1.Which have NORMAL Color quality? #not washed out or not custom improvements
Maybe strange but its not new.PLS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Chck out : https://linustechtips.com/main/topic/427669-nvidia-vs-a....
https://community.amd.com/thread/183563
Shouldnt it be UNTOUCHED/normal.Fps werent everything for me, those cards have sufficient performance for my needs.
FOR AMD:Even if they may look better as claimed, if IT IS DUE CUSTOM SETTING, i dont want it.
I read there is someting called HDR(unsure but smthing close) that improves color quality, but sometimes they have over saturated color(called vivid) and even blur over other colors(SSRY FOR MY ENGLISH, I DO HOPE U GET WHAT IM TRYING TO SAY)
FOR EXAMPLE , i saw amd's demonstration of hdr, well it may look better turned on, but, there is this picture they using, where buildings are shaded by dark clouds, with HDR it looks more vivid, but the shades on the building looks unrealistic(shades become bright)!!.
In games, it could affect shadings n make 3D games look less "3D".
Methodology:hopefully, someone could compare color quality in GAMES N VIDEO, to INTEL HD(should be the standard), using same monitor and default drivers.
Try with HDR OFF N ON(FOR AMD,if there is such thing) AND FOR NVIDIA(USE SETTINGS IN CONTROL PANEL(PERFORMANCE,BALANCE AND QUALITY SETTINGS)).
I just want to know if this issue exist, with PROVE.
2.Free sync vs gsync
Long story short, i CANT AFFORD G SYC.
Screen tears are bad but lags and delays are unacceptable(for sumone who got motion sickness,i cant read book inside a moving car) ,it's really bad.
Even at 24 fps or so, amd claimes to smoothen out the lag.
SO, IS it worthy going for amd for the freesyncs alone(gysnc is out of question,i cant be waiting for the prices to drop,totally a no) ?
3.fINALLY ,minor doubts.
Are they proper? i dont want cards that depends on drivers and Amd wattman for stability or improved performance(minors are ok but not if it is tunings).
And the 4gb version ,is it worth getting?
Im not doing benchmark or count fps instead of playing games, as long games are playable with decent setting,IT's GOOD.
NOW,THERE ARE EASY GAMES(FOR RX 460-LIKE NFS,COD N LITTLE CHEAP GAMES) BUT IF RUN AT HIGH SETTINGs AND HIGH RESOLUTION , WONT THE 4GB MAKE A DIFFERENT?
i saw witcher 3(it not easy for rx 460) with high settings(and all stffs equal) on 2gb and 4gb rx 460.
On 2gb there are lags.Done,it's bad.slow rx 460.
But on 4gb its smooth, but ,with compensation, where the texture and objects only loads as u move closer,but its still looking good and runs smooth- this is something called caching-exist on crysis 1 with gtx 460 1gb).
CORRECT ME IF IM TERRIBLY WRONG!!!!!!!!
Does amd's rx 460 really consume 75wat and less or exactly 75watt??(many reviews claims it drws a lot more power than that)
If so,lt will be drawing power at limits of my motherboard components and that is always not good(maybe unpopular) but , in theory, it shouldnt be good, capacitor near the slots are sum good example.
Is it really unstable,, like too much of frame drops,
fast for ESPORTS ONLY???REALLY??DO THEY MEAN THAT??
OR HAVE HIGHER POWER CONSUMPTION ON AVERAGE NON-GAMING USE
Help me out.
Thanks in advance if u could really help me or tried to.
And to those a******s who like to talk abt cards being cheap or low end and claiming my questions to be something that matters the least, well maybe for simpletons, fps is all that matter but no for me.So pls dont disturb.
Maybe strange but its not new.PLS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Chck out : https://linustechtips.com/main/topic/427669-nvidia-vs-a....
https://community.amd.com/thread/183563
Shouldnt it be UNTOUCHED/normal.Fps werent everything for me, those cards have sufficient performance for my needs.
FOR AMD:Even if they may look better as claimed, if IT IS DUE CUSTOM SETTING, i dont want it.
I read there is someting called HDR(unsure but smthing close) that improves color quality, but sometimes they have over saturated color(called vivid) and even blur over other colors(SSRY FOR MY ENGLISH, I DO HOPE U GET WHAT IM TRYING TO SAY)
FOR EXAMPLE , i saw amd's demonstration of hdr, well it may look better turned on, but, there is this picture they using, where buildings are shaded by dark clouds, with HDR it looks more vivid, but the shades on the building looks unrealistic(shades become bright)!!.
In games, it could affect shadings n make 3D games look less "3D".
Methodology:hopefully, someone could compare color quality in GAMES N VIDEO, to INTEL HD(should be the standard), using same monitor and default drivers.
Try with HDR OFF N ON(FOR AMD,if there is such thing) AND FOR NVIDIA(USE SETTINGS IN CONTROL PANEL(PERFORMANCE,BALANCE AND QUALITY SETTINGS)).
I just want to know if this issue exist, with PROVE.
2.Free sync vs gsync
Long story short, i CANT AFFORD G SYC.
Screen tears are bad but lags and delays are unacceptable(for sumone who got motion sickness,i cant read book inside a moving car) ,it's really bad.
Even at 24 fps or so, amd claimes to smoothen out the lag.
SO, IS it worthy going for amd for the freesyncs alone(gysnc is out of question,i cant be waiting for the prices to drop,totally a no) ?
3.fINALLY ,minor doubts.
Are they proper? i dont want cards that depends on drivers and Amd wattman for stability or improved performance(minors are ok but not if it is tunings).
And the 4gb version ,is it worth getting?
Im not doing benchmark or count fps instead of playing games, as long games are playable with decent setting,IT's GOOD.
NOW,THERE ARE EASY GAMES(FOR RX 460-LIKE NFS,COD N LITTLE CHEAP GAMES) BUT IF RUN AT HIGH SETTINGs AND HIGH RESOLUTION , WONT THE 4GB MAKE A DIFFERENT?
i saw witcher 3(it not easy for rx 460) with high settings(and all stffs equal) on 2gb and 4gb rx 460.
On 2gb there are lags.Done,it's bad.slow rx 460.
But on 4gb its smooth, but ,with compensation, where the texture and objects only loads as u move closer,but its still looking good and runs smooth- this is something called caching-exist on crysis 1 with gtx 460 1gb).
CORRECT ME IF IM TERRIBLY WRONG!!!!!!!!
Does amd's rx 460 really consume 75wat and less or exactly 75watt??(many reviews claims it drws a lot more power than that)
If so,lt will be drawing power at limits of my motherboard components and that is always not good(maybe unpopular) but , in theory, it shouldnt be good, capacitor near the slots are sum good example.
Is it really unstable,, like too much of frame drops,
fast for ESPORTS ONLY???REALLY??DO THEY MEAN THAT??
OR HAVE HIGHER POWER CONSUMPTION ON AVERAGE NON-GAMING USE
Help me out.
Thanks in advance if u could really help me or tried to.
And to those a******s who like to talk abt cards being cheap or low end and claiming my questions to be something that matters the least, well maybe for simpletons, fps is all that matter but no for me.So pls dont disturb.
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram