The HTC VIVE Pro Should Be Much Nicer For Steam VR Gaming

[lucrus]

AND I run 4k monitor, and I won't be downsizing, 4k is my home and if you have a clue you know the 1080ti can run 4k at 60hz but the standard 1080 will often just get 50hz (fps). PLUS my FuryX produces too much heat and eats ALLOT more power then 1080ti, I pay 50c per Kwh here!

PS. I'm not happy about spending the money, its the first time I have splashed this much on a single videocard. BUT with prices set to rise over Q1 and the delay of next gen cards, it seems like a ok time to buy.

Please don't get me wrong, I don't really blame you nor anyone else for anything, I'm just trying to understand. Thanks for your explanation, but I still don't understand. You pay 50c per KW and that seems to be a problem for you, so you spend 1000 bucks now, to save, in future, maybe 20% on the electricity bill (and I think I'm overextimating the savings, because while the 1080ti is more efficient than your FuryX, it's not that it works with plain air only, so you save only the difference).

But let's assume you save enough on the bill to make it worth the 1000 bucks in a reasonable time frame, my first question still holds: what's the difference in fun while playing in front of a full HD monitor vs a 4K one?

[theriddick]

Its not just about the power, my FuryX MUST go. and VEGA cards are a flop as far as I'm concerned. Basically I could go 1070 or 1080 but they wouldn't really do well at 4k resolutions IMO. So really its being forced into a corner to buy a 1080Ti MINI (zotac) card for my ITX system.

I might have considered a Vega64 ITX (that don't exist) card but given the huge power drains and heat issues with those cards, I don't think it would be worth it. Lets keep in mind the 1080ti is as much as 35% faster then the Vega64.

To add insult to injury for AMD, the Vega64 costs 878AUD while 1080ti is 1047AUD, so for less then $200AUD more I get upto %35 better performance and the house doesn't burn down for it

my first question still holds: what's the difference in fun while playing in front of a full HD monitor vs a 4K one?

4x the difference, I can see and detect objects and details in the distance vs only being able to identify objects close to medium range. You really need to experience 4k properly (not on a 27" or 28" screen) to appreciate it. I say entry level size for 4k is 32" for enjoyment, preferably 40". If you have poor eyesight already and everything is fuzzy then perhaps 4k won't help much, but I enjoy the extra clarity ALLOT! (plus extra desktop real estate)

In 5 years time people will be laughing at 4k on how blurry and crap it looks. lol

[lucrus]

To add insult to injury for AMD

I wasn't meaning Vega is better: I can't see the need for a Vega card either. Please consider I'm using a passively cooled Radeon HD 6450 with 256MB of RAM and I feel like I need something more, so I'm thinking about a RX550 and I know it would be more than I need to have fun at the PC... but its active cooling turns me down. I know NVidia provides better cards for the money, but I don't want to buy NVidia for other reasons. Anyway, that's not the point of this thread.

plus extra desktop real estate ... In 5 years time people will be laughing at 4k on how blurry and crap it looks. lol

Hmm, I'm not that convinced. 4K is already more than human eye can see on a 28" monitor, and slapping a 40" display in front of a person at a 20" distance while sitting at the desk it's just useless, because human visual angle blocks you from seeing the whole thing. Desktop real estate is good, but too much is useless, except in some use cases where are probabily better off with two or three monitors in line.

However I can understand that while playing in front of a 4K 40" display, if you keep distant enough to fully see it and if you are sharp-sighted enough, you can benefit from extra detail.

I'm not sure about how many people do that math before buying a 1000 bucks card and a 40" 4K monitor, but you clearly did it.

[Tomin]

Please consider I'm using a passively cooled Radeon HD 6450 with 256MB of RAM and I feel like I need something more, so I'm thinking about a RX550 and I know it would be more than I need to have fun at the PC... but its active cooling turns me down.

Active cooling especially on these lower end cards is pretty quiet these days. I was surprised that my Radeon RX460 didn't make any noticeable sounds (well, of course it made some, but I could not hear them over case fans that were quiet as well). I think some of the cards won't even spin their fans unless needed.

[theriddick]

Hmm, I'm not that convinced. 4K is already more than human eye can see on a 28" monitor, and slapping a 40" display in front of a person at a 20" distance while sitting at the desk it's just useless, because human visual angle blocks you from seeing the whole thing. Desktop real estate is good, but too much is useless, except in some use cases where are probabily better off with two or three monitors in line.

