|
SwissArmyDruid posted:Aren't we putting a little too much scrutiny on Polaris 11 when Polaris 10 is supposed to be the enthusiast end of that product stack? For normal purposes, yeah, for pipe dream "holy poo poo did Raja's talk of lowering the price of an affordable VR GPU pan out" Polaris 11 being VR capable would be awesome. I'm guessing it'd rely on big VR specific gains though and kind of doubt it will happen, since NV's comparison has it at ~50% over the 980 in actual games, which puts it at 15-20% more than 980 Ti. That's not enough room above the 970 for two full tiers. However if you use that VR specific figure and Polaris 11 is a bit above 380X in regular games it might be workable. And right, 2017 was the APUs.
|
#
?
May 9, 2016 18:18
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 21:12 |
|
|
Zero VGS posted:It sucks a bit because AMD is kinda doing the "right thing" by trying to prioritize affordable low/mid-tier cards for the 99%. I was thinking about this recently but I don't know how I feel about it anymore. On the steam GPU survey, the 970 is the most popular card (at 5%) while the lower end 950 is in only about a tenth of those (0.5%). I guess I had always assumed that the $150 cards outsold the $350 cards 10:1.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2016 18:56
|
|
|
Naffer posted:I was thinking about this recently but I don't know how I feel about it anymore. On the steam GPU survey, the 970 is the most popular card (at 5%) while the lower end 950 is in only about a tenth of those (0.5%). I guess I had always assumed that the $150 cards outsold the $350 cards 10:1. People who play games started getting jobs over the last 5 years imo
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2016 18:58
|
|
|
Naffer posted:I was thinking about this recently but I don't know how I feel about it anymore. On the steam GPU survey, the 970 is the most popular card (at 5%) while the lower end 950 is in only about a tenth of those (0.5%). I guess I had always assumed that the $150 cards outsold the $350 cards 10:1. Why compare to the 950? The 960 is a better comparison, and even then it's a mediocrity that came out later and was overpriced. The 970 was a good card that came out without its weaknesses being known and with its competition being severely misrepresented in benchmarks. It's one of the most successful launches of all time. However, if that's all NV has and AMD owns the lower end for a while that's a lot of low end GPUs they're making the new version of. It's also a return to mobile where basically any market share they get is a gain.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2016 19:07
|
|
|
THE DOG HOUSE posted:People who play games started getting jobs over the last 5 years imo I...don't think so? People have been playing games since like the 70s, dude.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2016 19:13
|
|
|
xthetenth posted:Why compare to the 950? The 960 is a better comparison, and even then it's a mediocrity that came out later and was overpriced. The 970 was a good card that came out without its weaknesses being known and with its competition being severely misrepresented in benchmarks. It's one of the most successful launches of all time. I picked the 950 because it was cheaper than the 960, but I didn't realize it was released ~6 months after. There are almost as many 970's as 750ti's, 950, and 960's combined: http://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey/videocard/ Talk about a successful card.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2016 19:22
|
|
|
It's a survey from a gamer demographic whom would care about getting high on their graphic settings.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2016 19:25
|
|
|
Naffer posted:I picked the 950 because it was cheaper than the 960, but I didn't realize it was released ~6 months after. Was steam doing the survey back when the 8800 GT dropped? That's the only card I can think of that got the same ludicrous mindshare and had everyone scrambling to buy it.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2016 19:26
|
|
|
Nyaa posted:It's a survey from a gamer demographic whom would care about getting high on their graphic settings. Why would we need to include non-gamers who buy gaming GPUs?
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2016 19:37
|
|
|
xthetenth posted:Was steam doing the survey back when the 8800 GT dropped? That's the only card I can think of that got the same ludicrous mindshare and had everyone scrambling to buy it. Probably because that card can pretty much max any PS4/Xbone port at max settings at 1080 which is what most PC users are still using.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2016 19:40
|
|
|
Nfcknblvbl posted:Why would we need to include non-gamers who buy gaming GPUs?
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2016 19:42
|
|
|
Nyaa posted:My point was the gamer cares more about getting better graphic than being frugal. Sorry, I thought you were trying to discredit the survey, effectively saying that most AMD GPU customers don't use Steam or some poo poo.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2016 19:44
|
|
|
xthetenth posted:Was steam doing the survey back when the 8800 GT dropped? That's the only card I can think of that got the same ludicrous mindshare and had everyone scrambling to buy it. Ahem, 9700/9800 Pro. Of course Steam didn't even exist back then, much less a hardware survey.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2016 19:45
|
|
|
Nfcknblvbl posted:Sorry, I thought you were trying to discredit the survey, effectively saying that most AMD GPU customers don't use Steam or some poo poo. I'm pretty sure 300 series reporting is bugged and they just aren't showing, actually. I think they were showing up for a bit. Seamonster posted:Ahem, 9700/9800 Pro. Of course Steam didn't even exist back then, much less a hardware survey. True. The 8800 GT was the only one since that was really the only card people considered (and that one flat out didn't have ATI competition while the 970 was just up against a very underrated card.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2016 19:49
|
|
|
feedmegin posted:I...don't think so? People have been playing games since like the 70s, dude. He's not wrong though. Everyone has noticed that the market is stratifying - most people use/play on iGPUs, the consoles own the low-end market, and the high-end gaming market is taking off like crazy. Sales of things like 980 Tis have skyrocketed. They're still a minority even of high-end gaming but sales of 970s and 390s are huge. $300 cards being popular is novel within the last couple years. Paul MaudDib fucked around with this message at 19:58 on May 9, 2016 |
|
#
?
