None of that contradicts with getting a Gsync or Freesync monitor.
Online shooters or anything competitive run at high FPS quite easily so that's not even worth bringing up.
Competitive players mostly use low settings and own mid range gpus.if we are talking about them.Actually that's not true at all. Online shooters are some of the most demanding. Battlefield 5 releases this year as well as some other games that are guaranteed to be hard to run maxed out. Far Cry Primal brings cards to their knees at 4k and that game has already been out for a while.
You will be surprised to learn that Mac Pros ship in great volume, enough to propel AMD's Firepro line from ~20% marketshare to ~30% for workstation/servers.
Polaris 10 would be like Tonga, full dies goes to Apple's lineup and cut dies to PC... that's my concern. It'll be like we're second class citizens!
Whether this happens or not really depends on GF's ability to have 14nm FF with good volume/yields.
Competitive players mostly use low settings and own mid range gpus.if we are talking about them.
You're making a sweeping generalization with no kind of facts of figures to give your claim any legitimacy.
I'm not looking to spark up a debate on this particular debate. I guess I'd consider myself a competitive online shooter gamer and I prefer to use Higher settings. I realize there are others that may opt for lowest settings but still they have a need to maximize frames.
From my experience in bf3/4/tf2/cs-go, most of the guys i played with/against , mostly(not all) used low-med settings to get solid 60/120/144fps even though they some of them had pc capable of using high-ultra settings. note here i said mostly not all, and it's pretty obvious mainstream/mid range sells alot more than high end. so even though i generalized it was mostly accurate.
also bf3/4 and even SWBF isn't that demanding game compared to how they look, a 960 can give you 50-55fps ultra on 1080p.
anyway it's getting ot, so i'll stop now.
Actually that's not true at all. Online shooters are some of the most demanding. Battlefield 5 releases this year as well as some other games that are guaranteed to be hard to run maxed out. Far Cry Primal brings cards to their knees at 4k and that game has already been out for a while.
Bf3/Bf4 pro players even go as far as to reduce resolution to 720p even if they have 1080p displays.
Hopefully this means the end of the crappy and slow as snails ddr3 equipped graphics cards. But knowing amd and nvidia they would probably keep selling those overpriced ddr3 low end cards.5X is 20-50% faster vram. Not as expensive as HBM2. Good for mid-range chips that need more bandwidth to reach their potential. Low-end will stick with cheaper GDDR5.
Is it bad that i still game on a 20" 1600x900 monitor?That's because 1080p is a peasant resolution and CPU limited mess. I am pretty sure a single 980Ti and my Tri-Hawaii setup are almost as fast at that resolution. That's because 2 of my GPUs are sitting there and enjoying the sauna while they are waiting for Mr. Skylake to bring in more hot water to pour on the rocks. Until then, they aren't even breaking a sweat. But guess what, I didn't buy that level of GPUs to game at 2002 resolution. No sir, I already had 1600x1200 in 1998.
If someone wants to have 70-80% GPU usage on 1080p 60Hz after spending $500+, they can knock themselves out. The only benchmarks that matter to me are 1440/1600p and 4K (or similar). If Polaris 10 is as fast as the Fury X at 1080p, but is 20% slower at 1440p, it's not a high end card. End of story.
It's hurting the mind how in the last 5 years we looked up to 1440p and 4K but now that Keplet and Maxwell perform worse at those resolutions, suddenly 1080p 60Hz is the benchmark? If we are going to discuss 1080, lets talk 120-144Hz or 1080p with DSR/VSR, etc. Besides, the vast majority of 1080p monitors are cheap junk and tiny 24" and below eye sore. The only difference is most gamers still using them are too stubborn and ignorant to realize it.
I've never met 1 person who said, no that 27-34" 1440p/4K monitor is junk; I'll go back to my epic 23 inch 1080p 60Hz one. While at it, why not get an XB1? 720p @ 30 FPS, more cinematic, doesn't require anything above a 380X. EPIC.
Some interesting info.
https://youtu.be/7Scm6boqNeo?t=23m28s
This is from a seminar from ALL the players involved in HBM tech, especially those designing the PHY, stacking, with names like eSilicon, Amkor & SK Hynix that some of you may recognize from HBM1 pioneers.
Since we can be confident Polaris is 14nm FF + GDDR5...
Looks like Vega is due to tape out in May, and will be ready in September. Note they are talking about their end, getting the HBM2 on the interposer with TSV linked to the chip, so the finish stack is their "tape out".
They also claim to do a 16nm FF + HBM2... ready in December though. Not sure what that is, potentially a GK104 "refresh" for 2017?
