So who will win the performance crown?

[ikarinokami]

wont be able ? thy can put any price thy want, hence there are overpriced card

no you can't put any price you want and still sell it. you can price an item for what the market will bear.

they could and can only charge $699 if they expect the market can bear that price. The market will probably bear that price if it is the best item for $699.

Therefore I am fairly certain that the 780TI is going to be in most respects faster than the 290x.

as others have mention the Titan is special because it's really a low cost professional card pretending to be a high end gaming card. at $999 it's very unique, so it's price reflects a different calculus on Nvida's part

 

[WBurchnall]

I agree, I don't get why people assume that 4k + resolutions aren't relevant. I currently run a resolution higher than 4k.

I'm guessing steam survey's showing the 'huge' number of 1440p, Eyefinity and 4k user's total percentages totalling all of ...1.1%? If we took away 1600p/1440p and only look at Eyefinity/4k, you'd be down to 0.3%. Seriously. If you added up these resolutions, its discouraging how slow the adoption is but understandable given how hard it is to explain to a spouse that excess =D.

"Yes honey, I really do need 3 large monitors for immersion. Come on, 0.3% of the other guys I play XYZ with have it! Yes, I only play with 14 in my guild regularly but still! There's a 4.2% chance one of them has that setup and I don't! Great. Now I need $1100 crossfire 290x setup. New cables too."

2560 x 1080 0.04%
2560 x 1440 0.99%
2560 x 1600 0.16%
2880 x 1800 0.01%
3240 x 1920 0.00%
3600 x 1920 0.00%
3840 x 1024 0.01%
3840 x 1080 0.00%
4800 x 900 0.00%
5040 x 1050 0.01%
5760 x 1080 0.07%
5760 x 1200 0.01%
Other 0.16%

I'll give you congratulations at being among the top 1% of all monitor setups of the steam gaming population. Way to go but being in the top 1% doesn't make your setup that relevant as far as what developers of hardware and software should optimize for. It's much better to optimize for the huge number of people running 1 monitor at 1920x1200 to be honest which represents 35% of all monitors. 22% of steam still uses 1366 x 768 and 7% use 1280 x 1024. So yes, there are 7x as many gamers using 1280 x 1024 as your top of the line rig. That's why people consider your rig's resolution to be irrelevant.

 

[IdiotInCharge]

I'm guessing steam survey's showing the 'huge' number of Eyefinity and 4k user's total percentages totalling all of ...1.1%? Seriously. If you added up these resolutions, its discouraging how slow the adoption is but understandable given how hard it is to explain to a spouse that excess =D. Yes, I need 3 large monitors for immersion.

If you're going to use a Steam survey, note just how many of those systems don't have the grunt to actually play modern games.

And yeah, 4k matters. It's expensive today. It'll be affordable in less than a year, likely sooner rather than later.

I want one in 40" guise with G-Sync.

 

[WBurchnall]

...
And yeah, 4k matters. It's expensive today. It'll be affordable in less than a year, likely sooner rather than later.
...

I highly doubt that. Realistically, video card prices for the current video cards will be pretty similar in a year and the least you need for 4k gaming is basically crossfired 290X for $1100 or probably 2x Titan 780 TIs and we don't even know the price of that. Likely, close to the $1k mark though or above.

So in one-year, your still looking at $1k in video cards and probably a $550-700 dollar monitor if you are LUCKY in the price drops as currently searching on some 'etailers' websites for 4k and scrolling down to the monitor category reveals all but one result for an Asus 31.5" PQ321Q model at just under $1 per pixel; or ironically 4k for ...$4k which is the MSRP of that monitor.

