It's not the next big thing in graphics and it will never become possible with current transistor based silicone processors.
Currently it cuts frames by 66% and doesn't even look that good.
Moores law has basically stopped die shrinking and now we are at the point of 5 year cycles on a real...
Fake ray tracing is likely easy to render and looks almost as good and probably doesn't cost much performance.
I can't see amd ever adopting this tech and if amd doesn't adopt then it won't take off. And I don't mean some half arsed attempt to support it in drivers and stick a sticker on the...
You seem to fail to understand its not about winning.
Most high end gamers don't chase the top 1% and we certainly left 1080p behind a long time ago.
Could I spend double on a new pc for the last bits of performance.. Of course.
But that is not what it's about. It's about not compromising the...
Total system power at 8 cores 5ghz is only what is important. Tdp is BS.
I saw a system power that looked reasonable even at 5ghz but can't remember where
You have no evidence of anything you say.
There is plenty of evidence of what I claim. Namely that we are still using skylake cores until 2020 at the earliest. Amd has given up on high end gpus and nvidia are charging £1500 for a strix ti.
If you are so clever explain how they will get RT in a...
I put as much stock in your predictions as a fortune cookie.
Those technologies are dead. They work only on one vendor so are missing from nearly all games. They pop up once in a blue moon when nvidia pays for some exclusive features. SLI has been killed by greenlight games with no drivers.
RT...
As I suspected there isn't a decent gaming monitor in that list to be seen.
Until I went gsync 1440p 144hz in both TN and ips I didn't know what good looked like. I'm also guessing the even newer models will be better.
Tbh I only find your posts at fault.
You have zero comprehension of how the market works. Zero comprehension of how the technology works and also sounds like you don't really understand the benefits or lack there of it all.
Take it from someone who has walked the walk. Rtx is no different than...
If I wanted perfect colours I'd go watch blue ray 4k on my oled tv.
For pc gaming a 144hz gsync is the most important thing you can have. After that you can choose which panel tech you want.
Ive owned both and both are as good as it gets for gaming.
You do a lot of bs talking without telling...
I have an Asus 165hz but I run it at 144hz which is default clock. I have also owned the TN version both with gsync.
Maybe you should spend less time reading about them and actually go and buy one.
Both were excellent at what they do. If you favour response get the TN. If you want the viewing...
I have a 165hz ips gsync and the image quality is amazing. The TN version I had wasn't far behind either with minor shift but it's a trade off for response time.
I'd rather have 120fps at 1440p than 4k any day
Of course is relevant. You just can't comprehend it.
Just because something is better doesn't mean people are willing to pay for it.
We are hitting the Mooreslaw wall right now and shrinking dies are harder than ever. We may have 1 or 2 shrinks left which isn't enough to give us RT at 4k. 99%...
Rt requires large die gpu designs and I doubt amd or Intel will want to dedicate so much die to what is essentially just bling.
Fps sells gpus not bling. And if nvidia are the only one in the game the market will decide that it won't pay for this bling as the resources required as...
I am the 1% with the 1440p 165hz gsync and the 1080ti.
As the 1% I'm saying this 2080ti is not purchasable. I am the target market and I will not upgrade to this substandard beta product with beta features and super premium pricing.
Most games can't even produce decent graphics that warrant this price for a gpu. The ones that can can be run on a 1080ti. The extra frames are not worth that cost to get them when you have gsync.
Since you are forced to purchase ray tracing cores which don't even work at 4k this makes even...
It's just a gpu.
I think people need a reality check. You can't even feel the difference if you have gsync and 144hz monitor.
It's not like days of old where if you hit 40 fps you lost v sync to 30fps and become a stuttering mess. The irony is that this extra performance has the most cost ever...
Currently you can buy the 8700k and a new mobo for the price of a 9700k let alone the 9900k
4.8ghz 6 core is somehow beating the 9900k games somehow as well according to reports I've read.
People are forgetting that computer parts are obsolete as soon as intel launches a new model. Part values stay high because people need replacements for broken ones to fix existing computers.
People are also confusing obsolete with end of useful life. Obsolete is when something has replaced it...
Strix is selling for £1500 in the UK lol. That is double the price of the Strix 1080ti and only 25% more frames.
Here I was thinking titan pricing was a joke.
I was thinking maybe this new DLSS was Worth the extra money until I saw that basically no games will ever use it that I'd play...
I'm guessing the accumulation of improvements on the cpu and ram system has added up nicely then. If they can keep 5ghz on the 10nm chips that might be the one to buy in 2020 then.
I had not checked any benchmarks. But I remember that sandy hitting 5ghz and we are only now at 5ghz again but have suffered a drop in performance due to security flaws.
Also I play games on my PC so I don't read benchmarks for anything else. So my post was about 5ghz sandy for gaming how far...
It didn't need fixing.
My point was that a pre spectre sandy could be faster than a post spectre coffee lake. Which shows how poor performance has gotten over time. Whilst also getting more expensive.
Anyone who remembers buying a conroe or Haswell desktop chip for £240 I7 with massive clock or performance gains knows just how rediculous this market has become.
It would be interesting to see 5ghz sandybridge perform against a post spectre coffee lake chip.
The sad part is that sandy could...
I thought £600 was too much to pay for a gpu when I was getting a 4870 X2 for £350 with two gpu. I was beating duel gpu top end cards with 2x GTX 460 for £320.
Now they want £1100 to £1200 for what is essentially the same card relative to performance today. Sli doesn't even scale any more for...
It's a bad product because it was never in the road map and what looks like reject tesla chips sold as desktop parts.
This is why it doesn't work properly.
They are crap.
Ray tracing doesn't even work at any other than 1080p and barely. Performance is rubbish for a new Ti model. Ti to Ti upgrade should be a huge gain not 25% max.
The i9 and the whole mainstream platform sucks and the X series has been lost since they launched it.
Never been a...
I'd argue that 8 threads and 4 cores is enough to handle anything that 8 cores can handle.
I'm betting that bottle neck is on a single thread and no matter what you are using more cores won't fix it. Games are notorious for being coded with 1 main thread and then other threads used for less...
Given these prices its safe to say we are back In boom times. My advise would be to save your money as usually we follow with a bust pretty soon. This is just a gpu. It's not even a very good one.
Remember add this to your £1000 iPhone £600 i9 cpu and all the other record prices companies are...
When playing this game on 64 player the cpu is not even maxed out. Most cores are 5o to 65% utilised. Not to mention the spare 4 threads with HT.
The only thing that could make a difference is you get 2 spare cores to run the system processes and a full 4 cores to run the game. But even then...
This is rubbish.
I got 144hz and I can't get near these max frames in battlefield. The game is gpu limited and I have never seen a cpu bottleneck or stutter in 64 player.
Worst case is that the average frames may be slightly lower but its not noticable
I have never played a game in my life where a 4.5ghz 4/8 cpu has bottlenecked that a true 8 core would not bottleneck.
If physical cores and threads were such a benefit then amd would have wiped the floor in these games ages ago in 64 player battlefield
Sent from my SM-N960F using Tapatalk
Except that we are talking about a gpu limited game. 64 player still runs at 80 to 90 fps on a 1080ti.
There might be some frame variance with 6 core but I can tell you now that it is not noticed when playing because frame rate isn't a problem. The game doesn't bog down just because you have...
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.