Every time

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: McMarius11sadly nothing about linux...

I mean, It's nvidia. most of us never got our hopes up so we feel no disappointment -- Linus didn't give them the finger years back because he was having a bad day, he gave it because he was being comedic and they earned it.



Don't make someone a priority when they make you a after thought

My RX 6900 XT isn't crying, it's smoking it.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: Shmerl

Quoting: ElectricPrismRight, being able to saturate each refresh with a new frame is an important part of getting the use out of it. I'm on AMD RX 6900 XT so it's not a problem, it's not cheap though or even practical for most people at this time.

I have 6800 XT which is only marignally weaker than 6900 XT. And as above, with ultra settings in something like CP2077 I get 70 fps at 2560x1440 (LG 27GP850 with adaptive sync, 180 Hz max). Which I think is great, but it simply means current generation GPUs are not there yet to benefit from 270 Hz. Unless of course you use more mid range games that aren't so demanding.

I agree that monitor tech seems to be progressing slower than it could. For example variable overdrive for some reason is not common place yet.

Yeah I take the meaning behind your point, if I wanted to split a hair, I would argue that specific game devs are becoming increasingly wasteful with hardware resources and just really aren't targeting a scope where FPS would make use of those high refresh rates.

I guess for "most" games we'll just have to wait for the market to be saturated with some version of 170hz or 144hz monitors before gamers start changing the scope of game devs to target their hardware, which... could easily take a few generations.

I'm glad monitor tech has IPS refresh improvements, but it is definitely a point of pain -- I've discussed the situation with other monitor enthusiasts and they have arrived at the same conclusion we are in some kind of fucked up limbo. Ironic that in some ways CRT was superior in some ways for many years.

If we could only get out of this 16:9 thing -- I would be estatic if 16:10 or even 3:2 (frame.work ratio, sony vaio, etc...) came back -- It's really sad that the TV market has essentially taken the monitor market captive and forced compromises, even 1600x1200 in a upgraded form would make for a really nice screen @ 3200x2400 -- maybe as people work at home more, the monitor market will start to overtake the TV market and we'll get some leverage back where all this smart-crap and backdoors aren't installed directly to my screen. /rant

Edit: I suppose there's an argument to be made about use-case, for example FPS or high action gaming are going to notice that higher refresh rate (270hz) at that lower resolution (1080p), RPG, and most use cases are really not going to be noticeably different (above 170hz probably), certainly not web browsing or other standard use-cases (my selection of a higher refresh rate is entirely in an attempt to reduce motion sickness for group gaming)

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: Shmerl

Quoting: ElectricPrism240-270 is good enough IMO if you are doing FPS, 144 is meh.

Good enough in FPS is also relative, if your GPU can't saturate that. Something like CP2077 at 2560x1440 only produces around 70 fps for me. Can't even imagine what kind of GPU will be needed to get 270 fps in it, but I guess in a few generations of them it would be doable.

Right, being able to saturate each refresh with a new frame is an important part of getting the use out of it. I'm on AMD RX 6900 XT so it's not a problem, it's not cheap though or even practical for most people at this time.

For motion sensitive people though, it does make a big difference as lower Hz and FPS don't go over well at all.

I did a lot of monitor research, obviously I found the common online sentiment of 144hz or 165hz being the point of diminishing return to not be correct in my own personal trials as a system builder.

Monitor tech is really in a wonky place this last year, hopefully 2022 will be a little better (Eg: They want you to own one monitor for every use-case, color work, FPS gaming, one that is 4k or more for more screen real estate, etc... I settled on 1440p 170hz ASUS and 270Hz 1080p which are easier to push at that lower resolution -- next on my radar is the LG 42" 4k monitor though I'm sure the refresh rate won't be as good as I would hope. [but this is how advertisers work, they want to sell you every slightly better version as you go, no you can't have a 128 core CPU even though it's invented right away, you need to go through 4, 6, 8, 12, 16, 32, 48, 56, 64, and every in-between before they unlock the technology sitting on their shelf ready to deploy -- at least that was literally Intel for the last 10 years before AMD kicked their ass the last 5 years.)

