NVIDIA Kepler speculation thread

[pjbliverpool]

What kind of normal resolutions? 1024 X 768?

1080p

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

Not really tbh. IMO 1080p with good AA is plenty. Id much rather play at that resolution with max Crysis 3 level visuals than 4k with min Crysis 3 visuals - provided I have some half decent AA as well.

 

[keldor314]

What kind of normal resolutions? 1024 X 768?

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

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.

 

[silent_guy]

Besides, a 4K display costs what? North of 5 grand?

FWIW: A Seiki 4K 50" TV goes for $1500.
http://m.tigerdirect.com/applications/SearchTools/item-details.asp?EdpNo=7674736

 

[BRiT]

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.

 

[AlphaWolf]

More pixels beats everything if you really only care about checkboxing features.

 

[silent_guy]

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.

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.

 

[silent_guy]

More pixels beats everything if you really only care about checkboxing features.

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.

 

[UniversalTruth]

1080p

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.

Mercury Research PC Processors Market Share Bulletin

 

[pjbliverpool]

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

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.

 

[UniversalTruth]

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

 

[Blazkowicz]

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).

 

[boxleitnerb]

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.

 

[Homeles]

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.

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.

 

[Alexko]

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

Honestly, I don't think of 1080p as too little for 22" displays. For 26" and up, definitely, but for 22" it's fine.

 

[UniversalTruth]

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...

 

[AlphaWolf]

Try sitting more than 12" away from your monitor, your eyes will thank you.

 

[Blazkowicz]

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)

 

[snarfbot]

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.

 

[iMacmatician]

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… especially when memory clocks are already at 6 Gbps for the 670 and 680. The other stuff I can believe though.

 

[Homeles]

770 ≈ 680, the cooler will help the 770 to have over 5% higher performance than the 680
780 is a GK110, 256-bit bus.

That performance number seem to your own estimate -- not seeing any claims in the article.