Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 15 of 15

Thread: 4K Ultra HD Graphics Card Testing On Ubuntu 14.04 LTS

  1. #11
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    2,123

    Default

    Unigine Valley scales well, the opensource Quake3-ish games do not with AMD Catalyst. Looks to me like AMD is hitting the CPU bottleneck much faster than nVidia. If true, the upcoming OpenGL driver optimizations to reduce the overhead in AMD Catalyst should be very beneficial. We'll see if we learn something at GDC this week.

  2. #12
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    France
    Posts
    563

    Default

    See, free games have a use: Ultra HD (4K isn't the same thing, it's a bit larger) with one middle-end card, smoothly.

    In any game, larger resolution improves graphics.

  3. #13

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by amehaye View Post
    Aspect ratio of 16:9 is good for watching movies. If you write code for a living you want vertical space, so at least 16:10.

    Where are all the 3830x2400 monitors?
    IBM T221 about a decade ago... Agreed though, 16:10 on a rotateable mount destroys all.

  4. #14

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by zanny View Post
    There aren't enough people writing code demanding high resolution displays to justify a factory in China or Taiwan producing those panels. If there were, they would still be ludicrously more expensive than the 16:9 tv panels. I'd rather have 3x screens in 16:9 than 1x screen in 16;10. I can just put them in portrait mode if I want.
    It's simply more versatile across all types of media and workload, just as 1920x1200 is compared to 1920x1080. You can have the video full screen with the controls still visible. In games and video 16:10 uses more of your field of vision then 16:9 does. Fit more documents on screen at full size with application toolbars etc.

    16:9 came about as a cost cutting measure, just as gimping out most screens to 1366x768 A.K.A. The Devil's resolution is a cost cutting measure.


    The Meizu MX4G = 2560x1536 @ 5.5" 542.81dpi, get me a desktop screen that get.

  5. #15
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    526

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kivada View Post
    It's simply more versatile across all types of media and workload, just as 1920x1200 is compared to 1920x1080. You can have the video full screen with the controls still visible. In games and video 16:10 uses more of your field of vision then 16:9 does. Fit more documents on screen at full size with application toolbars etc.

    16:9 came about as a cost cutting measure, just as gimping out most screens to 1366x768 A.K.A. The Devil's resolution is a cost cutting measure.


    The Meizu MX4G = 2560x1536 @ 5.5" 542.81dpi, get me a desktop screen that get.
    You're preaching the choir, I'm just saying it is unlikely we will ever see high DPI 16:10 panels. The only reason we had them a decade ago, that kept them alive on life support to the modern day, is because LCD adoption first took place in the notebook and desktop space before TVs went flat panel. Once that happened, TVs dominated the panel industry and drove it towards 16:9.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •