|
Ozz81 posted:Some cursory Googling says the R9 290 and other 200 series cards only have HDMI 1.4. Looks like you should be good, from what I found the 1.4 revision supports 1440p up to 80Hz but higher resolutions like 2K/4K cap out around 25-35Hz
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2016 09:14
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 29, 2024 11:36 |
|
|
Malloc Voidstar posted:2k is 1080p
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2016 10:23
|
|
|
 It is if you're using the definition of "1080 lines of vertical resolution progressive scan" which is what I've generally seen It definitely isn't larger than 1440p.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2016 10:30
|
|
|
Yeah, nobody seems to be using terms correctly; it's better to specify the actual resolution. I've seen "2K" meaning 2560×1440, as well as 1920×1080, even 2560×1080. But almost never the "official" definition, which as you say, is 2048×1080. I guess at least we're not stuck in the alphabet soup that is VESA designations for resolutions. HalloKitty fucked around with this message at 10:39 on Jan 24, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2016 10:35
|
|
|
All the same, I wish 4K wasn't what it is, because holy poo poo after years of familiarizing people with the vertical pixel count, that makes "4K" deceptive as hell.
SwissArmyDruid fucked around with this message at 10:56 on Jan 24, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2016 10:51
|
|
|
Malloc Voidstar posted:
 To be fair 2K and 4K (et al) is pretty much all marketing speak, and we would be much better off just specifying resolutions unless we're trying to sell a TV.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2016 11:35
|
|
|
Marinmo posted:You're literally sourcing something saying you're wrong and somehow justifying it with that it's smaller than another resolution 2. 1080p often means "1080 lines of vertical resolution progressive scan". 2K is 2048x1080, it is literally 1080p under that definition
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2016 11:52
|
|
|
Technicality vs reality. Reality always wins. These terms are colloquial descriptions of common resolutions. 2k will never refer to 1080p anywhere However 2k will be used sometimes to refer to "4k" resolution because people got annoyed by the 4k naming not following the same pattern as 1080p and 1440p. Its why the quote in question says 2k/4k as one term with both having the same refresh rate... Something that obviously wouldn't make sense as 2048x1080 penus penus penus fucked around with this message at 19:23 on Jan 24, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2016 19:20
|
|
|
Old man yelling at cloud moment: I really hate that people talk about resolutions as "****K" or "****p" now. Mostly because stupid people throw it around like they have any idea what it means. H x V 4 lyfe 
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2016 19:42
|
|
|
H x W @ R Hz 4 lyfe. There, unambiguous reporting of all dimensions.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2016 19:44
|
|
|
^^^ forgot channel bit depth  Just quote the bitrate I guess.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2016 19:52
|
|
|
Refresh, bit depth, and bitrate are good too. Bitrate might be the most important SINGLE aspect, really. If that's the case you need to specify codec as well. I'd rather see 720 x 480 at 5 Mbps h.264 than 1920 x 1080 at 10 Mbps MPEG-2. Also aspect ratio. Can some sort of law be passed that you can't toss around resolution numbers without understanding aspect as well? When I try I explaining why not every program fills the screen "correctly" and someone says "oh because it's not ten eighty peeeeee?" it hurts me inside. e: I am way too mad about video specs and standards. hail satan
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2016 20:04
|
|
|
Speaking of which, aspect ratio should be mentioned for content as well for stuff that is meant to be displayed stretched  There's anamorphic videos and all, but I'm also thinking of old Capcom arcade games that output at 384x224 (or other games at bizarro resolutions), meant to be stretched/squished to fit on 4:3 CRTs. I remember some people played them at 1:1 pixel scaling on widescreens when they came out cause that was true to the original resolution, without understanding the deal with the non square pixels.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2016 21:17
|
|
|
Panty Saluter posted:Old man yelling at cloud moment: I really hate that people talk about resolutions as "****K" or "****p" now. Mostly because stupid people throw it around like they have any idea what it means. H x V 4 lyfe Same. It's some kind of monitor manufacturer and console producer conspiracy.  We should be using 16:10 as the standard PC widescreen ratio and talking about W*H. But 16:9 was cheaper to manufacture using leftover LCD sheets from TVs or something, I forget why but there was a reason why everyone started making 16:9 monitors. PirateBob fucked around with this message at 21:41 on Jan 24, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2016 21:39
|
|
|
japtor posted:Speaking of which, aspect ratio should be mentioned for content as well for stuff that is meant to be displayed stretched I'm so glad we're through the time where a cheap "720p" TV had a decent chance of actually being 1024x768 with rectangular pixels, especially if it was plasma. Obviously those old CRT titles made sense because CRTs were sort of resolution-fluid and it probably let them concentrate the limited rendering power where they wanted it, but the fact that anyone ever thought it was a good idea on a fixed-resolution display (especially one that would likely never see a signal matching its weirdness) is insane.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2016 21:59
|
|
|
PirateBob posted:Same. It's some kind of monitor manufacturer and console producer conspiracy. 16:10 is for the old days when screens were 1920 pixels wide. 21:9 is where it's at. Going from 2560x1440 to 2560x1600 adds basically nothing. Going from 2560x1440 to 3440x1440 is huge. Until we get a bit past 3840x2160 and can stack windows (and have fun with an over 40" diagonal), I don't see much gain from going taller.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2016 22:09
|
|
|
21:9 is pretty awesome, it's more or less like two 4:3 monitors mooshed together. Games need to support more arbitrary resolutions though
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2016 22:19
|
|
|
THE DOG HOUSE posted:Technicality vs reality. Reality always wins. These terms are colloquial descriptions of common resolutions. 2k will never refer to 1080p anywhere My B286HK was labelled 4K/2K on the front. Generally K refers to the horizontal resolution and P to the vertical resolution. So either "4K" or "2160p" would be appropriate to describe 4K monitors. Of course the entire thing is a little fuzzy because of fudge-factors and aspect ratios. It's most precise to use 4K to refer to the DCI 4K standard, which is 4096x2160, while most consumer monitors are 16:9, which is 3840x2160. Not being quite 4K horizontal pixels it's probably more accurate to call that "2160p" instead of 4K, but 4K is commonly used. Various people use the term "2K" to refer to both 1080p and 1440p monitors, even though the latter is more like 2.5K horizontal resolution. And of course a 21:9 ultrawide monitor is actually technically 1440p even though it's significantly wider.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2016 22:22
|
|
|
xthetenth posted:16:10 is for the old days when screens were 1920 pixels wide. 21:9 is where it's at. As someone whose screen is 1360 pixels wide and who plans to upgrade to a 1080p monitor in maybe a few years, this thread is a window into a magical world.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2016 22:23
|
|
|
HMS Boromir posted:As someone whose screen is 1360 pixels wide and who plans to upgrade to a 1080p monitor in maybe a few years, this thread is a window into a magical world. Good news, you can get a 60hz 1440p IPS panel for $200 nowadays. That's close to quadrupling your resolution. Drop that zero and get yourself a hero.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2016 22:26
|
|
|
It's not the monitor that's pricing me out of an upgrade, it's the cost of a graphics card that can handle it. My poor 750 Ti would turn to dust if I tried to plug that monitor into it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2016 22:29
|
|
|
You'd probably still see a nice image quality improvement even if you ran games at 720p.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2016 22:41
|
|
|
That seems strange. I thought LCD screens consistently looked like hot garbage at non-native resolutions?
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2016 22:44
|
|
|
you can still play most games in medium quality 1080p with a 750ti, it's actually really powerful for its power weight 1080p windowed on a 2560x1600/1440 monitor isn't half bad either
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2016 22:50
|
|
|
GPU scaling works pretty well, too.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2016 22:54
|
|
|
HMS Boromir posted:That seems strange. I thought LCD screens consistently looked like hot garbage at non-native resolutions? 720p scales neatly to 1440p because it is exactly 2x as wide and 2x as high.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2016 23:14
|
|
|
Anime Schoolgirl posted:you can still play most games in medium quality 1080p with a 750ti, it's actually really powerful for its power weight Sure, but I'm still paying nearly $300 (which is the cheapest I can get a 1440p IPS monitor here, mostly due to tax) to take a big hit in graphics settings and GPU longevity, and just getting it for the sake of a slight improvement in visual quality (I admit I hadn't thought about it being precisely twice 720p) and way more screen real estate for Windows than I would know what to do with seems like a pretty poor value proposition. Not that I don't appreciate the info/advice from everyone. You're all sweethearts.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2016 23:25
|
|
|
You'd be impressed how fast more space than I know what to do with becomes an amount of space you'd never go back from.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2016 23:28
|
|
|
HMS Boromir posted:As someone whose screen is 1360 pixels wide and who plans to upgrade to a 1080p monitor in maybe a few years, this thread is a window into a magical world. KingEup posted:New panels coming: 
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2016 00:06
|
|
|
two DP cords to drive those 4000+ line resolutions 
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2016 00:21
|
|
|
Anime Schoolgirl posted:two DP cords to drive those 4000+ line resolutions at least it's not two DVI
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2016 00:30
|
|
|
Anime Schoolgirl posted:two DP cords to drive those 4000+ line resolutions (Or DP 1.3, or 1.4 or whenever they implement compression)
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2016 00:34
|
|
|
japtor posted:If those numbers seem magical check this out, recently from the monitor megathread: WTT 10080x4230 OLED 144 Hz HDR for a nice house in the Hamptons.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2016 00:44
|
|
|
So, I'm currently rockin' a 5 year-old 560Ti, and have a Rift coming in May (fingers crossed). Was hoping Pascal would be out before then, but that's not looking very likely. I imagine even if I settle for a 970 or 980Ti, the increase in performance will still be pretty significant, yeah?
