells for talking me out of it.

>>55893322
at least post tw3 where it has 59.4 fps.

and in 6 months 1080ti for 700 will do 72 fps at 4k in dx11
when it will become irrelevant

>>55893416
Goddamn can't wait for tax returns next February
I'm upgrading my 1070 to a 1080ti and finally buying a 4k monitormeme

>>55893365
>>55893399
1440 Ultra wide is still better than 4k and I own a 4k monitor.

16:9 will probably stay the most common aspect ratio however.

>>55893322
Fucking YES. This is what I have been JUST WAITing for.
Single card.
4k.
60fps.
Just need to wait a bit for 1080Ti to come out and I can upgrade both display and GPU and bask in the glory.

>picking 4k 60fps over 1440p 165hz

>>55893543
Human eyes can't see above 60Hz reliably.

>>55893322
Sure it will, for checking my twitter and instagram.... you sound so fucking dumb

>ignoring the massive dip below 60
>FC4 isn't even the most demanding game
We have a generation or two to go.

>>55893549
but humans can feel 40ms shave off from input lag delay

>>55893565
>We have a generation or two to go
nah, Pretty sure if you SLI that qt you will get 4K 60pfs on anything.

>>55893440
i've seen a lot of idiots go for huge 4k monitors. the correct 4k resolution for desktops (ie not TVs) is whatever size you currently associate with a 1920x1080 monitor (typically 24"). you let your OS handle scaling - all of your assets look the same size as if they were on a 1920x1080 screen, but all of them are sharper, text is sharper, etc... with negligible penalty when things have to be scaled up.

did you go with the 40" mistake or get ~24" monitors?

>>55893706
>sli'ing titans
no
>sli at all
no

single GPU are the only decent option.

>>55893723
I've seen both first hand and I can tell you you're wrong. DPI scaling support is too for it to be worth it on small monitors and the differences aren't worth the price increase when it is anyway.

I'm in the middle ground with 31", only bought because I need it for work. I use it with zero scaling and it works fine. 40" is on the large size for a monitor but I imagine that helps for people that feel like they need scaling with smaller sizes.

>>55893549
MIT has found that the human brain can interpret an image in ~13 milliseconds, which is a little better than 60 refreshes per second (but not by much).

this isn't that impressive, though, because apparently the military did a study with fighter pilots and found that they could give a rough description of something they'd seen for only 1/220th of a second. this isn't the case for everyone, however, so the question is about how many people will benefit from it. the answer is probably some dwindling percentage as you get better and better.

but this is the case with pixel density and color range and everything else. we're really not concerning ourselves with colorblind people or with people who are myopic. we keep advancing.

if you just shined a flash of light, or were only concerned with someone identifying that there had (briefly) been a change, you could get down to 1 millisecond or probably shorter and people could probably identify that "something" had changed. whether they could spot it is unclear, but my hunch is that if you're obsessed with frame rates you're probably only concerned with playing counter strike or whatever better.

It's not 4k 100+ FPS I'm interested in.

>>55893774
>DPI scaling support is too __???__ for it to be worth it on small monitors
smartphones, tablets, and now laptops all have DPI scaling. apple calls it "retina display". nobody would call scaling a waste of resources on these displays - it's uncontroversially better than the "non-retina" version in all cases.

>>55893723
Oh fuck off. 23" 4k is a complete fucking waste. You're literally dumb and I can see that first hand.
Second of all there are no 40" 4k monitors you lying sack of shit.
Thirdly 31-32" is the sweet spot for 4k.
You're wrong and I'm right. Deal with it.

4K @ 60 just puts us back in vsync land. Gamers don't want that. Wake me up when 144Hz 4K is common.

>>55893805
It too poor.

The difference with those devices is that they effectively have a much smaller PPD due to the size and typical use case which makes the lack of scaling support on many programs not nearly as noticeable. Also with smartphones and tablets you don't have that issue since pretty much everything is built with high PPI in mind, also much easier to make a logo work for a tiny 1440p display than a large one that's 4k.

File: amd.png (42KB, 653x726px) Image search: [Google]

42KB, 653x726px

AMDfags on suicide watch

So 3 years until 4k 144Hz.
I'd be happy with 100Hz or 120Hz, but going back to 60FPS is a no go.

>>55894001
AMD fags not caring because it's too expensive of no real benefit to gamers who prefer lag free, stutter free and tearing free gaming. 4K @ 60Hz may look pretty but not very playable IMHO. For 4K desktop it's not required to have a Titan X.

>>55893984
DisplayPort 1.4 is the latest iteration of DP, and even that only goes up to 120Hz at 4k resolutions. I genuinely hope we leapfrog 1.4 (I'm on 1.2 and i see some adoption for 1.3, so if we can get cracking on 1.5 then maybe we can convince people to just skip 1.4) because 1.5 (which nobody's even discussing) will be the soonest that we can do 144Hz on 4k displays (or do better).

the alternative is to do the awful shit we were talking about doing with 4k monitors and go MST. but please god no. we got a taste of that and it's a truly awful setup. the only way that could be okay is if it's relegated to gamers who insist that their lives are much better this way, and i honestly think we just need to solve this problem to deal with 8k at 60Hz or 120Hz or whatever.

>>55894001
Maybe if the 1080Ti releases for half the price.

>>55893322
reminder japan is already pushing 8k on tv

Any 240Hz monitors exist?

>>55894042
Realistically 8K is really not worth it on anything sub 100" anyhow. 8K will probably remain the realm of pro stuff for some time. I think 4K is as much as the consumer world can stand right now and people are unwilling to go past that for miniscule/unnoticeable gains. After 4K, OLED/QLED and HDR I am interested to know how TV manufacturers are going to hype up their tech.

