AMD's RX 480 hits half the performance of a Titan X (Pascal) at 8K resolution

[RGProductions]

Just now, Grinners said:

8k is 16x 1080.

 

7680x2160 is only 8x

No, 8k is 4 4k monitors, and 4k is four times 1080p, and 4x4 is 16. The pixel number doesn't need to double for the count to.

[Bensemus]

That 8k is an ultra wide aspect too (32:9) so 16:9 8k would be even more demanding.

8 minutes ago, Grinners said:

7680x2160 

 

We calling this 8k now???

Brb vertical pixels irrelevant.

Brb doing benchmark at 7680x1 (8k)

It's been that way since consumer 4k.

[RGProductions]

4 minutes ago, Grinners said:

Actual 8k is 16 times the pixels of1080.

 

7680x2160 is only 8 times. Hence me saying it is not 8k.

I'm an idiot nevermind.

[patrickjp93]

17 minutes ago, ARikozuM said:

I find this to be completely useless considering that price has never been a good measure of a GPU's performance.

Yes it has. That's why the Titan Z is still the performance king (as long as it has a waterblock).

/s

[Grinners]

2 minutes ago, RGProductions said:

No, 8k is 4 4k monitors, and 4k is four times 1080p, and 4x4 is 16. The pixel number doesn't need to double for the count to.

I understand that.  

 

Re read my posts. 

 

8k is 4 by 4k monitors. 

 

7680 x 2160 is not. 

 

7680 x 2160 is the equivalent of 2 4k monitors.

[ARikozuM]

2 minutes ago, Bensemus said:

That 8k is an ultra wide aspect too (32:9) so 16:9 8k would be even more demanding.

It's been that way since consumer 4k.

32:9 is more demanding than 16:9.

[Drak3]

1 minute ago, ARikozuM said:

So... You're saying that the R9 Fury X will be succeeded by... the RX Fury X... and then the RXI Fury X?

No, I'm saying the R9 Fury X will be replaced by the AMD Fury X, because NVidia did it with the Titan X. Then again, AMD is a little better with names, such as the FirePro, ProDuo, and Fury Nano. Maybe we'll get the RX Fury XI, then the RXi Fury XII, the Fury XIII Roxas edition, and so on and so forth until they hit roman numerals that we won't recognize.

[Guest]

 

4 hours ago, Drak3 said:

Maybe we'll get the RX Fury XI, then the RXi Fury XII, the Fury XIII Roxas edition, and so on and so forth until they hit roman numerals that we won't recognize.

Can't wait for RXXX

[Sakkura]

5 minutes ago, Drak3 said:

No, I'm saying the R9 Fury X will be replaced by the AMD Fury X, because NVidia did it with the Titan X. Then again, AMD is a little better with names, such as the FirePro, ProDuo, and Fury Nano. Maybe we'll get the RX Fury XI, then the RXi Fury XII, the Fury XIII Roxas edition, and so on and so forth until they hit roman numerals that we won't recognize.

There was never a Fury Nano.

[ARikozuM]

Just now, Sakkura said:

There was never a Fury Nano.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814150754

[RGProductions]

10 minutes ago, Grinners said:

I understand that.  

 

Re read my posts. 

 

8k is 4 by 4k monitors. 

 

7680 x 2160 is not. 

 

7680 x 2160 is the equivalent of 2 4k monitors.

read my i'm an idiot nevermind post. I fully agree, but FSR 7680x2160 seemed like 16:9 to me.

[Drak3]

1 minute ago, ARikozuM said:

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814150754

Damn, beat me to it.

[Bensemus]

5 minutes ago, ARikozuM said:

32:9 is more demanding than 16:9.

8k 32:9 is 7680 by 2160 so 16.5 million pixels. 16:9 8k is 7680 by 4320 so 33.2 million pixels. When you are talking about stuff like 1080p and 1440p the ultra wide spec is more demanding as the horizontal pixels go up going from 16:9 to 21:9 or 32:9. For any of the "k" resolutions the ultra wide spec is easier as the horizontal pixels stay the same while the vertical pixels shrink. 

