Nvidia finally loses.

[mattlittlej]

This sounds familiar. I remember the last time ATi was beating Nvidia. They always go back and forth.

[Rennn]

This sounds familiar. I remember the last time ATi was beating Nvidia. They always go back and forth.

 

Yep. Besides, the Titan Z or 295 are never going to decide which company is "ahead". Most self-identified PC gamers' cards in the last Steam survey averaged out to the equivalent of a GTX 650 TI. If we really want to get into who's "winning" we'd be talking about video cards in the $100-$200 range. The $2000 video cards are only ever in less than 1% of PCs, and even when they're used they see more professional use than gaming use.

Edited June 12, 2014 by Rennn

[FMod]

"Beating" someone is always relative, what matters to 99% of users is price/performance, and they make incorrect assumptions about it based on cards that they'll never have.

 

Though I am actually surprised that Titan, 780Ti and even dual-GPU Titan have been beaten at all. Titan was a monster chip at almost a whole square inch in size, excessive for home use and made initially for the needs of Tesla cards.

 

That it has been beaten or at least matched using a 25% smaller chip with the same noise levels makes it impressive.

So much for Nvidia's "It's not meant for 4K, it's meant for 5K!" hubris - neither quite handles 4K, but one doesn't claim it and doesn't cost like it does.

 

Although, since both cards lack HDMI 2.0 support, even their limited 4K capabilities can only be tested on small computer displays, which don't benefit from the extra resolution, as in-game detail just isn't there yet, and pixel size alone without detail behind it doesn't become a factor until much larger sizes.

[dave1029]

"Beating" someone is always relative, what matters to 99% of users is price/performance, and they make incorrect assumptions about it based on cards that they'll never have.

 

Though I am actually surprised that Titan, 780Ti and even dual-GPU Titan have been beaten at all. Titan was a monster chip at almost a whole square inch in size, excessive for home use and made initially for the needs of Tesla cards.

 

That it has been beaten or at least matched using a 25% smaller chip with the same noise levels makes it impressive.

So much for Nvidia's "It's not meant for 4K, it's meant for 5K!" hubris - neither quite handles 4K, but one doesn't claim it and doesn't cost like it does.

 

Although, since both cards lack HDMI 2.0 support, even their limited 4K capabilities can only be tested on small computer displays, which don't benefit from the extra resolution, as in-game detail just isn't there yet, and pixel size alone without detail behind it doesn't become a factor until much larger sizes.

Games look way better at 4k, and I'm on a 27 inch monitor. What are you talking about? Even graphically pathetic games like Oblivion look @4k similar to current games at 1080p. *Using 295x2.

And limited 4k abilities? Games are running at 60 fps @ 4k. Wouldn't call that limited.

[FMod]

Games look way better at 4k, and I'm on a 27 inch monitor. What are you talking about? Even graphically pathetic games like Oblivion look @4k similar to current games at 1080p.

...

..."Beauty is in the eye of the beholder" is all I can say to that.

 

Stretching low-poly models with low-res textures over twice the pixels only exposes how bad they are, with angled 'curves', blurry and sharp surfaces all mixed together.

 

In my experience, old games actually look better on a CRT that's lower in resolution and smoothed a bit by display technology.

 

If you think Oblivion at 4K looks similar to Crysis 3 at 1080p, well, there's no argument I can make.

It's the same as saying an average schoolkid's art class painting on canvas looks similar to Michelangelo's in a print. I guess to someone it does.

 

 

 

And limited 4k abilities? Games are running at 60 fps @ 4k.

Battlefield 4 isn't.

Crysis 3 isn't.

Metro Last Light isn't.

 

What is... Oblivion?

Edited June 13, 2014 by FMod

[dave1029]

 

Games look way better at 4k, and I'm on a 27 inch monitor. What are you talking about? Even graphically pathetic games like Oblivion look @4k similar to current games at 1080p.

...

..."Beauty is in the eye of the beholder" is all I can say to that.

 

Stretching low-poly models with low-res textures over twice the pixels only exposes how bad they are, with angled 'curves', blurry and sharp surfaces all mixed together.

 

In my experience, old games actually look better on a CRT that's lower in resolution and smoothed a bit by display technology.

 

If you think Oblivion at 4K looks similar to Crysis 3 at 1080p, well, there's no argument I can make.

It's the same as saying an average schoolkid's art class painting on canvas looks similar to Michelangelo's in a print. I guess to someone it does.