File: 1317464374053.jpg (41KB, 472x472px) Image search: [Google]

41KB, 472x472px

>>55893322
Will it be capable of 144 hz 1440p though, I'm more interested in that

>>55894056
Japan is retarded for most stuff like that. The rest of the world won't see the need until it becomes so cheap that you may as well have it even if you can't tell the difference between 4H and 8K.

>>55893322
hmm
the newest semiconsumer gpu is capable of the next logical step in terms of features
Makes you think eh? Almost as if companies are gradually making progress instead of just giving out the alien space tech to the public already.

>>55894097
Yes.

File: 1.jpg (26KB, 640x129px) Image search: [Google]

26KB, 640x129px

>102% faster than the fury x in 4k

Holy crap

>>55893992
>Also with smartphones and tablets you don't have that issue since pretty much everything is built with high PPI in mind
... are you seriously not remembering the introduction of "retina" iphones? or how much of a mess it made developing for android when they scrambled to catch up?

find someone whose experience you respect and ask them what developing in ~2010-2012 was like on mobile devices. even on iOS it was a bit of a mess, and they offered the cleanest upgrade path (with very little to no turns to take - "everyone's going to be using 2x assets, so either bundle them or fuck off" was more or less apple's position to ios devs).

apple did a similar thing with os x in 2012. the 4 years of basically coercing developers into supporting higher density displays - namely, targeting a 2x scaling factor - has paid off though.

there's this notion that display scaling is some awful wasteland, but that's only the case with windows and linux distributions.

>>55894134
What about other games?

>>55893322

And this is the reference card.

The original titan x was clocked at 1ghz, mine is at 1.5ghz

This card is clocked at 1.5ghz, I want to see GPU clocks at 2ghz

File: Acer XR341CK.png (1MB, 1200x1200px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1200x1200px

>>55893399
I have pic related and it's nearly 4K with 1440p text scaling. It's literally perfect.

No regrets.

>>55894093
8k is reasonable for a monitor in the 30-35" range, which is starting to leave the atmosphere of reason, but as we start thinking about displays embedded in walls and other surfaces, we'll have more and more space to work with, so we should try and avoid finding out that we need special cables just to handle something an iota outside of the typical use case we enjoy.

again, this is all on the premise that we're talking about scaling everything by an integer value or not at all (e.g. 2x or 3x or stay with 1x). and this is almost certainly the right thing to do. anything necessarily involving interpolation is a mistake right now; going from a line of 2 pixels to a line of 3 pixels means figuring out what color to make the middle pixel, which adds computational overhead across the board.

File: 1.jpg (27KB, 640x130px) Image search: [Google]

27KB, 640x130px

>>55894193

>>55894211

No such thing as nearly 4k, just do whatever you want and be happy, don't distort facts though

To be fair, 4k desktop applications require much more cursor coverage

>>55894164
Oh sure I remember. It only proves my point even further. I'm just saying it isn't the case now for phones and tablets. I'm saying desktop OS is far behind and it isn't perfect on OS X either. Paying a premium on small 4k displays isn't worth the cost premium in the first place as it is now. Makes it even less so when you encounter shitty dpi scaling.

Oh and if we bring it into the context of this thread which is games then you have even less of a point.

>>55893430
This is why you're always going to be poor.

>tfw using a based HD7970 and still raping consoles at 1080p
God it feels good being a non enthusiast, saves money too.

File: 4k vs wide.png (47KB, 3840x2160px) Image search: [Google]

47KB, 3840x2160px

>>55894211
I wouldn't describe this as "nearly" 4k. i would describe it as closer to 4k than 1080p, but that's like saying you're more related to a dog than a crab.

>>55894238
can you name any actively maintained software in os x that doesn't handle scaling well?

i was actually writing this point in that earlier post but decided to scrap it, but while lots of software looked shitty in 2012 when the rMBP first came out, it's been 4 years and i can't think of or point to any active software that doesn't scale up to 2x correctly.

File: isthisretina.png (172KB, 1370x922px)

172KB, 1370x922px

>>55894217

55 inches is the new standard from 40

8k at 65 inches is more realistic than 35

You obviously haven't tried 4k at freaking 20 inches

I'm in 4k at 55, around 1.5m from my display, it's easy to become anal and nitpick around this stuff anyway

>>55894306
the question of whether "retina" displays are better or not is independent from the question of what the cheapest way to scale assets is (which is to do it at an integer value).

that may have tripped you up. i'm not saying that you absolutely need 4k in a 24" monitor and anything less will not be retina, but that if you fuck with the scaling ratios then you have to calculate interpolation, which adds non-trivial cost to driving a display.

>>55894219
So literally nothing can run TW3 on Ultra 4K @ 60

>>55894300
Last I checked Chrome was still having issues with HiDPI modes. After googling maybe they fixed it? Wasn't too long ago though. Like I said I don't bother with scaling so I don't actively check but you're talking to a minority since not many are just running OS X here. I just happen to dual boot for work. My point was it's an issue across all desktop OS. Most people are going to run Windows where it's an issue even with their own OS.

>>55894333

nice trips. sure, yet running native is always better

applications in 4k aren't always practical because clicks are less intuitive due to actual aiming needed even with a high quality mouse sensor. lower res could translate into higher productivity in a sense

>>55894378
I have enough trouble clicking on shit in 1080.

>>55894371
i haven't heard about chrome scaling issues in years. if you can point to this instance then i can make sense of it, but otherwise it sounds more like you've lost track of the time since you last saw it (which isn't surprising; sometimes i'm caught off guard by how little time has passed since cell carriers were raping us with charges for *receiving* text messages)

>>55894408
Can't find the instance posted elsewhere. Had it on my Yosemite install which I don't feel like booting into.

