NationStates Jolt Archive

You probably have wasted your money. http://hardware.slashdot.org/hardware/07/08/11/0524250.shtml Coming in SP1 of Windows Vista is DX10.1. It adds few new features, but it breaks compatibility with DX10 hardware. You are going to have to shell out another $600 for a DX10.1 card if a game you want uses DX10.1 instead of DX10 instead of DX10 or OpenGL.

You're wrong. It's not wasted money. The HW is the same and will be able to do all the same shit it always could. That it isn't fully DX10 compliant anymore has no practical effect.

If you want to clamour about something, try the fact that none of the DX10 compliant HW has so far been able to give comparable performance in a DX10 environment. effectively making it DX9 hardware with limited DX10 support.

In a way, the .01 update just makes it official.

The current DX10.0 cards will be able run older DX interfaces anyway (like DX 9.0c). The nice thing about the new cards is the HDMI support they include so can play those DRM infected new generation DVDs.

You are going to have to shell out another $600 for a DX10.1 card if a game you want uses DX10.1 instead of DX10 instead of DX10 or OpenGL.
So, why do you want to use DX10.1 instead of DX10?

[Wonder if they will ever come up with a consistent designation scheme.]


Oh.
The spec revision basically makes a number of things that are optional in DX10 compulsory under the new standard
You certainly can't live without being sure the manufacturer was enforced to implement thing rather than did it on his own, right?


Like this: "4xAA is a compulsory standard to support in 10.1, whereas graphics vendors can pick and choose their anti-aliasing support currently. "
Go find a DX 7 card not supporting 4xAA.

Thing is, they won't for a very long time, and even if the revision didn't exist, people with the current DX10 compatible HW would still run things in a DX9 environment, because all the HW that exists cannot perform acceptably in a DX10 environment.

This non-news won't make DX10 cards any better or worse at running DX10 applications, and it's been known for almost a year that anyone interested in running things in a DX10 environment will have to way for the next generation of DX10 HW, because the current HW, compatible as it is, has monstrously poor performance.

So like I said, in a way this just makes it official that DX10 cards don't fully support DX10.

I suppose you can compare it to the old nVidia FX series. At least the last half of those cards support SM 3.0, but their architecture makes it impossible to finish more than 1 pixel per week (well, maybe 3) when they're bogged (bugged?) down calculating SM 3.0.

Thing is, they won't for a very long time, and even if the revision didn't exist, people with the current DX10 compatible HW would still run things in a DX9 environment, because all the HW that exists cannot perform acceptably in a DX10 environment.

This non-news won't make DX10 cards any better or worse at running DX10 applications, and it's been known for almost a year that anyone interested in running things in a DX10 environment will have to way for the next generation of DX10 HW, because the current HW, compatible as it is, has monstrously poor performance.

So like I said, in a way this just makes it official that DX10 cards don't fully support DX10.

I suppose you can compare it to the old nVidia FX series. At least the last half of those cards support SM 3.0, but their architecture makes it impossible to finish more than 1 pixel per week (well, maybe 3) when they're bogged (bugged?) down calculating SM 3.0.

Meaning I can pick up a really cheap nVidia 8600GTS later when the DX 10.1 cards come out! :D

Thing is, they won't for a very long time, and even if the revision didn't exist, people with the current DX10 compatible HW would still run things in a DX9 environment, because all the HW that exists cannot perform acceptably in a DX10 environment.

This non-news won't make DX10 cards any better or worse at running DX10 applications, and it's been known for almost a year that anyone interested in running things in a DX10 environment will have to way for the next generation of DX10 HW, because the current HW, compatible as it is, has monstrously poor performance.

So like I said, in a way this just makes it official that DX10 cards don't fully support DX10.

I suppose you can compare it to the old nVidia FX series. At least the last half of those cards support SM 3.0, but their architecture makes it impossible to finish more than 1 pixel per week (well, maybe 3) when they're bogged (bugged?) down calculating SM 3.0.I see. I had no idea that DX10 sucked so bad on current gen cards.

Why would you want a 8600GTS anyway? It's slower than twice cheaper cards of the previous generation (7900GS, X1900GT), particularly in shaders. It won't be able to run DX10 games other than as slideshow, or... in DX9 mode.

8600GTS has 1/4 of 8800GTX shader pipelines.

because the current HW, compatible as it is, has monstrously poor performance.
X2900XT, 8800GTX, 8800GTS have very nice shader performance. 2900XT is now hampered by only 16 TMU (rather than 32 as in GTX), but TMU don't work with shaders; in DX10 shader-intense games it will actually perform at least as well. Current top hardware is sufficient for DX10.


