Gtx 1080

[Denpepe]

You know, cause Maxwell causes get no performance increase with DX12/Vulkan? The new driver update is suppose to be a 20%-30% performance increase in Dx12 games. If this does nothing for Maxwell cards, it's probably safe to say I told you so.


Also the 1080 Ti reviews are out and it's faster than a Titan, at least that's what I've heard. Drivers came out at the perfect moment.

https://www.vortez.net/articles_page..._review,1.html

obviously they are, they are the drivers to include 1080Ti cards which go on sale today.

[Kazgrel]

It's basically the first true 60fps@4k ultra card.

My thoughts as well. Been waiting for a couple of years to finally see a single card (that isn't a Titan) handily run games at 4k above 60 FPS.

All we need now is the ASUS ROG Swift PG27UQ to come along and not cost $1500-2k USD.

[Zephyr Storm]

The 1080ti is already sold out everywhere in the US it seems. That didn't take long.

[Wries]

I'll be honest, I did it for the sticker

[ovm33]

The 1080ti is already sold out everywhere in the US it seems. That didn't take long.

Newegg still has the Asus FE version up for $699. I'm waiting for the MSI Gaming X / Z variant so still a couple of more weeks wait for me. =(

1080p is 1k and 1440p is 2k and 4k is 2160p. So 4k is just more peasants. But quality beats quantity.

Never forgot that:
Quantity has a quality all it's own. - Stalin

[Elim Garak]

No, 1080p is not 1k. Do you even know what the 4k in 4k means? It means Approximately 4000 Horizontal Pixels because 4x is 3840x2160. 3840 Horizontal pixels and 2160 Vertical Pixels. Hench 4k. 1440p is 2560x1440. 2560 is not approximately 2k, so 1440p can not be called 2k, if anything, it is 2.5k. 1080p is 1920x1080. Approximately 2000 horizontal pixels. 1080p is 2k.

So no, 1080p is not 1k, it's 2k. 1440p is not 2k, it's not anything-k. Maybe you could call it 2.5k, but that's just silly.

Please forgive me oh the greatest one. For not bothering with the exact math while trying to get the joke across which had nothing to do with decimal precision.

[Droodid]

Please forgive me oh the greatest one. For not bothering with the exact math while trying to get the joke across which had nothing to do with decimal precision.

I cant count on my hands/feet anymore how many times I have seen Lathais bring this up.

[DeltrusDisc]

There are some 5040x2160 (UWUHD if you need a name but I doubt people will actually use the term) TVs out there (well they're 105" and cost more than some apartments =p)

We should be seeing some monitors soon I think, but it would need to be very big for you to be able to use it without using DPI scaling and we all know how well Windows DPI scaling is... (At 57" we'd have 96.2 pixels per inch and that's really close to the "standard" 96 which represents the real size of things in Windows).

If I were in charge of designing one, I'd make it 28.5" so I would end up with 192.4 pixels per inch, which makes it fit perfectly in the 200% scaling option (and this one is the only one that works half correctly because you always have 4 real pixels for any real state pixel, instead of some floating point value that screws everything).

Make it color calibrated, 144Hz, and VA/something else awesome and I'll be sold!

- - - Updated - - -

Please forgive me oh the greatest one. For not bothering with the exact math while trying to get the joke across which had nothing to do with decimal precision.

Don't bother with him man. He's just angry lately. Also, for what it's worth... You were a bit more correct. True 2k is 2048x (unspecified) and REAL (read: true) 4k is actually the resolution you listed, 4096x2160.

So if someone wants to correct you on specifics, well, that's just silly. Here, have a source, @Lathais.

https://www.cnet.com/news/tv-resolut...they-all-mean/

[Denpepe]

Make it color calibrated, 144Hz, and VA/something else awesome and I'll be sold!

- - - Updated - - -



Don't bother with him man. He's just angry lately. Also, for what it's worth... You were a bit more correct. True 2k is 2048x (unspecified) and REAL (read: true) 4k is actually the resolution you listed, 4096x2160.

So if someone wants to correct you on specifics, well, that's just silly. Here, have a source, @Lathais.

https://www.cnet.com/news/tv-resolut...they-all-mean/

He was wrong and artorius and lathais were correct actually.

"That means 1080p is not "1K." It's 2K, as much as UHD TVs are 4K. Which is to say, at 1,920x1,080 they're close to the DCI's 2K specification of 2,048. That said, most people don't call 1080p 2K; they call it 1080p or Full HD."

