Well considering even Digital Foundry's failed to disable the restriction or otherwise thought they were running Hyper settings but weren't, wouldn't surprise me.
Well they said they were running Hyper, so I choose to believe them. Whether or not they turned off the GPU memory restriction I have no idea.
You can't be serious. First of all it is in fact a pretty big luxury to not have to bother with settings and just dial everything to max as default.If you consider spending literally twice the money just so you don't have to do any settings tweaking a cool and good idea, then you're clearly price inelastic and should be buying a 1080 to match your XB271HU.
Now let me come to this notion that somehow the 1080p 60Hz monitors are inferior. The only limitation of a good 1080p 60Hz monitor is just the numbers, the higher end monitors offer not much IQ improvement for games unless you go for a VA panel which again aren't exclusively a high end option anymore.
This is not some special case at all. As a veteran in PC, i find the attitude and arguments being made here on a tech forum to be very bizarre.
We have, since the beginning of time, had lower cost and lower performing options. This is nothing new, this is no radical, special case. This has nothing to do with Polaris, nothing to do with the 480 or 470. Having cheaper options, it is not new. From CPUS to GPUS, to hard rives, cases, Psus, motherboards, memory, keyboards, cooloers...the list goes on and on and on.
Generally, it has also been the case that these cheaper options perform lower than the more costly options. It's not new, it's not a Polaris specific invention or some brand new characteristic.
Since the beginning of time, we have seen CPUS that cost a whole lot and lesser performing CPUS that cost less. Nothing new.
GPUs, same story. The high performance cards are more costly while cards that perform less are cheaper. Since performance is comparable, the lower performance can be calculated to a value which can be represented as a percentage. So , an example: card A is 500$ and card B which is 72% the performance cost $300.
Just an example.
This is not Polaris specific.
We really don't know exactly whee Polaris performs. So comparing in to a 1070 is impossible. The value is impossible to measure and bicker over.
It stands to reason that the 480 will be a great option for lots of people. How can we argue about that?
When it launches, we can have real numbers and have a real discussion. But this argument that no one will ever need more or that anything more than a 480/4gb/i<insert here> .....
That is amassing to see right now.
I mean, buying lesser performance for less money has always been an option. The performance bought may be suitable and acceptable, the money saved could be well worth it. But these depend on the individual, the specific case. Hypothetical and made up arguments in such absolutes.....on a cards we have not enough info to even begin to gauge......now that is strange to me
Not taking away anything from Polaris or the 480, which should be a good option for plenty of people. I just think the conversations have went way out there and it's just going and going at this point.
Let's just stick to gaming here shall we? There is a thing called field of view which has a big impact on immersion. A 25" screen will let you cover more of your field of view with the screen compared to a 50" screen. Why do you think VR is considered so immersive despite the tiny screen?You forgot immersion and real estate factor of a greater screen. I'd take a 32" VA 1440p 60Hz panel and an RX 480 over a 22-24" 1080p 60hz IPS and a GTX1070 any day. Productivity + Gaming + Media: 32-50" monitors wipe the floor with tiny 22-24" ones. Why do you think so many people want a 40" 4K monitor?
Bring anyone who doesn't know anything about PC gaming into a room and tell them what's a better gaming system the left one or the right one? Do you think most people who buy $200-250 GPUs run FRAPS and FCAT and care that RX 480 cannot run 4x MSAA in every AAA game at 1080p 60Hz? Like I said before, almost ALL the people who recommended 750/750Ti/950/960 and ignored much faster AMD cards have now reversed their stance. Also, last month 980Ti/Titan X were 1440p videocards but now they are by extension just 1080p 60Hz videocards? LOL!!!!
32" 1440p BenQ BL3200PT vs. 24" DELL U2412M
There have already been $400 27" LG 27UD68 4K 3840x2160 60hz IPS FreeSync Monitor for $399.99. This is a good option for those who don't want to spend a lot of $ on a GPU but want room for growth and GPU upgrades on the same monitor.
If you want a 1080p 60Hz GPU that you want to keep for 3-4 years, get a $400 GTX1070. For the masses that RX 480 targets which will be CPU bottlenecked with i3/i5/FX and stock i7s, RX 480 will be more than enough for 1080p 60Hz. If this changes with newer games in 2016-2017, we can revisit. Right now all the reviewers from Sweclockers to TPU to Guru3D to AnandTech bench show that 1070 is a sweet-spot for 1080p 120Hz or 1440p 60Hz.
Sapphire Reference card
Sapphire Nitro
"Most Radeon RX 480 cards that will be released on June 29th will be equipped with 8GB GDDR5 memory. 4GB models are also expected, but availability of such cards will depend on AIBs."
http://videocardz.com/60992/sapphire-radeon-rx-480-nitro-pictured
Let's just stick to gaming here shall we? There is a thing called field of view which has a big impact on immersion. A 25" screen will let you cover more of your field of view with the screen compared to a 50" screen. Why do you think VR is considered so immersive despite the tiny screen?
Since when have there been VA monitors that don't have visible ghosting? I have read reviews on all the new BenQ VA panel screens and all suffer from it. My main reason why I am still using an IPS screen.
I did not say that now did I? What I said is that the 25" screen will actually have it's own pros compared to the 50". With a 25" screen you can be closer to the action and bask in more details.WTH? A 50 inch screen is less immersive than a 25 inch screen. What the hell is this? Bizzaro world? C'mon man. Make some sense.
You're completely wrong. You can be closer to the action in a 50 inch screen. Just sit closer.....I did not say that now did I? What I said is that the 25" screen will actually have it's own pros compared to the 50". With a 25" screen you can be closer to the action and bask in more details.
And btw yes a 1080p 25" screen is in fact more immersive than a 1080p 50" screen.
And btw yes a 1080p 25" screen is in fact more immersive than a 1080p 50" screen.
I did not say that now did I? What I said is that the 25" screen will actually have it's own pros compared to the 50". With a 25" screen you can be closer to the action and bask in more details.
And btw yes a 1080p 25" screen is in fact more immersive than a 1080p 50" screen.
I would take nothing over a 25 inch monitor. I haven't gamed on a primary screen below 70 inches in 8 years now.its the "in fact" part that bothers me.... this is definitely an opinion.
You're completely wrong. You can be closer to the action in a 50 inch screen. Just sit closer.....
For example my roommate will sit 4 feet from my 80 inch screen to play. That's how immersed he wants to be.
Because you have a 4K screen that's why. Notice how I mentioned a 1080p 50" screen? If you sit as close to that as you do on a 25" screen then you are looking at a pixelated mess which no amount of AA can fix either.What? There' s a rule where you have sit further way the bigger the screen is? Can't you sit the same distance as the 25" screen when gaming on a 50" screen? I have a 40 inch 4k monitor. I sit exactly the same distance as I did with my 27" 1440 monitor. C'mon, man. You're reaching.
You can change your viewing distance you realize that? You aren't forced to sit the same distance from the screen.Because you have a 4K screen that's why. Notice how I mentioned a 1080p 50" screen? If you sit as close to that as you do on a 25" screen then you are looking at a pixelated mess which no amount of AA can fix either.
Omg yes I know and that was my point. That the further you sit away the less immersive it is and a big screen does not completely make up for distance.You can change your viewing distance you realize that? You aren't forced to sit the same distance from the screen.
No you said a small screen gives more immersion.Omg yes I know and that was my point. That the further you sit away the less immersive it is and a big screen does not completely make up for distance.
Sent from my HTC One M9 using Tapatalk
Okay I am sorry. In my opinion a 25" 1080p screen is more immersive than a 50" 1080p screen. Happy?No you said a small screen gives more immersion.
That's not a fact.
They did a big reveal last year so I expect to hear more about their launch. That's their last chance for me to be excited about p10. Otherwise I'm done with all of these junk cards released right now.Isn't this the Polaris benchmark thread?
No recent leaks but arguing about ones preferred screend size is off topic.
During the reveal they stated more info in the next couple of weeks. The PC gaming show is on Monday so I'm thinking a more in depth presentation will be included. Any thoughts?
recent leaks
Full Polaris 10 is said to have 44CU's and 3072 sp's now and will be named the 490 for 300$.
This guy Atlas seems to know something we don't know.
https://www.reddit.com/r/Amd/commen...une_29th_nda_is_for_the_480x490_and/?sort=old