Some interesting info.
https://youtu.be/7Scm6boqNeo?t=23m28s
This is from a seminar from ALL the players involved in HBM tech, especially those designing the PHY, stacking, with names like eSilicon, Amkor & SK Hynix that some of you may recognize from HBM1 pioneers.
Since we can be confident Polaris is 14nm FF + GDDR5...
Looks like Vega is due to tape out in May, and will be ready in September. Note they are talking about their end, getting the HBM2 on the interposer with TSV linked to the chip, so the finish stack is their "tape out".
They also claim to do a 16nm FF + HBM2... ready in December though. Not sure what that is, potentially a GK104 "refresh" for 2017?
I find that very hard to believe. BF3 and especially BF4 needs at least a good mid to high-end GPU and very high core count and high IPC (OC or not) to get the best out of it. At 720p when you have a 1080p native monitor, you cannot distinguish enemy units at more than 40-50 meters away from you, making your situational awareness highly compromised.
In those games you need to see the enemy first to shoot first, if you cannot see the enemy you are dead.
Lol, 50 meters away, do you even know what kind of playmodes are used in competitive bf? Bf4 is domination 90% and 10% CQ small. Most competitive players downgrade every iq setting aside mesh quality to not get pop ins (some even disable it to see through some objects but most people by now know what objects tend to vanish when you run low meshq and dont use them as cover for peeking). At those settings (on 720p) mid range gpus and an 4th gen i5 can get you to constant 120fps territory.
People saying they are playing competitive bf4 on ultra are either pubstars that wont touch actual competitive play with a 10ft pole or people really, really out of touch with reality that are playing seriously handicapped compared to the rest of the comp crowd.
Sent from my XT1040 using Tapatalk
Why don't you just let this pointless thread derailment go. Unless you have some hard numbers and a clear definition of "competitive" gamers, your argument is full of hyperbole and anecdotal evidence and assumptions.
If you mean "competitive" as professional players, then lets just forget about the couple thousand in the world and focus on actual consumer gamers that play for entertainment.
Ok, this is interesting... we know that Fiji was released...Some interesting info.
https://youtu.be/7Scm6boqNeo?t=23m28s
This is from a seminar from ALL the players involved in HBM tech, especially those designing the PHY, stacking, with names like eSilicon, Amkor & SK Hynix that some of you may recognize from HBM1 pioneers.
Since we can be confident Polaris is 14nm FF + GDDR5...
Looks like Vega is due to tape out in May, and will be ready in September. Note they are talking about their end, getting the HBM2 on the interposer with TSV linked to the chip, so the finish stack is their "tape out".
They also claim to do a 16nm FF + HBM2... ready in December though. Not sure what that is, potentially a GK104 "refresh" for 2017?
Nice find :thumbsup:Some interesting info.
https://youtu.be/7Scm6boqNeo?t=23m28s
This is from a seminar from ALL the players involved in HBM tech, especially those designing the PHY, stacking, with names like eSilicon, Amkor & SK Hynix that some of you may recognize from HBM1 pioneers.
Since we can be confident Polaris is 14nm FF + GDDR5...
Looks like Vega is due to tape out in May, and will be ready in September. Note they are talking about their end, getting the HBM2 on the interposer with TSV linked to the chip, so the finish stack is their "tape out".
They also claim to do a 16nm FF + HBM2... ready in December though. Not sure what that is, potentially a GK104 "refresh" for 2017?
Lol, 50 meters away, do you even know what kind of playmodes are used in competitive bf? Bf4 is domination 90% and 10% CQ small. Most competitive players downgrade every iq setting aside mesh quality to not get pop ins (some even disable it to see through some objects but most people by now know what objects tend to vanish when you run low meshq and dont use them as cover for peeking). At those settings (on 720p) mid range gpus and an 4th gen i5 can get you to constant 120fps territory.
People saying they are playing competitive bf4 on ultra are either pubstars that wont touch actual competitive play with a 10ft pole or people really, really out of touch with reality that are playing seriously handicapped compared to the rest of the comp crowd.
Sent from my XT1040 using Tapatalk
Is it bad that i still game on a 20" 1600x900 monitor?
It's hurting the mind how in the last 5 years we looked up to 1440p and 4K but now that Keplet and Maxwell perform worse at those resolutions, suddenly 1080p 60Hz is the benchmark? If we are going to discuss 1080, lets talk 120-144Hz or 1080p with DSR/VSR, etc. Besides, the vast majority of 1080p monitors are cheap junk and tiny 24" and below eye sore. The only difference is most gamers still using them are too stubborn and ignorant to realize it.
I've never met 1 person who said, no that 27-34" 1440p/4K monitor is junk; I'll go back to my epic 23 inch 1080p 60Hz one. While at it, why not get an XB1? 720p @ 30 FPS, more cinematic, doesn't require anything above a 380X. EPIC.