Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
AMD HBM Confirmed
#1
http://www.extremetech.com/gaming/204668...-interface
So rumor confirmed.
Valve hater, Nintendo hater, Microsoft defender, AMD hater, Google Fiber hater, 4K lover, net neutrality lover.
Reply
#2
I'm really hoping AMD can pull off a big win with Captain Jack.
Reply
#3
(05-02-2015, 10:55 PM)SickBeast Wrote: I'm really hoping AMD can pull off a big win with Captain Jack.
Me too, I want to see radical GPU power for the 4K+ future.
Valve hater, Nintendo hater, Microsoft defender, AMD hater, Google Fiber hater, 4K lover, net neutrality lover.
Reply
#4
(05-02-2015, 11:00 PM)SteelCrysis Wrote:
(05-02-2015, 10:55 PM)SickBeast Wrote: I'm really hoping AMD can pull off a big win with Captain Jack.
Me too, I want to see radical GPU power for the 4K+ future.

You're going to be waiting a really long time if you want to game at 4k. Either that or you will spend a ton of money on GPUs. IMO you would want a pair of Titan-Xs in SLI, so $2000 at this point. Plus you will have to deal with SLI and all the headaches and nonsense that go along with it. If you cheap out you could maybe live with GTX 970 SLI but that is really pushing it IMO. It's still expensive as well.

It's going to take 3-4 years for the hardware to become more affordable and even then the devs will probably optimize their games for 1080p. There is just no point to 4k unless you sit really close to a really big screen. I like the technology but I'm not willing to pay several thousand dollars for it. I have yet to see a 4k TV with more than one HDMI 2.0 port as well. I can't live with one port. 3 ports is the bare minimum IMO. It really boggles my mind that they can't put proper ports on $2000+ TVs.
Reply
#5
How is 970 SLi "expensive"? $600 isn't exactly break the bank stuff in pc gaming terms.
Reply
#6
(05-03-2015, 04:03 AM)RolloTheGreat Wrote: How is 970 SLi "expensive"? $600 isn't exactly break the bank stuff in pc gaming terms.
Well that's $800 in Canadian dollars plus we pay 13% sales tax and they never charge us the equivalent price to usd, we always pay more. It would be close to $1000 for me. A lot of money. Plus it would only be barely adequate for 4k and the vram would hold me back over time. Not to mention how much a 4k TV would cost. No thanks. I'm happy with my current hardware for 1080p. I don't see the point in spending $3-4 grand to render more pixels that I can't even see.
Reply
#7
(05-03-2015, 05:36 AM)SickBeast Wrote:
(05-03-2015, 04:03 AM)RolloTheGreat Wrote: How is 970 SLi "expensive"? $600 isn't exactly break the bank stuff in pc gaming terms.
Well that's $800 in Canadian dollars plus we pay 13% sales tax and they never charge us the equivalent price to usd, we always pay more. It would be close to $1000 for me. A lot of money. Plus it would only be barely adequate for 4k and the vram would hold me back over time. Not to mention how much a 4k TV would cost. No thanks. I'm happy with my current hardware for 1080p. I don't see the point in spending $3-4 grand to render more pixels that I can't even see.

I have no plans to get 4k at present either.

Just don't game much anymore, my 25X16 panels are fine for me.

Do you guys have to pay the high prices for AMD as well? R290 CF is $450 here and could run 4K?
Reply
#8
(05-03-2015, 07:55 AM)RolloTheGreat Wrote:
(05-03-2015, 05:36 AM)SickBeast Wrote:
(05-03-2015, 04:03 AM)RolloTheGreat Wrote: How is 970 SLi "expensive"? $600 isn't exactly break the bank stuff in pc gaming terms.
Well that's $800 in Canadian dollars plus we pay 13% sales tax and they never charge us the equivalent price to usd, we always pay more. It would be close to $1000 for me. A lot of money. Plus it would only be barely adequate for 4k and the vram would hold me back over time. Not to mention how much a 4k TV would cost. No thanks. I'm happy with my current hardware for 1080p. I don't see the point in spending $3-4 grand to render more pixels that I can't even see.

I have no plans to get 4k at present either.

Just don't game much anymore, my 25X16 panels are fine for me.

Do you guys have to pay the high prices for AMD as well?  R290 CF is $450 here and could run 4K?
Everything costs more here. When our dollar was at parity things were better but we still paid more for a lot of things. Our government charges hidden levies on a lot of things, it's really bad. I often have stuff shipped to the border so I can pick it up myself and bring it home.