Anyways, I wonder what you'd consider affordable to the 'majority' of all users current running 1080p/1200p? That level of monitor costs at most $400 roughly(for a 27in)? So you'd need the price over 1 year to drop to 10% of its current value. If you look at Moore's law, that doesn't seem so likely. I'd wager 50% at most per year taking 3 years for 4k to be a 'relevant' price for more than a minority to subscribe to it as the 'majority' of gamers spend ~$400 at most on a monitor. Next year if prices dropped to 25-50%, they could be $1k-2k, then the year after the initial early adopter fee would have worn off and you'd probably see a slower decline in price so perhaps $700-$1.5k, then the year after $500-$700 and the year after $350-$500 at which point its mainstream. That's still a potential 4 years for mainsteam prices on the monitor to make 4k more 'relevant' and a similar number of years likely till a single card ~$250-$300 handles 4k @ 60fps well.

 

[IdiotInCharge]

The videocard argument is valid, to a point. The reality is that you only need two high-end GPUs to run current top-tier games at higher settings. Reduce the settings, or play 'older' games, and you'd be fine.

As for the monitor prices, note that 'real' 4k monitors aren't even here yet- they'll have HDMI 2.0 attached. Further, Seiki has shown, as expected, that 4k IPS panels don't cost a whole lot to make. Note that the majority of 4k 'monitors' on the market are using Sharp's brand-new (and not that great) IGZO panel, which is itself over-priced partly because Sharp is deep into the red.

Expect 4k monitors to be at attainable prices in less than a year, and GPUs that are competent at pushing them in the same amount of time.

 

[tajoh111]

All of us "no ones" that run eyefinity sure do care about 4k and beyond. Just because it isn't mainstream doesn't mean that there is no one using it.

4k has a step beyond the amount of pixels that is typically found on the most common eyefinity setup. 1920*1080 *3 = about 6mp. 4k has about 8 million pixels.

Not even enthusiast use 4k monitors. They are too damn expensive and on top of that are gen 1, so they are likely to have problems associated with Gen 1 hardware.

To actually push more pixels than 4k, you would need to run something like 2560*1440 with 3 monitors or two monitors if you want the same.

But are ridiculously uncommon. Its likely well below 0.00 percent if 1080p eyefinity only makes up 0.07 percent.

 

[WBurchnall]

The videocard argument is valid, to a point. The reality is that you only need two high-end GPUs to run current top-tier games at higher settings. Reduce the settings, or play 'older' games, and you'd be fine.

...

Yes, 4k is so relevant that for an ordinary person to afford it, they just need to buy a single $4k monitor plus a single expensive video card and then turn down the settings and play old games or so relevant they have to wait for the next generation of 4k monitors to come out and be more affordable.

I can't imagine an average 1200p/1080p guy going out there and doing that any time now. Since, the average gamer does want to play the latest games like BF4. The idea they would invest thousand to play games from 2 years ago or with lowered settings seems a bit ludicrous. That argument doesn't seem based in reality or justifiable as a rational for 4k being relevant. Even if I lowered the price from four thousand down to two thousand, it still doesn't seem likely. For an average gaming using a $400 monitor now and a ~$300 dollar video card, even at a price of $1,000 for both combined its not that likely and that's probably 3 years away.

Expect 4k monitors to be at attainable prices in less than a year, and GPUs that are competent at pushing them in the same amount of time.

What exactly makes you feel though that in "less than a year", when it currently takes 2 top of the line video cards amounting to $1100 to power 4k, that we'll see so soon a video card in a mainstream price range of $300 dollars that can do the same? Is there some basis for your expectation that in under a year the price of CF 290Xs equivalent power will drop to 27% the cost?

 

[IdiotInCharge]

Top-end cards can run games at 4k today. 4k monitors will drop in price precipitously, and the market for them is the same people that game at 1440p/1600p now; more resolution can't come fast enough.

 

[Fooshnik]

Seiki has already said their 39" 4K will be at 60Hz by Q2 2014. Unless it's a turd I'll be getting one.

 

[Fooshnik]

I'll give you congratulations at being among the top 1% of all monitor setups of the steam gaming population.

Just like in other areas, the 1% spend the most money.

 

[xoleras]

I don't know about 1 year but I Do think 4k will catch on at some point. Keep in mind that 4k is going to be the new standard for uHDTV's, while 1440p and 1600p were only used on PC monitors. With that being the case, 4k absolutely will catch on.

