UniversalTruth
Veteran
In the majority of cases it is not even possible technically. How big should be that room?
And second- with 50-60 inches panel a different problem arises. The PPI and resolution. If you glue your nose to it, that you will see large ugly pixels and no good image quality at all. That's why Ultra HD resolution should at least partially solve tis issue.
Last edited by a moderator:
That's true. With normal vision you shouldn't need to squint your eyes to read the smallest text displayed on a TV. The kiddy stuff above is mostly to avoid children's eye strain and fatigue side-effects.
Dolby / THX recommendations are 1.2x to 1.8x screen size - http://www.thx.com/consumer/home-entertainment/home-theater/hdtv-set-up/
Most people with 20/20 vision can't resolve 1080p details (or 720p for that matter) at the distances you are talking at.
Oh you definitely gain the 1080p details at such a distance, but the added bonus is also that also notice quite a lot of nasty side effects which I'm not particularly fond of anyway. Again for some of you that obviously can't read: I pointed it that there are lot of factors at play and for small children additional safety measures would be advisable (if they don't look away or move around every now and then). The closer a child will sit to any display medium that captures the majority of its viewfield the higher the chances that it can't be that easily distracted by anything else.
As for the rest even the question of the viewing distance on a mobile phone is highly relative to the resolution itself and font size amongst others. However my point still stands that if someone needs to almost glue his nose on a =/>3" smartphone screen in order to read text there's most likely something wrong.
At worst read again my last post above before yours and I honestly hope that that's the end of that rather pointless OT.
iMacmatician
Regular
iMacmatician
Regular
From NVIDIA's blogs: "BIG IMAC NEWS: LESS HEFT, MORE KEPLER."
The 675MX has been known for a few weeks, but the 680MX is new.
680M: 1344 CCs, 720 MHz core, 3.6 Gbps GDDR5.
680MX: 1536 CCs, 720 MHz core, 5.0 Gbps GDDR5.
I wonder what the TDP of the 680MX is.
The 675MX has been known for a few weeks, but the 680MX is new.
680M: 1344 CCs, 720 MHz core, 3.6 Gbps GDDR5.
680MX: 1536 CCs, 720 MHz core, 5.0 Gbps GDDR5.
I wonder what the TDP of the 680MX is.
Obvious joke aside, there's nothing in the specifications that suggests such a slouch, rather the exact opposite for a mobile GPU.
Yeah, not only does NVIDIA have weird, anything-but-explicit suffixes, but they're not even consistent!
I guess Ti = better, MX = slower in the past, now better, and SE = different but kind of similar, yet usually somewhat slower. Not to mention the prefixes (G, GT, GTX). I wish they just used numbers.
Blazkowicz
Legend
M is mobile and MX is mobile X, that makes sense.
But without reading the numbers here on B3D I would have trouble knowing what is it.
But without reading the numbers here on B3D I would have trouble knowing what is it.
iMacmatician
Regular
I wonder if the "X" will move to the desktop, and if so, when. GTX 680X? 780X?
UniversalTruth
Veteran
Why G, GT, GTX?
This naming scheme is extremely boring in my eyes. Don't wanna see it, no more.
I would prefer if they return GeForce 7 something, like GeForce 7 ZXS, something more fancy, with more imagination.
Or like HTC and Sony do. HTC One X, Sony Xperia S, etc...
That is a naming scheme with style.
Why G, GT, GTX?
This naming scheme is extremely boring in my eyes. Don't wanna see it, no more.
I would prefer if they return GeForce 7 something, like GeForce 7 ZXS, something more fancy, with more imagination.
Or like HTC and Sony do. HTC One X, Sony Xperia S, etc...
That is a naming scheme with style.
*Cough*
Yields and the node process has probably improved to the point where they can bin for that specific chip at the same power consumption as the 680m. I think 100 watt tdp is the psychological max Nvidia and AMD are willing to go with for mobile parts, so if it is any higher than the 680m it is probably not by very much at all.
Well there's a lot of psychological effect by going to 1536SP (full kepler ), but if they dont increase the clock speed, the gain will be really not big over the "680M" .( some few percent faster ). Something you gain without problem by increasing the core speed, on the same way, you can add the memory speed. TDP wise, i dont know what is the best to do.
Last edited by a moderator:
The memory is clocked way higher with the 680m, eliminating the memory bottle neck. You are right in that the smx increase from 7 to 8 won't net much gain, but coupled with the significantly higher memory bandwidth, the 680mx will end up noticeably faster at 1080p resolutions.
Since M stands for mobile for quite some time now, there aren't as many "neutral" letters to use after the M to differentiate it from the 680M. They could have called it 685M for instance, but then there would had been objections that it's misleading (not unjustified).
Naming schemes are sooo boring as a topic irrelevant of IHV. They could have called it 680M-withcheese for all I care.
UniversalTruth
Veteran
681M? 682M? 683M?
Unless they show they think about it. A change would be always welcome. For diversity purposes.
