|
Cooler like that looks like it's 3D printed, and about as effective, I'd immediately get an NZXT bracket and put that thing under water before even slotting it in.
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2019 07:56
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 2, 2024 09:36 |
|
|
fknlo posted:ASUS 2080(?) for $510. i think the picture is also of a 2070 not a 2080- https://www.asus.com/us/Graphics-Cards/TURBO-RTX2080-8G/overview/ looks like a 2080 has a USB C port in lieu of a second HDMI on the 2070. that being said, if you look at the CUDA count and all that on the amazon description , it matches a 2080 https://www.asus.com/Graphics-Cards/TURBO-RTX2080-8G/specifications/ E: idk that this information is necessarily useful, just that its there  personally i would buy it then have them refund the difference or ship me the right one if they sent a 2070
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2019 13:38
|
|
|
K8.0 posted:It's worth noting that 4k60 is absolutely pointless for gaming and not a goal worth chasing. Everything is skipping such enormous numbers of pixels every frame that there's no reason for them to exist. Something that takes a second to cross the screen is skipping 64 pixels per frame, it's absurd. All pixels matter.  I mean that literally, by the way. All forms of antialiasing are basically trying to make up for the fact that you're rasterizing vector geometry to a resolution that's too low to look decent, and that involves sampling the source multiple times per pixel in one way or another, effectively faking more output pixels. With 4K you don't get anywhere near as much aliasing in the first place simply because you're not trying to squeeze as much information into as few pixels. If you don't care much about sharp images and clean edges, sure, that's your preference, but I sure as hell do and to me it's a world of difference. I really wonder what the people who claim "you can barely tell the difference between 1440p and 4k" are seeing, because to me it's a gigantic difference - getting home to my 4K monitor after a day with the 1440p one at work feels kinda like putting on my glasses and un-blurring the entire world. While we're on the topic of hot takes though: high refresh rate isn't worth chasing. I can barely tell a difference between 60 and 120Hz. Freesync is worth it though. TheFluff fucked around with this message at 14:15 on Mar 26, 2019 |
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2019 14:07
|
|
|
K8.0 posted:It's worth noting that 4k60 is absolutely pointless for gaming and not a goal worth chasing. Everything is skipping such enormous numbers of pixels every frame that there's no reason for them to exist. Something that takes a second to cross the screen is skipping 64 pixels per frame, it's absurd. How is “number of pixels skipped per frame” in any way more relevant than “angular distance skipped per frame”, which should be more or less the same as lower resolutions unless you’re using 4K to fill more of your vision? E: personally, I’ve found I enjoy 90fps more than 60, but 90+ all looks the same. Stickman fucked around with this message at 14:21 on Mar 26, 2019 |
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2019 14:18
|
|
|
TheFluff posted:I really wonder what the people who claim "you can barely tell the difference between 1440p and 4k" are seeing, because to me it's a gigantic difference - getting home to my 4K monitor after a day with the 1440p one at work feels kinda like putting on my glasses and un-blurring the entire world. I feel inclined to agree. When I went from 1080p to 1440p, that was a very "OH poo poo WHOA" moment, as much as going from 1024x768 to 1080p. I haven't had a chance to see a proper 4k monitor yet, but I bet it would be the same thing, I just didn't go for it because I can't afford the hardware to make it run smoothly. Also 60Hz is basically as fluid as it can get, no game I play would benefit in any way from being "smoother" (but then I am not a pro-gamer in any sense of the word) .
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2019 14:20
|
|
|
fknlo posted:ASUS 2080(?) for $510. Just put in a query with the vendor? Either they uploaded the wrong stock phone or they C/P'd the wrong text in. Or it's a deliberate scam in which case you chasing the deal that's too good to be true is going to end badly for you.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2019 14:21
|
|
|
I see the opposite. I can instantly see the difference between 60 and 120 Hz (Not 120 and 144 though) but I needed to use my monitor's OSD to confirm that Freesync was enabled. 120+ Hz is such a big deal to me I don't want to ever get a main monitor that doesn't run at at least that. I'd take 2560x1440/120 Hz over 4K/60 if those were the only 2 options. My side ones are still 60 Hz and it's not a big deal since I use them for reading or watching TV.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2019 14:24
|
|
|
K8.0 posted:It's worth noting that 4k60 is absolutely pointless for gaming and not a goal worth chasing. Everything is skipping such enormous numbers of pixels every frame that there's no reason for them to exist. Something that takes a second to cross the screen is skipping 64 pixels per frame, it's absurd. is this the new "but humans only see 24fps"? vvv: yup, i guess it is lmfao Truga fucked around with this message at 14:29 on Mar 26, 2019 |
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2019 14:24
|
|
|
Stickman posted:How is “number of pixels skipped per frame” in any way more relevant than “angular distance skipped per frame”, which should be more or less the same as lower resolutions unless you’re using 4K to fill more of your vision? Because your brain can compensate for a lack of resolution, but it doesn't like when clearly perceptible things are teleporting around. You can demonstrate this pretty easily with really old games, many of which look smooth even at 20 FPS because the resolution is so low. Frame rate needed to look good rises in correlation with resolution, because you can perceive finer angular detail. TheFluff posted:All pixels matter. "Check out these minor improvements to edge aliasing! Who cares if the entire scene is suffering horrific spatial aliasing?" K8.0 fucked around with this message at 14:29 on Mar 26, 2019 |
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2019 14:25
|
|
|
Its a 2070 part number.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2019 14:29
|
|
|
K8.0 posted:Because your brain can compensate for a lack of resolution, but it doesn't like when clearly perceptible things are teleporting around. You can demonstrate this pretty easily with really old games, many of which look smooth even at 20 FPS because the resolution is so low.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2019 14:31
|
|
|
K8.0 posted:"Check out these minor improvements to edge aliasing! Who cares if the entire scene is suffering horrific spatial aliasing?" TheFluff fucked around with this message at 14:39 on Mar 26, 2019 |
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2019 14:35
|
|
|
Spatial aliasing is artifacting due to the sampling frequency being too low to properly capture the detail. If you can't grasp how that applies to both resolution and framerate, and how resolution has outrun framerate and framerate is now causing the vast majority of aliasing, you need to stop and think for a while. Think of it in the context of capturing a waveform, visualizing 1d data in 2d might help you understand the concept better. Capturing a sound with 512 bits of resolution and a sample rate of 10hz is going to be absolute trash. If the sample rate doesn't increase along with resolution, you easily reach a point where you're accomplishing more or less nothing outside of static analysis of a single moment. e - to put it another way, 4k60 is a bad target for the same reason that 320x200@7776 FPS (the same pixel throughput) is a bad target. The sample rates on different axes are grossly out of balance with each other. K8.0 fucked around with this message at 14:48 on Mar 26, 2019 |
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2019 14:39
|
|
|
K8.0 posted:Because your brain can compensate for a lack of resolution, but it doesn't like when clearly perceptible things are teleporting around. You can demonstrate this pretty easily with really old games, many of which look smooth even at 20 FPS because the resolution is so low. Frame rate needed to look good rises in correlation with resolution, because you can perceive finer angular detail. Do you know any sources for this? It sounds plausible, but I’d also believe that old games vs new games might come down down more to artistic choices than resolution (see, modern console games running at 30fps at 4K). I’m skeptical that it would apply at the level of 1080p vs 4K, but I’ll try it out tomorrow. Of course it’s impossible to blind and now I’m thinking about it, so actual studies would be ideal 
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2019 14:47
|
|
|
3840x2160 looks better than 2560x1440. There's no need to think about it more than that. If you can't see the difference you saved money. It's why I don't like benchmarking, if I can't see the difference it doesn't matter to me if my system can do 120 FPS or 15FPS. Some people claim they can't see more than 24 FPS, which seems crazy to me, but if that's all they can see just get cheaper stuff and who cares what the numbers are?
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2019 14:51
|
|
|
Stickman posted:Do you know any sources for this? It sounds plausible, but I’d also believe that old games vs new games might come down down more to artistic choices than resolution (see, modern console games running at 30fps at 4K). I’m skeptical that it would apply at the level of 1080p vs 4K, but I’ll try it out tomorrow. There are some studies but I think they all have at least some flaws. This NASA summary for the purposes of flight sim design talks about some of them.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2019 14:57
|
|
|
Alchenar posted:Just put in a query with the vendor? Either they uploaded the wrong stock phone or they C/P'd the wrong text in. Or it's a deliberate scam in which case you chasing the deal that's too good to be true is going to end badly for you. It's sold by ASUS and fulfilled by Amazon. I don't have any actual expectations of getting a 2080 and if a 2070 shows up at my door I just have to send it back. It's Amazon.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2019 15:05
|
|
|
I'm really questioning if it's even a 2070. If you go to ASUS website and click through from the lowest-end 2070, you wind up on this page. I have no idea what you're going to get but I bet it's hilarious.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2019 15:10
|
|
|
It definitely exists - it’s just the TURBO model. There’s a 2080 version, too, so we’re back to
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2019 15:14
|
|
|
K8.0 posted:I'm really questioning if it's even a 2070. If you go to ASUS website and click through from the lowest-end 2070, you wind up on this page. I have no idea what you're going to get but I bet it's hilarious. Nah they have RTX Turbo 2070s and 2080s and a second RTX Turbo 2070 model for some reason on their product page on Asus's website
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2019 15:15
|
|
|
Yeah I see now, if you click through on "Gaming GPUs" they don't even list the really lovely blower cards heh.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2019 15:16
|
|
|
The photo set on the amazon page is this version btw https://www.asus.com/us/Graphics-Cards/TURBO-RTX2070-8G-EVO/ It's the only blower 2070 without the usb-c port. There is no 2080 blower without the usb-c port from what I can find
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2019 15:18
|
|
|
K8.0 posted:Spatial aliasing is artifacting due to the sampling frequency being too low to properly capture the detail. If you can't grasp how that applies to both resolution and framerate, and how resolution has outrun framerate and framerate is now causing the vast majority of aliasing, you need to stop and think for a while. Think of it in the context of capturing a waveform, visualizing 1d data in 2d might help you understand the concept better. I don't think you understand the terms you're using. I'm not a DSP engineer, but I have some hobbyist experience with it. Spatial aliasing in the context of image processing (of still images) refers to things like moiré patterns and jagged edges. A video is sampled in three dimensions, though - two spatial (width and height) and one temporal (time). Aliasing in the spatial domain in 3D graphics is caused by the fact that the 3D geometry is effectively infinite resolution (or, not bandwidth limited) and it can be sampled continously, while the output is a relatively small fixed size grid of sampling points. Temporal aliasing is also a thing that exists, and while I called it "a fancy way of saying motion blur" in the last post, that's not really correct - things like car wheels appearing to rotate backwards in video are a more appropriate example of temporal aliasing. There is information (movement) in the input signal (reality) that contains a frequency (the wheel rotation rate) that is greater than half the sample rate (the camera frame rate) and so the signal cannot be reproduced accurately, and you get ambiguity. The thing about video games though is that strictly speaking they're not sampled temporally in the signals processing sense of the term - the game engine computes movement in discrete steps, it doesn't sample a continous signal. You could say the input (keyboard/mouse) is sampling, though. You could also make a good argument that things like speedrunners moving so fast that they break the collision detection and clip through walls are temporal aliasing bugs. I think that these things are what you're after, so that's why I'm saying that I think you're talking about temporal aliasing, not spatial aliasing. All that pedantry aside, I really don't understand your argument. On two identical size monitors, one 4k and one 1440p, why would you expect an object moving the same distance on the screen to require a higher framerate to look good on the 4K monitor? Don't tell me to just think this one out, explain your actual reasoning. Like, I'm not disputing the fact that some people clearly seem to have a better eye for smooth motion than I do, and I absolutely believe that high framerate vs high resolution is a matter of personal preference, but your reasoning makes no sense to me. e2: actually, that NASA paper you linked seems to be quite relevant, let me read that first and get back to you e: K8.0 posted:Capturing a sound with 512 bits of resolution and a sample rate of 10hz is going to be absolute trash. If the sample rate doesn't increase along with resolution, you easily reach a point where you're accomplishing more or less nothing outside of static analysis of a single moment. That's not really true. How much sampling rate you need depends on the signal you're interested in recording. If the signal contains no frequencies greater than half the sampling rate, it can be perfectly reconstructed, so there's no need to have a higher sampling rate (the Nyquist-Shannon sampling theorem). There's a reason we don't have high definition audio after all these years - 48kHz is enough to perfectly reproduce all frequencies we can hear. As far as perception of visual resolution goes, 4K at 27" is pretty much good enough for me and I don't think I need anything higher, but 1440p isn't. Clearly 60Hz is pretty much good enough for me too, but I realize this isn't the case for many other people. TheFluff fucked around with this message at 15:49 on Mar 26, 2019 |
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2019 15:23
|
|
|
You sound like you're justifying what you paid for pixel counts.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2019 18:33
|
|
|
Both resolution and refresh rate are important depending on what you're doing. If you're doing something where fine detail is important, the resolution matters. If you're doing something where you need to track fast movement, refresh rate matters. If you prefer one over the other it's probably more reflective of your gaming/viewing habits than anything else.TheFluff posted:The thing about video games though is that strictly speaking they're not sampled temporally in the signals processing sense of the term - the game engine computes movement in discrete steps, it doesn't sample a continous signal. This isn't strictly true, by the way. Many games will interpolate motion when rendering; some actually tie positional updates to the frame rate, which isn't necessarily a bad thing if done properly.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2019 18:36
|
|
|
How does FPS Per Inch factor in monitor size?
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2019 18:44
|
|
|
Zigmidge posted:You sound like you're justifying what you paid for pixel counts. I had a 4K/60Hz monitor. Well, I still have it as a secondary, actually. It was good (is good). Then I spent a grand on a 4K/120Hz monitor because I got more into shooters and I fell for the high refresh rate hype. I would like to be able to justify that purchase, but honestly it was very disappointing because I can barely tell the difference between it and the 60Hz secondary even when they're next to each other. People in the monitor thread are regularly posting first impressions of their high refresh rate monitors where they are like "I just kept moving the mouse around on the windows desktop and it's just so smooth, duuuude", but on the Windows desktop I literally can't see any meaningful difference between the two. Having Freesync with a wide range is extremely good though so that's one convincing argument for keeping it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2019 18:50
|
|
|
Pretty sure there's a setting in Windows where you choose the refresh rate of the desktop, yours might still be running at 60. I don't have a high refresh rate monitor anymore but I did notice a different in the cursor movement.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2019 19:01
|
|
|
I have cranked Overwatch’s frame cap to 60 to see what it’s like. This was during the Mei holiday instagib mode when my monitor was brand new. I still made shots, but I had a much lower level of confidence in my lead and ability to guess movements. I basically had to click the mouse to launch my instagib bolt just as the target began moving, whereas at 141 capped I would have some frames to align the lead and predict where the target’s movement and projectile speed would align. I hate to invoke those Sherlock style memes of the person’s face surrounded by all sorts of advanced equations, but there’s sort of an internal version of that when you don’t have hitscan weaponry and going down to 60 FPS was like the math went from exact numbers to “I’ll put a variable here and hope for the best.”
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2019 19:08
|
|
|
CFox posted:Pretty sure there's a setting in Windows where you choose the refresh rate of the desktop, yours might still be running at 60. I don't have a high refresh rate monitor anymore but I did notice a different in the cursor movement. Nope, just double checked and it's set to 120Hz in the Nvidia control panel and shows as 120Hz (well 119) in the Windows advanced display settings. The 60Hz one is on a different graphics card (well, the Intel IGPU). I just tried it again and I guess I did exaggerate a bit - if I focus on following the mouse cursor with my eyes I can tell it has quite a bit less motion blur (or less of a "trail", I guess) on the 120Hz display, and the difference is bigger the faster it moves (duh). If I just focus on the middle of the screen and move the mouse around in a circle both of them look pretty much the same (i.e. I see a whole bunch of afterimages on both monitors - the only noticeable difference is that they're a bit closer together and there are fewer of them on the 120Hz one). Craptacular! posted:I have cranked Overwatch’s frame cap to 60 to see what it’s like. This was during the Mei holiday instagib mode when my monitor was brand new. I still made shots, but I had a much lower level of confidence in my lead and ability to guess movements. I basically had to click the mouse to launch my instagib bolt just as the target began moving, whereas at 141 capped I would have some frames to align the lead and predict where the target’s movement and projectile speed would align. TheFluff fucked around with this message at 19:26 on Mar 26, 2019 |
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2019 19:24
|
|
|
I feel like if you can't see the difference on the desktop with 120hz, that's an amazingly clear sign that it's not for you, because it is insanely obvious. e: for those people who can see it, of course. Taima fucked around with this message at 19:39 on Mar 26, 2019 |
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2019 19:34
|
|
|
I upgraded to 144hz 1440p IPS display month ago and while the difference is very obvious I'm unhappy about how blurry stuff still is. Text or other content still isn't clear when in motion. It really doesn't matter in normal usage but I do hate monitor induced motion blur so much.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2019 19:41
|
|
|
Yeah I just went from 1080p60 to 1440p144 and it's immediately noticable, even before freesync is on.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2019 19:44
|
|
|
Taima posted:I feel like if you can't see the difference on the desktop with 120hz, that's an amazingly clear sign that it's not for you, because it is insanely obvious. I could (and did) say the same about 4K vs 1440p So, yeah, some people have more of an eye for spatial resolution and others for temporal resolution, I guess. e: just spent a few minutes staring at nvidia's g-sync pendulum demo. V-sync off is very obvious, it causes a lot of jerkiness. 50fps is sorta noticeable that it's not that smooth. 60fps looks okay but 120fps does seem noticeably smoother. So, yeah, first impression holds - it is noticeable, but it takes some concentration to see the differences. TheFluff fucked around with this message at 19:57 on Mar 26, 2019 |
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2019 19:47
|
|
|
Sininu posted:I upgraded to 144hz 1440p IPS display month ago and while the difference is very obvious I'm unhappy about how blurry stuff still is. Text or other content still isn't clear when in motion. Have you checked your monitor's OSD for overdrive settings? IPS with overdrive turned off tends to look like crap.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2019 19:48
|
|
|
Overdrive can cause annoying ringing. I prefer the "blur", which isn't really noticeable to begin with on certain displays. My XB271HU certainly looks fine without overdrive.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2019 19:52
|
|
|
K8.0 posted:Have you checked your monitor's OSD for overdrive settings? IPS with overdrive turned off tends to look like crap. Yes, it's on normal which is the useful one of the three options. Extreme causes terrible ghosting and off is off. Combat Pretzel posted:Overdrive can cause annoying ringing. I prefer the "blur", which isn't really noticeable to begin with on certain displays. My XB271HU certainly looks fine without overdrive. I'm sure I got the same AU Optronics AHVA panel (PG279). So you just don't notice the blur as much. Sininu fucked around with this message at 19:56 on Mar 26, 2019 |
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2019 19:52
|
|
|
Craptacular! posted:I have cranked Overwatch’s frame cap to 60 to see what it’s like. This was during the Mei holiday instagib mode when my monitor was brand new. I still made shots, but I had a much lower level of confidence in my lead and ability to guess movements. I basically had to click the mouse to launch my instagib bolt just as the target began moving, whereas at 141 capped I would have some frames to align the lead and predict where the target’s movement and projectile speed would align. hah, reminds me of playing Tribes 2 on Dialup back in the old days. 200-300ms ping meant you had to think about where you target is moving, how far ahead to aim due to not only that, but travel time of the trusty old spinfusor. That was some hard rear end mental math gymnastics to nail midair hits. When you did though, man it felt so good. Also for the 1440P/144Hz peoples, I have heard that the blur issue sort of disappears if you pull it back to 120Hz. Have any of you tried that? Thirdly, while a higher pixel count is great and all, isn't it also a little bit related to screen size as well? A 27" screen at 1080P looks like pure rubbish, but a 1440P one looks pretty good. Then you go up to 4K at 27" and while it looks sharp as hell, now reading the font can become a challenge for some people. This is sort of one of the gripes I have about things like the little 13.3" ultrabooks with 4K screens. WTF are you going to do with that? You have to scale the UI just to read anything and you sure as hell don't have the GPU to push those pixels in anything but some word processing or a game from 2000. My 17" 4K60 screen in my laptop with G-Sync does have the other saving grace however. Instead of running everything at 4K res which while it can do it, isn't quite always up to the task in the latest and greatest games, but being a 17" screen, dropping down to 1440P seems to keep the same aspect ratio, but also keeps the sharpness of the picture up to a still acceptable level. Dropping down to 1080P then starts to show where the extra pixel density starts to show, but unlike doing the same on a 27" screen, on a 17" one it's still not that bad of a picture. Nowhere near optimal of course. The G-Sync does help a lot for smoothing everything out between say, 40-60fps which while not a 120Hz high refresh screen that would probably have been a better use of the laptops hardware, still allows it to actually push 4K for some titles and keep things smooth.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2019 20:38
|
|
|
Of course it's all about pixel density, that's what makes it look sharp. I use 150% UI scaling on my display - it's not about fitting more stuff on the screen. In that NASA paper that K8.0 linked earlier they assert that spatial acuity (whatever that means) is typically 30-60 "pixels" per degree. I didn't see a source cited for it, but the higher end of that is in about in the same ballpark as what Apple said was needed for full transparency in the retina displays (70 pixels per degree, I think). The further away you sit from the screen the less pixel density you need. I run some games in 1440p on this sometimes and it's just super blurry compared to 4K. For someone who is very picky about that sort of thing, of course.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2019 20:51
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 2, 2024 09:36 |
|
|
You could try ULMB if it's available.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2019 22:45
|
|