PC Enthusiast-Fi (PC Gaming/Hardware/Software/Overclocking)
Mar 7, 2016 at 11:09 AM Post #8,836 of 9,120
http://www.digitaltrends.com/home-theater/1080p-vs-1080i-whats-the-difference/
 
1080p has nothing to do with interlacing... if a signal is interlaced it is 1080i, not "1080p". So 1080p never really had anything to do with an interlaced signal.
 
According to Wikipedia, the latest interlaced signal from a PC (note, not a TV broadcast or satellite broadcast) is from the late 1980's and that ended very quickly. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interlaced_video#Interlace_and_computers)
 
Either way the poster thing was never even referring to 1080p for the interlacing, it was referring to the modern console rendering at 900p to save GPU power and boost framerates to a playable level.
 
Mar 7, 2016 at 1:38 PM Post #8,838 of 9,120
P is for progressive scan, I is for interlaced scan, so if you said you had a 1080 screen, that is one thing, to say you have a 1080P screen, something different...

That is why they just say 2, 4 or 5K now, with no inference to I or P :)
 
Mar 7, 2016 at 1:56 PM Post #8,839 of 9,120
P is for progressive scan, I is for interlaced scan, so if you said you had a 1080 screen, that is one thing, to say you have a 1080P screen, something different...

That is why they just say 2, 4 or 5K now, with no inference to I or P
smily_headphones1.gif

That depends on the context, "p" is slapped onto the end of a monitor's resolution these days because it rolls off the tongue much easier if you have a larger number and it is used in marketing materials. But in the context of video and how it is being scanned/broadcast, then there is a difference.
 
Mar 9, 2016 at 6:26 PM Post #8,842 of 9,120
  http://www.digitaltrends.com/home-theater/1080p-vs-1080i-whats-the-difference/
 
1080p has nothing to do with interlacing... if a signal is interlaced it is 1080i, not "1080p". So 1080p never really had anything to do with an interlaced signal.
 
According to Wikipedia, the latest interlaced signal from a PC (note, not a TV broadcast or satellite broadcast) is from the late 1980's and that ended very quickly. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interlaced_video#Interlace_and_computers)
 
Either way the poster thing was never even referring to 1080p for the interlacing, it was referring to the modern console rendering at 900p to save GPU power and boost framerates to a playable level.

8bit era PCs had monitors that were essentially equivalent to televisions.  Composite, interlaced video :puke:
I remember getting a cool 1900x1200i on my CRT hehe.  Perhaps article is referring to mainstream usage?
 
I'm sure there were better CRTs but this run of the mill display was definitely better than what I have seen from a TFT IPS/PLS/AVHA.  OLED sounds cool but afraid sharpness will be an issue if ~140 standard PPI
 
Mar 13, 2016 at 7:43 AM Post #8,845 of 9,120
Recently got a 48" Samsung JS9000 4K TV ... it works freakishly good as a PC monitor and gaming screen (4K/60hz) ... first TV I've owned in about 20 years and I can't get over the resolution/contrast/color ... especially desktop PC performance, .. just as crisp as a regular monitor.
 
I still prefer my 144hz 1440p G Sync screen for gaming but the 4K TV is pretty fun for certain isometric games like Grim Dawn, Dragon Age Origins, Torchlight, etc.  Super decent input lag too (among the best on the TV scene) ...
 
Colors/contrast/black levels blow my IPS screens away ... and 3D Blu Rays are unbelievably good ... 
 
...
 

(six feet back from the two 27" desktop monitors)
 
...
 

(cel phone shot set on "auto")
 
...
 
 The curve thing is sort of meh but actually improves the experience when gaming at very close viewing ranges ... the 4K panel  allows for sitting within 3ft or less from the screen with zero eye fatigue while never seeing a pixel ...
 
pretty neat screen ...
 
Mar 13, 2016 at 12:23 PM Post #8,846 of 9,120
I guess that people can only give an opinion on this, as there is still not enough information, but I am curious if I should get a laptop with desktop i7-6700 and desktop 200W GTX980, or wait to see what is with the new pascal tech?
 
I mean, fury X already uses some of the improvements promised by Pascal, but fury X is not necessary much better than Nvidia counterpart when it comes to actual performance. 
 
Mar 13, 2016 at 4:05 PM Post #8,849 of 9,120
  @Dobrescu George
  1.  
  2.  
What is your current rig?

 
Acer Nitro VN7-791G
i7-4710HQ
GTX860M 2GB
16GB RAM
1TB HDD + M2 256GB SSD
17" FullHD IPS LG Display LP173WF4-SPF1
 
A clevo P870 with full config costs about 3X the price of my current setup, and performs about 350% better on GPU (GTX980Desktop) and about 130%-150% better on CPU (i7-6700 Desktop). Also, it comes with a 4K Auo display which offers 100% adobeRGB coverage, which is, I think, the best part. Hyperdimension Neptunia Rebirth series and Dota 2 never asked too much of my GPU. 
 
Another thing I am concerned with is if I should go with Acer Predator instead because they offer reverse of air flow for anti dust protection, or if that is a marketing gimmick. But Acer comes only with gtx980M and I doubt it will be able to get a decent performance on a 4K display. 
 
I have no idea how much better can Pascal be, or if it is worth the wait, or if Clevo will create change-able GPU cards with Pascal modules (GTX980 Desktop comes on a change-able card, it is not soldered). 
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top