However I can understand that while playing in front of a 4K 40" display, if you keep distant enough to fully see it and if you are sharp-sighted enough, you can benefit from extra detail.

I'm not sure about how many people do that math before buying a 1000 bucks card and a 40" 4K monitor, but you clearly did it.

Humans should be able to see clarity increases up to 16k, not sure what your thinking is with at 4k, but your wrong. I also have no FOV issues with my 40" screen some 20" from my face. If you have all these issues then I would say its exclusive to you I'm sorry to say.

PS. I have had MANY cards before this, and MANY 4k screens. Even had a small 28" and a 52" 4k screen. I would call myself extensively experienced with 4k desktop and gaming.

EDIT: I think the issue your getting hung up on is the benefits of a 1080p vs 4k in a PRICE comparative type of way. But keep in mind my 4k 40" screen didn't cost me much and they are quite cheap these days. People spend way more on 4k TV's, which I find hard to understand the justification for (you can get cheaper options but people still splash allot on 4k big brands).

[lucrus]

Active cooling especially on these lower end cards is pretty quiet these days.

It's not just about noise, it's also about reliability: fans tend to seize with time, but I think I might take the risk.

Humans should be able to see clarity increases up to 16k, not sure what your thinking is with at 4k, but your wrong

That's actually news for me: I've always believed that if a pixel is too small for human eye, then it can't do any good unless paired with another neighbor pixel to make them a single bigger pixel, completely defeating the poupose of making them small in the first place. I try to explain what I mean.

I hardly believe any human can see 35" of width (which is the width of a 16:9, 40" display) at 20" distance with a single glance in full 4K detail. You need to turn your head a bit to look at that wonderful details on every side of your 40" display and then you loose other sides details at the edge of your visual, or fully outside it.

While this may be ok when you work, when you play you miss the enemy or the powerup at those sides when they're far and visible only thanks to the 4K detail. So I think the pourpose of 4K for gaming is defeated most of the time, if you keep a 40" display at a 20" distance from your eyes. If you keep it 50" away, you may see the full detail of its 40", but you need to be very sharp-sighted to distinguish them: maybe it results in a better overall image, something that resembles reality a bit closer than a FHD display and maybe that's the full reason to buy 4K hardware.

Then again, I'm pretty confident you are right and I'm wrong, so... have you got any pointer to deeper explanation about why I'm wrong by any chance?

[tomtomme]

Hmm, I'm not that convinced. 4K is already more than human eye can see on a 28" monitor

hmm? I run 4k 28" and still can see jagged contours in 3d games. If the game and my furyX allow I still turn on 4xAntiAliasing and I still can see the difference. And my eyes are normal I think for a person in the mid 30ies.

I might not see the outer edges of my display without moving my eyes / head in game, but what makes me pro-4k is the clarity of the part you acutally look at. For 2d or indy games this is not that important, only for games that try to look "real". There it makes a huge difference. More fun because of more immersion.
And also for work / reading 4k is a big + over fullHD.

[theriddick]

I can see the full 40" when I'm looking at middle, meaning I can move icons to sides of the screen and detect them. Now I can't see perfect quality at corners but I do have the peripheral vision to detect and see stuff.

As for seeing individual dots 20" away, sure I can't but you can easily detect the difference in clarity when going up to 4k, and people say you can also when going up to 8k, even for desktop stuff if you match the scaling you can see a increase in clarity. I think the argument would be hard above 8k however, but until 8k becomes the normal then I don't think we will really get to know the truth there, and 4k is only just becoming the standard now.

PS. I think I have unusual wide angle viewing, and no I don't look like a hammerhead shark!

[Cape]

I'm afraid I won't never understand why people wastes those amounts of money for PC gaming. Granted, I'm old school and I can enjoy 8 bit pixelated games and not everyone has to be like myself, but I hardly see the difference in fun while playing when you have a decent 300 bucks worth GPU and a 1000 bucks one.

Please explain me.

Planned obsolescence paired with Moore's Law means you need to buy new GPU once every 5 years to be able to play new vydia.

[theriddick]

Planned obsolescence paired with Moore's Law means you need to buy new GPU once every 5 years to be able to play new vydia.

I don't think that is a huge problem for CPU/GPU's, nothing is stopping you playing your games from 5years back, the issue is newer titles just demand more power because of more detail, and often more things happening on screen require more CPU power.

Nothing is planned at all IMO its just natural progression of computing power and the software along with it, same reason as why consoles keep getting more powerful every 4-5years. Now if you look at the mobile phone market, especially apple products, planned obsolescence is 100% engineer in!