AMD Rig ( First PC Build )

Talk about other games and consoles in here!
Warning! This topic is 8 years and 1 month old! Please consider opening a new topic rather that bumping up this very old post.
Post Reply
User avatar
KaiserSenpai
Junior Chao
Junior Chao
Posts: 26
Joined: Sun Dec 27, 2015 11:52 pm

AMD Rig ( First PC Build )

Post by KaiserSenpai »

Finally got into PC gaming.
I need to upgrade in the future- get a SSD for my OS, planning on getting a 3TB internal after I upgrade my PS4's storage with a 2TB.

This is the year for gaming, I'm so hyped! grin emoticon
This is my first build, it's nearly been a month and I'm really enjoying PC gaming! I have to get use to keyboard and mouse, very different from what I'm use too.

I bulit this 12/31/2015, minutes away from New Years.

What's inside:
Spoiler:
AMD FX 9590 ( Processor )
H80I GT ( Liquid Cooler )
Rosewill Hive - 1000 W ( Power Supply )
ASUS Crosshair V Formula AM3+ ( Motherboard )
XFX Radeon R9 390 8GB ( Graphics Card )
WD Black 1TB Performance Desktop ( Hard Drive )
Adata XPG 16GB ( Ram )
DIYPC Skyline-07-G Black/Blue Gaming Case w/ 7 x 120mm blue fans ( Case )
The case is great, in love with it! I appreciate it having 7 fans, plus I added two more just in case because of the 9590. It averages at 40 Celsius when gaming.
The 390 is taking anything I throw at it on ultra, so excited.
Wanting to get some monitors in the future, what is your guys opinion?
Is bigger better?

Pictures:
Spoiler:
Image
Image
Image
Image
Crash32
Master Chaos Chao
Master Chaos Chao
Posts: 5089
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2011 8:19 am
Motto: <- Probably a reference to The Simpsons
Location: This is Tumblr, right? No pls don't be offended b-baka!!
Contact:

Re: AMD Rig ( First PC Build )

Post by Crash32 »

Why bother with a bigger hard drive for your PS4? I almost guarantee it'll go unused once you start using PC!

I use a dual-monitor setup but I find myself just using one monitor 90% of the time, that's just me though.

As for buying games, do it during Steam sales! I've spent around $800 on Steam with over $3500 of value from it. That alone justifies the price of building a PC.

I recently upgraded to a Samsung 550 Evo 500GB SSD and the difference in startup time is phenomenal, it's well worth it. You can also use any controller you want on Windows, I personally use wireless XBox 360 controllers but have also used PS1 controllers. Definitely something worth looking into.

Don't forget to try out some emulators, especially stuff like Sonic Adventure 2 rendered at 4k across two monitors. So much for Gamecube being the best!
User avatar
KaiserSenpai
Junior Chao
Junior Chao
Posts: 26
Joined: Sun Dec 27, 2015 11:52 pm

Re: AMD Rig ( First PC Build )

Post by KaiserSenpai »

Crash32 wrote:Why bother with a bigger hard drive for your PS4? I almost guarantee it'll go unused once you start using PC!

I use a dual-monitor setup but I find myself just using one monitor 90% of the time, that's just me though.

As for buying games, do it during Steam sales! I've spent around $800 on Steam with over $3500 of value from it. That alone justifies the price of building a PC.

I recently upgraded to a Samsung 550 Evo 500GB SSD and the difference in startup time is phenomenal, it's well worth it. You can also use any controller you want on Windows, I personally use wireless XBox 360 controllers but have also used PS1 controllers. Definitely something worth looking into.

Don't forget to try out some emulators, especially stuff like Sonic Adventure 2 rendered at 4k across two monitors. So much for Gamecube being the best!
I already have quite a few games lined up for my PS4, I usually keep JRPG's/Fighters on my PS4.
I have every last and current gen console - only my last gen consoles doesn't get used.
I may stop using my One because I'm enjoying shooters highly on PC more.