 

 

 

And limited 4k abilities? Games are running at 60 fps @ 4k.

Battlefield 4 isn't.

Crysis 3 isn't.

Metro Last Light isn't.

 

What is... Oblivion?

 

Sounds like you don't have a 4k monitor. Also, the cards do support HDMI 2.0. Why? Because it has to do with the chord, not the connector. Battlefield 4 runs at 72 fps @ 4k maxed. Crysis 30fps. Metro 45fps. Skyrim 60fps. Limited? Funny.

[JimboUK]

4K is more than doable, this is what's so funny about the new generation of consoles, they're struggling to hit 1080p while 4K is becoming more affordable and will be common in a few years on the PC.

[FMod]

Also, the cards do support HDMI 2.0. Why? Because it has to do with the chord, not the connector.

Do explain.

http://www.geforce.com/hardware/desktop-gpus/geforce-gtx-titan-z/specifications

 

1 - 3840x2160 at 30Hz or 4096x2160 at 24Hz supported over HDMI. 4096x2160 (including 3840x2160) at 60Hz supported over Displayport.

This is HDMI 1.4a. It supports 3840x2160 at 30Hz - which is useless.

Neither Titan Z nor 295x2 support HDMI 2.0.

 

60Hz is supported via Displayport, but there is nothing worthwhile to connect to Displayport, all 4K TV still only come with HDMI.

 

 

Battlefield 4 runs at 72 fps @ 4k maxed. Crysis 30fps. Metro 45fps. Skyrim 60fps. Limited? Funny.

30 fps is not a comfortable framerate and it's well below the norm for PC gaming.

 

So the extent of support for 4K today is:

* The only games that have the detail to benefit from 4K won't run smoothly in 4K even on dual-GPU setups.

* No gaming video cards support HDMI 2.0, so they only show 4K@60fps on small monitors with image quality below modern HT standards.

[dave1029]

 

Also, the cards do support HDMI 2.0. Why? Because it has to do with the chord, not the connector.

Do explain.

http://www.geforce.com/hardware/desktop-gpus/geforce-gtx-titan-z/specifications

 

1 - 3840x2160 at 30Hz or 4096x2160 at 24Hz supported over HDMI. 4096x2160 (including 3840x2160) at 60Hz supported over Displayport.

This is HDMI 1.4a. It supports 3840x2160 at 30Hz - which is useless.

Neither Titan Z nor 295x2 support HDMI 2.0.

 

60Hz is supported via Displayport, but there is nothing worthwhile to connect to Displayport, all 4K TV still only come with HDMI.

 

 

Battlefield 4 runs at 72 fps @ 4k maxed. Crysis 30fps. Metro 45fps. Skyrim 60fps. Limited? Funny.

30 fps is not a comfortable framerate and it's well below the norm for PC gaming.

 

So the extent of support for 4K today is:

* The only games that have the detail to benefit from 4K won't run smoothly in 4K even on dual-GPU setups.

* No gaming video cards support HDMI 2.0, so they only show 4K@60fps on small monitors with image quality below modern HT standards.

 

Are you seriously this dense? HDMI 2 has NOTHING to do with the connector. It has to do with the cable and how much bandwith it can transfer. Displayport cables can run higher bandwith than HDMI. 30 fps is definitely comfortable. It's what the consoles run. 60 fps is amazing. Anything less than 30 sucks though. You are just really ignorant about this subject. Also, the 295x2 doesn't even have an HDMI port. It features 4 mini-displayports. Ie: a MDP to HDMI 2 adapter plus an HDMI 2 cable will work :smile:.

 

Edit: You keep claiming that only certain games *benefit* from 4k. That could not be more wrong. Every game benefits. How much it benefits is variable. Of the games I've tested it with, all of them benefited immensly from the extra resolution. Sharper, crisper, and the textures looked better upscaled. Also, the ability to turn AA off is great. AA blurs the image, whereas 4k doesn't need AA, resulting in sharper non blurred images. Please educate yourself and/or pick up a 4k monitor and test it yourself. You'll feel like a fool afterwards.

 

Edit 2: Here you go for the cable, STRAIGHT from HDMI's website- http://www.hdmi.org/manufacturer/hdmi_2_0/

[blove]

 

 

Can my existing HDMI 1.x devices be upgraded with HDMI 2.0 features?

Currently, there are no provisions for doing such an upgrade. Because of the new enhanced feature set, any such conversion would require hardware and/or firmware upgrades. If there are such conversions, it would come from the manufacturer. Please check with them directly.