Quote Originally Posted by tajoh111 View Post
Yeah that true. But then again, at least against the competition, the 290x, the results should still be pretty similar because the 290x gets a similar boost from short bench sessions.



It needs more ROP than memory with 4k because of the number of pixels on the screen.

What AMD did by giving every reviewer that mattered a 4k monitor is genius. Its a trojan horse. Of course reviewers are going to accept a free 4k monitor if all they have to do is test at 4k. But ultimately, the results are irrelevant as the monitors are too expensive for the next few years and it serves to make AMD cards look dominant by pushing a bottleneck in Nvidia cards. I haven't seen a single gamer put into their signature owning a 4k monitor yet from the reviews, its seems like just a common a resolution as 2560*1440. Heck i think I have seen a review that tested at 1080p and 4k but miss 2560. I don't think 4k will become mainstream for at least 4 years, 3500 for a 4k monitors is much too steep and costs more than 99 percent of the computers, even on a hardware website.
Wonder why you are concerned with mainstream, when this are enthusiast cards. You also forget the same thing applies for multi monitor setups. It doesn't matter if you have one monitor with 3840?2160 or 2 1440p displays they are all in the range of 8 megapixel. Also already at 4 mega pixel most reviews show a lead of the 290x vs the titan and thats only one 1440p display which are quite affordable today.