I atually had to bite the bullet and preorder "Naruto Storm 4" for PC instead of PC, that Digimon Cyber Sleuth is PS4 only.
My last 50GB goes to DCS. I still need Persona 5 and Horizon Zero Dawn day one.

Are Samsung's as reliable if not more than a Western Digital? I usually stick along those lines. I so want my OS on SSD.

I have the 2012 version of Sonic Adventure 2 on Steam, finally got my Tails Chao lol. I have a dual monitor system at the moment, in love. PC gaming is taking me over.
Crash32
Master Chaos Chao
Master Chaos Chao
Posts: 5089
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2011 8:19 am
Motto: <- Probably a reference to The Simpsons
Location: This is Tumblr, right? No pls don't be offended b-baka!!
Contact:

Re: AMD Rig ( First PC Build )

Post by Crash32 »

Samsung is generally considered to be one of, if not the best, SSD manufacturers
User avatar
Mooncow
Administrator
Administrator
Posts: 1755
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2005 11:06 am
Motto: Cut your path through an uncertain future...
Location: Chao Island Capital
Contact:

Re: AMD Rig ( First PC Build )

Post by Mooncow »

SSD drives are a great purchase.

http://ssd.userbenchmark.com/ if you want benchmarks. Sort columns as you wish!

Nice PC btw!
Chao Island Twitch Channel for Chao streaming!: https://twitch.tv/ChaoIsland/
I have dragons as my servants and I have almighty powers.
Image
JmTsHaW: (list of CI users, as Sonic Battle characters) Chaos - Mooncow (He barely appears, Chaos also barely appears.)
(00:45:53) xninjy: ur not old mooncow. old is 50 or 45.
User avatar
Jeffery Mewtamer
Advanced Chaos Chao
Advanced Chaos Chao
Posts: 3234
Joined: Thu Jun 16, 2011 3:59 pm
Motto: Sightless Scholar
Contact:

Re: AMD Rig ( First PC Build )

Post by Jeffery Mewtamer »

The only real contribution I can give is a warning regarding large hard drives: 2TB is a limit for a lot of things(maximum size of a FAT32 filesystem, maximum drive size for a traditional partition table, some other technical things I don't fully understand), and the last time I bought a new hard drive, I was given the impression that many people were having issues with drives larger than 2TB. Things might have improved since, but still something to keep in mind if you want to go for a single drive >2TB instead of multiple drives <= 2TB.
Crash32
Master Chaos Chao
Master Chaos Chao
Posts: 5089
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2011 8:19 am
Motto: <- Probably a reference to The Simpsons
Location: This is Tumblr, right? No pls don't be offended b-baka!!
Contact:

Re: AMD Rig ( First PC Build )

Post by Crash32 »

^I've been using a 3TB internal drive since 2012, which became a secondary drive last month.

This SA2 video is pretty cool
Chaos the Light Chao
Shining Chaos Chao
Shining Chaos Chao
Posts: 2750
Joined: Tue Jan 13, 2009 1:07 am
Location: Nort Southh's Asylum for the Sane

Re: AMD Rig ( First PC Build )

Post by Chaos the Light Chao »

Bigger definitely isn't worse. I have a 27'' inch and the lower pixel density is sometimes noticeable, but it's pretty rare. But, judging by your specs, you'll be using more than 1080p anyway.
Crash32 wrote:Why bother with a bigger hard drive for your PS4? I almost guarantee it'll go unused once you start using PC!

I use a dual-monitor setup but I find myself just using one monitor 90% of the time, that's just me though.
The PS4's hard drive fills up stupidly quickly if you get triple A titles or have PS+. The larger games are 50 GB pre patch and patches can add a handful of more gigs onto that. Seven of those and you'll need to start uninstalling. Granted, most are only 10-30 GBs. And most JPGS are even smaller than that.

