Titan X Capable of 4K 60 FPS

pcper.com/reviews/Graphics-Cards/NVIDIA-Titan-X-Pascal-12GB-Graphics-Card-Review

hardwarecanucks.com/forum/hardware-canucks-reviews/73148-nvidia-titan-x-12gb-performance-review.html

A couple more years and 4K will finally be mainstream.

Other urls found in this thread:

blog.codinghorror.com/fitts-law-and-infinite-width/
youtube.com/watch?v=Nc6R1hwXhL8
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

>falling for the 4k meme

it's amazing that just a year or two ago most of Sup Forums was insisting that 4k wouldn't ever take off. they were honest to god pushing 21:9 like that wouldn't be an expensive fedora tier joke after a few months.

I almost fell for 21:9. God bless my half dead brain cells for talking me out of it.

at least post tw3 where it has 59.4 fps.

and in 6 months 1080ti for 700 will do 72 fps at 4k in dx11
when it will become irrelevant

Goddamn can't wait for tax returns next February
I'm upgrading my 1070 to a 1080ti and finally buying a 4k monitormeme

1440 Ultra wide is still better than 4k and I own a 4k monitor.

16:9 will probably stay the most common aspect ratio however.

Fucking YES. This is what I have been JUST WAITing for.
Single card.
4k.
60fps.
Just need to wait a bit for 1080Ti to come out and I can upgrade both display and GPU and bask in the glory.

>picking 4k 60fps over 1440p 165hz

Human eyes can't see above 60Hz reliably.

Sure it will, for checking my twitter and instagram.... you sound so fucking dumb

>ignoring the massive dip below 60
>FC4 isn't even the most demanding game
We have a generation or two to go.

but humans can feel 40ms shave off from input lag delay

>We have a generation or two to go
nah, Pretty sure if you SLI that qt you will get 4K 60pfs on anything.

i've seen a lot of idiots go for huge 4k monitors. the correct 4k resolution for desktops (ie not TVs) is whatever size you currently associate with a 1920x1080 monitor (typically 24"). you let your OS handle scaling - all of your assets look the same size as if they were on a 1920x1080 screen, but all of them are sharper, text is sharper, etc... with negligible penalty when things have to be scaled up.

did you go with the 40" mistake or get ~24" monitors?

>sli'ing titans
no
>sli at all
no

single GPU are the only decent option.

I've seen both first hand and I can tell you you're wrong. DPI scaling support is too for it to be worth it on small monitors and the differences aren't worth the price increase when it is anyway.

I'm in the middle ground with 31", only bought because I need it for work. I use it with zero scaling and it works fine. 40" is on the large size for a monitor but I imagine that helps for people that feel like they need scaling with smaller sizes.

MIT has found that the human brain can interpret an image in ~13 milliseconds, which is a little better than 60 refreshes per second (but not by much).

this isn't that impressive, though, because apparently the military did a study with fighter pilots and found that they could give a rough description of something they'd seen for only 1/220th of a second. this isn't the case for everyone, however, so the question is about how many people will benefit from it. the answer is probably some dwindling percentage as you get better and better.

but this is the case with pixel density and color range and everything else. we're really not concerning ourselves with colorblind people or with people who are myopic. we keep advancing.

if you just shined a flash of light, or were only concerned with someone identifying that there had (briefly) been a change, you could get down to 1 millisecond or probably shorter and people could probably identify that "something" had changed. whether they could spot it is unclear, but my hunch is that if you're obsessed with frame rates you're probably only concerned with playing counter strike or whatever better.

It's not 4k 100+ FPS I'm interested in.

>DPI scaling support is too __???__ for it to be worth it on small monitors
smartphones, tablets, and now laptops all have DPI scaling. apple calls it "retina display". nobody would call scaling a waste of resources on these displays - it's uncontroversially better than the "non-retina" version in all cases.

Oh fuck off. 23" 4k is a complete fucking waste. You're literally dumb and I can see that first hand.
Second of all there are no 40" 4k monitors you lying sack of shit.
Thirdly 31-32" is the sweet spot for 4k.
You're wrong and I'm right. Deal with it.

4K @ 60 just puts us back in vsync land. Gamers don't want that. Wake me up when 144Hz 4K is common.

It too poor.

The difference with those devices is that they effectively have a much smaller PPD due to the size and typical use case which makes the lack of scaling support on many programs not nearly as noticeable. Also with smartphones and tablets you don't have that issue since pretty much everything is built with high PPI in mind, also much easier to make a logo work for a tiny 1440p display than a large one that's 4k.

AMDfags on suicide watch

So 3 years until 4k 144Hz.
I'd be happy with 100Hz or 120Hz, but going back to 60FPS is a no go.

AMD fags not caring because it's too expensive of no real benefit to gamers who prefer lag free, stutter free and tearing free gaming. 4K @ 60Hz may look pretty but not very playable IMHO. For 4K desktop it's not required to have a Titan X.

DisplayPort 1.4 is the latest iteration of DP, and even that only goes up to 120Hz at 4k resolutions. I genuinely hope we leapfrog 1.4 (I'm on 1.2 and i see some adoption for 1.3, so if we can get cracking on 1.5 then maybe we can convince people to just skip 1.4) because 1.5 (which nobody's even discussing) will be the soonest that we can do 144Hz on 4k displays (or do better).

the alternative is to do the awful shit we were talking about doing with 4k monitors and go MST. but please god no. we got a taste of that and it's a truly awful setup. the only way that could be okay is if it's relegated to gamers who insist that their lives are much better this way, and i honestly think we just need to solve this problem to deal with 8k at 60Hz or 120Hz or whatever.

Maybe if the 1080Ti releases for half the price.

reminder japan is already pushing 8k on tv

Any 240Hz monitors exist?

Realistically 8K is really not worth it on anything sub 100" anyhow. 8K will probably remain the realm of pro stuff for some time. I think 4K is as much as the consumer world can stand right now and people are unwilling to go past that for miniscule/unnoticeable gains. After 4K, OLED/QLED and HDR I am interested to know how TV manufacturers are going to hype up their tech.

Will it be capable of 144 hz 1440p though, I'm more interested in that

Japan is retarded for most stuff like that. The rest of the world won't see the need until it becomes so cheap that you may as well have it even if you can't tell the difference between 4H and 8K.

hmm
the newest semiconsumer gpu is capable of the next logical step in terms of features
Makes you think eh? Almost as if companies are gradually making progress instead of just giving out the alien space tech to the public already.

Yes.

>102% faster than the fury x in 4k

Holy crap

>Also with smartphones and tablets you don't have that issue since pretty much everything is built with high PPI in mind
... are you seriously not remembering the introduction of "retina" iphones? or how much of a mess it made developing for android when they scrambled to catch up?

find someone whose experience you respect and ask them what developing in ~2010-2012 was like on mobile devices. even on iOS it was a bit of a mess, and they offered the cleanest upgrade path (with very little to no turns to take - "everyone's going to be using 2x assets, so either bundle them or fuck off" was more or less apple's position to ios devs).

apple did a similar thing with os x in 2012. the 4 years of basically coercing developers into supporting higher density displays - namely, targeting a 2x scaling factor - has paid off though.

there's this notion that display scaling is some awful wasteland, but that's only the case with windows and linux distributions.

What about other games?

And this is the reference card.

The original titan x was clocked at 1ghz, mine is at 1.5ghz

This card is clocked at 1.5ghz, I want to see GPU clocks at 2ghz

I have pic related and it's nearly 4K with 1440p text scaling. It's literally perfect.

No regrets.

