1080p is still the norm for many gamers, 720p is still the norm for most mainstream pc users... enthusiast grade parts are very specific to tech savvy communities, adoption of 4k is slow due to current expense of it, and there is not a lot of justification to suggest that 4k of eye candy gives you a better overall experience from 1080 even if tech-elitists might disagree with me truth is most games will have a minimum requirement even current triple AAA titles because they want all gamers to be able to enjoy them. Due to this any modern card you purchase will likely cover your gaming needs adequately.
Prior generations of cards are still very abundant in the market place and will stay relevant for at least another 2 years for most games produced.
1 Like
It's not so much the monitors as it is the GPUs itself that's making 1080p the defacto for the majority. 4k adoption is slow because GPUs aren't quite there yet with perfect 60fps at Max Settings, like it is with 1080p.
So? I am still doing 1440p High on Witcher 3. I can turn a few lower. I just do 4K for less demanding titles, don't see why not get a 4K display if you can get it cheap (Mine's was $480) I think 4K gaming on single GPU's is closer than you think, look at the GTX 1070 and 1080. For less demanding games (Even GTA V at High IF I liek 30 FPS, I don't tho), my R9 390 already is there.
Sometimes if you want it, you need to shave a few corners to get it.
Good for you? I'm just stating current standards and why 4k adoption is slow. The majority of the market share is in the Budget market (Rx460 & Rx470) which is where 1080p sits. If the current GPUs in the Budget market can't do 4k Max Settings @60fps, then 4k adoptation will be slow. That's all I'm saying. The minority of the market isn't in the equation, the enthusiast will always be early adopters no matter what.
1 Like
There is the global market also India china and the emerging third world. A youtube search for 7850k comes up with allot of different languages.
1 Like
9600gt... Throwback to high school.
True, and because of import tax and dollar exhanges (I'm not sure if I'm using the right economic terms here) even the Budget GPUs can be expensive in some countries.
I would compare the rx 460(2.2Tflops) to the PS4(1.84Tflops). Slightly more powerful but without console optimization so roughly the same quality of graphics.
We all know how well the PS4 handles 1080p so with some wise settings choices many games will run ok. Particularly anything to be released this year and next. Just depends on how soon Microsoft and Sony move to their next generation.
I suspect Polaris 11 is a close cousin to the gpu in the Xbox One Slim and any upcoming PS4 update(not Neo).
Just as i suspect the RX 470(4.9Tflops) is a relative of the gpu going into the PSNeo(4.19Tflops).
This card is to get folks to crossover from consoles. Cheap, should work in any old desktop and provides a similar minimum experience as consoles.
Although sometimes much better with things like Doom or DOTA 2 when run in Vulcan.
Honestly I believe it is the most powerful $100 gpu ever produced. You just can't compare it to gpus that cost 50% more. It's not made for that.
1 Like
What's this console optimization you speak of when an Intel Core i3/750 Ti beats a PS4, which has an 8-Core Potato CPU/HD 7850/7870?
Not to sound elitist, cause idc anymore at this point. PS NEO is coming out anyways. PS NEO might feature an underclocked 470, this will be great for low power consumption, that system's TDP is gonna be insanely low. The PS4 was already only 275W (My graphics card alone is that and it won't perform much better than the PS NEO). In fact, why underclock it though if you can get better performance? Form factor?
Console optimization: generally refers to lower level access to hardware(DX12 and vulkan excepted of course)and less background OS sharing system memory.
If you put Windows on an Xbox or PS4 and ran the same game as you could on the original console OS; the game console's OS would run the game better.
Obviously nearly every PC will have higher potential but only because of superior hardware.
Console's have the advantage of specific develoment targets.
Considering that the consoles have what essentially amounts to an octa-core Athlon 5150 (which is less than a third as powerful as an i3-4130), I'm going to predict the performance differences a bit more liberally than that.
You can have all the TFLOPS numbers you like. Doesn't mean a thing if the other hardware in the machine has performance levels from 2005.
2 Likes
I guess with console optimizations, that's somewhat negated, especially with more parallel computing, but yeah, those CPUs are so ridiculously underpowered, and the PS NEO is going to have that same shitty CPU with a higher GPU and have the same bottlenecks.
2 Likes
That is true, Nintendo performed amazing optimizations with the Wii in order to make something as insane as Super Mario Galaxy run on a PowerPC from the 90s, but code optimizations can only take you so far. At some point you hit a wall, and the consoles have hit it. I suppose you can code for more cores, but the octa-core Jaguar APUs don't use all the cores just for gaming. They need half of them IIRC to maintain the underlying system processes.
2 Likes
Without a doubt. You are taking about CPU performance which does contribute.
I was only comparing gpu to gpu.
I really hope no one believes I'm saying consoles perform better. Just that they have the benefit of developer's targeted attention.
PC development is hampered by compatiblity, same as its always been.
2 Likes
Depends on the developers too though, but sometimes, this is true, and still is, some devs favor consoles over PC, that's problematic considering there is a significant amount of gamers on PC these days, I can't think of a compelling reason to get a console from Sony and Microsoft, I see a bit more value in SOME of Nintendo's ideas for consoles for this reason (not all, and some of them sometimes back fires or has poor implementation, look at Wii U for reference). I rather Nintendo make a tablet console with Tegra X1 than have a rehashed PS4 or rehashed XBox One that uses hardware I can easily get on a computer and can upgrade or get a better computer in the first place. I can buy a PS NEO or a GTX 1070 to replace my R9 390, which is already as powerful if not more so.
As we saw with Pokemon Go, Nintendo's value, their worth, is in their IP. It is not in their hardware. In fact, I would be totally comfortable saying that their hardware has been their greatest downfall in the past decade. No-one cares about their hardware - their consoles only hinder the amount of people playing their games because they've historically made them proprietary to devices that not many people want, have or need. Consoles were all very well and good back in the early 80s, 90s and early 2000s when PC hardware wasn't up to snuff, but now my laptop is better at emulating Nintendo's games at 1080p with gobs of AA and AF than Nintendo's console is at running them natively at 576p with no AA or AF goodness. Nintendo would just be better off ditching their hardware and coding their games for mobile and PC.
1 Like
I have been living with single slot cards for years, and I'd like to experience the dual slot card experience, lol.
If I said this to my waifu she would slap me ^_^;
'dear I've been using single slot for years I would like to try dual slot tonight'
waifu: 'Oh NO YOU DIDNT, YOU DID NOT JUST SAY THAT MHMM IMA GONNA BEAT YO ASS and NOT PUT OUT FOR MONTHS'
1 Like
Yeah, would have liked it more if Nintendo had coded for Mobile/PC, but I don't think that's happening soon.
As far as their IPs go, they pretty much dropped the ball on Wii U. There are very few Wii U games that are compelling games really, and even then, I would never put ANY of them in any Game of the Year award although the new Zelda game could be a 2017 candidate for that if it turns out well. I just hope their content is higher quality for the NX, although I don't expect every game to be as awesome as the new Zelda game appears to be.