As for duel-monitors, yeah you got it. There's no need to use the second unless you have a lot of windows open or have a fullscreen game running and want to read/watch something alongside it. Mine goes unused a lot.
User avatar
KaiserSenpai
Junior Chao
Junior Chao
Posts: 26
Joined: Sun Dec 27, 2015 11:52 pm

Re: AMD Rig ( First PC Build )

Post by KaiserSenpai »

Chaos the Light Chao wrote:Bigger definitely isn't worse. I have a 27'' inch and the lower pixel density is sometimes noticeable, but it's pretty rare. But, judging by your specs, you'll be using more than 1080p anyway.
Crash32 wrote:Why bother with a bigger hard drive for your PS4? I almost guarantee it'll go unused once you start using PC!

I use a dual-monitor setup but I find myself just using one monitor 90% of the time, that's just me though.
The PS4's hard drive fills up stupidly quickly if you get triple A titles or have PS+. The larger games are 50 GB pre patch and patches can add a handful of more gigs onto that. Seven of those and you'll need to start uninstalling. Granted, most are only 10-30 GBs. And most JPGS are even smaller than that.

As for duel-monitors, yeah you got it. There's no need to use the second unless you have a lot of windows open or have a fullscreen game running and want to read/watch something alongside it. Mine goes unused a lot.
The Xbox One is the same, when they made these next gen systems they knew 500GB would do us no good. I honestly wish there was external support, I plugged a 3TB external in my Xbox One and within 15 seconds I was playing.

I only use the other monitor once in a while is kinda convenient.
User avatar
Enzo03
Skilled Chaos Chao
Skilled Chaos Chao
Posts: 3879
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2008 8:56 pm
Motto: Resident forum dinosaur.
Location: The grand void. There is no escape.
Contact:

Re: AMD Rig ( First PC Build )

Post by Enzo03 »

Not what I would've built, but that's a great rig!

I would've went with an i5 or maybe i7 (or maybe just go down to 8350 -- 9590 is the same processor, just OC'd and binned to handle it), forgo the liquid cooler for a Hyper 212 EVO, get an EVGA 1000W GQ. The 1000GQ is (at the moment) about 10-20 bucks more, is efficient throughout its wattage range, has more reliable parts, and has EVGA's kickass warranty. If only getting one storage drive I'd have strongly encouraged one large SSD like the Samsung 850 EVO 500GB. Otherwise, I'd have still recommended getting a smaller SSD for booting Windows and maybe holding a few games. For larger storage, I'd save a little and go with WD Blues instead of WD Blacks. I'd also be tempted to go with a cheaper mobo and either stay with the ASUS brand (I've heard RMAs are a nightmare) or get an EVGA brand if possible (again, kickass warranty and support).

That's just me though. Your rig still kicks ass, it's just not what I'd get. For what it's worth, what I've got now is not what I'd get. I personally overspent on RAM, motherboard, and case at least.

As for monitors... I run 3 VG248QEs. They're 24" 1080p monitors with 144Hz refresh rate. Some people tell me I should have gone with an Ultrawide monitor or a 1440p monitor instead. It probably would have been cheaper but I like to rotate a monitor when coding or playing a shmup. It's also a little convenient to be able to run games that *dont* have windowed/fullscreen window support and still be able to see other programs like Steam or my browser. If I'm really so bothered by them, I can just turn them off. Playing across triple monitors is nice, too. I used to play Battlefield 3 and GRID 2 exclusively across three monitors. The difference in fluidity between 60 Hz and higher refresh rates like 120 or 144 is night and day. Most 144Hz monitors lack color quality though, and much farther above 90 most people can't see much improvement in general cases (flashing light levels can be seen in extremely high refresh rates).

A 390 should do great on a 1440p monitor, maybe even a 144Hz one at that resolution, but it'll put a greater strain on your card for given graphics settings. If you go with 1440p you'll probably wind up with a 27" monitor and 1080p is usually 24", so bear that in mind. A lot of 60Hz monitors (IPS panels in particular) have far better color quality and are still quite a bit cheaper. Recently some 144Hz IPS panels have come out that have the best of both worlds, only issue is they're all 1440p 27" monitors, meaning they have everything that could make them expensive wrapped up into a single monitor.
Steam: crazyenzo03 - Discord: Enzo03 #2547
User avatar
KaiserSenpai
Junior Chao
Junior Chao
Posts: 26
Joined: Sun Dec 27, 2015 11:52 pm

Re: AMD Rig ( First PC Build )

Post by KaiserSenpai »

Enzo03 wrote:Not what I would've built, but that's a great rig!

