[UniversalTruth]

Originally Posted by Blazkowicz

in good old times 21" 4:3 was the standard TV size, at least in my country

That's right.
Interestingly, it is alright even now if you spend your lifetime in front of the TV, don't see the really large plasmas, and don't travel a lot. When you travel a lot, and don't watch TV for months, when you enter a room with 21 inch TV and everything looks so tiny. I guess it has something to do with how our brain interacts with and get used to different types of environment.
However, televisions have recently changed a lot and now the texts appear quite small, thus not readable from few meters, on that size TV.

A large screen has more area to scan, which is harder to do when you sit very close to the screen

The optimal distance is at least one full arm length.

[Ailuros]

Originally Posted by UniversalTruth

The optimal distance is at least one full arm length.

Depends on way too many factors. For small children watching TV any sane ophalmologist will quote 6x times the diagonal length of the TV screen.

On a PC monitor obviously the user isn't going to sit as far away, but the distance is still relative to the screen size itself and the used resolution (unless you meant an arms length for a 21" monitor which is about correct).

[UniversalTruth]

Originally Posted by Ailuros

Depends on way too many factors

If image quality is perfect, then it would be almost like looking through a window, or watching an event as you were there. No problem at all, me thinks.

Originally Posted by Ailuros

For small children watching TV any sane ophalmologist will quote 6x times the diagonal length of the TV screen

However, I have observations that with small chldren it is exactly the opposite. They tend to sit as close as possible to the source.

Originally Posted by Ailuros

On a PC monitor obviously the user isn't going to sit as far away, but the distance is still relative to the screen size itself and the used resolution (unless you meant an arms length for a 21" monitor which is about correct).

Does it mean that you should look at your 3.5 inch smartphone display from 30 cm, let's say?

[Ailuros]

Originally Posted by UniversalTruth

However, I have observations that with small chldren it is exactly the opposite. They tend to sit as close as possible to the source.

Just because they have the tendency to almost glue their nose to a screen, it shouldn't mean that it's good for their eyes. Again the typical recommended distance by ophalmologists for small children is 6x times the diagonal of a TV screen. If measured that's not even a lot, unless the space the TV is in is limited to 4 square meters f.e.

Does it mean that you should look at your 3.5 inch smartphone display from 30 cm, let's say?

If someone needs say 10 cm and values his eyesight it might be a good idea to visit an ophalmologist. I can't imagine what's so awkward about a 30cm holding distance for a smart-phone, since the majority of users are actually holding it in that range. Neither all that much closer or all that much further away is a good sign for the users eyesight.

[Dr Evil]

Originally Posted by Ailuros

Depends on way too many factors. For small children watching TV any sane ophalmologist will quote 6x times the diagonal length of the TV screen.

I think that's myth/BS to be honest. Perhaps that made some sense in the old days with 21" TVs with low resolution. You think watching 60" TV from over 9 meters away makes sense?

http://www.eyecareamerica.org/eyecar...-and-myths.cfm

“Sitting close to the television can damage children’s eyes.”

False. Children can focus at close distance without eyestrain better than adults. They often develop the habit of holding reading materials close to their eyes or sitting right in front of the television.

There is no evidence that this damages their eyes, and the habit usually diminishes as children grow older. Children with nearsightedness (myopia) sometimes sit close to the television in order to see the images more clearly

[Alexko]

Plus, old CRT TVs with 60Hz refresh rates could be straining, especially from up close, but these days with LCDs it's fine.

[UniversalTruth]

Originally Posted by Dr Evil

You think watching 60" TV from over 9 meters away makes sense?

In the majority of cases it is not even possible technically. How big should be that room?

And second- with 50-60 inches panel a different problem arises. The PPI and resolution. If you glue your nose to it, that you will see large ugly pixels and no good image quality at all. That's why Ultra HD resolution should at least partially solve tis issue.