File: car-pedals.png (967KB, 722x654px) Image search: [Google]

967KB, 722x654px

>>55894378
also rendering everything as "native" is a bit of a contrivance. by that i mean that when you tell os x to scale so everything "looks like [____]" it renders at 2x of that value and then scales it down (or if you tell it to render optimally, applies it 1:1). you run into issues if you tell os x to render the 15" rMBP as though it's a 1080p screen, for example, inasmuch as the GPU is rendering 2x that (basically, 4k) and then scaling everything down to 2880x1800. that's how it deals with interpolation, and it may not be perfect, but it's conceptually simple.

more importantly, it keeps Fitt's Law in mind, which is fundamentally the thing we're worrying about here with scaling and everything (see >>55894394; trouble clicking on a button/other thing is a symptom of some designer fucking up and not keeping fitt's law in mind).

probably the best layperson's intro is https://blog.codinghorror.com/fitts-law-and-infinite-width/ but you can see the application in things like automobiles and whatnot as well (so not just software)

File: 1464172633918.jpg (180KB, 700x857px) Image search: [Google]

180KB, 700x857px

>>55893322

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nc6R1hwXhL8

>>55893875
Philips has been selling 4k 40 inch displays for a while now and so have the koreans.

>>55894544
so explain to retard the heck does it actually mean ?
also gcn has almost exact same method as nvidia

>>55893549
Maybe your peasant eyes.

>>55894362
That's a stock titan x, and it runs it at 59 hz.

OC'd it will definately run it at 60 hz maxed out.

4k 60 hz max on a single gpu is finaly here

File: gamergate.png (478KB, 1591x586px) Image search: [Google]

478KB, 1591x586px

Doesn't matter if you have 4K. Games will be designed with 1080p in mind. The UI scaling, the amount of detail in the environment, and the gameplay itself so that people with 1080p won't be disadvantaged.

4K just makes the game a little sharper. It won't be a necessity for a long time, unlike 1080p monitors were over 1024 x 768 monitors.

File: csgo4k.png (20KB, 617x254px) Image search: [Google]

20KB, 617x254px

>>55893322
>$1200 GPU
>To play indie games and your favorite games from 10 years ago all day
Reminder that even a shitty R9 380 can comfortably play CS:GO and DOTA at 4K.
GTX 980/R9 390 or better will run any game currently on the market at 4k if you are sensible with the settings.

File: 5230905+_6a0b2de0c3ea2ed660b3636291173e4a.jpg (74KB, 861x564px) Image search: [Google]

74KB, 861x564px

>>55895195

Two times as powerful as a Furry X. This is too good to be true.

>>55895342
More like 60% on average.

File: Battlestation.jpg (707KB, 1744x1292px) Image search: [Google]

707KB, 1744x1292px

>>55893875
I have a 40" 4K monitor and it's great. I'm not sure why that guy's so upset. Using a normal 24" monitor now just feels pathetic.

>>55894040
How is 60 fps not playable? Have we become that spoiled by 144Hz monitors?

>>55895379
Manchildren need something new to justify their purchase.
So 144Hz IPS monitors were created.

>>55894290
I am a snippy crab

>>55895401
Look at this salty faggot

>>55895359
>Using 40" monitor at that distance.
Why?

>>55895454
Who doesn't like neck cramps.

>>55895379
>>55895401
When you play competitive games that require split second reactions then yes you either play with vsync off and suffer tearing or get a 144Hz Freesync/G-Sync display. I know which one I would prefer.

>>55895475
Oh whatever. Those games are for dudebros.

>>55895460
>>55895454
it's called moving your eyes

>>55895496
Wow..

> How to kill your eyes. The gtard way

>>55895475
'''''competitive gaming''''''
People should be ashamed to even use these word in combination.

>>55895501
I'm sorry you have defective eyes

>>55895359
A 40" 4k monitor just gives you the same pixel density that your laptop (or your desktop monitor) from the past 10-15 years had. Nobody is suggesting using a 24" monitor with that pixel density.

Use a high pixel density 24" monitor on an operating system that isn't garbage at scaling. These days it seems like that's only OS X.

If you need an example, look at the rMBP or the 5k iMac. These are the same principle.

If someone has the blowback /g/ had when the rMBP came out and everyone here gave this same retarded shit about how you don't need higher density on a laptop, etc... it would probably have the same grumbling we're seeing on this thread.

File: EG Maker - c005 (mag) [NGS]_ya1410d_257.png (598KB, 848x1200px) Image search: [Google]

598KB, 848x1200px

>>55895475
>competitive games

This new titan certainly has the performance I desire for my next rebuild but I simply cannot justify Nvidia's outrageous tax on the titan line (especially given lel no DP, not that I have a need for it anyway). I will take whatever AMD comes up with (or possibly a 1080ti) simply for the added benefit of aftermarket cooling which is important to the overclocker in me.

Still, 4k 60fps looks doable if you don't demand 8xmsaa (at 4k 2xmsaa is pretty much all you need) and with a bit of overclocking I can see any card in this class lasting quite a while.

>>55895475
>competitive games
lol
>require
we're playing it fast and loose with requirements here, huh?

>>55895542
That's like saying a basketball game isn't competitive and your shoes don't matter at all.

Try playing it in slippers.

>>55893322
>A couple more years and 4K will finally be mainstream.

>tfw another 3 generation for cheap 4k capable gpu

>>55893543
>Picking hardware for video games

>>55896097
there are a few words between "require" and "don't matter at all" that convey some nuance. like "benefits from".

"require" conveys a sense of requirement, like you can't play your super epic important competitive games unless you have this.

>>55894097
a 1080 is capable so why bother with the titan? its a designers card not for gaming

>>55893365
Define taking off.

5k is already out, and people are already encoding in 8k. It's like calling 1440p mainstream, when 90% of the population is still playing at 720/1080p.

