4 ms·

Talking about two different things here... You mentioned that card is capable of outputting 8k HDR @ 60Hz, i.e. your Windows desktop can happily have 7680x4320@

by bitL 8y ago

Talking about two different things here... You mentioned that card is capable of outputting 8k HDR @ 60Hz, i.e. your Windows desktop can happily have 7680x4320@60. I mentioned that running games at 4k@60Hz or 3k@144Hz smoothly might not be possible for some demanding games and that many gamers expected that from the new generation.

vbezhenar 8y ago
You can slow any hardware with sufficiently inefficient program (or sufficiently detailed scene, if we're talking about GPUs). You can easily make any videocard work at 0.001 FPS if your scene is heavy enough. So it only depends on game developers, it's unfair to blame Nvidia for that. GPU progress is astonishing, at least when compared with CPU progress.
- johnvanommen 8y ago
  > GPU progress is astonishing, at least when compared with CPU progress. I have a dual xeon rig with sixteen cores that I used to use for video transcoding. It could transcode a movie in about 12 hours. I read that a cheap Nvidia GPU could do the job in less than 30 minutes. It seemed way too good to be true, but I figured I'd spend $120 to find out. It turned out the hype was wrong; it didn't take 30 minutes to do what sixteen Xeons spent 12 hours doing, it took fifteen minutes. Unreal.
  - namibj 8y ago
    Ehm, if your server runs a reasonable modern x264, you should get significantly lower bandwidth at "transparent" quality compared to what the GPU's hardware encoders is even capable of reaching. The reason there being that the hardware encoder can't use some features x264 implements sufficiently fast to make them worthwhile to use at that sort of time investment. Please don't try to measure lossy-anything-calculation by speed alone, always make sure that the required quality can even be reached, and even if, that it still exhibits the performance benefits, even after you tune these features up far enough.
  - rasz 8y ago
    NVENC is great for streaming, or archiving at 50-100Mbit, but at reasonable bitrate quality goes out the window. Same goes for Intel encoder.
- Dylan16807 8y ago
  It's not about blame, it's being realistic that 4K means 4x the pixels and 8K means 16x the pixels, and while these cards represent a lot of progress they're nowhere near that level.
freeflight 8y ago
Exactly, PC high-end gaming has moved on from higher resolutions to higher refresh rates, ideally both of it. Many enthusiasts gamers consider gaming at 60 fps to be rather outdated.

by bitL 8y ago

vbezhenar 8y ago

You can slow any hardware with sufficiently inefficient program (or sufficiently detailed scene, if we're talking about GPUs). You can easily make any videocard work at 0.001 FPS if your scene is heavy enough. So it only depends on game developers, it's unfair to blame Nvidia for that. GPU progress is astonishing, at least when compared with CPU progress.

johnvanommen 8y ago
> GPU progress is astonishing, at least when compared with CPU progress. I have a dual xeon rig with sixteen cores that I used to use for video transcoding. It could transcode a movie in about 12 hours. I read that a cheap Nvidia GPU could do the job in less than 30 minutes. It seemed way too good to be true, but I figured I'd spend $120 to find out. It turned out the hype was wrong; it didn't take 30 minutes to do what sixteen Xeons spent 12 hours doing, it took fifteen minutes. Unreal.
- namibj 8y ago
  Ehm, if your server runs a reasonable modern x264, you should get significantly lower bandwidth at "transparent" quality compared to what the GPU's hardware encoders is even capable of reaching. The reason there being that the hardware encoder can't use some features x264 implements sufficiently fast to make them worthwhile to use at that sort of time investment. Please don't try to measure lossy-anything-calculation by speed alone, always make sure that the required quality can even be reached, and even if, that it still exhibits the performance benefits, even after you tune these features up far enough.
- rasz 8y ago
  NVENC is great for streaming, or archiving at 50-100Mbit, but at reasonable bitrate quality goes out the window. Same goes for Intel encoder.
Dylan16807 8y ago
It's not about blame, it's being realistic that 4K means 4x the pixels and 8K means 16x the pixels, and while these cards represent a lot of progress they're nowhere near that level.

freeflight 8y ago

Exactly, PC high-end gaming has moved on from higher resolutions to higher refresh rates, ideally both of it. Many enthusiasts gamers consider gaming at 60 fps to be rather outdated.