May 9, 2016 19:55
|
|
|
Uhh, I guess this should explain what the Founder's edition is, and why there will be a lack of reference design coolers from OEMs... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QYA-IR2sqTE
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2016 20:38
|
|
|
Paul MaudDib posted:He's not wrong though. Everyone has noticed that the market is stratifying - most people use/play on iGPUs, the consoles own the low-end market, and the high-end gaming market is taking off like crazy. Bitcoin billionaires cashing in 
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2016 20:45
|
|
|
PCs have been better performance per dollar than consoles for ages now, but we're *almost* to the point where they can be strictly better at the same price point. Like, the PS4.5 is expected to drop for $400. Now here's the cheapest PC I can whip up that's not crap: quote:PCPartPicker part list / Price breakdown by merchant That's $242 for a mini-ITX PC you can overclock to 4.4mhz with the included cooler. It has the weakness of no hyperthreading which fucks it on some games, but it's in throwing distance of a Skylake motherboard and i3 that'd fix that issue. If Polaris 11 is around $150, then you've probably got a combo that'd kick the poo poo out of a PS4.5 for the same pricepoint and can be upgraded. It would be cool if a PC OEM could put everything together into something like the Alienware Alpha, but with a real, upgradable GPU. On another note: Nvidia posted:Lens Matched Shading increases pixel shading performance by rendering more natively to the unique dimensions of VR display output. This avoids rendering many pixels that would otherwise be discarded before the image is output to the VR headset. That makes sense to skip rendering the pixels that the Rift/Vive lenses don't capture. But would it be possible, if NVidia/AMD planned around it, to actually boost performance but not rendering the subpixels of the pentile displays?
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2016 21:02
|
|
|
Zero VGS posted:That's $242 for a mini-ITX PC you can overclock to 4.4mhz with the included cooler. It has the weakness of no hyperthreading which fucks it on some games, but it's in throwing distance of a Skylake motherboard and i3 that'd fix that issue.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2016 21:08
|
|
|
Nfcknblvbl posted:That price is great but these console guys probably only own a TV, and a nice monitor could be a bit much for them.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2016 21:09
|
|
|
feedmegin posted:I...don't think so? People have been playing games since like the 70s, dude. Yeah but there has been a noticeable shift ... the 970 is like the most popular card ever sold. If you said a minimum $330 card (even equivalent in inflation) was the most purchased card 10 years ago that would be laughable. Those cards existed back then too but they certainly weren't "mainstream". Why this is the case I have no real idea, increased disposable income with age and reduced negative stigma (for better or for worse) for gaming is just a wild guess. But this is just my opinion and I could be very wrong about it lol, and im certainly not trying to say $200 pricepoint cards aren't important (who wouldn't want good cards at every pricepoint).
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2016 21:17
|
|
|
If only you could plug a computer into a tv
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2016 21:19
|
|
|
Zero VGS posted:That's $242 for a mini-ITX PC you can overclock to 4.4mhz with the included cooler. It has the weakness of no hyperthreading which fucks it on some games, but it's in throwing distance of a Skylake motherboard and i3 that'd fix that issue. Game studios are very focused on multicore for current and future games, as both consoles depend heavily on it. There are already games that won't play on dual core chips without fiddling, and that trend should be expected to continue. The minimum CPU for gaming is really in the 200 ~ 300 dollar range these days. Price+performance parity with consoles is just not possible, and given how the two bits of hardware are designed, built and assembled, probably never will be.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2016 21:20
|
|
|
Zero VGS posted:PCs have been better performance per dollar than consoles for ages now, but we're *almost* to the point where they can be strictly better at the same price point. I think your general thought is good, but Mirror's Edge will require a quad core and will also be on consoles. I'd expect in a couple years more games will have that requirement.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2016 21:23
|
|
|
Zero VGS posted:But would it be possible, if NVidia/AMD planned around it, to actually boost performance but not rendering the subpixels of the pentile displays? Nope, the subpixels the GPU spends the bulk of its time shading don't map exactly to the subpixels on the display after the lens-correction warp is applied. I think you could do it in a raytracer but that's no good for games 
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2016 21:24
|
|
|
EoRaptor posted:The minimum CPU for gaming is really in the 200 ~ 300 dollar range these days. Lockback posted:I think your general thought is good, but Mirror's Edge will require a quad core and will also be on consoles. I'd expect in a couple years more games will have that requirement. Won't an i3-6100 most likely do fine though? I don't think there's a single game out now that can't hold 30 fps on one and most non-open world games will happily pass 60 and keep going. Even the dreaded Ashes of the Singularity gets 50ish. It could be that everything is going to start scaling better with more cores and thus expecting them due to DX12/Vulkan ostensibly alleviating the single threaded performance bottleneck, but I don't think it'll immediately obsolete dual cores with hyperthreading.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2016 21:29
|
|
|
Don Lapre posted:If only you could plug a computer into a tv I see what you're saying but it's not like you can expect the average Dorito cramming, Mtn Dew chugging, CoD 360 no-scoping alpha male to properly set a PC up to behave quite like a console can. Maybe for a small premium they can have a Geek Squad tech come over and set Steam to start up with Big Picture or something.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2016 21:34
|
|
|
Nfcknblvbl posted:I see what you're saying but it's not like you can expect the average Dorito cramming, Mtn Dew chugging, CoD 360 no-scoping alpha male to properly set a PC up to behave quite like a console can. 