I would've went with an i5 or maybe i7 (or maybe just go down to 8350 -- 9590 is the same processor, just OC'd and binned to handle it), forgo the liquid cooler for a Hyper 212 EVO, get an EVGA 1000W GQ. The 1000GQ is (at the moment) about 10-20 bucks more, is efficient throughout its wattage range, has more reliable parts, and has EVGA's kickass warranty. If only getting one storage drive I'd have strongly encouraged one large SSD like the Samsung 850 EVO 500GB. Otherwise, I'd have still recommended getting a smaller SSD for booting Windows and maybe holding a few games. For larger storage, I'd save a little and go with WD Blues instead of WD Blacks. I'd also be tempted to go with a cheaper mobo and either stay with the ASUS brand (I've heard RMAs are a nightmare) or get an EVGA brand if possible (again, kickass warranty and support).

That's just me though. Your rig still kicks ass, it's just not what I'd get. For what it's worth, what I've got now is not what I'd get. I personally overspent on RAM, motherboard, and case at least.

As for monitors... I run 3 VG248QEs. They're 24" 1080p monitors with 144Hz refresh rate. Some people tell me I should have gone with an Ultrawide monitor or a 1440p monitor instead. It probably would have been cheaper but I like to rotate a monitor when coding or playing a shmup. It's also a little convenient to be able to run games that *dont* have windowed/fullscreen window support and still be able to see other programs like Steam or my browser. If I'm really so bothered by them, I can just turn them off. Playing across triple monitors is nice, too. I used to play Battlefield 3 and GRID 2 exclusively across three monitors. The difference in fluidity between 60 Hz and higher refresh rates like 120 or 144 is night and day. Most 144Hz monitors lack color quality though, and much farther above 90 most people can't see much improvement in general cases (flashing light levels can be seen in extremely high refresh rates).

A 390 should do great on a 1440p monitor, maybe even a 144Hz one at that resolution, but it'll put a greater strain on your card for given graphics settings. If you go with 1440p you'll probably wind up with a 27" monitor and 1080p is usually 24", so bear that in mind. A lot of 60Hz monitors (IPS panels in particular) have far better color quality and are still quite a bit cheaper. Recently some 144Hz IPS panels have come out that have the best of both worlds, only issue is they're all 1440p 27" monitors, meaning they have everything that could make them expensive wrapped up into a single monitor.
I personally wanted to go strictly AMD, stick what I'm use too.
I knew the 8350 = 9590 expect not as high as heat issues and no liquid cooling required.
I went with the 9590 purely for a pride reason, wanted the latest AMD FX chip period! Haha, I'll be making
a 2nd build once ZEN comes out.

Is 24" inches ok? That seems so small for me, I use a 42inch and 32inch ( dual monitor setup ). Can't
imagine going down, is it really worth it? I really only care about doing ULTRA 1080p rather than 4K
if that helps my monitor issues any.
One has 60HZ and the other 75HZ - people on a FB group say it's "bad".

It's a bummer because the 42" is new.
User avatar
Enzo03
Skilled Chaos Chao
Skilled Chaos Chao
Posts: 3879
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2008 8:56 pm
Motto: Resident forum dinosaur.
Location: The grand void. There is no escape.
Contact:

Re: AMD Rig ( First PC Build )

Post by Enzo03 »

Ewwww brand loyalty! ;)

Well while I've done some gaming on a 40" TV (sometimes works as a 4th monitor!), it's usually from the couch. You should look for displays either similar to what you're used to or what you plan to play at. With my current setup, my 24" monitors on my desk are about the same "size" in my vision as my 40" TV from where I sit, though the TV isn't really that far away. And again... while my monitors are 24", I do have three of them.

