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?

#21KillerTrufflePosted 3/28/2014 10:35:53 PM
Conker posted...
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.


The bottom line is that, since there was absolutely no point in mentioning it, and it added NOTHING to the conversation or to help the TC decide which was the better option, the mere fact that you brought it up it implies relevance and impact. Because if it makes absolutely no difference to the reader, why even mention it even if it's "technically correct?"
---
"How do I get rid of a Trojan Horse?" -Sailor_Kakashi
"Leave it outside the gates of Troy overnight." -Davel23
#22ConkerPosted 3/28/2014 10:47:20 PM
Seriously, it's ONE last part I added on to the end of my post in relation to the topic. The rest of what I said is all in addition to what had already been said (by you). The bottom line is that even more worthless posts have resulted from you and Dark pointing out it adds "nothing to the conversation" when either did you.

If it added nothing to the conversation, there is no reason someone needs to point that out as if people don't add in additional comments to discussion all the damn time. Otherwise, we might as well close most topics after the first couple posts that answers the TC questions. Hurry up topic creators, close all your topics so nobody can post anything additional if a question has been answered!!!
---
Lets Go: Lions, Red Wings, Tigers, Pistons!
#23DarkZV2BetaPosted 3/28/2014 10:54:11 PM
Conker posted...
Seriously, it's ONE last part I added on to the end of my post in relation to the topic. The rest of what I said is all in addition to what had already been said (by you). The bottom line is that even more worthless posts have resulted from you and Dark pointing out it adds "nothing to the conversation" when either did you.

If it added nothing to the conversation, there is no reason someone needs to point that out as if people don't add in additional comments to discussion all the damn time. Otherwise, we might as well close most topics after the first couple posts that answers the TC questions. Hurry up topic creators, close all your topics so nobody can post anything additional if a question has been answered!!!


Actually, I pointed out that it didn't make a meaningful impact, which clarified your misleading post, preventing someone from misunderstanding the situation. You were the one that got your panties in a knot over it.
Come to think of it, though, haven't you done this exact thing before?
---
god invented extension cords. -elchris79
Starcraft 2 has no depth or challenge -GoreGross
#24KillerTrufflePosted 3/28/2014 10:55:29 PM
Conker posted...
Seriously, it's ONE last part I added on to the end of my post in relation to the topic. The rest of what I said is all in addition to what had already been said (by you). The bottom line is that even more worthless posts have resulted from you and Dark pointing out it adds "nothing to the conversation" when either did you.

If it added nothing to the conversation, there is no reason someone needs to point that out as if people don't add in additional comments to discussion all the damn time. Otherwise, we might as well close most topics after the first couple posts that answers the TC questions. Hurry up topic creators, close all your topics so nobody can post anything additional if a question has been answered!!!


All he initially did was try to clarify for the TC that that particular point wasn't relevant and wouldn't hurt his performance. You're the one who flipped out and attacked him over it.
---
"How do I get rid of a Trojan Horse?" -Sailor_Kakashi
"Leave it outside the gates of Troy overnight." -Davel23
#25ConkerPosted 3/28/2014 11:18:02 PM
KillerTruffle posted...
Conker posted...
Seriously, it's ONE last part I added on to the end of my post in relation to the topic. The rest of what I said is all in addition to what had already been said (by you). The bottom line is that even more worthless posts have resulted from you and Dark pointing out it adds "nothing to the conversation" when either did you.

If it added nothing to the conversation, there is no reason someone needs to point that out as if people don't add in additional comments to discussion all the damn time. Otherwise, we might as well close most topics after the first couple posts that answers the TC questions. Hurry up topic creators, close all your topics so nobody can post anything additional if a question has been answered!!!


All he initially did was try to clarify for the TC that that particular point wasn't relevant and wouldn't hurt his performance. You're the one who flipped out and attacked him over it.


And all I did was clarify that the context of my post did not saying it was so demanding on the GPU that it would hurt his performance.