[Ailuros]

Originally Posted by UniversalTruth

And second- with 50-60 inches panel a different problem arises. The PPI and resolution. If you glue your nose to it, that you will see large ugly pixels and no good image quality at all. That's why Ultra HD resolution should at least partially solve tis issue.

That's true. With normal vision you shouldn't need to squint your eyes to read the smallest text displayed on a TV. The kiddy stuff above is mostly to avoid children's eye strain and fatigue side-effects.

[sethk]

Originally Posted by Ailuros

Just because they have the tendency to almost glue their nose to a screen, it shouldn't mean that it's good for their eyes. Again the typical recommended distance by ophalmologists for small children is 6x times the diagonal of a TV screen. If measured that's not even a lot, unless the space the TV is in is limited to 4 square meters f.e.



If someone needs say 10 cm and values his eyesight it might be a good idea to visit an ophalmologist. I can't imagine what's so awkward about a 30cm holding distance for a smart-phone, since the majority of users are actually holding it in that range. Neither all that much closer or all that much further away is a good sign for the users eyesight.

Dolby / THX recommendations are 1.2x to 1.8x screen size - http://www.thx.com/consumer/home-ent...r/hdtv-set-up/

Most people with 20/20 vision can't resolve 1080p details (or 720p for that matter) at the distances you are talking at.

[Ailuros]

Originally Posted by sethk

Dolby / THX recommendations are 1.2x to 1.8x screen size - http://www.thx.com/consumer/home-ent...r/hdtv-set-up/

Most people with 20/20 vision can't resolve 1080p details (or 720p for that matter) at the distances you are talking at.

Oh you definitely gain the 1080p details at such a distance, but the added bonus is also that also notice quite a lot of nasty side effects which I'm not particularly fond of anyway. Again for some of you that obviously can't read: I pointed it that there are lot of factors at play and for small children additional safety measures would be advisable (if they don't look away or move around every now and then). The closer a child will sit to any display medium that captures the majority of its viewfield the higher the chances that it can't be that easily distracted by anything else.

As for the rest even the question of the viewing distance on a mobile phone is highly relative to the resolution itself and font size amongst others. However my point still stands that if someone needs to almost glue his nose on a =/>3" smartphone screen in order to read text there's most likely something wrong.

At worst read again my last post above before yours and I honestly hope that that's the end of that rather pointless OT.

[iMacmatician]

From GeForce.com: "GeForce 310.33 Beta Drivers Boost Performance By Up To 15%."

The new NVIDIA GeForce 310.33 beta drivers are now available to download. Featuring GTX 600 Series performance improvements of up to 15%, the new GeForce 310.33 beta drivers are a recommended download for all Kepler users. In addition to performance improvements, the GeForce 310.33 beta drivers include a number of new and updated SLI and Ambient Occlusion profiles that benefit and enhance all GeForce PCs.

[iMacmatician]

From NVIDIA's blogs: "BIG IMAC NEWS: LESS HEFT, MORE KEPLER."

The 675MX has been known for a few weeks, but the 680MX is new.

680M: 1344 CCs, 720 MHz core, 3.6 Gbps GDDR5.
680MX: 1536 CCs, 720 MHz core, 5.0 Gbps GDDR5.

I wonder what the TDP of the 680MX is.

[Malo]

oh no, not MX again. Does that mean it's actually several generations old chip? lol

[Ailuros]

Originally Posted by Malo

oh no, not MX again. Does that mean it's actually several generations old chip? lol

Obvious joke aside, there's nothing in the specifications that suggests such a slouch, rather the exact opposite for a mobile GPU.

[Alexko]

Originally Posted by Ailuros

Obvious joke aside, there's nothing in the specifications that suggests such a slouch, rather the exact opposite for a mobile GPU.

Yeah, not only does NVIDIA have weird, anything-but-explicit suffixes, but they're not even consistent! :P

I guess Ti = better, MX = slower in the past, now better, and SE = different but kind of similar, yet usually somewhat slower. Not to mention the prefixes (G, GT, GTX). I wish they just used numbers.