8k is reasonable for a monitor in the 30-35" range, which is starting to leave the atmosphere of reason, but as we start thinking about displays embedded in walls and other surfaces, we'll have more and more space to work with, so we should try and avoid finding out that we need special cables just to handle something an iota outside of the typical use case we enjoy.

again, this is all on the premise that we're talking about scaling everything by an integer value or not at all (e.g. 2x or 3x or stay with 1x). and this is almost certainly the right thing to do. anything necessarily involving interpolation is a mistake right now; going from a line of 2 pixels to a line of 3 pixels means figuring out what color to make the middle pixel, which adds computational overhead across the board.

...

No such thing as nearly 4k, just do whatever you want and be happy, don't distort facts though

To be fair, 4k desktop applications require much more cursor coverage

Oh sure I remember. It only proves my point even further. I'm just saying it isn't the case now for phones and tablets. I'm saying desktop OS is far behind and it isn't perfect on OS X either. Paying a premium on small 4k displays isn't worth the cost premium in the first place as it is now. Makes it even less so when you encounter shitty dpi scaling.

Oh and if we bring it into the context of this thread which is games then you have even less of a point.

This is why you're always going to be poor.

>tfw using a based HD7970 and still raping consoles at 1080p
God it feels good being a non enthusiast, saves money too.

I wouldn't describe this as "nearly" 4k. i would describe it as closer to 4k than 1080p, but that's like saying you're more related to a dog than a crab.

can you name any actively maintained software in os x that doesn't handle scaling well?

i was actually writing this point in that earlier post but decided to scrap it, but while lots of software looked shitty in 2012 when the rMBP first came out, it's been 4 years and i can't think of or point to any active software that doesn't scale up to 2x correctly.

55 inches is the new standard from 40

8k at 65 inches is more realistic than 35

You obviously haven't tried 4k at freaking 20 inches

I'm in 4k at 55, around 1.5m from my display, it's easy to become anal and nitpick around this stuff anyway

the question of whether "retina" displays are better or not is independent from the question of what the cheapest way to scale assets is (which is to do it at an integer value).

that may have tripped you up. i'm not saying that you absolutely need 4k in a 24" monitor and anything less will not be retina, but that if you fuck with the scaling ratios then you have to calculate interpolation, which adds non-trivial cost to driving a display.

So literally nothing can run TW3 on Ultra 4K @ 60

Last I checked Chrome was still having issues with HiDPI modes. After googling maybe they fixed it? Wasn't too long ago though. Like I said I don't bother with scaling so I don't actively check but you're talking to a minority since not many are just running OS X here. I just happen to dual boot for work. My point was it's an issue across all desktop OS. Most people are going to run Windows where it's an issue even with their own OS.

nice trips. sure, yet running native is always better

applications in 4k aren't always practical because clicks are less intuitive due to actual aiming needed even with a high quality mouse sensor. lower res could translate into higher productivity in a sense

I have enough trouble clicking on shit in 1080.

i haven't heard about chrome scaling issues in years. if you can point to this instance then i can make sense of it, but otherwise it sounds more like you've lost track of the time since you last saw it (which isn't surprising; sometimes i'm caught off guard by how little time has passed since cell carriers were raping us with charges for *receiving* text messages)

Can't find the instance posted elsewhere. Had it on my Yosemite install which I don't feel like booting into.

also rendering everything as "native" is a bit of a contrivance. by that i mean that when you tell os x to scale so everything "looks like [____]" it renders at 2x of that value and then scales it down (or if you tell it to render optimally, applies it 1:1). you run into issues if you tell os x to render the 15" rMBP as though it's a 1080p screen, for example, inasmuch as the GPU is rendering 2x that (basically, 4k) and then scaling everything down to 2880x1800. that's how it deals with interpolation, and it may not be perfect, but it's conceptually simple.

more importantly, it keeps Fitt's Law in mind, which is fundamentally the thing we're worrying about here with scaling and everything (see ; trouble clicking on a button/other thing is a symptom of some designer fucking up and not keeping fitt's law in mind).

probably the best layperson's intro is blog.codinghorror.com/fitts-law-and-infinite-width/ but you can see the application in things like automobiles and whatnot as well (so not just software)

youtube.com/watch?v=Nc6R1hwXhL8

Where's the third pedal?

You went there, you absolute madman

software abstraction, we don't want to implement a hardware solution to address it.

inb4 350 posts of murika vs yurop vs soccermoms vs gearheads

Philips has been selling 4k 40 inch displays for a while now and so have the koreans.

so explain to retard the heck does it actually mean ?
also gcn has almost exact same method as nvidia

Anyone who can't drive a manual cannot call themselves a man.

Maybe only women drive automatics?

Pretty much.

Faith in humanity restored by a tiny bit.

Maybe your peasant eyes.

You are not a man/woman if you can't do X

To be more precise, anyone who can't drive a manual is underage.

please don't take us off topic.

That's a stock titan x, and it runs it at 59 hz.

OC'd it will definately run it at 60 hz maxed out.

4k 60 hz max on a single gpu is finaly here

Doesn't matter if you have 4K. Games will be designed with 1080p in mind. The UI scaling, the amount of detail in the environment, and the gameplay itself so that people with 1080p won't be disadvantaged.

4K just makes the game a little sharper. It won't be a necessity for a long time, unlike 1080p monitors were over 1024 x 768 monitors.

>$1200 GPU
>To play indie games and your favorite games from 10 years ago all day
Reminder that even a shitty R9 380 can comfortably play CS:GO and DOTA at 4K.
GTX 980/R9 390 or better will run any game currently on the market at 4k if you are sensible with the settings.

...

Two times as powerful as a Furry X. This is too good to be true.

More like 60% on average.

I have a 40" 4K monitor and it's great. I'm not sure why that guy's so upset. Using a normal 24" monitor now just feels pathetic.

How is 60 fps not playable? Have we become that spoiled by 144Hz monitors?

Manchildren need something new to justify their purchase.
So 144Hz IPS monitors were created.

I am a snippy crab

Look at this salty faggot

>Using 40" monitor at that distance.
Why?

Who doesn't like neck cramps.

When you play competitive games that require split second reactions then yes you either play with vsync off and suffer tearing or get a 144Hz Freesync/G-Sync display. I know which one I would prefer.

Oh whatever. Those games are for dudebros.

it's called moving your eyes

Wow..

> How to kill your eyes. The gtard way

'''''competitive gaming''''''
People should be ashamed to even use these word in combination.

I'm sorry you have defective eyes

A 40" 4k monitor just gives you the same pixel density that your laptop (or your desktop monitor) from the past 10-15 years had. Nobody is suggesting using a 24" monitor with that pixel density.

Use a high pixel density 24" monitor on an operating system that isn't garbage at scaling. These days it seems like that's only OS X.

If you need an example, look at the rMBP or the 5k iMac. These are the same principle.

If someone has the blowback Sup Forums had when the rMBP came out and everyone here gave this same retarded shit about how you don't need higher density on a laptop, etc... it would probably have the same grumbling we're seeing on this thread.

>competitive games

This new titan certainly has the performance I desire for my next rebuild but I simply cannot justify Nvidia's outrageous tax on the titan line (especially given lel no DP, not that I have a need for it anyway). I will take whatever AMD comes up with (or possibly a 1080ti) simply for the added benefit of aftermarket cooling which is important to the overclocker in me.

Still, 4k 60fps looks doable if you don't demand 8xmsaa (at 4k 2xmsaa is pretty much all you need) and with a bit of overclocking I can see any card in this class lasting quite a while.

>competitive games
lol
>require
we're playing it fast and loose with requirements here, huh?

That's like saying a basketball game isn't competitive and your shoes don't matter at all.

Try playing it in slippers.

>A couple more years and 4K will finally be mainstream.

>tfw another 3 generation for cheap 4k capable gpu

>Picking hardware for video games

there are a few words between "require" and "don't matter at all" that convey some nuance. like "benefits from".

"require" conveys a sense of requirement, like you can't play your super epic important competitive games unless you have this.

a 1080 is capable so why bother with the titan? its a designers card not for gaming