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2016 01:16
|
|
|
Ludicrous Gibs! posted:So, I'm currently rockin' a 5 year-old 560Ti, and have a Rift coming in May (fingers crossed). Was hoping Pascal would be out before then, but that's not looking very likely. I imagine even if I settle for a 970 or 980Ti, the increase in performance will still be pretty significant, yeah? Yes. Out of the two - if you want to buy literally right now and you have the money, the 980 Ti is the more future-proof option, but will depreciate more once Pascal releases. I am a disbeliever that the 970 is going to be enough for 90fps-minimum at 1440p in a real-world game engine, but that's the ~*official Rift target*~. Some developers have already jumped ship and are targeting a 980 as minimum. Someone on here is a Rift dev and he says that his demos aren't done on a 980 Ti but also won't reveal his hardware, so take that as you will. Perhaps a 290 or maybe a GeForce 256, who can really say?  You can get a B-stock 970 for like <$250 nowadays, and that's a pretty compelling option at that price. But the 980 Ti is basically as fast as SLI 970s, it's a single card, and it has 6 GB of VRAM, so that's a more future-proof option. You can find them from about $550. But, they'll instantly dive to about $400-450 once the Pascal 1070 comes out. Of course, the 970s will dive to like $175, too, so there's that. You rent GPUs, not buy them. Paul MaudDib fucked around with this message at 01:45 on Jan 26, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2016 01:24
|
|
|
Paul MaudDib posted:Some developers have already jumped ship and are targeting a 980 as minimum. FWIW they'll be targeting a stock GTX980, and a manually overclocked 970 is usually on par with that.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2016 01:34
|
|
|
repiv posted:FWIW they'll be targeting a stock GTX980, and a manually overclocked 970 is usually on par with that. Oh cool, how well is that going to work in those Rift-ready smaller-than-mITX set-top boxes? I'm sure they have great airflow and will just overclock like crazy. If you think "970 running at 25% OC" is the same thing as "minimum standard is a 970" you're daft, bunches of people already bought their hardware. Also that's just the first defection and I'm sure the standard will drift down to "won't make our intern puke on a 970 with minimum settings" the first time someone tries to run a AAA game on it. Paul MaudDib fucked around with this message at 01:43 on Jan 26, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2016 01:36
|
|
|
Paul MaudDib posted:Oh cool, how well is that going to work in those Rift-ready smaller-than-mITX set-top boxes? I'm sure they have great airflow and will just overclock like crazy. It probably wouldn't work very well, but Ludicrous Gibs didn't say anything about wanting a pre-packaged sub-ITX Rift-Ready machine.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2016 01:42
|
|
|
I don't think those are "smaller than ITX". They certainly have at least as much volume as that DAN case you linked a while back. I would not rule out giant power bricks being employed with the goal of bringing that interior volume down, though.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2016 02:21
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 29, 2024 11:36 |
|
|
SwissArmyDruid posted:I don't think those are "smaller than ITX". They certainly have at least as much volume as that DAN case you linked a while back. The DAN SFX-A4 is incredibly loving tiny (7L) even by mITX standards and still is not a production case. A Raven RVZ01 is a very small case and it's still 14, the ASUS case is 9.5L. It's slightly bigger than the DAN but it's a custom mobo and custom build and custom case. It's not an expandable PC. Sure, makes sense, but it's all down to cooling efficiency on air. I'd rather have a SFX-A4 than an RVZ01, even. Let alone a smaller case that can't mount liquid cooling - the SFX-A4 does a good job of venting right to air. Paul MaudDib fucked around with this message at 02:50 on Jan 26, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2016 02:44
|
|