Except the images aren't at 1080p they're at 4k. I've looked up 1080p vs 1080p. You aren't going to convince me my eyes were lying to me by showing me 1080 vs 4k images and saying the same would be true with 1080 vs 1080.
I didnt think you said the PS4 was better hardware, but the image quality of PS4 in the images above is sub-par vs the PC even at 1080p. The PC lighting, Anti-Aliasing, Texture Quality, shadows etc etc are superior even at 1080p vs the PS4.
I'd hope 4K would look better than 1080p... I'm referring to apples to apples comparison 1080 vs 1080
1080P is on the low end peasant side for PC gaming now.
1080P is on the low end peasant side for PC gaming now.
A move to 1440P or 1600P at least would put you ahead of the console crowd and afford you alot more detail and clarity in the games you play.
I would expect that the vast majority of those 768p are laptops.
A $330 GPU for your $135 CPU (8320E). Makes sense.
1080P is on the low end peasant side for PC gaming now.
A move to 1440P or 1600P at least would put you ahead of the console crowd and afford you alot more detail and clarity in the games you play.
Except the images aren't at 1080p they're at 4k. I've looked up 1080p vs 1080p. You aren't going to convince me my eyes were lying to me by showing me 1080 vs 4k images and saying the same would be true with 1080 vs 1080.
Why don't you test it on your PC and report back how it performs?I would love to know how my 4.6ghz 760k fairs.
I still think that 1440p at 27" is currently the best resolution to game at, especially if you get one of those overclocking korean monitors with PLS.
The next step up will be 1440p Ultrawide monitors at around 34" but right now they're a little too expensive.
I think 20" 1600*900 is the sweet spot.
Much better than those 15" 1280*1024 CRTs. My Dell E2014H is pretty good.
Performance on dual core Pentiums need to be further examined. Those minimum frame rates look scary and if it dips into single digits often then GTA V would be near unplayable on Pentiums.
Would also like Anandtech to benchmark GTA V on Intel and AMD igpu's to see if playable performance can be obtained at medium settings at lower resolutions.
I remember Anandtech used to include benches on resolutions as low as 800*600 until 2005 so some benches at 1366x768 and 1600x900 medium settings would be very much appreciated with both igpus as well as entry level and mid range gpus.
Why don't you test it on your PC and report back how it performs?
I think 20" 1600*900 is the sweet spot.
Much better than those 15" 1280*1024 CRTs. My Dell E2014H is pretty good.
Techspot's GTA V CPU bench is non-sensical, as is buying FX for a gaming box. Look at pclab's or gamegpu's benchmarks.
You want your GPU at 99%. That means it's being fully utilized.
9590@4,7 in the main chart also only does 74fps.FX 8350 (runs games at 4.0GHz) does 72fps in their main chart but a 9590 clocled at 4.0 (identical to 8350 that is) does only 67
Yea, I know. Just stating my observation that in this game I am not CPU bound with a 7970 @ 19x12 resolution (2xMSAA). So, even though some consider AMD to be getting hammered in this game, I still have more CPU power than I can use most of the time.
Techspot bench isn't sensical but not for the reason you state.
FX 8350 (runs games at 4.0GHz) does 72fps in their main chart but a 9590 clocled at 4.0 (identical to 8350 that is) does only 67 in their head to head comparison with 4770k. They have been doing these shenanigans for years over there (first time i personally noticed this 2 years ago during their Metro LL review where they have misreported their i7 numbers), probably randomly filling in framerates without actually testing. They may be a cut above pclab.pl (mother of all invalid bench sites) but that is not a compliment at all.
Right. At stock, in the OP, an FX-8350 was showing ~40 minimums and ~60 averages. Frankly, that's about what I shoot for in most games with my 7850 so I'd be content with an 8350's performance in this case.
I'm glad I opted for an i5 at the same price though. I remember seriously considering an FX chip.
The 8350 would have turbo enabled while the 9590 downclocked to 4.0 would not. Considering that and the error of measurement, and that the reported difference is only 8% the numbers look reasonable to me.
The FX8350 will run GTA V at 4.0 stock (no thermal leeway available-in comparison a 8320 will run it at 3.7) . But even If it would use its 100Mhz multicore turbo, it is ludicrous to say that 100Mhz plus whatever error margin there is (it is nearly zero if they run the largely deterministic game benchmark) would amount for such a difference when a 600Mhz-1Ghz (depends on turbo behaviour) difference going from 8350 to 9590 nets just 2fps or less than 3%. It is just the usual botched bench techspot produces when they "examine" frequencies.
I agree about 720p,people like me game at 720/768p on televisions.I am moving up to IPS/1080P in a few weeks but still more reviews need to include 768p.
Steam stats show 768p being the second most used resolution period...that has to be worth something.4k and a 680 with very high settings getting 18fps,so enjoyable.:awe:
No. LG's 1080P OLED beats any LCD/LED/Plasma ever made. At 55"+OLED, this TV would smash a 27" 2560x1440 one. To imply that 1080P gaming is for "peasants" is laughable in this context. Also, if you gave me a 4K 19" PC gaming monitor, I would donate it (i.e., I don't want it for free). Just looking at resolution without considering the monitor size, the IQ, is meaningless. Try telling someone who PC games on a large 40-65" 1080P Plasma / LED that 1080P is for peasants and they'll laugh at the concept of gaming on a 24" PC gaming monitor.
What's next, you are going to tell us that watching movies on a 28" 4K monitor is more immersive than going to the movie theater?
nobody in the market for graphics cards has a 720p TV