I didn't flip out, I stated that his posts in reply to me are often nitpicking semantics/context, because they are. My statement was correct, and I never said it was so demanding that the TC should be concerned about it at all. Nothing outside of what Dark "clarified." The TC also never replied asking if it would be a problem...so what makes Dark think otherwise?

Seriously, I'd like to know if the TC thought for a second, "Ooh no, if the monitor isn't handling it, it's definitely going to be dropping loads on my GPU!"
---
Lets Go: Lions, Red Wings, Tigers, Pistons!
#26DarkZV2BetaPosted 3/28/2014 11:51:49 PM
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.


This has a pretty negative connotation. After this post, I further clarified that what you said was misleading, explaining my statement's reasoning, since the context implied that it would actually impact performance in a meaningful way.
After that, you started nitpicking about the definition of "demanding" in the given context(incorrectly) and went off about how it must be factually more demanding because you said so, and here we are.
---
god invented extension cords. -elchris79
Starcraft 2 has no depth or challenge -GoreGross
#27ConkerPosted 3/29/2014 12:14:54 AM
It is a negative connotation, because you're annoying.

Nothing stated it would impact performance in a meaningful way. "More demanding" in comparison to something else =/= demanding on an individual. My example earlier: If one boss is wanting you to work 30hrs a week and another is wanting you to work 20, if someone said the first boss is more demanding than the other, it doesn't mean that either is really demanding for that person if they're capable of working 50+ hours a week.

I started "nitpicking" about the definition of demanding in the correct context I posted in, which was meaning for it to "require more from." I clarified that all in my second reply to you.
---
Lets Go: Lions, Red Wings, Tigers, Pistons!
#28KillerTrufflePosted 3/29/2014 12:22:45 AM(edited)
Conker posted...
It is a negative connotation, because you're annoying.

Nothing stated it would impact performance in a meaningful way. "More demanding" in comparison to something else =/= demanding on an individual. My example earlier: If one boss is wanting you to work 30hrs a week and another is wanting you to work 20, if someone said the first boss is more demanding than the other, it doesn't mean that either is really demanding for that person if they're capable of working 50+ hours a week.

I started "nitpicking" about the definition of demanding in the correct context I posted in, which was meaning for it to "require more from." I clarified that all in my second reply to you.


Case in point. You started it, and you now admit you started it. His comment was innocent enough, and just trying to keep the TC from being misled based on the connotation of the comment. You're the one who started the argument.

Edit: I still have yet to see you address why, if there will be absolutely no effect on the end user, you felt that it was even relevant to the TC's question.
---
"How do I get rid of a Trojan Horse?" -Sailor_Kakashi
"Leave it outside the gates of Troy overnight." -Davel23
#29ConkerPosted 3/29/2014 12:30:45 AM
I love how you're now putting words in my mouth of something I didn't "admit" nor even start. His comment wasn't "innocent enough" because he does it frequently in an annoying way to attempt to correct semantics in posts for his own fitting that aren't what he reads into to begin with. If you think it wasn't to nitpick, you're just being ignorant to how Dark posts.
---
Lets Go: Lions, Red Wings, Tigers, Pistons!
#30KillerTrufflePosted 3/29/2014 12:38:04 AM(edited)
You admitted you posted direct criticism of Dark "because he's annoying." That's what started it. His initial comment had no such connotation. You seem to have started arguing with him because you don't like him, and your previous post saying you did it because he's annoying makes *you* seem to be the petty one, not him. His post was appropriate under the circumstances. Yours... not so much.

EDIT: STILL waiting for any sort of explanation on why you felt pointing out that it was "more demanding" was relevant to the conversation, since it would have no effect on the TC... The fact that you've repeatedly failed to explain that bit and instead posted all the other things you have seems to be just further evidence that you simply mentioned it without really thinking much, and when Dark posted some clarification, you just got a bur up your butt about being corrected and started an argument.
---
"How do I get rid of a Trojan Horse?" -Sailor_Kakashi
"Leave it outside the gates of Troy overnight." -Davel23