baka-dubbs

JP234 said:

Well thanks for making me do the work and find out you're right! I was unaware there was a difference until you pointed it out. I read this on CNET:

"Suffice it to say right now, MicroLED is better suited for large, wall-sized displays using individual pixels made up of LEDs. Micro-OLED is better suited for tiny, high-resolution displays. This isn't to say that MicroLED can't be used in smaller displays, and we'll likely see some eventually."

But neither tech is cheap yet, is it?

I am assuming like most technologies, as they scale production the cost will decrease.  Look at the cost of large OLED televisions today vs 5-10 years ago.  

I am guessing the reason for the rumored "shortage" is that Sony has some of the initial production allocated to their high end camera's.  I would guess the main reason Sony developed this was for their camera's electronic view finders, where they want high pixel count and low latency, and it just happened to be an excellent display for VR as well.

Not in any large percentages.  For the truly high end enthusiast, they are not going to want to stream content at lower bitrates.  They may be 4k screens per eye, but the area the TV will  be taking up won't be 4K.  For audiophiles, they aren't going to get the base/volume clarity out of the built in speakers.  No sitting with family/friends/significant others.  I am not going to invite friends over to watch a game and expect them all to have AVP's so we can watch on different big virtual screens...

I am very excited for its potential, but I really think this is a supplemental device in its current state.  I use VR headsets, you will hit a limit on how long you can comfortably wear this headset, even as light as it is.  It is going to squeeze your head to stay in place, you would not want to work all day wearing this headset.  Based on the hands on I am reading, this is a device that blows away prior AR/VR experiences, but it still has some of the same shortfalls of other headsets.  

What I want to know is how much the 4k screens and pixel layout reduces the screen door effect.  I'm currently using the PSVR 2, which has 2K screens for each eye, and does foveated rendering like the Vision Pro will.  The screen door effect is much improved over prior VR headsets i have used, but its not gone completely.  That's why I am wondering if you can only replicate the screen of a Mac, vs creating a bigger "higher resolution" screen in the device.  Several people who have tried it(I'll reference Nilay Patel but there are others) have mentioned that there are some FOV  limitations with the headset(IE, your periphery is still significantly obstructed).  Basically, it still has some of same issues that other headsets have.   Also, is the default refresh 90, 120, 144 etc?  Sub pixel structure, FOV and refresh have a massive impact on eye comfort when using a headset like this.  

That being said, everyone is saying its the best experience they have had with a VR/AR headset.  So if I can stream PS5/PC games(like i can with iPad) as well as use all of my standalone streaming services with the device, its very compelling proposition. This is a wait until gen 2 or 3 device for me, but I will be watching very closely.    

I have been a subscriber since Youtube TV started at $35 and it was an amazing value proposition, with my use case being for live sports.  As they continue to add more channels I don't care about and increase prices, I am looking seriously at alternatives.  Its getting to the point that compared to a cable bundle its no longer saving me money, it actually costs more than traditional cable tv/internet.  They seriously need to bring different service tiers as its no longer worth the price they are charging.

thadec said:

No, AMD's competition is not Intel because they can't beat Intel at raw power, which is what the x86 people care about. So, AMD is attempting to go after Apple fans by proclaiming great power per watt. 

AMD is not going to convince the x86 crowd that - all of a sudden after all these decades - the ability to make thin and light devices that have 12 hour battery life is more important than single core performance. AMD has played this game for ages too, and everyone would know that if they shift gears after all this time it will be an admission that they can't win it; that they have no answer for things like this: https://wccftech.com/intel-core-i9-13900ks-worlds-first-6-ghz-cpu-now-available-for-699-us/

In what world are you living that you think that AMD can't compete on power?  The 7950x desktop process trades blows with the 13900K in single core performance, and is a better multicore performer in most applications, while being more power efficient.  Intel has nothing currently that competes in the HEDT market, and their server chips are getting destroyed for the past few generations of EPYC chips, and EPYC Milan chips absolutely destroy intel's offerings in price, performance and power efficiency. 

The 5000 and 600 series laptop chips from AMD were more powerful and more power efficient than Intel's offerings, and the 7000 chips look to continue that trend.  I suspect that Apple was brought for the AI/Machine learning comparison, as Intel does not offer a chip with machine learning currently, while AMD is integrating an FPGA into their chips from their Xilinix acquisition.