This is a split board - You can return to the Split List for other boards.

What's better: native 576p, or native 576p upscaled to 720p, on a 1080p monitor?

#11ConkerPosted 3/28/2014 1:36:01 PM(edited)
DarkZV2Beta posted...
Conker posted...
DarkZV2Beta posted...
I don't think standard upscaling is demanding on the GPU at all. Not enough to make a difference anyway.


I think you nitpick more than you contribute to anything in most replies to me...at least this part of your post. It is still more demanding on the GPU to upscale an image over it's native resolution to meet the monitor's native resolution because it is more demanding on the GPU vs the monitor doing so. Whether it's minor or not is not what was being said.


It's misleading and pointless to say, though, and may even be completely incorrect. Not sure why you have your panties in a knot over it.


Not at all pointless, since it is exactly the point...it requires more effort from the GPU to upscale than if the monitor is doing it, regardless of how much difference, it's still requiring more effort by the GPU in the circumstance I said. Arguing the word usage of, "more demanding," is nitpicking. It's like someone saying, "running Starcraft at 720p is more demanding than 480p." Neither one is really stressing or 'demanding' for a modern graphics card, but the point is easier than saying "it requires more even if it's not really taxing." Only a child would argue about such minor wording differences.

In the context of what was said, it's not misleading, because it's correct...except to people that take every word so literally. Would it make you feel better if I said, "it requires more on the GPU side to upscale in that case than the monitor, even if it's not necessarily 'demanding' overall on the GPU." Does that make you feel better?

And no, it's not incorrect at all, in the circumstance I said, the GPU would be doing the upscaling as opposed to the monitor, thus requiring more work from the GPU...regardless of how much more in all circumstances, since it would greatly change if we're talking still images vs games/video and different resolutions being upscaled.
---
Lets Go: Lions, Red Wings, Tigers, Pistons!
#12KillerTrufflePosted 3/28/2014 1:39:46 PM
Conker posted...
Not at all pointless, since it is exactly the point...it requires more effort from the GPU to upscale than if the monitor is doing it, regardless of how much difference, it's still requiring more effort by the GPU in the circumstance I said. Arguing the word usage of, "more demanding," is nitpicking. It's like someone saying, "running Starcraft at 720p is more demanding than 480p." Neither one is really stressing or 'demanding' for a modern graphics card, but the point is easier than saying "it requires more even if it's not really taxing." Only a child would argue about such minor wording differences.

In the context of what was said, it's not misleading, because it's correct...except to people that take every word so literally. Would it make you feel better if I said, "it requires more on the GPU side to upscale in that case than the monitor, even if it's not necessarily 'demanding' overall on the GPU." Does that make you feel better?

And no, it's not incorrect at all, in the circumstance I said, the GPU would be doing the upscaling as opposed to the monitor, thus requiring more work from the GPU...regardless of how much more in all circumstances, since it would greatly change if we're talking still images vs games/video and different resolutions being upscaled.


No, it's not nitpicking. Again - whether you meant it that way or not, your comment as you worded it about it being "more demanding" carries with it the implication that it will impact performance. I have yet to see any GPU - including integrated - that takes a performance hit from simple upscaling. Sure your statement might have been "technically" correct, but what makes it even worth mentioning if it will have exactly zero impact on the end user?
---
"How do I get rid of a Trojan Horse?" -Sailor_Kakashi
"Leave it outside the gates of Troy overnight." -Davel23
#13ConkerPosted 3/28/2014 7:56:19 PM
KillerTruffle posted...
No, it's not nitpicking. Again - whether you meant it that way or not, your comment as you worded it about it being "more demanding" carries with it the implication that it will impact performance. I have yet to see any GPU - including integrated - that takes a performance hit from simple upscaling. Sure your statement might have been "technically" correct, but what makes it even worth mentioning if it will have exactly zero impact on the end user?


What do you think nitpicking means? Arguing semantics when the meaning of the word is properly used to the understanding of the point...that is nitpicking!

Nothing about being "more demanding" implies that it will impact performance that is noticeable to the end user. It is implying that the image scaling would be asking more out of the GPU in one instance over the other since the monitor would be taking some of the task off the GPU. It doesn't imply it's impacting performance to a noticeable level to the end user, and nobody with a basic understanding of language should think so. "More demanding" =/= "Upper limits of somethings capabilities." "If one boss is more demanding than another by asking you to work 30hrs a week vs 20hrs a week, while you could be working 80hrs a week, is the boss that's requesting 30hrs a week not demanding that of you?" No sensible person would argue about this because it's pointless and contributes nothing to the conversation, since "demanding" in this case is simply "requesting a higher amount of."

Anyone with a brain understands that "demand" in that sentence is not meaning it is "demanding so much from the GPU that it's pushing it to its limits that you'll notice the performance difference." It's stating that it is asking less from the GPU in one case vs the other, and that should not be confusing to anyone...especially if you take into consideration the rest of the post talking about a monitor being capable of upscaling (even if it's in a different method).

