SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
In a VentureBeat interview with Raja Koduri, head of the Radeon Technologies Group at AMD, the company continues to advocate for virtual reality running at "16K resolution" at up to 240 Hz:
When Advanced Micro Devices created its own stand-alone graphics division, Radeon Technologies Group, and crafted a new brand, Polaris, for its upcoming graphics architecture, it was an admission of sorts. AMD championed the combination of processors and graphics into a single chip, dubbed the accelerated processing unit (APU). But the pendulum swung a little too far in that direction, away from stand-alone graphics. And now it's Raja Koduri's job to compensate for that.
I interviewed Koduri at the 2016 International CES, the big tech trade show in Las Vegas last week. He acknowledged that AMD intends to put graphics back in the center. And he said that 2016 will be a very big year for the company as it introduces its advanced FinFET manufacturing technology, which will result in much better performance per watt — or graphics that won't melt your computer. Koduri believes this technology will help AMD beat rivals such as Nvidia. AMD's new graphics chips will hit during the middle of 2016, Koduri said.
Beyond 2016, Koduri believes that graphics is going to get more and more amazing. Virtual reality is debuting, but we won't be completely satisfied with the imagery until we get 3D graphics that can support 16K screens, or at least 16 times more pixels on a screen that[sic] we have available on most TVs today. Koduri wants to pump those pixels at you at a rate of 240 hertz, or changing the pixels at a rate of 240 times per second. Only then will you really experience true immersion that you won't be able to tell apart from the real world. He calls it "mirror-like" graphics. That's pretty far out thinking.
AMD's "Polaris" GPUs will be released sometime during the summer of 2016. Along with AMD's "Zen" CPUs and APUs, Polaris GPUs will be built using a 14nm FinFET process, skipping the 20nm node.
(Score: 2) by Freeman on Monday January 18 2016, @06:46PM
The problem is that every time I compare prices it feels like Intel / Nvidia are trying to rip me off. AMD is still hands down the best bang for your buck. The last computer I built was a Six-Core AMD CPU, 8GB RAM, 512MB VC, 1TB HDD, Blu-Ray Drive, etc that cost $600 a few years ago. I went to price out a new machine and there's not a whole lot of difference. More or less same CPU, same RAM, but updated graphics and a SSD would make it a little more expensive, but still around that $600 to $700 mark. The one thing that is really holding my system back is the lack of a SSD. I already upgraded to a 2GB VC and 16GB of Ram, but at the time all I did was future proof my machine. It didn't actually increase my performance. The lack of a SSD was the bottleneck.
Joshua 1:9 "Be strong and of a good courage; be not afraid, neither be thou dismayed: for the Lord thy God is with thee"