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: Shmerl

Quoting: Xpanderlike does it really matter if its 144 or 180

The jump from 60 Hz to 144 Hz is surely more significant than from 144 Hz to 180 Hz. But it's still smoother (less motion blur, etc.).

Outside of gaming, the easiest way to see the difference is to scroll a lot of text fast.

You would thing. I've had 30hz, 60hz, 144hz, 170hz, and 270hz -- 144hz is definitely not the drop-off point, there are noticeable gains at 170 and even 270hz.

240-270 is good enough IMO if you are doing FPS, 144 is meh.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

I am grateful LinusTechTips didn't choose this.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: Purple Library Guy

Quoting: ElectricPrism

Quoting: elmapul1)3 billions? wow, hat is just 500x less money than than microsoft, google or amazon! my 6 milllion dollar corporation

Don't be a disingenuous jerk, did you not read that the date was 2012 nearly 10 years ago?

I think elmapul's point stands, though. Say they've tripled in size in 9 years. That would make them worth $9 billion. Still not near the same league as MS or Google or Amazon.

Back to the original context. There was an ludicrous argument that Valve couldn't afford to be a CDN or have the server power necessary to offer cloud gaming services.

My references to Wikipedia prove two things. [1] Valve has the money [2] Valve is already a massive CDN.

Arguing what Valve's may or may not be worth is just a diversion. It's immaterial and irrelevant to the plot beyond that reality that they have massive amounts of capitol to do whatever they please.

And let me be clear, the video game entertainment market has exponentially exploded since 2012. No sane level headed person could believe that Valve is somehow incapable of achieving things they have already mastered and are world leaders in for the last decade. That would be disingenuous if not grossly naive.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: elmapul1)3 billions? wow, hat is just 500x less money than than microsoft, google or amazon! my 6 milllion dollar corporation

Don't be a disingenuous jerk, did you not read that the date was 2012 nearly 10 years ago?

Honestly, you are on the level of 1+1 = 3 right now, and you're not even worth my time to carry on a discussion -- also holy god man -- spell check your posts once in a while -- are you drunk?

Also, why the shitting all over Valve, the literal only hand that feeds -- that level of shillery makes no sense -- you are a clusterfuck of contradictions.

Oh awesome, I just discovered I can click on your profile and block you -- since you have nothing intelligible to say I will cleanse my feed of your nonsense. Good god man. I mean I'm genuinely impressed by how much of a proud fool you've made yourself out to be.

Oh I also stopped reading past the quotation btw, again -- if you want to sit at my big boy table you need to behave and prove that you are sane by making sane arguments and acknowledging facts and data.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: elmapulas for Valve entering the cloud gaming business i dont think they have enough money to host servers, they wouldnt be doing the economics of scale nescessary for this type of service, unlike google, amazon and ms wich already have most their infrastructure in place

Bro. . .

By 2012, Valve employed around 250 people and was reportedly worth over US$3 billion, making it the most profitable company per employee in the United States. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valve_Corporation [External Link]

Also, Valve is basically a CDN and accounted for like 1-2% of all internet traffic last time I checked.

In the kindest way I know how, you may want to update your view to include these facts. There's no way.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: ridgeI really dislike how Valve relies so much on DXVK, but on the other hand I can acknowledge that adding native Vulkan to the Source engine would proooobably be a big undertaking in lots of old spaghetti code.... maybe, I don't know.

But from a "stupid user who doesn't know what the Source engine source code looks like" point of view, I really wish they could just implement Vulkan natively.

Well they did LITERALLY fund DXVK development didn't they?

To me that's no different than them funding and using SDL.

And our community does complain about reinventing the wheel often enough -- IIUC their DXVK bindings are literally paper-thin taking optimized functions and simply redirecting them to the appropriate DXVK function.

Edit: Another argument for their DXVK bindings is that their internal DX functions are already highly optimized, when a parallel code is created it's often not as optimized in the sense that it doesn't get as much time, care, testing, eyeballs, etc...

View this comment - View article - View full comments