Like you said, I'm technically right, just as you were with your first post, even though someone could argue it makes no noticeable difference to the end user which side the upscaling is coming from...so I guess the same applies to your post, but I'm not one to nitpick.

de·mand [dih-mand, -mahnd] Show IPA
verb (used with object)
1.
to ask for with proper authority; claim as a right: He demanded payment of the debt.

2.
to ask for peremptorily or urgently: He demanded sanctuary. She demanded that we let her in.
3.
to call for or require as just, proper, or necessary: This task demands patience. justice demands objectivity.

4.
Law.
a.
to lay formal legal claim to.
b.
to summon, as to court.
verb (used without object)
5.
to make a demand; inquire; ask.
noun
6.
the act of demanding.
7.
something that is demanded.
8.
an urgent or pressing requirement: demands upon one's time.

9.
Economics .
a.
the desire to purchase, coupled with the power to do so.
b.
the quantity of goods that buyers will take at a particular price.
10.
a requisition; a legal claim: The demands of the client could not be met.

---
Lets Go: Lions, Red Wings, Tigers, Pistons!
#14arleasPosted 3/28/2014 7:59:52 PM
> says he isn't one to nitpick
> spends rest of post nitpicking
> mfw this text isn't green

http://i.imgur.com/nXqPNRf.jpg
---
http://raptr.com/badge/arleas/uc.png
http://www.speedtest.net/result/3201564081.png
#15ConkerPosted 3/28/2014 8:18:24 PM(edited)
arleas posted...
> says he isn't one to nitpick
> spends rest of post nitpicking
> mfw this text isn't green

http://i.imgur.com/nXqPNRf.jpg


ITP: Giving an example of something someone else could argue/nitpick means they themself are actually arguing/nitpicking it.

firstgradelogic.jpg
---
Lets Go: Lions, Red Wings, Tigers, Pistons!
#16DarkZV2BetaPosted 3/28/2014 8:18:03 PM
Conker posted...
DarkZV2Beta posted...
Conker posted...
DarkZV2Beta posted...
I don't think standard upscaling is demanding on the GPU at all. Not enough to make a difference anyway.


I think you nitpick more than you contribute to anything in most replies to me...at least this part of your post. It is still more demanding on the GPU to upscale an image over it's native resolution to meet the monitor's native resolution because it is more demanding on the GPU vs the monitor doing so. Whether it's minor or not is not what was being said.


It's misleading and pointless to say, though, and may even be completely incorrect. Not sure why you have your panties in a knot over it.


Not at all pointless, since it is exactly the point...it requires more effort from the GPU to upscale than if the monitor is doing it, regardless of how much difference, it's still requiring more effort by the GPU in the circumstance I said. Arguing the word usage of, "more demanding," is nitpicking. It's like someone saying, "running Starcraft at 720p is more demanding than 480p." Neither one is really stressing or 'demanding' for a modern graphics card, but the point is easier than saying "it requires more even if it's not really taxing." Only a child would argue about such minor wording differences.

In the context of what was said, it's not misleading, because it's correct...except to people that take every word so literally. Would it make you feel better if I said, "it requires more on the GPU side to upscale in that case than the monitor, even if it's not necessarily 'demanding' overall on the GPU." Does that make you feel better?

And no, it's not incorrect at all, in the circumstance I said, the GPU would be doing the upscaling as opposed to the monitor, thus requiring more work from the GPU...regardless of how much more in all circumstances, since it would greatly change if we're talking still images vs games/video and different resolutions being upscaled.


Considering that scaling an image requires less work than drawing a texture, and it may even go through the same pipeline, whether scaled or "native", for simplicity sake?
In the context, it's misleading, regardless of whether it's technically correct, because the statement of something being more demanding implies a performance impact of some degree. There is none, and how demanding it is does not need to be stated or acknowledged at any stage. It was pointless to draw attention to it, and could give someone the impression that it will impact the performance of a game to some degree.

Also,


de·mand·ing (dĭ-măn′dĭng)
adj.
Requiring much effort or attention: exhausted by a demanding job. See Synonyms at burdensome.
de·mand′ing·ly adv.


http://www.thefreedictionary.com/demanding

Your citation of demanding was incorrect.
Please, unknot your panties and move on. This isn't a contest.
---
god invented extension cords. -elchris79
Starcraft 2 has no depth or challenge -GoreGross
#17ConkerPosted 3/28/2014 8:37:17 PM(edited)
Sorry but demanding is not simply an adjective in my sentence. More is actually the adjective describing the level of demand. Or in other words, "It "demands more" from the GPU than the other instance." = Not indicating it impacts a noticeable performance difference.

And to clarify before we go further, "It" = "Upscaling via just GPU" to higher res vs upscaling via GPU to lower res + Monitor to native res.

Considering that scaling an image requires less work than drawing a texture, and it may even go through the same pipeline, whether scaled or "native", for simplicity sake?
In the context, it's misleading, regardless of whether it's technically correct, because the statement of something being more demanding implies a performance impact of some degree. There is none, and how demanding it is does not need to be stated or acknowledged at any stage. It was pointless to draw attention to it, and could give someone the impression that it will impact the performance of a game to some degree.


You say regardless of if it's technically correct, when that's literally the only context I was speaking in terms of. It IS more demanding of the GPU than the other method of scaling. That DOES FACTUALLY impact performance to some degree, and since it was in reply of where the scaling is coming from, it was simply an added fact to the rest of the post.

You're nitpicking that I chose to say, "It's more demanding of the GPU" than "It demands more effort from the GPU in one method rather than GPU+Monitor in the other."

Also, scaling can have varying degrees depending on the content/source. I'm not saying it's pushing current GPU's, but to say it has no degree of impact on performance is just wrong. To think someone has to personally notice the performance difference in an impactful way is just ridiculous, especially when such things are brought up and talked about on a daily basis on this board.

---
Lets Go: Lions, Red Wings, Tigers, Pistons!
#18DarkZV2BetaPosted 3/28/2014 8:40:04 PM
Conker posted...
Sorry but demanding is not an adjective in my sentence. More is actually the adjective describing "demanding." Or in other words, "It "demands more" from the GPU than the other instance." = Not indicating it impacts a noticeable performance difference.


So in other words, it was redundant, and an uncommon use of the term in the given context? And I'm pretty sure grammatically incorrect.(see: "it's more driving on the car if you live far from work") And also still could be incorrect, as previously cited.
---
god invented extension cords. -elchris79
Starcraft 2 has no depth or challenge -GoreGross
#19ConkerPosted 3/28/2014 9:11:36 PM(edited)
DarkZV2Beta posted...
Conker posted...
Sorry but demanding is not an adjective in my sentence. More is actually the adjective describing "demanding." Or in other words, "It "demands more" from the GPU than the other instance." = Not indicating it impacts a noticeable performance difference.


So in other words, it was redundant, and an uncommon use of the term in the given context? And I'm pretty sure grammatically incorrect.(see: "it's more driving on the car if you live far from work") And also still could be incorrect, as previously cited.


No, that's just incorrect.

EDIT: It's like saying: "5 mins to work walking vs 10 mins driving, if you're walking all the way you will be in better shape, there's no effort required from your car...but will be more demanding on your body."

In that example: Body = GPU, Car = Monitor, physical fitness = image quality, more demanding = required effort by, mins to work = upscaling. In this case "walking demands more on your body" = "fully scaling to native monitor resolution demands more on your GPU" but it's not redundant since someone wouldn't know that upscaling in that way uses your GPU more than if it also uses your monitor and they could just think it is a more complicated way of accomplishing the same thing.

Also, obviously in the driving/walking example people already know walking requires more physical effort (I mean in general, I'm sure there are exceptions for the nitpickers) than driving, while the TC doesn't have clear knowledge of upscaling to know what method is using what and to what degree (regardless if it impacts their overall experience or not).

---
Lets Go: Lions, Red Wings, Tigers, Pistons!
#20DarkZV2BetaPosted 3/28/2014 9:25:27 PM
Conker posted...
DarkZV2Beta posted...
Conker posted...
Sorry but demanding is not an adjective in my sentence. More is actually the adjective describing "demanding." Or in other words, "It "demands more" from the GPU than the other instance." = Not indicating it impacts a noticeable performance difference.


So in other words, it was redundant, and an uncommon use of the term in the given context? And I'm pretty sure grammatically incorrect.(see: "it's more driving on the car if you live far from work") And also still could be incorrect, as previously cited.


No, that's just incorrect.

EDIT: It's like saying: "5 mins to work walking vs 10 mins driving, if you're walking all the way you will be in better shape, there's no effort required from your car...but will be more demanding on your body."

In that example: Body = GPU, Car = Monitor, physical fitness = image quality, more demanding = required effort by, mins to work = upscaling. In this case "walking demands more on your body" = "fully scaling to native monitor resolution demands more on your GPU" but it's not redundant since someone wouldn't know that upscaling in that way uses your GPU more than if it also uses your monitor and they could just think it is a more complicated way of accomplishing the same thing.

Also, obviously in the driving/walking example people already know walking requires more physical effort (I mean in general, I'm sure there are exceptions for the nitpickers) than driving, while the TC doesn't have clear knowledge of upscaling to know what method is using what and to what degree (regardless if it impacts their overall experience or not).


And in that context, more demanding on your body is, in fact, the definition you claim not to be using. Any other definition would be grammatically incorrect.
Also, again, since you ignored it before...
and it may even go through the same pipeline, whether scaled or "native", for simplicity sake?

It's not factually going to impact performance at all. I've been saying from the very start that modern GPUs could be scaling the image regardless. It's not unthinkable, and fits with a lot of modern pipeline nuances anyway.
And, regardless of all of that, it's still misleading to say it's more demanding on the GPU, regardless of any nitpicking you're doing, because it's never going to make a discernible impact on performance, as your post implied it would.
---
god invented extension cords. -elchris79
Starcraft 2 has no depth or challenge -GoreGross