![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
Theoretically I can agree with you, but don't tell me that you understand this CEO's words as APU for CS
I feel like that is jumping ahead a bit. We need to get to 4K60 solid (and I mean including ray tracing) or 1440p/21:9 high refresh before we start talking about 4K120.
Fair call I guess it depends on the games you play. I'd be happy with 90fps with RT, having done CRT up to 120Hz in past I found beyond 100Hz was diminishing returns. That said with more experience today, maybe it's different.
>100Hz or thereabouts becomes less about 'smoothness' in terms of seeing a difference in framerates and more about 'responsiveness' and 'motion resolution'. I doubt I could tell the difference of anything above 100Hz with respect to smoothness, but in terms of responsiveness we could get to 1,000Hz and still be left wanting.
This is why when I wrote my game engine I decoupled my input handling from the graphics (this was back in like 2004 before 100fps was common)... This way even if you had low end hardware and crap frame rates, all inputs were still highly responsive. Of course higher frame rates still helped but it didn't 'feel' less responsive even at 25fps as your inputs where still handled and processed much faster than actual frame rate. With all the cores available nowadays you'd think this would be common. I guess the synchronization between the two is still difficult to handle as you can't be moving objects in the middle of a scene render. It requires a bit of extra effort to handle inputs this way because you need to keep track of inputs/values between renders and then make a copy to use during rendering. I would imagine if someone would do something similar nowadays you could have easily process inputs at 1000hz and render @ 100hz. The responsiveness would be there and your eyes probably couldn't tell the difference.
. Literally the time between the user making an input (button press, mouse click, mouse movement, etc.), and seeing the results of that input on the screen. The speed and consistency of responses weighs heavily on how games 'feel'. id software is an example of a company that puts quite a bit of focus here, and whoever Bethesda has making Elder Scrolls and Fallout games is an example of the opposite.Math wise yes, for exact same test method as in same load as in a particular game tested the same way and not limited by something else as in CPU, PCIe bandwidth or anything else.
That I find so true, Doom Eternal is so damn responsive like you are right there in real time while other games I feel like I am in the future controlling the past with a time delay. While only a fraction of the second the mind seems to exaggerate that feeling that something is not right or off.Here's the problem: responsiveness includes output
I agree, that's why I said higher frame rates still made it better, but it didn't feel super laggy b cause from the time you started your movement till you stopped it was much more precise than what was displayed on screen. So your movements were consistent/repetitive. Frame times didn't lead to issues of inconsistent movement or miss-timed movements because they were irrelevant/separate to the input. Hard to describe but if you click to shoot at someone it would process that request even if you were between rendering frames or in the middle of a frams. Our brains are really good at predicting things like where something will be even if we can't actually see all the mini between steps. But if the timing of an action taking place and where you predict the event should happen don't line up, it throws you off (this is why people focus on frame times so you don't get that little stuffed and miss your target since it fired your weapon late). Now, seeing the frames in between would help (to a point). This is why games at 240hz feel faster even though our eyes can't really benefit, more consistent input timing/less variance. The timing is closer to real time without frame time differentiations. That's not to say a game at 20fps will play like one at 100fps, but it does make it much easier to play at 20fps when you move your mouse at a specific time and when the screen finally updates you are at the same place someone else playing at 240hz would be. If it waited to handle the input until the next frame your movement would be delayed (jumping, shooting) which makes it much more difficult because our ability to predict is screwed up when it's not consistent.Here's the problem: responsiveness includes output
. Hopefully it'll allow some much needed competition.
Clearly BungholioMarks. The only benchmark that matters.
February 2014 (290X came out in October 2013). This is before Newegg had marketplace sellers. This is why I went with a GTX 780 at the time.
Yeah like or dislike their product line but they don’t let anybody fuck with their brand that’s for sure.
Question then is how will it fair against the 3080TI or the rumoured 3090.... I do hope AMD can put something out because I would love a choice but I am far more interested in their answer to the Quadro’s I need to replace workstations in mid 2021 and a few options would be great.
Landing between the top-tier Nvidia consumer part and the number two Nvidia consumer part would be an above-average showing for AMD, and probably a spot that both companies are comfortable with. Any faster and Nvidia would have to push things and would take away AMDs margins in the process.
I'm on a 1080Ti; I can't even really make a good case for something faster, I just want to be able to run a 4k OLED at 120Hz with VRR without compromise to the signal chain. Short of that I'd wait too.
Who cares, if it looks as good or better on a 4k monitor.
I would call that not really playable... with the exception of the Titan RTX 24GB using DLSS being just on the cusp of acceptable. That said, it's still impressive
. It's still not anywhere close to playable at native 8k on anything current, but lets be honest... how many could tell the difference between 4k and 8k, and who even has an 8k monitor? The market is very slim for 8k gaming, but things like DLSS are the only way it'll be possible with next gen stuff. But, if it looks good and I can't tell a difference, tomato tomato (ok, that loses it's meaning when I type it, just imagine I said them differently). I'm still using a 1080P monitor so none of this really matters to me at the moment. I'm excited to see what comes out in the sub $200 range for this cycle. If I can get 2060 performance for < $200, i'd be happy. I don't care so much for $1000+ cards.
Maybe we can credit AMD with influencing Intel's decision to put more than four cores on consumer 14nm parts... but Intel had already planned to move forward with 10nm which was scheduled before Zen was a known quantity.
Yea and they would still be at 4 cores maybe 6 without AMD.
AMD brought intel out of stagnation. Up until a year or two ago, I still knew plenty of people who said "This i5 2500 still works just fine" In their main PC. While that Sandy Bridge generation was a huge step for x86 processors, that was the last huge step intel made.
The only reason it wouldn't work fine, or at least in my case, is that the board died. I still have a Sandy-based laptop that works 'just fine', so long as you don't mind the keys on the keyboard that only work occasionally and the grinding noise that the fan makes half the time
.Skylake was a pretty big step, but again, we've long since reached 'peak office desktop'. The bigger differences were in mobile, somewhere AMD shows promise but falls short of leadership.
If you count enthusiasts as 'the market', sure. Unfortunately for your argument, that's not the case. Dell, HP, Lenovo etc. are 'the market'. AMD couldn't supply those three if Intel ceased production today. Not even if they ported Zen to Samsung too.
Intel was already pushing for this. Not that it was needed for 99% of their desktop customers then or today.
Yeah, I upgraded to another Intel CPU, that's still faster for my purposes than AMD produces, and was available before a competing AMD product was close in performance, let alone having a stable platform!
Who are these people? This isn't r/AMD here.
The laptop parts are extremely compelling. AMD has nothing that competes.
Which / whose definition 10nm?
If you mean 'interesting' in terms of having something to talk about, okay?
The only reason it wouldn't work fine, or at least in my case, is that the board died. I still have a Sandy-based laptop that works 'just fine', so long as you don't mind the keys on the keyboard that only work occasionally and the grinding noise that the fan makes half the time
Skylake was a pretty big step, but again, we've long since reached 'peak office desktop'. The bigger differences were in mobile, somewhere AMD shows promise but falls short of leadership.
If you count enthusiasts as 'the market', sure. Unfortunately for your argument, that's not the case. Dell, HP, Lenovo etc. are 'the market'. AMD couldn't supply those three if Intel ceased production today. Not even if they ported Zen to Samsung too.
Intel was already pushing for this. Not that it was needed for 99% of their desktop customers then or today.
lol, the cope
