AMD GPUs In 2016: HDR, FreeSync Over HDMI And New Standards

[Eggz]

Yeah, there'll be more options by the time you're ready to buy anyway. For what it's worth, though, I had the same concern about losing real estate and took a gamble - worth it. Even though it's technically less, it feels like an enhancement because of the way its laid out.

 

[LORD_ORION]

Or you could just use reshade... a post process injector app

I have zero faith in AMD doing anything right the first time.

 

[anbello262]

I would like to move up to 4k, but I also believe it's not completely ready. I think that 1440p is the sweet spot now.
BUT, I just WISH they would make a 24'' 1440p monitor... I'm all in for DPI rather than resolution. I think that at least 120dpi would be great, I've tried a 18.4'' 1080p monitor (anti reflex, NOT anti glare), and the image sharpness left me amazed...



(I know that 32'' 4k monitors have more DPI than that, but since that would take up a LOT of space, I think most people can't handle that for a desktop)

 

[alidan]

I am still gaming on 1080p which I found more than enough. 4K monitors are too expensive and not really ready for gamng yet but again why do I need 4K on screen where 1080p is just enough.

My college professor once said, if you feed a man a burger his entire life he will be perfectly happy, but if you give him fillet mignon he will never go back to regular burger meat.

for me 4k is about productivity, not AA, i dont use AA and im at 1920x1200, i gamed on ps1, i played 800x600 at 17 inch on a monitor, jaggies do not matter to me at 1080p, you only notice them when you stop to look or there is extreme contrast, its not worth the severe hardware cost to have a very expensive aa pass.

now, give me a 48 inch 4k and ill game at 1920x1200 in window and still have 3 more monitors worth of space to work with.

I am still gaming on 1080p which I found more than enough. 4K monitors are too expensive and not really ready for gamng yet but again why do I need 4K on screen where 1080p is just enough.

4k is not needed unless the actual textures are higher than 1080p density. Otherwise, all you'll get are scaled up textures with less aliasing. It'll look a little cleaner in that respect, but not "better" enough to kill your fps performance and spend big bucks on a monitor.

correct me if im wrong, but 4k is 4 1080p and 9 720p screen correct? there is a valid reason to get 4k if you have 720p content as that will have an exact pixel equivalent, making 720p look better at 4k than it does at 1080

 

[TbsToy]

MMMmmm. This is a refreshing change from Toms Place. Mr. Angelini seems to know his stuffs. All y'all hafta do is make MOAR money to go forward ya know. Good informative piece here.

Thank you,
Walt Prill

" fillet".

 

[Alec Mowat]

I am still gaming on 1080p which I found more than enough. 4K monitors are too expensive and not really ready for gamng yet but again why do I need 4K on screen where 1080p is just enough.

"1080p monitors are too expensive and not really ready for gamng yet but again why do I need 1080p on screen where 1024x768 is just enough"

- Someone else, 2005.

Because we raise the standards, so that reaching 4K is normal. We improve technology, we don't just maintain the statuesque. Eventually, there will only be 4K monitors on the shelf.

 

[hannibal]

Because we raise the standards, so that reaching 4K is normal. We improve technology, we don't just maintain the statuesque. Eventually, there will only be 4K monitors on the shelf.

So true! By that time 8k is the next, only "rich" are going to get them device.
And when you think, 30" 8K monitor still has less dpi than 1440p phones have at this moment, so there definitely is room for improvements!

 

[Biscuit42]

Did AMD Graphics just kill their sales until the new units are out?

I was looking at an R9 380, but realized I have now made the decision to wait until Greenfield, so they lost that sale. I suspect I'm not alone.

 

[TbsToy]

Did AMD Graphics just kill their sales until the new units are out?

I was looking at an R9 380, but realized I have now made the decision to wait until Greenfield, so they lost that sale. I suspect I'm not alone.

We have an Asus R9 380 GB Strix OC. It works fine in the X99 machine with a 1440 p monitor. If you are always waiting for tomorrows next big release for another FPS, (absurd), you won't ever get anything. Buy the stuffs ya need for now. There is no such thing as "future Proofing" a computer. The graphics card dollar chase and marketing scam thing is atrocious and a sucker's play.


Sincerely,
Walt Prill

 

[jkteddy77]

Did AMD Graphics just kill their sales until the new units are out?

I was looking at an R9 380, but realized I have now made the decision to wait until Greenfield, so they lost that sale. I suspect I'm not alone.

Timing is the key. I waited for for the 290 at the time, because it was beating 780's for $50 less, and had even more Vram and a bigger bus size. had I been buying at the time of the 970. i might have got that GPU.
You can wait too, but honestly either company will do. Notice that Nvidia's lower end Greenfields at the price range you're targeting won't be out until a few months after Nvidia's flagship cards like usual, so unless you plan on waiting until mid-summer 2016, look into getting a gpu now. AMD usually releases their entire lineup at once, but they may not be until late summer or early fall as well.
Truth is sales aren't the biggest deal, both sides perform nearly identically, and I've had no troubles with AMD. It's the title's optimizations you should worry about with AMD though. Fallout 4 dips in gpu usage to 40fps for no reason on most AMD cards at release, while the 970 stays at 60 fine because Nvidia makes so many partnerships a.k.a. pays off gaming companies.

 

[CaedenV]

What is with all of the people saying '1080p is good enough'? Even back in the early '90s gaming on a 12" (9.5" viewable) 1024x768 at 85Hz CRT monitor I had better contrast, pixel density, and refresh rate than most of today's 1080p displays on the market. I have moved on to more modern tech for the sake of space, power, screen size, and screen real estate (to say nothing about compatibility lol), but modern tech is FINALLY catching up to what we had 20 years ago! With this new tech we finally get the pixel density and contrast of yester year, combined with modern screen sizes, power consumption, and a color gamut that we have never seen before in the PC space. This is very good news!

Lets laud the progress, be happy that the tech is coming, and jump in when we each have the funds to do so. I'm not made of money; I know I have another 2-3 years before I can afford a major TV/Monitor and GPU upgrade to support this kind of tech in my home, but at the same time I look forward to it because 1080p/60 is getting long in the tooth and needs to be pushed out sooner rather than later!

 

[Knicks2012]

Finally some displayport 1.3 cards but looks like we have to wait for displayport 1.4 to drive 4k120+fps with HDR. Hopefully we get that in 3 years when its time for me to upgrade my GPU and monitors.