Taken from your article

[DeltrusDisc]

He was wrong and artorius and lathais were correct actually.

"That means 1080p is not "1K." It's 2K, as much as UHD TVs are 4K. Which is to say, at 1,920x1,080 they're close to the DCI's 2K specification of 2,048. That said, most people don't call 1080p 2K; they call it 1080p or Full HD."

Taken from your article

I get you.

It is like they were all a little wrong, though I didn't quite see where @Artorius posted. Q.Q

Close to 4k is not true 4k, just like close to 2k is not true 2k. If people want to get specific, then they need to make sure what they post is entirely true, otherwise everyone looks just a little dumb, as we can see here. hehe

[Denpepe]

I don't want to make too big a deal of it, it's just that the guy said 1080p is 1k which is actually almost 2k so that's more then a little wrong.

screen resolutions get referenced in too many different ways and then you get these incorrect statements. Anyways, this is way afftopic so gonna leave it at that.

[Lathais]

I get you.

It is like they were all a little wrong, though I didn't quite see where @Artorius posted. Q.Q

Close to 4k is not true 4k, just like close to 2k is not true 2k. If people want to get specific, then they need to make sure what they post is entirely true, otherwise everyone looks just a little dumb, as we can see here. hehe

No matter how you slice it, 1080p is not 1k and 1440p is not 2k, despite people always referring to them as such. It's also pretty funny tht you say I'm wrong, quote a source and your source says what I said:

But now that "4K" has gained traction as a term used to describe TVs and content, "2K" is becoming increasingly common as shorthand for the 1080p resolution used by most HDTVs, as well as Blu-ray. It's not technically accurate, but that didn't stop "4K" from becoming more popular than UHD.

2k is becoming shorthand for 1080p the same way 4k became shorthand for 2160p/UHD. Calling 1080p 2k is commonly accepted. Calling it 1k is most certainly not accepted anywhere, neither is calling 1440p 2k.

[Elim Garak]

If you are allowed to round 3840 to 4k, I'm allowed to round 1920 to 1k and 2560 to 2k, especially if it's not important. You just round up, I round down. And you cannot say I'm doing it the wrong way. Unless you are bad at math and computing.

[Butler to Baby Sloths]

Or just use the HD (1280*720), FHD (1920*1080), (W)QHD(2560*1440), UWQHD(3440*1440), UHD (3820*2160), DCI 4k (4096*2160) designations

[Wries]

For what it's worth the actual TV and film industry doesn't care as much as this thread does right now (on a conversational level). When I was at NAB last year UHD was commonly referred to as 4K, especially in tongue, while if someone meant the other they'd specify "DCI"- or "cinema"-4K

Rounding 1920 to 1000 rather than 2000 is a bit of a stretch though That would confuse eeeveryyyonneeee

[Elim Garak]

Rounding 1920 to 1000 rather than 2000 is a bit of a stretch though That would confuse eeeveryyyonneeee

Not stretch, the opposite - and it's the most honest one. 1920 actually has 1000 pixels. 2k lies about having 80 pixels more.

[Wries]

Not stretch, the opposite - and it's the most honest one. 1920 actually has 1000 pixels. 2k lies about having 80 pixels more.

Fun read

We're way off topic with these troll posts though. Now all gaze upon my totally(maybewhoknowshaven'ttestedit) stable overclock:

[Artorius]

Can we forget the 1080Ti and argue about colorspaces now? Judging from all the resolution naming arguments it's surely a more important topic.

[Wries]

Can we forget the 1080Ti and argue about colorspaces now? Judging from all the resolution naming arguments it's surely a more important topic.

Slightly related to the non-related topic, on my second PC I have set both my HDMI VA monitors to limited 16-235 range (with corresponding setting in the nvidia driver ofc) and I don't care They seem to like it more, easier to calibrate and no weird shifts in certain colors. Though we're talking basic 100 dollar monitors here.

Baaack to the 1080 Ti. I seem to finally, FINALLY, after all these years of buying hardware, have gotten a good sample of something. Hitting 2GHz at 77C on 90% fan speed atm without even touching voltage. My now sold-off 1080 (MSI gaming X super special mega duper card with extra power connector and extra phases and everything) struggled with 2GHz and that was about a 1000 CUDA cores less.

Don't have more time to play around with it for today, though. Let's just assume it will hit 3GHz

[DeltrusDisc]

Holy crap. Post in the gpu oc thread @Wries! That's awesome! I really want to see some bench results!