File: 1373402192822.jpg (396KB, 1000x710px)

396KB, 1000x710px

lads I can't buy a titan x, so I'm gonna wait until vega comes out
but until then I still need a card
should I get:
fury x for 420€
or an RX 480 for 300€
or 1080 for 700€
??????
mainly gonna use it for opencl and 3ds max modeling

>>55896151
8k is already out

>>>/v/

When people upgraded to 1920x1080 there wasn't a single GPU on the market that could max out every game at that resolution. There also was no 60fps meme and review sites were still using medium or high settings for benchmarks instead of following GPU manufacturer guidelines to only benchmark at ultra settings.

>>55896120
what is a hyperbole

>>55896249
back when 1080p was new most /g/ posters today were infants

>>55896263
you'll learn the value of measured arguments as you grow up, but let it suffice to say that you'll bumble around less in conversations if you choose your words carefully, especially when the hyperbole you choose could reasonably be interpreted as a literal argument.

there are things that are required to play video games. if you don't want us to think that you're advocating that 144Hz monitors are among them, then don't argue that they are.

>>55894001

Fury X beating 1070, what's to suicide for? 4gb HBM pissing on 7.5gb ddr5

File: FGM2.jpg (46KB, 300x419px) Image search: [Google]

46KB, 300x419px

>>55896484
Fury X can't beat 980Ti let alone 1070 but nice meme you've got there. Go ahead and post that single Doom benchmark that you haven't even played cuz you're too poor to purchase Denuvo games.

>>55893333

>falling for the 1080p meme
>falling for the 720p meme
>not running a resolution of 800 x 600

File: Lays.jpg (93KB, 960x960px) Image search: [Google]

93KB, 960x960px

>>55895475
Holy fuck I want to tear apart every "E-sports fan" faggot like you. All competitive games are responsible for infesting player bases with cringy teenagers that try waaay to fucking hard and think every game needs to have some sort of pvp rating/tournament to be good - god forbid they actually have fun or make some new friends. But the worst fucking thing is the fact that 99% of them are in fact bad but because every game has to be about winning and boosting your e-cock the Dunning-Kruger effect is in full motion.

>>55896547
glorious 800x600 master race

File: 1468921006593.png (268KB, 1924x1083px) Image search: [Google]

268KB, 1924x1083px

>>55896523

>>55896484
>7.5gb ddr5
forced memes are forced

>>55896636
980 ti overclocked performs on par with a stock 1080.

>>55896523
>let alone 1070
The 1070 is slower than a 980 Ti overclock vs overclock.

File: 98a834.jpg (204KB, 1320x760px) Image search: [Google]

204KB, 1320x760px

>>55896690

So sayeth you.

File: 1461462102625.png (247KB, 387x399px)

247KB, 387x399px

>>55893322
That's good news. At least this generation wasn't a total disappointment. It'd be fantastic if Nvidia had another fat card just in case Vega is better than expected.
I'm hopeful that fat Vega delivers, just shrinking Fiji to 14nm with HBM2 would be amazing.
Also, who wants to fall for the 1440p 120Hz+ IPS meme? I sure want to.

File: bst2.jpg (3MB, 3840x2160px)

3MB, 3840x2160px

>>55895359
I think you're sitting to near.

I can't wait for the 1080Ti and the new Mass Effect. 4K and 780Ti is hell.

File: 1468614524170.jpg (493KB, 2048x1708px) Image search: [Google]

493KB, 2048x1708px

>Nvidiots say you don't need more than 4GB (-0.5GB) of VRAM
>Nvidia release 6GB GTX 1060 and 12GB Titan X
>mfw

>>55896614
You are replying to a 51yo neckbeard that does not play those kind of games. But I still recognize the benefits of adaptive sync.

>>55897823

>Nvidiots say you don't need more than 2GB

FTFY.

Ah 680 owners, when will you learn?

>enabling AA
>at 4k

LOL

>>55898074
Early Keplerfags like myself got really fucked. I knew I should have waited for the 7950 to go back in stock. Fuck.

>>55894045
if a 1080Ti ever releases it'll be $899 based on Nvidia's recent price increase of every tier

I don't think there will be a 1080Ti though, they can't cut it down to 6GB.

1200USD graphic card still can't run Quantum Break acceptable at 2560x1440.

Unless some of the ultra settings wreck performance without adding anything at all.

File: 290x vs 780ti.jpg (736KB, 521x6071px)

736KB, 521x6071px

>>55898131

All kepler users have been left to rot.

File: TITAN-X-345-76.jpg (109KB, 614x374px) Image search: [Google]

109KB, 614x374px

>>55898165

File: IMG_8478.jpg (2MB, 3845x2564px)

2MB, 3845x2564px

>>55895359

just bought a 4k TV as monitor and couldn't go back. it's pretty amazing. just make sure you buy one capable of 4k60FPS, with PC mode, low input lag and 4:4:4 color. and my single RX480 runs my favourite games just fine too (ass effect and assetto cornetto). didn't even need to buy a 2d one right away like i expected.

>>55898178
>A card that isn't sold anymore has driver support dropped in favour of newer products that a company is making money from

Whoa, stop the presses.
>AMD loves you and supports their products longer!
No they don't they rehash the same cards and sell 3 year old cards as new. and they take fucking 2 years for decent drivers to turn up so you console yourself for being cucked for 2 years that your deprecated card is beating Nvidia's deprecated card.

File: 1430783296063.png (4MB, 3681x3677px) Image search: [Google]

4MB, 3681x3677px

>mfw I just ordered a Titan X

>>55896614
I don't have any problem with "e-sports" people. I recognize that the world doesn't look the same as it did in the 1950s and that means that there will be people who are honest to god paid real money to play League of Legends really well. It's like the blending of shitty art ("my 8 year old nephew could do that") and shitty sport ("okay but why does anyone care if those meatheads move the ball from here to there?"). Again, that being said, society is full of shit I don't appreciate, and I understand that.

