4 ms·

Not overkill in 4K gaming or high refresh rate gaming.

shmerl 8y ago
I think 4K gaming is a red herring really. At least at present. Here is a nice video on the topic: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ehvz3iN8pp4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ehvz3iN8pp4 Nice optimum today are monitors with something like 2560x1440 and up to 144Hz adaptive sync. And you don't need Vega 20 with crazy expensive 16GB VRAM for that. Hopefully Navi will fit that use case well and will have less availability issues than Vega 10 (56/64) cards.
- elif 8y ago
  > high refresh rate gaming > up to 144Hz adaptive sync you are agreeing with him... In my personal experience, I need every watt of performance out of 2080ti to approach achieve a consistent 180-240hz.
  - shmerl 8y ago
    > you are agreeing with him. Not really. For 2560x1440 resolution you don't need so much VRAM (that's what makes Radeon 7 so expensive). So it is an overkill and not very practical for gaming. It's probably a really good 3D rendering card though. > I need every watt of performance out of 2080ti to approach achieve a consistent 180-240hz I think 144Hz is more than enough. More would be an overkill as well. And Vega 64 and upcoming Navi should handle 60-144 fps well at 2560x1440.
    - elif 8y ago
      I am happy that 60-144 fps is acceptable for you in the games that you play. However, your experience is far from an objective characterization of competitive gaming. 60 FPS spikes are called "cancer" in such circles.
      - shmerl 8y ago
        Spikes issue is not about > 144 fps really, it's about frame times uniformity. You can have no spikes at 60 fps as well, as long as your frame times are not wildly jumping around. And you can easily have them at high framerates, if something isn't right.
    - Mirioron 8y ago
      >Not really. For 2560x1440 resolution you don't need so much VRAM (that's what makes Radeon 7 so expensive). So it is an overkill and not very practical for gaming. It's probably a really good 3D rendering card though. It's overkill, because most GPUs don't have anywhere near that amount of memory and performance, but if they did then games would use up all of it.
      - shmerl 8y ago
        Theoretically, anything could happen. But we are talking about existing options, and also how practical they are.
- floatboth 8y ago
  There's more to gaming than latest AAA hits and stupid ultra settings. I have a 4K monitor, I play games with an RX 480, it works pretty well.
  - shmerl 8y ago
    If you have a limited use case - sure. 4K is nice let's say for adventure games that don't require rapid animation. But for more general usefulness, 4K is an overkill that doesn't have affordable GPUs to back it. I'd take higher refresh rate over resolution (to a point) when there is a choice.
    - floatboth 8y ago
      My very affordable RX 480 does 60-100 fps in GTA V at 4K (unless MSAA is turned on which, don't).
      - shmerl 8y ago
        Depends on the game. I bet it won't pull that off with the Witcher 3 for example. I've being using the same RX 480, and it produced ~40-50 fps in TW3 at 1920x1200 on max settings (no hairworks) in Wine+dxvk on Linux. Something like Vega 56 already hits 60-80 fps in the same setup. 4K would be way too heavy for anything. Also, as the above video suggests, better antialiasing obscures resolution issues. Sure, if you don't use it, you need more resolution to compensate.
        floatboth 8y ago
        Yeah, Witcher 3 is pretty heavy, I haven't really played it much yet, but it was okay with tweaked settings and 3200x1800. > max settings I don't remember presets in TW3, but I bet there's MSAA and various heavy shader effects enabled.
        shmerl 8y ago
        It is pretty demanding indeed. But visuals are improved noticeably too, so it's worth it to have a better card for better framerate in it on max settings. Unlike TW2, it's not using any super crazy double pass anti-ailasing which they called "ubersampling", so it's reasonable on max, even if demanding. But having that and 4K is already too much for any single GPU :)
- izacus 8y ago
  This video is a bit silly - the differenences in image resolution on a 65" TV between 1440p and 4K is still very noticable, especially since PC games mostly don't support adaptive resolution tech from consoles. As such, I still had to go with a high-end nVidia to get a non-crappy FPS and good looking UIs in PC games on a TV. 4K gaming might be a red herring on small desk monitors, but more and more of us are gaming on large living room TVs with PCs plugged in next to consoles.
  - shmerl 8y ago
    This video is a bit comical, but it makes a valid point. Consoles and TVs are even worse examples in this context, since they don't even aim at 60 fps, let alone at anything higher than that. If you are OK with low framerate, then sure, 4K can be appealing. But higher framerate improvements are generally quite noticeable, so console makers try to downplay them.