The only question is, when will prices lower to the point that it becomes a mass consumer product? When will 4k uHDTV's lower in price to that level so that everyone buys them? I don't know. Could be 1 year, 2 year, 3 years? Who knows? But it will happen. Guaranteed.

Consumers had the same sense of avoidance when 1080p HDTVs first hit the scene. "Too expensive". "720p is good enough" blah blah blah. Then 1080p lowered in prices to the mass consumer level and it's ubiquitous - when that happens with 4k, and I don't know when this will happen, PC screens will follow. Simply put, because 4k is also a TV standard that will speed the adoption on the PC side as well. AS SOON AS prices are down to a reasonable level - who knows when that will happen? I'm not sure.

 

[Vexerz]

Apple announced affordable 4k monitors by middle of next year. Not that I would buy that brand, but the market trickles down and soon will follow. I expect by black friday 2014 we will be seeing Korean more affordable models.

 

[polydiol]

all this performance stuff doesn't matter if there's no 290s or 290x's available to purchase. The 7990 is also back up in price and is no longer a performance bargain.

ATI needs to fix their supply problem because people won't buy what's not available for sale.

I do however see quite a bit of 780s available for sale, at reasonable prices.

 

[WBurchnall]

Top-end cards can run games at 4k today. 4k monitors will drop in price precipitously, and the market for them is the same people that game at 1440p/1600p now; more resolution can't come fast enough.

I'm not sure if you saw my post above about Steam survey? But the percentage of people gaming at 1440p/1600p equals only 0.8% of all gamers. If that's the market that are going to adopt 4k, ... so why is 0.8% of all gamers relevant again when compared to the 98.8% of gamers that game at resolutions less than 1440p? If you feel 4k numbers will grow to the 1440/1600p numbers by next year, then 4k would only grow to about 1% of all gamers. Still not super relevant to the majority of all video card buyers to purchase a card based of theoretical performance situations only 1% of the population can afford.

Mainstream gamers are still probably better off to ignore 4k monitors and just buying a card based of performance at 1080p/1200p more realistically and just go a bit crazily-high on the settings; least till games catch up. When the cheap 4k monitors for $400 and cheap video cards that will be able to do what takes CFX/SLI setups to do now for $300 dollars(such that mainstream gamers can obtain them), I'm sure we'll see 15-20% adoption in a few months from that point or so. I'm slightly doubtful we'll be seeing video cards of that power that cheap or cheap monitors within a year. That seems like highly wishful thinking as we haven't yet seen cheap sub-$500 1440p monitors(27" for $800+) and those monitors first arrived 2-3 years ago and are only at 0.8% adoption rate?

People keep citing Seiki and Apple as the ones who will bring down 4k prices to reasonable levels. 1440p's minimum investment starts at $800 though on most sites and $1000 from Apple's lineup. I'll look into Seiki later tonight some more but I'm a bit skeptical initially. Even those spouting that brand name seem to be contingent on buying one that the quality is good; as if uncertain in the brand name like it was a Vizio.

 

[WBurchnall]

Apple announced affordable 4k monitors by middle of next year. Not that I would buy that brand, but the market trickles down and soon will follow. I expect by black friday 2014 we will be seeing Korean more affordable models.

Cheap apple products? .... ... ... ...
I'll believe it, when I see it . Last time I checked, Apple monitors were known for being abhorrently expensive weren't they? Like the CinemaDisplay line or what-not? Like their Thunderbolt series is a 1440P 27" LED monitor @ $1,000.

I think if you clicked on the HardOCP sponsered TigerDirect.ca link above and tried to find a PC 1440P 27" LED monitors you could find many better prices under $1k in the $700-$900 dollar ranges. So I don't know if we can count on Apple to make cheap products. Historically, everything Apple has an the Apple brand named premium even when the hardware specs weren't that amazing.