My problem is that nobody on 4chan is doing that. Being an enthusiast is fine, but don't pretend you're more legitimate than you are. It's beyond obnoxious.

Guys, i'm about to start a [spoiler]gamedev[/spoiler] project that's slightly above hobbyist, indie projects we see everyday. Development should take around 1.5-2 years.

Do you think we should aim at 4k textures, will that be a viable option in 2 years time? How do you even develop games that should be optimized for GPUs that are being released in the future?

>>55899757
please respond

>>55899757

if you don't have good 4k support in 2 years, people will laugh at you

hell, i'd want perfect 4k textures if i were to release a game today. lots of people are already playing on 4K machines

>>55900341
counter-argument: nobody should really expect an indie game to push the limits of graphical fidelity (and honestly >>55899757 is being delusional if he thinks he's going to ship a game like that with anything less than AAA funding).

>>55900341
>lots of people are already playing on 4K machines

i think /g/ is twisting your mind, 90% of gaymen are poorfag children who play on their gtx760s

how much will change in the next 2 years i dont know

>>55899448

A gimping a year keeps the goyim in fear.

>>55900394
We already got the funding. 500k. That's why i said slightly above home projects. We are literally at the border of small project where people wouldn't mind seeing shitty graphics and game where graphics should matter

>>55899757
that's what artist and the man that going to crunch optimization should decide

if artist can draw clearer picture faster(most of them do) and it doesn't hurt performance why not?

also most modern games use 4k textures already, if i'm not wrong even outlast got it around that number

most important things to consider is timeline not how it will look

>>55895359
>>55898198
>Not using a Ergotron LX HD arm
Your necks must hurt from looking down so much, or you're not using the bottom half of the screen. It is a must have when using a TV as a monitor.

File: cam_080316_1.jpg (102KB, 704x712px)

102KB, 704x712px

who here /excitedfortitanx/

>>55893322
meh, i'll stick with my 770 and 1080p for a bit longer

>>55893322
>bought a 4K display on a sale on Christmas
>"now I just need to get a new gpu"
>set aside 650€
>wait for Pascal
>it's shit
>the only card that can do 4k at an acceptable frame rate will cost like 1500€ here
Fuck.
Welp, one more year of waiting, I suppose.

Is it capable of not giving you buyers remorse?
>nvidia
guess not.

Can we talk about DPI and viewing distance/angles instead of throwing around vague, arbitrary inch measurements that you personally think you feel comfortable with?
>>55894208
>muh clock speed
Not relevant when comparing GPUs with different architectures and IPC's, get fucked homo

>>55901310
>I confuse the terms PPI with DPI
>I'm too retarded to calculate PPI from resolution and screen size

I would honestly rather have all my games run at constant >144fps 1440p rather then going for 4k at barely 60fps .

The low response rate and general feel of "connection" makes high refresh rates a lot more important to me .
I can't speak for everyone though , some people don't seem to be sensitive towards refresh rates so higher resolution might make more sense to them .

I've used 1080p 180hz , 1440p 144hz and 4k 60hz monitors and would choose the 1440p one every time

>>55901456

*response time

>>55901456
what is good 1440p 144hz monitor?

>>55896704
>>55896636
>D O O M

File: 1467468324212.jpg (16KB, 200x200px) Image search: [Google]

16KB, 200x200px

I have an i5 3570k and gtx 760. Will upgrading to a 1060 cause bottlenecking issues if I do not upgrade my cpu aswell?

>that graph

Nope. The Titan X is too weak for ultra 4K locked 60fps. Perhaps the 1180 will be the first true 4K card because the 1080 Ti will offer slightly better Titan X performance.

>>55901456
Are ultrawide curved 1440p 144hz good doe?

>>55903080
If it exists

>>55903020

If you OC that beast to 4.5ghz or more, it won't

>>55903100
They do but they're over $1k at the moment.

>>55903020
It won't bottleneck the 1060. I'd overclock your CPU and RAM if you haven't.
>>55901456
144fps requires major CPU and GPU power in mainstream games, it isn't even possible yet, both CPU and GPU wise. I've got a 144Hz 1440p monitor and I just play AAA at 60Hz 1440p.

File: CoD BO 3 1080p.png (28KB, 500x610px) Image search: [Google]

28KB, 500x610px

>>55902958

Does BO3 count?

>>55901895
IPS:
Acer XB270HU/XB271HU
Asus PG279Q

TN:
Acer XG270HU
Asus PQ278Q
Dell S2716DG

>>55903155
No, only Tomb Raider, Witcher, GTAV and Far Cry are relevant games

File: Tomb raider 1440p patch 7 DX12.jpg (99KB, 614x374px) Image search: [Google]

99KB, 614x374px

>>55903185

You sure? Might have to take tomb raider off the list.

>>55903020
no

>>55903185
Nice try shill, why do Nvidiots always shy away from average (15+ games) scores and seem to obsessively seek Gamework games and games AMD does notably worse at?

>>55903204
>DX12

File: xBgSksM.jpg (18KB, 340x260px) Image search: [Google]

18KB, 340x260px

>>55903233

lol

>>55903243
I'm going to be called an nvidia shill but he has a point

Neither AMD or Nvidia or Microjew should have monopolies over the gaming api we use today it's fucking unfair.

>>55895359
I own the same monitor, these faggots are clueless, I could never go smaller, I too sit this close, it works perfectly with my peripheral vision.

File: 1409493237923.png (128KB, 1440x851px) Image search: [Google]

128KB, 1440x851px

>>55903710
it's like you people have learning disabilities.

4k @ 60fps 40" is superior to 1440p @ 144hz 27". Source: I own both.

