xthetenth
Golden Member
- Oct 14, 2014
- 1,800
- 529
- 106
In OSX 10.11 El Capitan, there are some clues that lead to Fury X. So that means somebody have tested something already.
I think you can see where this is going.
Elaborate please?
In OSX 10.11 El Capitan, there are some clues that lead to Fury X. So that means somebody have tested something already.
I think you can see where this is going.
Elaborate please?
Apple not updated the Mac Pro line from 2013. They were waiting for some type of technology.
Now it is here.
Im having a hard time to think what could get into the Mac Pro at base.
But I think it will be this:
FirePro D310: Tonga or whatever the new version of it is.
FirePro D510: Fury Nano.
FirePro D710: Fury X.
Of course, downclocked very much to fit in the thermal envelope, unless... Apple will go for water cooling as an addition to current design and will up the Power Supply.
Ok so you're telling us we should all sell our tvs and buy models with display port.
Please direct me to an 80 inch to 70 inch (bare minimum) display with display port.
Tvs aren't made for gaming? Ok.... I guess people with xbox, Ps, and wii don't game? This nonsense is ridiculous. Just give it up. It can't game at hdmi 2.0 and the display port TV options aren't even tvs they're 40 inches.
Some of us like pcs hooked up to big screens with amazing sound systems. It's not for you, and fiji isn't for these people who want hdmi 2.0. Why you don't get that I don't understand and your alternatives have all been extreme downgrades. No. No. No.
Thanks for summing it up I'm stuck on mobile til Google fiber deploys in my area.This.
I don't think HDMI 2.0 is a HUGE black-eye for Fiji, but it will either impact you greatly (and then buy a 980Ti instead most likely) or not at all.
If no impact, awesome! But don't pretend it doesn't impact anyone. Couple points:
- 4K gaming IS the 1%. Any argument that says HDMI doesn't matter for those in the 1% are kidding themselves
- AMD just announced Freesync on HDMI (which is great) why stick with only 1.4 when this would be a great option for 4K?
- HDMI 2.0 has been around and mature for 6+ months. I can see older GCN not supporting this, but a 4K flagship SHOULD have it
- I don't have numbers, but I would bet serious $$$ more 4K TVs are sold vs. 4K monitors. 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.
Explain how nvidia discourages gaming on a TV or even amd for that matter.... They may not support hdmi 2.0 but you still can game on tvs with ease as I have for the last couple of years now.AMD wants you to get a 4K Freesync monitor. Just as nV wants you to get a G-sync monitor.
Neither wants you gaming on a TV.
Explain how nvidia discourages gaming on a TV or even amd for that matter.... They may not support hdmi 2.0 but you still can game on tvs with ease as I have for the last couple of years now.
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.
It's 5 more days? For someone like me, the gtx 980ti has hdmi 2.0 which I desperately want but don't get you you wouldn't wait 5 days and pick the better option if you're a display port userI lost patience and bought Gigabyte G1 980TI. I will wait to see if FURY X SLI is any good for the main gaming rig.
At least you could have waited for reviews. Oh well, at least enjoy the card.I lost patience and bought Gigabyte G1 980TI. I will wait to see if FURY X SLI is any good for the main gaming rig.
This.
- 4K gaming IS the 1%. Any argument that says HDMI doesn't matter for those in the 1% are kidding themselves
Agree completely but -
4K gaming is actually way less than 1%.
Steam HW survey says it's under 1/15th of 1%, about the same number as those with triple 1080p monitors, and it isn't growing by any significant amount :
3440 x 1440 0.04% +0.01%
3840 x 2160 0.06% 0.00%
5760 x 1080 0.06% 0.00%
5760 x 1200 0.00% 0.00%
http://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey/
Seems like that should be changing soon. Besides, with the numbers of gamers Steam has playing, that tiny percentage is still multiple tens of thousands of users I would think. Maybe close to $50 million in sales if they all bought a high end card.
These kinds of numbers make me wonder why 4K is such a big deal on enthusiast review sites. Who exactly are they talking to?
Enthusiasts?
I think the term bandwagon fits better.
Literally speaking, for every person with a 4K monitor there are ~570 people with 1080p and ~ 400 with 768p. Or about 1670 people not running 4k. So if there are 100million gamers, there are 60,000 running 4k.
So I guess all these review sites are for the 60,000