 

[IdiotInCharge]

I'm not sure if you saw my post above about Steam survey? But the percentage of people gaming at 1440p/1600p equals only 0.8% of all gamers. If that's the market that are going to adopt 4k, ... so why is 0.8% of all gamers relevant again when compared to the 98.8% of gamers that game at resolutions less than 1440p? If you feel 4k numbers will grow to the 1440/1600p numbers by next year when the cheap 4k monitors and cheap video cards that will be able to do what SLI cards can do now for $300 dollars, then 4k would only grow to about 1% of all gamers. Still not super relevant to the majority of all video card buyers to purchase a card based of theoretical performance situations only 1% of the population can afford. They should buy a card based of performance at 1080p/1200p more realistically and just go a bit crazily-high on the settings; least till games catch up.

Lying with statistics is easy, but as a rebuttal, how many of those measured by the Steam survey read sites like this one?

 

[cageymaru]

I highly doubt that. Realistically, video card prices for the current video cards will be pretty similar in a year and the least you need for 4k gaming is basically crossfired 290X for $1100 or probably 2x Titan 780 TIs and we don't even know the price of that. Likely, close to the $1k mark though or above.

So in one-year, your still looking at $1k in video cards and probably a $550-700 dollar monitor if you are LUCKY in the price drops as currently searching on some 'etailers' websites for 4k and scrolling down to the monitor category reveals all but one result for an Asus 31.5" PQ321Q model at just under $1 per pixel; or ironically 4k for ...$4k which is the MSRP of that monitor.

Anyways, I wonder what you'd consider affordable to the 'majority' of all users current running 1080p/1200p? That level of monitor costs at most $400 roughly(for a 27in)? So you'd need the price over 1 year to drop to 10% of its current value. If you look at Moore's law, that doesn't seem so likely. I'd wager 50% at most per year taking 3 years for 4k to be a 'relevant' price for more than a minority to subscribe to it as the 'majority' of gamers spend ~$400 at most on a monitor. Next year if prices dropped to 25-50%, they could be $1k-2k, then the year after the initial early adopter fee would have worn off and you'd probably see a slower decline in price so perhaps $700-$1.5k, then the year after $500-$700 and the year after $350-$500 at which point its mainstream. That's still a potential 4 years for mainsteam prices on the monitor to make 4k more 'relevant' and a similar number of years likely till a single card ~$250-$300 handles 4k @ 60fps well.

You can buy a 4K monitor / TV for less than $550 today. This Seiki goes on sale regularly for $550. The problem is that the inputs on it are bound to the Home Theater crowd which limits the screen to a 30Hz @4K refresh rate. AMD is working to unify the inputs so that everything works well together when you go 4K shopping next year. Assuming that the new inputs allow these TV/monitors to run at 60Hz next year, $550 is affordable for most enthusiasts looking for a 4K screen.

They will do 120Hz at 1080p already.

 

[WBurchnall]

Lying with statistics is easy, but as a rebuttal, how many of those measured by the Steam survey read sites like this one?

What difference does it make how many people measured by the steam survey read HardOCP.com considering HardOCP.com is an enthusiast site and not indicative of mainstream gamers?

To use the terrible cliche car analogy, your appeal is akin to saying BMWs are going to be the most popular car driven next year and Hyundais going the way of the dinosaur because on a car forum mainstream-members are using BMWs and the hardcore enthusiasts are driving Ferraris and therefore statistics gathered by J.P. Power and Associates stating Hyundai and Hondas are far more popular in volume than BMWs, Ferraris or Lamborghini's should be dismissed based off average people don't visit car forums. Therefore, even though 2.5% drive BMWs, 0.8% drive Ferraris and 0.3% of the population drives Lamborghinis while 35% drive Hondas, we should expect the prices of the upper two top model's marketshare to dramatically increase in the next year and to take over the place of Honda's completely; regardless of if BMW adoption has been very slow.

 

[WBurchnall]

You can buy a 4K monitor / TV for less than $550 today. This Seiki goes on sale regularly for $550. The problem is ... 30Hz @4K refresh rate. ... $550 is affordable for most enthusiasts looking for a 4K screen.

The price is right but I wouldn't consider a 30Hz monitor to be a enthusiast or gaming monitor. It's nice it does 1080p@120Hz but if its bought to game @1080p then its hard to count it towards 4k monitor adoption at all.