[Guest]

4 hours ago, ARikozuM said:

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814150754

Where is Fury. All I see is Nano

[Sakkura]

Just now, ARikozuM said:

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814150754

Only says Fury further down the page, where it's a mistake. If you check AMD's site, it specifically separates the Fury series from the R9 Nano (and never calls the Nano anything to do with Fury).

[Mira Yurizaki]

Hey wait, the GTX 1070 up to 97% in performance than the GTX 1080 and it costs at least 33% less! What gives!??!?!?!1111

 

... Honestly I really don't know what this topic is trying to prove.

[Guest]

4 hours ago, M.Yurizaki said:

Hey wait, the GTX 1070 up to 97% in performance than the GTX 1080 and it costs at least 33% more! What gives!??!?!?!1111

 

... Honestly I really don't know what this topic is trying to prove.

Wait 1070 costs at least 33% more? That sounds wrong

[ARikozuM]

6 minutes ago, dexxterlab97 said:

 

Can't wait for RXXX

I'd rather not have Vin Diesel in my graphics lest he turn everything into a drifting game.

 

1 minute ago, Bensemus said:

8k 32:9 is 7680 by 2160 so 16.5 million pixels. 16:9 8k is 7680 by 4320 so 33.2 million pixels. When you are talking about stuff like 1080p and 1440p the ultra wide spec is more demanding as the horizontal pixels go up going from 16:9 to 21:9 or 32:9. For any of the "k" resolutions the ultra wide spec is easier as the horizontal pixels stay the same while the vertical pixels shrink. 

Oh, in that case, never mind. I thought they were using a 3840x2160 as the 16:9 versus the 7680x2160 32:9.

3 minutes ago, Sakkura said:

Only says Fury further down the page, where it's a mistake. If you check AMD's site, it specifically separates the Fury series from the R9 Nano (and never calls the Nano anything to do with Fury).

It is a mistake. Only XFX does it. But the Nano uses the same core as the Fury which leads it to be called the Fury Nano in many instances.

[ARikozuM]

5 minutes ago, M.Yurizaki said:

Hey wait, the GTX 1070 up to 97% in performance than the GTX 1080 and it costs at least 33% more! What gives!??!?!?!1111

 

... Honestly I really don't know what this topic is trying to prove.

I think it's the red team trying to prove something... Probably that both sides suck at 2160 gaming.

[Mira Yurizaki]

5 minutes ago, dexxterlab97 said:

Wait 1070 costs at least 33% more? That sounds wrong

More, less, same difference.

[Drak3]

8 minutes ago, Sakkura said:

Only says Fury further down the page, where it's a mistake. If you check AMD's site, it specifically separates the Fury series from the R9 Nano (and never calls the Nano anything to do with Fury).

It would seem you're correct. I will say that the Nano was initially set to be released under the Fury name, and considering it uses the fame Fiji GPU and 4GB HBM, referring to it as a Fury card really isn't a misnomer.

[Guest]

4 hours ago, ARikozuM said:

I think it's the red team trying to prove something... Probably that both sides suck at 2160 gaming.

Hey I am on team blue and their hd 4000 looks fine. 

[Belgarathian]

Mint. Quad XFX RX480 8G. 

 

 

[Guest]

4 hours ago, Belgarathian said:

Hey... Uh, I'm pretty sure 8k would be  7680x4320 (16:9)

 

 

8k would be 8000. 

Sorry

[Drak3]

Just now, Belgarathian said:

Hey... Uh, I'm pretty sure 8k would be  7680x4320 (16:9)

 

 

8K in 32:9 would be 7680x2160. It's just the horizontal pixel count, and doesn't mean anything without the aspect ratio or vertical pixel count.