Originally Posted by bencher
I noticed that too.
But now the argument about frame latencies has been invented.
I wonder what will these people come up with next.
Frame latency has been known about for years, it just that very few consumers have ever heard about it. I've been mentioning on these forums for years, and glad people are finally taking notice to it. It's just as important as sheer FPS in my eyes and many professional sites don't measure it because it's much more work to record it and then get "real" FPS. It turns a simple "run this, record, repeat" task into a bunch of calculations.
You can deny it all you want, but it definitely exists and I expect any reputable sites to start recording it if they want their reviews taken seriously... if you don't believe it then go by sheer FPS and buy the card that gets the best in that regard. It's your money, no one is trying to stop you. However, it's like saying input lag on monitors doesn't exist. 7 years ago, everyone believed that and no monitor reviews recorded it. Now if you claim that people will think your crazy.
Originally Posted by Mhill2029
That crown means sod all if only a few people can actually afford the Titan. They got the performance crown by going completely over the top of what most enthusiasts are willing to pay. I wouldn't call a $1000 GPU a victory would you? I sure wouldn't...lol
Regarding the 680 vs 7970 debate, i personally have significant performance gains with a 7970 than what any of my 680's could do.
A performance crown is a performance crown in my opinion. Just because it's out of most peoples price range does not change the fact it is still the best on the market. You don't buy a $50,000 car and then go around claiming it's the best car in the world because it was the best you could afford. Just like buying expensive cars, your performance/price ratio becomes absolute garbage the higher up you go...
Originally Posted by CallsignVega
Actually 4K shouldn't be too bad. Since they are all 60 Hz monitors, all you need is 60 FPS min and they are about the same demand as two 30" 2560x1600 monitors. Just slightly over 8-mega pixel.
New word is that the Sharp 32" IGZO 4K will have a street price of ~$4200.
Is there really a reason for 4k across 32 inches? It would look the same as a 30" 1600p in my opinion, not to mention text would be so small and UI in some games would be incredibly small.
I have my doubts with those monitors. I think you will need about 36 inches or so to make text/UI a reasonable size. Edited by Murlocke - 2/21/13 at 6:33pm