 

[IdiotInCharge]

The price is right but I wouldn't consider a 30Hz monitor to be a enthusiast or gaming monitor. It's nice it does 1080p@120Hz but if its bought to game @1080p then its hard to count it towards 4k monitor adoption at all.

But all it needs is a controller. One little ASIC, that they already know how to make.

 

[IdiotInCharge]

What difference does it make how many people measured by the steam survey read HardOCP.com considering HardOCP.com is an enthusiast site and not indicative of mainstream gamers?

About as much as arguing on a tech forum about 'market adoption rates' for enthusiast-level technology using statistics from a mainstream survey.

 

[madwolfa]

I have a 27" NEC PA271W, which is 1440p. 4K screens aren't getting close to this any time soon, probably years away, so they're out of consideration for me. Resolution is far from everything in a monitor...

 

[tajoh111]

The price is right but I wouldn't consider a 30Hz monitor to be a enthusiast or gaming monitor. It's nice it does 1080p@120Hz but if its bought to game @1080p then its hard to count it towards 4k monitor adoption at all.

Not to mention its garbage quality. Most review point that a 1080p set with 1 quarter the resolution having better picture quality.

Also, who wants to game at 30fps only. The lower the refresh rate on a panel, particularly a large one that I am close to if it is replacing my computer monitor, is going to give me a head ache.

4k going to take a few years minimum to become standard as 2560*1600(which currently make up less than 1 percent of gamers). And by then, we are going to have much better cheaper hardware than a 290x.

 

[veedubfreak]

Why are you so mad at people who can afford 3 27" 1440 monitors and the gpus to power them? They aren't hurting you. Do you get this angry at the .0001% of people who buy Ferarris?

Some of us have actually finished school, have good jobs, no kids and no wife and can buy the shit we want.

 

[Stoly]

So it seems we have the answer... or not

The 780Ti is indeed faster, more efficient, runs cooler and quieter than the R9 290X.

but only sligthly so, certainly not worth the extra $150 imo.

 

[reaper12]

So it seems we have the answer... or not

The 780Ti is indeed faster, more efficient, runs cooler and quieter than the R9 290X.

but only sligthly so, certainly not worth the extra $150 imo.

Actually, no, We do have a performance crown. The 290x is benchmarking world champion.

 

[chiablo]

Why are you so mad at people who can afford 3 27" 1440 monitors and the gpus to power them? They aren't hurting you. Do you get this angry at the .0001% of people who buy Ferarris?

Some of us have actually finished school, have good jobs, no kids and no wife and can buy the shit we want.

Why do these trolls have to be so mean to us...

 

[PRIME1]

So it seems we have the answer... or not

The 780Ti is indeed faster, more efficient, runs cooler and quieter than the R9 290X.

but only sligthly so, certainly not worth the extra $150 imo.

Yeah I'm glad NVIDIA was able to keep the performance crown without running their chips at 95c.

 

[Klapcos]

It only took less than a month lol. Well atleast we get some price cuts across the board. Me personally am very interested in a R9 290 Come on after market coolers!

 

[Agrippa]

The 780 Ti takes back the performance crown, but those 5 or so fps certainly aren't worth the $150 price premium. At $600 I'd have chosen it as an upgrade for my GTX 670, but not at $700 as I have zero interest in the bundled games. Instead I'll choose between the 290 and 290X once cards with aftermarket coolers arrive, as they are really the only two sensible choices around right now. I'd have considered a 780 too, but as it's still the same price as a 290X I'd have to be an idiot to go there.

 

[Klapcos]

Thought a bit more about it and I love my physx, cuda, shadowplay and really looking forward to G-Sync and I already own the ASUS 144hz monitor so just gonna stick with this until maxwell. SLI is very smooth in all my games and never had issues with it either. I don't care for 4K as it's not upon us anytime soon. I'm not going back to god awful 60hz lol.
Highest I will go is a new kind of IPS panel at 2560×1440 with at least 120hz G-sync ready.