Not sure why people are saying what you have is "bad". If it's because your displays are at different refresh rates... I don't really see how that's an issue unless you were spanning a game across both of them - some people complain about bezels, but those are easy to get used to. Different screen sizes would throw me off a lot more.

How do you mean "ULTRA 1080p"? UHD includes 4k and 8k and up, but 1080p is 1080p.
Steam: crazyenzo03 - Discord: Enzo03 #2547
User avatar
KaiserSenpai
Junior Chao
Junior Chao
Posts: 26
Joined: Sun Dec 27, 2015 11:52 pm

Re: AMD Rig ( First PC Build )

Post by KaiserSenpai »

Enzo03 wrote:Ewwww brand loyalty! ;)

Well while I've done some gaming on a 40" TV (sometimes works as a 4th monitor!), it's usually from the couch. You should look for displays either similar to what you're used to or what you plan to play at. With my current setup, my 24" monitors on my desk are about the same "size" in my vision as my 40" TV from where I sit, though the TV isn't really that far away. And again... while my monitors are 24", I do have three of them.

Not sure why people are saying what you have is "bad". If it's because your displays are at different refresh rates... I don't really see how that's an issue unless you were spanning a game across both of them - some people complain about bezels, but those are easy to get used to. Different screen sizes would throw me off a lot more.

How do you mean "ULTRA 1080p"? UHD includes 4k and 8k and up, but 1080p is 1080p.
I thought 4K was like - 144x something resolution?
They made it seem like the rates were to slow, I thought I wanted 60?

Kinda confused XDD
Crash32
Master Chaos Chao
Master Chaos Chao
Posts: 5089
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2011 8:19 am
Motto: <- Probably a reference to The Simpsons
Location: This is Tumblr, right? No pls don't be offended b-baka!!
Contact:

Re: AMD Rig ( First PC Build )

Post by Crash32 »

Enzo03 wrote: How do you mean "ULTRA 1080p"? UHD includes 4k and 8k and up, but 1080p is 1080p.
I think he means running games on Ultra @ 1080p
KaiserSenpai wrote: I thought 4K was like - 144x something resolution?
They made it seem like the rates were to slow, I thought I wanted 60?

Kinda confused XDD
4K is double the resolution of 1080p:
1080p: 1920x1080
4k: 3840x2160

I assume you're also thinking of 144hz, which is a higher refresh rate than 60hz which is generally helpful for shooter games. I don't think there's any reasonable setup available that could manage 144fps @ 4K without frame drops though
User avatar
Enzo03
Skilled Chaos Chao
Skilled Chaos Chao
Posts: 3879
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2008 8:56 pm
Motto: Resident forum dinosaur.
Location: The grand void. There is no escape.
Contact:

Re: AMD Rig ( First PC Build )

Post by Enzo03 »

KaiserSenpai wrote:I thought 4K was like - 144x something resolution?
They made it seem like the rates were to slow, I thought I wanted 60?

Kinda confused XDD
Hmm. Might be a good idea to read up on monitors specs.

60 is absolutely fine, but once you go 144Hz you might not want to go back. It depends on what you value in a monitor.
Steam: crazyenzo03 - Discord: Enzo03 #2547
User avatar
Jeffery Mewtamer
Advanced Chaos Chao
Advanced Chaos Chao
Posts: 3234
Joined: Thu Jun 16, 2011 3:59 pm
Motto: Sightless Scholar
Contact:

Re: AMD Rig ( First PC Build )

Post by Jeffery Mewtamer »

@Crash32: I thought 4K had a vertical resolution around 4,000(I'm assuming the exact number is either 4096 or 4320 the former being the power of 2 closest to 4,000 the latter being the multiple of 1080 closest to 4000), which would make it close to if not exactly 16 times the resolution of 1080 HD.