The 290s were going for cheap here not long ago however I would then need a massive PSU plus I would have to mod both cards for watercooling in order to deal with all the heat and noise. Crossfire is half baked as well.

So long as the price of oil stays low, so will the Canadian dollar. I'm just saving up all the money that I'm saving with the cheap gas right now and when things go back up I will buy some hardware and stuff. Smile
Reply
#9
(05-03-2015, 08:00 AM)SickBeast Wrote: The 290s were going for cheap here not long ago however I would then need a massive PSU plus I would have to mod both cards for watercooling in order to deal with all the heat and noise.  Crossfire is half baked as well.

Haven't used it since 7970s, it had issues then.

Have a HIS IceQ 290 in one of my boxes that I like pretty well.
Reply
#10
My point remains that 4k is just not ready for prime time yet. When 1080p came out I bought a bunch of expensive hardware to run games properly and I would never do it again. I paid $2000 for my 1080p television and the prices dropped so fast it was really hard to watch. The same thing is happening with 4k. It will be a standard feature in a couple of years. For now it's just half baked.
Reply
#11
(05-03-2015, 05:36 AM)SickBeast Wrote:
(05-03-2015, 04:03 AM)RolloTheGreat Wrote: How is 970 SLi "expensive"? $600 isn't exactly break the bank stuff in pc gaming terms.
Well that's $800 in Canadian dollars plus we pay 13% sales tax and they never charge us the equivalent price to usd, we always pay more. It would be close to $1000 for me. A lot of money. Plus it would only be barely adequate for 4k and the vram would hold me back over time. Not to mention how much a 4k TV would cost. No thanks. I'm happy with my current hardware for 1080p. I don't see the point in spending $3-4 grand to render more pixels that I can't even see.

You do not require a 4K TV. DSR works just fine for 4K @ 1080p and you can really see the difference. You only require true 4K if you are a professional doing professional level work.
Adam knew he should have bought a PC but Eve fell for the marketing hype.

Homeopathy is what happened when snake oil salesmen discovered that water is cheaper than snake oil.

The reason they call it the American Dream is because you have to be asleep to believe it. -- George Carlin
Reply
#12
(05-03-2015, 08:26 AM)SickBeast Wrote: My point remains that 4k is just not ready for prime time yet.  When 1080p came out I bought a bunch of expensive hardware to run games properly and I would never do it again.  I paid $2000 for my 1080p television and the prices dropped so fast it was really hard to watch.  The same thing is happening with 4k.  It will be a standard feature in a couple of years.  For now it's just half baked.

Agreed, on tv content is just lacking and I don't think they have the bandwidth to deliver it.

For computers, "build multi gpu uber box, then run everything but games at scaled back 1080p" leaves me cold. I leave it at 25X16 now, am happy with that.

(05-03-2015, 01:34 PM)gstanford Wrote:
(05-03-2015, 05:36 AM)SickBeast Wrote:
(05-03-2015, 04:03 AM)RolloTheGreat Wrote: How is 970 SLi "expensive"? $600 isn't exactly break the bank stuff in pc gaming terms.
Well that's $800 in Canadian dollars plus we pay 13% sales tax and they never charge us the equivalent price to usd, we always pay more. It would be close to $1000 for me. A lot of money. Plus it would only be barely adequate for 4k and the vram would hold me back over time. Not to mention how much a 4k TV would cost. No thanks. I'm happy with my current hardware for 1080p. I don't see the point in spending $3-4 grand to render more pixels that I can't even see.

You do not require a 4K TV.  DSR works just fine for 4K @ 1080p and you can really see the difference.  You only require true 4K if you are a professional doing professional level work.

Sort of, according to Tech Report:

http://techreport.com/review/27102/maxwe...explored/3

Quote:I've gotta say, though, I went back and looked at this same scene on a true 4K monitor. Yeah, uh, that's even better, to put it gently.

So if I pay $500 for another 980, I can get something worse than 4K. (don't think my single 980 is pulling this off)
Reply
#13
I'm sure true 4K is even better still than DSR, but DSR is certainly nothing to sneeze at, it makes a very noticeable difference over 1080p and even 2560x1600/1440 imo, and I've used 2560x1600 for years now.

I wish there were a way to capture DSR screens as they are seen in 1080p, not just a copy of the 4K framebuffer then people might start to get it.
Adam knew he should have bought a PC but Eve fell for the marketing hype.

Homeopathy is what happened when snake oil salesmen discovered that water is cheaper than snake oil.

The reason they call it the American Dream is because you have to be asleep to believe it. -- George Carlin
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)