I think 4K gaming is a red herring really. At least at present. Here is a nice video on the topic: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ehvz3iN8pp4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ehvz3iN8pp4 Nice optimum today are monitors with something like 2560x1440 and up to 144Hz adaptive sync. And you don't need Vega 20 with crazy expensive 16GB VRAM for that. Hopefully Navi will fit that use case well and will have less availability issues than Vega 10 (56/64) cards.

elif 8y ago
> high refresh rate gaming > up to 144Hz adaptive sync you are agreeing with him... In my personal experience, I need every watt of performance out of 2080ti to approach achieve a consistent 180-240hz.
- shmerl 8y ago
  > you are agreeing with him. Not really. For 2560x1440 resolution you don't need so much VRAM (that's what makes Radeon 7 so expensive). So it is an overkill and not very practical for gaming. It's probably a really good 3D rendering card though. > I need every watt of performance out of 2080ti to approach achieve a consistent 180-240hz I think 144Hz is more than enough. More would be an overkill as well. And Vega 64 and upcoming Navi should handle 60-144 fps well at 2560x1440.
  - elif 8y ago
    I am happy that 60-144 fps is acceptable for you in the games that you play. However, your experience is far from an objective characterization of competitive gaming. 60 FPS spikes are called "cancer" in such circles.
    - shmerl 8y ago
      Spikes issue is not about > 144 fps really, it's about frame times uniformity. You can have no spikes at 60 fps as well, as long as your frame times are not wildly jumping around. And you can easily have them at high framerates, if something isn't right.
  - Mirioron 8y ago
    >Not really. For 2560x1440 resolution you don't need so much VRAM (that's what makes Radeon 7 so expensive). So it is an overkill and not very practical for gaming. It's probably a really good 3D rendering card though. It's overkill, because most GPUs don't have anywhere near that amount of memory and performance, but if they did then games would use up all of it.
    - shmerl 8y ago
      Theoretically, anything could happen. But we are talking about existing options, and also how practical they are.
floatboth 8y ago
There's more to gaming than latest AAA hits and stupid ultra settings. I have a 4K monitor, I play games with an RX 480, it works pretty well.
- shmerl 8y ago
  If you have a limited use case - sure. 4K is nice let's say for adventure games that don't require rapid animation. But for more general usefulness, 4K is an overkill that doesn't have affordable GPUs to back it. I'd take higher refresh rate over resolution (to a point) when there is a choice.
  - floatboth 8y ago
    My very affordable RX 480 does 60-100 fps in GTA V at 4K (unless MSAA is turned on which, don't).
    - shmerl 8y ago
      Depends on the game. I bet it won't pull that off with the Witcher 3 for example. I've being using the same RX 480, and it produced ~40-50 fps in TW3 at 1920x1200 on max settings (no hairworks) in Wine+dxvk on Linux. Something like Vega 56 already hits 60-80 fps in the same setup. 4K would be way too heavy for anything. Also, as the above video suggests, better antialiasing obscures resolution issues. Sure, if you don't use it, you need more resolution to compensate.
      - floatboth 8y ago
        Yeah, Witcher 3 is pretty heavy, I haven't really played it much yet, but it was okay with tweaked settings and 3200x1800. > max settings I don't remember presets in TW3, but I bet there's MSAA and various heavy shader effects enabled.
        shmerl 8y ago
        It is pretty demanding indeed. But visuals are improved noticeably too, so it's worth it to have a better card for better framerate in it on max settings. Unlike TW2, it's not using any super crazy double pass anti-ailasing which they called "ubersampling", so it's reasonable on max, even if demanding. But having that and 4K is already too much for any single GPU :)
izacus 8y ago
This video is a bit silly - the differenences in image resolution on a 65" TV between 1440p and 4K is still very noticable, especially since PC games mostly don't support adaptive resolution tech from consoles. As such, I still had to go with a high-end nVidia to get a non-crappy FPS and good looking UIs in PC games on a TV. 4K gaming might be a red herring on small desk monitors, but more and more of us are gaming on large living room TVs with PCs plugged in next to consoles.
- shmerl 8y ago
  This video is a bit comical, but it makes a valid point. Consoles and TVs are even worse examples in this context, since they don't even aim at 60 fps, let alone at anything higher than that. If you are OK with low framerate, then sure, 4K can be appealing. But higher framerate improvements are generally quite noticeable, so console makers try to downplay them.