File: dx12-support-645x366.jpg (58KB, 645x366px) Image search: [Google]

58KB, 645x366px

>>55903465

He doesn't have a point - DX12 bans nothing mentioned in that stupid picture. Async compute is only a benefit if you have idling hardware and there are compute workloads to be handled.

The main reason why Nvidia gets fucked so hard is the latency penalty context switch incurs on their hardware, if their design gave no fucks likes GCN does there would be no performance penalty for these workloads (might not see a performance gain, but eh). Pascal preemption is basically just that - a method of reducing the latency on context switching.

AMD doesn't own, dictate or control anything about DX12 nor Vulkan (especially not vulkan as Nvidia is a member of khronos). Hell I would bet if Nvidia did actually give fermi DX12 support it would see some impressive gains as it has a hardware scheduler.

tl;dr Nvidia gambled and lost (much like AMD did on the cpu side going down the moar coars route).

>>55903766
Why do people pretend that they can notice a difference in response times of single digit ms?

>>55903766
>I wish I had enough storage to keep 4k movies and TV shows
>I wish I had a computer which could play vidya at 4k

>>55903766
What you stupid cunt? Are you too poor to afford a decent monitor or run 4k at 60fps? Have you ever even tried it?

>>55903818
because muh "competitive" gaming

>>55903204
is this after the patch?

>>55903834
did you not see the image or are you just misreading? it was a response to the 40" people who evidently didn't learn from the discussion about retina displays when they first became popularized when the iPhone debuted it, or when the iPad followed up with it, or when the rMBP came out with it.

4K @ 60Hz is a given. the pixel density is the question here. how did you miss that?

>>55903944

After patch 7, as per the filename. Most of the time when TR benches are posted on /g/ they are release benchmarks which are nothing like how the game performs now.

>>55894109
actually, japan is the only country that legitimately could use 4/8k for tv, their living areas are so fucking cramped that they are close enough to the tv to get benefits. pro applications could also use 8k just for productivity.

>>55894208
um... not sure if you are aware, but pascal is literally just a die shrink of maxwell.

>>55895217
there is a point when you turn the setting down and you notice the game looks overall worse despite the higher resolution. most current games you are trading off image quality for resolution, witcher 3 is an interesting one as even at 4k some of the settings can be put to medium and you wont see a difference, see gras draw distance as a fairly major one.

>>55904115

Cite your proof.

>>55900821
good chance that the 490/fury can do it

Its likely going to be at least 2 times the on paper stats as a 480, and 2 480's already give a 1080 a run for its money and they sacrifice 15-20% of its performance to do that, not to mention amd usually does better then nvidia at scaling with resolution.

Something interesting to look forward to at least, seeing as nvidia went full jew with this gen.

>>55904200

No doubt it will be AdoredTV's vid of maxwell and pascal at identical clocks. It is a decent video to watch (to be fair maxwell and pascal are very, very close architecturally).

>1.2K GPU
>4K monitor
Nope, not going to be mainstream for a long time.

>>55893549
> Human eyes
Why the fuck do people always explicitly use this term? Why the fuck would you give a shit that's not human eyes?

>>55904459
Because there are others besides human? I myself consider myself a child of darkness borne of sin.

>>55904486

Cold Steel!?

>>55904459
because people have done research with birds and shit and found different results.

although "human eyes" is probably a mis-chosen word to mean "average people". there are people at the edge of the range that can see that something has changed in the span of a millisecond or thereabouts, and people (often fighter pilots) who can *identify* the thing (perhaps generally without much detail) if they've only seen it for ~1/200th of a second.

but the average person isn't an eagle-eyed fighter pilot.

File: image.jpg (172KB, 900x900px) Image search: [Google]

172KB, 900x900px

>980 SLI still showing up in benchmarks
Wew I'm still relevant after 2 years...

Never again.

Going by performance creep, think we'll see pascal titan X performance on $250 cards in about 3 years?

>>55904576
There's still a very blatant difference between playing a shooter at 60 and at 144fps that any average person can obviously notice though.

>>55904642
Haha no, you'll still be sucking 16/14nm cock 2019.
Make it 4 and a half years and It'll be true.

>>55898197
Man that game has the shittiest performance.

Currently RX 480's are being used by more gamers than GTX 1060's on Steam even with coin miners buying up RX 480's by the bucketload.

http://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey/directx/

>>55905926

b-b-but /g/ told me the 1060 made the 480 irrelevant, how can the 480 possibly be a more popular card!?

>>55905967
To be fair. The GTX 1060 was released a month or so later so it may even up a bit. It will be interesting to see how this pans out.

File: fac3e.png (176KB, 338x341px)

176KB, 338x341px

>>55893322
>you've been playing games for years at 720p with a gtx 480

feels good man

>>55896484
>650 usd Fury X beating a 440 usd GTX 1070
Good for them
>but Fury X costs 300usd here
Fuck off not everyone lives in burgerland

>>55893322
>No async
>No DX12
>No Vulkan
>No HBM2
nvidia will just brute force at anything these days

>>55896547
>not running 640x480@16bpp via GLide API

>>55896249
>when people upgraded to 1920x1080
That was a downgrade, son; we were (and still are) running 1920x1200

>>55896636
>b-but muh RX 480

>>55906030
Unless all the 1060 are defective 1070s, which explains why the stock is so low, I doubt it. 1060 will end up just as scarce and won't be replacing 970s anytime soon if they have to fab them from scratch and throw away defective ones, since it hasn't worked on the 1080/1070.

480s got confirmation of a large stock at release. 1060 on the other hand didn't receive anything like that even though it was originally a pascal problem.

>>55903803
>Nvidia gambled and lost
Apparently you are not paying attention.

>>55907258
>No HBM2
Anyone who uses this confirms themselves as ignoramuses; the Pascal Titan X has 50% more memory bandwidth than the previously best performing card on the market - what makes you think HBM2 is needed?