But yeah, Monitors are confusing(not having to worry if I have a good one being a silver lining of blindness).

Here's a probably incomplete list of factors that affect quality of computer imagery:

Color Depth: usually measured in bits per pixel and perhaps bits per color channel. Raw number of colors a display can display. 24 bits total(8 each for Red, Green, and Blue) for 256 levels per color channel and 16,777,216 total colors has been the standard for a long time and you rarely see anything else as this already exceeds the ability of the human eye to distinguish colors. Some high-end displays add a Yellow color channel.

Color quality: More important than color depth, but harder to measure. Basically how good the display is at replicating the colors of something photographed. How vibrant are the hues, how true are the blacks, things like that.

Resolution: Number of pixels, usually measure in how many pixels wide by how many pixels high. Sometimes give in terms of just height with an assumed aspect ratio. The higher, the more detailed an on-screen image can be and the larger the screen can be before individual pixels become visible to the naked eye.

Aspect Ratio: ratio of width to height. for square pixels, it's the same in both terms of resolution and physical dimensions. 16:9 is part of the HD standard. Wider is arguably better since human visual fields tend to be wider than they are high.

Refresh rate/framerate: measured in frames per second or hz. how many images it can display per second. The higher, the smoother on-screen movement is. 24 was the standard for film for many decades, 60 is the standard for HD, 90 is the threshold for avoiding VR sickness in the vast majority of people, and some highend HDTVs boast of 240. My understanding is that, for most applications, anything beyond 60 doesn't produce difference the average person can discern.
User avatar
KaiserSenpai
Junior Chao
Junior Chao
Posts: 26
Joined: Sun Dec 27, 2015 11:52 pm

Re: AMD Rig ( First PC Build )

Post by KaiserSenpai »

Jeffery Mewtamer wrote:@Crash32: I thought 4K had a vertical resolution around 4,000(I'm assuming the exact number is either 4096 or 4320 the former being the power of 2 closest to 4,000 the latter being the multiple of 1080 closest to 4000), which would make it close to if not exactly 16 times the resolution of 1080 HD.

But yeah, Monitors are confusing(not having to worry if I have a good one being a silver lining of blindness).

Here's a probably incomplete list of factors that affect quality of computer imagery:

Color Depth: usually measured in bits per pixel and perhaps bits per color channel. Raw number of colors a display can display. 24 bits total(8 each for Red, Green, and Blue) for 256 levels per color channel and 16,777,216 total colors has been the standard for a long time and you rarely see anything else as this already exceeds the ability of the human eye to distinguish colors. Some high-end displays add a Yellow color channel.

Color quality: More important than color depth, but harder to measure. Basically how good the display is at replicating the colors of something photographed. How vibrant are the hues, how true are the blacks, things like that.

Resolution: Number of pixels, usually measure in how many pixels wide by how many pixels high. Sometimes give in terms of just height with an assumed aspect ratio. The higher, the more detailed an on-screen image can be and the larger the screen can be before individual pixels become visible to the naked eye.

Aspect Ratio: ratio of width to height. for square pixels, it's the same in both terms of resolution and physical dimensions. 16:9 is part of the HD standard. Wider is arguably better since human visual fields tend to be wider than they are high.

Refresh rate/framerate: measured in frames per second or hz. how many images it can display per second. The higher, the smoother on-screen movement is. 24 was the standard for film for many decades, 60 is the standard for HD, 90 is the threshold for avoiding VR sickness in the vast majority of people, and some highend HDTVs boast of 240. My understanding is that, for most applications, anything beyond 60 doesn't produce difference the average person can discern.
Thank you so much for this breakdown!! I can't appreciate it enough!
Crash32
Master Chaos Chao
Master Chaos Chao
Posts: 5089
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2011 8:19 am
Motto: <- Probably a reference to The Simpsons
Location: This is Tumblr, right? No pls don't be offended b-baka!!
Contact:

Re: AMD Rig ( First PC Build )

Post by Crash32 »

Jeffery Mewtamer wrote:@Crash32: I thought 4K had a vertical resolution around 4,000(I'm assuming the exact number is either 4096 or 4320 the former being the power of 2 closest to 4,000 the latter being the multiple of 1080 closest to 4000), which would make it close to if not exactly 16 times the resolution of 1080 HD.
I think it's a common misunderstanding, 4K is definitely 3840x2160. I don't quite understand why it's referred to as 4K as it just confuses people. There's also 2K which is 1440p.