[Blazkowicz]

M is mobile and MX is mobile X, that makes sense.
But without reading the numbers here on B3D I would have trouble knowing what is it.

[CarstenS]

If they'd suffixed all Kepler-based mobile products with an X, I could have followed. SMX = Kepler, ok. But this is just plain... well stupid.

[iMacmatician]

I wonder if the "X" will move to the desktop, and if so, when. GTX 680X? 780X?

[UniversalTruth]

Not to mention the prefixes (G, GT, GTX). I wish they just used numbers.

I wonder if the "X" will move to the desktop, and if so, when. GTX 680X? 780X?

Why G, GT, GTX? :confused:
This naming scheme is extremely boring in my eyes. Don't wanna see it, no more.
I would prefer if they return GeForce 7 something, like GeForce 7 ZXS, something more fancy, with more imagination.
Or like HTC and Sony do. HTC One X, Sony Xperia S, etc...
That is a naming scheme with style.

[Pressure]

Originally Posted by UniversalTruth

Why G, GT, GTX? :confused:
This naming scheme is extremely boring in my eyes. Don't wanna see it, no more.
I would prefer if they return GeForce 7 something, like GeForce 7 ZXS, something more fancy, with more imagination.
Or like HTC and Sony do. HTC One X, Sony Xperia S, etc...
That is a naming scheme with style.

*Cough*

[tviceman]

Originally Posted by iMacmatician

From NVIDIA's blogs: "BIG IMAC NEWS: LESS HEFT, MORE KEPLER."

The 675MX has been known for a few weeks, but the 680MX is new.

680M: 1344 CCs, 720 MHz core, 3.6 Gbps GDDR5.
680MX: 1536 CCs, 720 MHz core, 5.0 Gbps GDDR5.

I wonder what the TDP of the 680MX is.

Yields and the node process has probably improved to the point where they can bin for that specific chip at the same power consumption as the 680m. I think 100 watt tdp is the psychological max Nvidia and AMD are willing to go with for mobile parts, so if it is any higher than the 680m it is probably not by very much at all.

[lanek]

Well there's a lot of psychological effect by going to 1536SP (full kepler ), but if they dont increase the clock speed, the gain will be really not big over the "680M" .( some few percent faster ). Something you gain without problem by increasing the core speed, on the same way, you can add the memory speed. TDP wise, i dont know what is the best to do.

[tviceman]

Originally Posted by lanek

Well there's a lot of psychological effect by going to 1536SP (full kepler ), but if they dont increase the clock speed, the gain will be really not big over the "680M" .( some few percent faster ). Something you gain without problem by increasing the core speed, on the same way, you can add the memory speed. TDP wise, i dont know what is the best to do.

The memory is clocked way higher with the 680m, eliminating the memory bottle neck. You are right in that the smx increase from 7 to 8 won't net much gain, but coupled with the significantly higher memory bandwidth, the 680mx will end up noticeably faster at 1080p resolutions.

[Ailuros]

Originally Posted by CarstenS

If they'd suffixed all Kepler-based mobile products with an X, I could have followed. SMX = Kepler, ok. But this is just plain... well stupid.

Since M stands for mobile for quite some time now, there aren't as many "neutral" letters to use after the M to differentiate it from the 680M. They could have called it 685M for instance, but then there would had been objections that it's misleading (not unjustified).

Naming schemes are sooo boring as a topic irrelevant of IHV. They could have called it 680M-withcheese for all I care.

[UniversalTruth]

Originally Posted by Ailuros

Since M stands for mobile for quite some time now, there aren't as many "neutral" letters to use after the M to differentiate it from the 680M. They could have called it 685M for instance, but then there would had been objections that it's misleading (not unjustified).

681M? 682M? 683M?

Originally Posted by Ailuros

Naming schemes are sooo boring as a topic irrelevant of IHV

Unless they show they think about it. A change would be always welcome. For diversity purposes.