Woohoo. CGPA 4 ringgit equals 1 USD. At this rate, i think i rather jump 2 volta in 2017. It will need some sort of miracles 2 ever get back 2 zaman 2.8 equals a dollar.

Woohoo. CGPA 4 ringgit equals 1 USD. At this rate, i think i rather jump 2 volta in 2017. It will need some sort of miracles 2 ever get back 2 zaman 2.8 equals a dollar.

Trust me, you start a poll or do a survey outside Low Yat plaza. I'm pretty sure not many would want to play at 20-30 FPS (Seriously, 20 FPS?! )

You certainly know very interesting people which can game with 9FPS or lower so I need to salute you for that.

I mention PC is an expensive hobby so I'm not sure when did I state that RM3K is cheap. There's no more RM1K budget rig around seriously. Get an i3, RAM, board and that is already close to RM1K. You mean the GPU, PSU, casing, HDD, keyboard, mouse, LCD can be bought for another RM200?

i feels like it was last week our 2.8 = 1dollar. 

i dont know if i can still continue with my plan changing to itx.

i was thinking of getting pascal with waterblock. but looking at currency 1:4 to the usdollar, i may have to stick to stock fan cooler

and if it gets even worse, i'd have to downgrade the gpu to the medium or lower spec version of the pascal variant 

Of course, much of what we've just demonstrated about memory capacity constraints is kind of academic for reasons we've noted. On a practical level, these results match what we saw in our initial reviews of the R9 Fury and Fury X: at resolutions of 4K and below, cards with 4GB of video memory can generally get by just fine, even with relatively high image quality settings. Similarly, the GeForce GTX 970 seems to handle 4K gaming quite well in spite of its funky partitioned memory. Meanwhile, at higher resolutions, no current single-GPU graphics card is fast enough for fluid gaming, no matter how much memory it might have. Even with 12GB, the Titan X averages less than 30 FPS in Shadow of Mordor at 5760x3240.

The biggest concern, though, is future games that simply require more memory due to the use of higher-quality textures and other assets. AMD has a bit of a challenge to manage, and it will likely need to tune its driver software carefully during the Fury's lifetime in order to prevent occasional issues. Here's hoping that work is effective.

When or if I buy Wolfenstein: The New Order this year, it will probably be the physical PC version because I don’t want to have to download 50GB on my internet connection and monthly data cap. When I download a game on Steam my maximum download speed is around 1.5 Megabytes per second. Installing a 20GB game usually takes me six hours. If Call of Duty Ghosts — somewhere north of 40GB, shows up on a Steam free weekend, I’d have to spend 12 of those free hours downloading the game. On that note maybe EA’s Origin Game Time is a better take on the free trial idea since it doesn’t start your clock until you’ve actually installed the game.

Developers should use less pre-rendered FMVs for one thing. The PC version of Metal Gear Rising: Revengeance is nearly 25GB, but as I understand it around 18 of those gigs are consumed by FMVs. The actual game is somewhere around 5GB. The recent PC release of Final Fantasy XIII weighs in at 60GB, with FMVs accounting for 46GB.

FMVs made sense back in the 90’s when real-time video game graphics couldn’t display events in storylines as convincingly. Pre-rendered CG graphics are always a generation ahead of video game graphics, but I’d say real-time graphics have gotten good enough to fully convey storylines. Plus, they mesh better with the actual gameplay. FMVs have also only accelerated their file size increases with the move to encoding them in 1080p.

Somewhat odd are games that use FMVs that are pre-rendered with the same graphics as gameplay. Maybe things are rendered in those cut scenes that the gameplay engine can’t handle or doesn’t need, but I think developers should still try if it can make the difference in file sizes. Can some developers do a better job of compressing the video files if FMVs are unavoidable? Maybe some games should do a better job of storytelling that conveys more through gameplay and less through cut scenes and FMVs.

Then you have asset quality. Titanfall is 48GB on PC because it uses uncompressed audio which is easier on dual core processors. In addition to choice of languages, why don’t they give players a choice on whether uncompressed audio matters to them. The same goes for textures. Some pirate versions of Max Payne 3 come with only one audio language or with compressed textures to cut down on the download size. I wonder how many customers would be receptive to official distributors doing the same thing.

Witcher 3 had very, very, little FMVs. The game is only 30GB+ including the latest patches yet is one of the biggest games in recent history. Yet, it has some of the most terrible animation rigging in a AAA game, ever.

FMVs would have helped Witcher 3 immensely to be honest.

CDPR does not have Fox Engine, just sayin'.

Haha. I still think red alert 2 has the best FMV ever and nothing has beat it since yo.

Haha. I still think red alert 2 has the best FMV ever and nothing has beat it since yo.

the first dx12 game as far i know
Ashes of the Singularity
http://www.extremetech.com/gaming/212314-d...go-head-to-head
:/ is the game any fun ?

No, it's a boring as fudge RTS. It's also terribly unbalanced at the moment.

Intel has, according to The Tech Report, decided to support Adaptive-Sync -- but not necessarily in their current product line. David Blythe of Intel would not comment on specific dates or release windows, just that it is in their plans. This makes sense for Intel because it allows their customers to push settings higher while maintaining a smooth experience, which matters a lot for users of integrated graphics.

While “AMD FreeSync” is a stack of technologies, VESA DisplayPort Adaptive-Sync should be all that is required on the monitor side. This should mean that Intel has access to all of AMD's adaptive refresh monitors, although the driver and GPU circuitry would need to be their burden. G-Sync monitors (at least those with NVIDIA-design modules -- this is currently all of them except for one laptop I think) would be off limits, though.

This is BIG. Intel recently bought Alterra the people who make the G-Sync module for Nvidia. They also cross-license a lot of Nvidia GPUs tech.

They would have more insight to the future viability of G-Sync than anyone aside from Nvidia themselves and to decide to go the AMD route.

THATS BIG!!!

That is a bit misleading. Alterra just makes FPGAs. They may not have any actual data on how Nvidia's g-sync module works unless Nvidia sent them the design for debugging or something. Using an FPGA is kind of like using a CPU that you then need to write software for. If I buy a CPU, the maker of that CPU doesn'tknow what software I run on it. FPGAs are programmed using a hardware description language like verilog rather than a software programming language. Alterra doesn't necessarily have access to the verilog that Nvidia uses to program the FPGA.

If Nvidia is confident that there will be a larger volume of g-sync modules sold then they can actually use the verilog design to create a fixed function ASIC. This should be much cheaper, if there is sufficient volume. I tried to find out the price of the FPGA Nvidia is using, and it looked like it was around $200 in small volumes, if I had the right one. Nvidia would get a better price for a large number of parts though. I don't know who takes the FPGA and mounts it on a board to make the actual g-sync module. Nvidia probably just contracts this out to some other company.

any thoughts on this ?

would it be possible for a gsync like performance but via the intel adaptive-sync plan ?
http://www.pcper.com/news/Graphics-Cards/I...e-Sync#comments