Leaked benchmarks for AMD Radeon RX 480 hits minimum VR spec for $199

[Scisca]

Slimebeast said:

Oops. Freesync it is.

Speaking of which, do you notice any difference between Freesync and v-sync? I know the technical difference, but I haven't figured out the actual effect. Will the framerate in a game somehow look smoother in front of you, or is it just a way to save frames in the framebuffer to allow a higher effective framerate or something?

Yeah, €1000 for a monitor is a lot of money and about three times as much as I've spent in the past. That's why I'm not sure about the curved Acer 3440x1440 monitor yet. I agree about the pixels per inch and what should be optimal.

I've never had an IPS panel and never seen one that I knew was IPS so that's going to be exciting. And like you I'm puzzled by 144Hz, will it really feel as amazing as they say? What do you think of IPS? Any noticeble difference compared with TN and VA?

And the question of betting on ultrawide or not, I think you've convinced me now.  Damn, I'm excited now.

How long do you think 'til you upgrade your monitor? And the rest of PC hardware too.

My thumb rule in theory is every three years for the PC build including OS (the whole package excluding monitor), every two years for GPU and every 4 years for monitor, but since the first two don't sync with each other, it's different every time - sometimes a CPU lasts two GPU cycles, sometimes only one for practical reasons.

I can't say about the difference between FreeSync and V-Sync, cause I need to get that RX 480 first For it to work you need an AMD GPU and a FreeSync monitor, I'm using the Intel iGPU, so no FreeSync for me till I buy the card. But from what I've heard it's like JRPGfan says, there are no chopped frames and the gameplay seems more fluid than it is. You don't notice the drops as much, as long as you stay within the FreeSync range.

I'm no expert when it comes to panels, but for an ultrawide you can't use TN, cause the colours would be distorted on the sides. You need IPS or VA. I doubt I'd notice any difference really, I'm not editing graphics. IPS is said to be slightly superior, but I honestly doubt VA would make a difference for anyone who isn't into making graphics, but then again - such a person cannot use a curved monitor either.  I love the fact that it doesn't matter what angle you're looking at it, the colours stay perfect. Makes watching movies with my girlfriend much easier, since nobody loses the "sweetspot", which is a problem with TNs. And the colours look great

I really enjoy the extra estate I get from such a wide screen. I think at this point you've seen Linus' reviews of ultrawide screens? In one he put it simple - ever since he got a 34" 1440p ultrawide, he no longer cares about 4K 16:9 monitors. Also, if you want to make the choice more suited to you - think about what you use the computer for. If you play competitive CS:GO or other FPS games or Blizzard games, you may prefer a 16:9 144Hz (Blizz doesn't support this aspect ratio and people say 144Hz helps at competitive FPS). But if you do office work, watch movies and play mainly RPGs, TPP games, LOL, racing games, etc. you'll be much better off with ultrawide.

I don't know really when I'm going to upgrade, I have no experience here, since in the past I'd just buy a new laptop. For this PC I've decided to futureproof the power supply, motherboard, CPU (I don't think it'll be obsolete anytime soon, all rumours say Zen won't even be as fast as it is and Kaby Lake will only be a minor update) and I have the capability to go up to 32GB of RAM at any time. As for the monitor I've set the requirements I want my future monitor to meet (resolution, size, refresh rate, FreeSync, HDR probably) and I'm going to upgrade to it in 2-3 years, when they drop to around 600 Euro, or possibly even lower by that time. I'm also going to upgrade the GPU simultanously, since the one I buy this year won't allow me to benefit from the added capabilities of that monitor. Much higher resolution and refresh rate will call for a much better GPU, but then again - there's no point buying a GTX 1080 now, since a better card will be cheaper in the future and my current monitor won't show me the extra fps now either way I've basically decided that I'm going to futureproof everything outside of the GPU, since it's easiest to upgrade. And since the monitor tech is volatile, it improves every month, I've decided there's no point in spending too much cash now, since the same money will give me a better monitor in half a year. I've went with a monitor that satisfies my needs now and decided to get a GPU that maxes out that monitor's capabilities. As a result the GPU+monitor combo will cost me around 550 Euro (much less than that Acer alone ) and I'll be enjoying 2560x1080p@ultra@75Hz, which won't bother me at all these upcoming two years. I kinda think it's better value to spend more on stuff that doesn't get old and outdated fast, like the CPUs currently.

But that was my train of thought, you may do a different thing I've decided 550 Euro combined for a monitor and GPU is better value than 1400-1500 Euro it takes to have a slightly bigger screen, higher resolution and enough juice in the GPU to render the pixels. Though there's no questioning, that the second solution gives a better experience But there's no doubt such a setup will be much cheaper and better in 2 years.

@Permalite - I guess you won't have trouble selling them later on, though I doubt it makes much sense to buy 4 cards. Nobody is supporting SLI for more than 2 cards.

 

BTW. I've heard a rumour AMD has 25 times as many RX 480 cards, than nVidia had 1080s. That'll do wonder for your marketshare Shows how smart they were releasing a smaller GPU first, when the process still isn't optimal and yields are much better this way. AMD is owning this gen so far!