AMD Radeon R9 Nano is a tiny, HBM super-powered video card
http://www.tweaktown.com/news/46049/amd-radeon-r9-nano-tiny-hbm-super-powered-video-card/index.html
Not sure about the purpose of that article...
So much potential for that's what she said jokes lol6 inches seems tiny to me, but I might be spoiled.
6 inches seems tiny to me, but I might be spoiled.
You might be surprised at how much of a difference super-scaling can make, though I do think AMD will have missed an opportunity to add a few customers if they did, in fact, not add HDMI 2.0 (as nearly useless as this will be in a year or two, though... its adoption rate is poor and it has known problems.).
However, I thoroughly confused as to why you would use an incredibly expensive TV to tide you over until a 4k projector is 'out' when they already are out... okay, so, you can buy a decent car for one ( http://www.bality.info/index.php?route=product/product&product_id=4&feed_id=79540&feed_name=madis). Hah.. it uses DisplayPort
Anyway, I'm confused why your stop-gap measure would be to buy an expensive 4K TV rather than try out some super-scaling first. The difference from VHS to DVD was pretty big. The difference from DVD to BluRay was there, but less noticeable. The difference between 1080p and 4k isn't particularly great. The lack of native content (not an issue with games, of course), performance, and product maturity really makes 4K home theater/gaming setups less than worthwhile.
I'd suggest putting your money into some AMD stock ( :whiste::hmm::|:hmm::biggrin::'eek: ) and waiting for technology to advance. At which point in time, judging by the 4k projectors on the market and in development (which I only slightly follow), DisplayPort will be what you want. HDMI 2.0 will be too limiting (though it would be better to have a card with it, rather than one without it, objectively speaking).
I really want to step into 4k gaming and the fury x was my chance to do so. The 980ti didn't have decent aftermarket versions are prices I wanted. Then also, I was maybe going to downsize pick up a 50 inch Vizio p series for 450 refurbished and use that with a fury x.
How i may down sample like you said but it comes out to the same cost since I have to shop my 70 inch then to use with the fury x now that it doesn't support hdmi 2.0
As for why I'd get both a 4k projector and HDTV? I don't expect 4k projectors to hit the price points I want for 2 years at least. Meanwhile HDTV are well within my range.
Edit
I'm using vsr now and love it. I'm just livid that I waited for the fury, and now when it doesn't have a key feature I want people are suggesting to wait til q4 2015 for an adapter, pick up a smaller HDTV with display port for far more cash than I want to for the size of TV (it's actually just a monitor big enough to be a small TV), etc.
Buying g the fury x to down sample just wasn't what I wanted. I wanted 4k gaming and was willing to get 2. Dunno if I want to give amd cash when following through with a simple thing like hdmi 2.0 isn't important to them. Nano and fury x are great for htpc I just can't fathom why no hdmi 2.0 I still can't believe it until reviews are out. This has better be a big misunderstanding
Just tired of people playing it off like it's no big deal to ignore hdmi 2.0 on a flagship card when your competitor had hdmi 2.0 ready in their lineup the whole time.
Based on options out today, I would rather get a 4K TV for PC gaming vs. most PC monitors honestly
[*]PC gaming has moved into the living room. Period.
[/LIST]
Are 4k monitors so bad that you'd prefer to have 22-24ms lag on a tv??
Only the early adopters push bleeding edge technology, so reviews should continue to push adoption. If we don't play with 4K (the readers of anandtech) - who does? I am all for 4K movies and gaming via projectors.
Nah mine is only a 22 inch widescreen 1920x1080. I haven't gone to 2560x1440 yet maybe later if I can get a good deal when I upgrade the rest of my pc.
Ah ok, yeah you're good to go.
Yes, absolutely.
I run Win7 and the DPI scaling on a ~30-35 4K monitor is not what I want. If I went 4K (which I am not right now) a TV of 40-50'' is a better option, assuming it fits in your space and is what you want. There are also a lot more TV options around.
It is a trade-off. You don't get some of the nice things like g-sync or vsync on a TV (yet) but you already have to buy a specialized monitor today to do that.
When Win10 comes around, things may change. DPI scaling, display resolutions and sync techs are all new right now. Just as 6 months ago was totally different than today, the same will likely be true at the end of the year.
It is what it is. There isn't any perfect solution for everyone. What bothers me might not someone else. What I need may be totally different. Thats OK.
Edit: Anyway, back on-topic.
Where are those reviews!
I got a theme going on in my case
PC gaming is still the throne of Geekdom. It's still our MMO haven. Our strategic playground. Our online twitch shooter-fest-galore that works best on mouse/kb. Our serious clan-war/team/squad headset/mic coordination extra-curricular activity.
We certainly don't do these things in the "living room" where the gf, wife, kids, dogs, cats are a major distraction.
[redacted]
No it doesn't. By leaving out HDMI 2.0, they remove any possibility of it being used for 4k TV's and any possibility of HDMI to dual link DVI.
This is what we need, a list of TVs that do what we need, thanks for adding to it. Is that a current year product?
Not sure about the purpose of that article...
New pictures I guess.
Start the hype train rolling for their review. Need to get page hits.
Not sure why they are calling it "tiny". It looks about the same size as many mid and high level cards. There are mini ITX R9-380 and GTX970 cards, for example.
I'm sure the Fury nano performs better, but it's not "tiny", imo.
This is what we need, a list of TVs that do what we need, thanks for adding to it. Is that a current year product?
He needs dual-link DVI, that is single link.:'(
That's the trouble with these adapters. It is labeled a dual link DVI output adapter, but only up to 1600p @ 60hz. It's only partly dual link.
Tonga was their chance for a new tech. All they had to do was improve on it. Imagine if we had a 3072 Shader, 384-bit 6GB Tonga as the 390X? More shaders, even if it stayed 32 ROPs it'd be better than Hawaii 64 ROPs and use less power, and 384-bit with color compression should equal 512-bit Hawaii with less power. Even if it were 2816 shaders, it'd still be an improvement over 290X. Just give us 2 new cards (2560 and 3072 Tonga) along with the 285 and Tonga XT:
1792 Tonga to fight the 960 as it does now
2048 to fight the 960Ti and/or the gap between 960 and 970
2560 and 3072 to battle vs 970 and 980
Was it just not worth it to invent new cards since they were so late and 970 already sold so much?
Instead, they won't even give us the full 2048 Tonga.
Has there been any information on when the nano will be out? Information on the price?
1600p@ 60hz is the maximum spec for true dual link so the label is correct. those of us pushing dvi past that with overclocked Korean's are outside of spec and hence why even a low quality dvi cable can affect the ability to overclock them.
Is that why people are complaining about Korean IPS monitors and lack of DVI port and having to use an adapter? Expecting to run out of spec is a bit much for an adapter. The monoprice one will probably not work if that is the case since it's not powered and the data voltage signals probably need help if running out of spec.