According to Google, 8K would be closer at 4320p which is (somehow?) 16x the resolution of 1080p. This has only confused me further. But I do know for certain that 4K is 2160p as indicated by YouTube and PC video game setups
User avatar
Jeffery Mewtamer
Advanced Chaos Chao
Advanced Chaos Chao
Posts: 3234
Joined: Thu Jun 16, 2011 3:59 pm
Motto: Sightless Scholar
Contact:

Re: AMD Rig ( First PC Build )

Post by Jeffery Mewtamer »

Apparently, the k notation must be rounding horizontal resolution to the nearest thousand. Since almost nothing uses a square screen, it makes a big difference whether your short hand is referring to height or width, and it's confusing as hell when commonly used terms mix such things. Makes me miss the days when even standard resolutions were routinely given in full

As for why Ultra-HD is 16 times HD:
4320p is 4 times the number of scan lines of 1080p. Assuming the same aspect ratio, this also means four times the number of columns in the pixel grid. 4 times as many lines times 4 times as many columns equals 16 times as many pixels. Another way of looking at it is that a Ultra-HD screen can be built by arranging 16 HD screens in a 4-by-4 grid. It's the same principle by which doubling the edge length of a square quadruples its area.
User avatar
KaiserSenpai
Junior Chao
Junior Chao
Posts: 26
Joined: Sun Dec 27, 2015 11:52 pm

Re: AMD Rig ( First PC Build )

Post by KaiserSenpai »

Crash32 wrote:
Jeffery Mewtamer wrote:@Crash32: I thought 4K had a vertical resolution around 4,000(I'm assuming the exact number is either 4096 or 4320 the former being the power of 2 closest to 4,000 the latter being the multiple of 1080 closest to 4000), which would make it close to if not exactly 16 times the resolution of 1080 HD.
I think it's a common misunderstanding, 4K is definitely 3840x2160. I don't quite understand why it's referred to as 4K as it just confuses people. There's also 2K which is 1440p.

According to Google, 8K would be closer at 4320p which is (somehow?) 16x the resolution of 1080p. This has only confused me further. But I do know for certain that 4K is 2160p as indicated by YouTube and PC video game setups
Yeah that is confusing. xDDD
User avatar
retrolinkx
Veteran Chaos Chao
Veteran Chaos Chao
Posts: 6323
Joined: Thu Sep 04, 2008 5:33 pm
Motto: I can't believe I ate the whole thing.
Contact:

Re: AMD Rig ( First PC Build )

Post by retrolinkx »

Crash32 wrote:
Jeffery Mewtamer wrote:@Crash32: I thought 4K had a vertical resolution around 4,000(I'm assuming the exact number is either 4096 or 4320 the former being the power of 2 closest to 4,000 the latter being the multiple of 1080 closest to 4000), which would make it close to if not exactly 16 times the resolution of 1080 HD.
I think it's a common misunderstanding, 4K is definitely 3840x2160. I don't quite understand why it's referred to as 4K as it just confuses people. There's also 2K which is 1440p.

According to Google, 8K would be closer at 4320p which is (somehow?) 16x the resolution of 1080p. This has only confused me further. But I do know for certain that 4K is 2160p as indicated by YouTube and PC video game setups
Yeah, it's stupid. I thought the same as well, but it turns out it's just a marketing term to make people think it's better than it is.

Because 4k sounds better than 2160p or 21k or whatever.
Image
Picka and Fox's Partner, Retro's Legend.
Fox Boy wrote:fusion+pie=fusion pie!
Post Reply