NVIDIA Kepler speculation thread

UniversalTruth said:
What kind of normal resolutions? 1024 X 768? :LOL:

Seriously, don't you think it is time to play Crysis 3 at Ultra HD 4K or 8K?
Click to expand...

Yeah, resolution is overrated. I'd much rather see things like good global illumination, high geometric detail, etc rather than extra pixels that I can't see without sitting 2 inches from the monitor.

Besides, a 4K display costs what? North of 5 grand? I could keep upgrading high end GPUs for years for that amount of cash:p.
 
There's a reason it's so dirt cheap, it's a pretty cheap display, only a 5000:1 contrast ratio. That's absolutely horrible.
 
BRiT said:
There's a reason it's so dirt cheap, it's a pretty cheap display, only a 5000:1 contrast ratio. That's absolutely horrible.
Click to expand...
5000:1 is ok if it's the native contrast of the panel and not some meaningless dynamic contrast measurement.

But that's further going along the way of missing the point, of course: if you can buy a 4K TV now for such a ridiculously low price, we can be far away from having cheap 4K monitors either. So GPU better start getting ready to deal with them.
 
AlphaWolf said:
More pixels beats everything if you really only care about checkboxing features.
Click to expand...
You'll be delighted to hear that the initial reviews of image quality are pretty good for native resolution. Scaling is a different story, but that's a non-issue for PCs. A bigger problem is the HDMI connector limiting the refresh rate to 30Hz.
 
pjbliverpool said:
1080p
Click to expand...

I think it is quite obvious what my opinion is about that resolution. It could be fine for year 2005 but it's already mid 2013 and nothing better.

Get rid of this shitty resolution for PCs if you want to have even a slight bigger chance to drive sales north, and not kill the market and report such awful things:

In the first quarter of 2013 the overall PC processor market declined 7.8 percent compared to the fourth quarter ,2012. This is worse than the seasonal average of the previous five years, which is a 4.9 percent decline for this quarter. On-year growth was down 16.1 percent, making this the third quarter in a row where on-year declines have exceeded all quarters, but the downturn of the first quarter 2001 (which was 16.9%).


All segments where down in the quarter, with the mobile processors being particularly hard hit, having the worst on-year decline ever. Quarterly declines in server and desktop CPUs were much more modest. Desktop on-year declines were the worst of any segment, being down 17.9 percent, followed closely by mobile with a 16.4 percent on-year decline. Server shipments are still up on-year, with a 6.2 percent gain.
Click to expand...

Mercury Research PC Processors Market Share Bulletin
 
UniversalTruth said:
I think it is quite obvious what my opinion is about that resolution. It could be fine for year 2005 but it's already mid 2013 and nothing better.

Get rid of this shitty resolution for PCs if you want to have even a slight bigger chance to drive sales north, and not kill the market and report such awful things:



Mercury Research PC Processors Market Share Bulletin
Click to expand...

That's the overall PC market, not the PC gaming market which is still growing. Personally I'd rather see PC's pushing an improved core graphics experience rather than crazy high resolutions.

3D is also a MAJOR differentiator (more so than most realise I believe) but too few people are inclined to purchase a 3D monitor to experience it. It's a shame there aren't more opportunities for the public to try it out as I expect it's popularity would surge if people were able to see what a huge difference it makes on a big monitor. For me the visual gain was far, FAR in excess of what I gained in 2D from moving from a 4890 to a 680.
 
Increasing ppi on current 22-23 inch monitors is essential and critical for overall improvement of image quality. Once ppi gets to the retina range around and over 300 ppi on 22 inch display, then I think I will feel better
 
I would like a 120Hz display or selectable 100, 120, 144Hz. 120Hz minimum is pretty much needed for stereo anyway. The trouble is you're running out of display bandwith even with the brand new Displayport 1.2. You don't have enough for 3.8K at high refresh rate, though you can do 2560x1600 120Hz on a laptop (or a small desktop monitor)

An option could be a dual mode monitor that does 3840x2400 or 3840x2160 at 60Hz, and 1920x1200 or 1920x1080 at 120Hz (games and movies, with some games you might want to run in high dpi instead).
 
Bad graphics with high ppi still looks bad. High ppi should be the least of our worries. I'd rather have detailed surfaces everywhere (3D, no flat textures or fake 3D), better lighting and higher polycount in general.
 
boxleitnerb said:
Bad graphics with high ppi still looks bad. High ppi should be the least of our worries. I'd rather have detailed surfaces everywhere (3D, no flat textures or fake 3D), better lighting and higher polycount in general.
Click to expand...
Hopefully the new consoles bring around such changes. I do think that PPI should be of lesser concern, but I still see it as being rather important. 120 Hz, higher details, and higher PPI are all things that I would like to see.
 
UniversalTruth said:
Increasing ppi on current 22-23 inch monitors is essential and critical for overall improvement of image quality. Once ppi gets to the retina range around and over 300 ppi on 22 inch display, then I think I will feel better
Click to expand...

Honestly, I don't think of 1080p as too little for 22" displays. For 26" and up, definitely, but for 22" it's fine.
 
I don't know what to think. For you it is fine, for me it is annoying and ugly, for the corporations- perhaps too if they decided to put 1080p on 5 inch phone displays...
 
I think we lack points of comparison. I've never seen a high dpi desktop or laptop monitor.
On cell phone it could be a way to make better use of what limited surface you have (but I have very iimited experience in computer cell phones and tablets). With biggers screen though, it won't hurt you, if anything it ought to make reading easier for the eyes but other factors may be of equal or greater concern, I dunno (TN vs non TN, black levels, ability to have a low enough brightness and still have a usable and good picture, nature of ambient and incident lights)
 
I just want an oled monitor, I'd be happy with 1080p on such a device. 3d support would make it perfect. Lg and Samsung are allegedly launching big screen oled screens this year so I figure it should be pretty easy for them to do.
 
From Fudzilla: "GTX 760 Ti, 770, 780 detailed."

According to them,

760 Ti = 670
770 ≈ 680, the cooler will help the 770 to have at least 5% higher performance than the 680
780 is a GK110, 256-bit bus.

I don't believe the bus width… :rolleyes: especially when memory clocks are already at 6 Gbps for the 670 and 680. The other stuff I can believe though.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

A
RDNA3 Efficiency [Spinoff from RDNA4]
3 4 5
Replies
85
Views
6K
Bondrewd
Bondrewd
D
RTX Video HDR modded to work in games, RTX Game HDR?
Replies
7
Views
896
DegustatoR
D
D
DX12, DX12U, DXR, API bias, and API evolution ..
Replies
17
Views
2K
JoeJ
J
P
Speculation and Rumors: Nvidia Blackwell ...
16 17 18
Replies
351
Views
36K
troyan
T
milk
Realtime AI content generation *spawn
2 3
Replies
48
Views
5K
MfA
M
Back
Top