Should we drop 5760x1080 in VGA reviews?

[newconroer]

Incorrect. If the average is over 120FPS, then it is pretty safe to assume the game will stay pretty steady at 120FPS on a 120Hz panel. If the average is over 144FPS, then it will run at 144FPS most of the time on a 144Hz panel. There might be some dips below that, but even with a native 120/144Hz panel, that isn't going to show up in the review anyway the same way the lows aren't in the reviews now.
[/quote[

I wasn't speaking specific to 120 or 144, more like 60. But then frame times aren't going to matter if all he does is use averages. It did strike me as odd how his numbers vary so much to other reviews. I must have been thinking all this time, that it was minimum frames...
Guess the lack of a second bar underneath should have been my clue.

 

[newtekie1]

Sounds like game problems, not VGA problems. Either way, it wouldn't be indicative of VGA performance.

Indeed they would be game problems, or driver issues.

That is why I said give 2560x1080 its own page in the just the SLI/Crossfire reviews. Not really as a performance comparison, but to give people looking at that configuration an idea of what to expect.

 

[Relayer]

Surround/Eyefinity is a major feature (supposedly) supported by both brands. We need it tested, if for no other reason, to be sure that it's properly supported by drivers from both brands.

 

[W1zzard]

Surround/Eyefinity is a major feature (supposedly) supported by both brands. We need it tested, if for no other reason, to be sure that it's properly supported by drivers from both brands.

It is no longer supported in lots of games (game developers dont care)

 

[Mussels]

Like 3D, it was supported for about a year or two and then poof, gone.

 

[EarthDog]

According to steam, that type of testing caters to less than 1% of their users... seems like you can drop it.

I like the 2560x1600 and the addition of 4K is really needed (we are working on it too).

For those asking about 2560x1440... the difference is only a % or two between 1440/1600. He is testing the higher res of the two so any more FPS you get because you are running 1440 is gravy.

Check Steam's statistics to see who has what...and make your decisions based off that data (a much larger dataset than here) you will be quite surprised who has what...
https://www.google.com/webhp?source...h=1&ie=UTF-8#q=steam monitor resolution stats

 

[GhostRyder]

Surround/Eyefinity is a major feature (supposedly) supported by both brands. We need it tested, if for no other reason, to be sure that it's properly supported by drivers from both brands.

Thing is we can estimate performance by looking at 4K performance in the charts and then worrying more about driver support for it. At this point that would be the major problem to worry about because if the game does not fully support it anyway and AMD/Nvidia do not have very good drivers for it running in a configuration like that its still not going to run very well.

 

[thebluebumblebee]

Could overclocked power consumption be added?

 

[qubit]

Like 3D, it was supported for about a year or two and then poof, gone.

3D Vision should be ok in most instances. It often works perfectly or near perfectly with very old games which don't have any concept of it.

I have to confess that I haven't used it in ages though as I tend to get a bit cross-eyed with it. Also, you can't beat 120Hz refresh vsync-locked and no/little dropped frames in 2D, which is totally awesome.

 

[EarthDog]

and it's decided .. dropping 5760x1080 and replacing 2560x1600 with 2560x1440.

-> 1600x900, 1920x1080, 2560x1440, 3840x2160

list of games:

Ditch BF3 (use only 4), ditch Grid 2 (go to autosport).

Thing is we can estimate performance by looking at 4K performance in the charts and then worrying more about driver support for it. At this point that would be the major problem to worry about because if the game does not fully support it anyway and AMD/Nvidia do not have very good drivers for it running in a configuration like that its still not going to run very well.

The pixel difference between 4K and 5760x1080 is to big to extrapolate any accurate differences... here is the math:


5760x1080 = 6,220,800
3840x2160 = 8,294,400

That is a ~30% pixel difference... VASTLY different than 2560x1440/1600 where other factors (like vram amount and bandwidth) come in to play.

 

[newbsandwich]

Could overclocked power consumption be added?

Agree, this would be useful to see.

Ditch BF3 (use only 4), ditch Grid 2 (go to autosport).

Also agree, no need for BF3 now.

 

[Relayer]

It is no longer supported in lots of games (game developers dont care)

In the end you are going to do what you see fit. I hope you decide to continue with it. I think it's important. You already dropped surround on games that nVidia doesn't work in. Most games do support it, though. Don't they?

Thing is we can estimate performance by looking at 4K performance in the charts and then worrying more about driver support for it. At this point that would be the major problem to worry about because if the game does not fully support it anyway and AMD/Nvidia do not have very good drivers for it running in a configuration like that its still not going to run very well.

That doesn't actually work. It's not just pixels. It's actually optimizing for that res.

 

[metalslaw]

Going to add my 2 cents

3 x 1080p is 5760x1080, or 6220800 pixels. 1440p is 2560 x 1440, or 3686400 pixels.

Oculus rift cv1 will 'probably' be 1440p at 95 hertz. So optimally, we need a minimum of 350,208,000 pixels per second being displayed (95fps+).

Back to 3 x 1080p. Optimally, we need a minimum of 373,248,000 pixels per second to be displayed, at a 60 hertz minimum (60 fps+).

They are both pretty close really

So, this debate is kinda null and void to me. The oculus is going to be requiring the same pixel throughput that 3x1080p at 60hz requires atm.

And I know that every man and his dog will be wanting oculus specific resolution and framerate information once cv1 comes out

Atm, our reference for oculus is actually the 3x1080p scores from previous reviews. If the game goes 60 fps+, then that means it's probably oculus cv1 ready already (but yes, now we have 1440p, so 3x1080 isn't needed)


... me, personally, I can't wait for oculus cv1. Having only just yesterday, finally got my 4 year old 3d vision glasses up and working with my benq xl2720z monitor, I can see what all the fuss is about! And i'm from a sim racing background where a good whack of fellow sim racers run triple monitor setups )

Now i've decided that I want to experience cv1, before deciding if I want to then go back to aiming at triple screens for competitive racing.

I'd buy dk2, but I want to wait... I want the surprise

 

[metalslaw]

But anyway... 5760 x 1080 isn't needed anymore 1440p at 95+ fps is the new reference marker.

I just wanted to give some back story to a year ago, when 1440p wasn't a commonly tested res, and 3x1080 was the reference point for me (for a future build 'want' at the time)

It also allows anyone wanting to know if 'oculus will run this smooth' when looking at old benchmarks, to know if it will

 

[Relayer]

By the pixel count logic why bother testing at 5760*1080 or 4K. Just test @ 1080 and divide the results by 3 or 4? The reason we don't is because it doesn't work.