Printable View
True, but I'm sure those will stop being good batches for oc'ing soon enough just like Catleaps did before them. I have an X-Star DP2710 (which is the same thing as the Qnix) that goes to 120hz nicely, just dims a little towards the top-right due to PLS tech.Quote:
Originally Posted by BababooeyHTJ
If Maxwell has no competitive options, you won't see that price for it either.Quote:
Originally Posted by Chickenfeed
NVIDIA may well have become the "Intel of GPUs" with this generation. With people buying all the 690s and Titans they can make for months on end for $1000. in 2012 and 2013, AMD only able to put out a chip the eclipsed the 580 by 20% (until they OCd it), then AMD leaving that 20% GPU their flagship for two whole years, I think NVIDIA has turned the corner.
From here on out we may have a $1000 "Extreme Edition" NVIDIA card, and then $400-$700 cards for the masses.
It's gotten so bad I actually saw "Gee do you think AMD will have a new driver to counter the 700 launch?" on another forum. Think about that: AMD fans are reduced to hoping they'll get a driver refresh with significant performance increases one and a half years after the card hit the market.
http://images.tweaktown.com/news/3/0..._on_may_23.jpg
Quote:
The GeForce GTX 780 reference card will use the same cooler that is featured on the GTX Titan, and should keep noise levels down to around 40-45 dBA. This means the reference GTX 780 will be much quieter than the GTX 680. We should expect the GeForce GTX 780 to be around 25% to 50% faster than the Radeon HD 7970 GHz Edition, except for Tomb Raider, where the AMD will excel against most GeForce GPU's.
http://www.tweaktown.com/news/30453/...-23/index.html
"Widespread" and "Quality" does no equate a grey market Korean panel that doesn't have a native refresh rate of 120Hz. All they are doing is overdriving a lower refresh rate panel.Quote:
Originally Posted by BababooeyHTJ
AMD is releasing Hawaii this year. They will no doubt also beat Nvidia to a process shrink.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rollo
You'll probably never see a 2560x1440 display rated for a 120hz input. I don't even think that the next hdmi standard will accept that.Quote:
Originally Posted by SKYMTL
I'm not sure what your point is. Those displays are wildly popular among the target market for these $500 or so video cards.
I'm not sure what you point is here either. I do remember you saying that anything more than 40fps isn't noticeable though. :rofl:Quote:
All they are doing is overdriving a lower refresh rate panel.
If it's a constant 40fps vs constant 120fps, there is no difference :DQuote:
Originally Posted by BababooeyHTJ
Exactly what I've ordered.Quote:
Originally Posted by BababooeyHTJ
-PB
Quote:
Originally Posted by schoolslave
There's a huge difference, and these do not skip frames (they do true 120hz and have been reviewed/tested by end users and one major monitor review site). It's a beautiful thing in motion. It's just overclocking, same as taking a base reference card that's capable of Superclock speeds from eVGA and overclocking it to Superclock speeds. Same deal here. They are not "overdriven" regular panels, that is an entirely different technical term that many manufacturers use to help reduce ghosting on their native 120hz panels. Also, the manufacturer has NOT marketed these ever as 120hz, implied or otherwise. People realized they were highly overclockable and bought them to do it.Quote:
Originally Posted by SKYMTL
They also aren't grey market as I see people referring to them as, they are manufactured products by real companies that sell them to vendors, who then re-sell them as any other store would, to people anywhere in the world with international shipping (with no implied or any form of restriction ever mentioned, implied, or intended, by the manufacturer). Just as someone else would buy something from newegg.ca who's in Canada and wants something from the US newegg. No, they aren't from amazon, but they're in no way tainted by anything... you can call cdkeys designed to be sold in a low income market then being sold digitally to Americans grey, sure, but this? They're nothing of the sort. Unless you think a piece of clothing sold by Macy's that was manufactured in China is somehow grey market too.
No, just no.Quote:
Originally Posted by schoolslave
I was so hoping for a 770GTX with 4GB ram and a 780GTX with 5GB ram.
GPUs are quite a bit more expensive than CPUs. :(Quote:
Originally Posted by Rollo
4GB 770 = 4GB 680, just buy the latter. What's the problem?Quote:
Originally Posted by clo007
I've tested this with Skyrim and Cod MW3 at a LAN with two monitors side by side, there is no difference, at least not to me and about 10-15 of my friends who were there.Quote:
Originally Posted by STEvil
I can only conclude that people read way too much into this whole FPS thing, end up spending tons of money for no improvement, and then need to justify their purchase.
To what end?Quote:
Originally Posted by clo007
As you currently have one 670 2GB odds are good you're not doing surround. 3GB should be plenty for any single panel. Even 2GB is good enough 95% of the time for 25X16.
What's your resolution you want all the VRAM for?
I'm skeptical we'll see any performance chips on 20nm this year. Mobile and OEM, sure, but if we see 8970 I'll be pretty surprised.Quote:
Originally Posted by BababooeyHTJ
Humorous fantasy or your test was flawed, because it has been scientifically proven people can see in excess of 200fps and to most everyone, 40 vs 60 is obvious, let alone 40 vs 120. To me, anything beneath 50 instantly is obviously chopper, and 85 or higher looks better and better.Quote:
Originally Posted by schoolslave
Two identical monitors, or one LCD/LED and one CRT? Also were they both 60hz inputs or 60hz and 120hz? 40fps vs 120fps (constant) isnt as bad as say 30fps vs 60fps but its still a noticeable difference to many people. Maybe not you or due to something you had configured, but to say 40fps and 120fps are just as good as each other just isnt true. 40fps is quite acceptable in some cases but if 40fps was always acceptable then why would we bother allowing more than 40fps?Quote:
Originally Posted by schoolslave
Here's a few items that can help on your adventure
3dfx 60/30/15 demo http://www.falconfly.de/artwork.htm (you will need a glide wrapper)
15/30/60 demo using flash http://boallen.com/fps-compare.html
Someone should make a flash demo that you can enter your own custom FPS rates into and stretch to whatever size you want.. :) Maybe add a "stutter" option that allows you to insert short or long frames or double/triple frames periodically.
Let me clarify. I work at an architecture firm. i do renders at home. The more vram, the safer I am with high-poly models. I can't justify spending $999 on a Titan. I was hoping for a 780 with 5gB vram b/c the 780 is spec'd with more CUDA cores than the 680GTX as well.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rollo
Oh, I need to update my sig. I sold my 670 FTW and currently only have my GTX580 3GB. And I use to play BF3 fine on surround on medium settings.
Hmm, not sure if I should keep my 2 x 4GB GTX 680 FTW+ cards or upgrade to the GTX 780. Do you guys think the drop to 3GB Vram will make a difference in 2D surround? I wouldn't really like losing 1GB of Vram.
I'm thinking that I will stick with the GTX 680s.
I can't imagine why you'd want to "upgrade" to a rebranded version of the same card, unless you think two slightly better heatsinks are worth dropping $1,000 for.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ice009
I may be way off from reality here, but I think that it also had to do with "smoothness". With 120Hz, you are effectively doubling the range of possible FPS values. Unfortunately, and I think this is what happened (GPU was a 460 I think), if your hardware is weaker, then wouldn't there theoretically be more "jumps", from say 120 FPS in less intensive scenes to like 80 70 40 in more intensive scenes? With 60 Hz, the inconsistencies are more limited in range, and to me a jump from a max FPS of 60 to 45 is more bearable than from 120 to 45.Quote:
Originally Posted by STEvil
Huh? The 780 isn't going to be $1000, and it's not a rebrand of the 680, it's basically a slightly cut-down Titan.Quote:
Originally Posted by xMrBunglex
The VRAM loss would be meaningless.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ice009
There is alot of misinformation floating about. The human eye does not see in frames per second, we do not have shutters in our eyes that open and close and let light in. A single frame is a still image. As frames are flashed faster and faster our brains begin to process this information and somewhat perceive it as fluid motion. In "real" life the eye tracks smooth movement and transmits that information to the brain. Part of the brain will group parts of information together, or omit information as necessary for the situation. Take for instance while you are driving and are calm and at rest, your brain will omit unnecessary data which is why you may not notice something dart into your path at first, once the brain is "startled" it will begin to processor visual information much more rapidly and omit quite a bit less which produces the "slow motion" feel people encounter while under duress.
That being said, in the past they standardized 24fps as the standard because at that setting while the body is at rest and relaxed that is the acceptable minimum amount of frames the brain can process into "fluid motion" or what we would perceive it as. During gaming, or highly stressful movies our brains begin to process more and more information more quickly and it is now widely accepted that fps much higher than 24fps will yield a more desirable outcome.
The argument then becomes, not what is the maximum fps the eye can see, but what fps will yield the more disirable experience for the situation. Now everyone's brain reacts differently to a given situation, while some remain very calm during gaming 60fps may be enough and anything higher may be unnoticeable, for some people who become excited quicker 80-120 fps may become noticeably smoother and yield a more disirable experience.
Yep, as you said, our eyes are not digital... we don't "see" once every X number of milliseconds. We see continuously and a lot of things go into how our eyes receive and then relay the info to our brains. The reason I was bringing up the "people have been tested to be able to see higher than X fps" was just to give a quick rebuttal to the whole "people only see 30/40/whatever fps" remark. In reality it does indeed depend on the person, their situation/mood/etc., how good their eyes are, and of course the equipment being used by them. I don't know offhand of any testing that's been done to show "most people notice a big difference with X vs. Y refresh rate & fps" but, to say that the eye can't tell/notice/detect it is completely wrong. Anecdotally I see most people who do try high-end hardware and high refresh-rate setups say they really enjoy the smoothness and can tell, though occasionally you see someone saying they didn't really notice anything.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ace123