>>55907437
Tesla p100

Am I the only one who's thinking about volta and vega and how massive a boost in gpu performance they will bring compared to the new Titan X and this is just the small Titan.

>>55907450
you fucking retard

>>55907482
Volta is two years out and Vega has already been BTFO by nVidia months before its release. Even if Vega is amazing, nVidia pops out a 1080ti (only reason to do so) to replace the 1080 and AMD is still toast.

File: 1455866365751.png (110KB, 473x263px) Image search: [Google]

110KB, 473x263px

>>55898178
>TFW you bought a 780ti

I regret not getting a 290x every day.

>>55895507
sorry you have a defective brain

>>55893333

You sound like a salty poorfag. Go offline and be poor (save some pennies in electricity since you need it).

>>55898131
oh I just recently upgraded from 7950 to r9 nano. 7950 served me well for four years, last game I finished with it was fallout 4.

>>55907225
I paid $355/320e for my r9 nano brand new in EU.

Looks like I made a good investment when I made a gamble getting it before rx480/1070 announcements.

>>55893322
What's the 16:10 version of 4k?

When will upgrading from a 290 be worth it

>>55911132

At this rate roughly sometime 2018.

>>55893322
>A couple more years and 4K will finally be mainstream.
Depends on the GPU in the next console gen

>>55893365
I kinda want one

>>55893430
You're too poor, also wait for Volta if you're an Nvidiot

>>55893478
You'll be waiting til the next die shrink for anything worth buying, which for GPUs will be 7nm IMO

>>55911132
You could sidegrade and get something with a recent arch that isn't a 300W card, like the 480.

>>55911109
2400 height.

why are we assuming that games wont become more graphically intensive post GTAV/Witcher 3? These are like 1-2 year old games. We've been stuck in a long generation and new cards are finally out. the standards will be raised.

>>55911296
What's left? More 'realism' instead of good artstyle? Making games ever worse than they already are?

File: geforce_320.18_drivers.jpg (1MB, 1680x1050px)

1MB, 1680x1050px

>>55896167
>320.xxx drivers
The devil himself did this.

Thanks god for tech jesus to skip this. My 680 was going through this and survived. Sneaky gooks

>>55911455

>going on the internet and lying.

/g/ told me only AMD users have driver issues, so therefor you must be full of shit.

File: 400px-RicerBike.jpg (68KB, 400x600px) Image search: [Google]

68KB, 400x600px

>>55911494
You haven't been on /g/ for nearly enough to make that statement.

File: 1434483203048.jpg (464KB, 1000x666px)

464KB, 1000x666px

>>55911522

I'm also a firm believer in sarcasm.

>>55893322
>tfw I'm still playing in 720p

>>55907486
no u

Is anyone else like me and just comfy with 1080p? Everything is cheaper and looks great at higher settings.

Wasn't the RX470 supposed to come out today?
Not a single peep from hardware sites so far, kind of worrying this is a paper launch.

GTX 1080M beats a Titan X

http://www.tweaktown.com/news/52215/nvidia-rumored-launch-geforce-gtx-1080m-notebooks-computex/index.html

>>55911315
Photorealism is not quite there yet. We want big budget movie grade graphics which can push a movie making server farm to it's limits. But we want it realtime. Even on 1080p this requires massive computational power. We are a long way off the limits of what can be achieved regardless of resolution. You can always push the technology further.

I'll wait to see the Rx 490. I want to see how 2 polaris 10 dies on an interposer works

God, I hate gamers who think only the latest and "greatest" hardware can do "4K".

15 YEAR OLD PCs could do 4K.

>>55911825
I'd really want this to be true but it's sure as fuck not gonna be.
Die stacking complex logic is not gonna happen yet.

>>55907264
>Not running the perfect 320x240 resolution

>>55911825
Where the fuck is AMD's interconnect for that?

>>55911838

Outside of niche scenarios trying to actually play basically any 3d game on such old hardware would yield single digit fps.

>>55911455
You're still using your 680 as well? When do you plan on upgrading? I was considering waiting for Vega/1080 ti but Nvidia's prices on higher and cards this year are terrible and im worried AMD will follow suit a la 980 ti and Fury X.

>>55893322
1080p with HDR games and monitors will blow out vanilla 4K

>>55912094

>implying HDR monitors will ever exist due to it not working with *sync

Okay I do know HDR monitors exist, but they aren't aimed at gaming.

>>55898198
What TV?

>>55896614
>playing quake live and reflex fps
>booth competitive games, I am not competitive at all, playing ffa, tdm, tdma, and race mode 90% of the time
>144hz still gives me benefit of smoother movement and better reaction time, and just in general a smoother experience you blind fuck might not know about
get the fuck out

>>55893549
>this skinjob aint cyborged out the ass with ZEISS-NIKON OPTICAL BRAND BETTER THAN NEW cyber eyes.

>i bet he isnt even a real cyberpunk with robot eyes.

File: 1440281105529.gif (474KB, 500x383px)

474KB, 500x383px

>>55912059
>You're still using your 680 as well?
Yeah, bloody Kepler rotten by today's generation of drivers, but its still a great card, too bad that Nvidia focus on different architecture between every generation for every driver. Overmeme is not bad at high setting but it's lacking performance.
>When do you plan on upgrading?
When Volta arrives. But my first priority is my brothers machine just going to have Vega and Zen
>I was considering waiting for Vega/1080 ti but Nvidia's prices on higher and cards this year are terrible and im worried AMD will follow suit a la 980 ti and Fury X.
For myself, I usually do a 4-6 year overhaul on everything. But considering how shitty things (/g/ news and world scandals) are getting, I may hold it up for a bit.
Imo, I may recommend that RX480 or fury x as a placeholder till Vega shows any potential. If not then Volta, that architecture is going to be used on 2 super computers for the Department of energy soon ever since 2014 it started development. There not screwing around this time just like Kepler development for the Titan.