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2016 21:37
|
|
|
It'd be nice if overscan unfucking were easier though.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2016 21:39
|
|
|
Don Lapre posted:If only you could plug a computer into a tv You can, but input lag is pretty brutal on a decent fraction of televisions. Sometimes turning off motion compensation fixes it, sometimes not. Some sets will pop out of "gaming" mode when games tweak resolution at launch, too. It's gonna get interesting when Freesync is on a decent quantity of TVs though, because it may really help smooth out some of the flaws of console gameplay.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2016 21:41
|
|
|
Anime Schoolgirl posted:yes plugging in a single video+audio cord is definitely too much for the average video game player who has no less than 20 dialog boxes to set up a modern console So what else is stopping the great console -> PC exodus, system exclusive titles?
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2016 21:42
|
|
|
Even if it is hooked up properly, unless you have a TV with low Edit: beaten Bloodplay it again fucked around with this message at 23:59 on May 9, 2016 |
|
#
?
May 9, 2016 21:44
|
|
|
Nfcknblvbl posted:So what else is stopping the great console -> PC exodus, system exclusive titles? An easy to use interface, and I hate to say this word, but an established and understood "ecosystem". When compared to an average PC the console is just plain simpler to use and is far more approachable. However they are really starting to try with Steam OS, and if PC's can break through that final barrier there may very well be an exodus. Or rather, there will be some kind of weird merging when Sony and Microsoft see the writing on the wall.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2016 21:47
|
|
|
Founder's Edition explained: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LJ0AoYSH01g TL;DR, reference board and cooler. Seriously, that's it. Seems Nvidia thinks their cooler is better than everyone else's. (I also don't believe for a moment that the demo card wasn't cherry-picked.) Takeaway: * Nvidia is the sole seller of the reference card. Money goes straight into their pocket, no middleman. * Since they get to market before partners, that's an extra $100 free right into their pocket * Partner cards start at $100 cheaper than reference, so they can add cost in the form of custom coolers back up to the reference card price. * Congratulations, Nvidia. You have succeeded in turning the base model without moonroof or power windows into the top-of-the-line model and charging people an extra $100 for it. I find that last point to be skeezy as gently caress.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2016 21:54
|
|
|
Bloodplay it again posted:Even if it is hooked up properly, unless you have a TV with low input lag, games are going to look like rear end on it in motion. I went with the KDL55W950B specifically because of this but I'm guessing the average TV is a Vizio or something similar. The real answer for the lack of console -> PC exodus is fear and laziness. It's super easy to go and buy a PS4 and plug in one thing and be done with it. No having to spend hours researching what to buy so that you're not inadvertently gimping yourself or inadvertently spending money needlessly. A lot of people are also still convinced that building a PC is difficult or tricky or whatever. My mother could figure out how to plug a Wii in, but holy gently caress there's no way I'd just send her a parts list off NewEgg and assume that would work out well.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2016 21:56
|
|
|
SwissArmyDruid posted:I find that last point to be skeezy as gently caress. If Nvidia sells their Founder's Edition at base cost, they'd be directly competing against their own re-sellers, I'm pretty sure they don't want to do that.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2016 21:57
|
|
|
Consumers are dumb news at 11 I hope steam boxes or whatever eventually take off, if nothing else just to expose the masses to the wonderful thing that is steam workshop and the ease of modding it provides.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2016 22:00
|
|
|
When console players start playing FPSes on PC with their controllers they're gonna get destroyed.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2016 22:01
|
|
|
Nfcknblvbl posted:If Nvidia sells their Founder's Edition at base cost, they'd be directly competing against their own re-sellers, I'm pretty sure they don't want to do that. Maybe I am misreading, but what he described sounds more like Nvidia is charging 449$ and 599$ for reference, then ~100$ cheaper to AIB partners, who then jack up the price again with custom features. This kind of makes it sound like there might be a supply issue, and Nvidia is trying to maximize profit temporarily, as I'd think reference models should be cheaper on average.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2016 22:03
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 21:12 |
|
|
SwissArmyDruid posted:Founder's Edition explained: NVTTM is really good (and expensive) so this is actually not bad. "reference editions" of previous cards were usually more expensive than aftermarket coolers
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2016 22:06
|
|