>>55893322
On another note, when will we get good calculation performance. Teslas are fucking expensive, in some paper where they tested gpu for scientific calculation, a 7970 beated a K20. Today you pay premium for double precision.

>>55893365
What is wrong with 21:9? I have one at 2560x1080, I want to upgrade to 3440x1440

>>55893322
if only they hadn't fucked the fp64 I might actually consider it

Honestly I'm still thinking of getting a 280x just so I can have some fp64, also because my main PC is a hackintosh.

>>55896123
*deep learning

>>55913818
I've been considering the Fury X or 1070 as a side thing for about a year and then upgrading to Volta or Nav
I have high hopes for both architectures

>>55911857
320x200@16colors(not bits) was the shit on C64

>>55903803
>nvidia gambled and lost
am i missing something? Nvidia new gen cards literally blow the fuck out amd new gen cards. Titax X, 1080, 1070, 1060 > 480.
Can you explain how nvidia lost?

>>55917979
>all these more expensive cards beat this budget card

however the 4gb 480 is cheper and perfect the 90% of the market still gaming at 1080p

most expect the current nvidia offerings to get dropped when they roll out HBM2 at the end of the year

>>55893322
>SMAA

For the last time, you don't fucking need anti aliasing at 4k, unless you are running a 100 inch screen. The pixel density is so high that there is no point in doing AA.

Turn that shit off and suddenly all the top cards are at 50-60fps.

>>55894056
Japan was doing 1080i HDTV in 1991.

>>55893333
Checked

>MOAR PIXLELLZ

good goyim

>>55918148

If I can't get 60fps while using 8xmsaa at 4k then a gpu is shit, SHIT. No I can't tell the difference between 2xmsaa and 8xmsaa but if I can't shitpost about it online then there is no point!

>>55918107
it's a budget card because it's relative performance to the competition forces it to be a budget part. Do you really think AMD would spend the money and time on the R&D of a new architecture only to purposely pump out $200-250 cards?

>>55893322
>Titan X
>Nvidia gives a new card exactly the same name as an old card

>>55919171
yeah, poor decision that

27" 1440p 290x Tri-X master race reporting.

>>55919171

It doesn't help titan cards are severely gimped by their pcb.

Really liking what I see. Might get a new hidpi monitor finally. Still wondering whether to go for 4k@24" or wait a year or two until we have cards that can drive a 5k@27".

>>55919171
>"new" card
dont be fucking stupid, it literally the exact same card
>b-b-b-b-but new pascal inferstructure!
they just moved shit around/took shit out for a cost.
they have an overstock of Titan Xs, changed placements of shit, overclocked and selling it back to the market
Should I remind /g/ of 3.5 VRAM

File: Salt-Shaker-1024x804.jpg (87KB, 1024x804px) Image search: [Google]

87KB, 1024x804px

>>55919832

>>55911315
Increased detail at longer distances, higher poly clutter and grass, more dynamic environments.


Are you seriously implying that flat, cardboard grass is the pinnacle of graphical fidelity? We have a long way to go.

>>55919171
They're reserving the true name in case Vega comes close to it and we get another 780Ti situation on our hands.

>>55920218
Actually the name is different. The original was nVidia GeForce Titan X, the new card is nVidia Titan X

>>55920729

That is just hilarious given the Titan x (as well as the pascal redux) are shit tier chibi quadros whereas the geforce (aka gaymen cards) were what the original gangster titan and titan black were branded under despite actually being a chibi quadro.

>>55893322
Barely and for 1200€ nvidia needs to get their shit together.

>>55921029
>barely
>only card that can do it
yeah, nvidia really needs to get there shit together

>>55893790

The difference between 60 - 144hz is literally night and day for me, not sure how this test was done but I can easily tell the difference between 60-75-120hz, but I see no real difference between 120 and 144. Guess it also depends on what game, for instance in dota only the scrolling feels faster when moving the camera across the minimap, but in cs go 60 fps just feels choppy and same goes for every other fps.

I don't care about 4K, I care about high refresh rates.
I'm going to get a 144hz monitor one of these days.

>>55921095
Not even stable 60 fps and a ridiculous price. Get cucked.

>>55921170
I bought three monitors mostly for work purporses but of course I made sure they were all the same so I could try out the surround/eyefinity gaming. It was a letdown for two reasons - performance was generally unacceptable as the games I wanted to use them for needed high frame rates and then there was the skewing/stretching of the graphics projected on the side monitors which I find wholly unacceptable. Both of these things are not an issue with the Pascal Titan X - the new SMP feature of Pascal will correct the projection skewing (if the application developers support it, fingers crossed) and running 3x1200p or even 3x1400p monitors at acceptably high framerates should no longer be an issue with this Pascal Titan X.

Currently have 3x1920x1200@60Hz monitors but just ordered a pg279q to try out (please, no lemon). If I decide the 144Hz+ is absolutely necessary for me, I'll buy two more.

t. middle aged gaymer with money to burn

>>55921321
consider me cucked, my friend. Try to be poor without being salty.

You babies are too young to remember when 30fps was the holy grail (as was being a LPB) and the hacks we researched and tried out to eek out another 1-2fps. "If I can't run it at 120fps+ it's shit" blows my mind.

Similarly, I laugh at detractors of VR that complain about screen door effect, viewing angles and how it doesn't look like your perfect 4k or 1440p monitor for a brand new technology (or that it costs more than your can afford). None of you have a clue - you're babies that consume without producing yourself and probably shit on your parents when they give you these great marvels.

>>55921482
not viewing angles, field of view

>>55915545
Nothing, it just hasn't lasted long. If you want a bigger monitor that's not as expensive as 4K, go with it.