I suppose you can compare it to the old nVidia FX series. At least the last half of those cards support SM 3.0,
2.0.
They were slow because of just plain lacking proper units. Well, and generally being a phail series.

Meaning I can pick up a really cheap nVidia 8600GTS later when the DX 10.1 cards come out! :DThere's no reason for the price to fall before the next generation cards come out, and when they do, the 86GTS is likely a crappy deal no matter the price. You may be able to get a good deal on an 88Ultra when it happens though.

EDIT:X2900XT, 8800GTX, 8800GTS have very nice shader performance. 2900XT is now hampered by only 16 TMU (rather than 32 as in GTX), but TMU don't work with shaders; in DX10 shader-intense games it will actually perform at least as well. Current top hardware is sufficient for DX10.And yet they all perform miserably in a DX10 environment. Of course, being insanely fast cards, 'miserable' means 'spectacularly', but comparatively speaking all of the cards suffer major performance issues with DX10.2.0. They were slow because of just plain lacking proper units. Well, and generally being a phail series.I'm about as certain as one can be that you're confusing the ATi and nVidia cards of the time, but as long as the analogy worked, it doesn't matter if it's completely factual :p

There's no reason for the price to fall before the next generation cards come out, and when they do, the 86GTS is likely a crappy deal no matter the price. You may be able to get a good deal on an 88Ultra when it happens though.

EDIT:And yet they all perform miserably in a DX10 environment. Of course, being insanely fast cards, 'miserable' means 'spectacularly', but comparatively speaking all of the cards suffer major performance issues with DX10.I'm about as certain as one can be that you're confusing the ATi and nVidia cards of the time, but as long as the analogy worked, it doesn't matter if it's completely factual :p

Currently the Ultra for me is about $AUS 1000 - insane. Might go for an OCed GTX instead.
I currently use an OCed nVidia 7600GT (a lot better than my old ATI X700)

I see. I had no idea that DX10 sucked so bad on current gen cards.Don't get me wrong. Very fast cards are still very fast cards. That they lose some 10-25% performance in a DX10 environment doesn't change that they're very fast cards.Currently the Ultra for me is about $AUS 1000 - insane. Might go for an OCed GTX instead.I meant when the next gen cards come, not now. The 88Ultra is only for people who've run out of ways to throw away money.

If you're contemplating getting a new high-end card now, I'd suggest a HD2900 instead. Unless you plan on playing the newest games in resolutions above 1200X, the performance difference won't be very noticable.

If you're contemplating getting a new high-end card now, I'd suggest a HD2900 instead. Unless you plan on playing the newest games in resolutions above 1200X, the performance difference won't be very noticable.


Not the HD2900 - it's too damn long for my case and you need a nuke reactor to run it. I think my case would have trouble with 8800GTX as well actually. I think a 8800GTS would fit, just.

Don't get me wrong. Very fast cards are still very fast cards. That they lose some 10-25% performance in a DX10 environment doesn't change that they're very fast cards.I meant when the next gen cards come, not now. The 88Ultra is only for people who've run out of ways to throw away money.Hmm, well given the benchmarks I've seen, a DX10 card minus the 10-25% would still be able to play games at max settings with my monitors max resolution (a measly 1280x1024, but it was free so w/e)

Not the HD2900 - it's too damn long for my case and you need a nuke reactor to run it. I think my case would have trouble with 8800GTX as well actually. I think a 8800GTS would fit, just.

You'd need a 750 to 800 watt PSU to run a 8800 GTX and the rest of the assembly just fine. I also recommend a big tower casing. The 8800 is a huge card. Trust me.

/8800 GTX owner. :p

I'm about as certain as one can be that you're confusing the ATi and nVidia cards of the time,
Not really. FX or 5000 series had SM (shader model) 2.0, and these series were a failure. Radeon 9000 series beat them on all counts - performance, o/c, quietness.
Of course, then came Nvidia 6000 series, which were SM 3.0, and fully fledged SM 3.0.

Of course, being insanely fast cards, 'miserable' means 'spectacularly',
And isn't spectacular enough?
Don't expect wonders. The next generation mid-level card won't be as fast as modern tops. That means the games will run nice on them, as they *must* run nice on mid-level cards to sell.


You may be able to get a good deal on an 88Ultra when it happens though.
Not 8800Ultra. It's expensive due to chip selection, and is exactly the same 8800GTX anyway. Top of the line hardware stays expensive even when it's clearly obsolete.

But there's hope they'll finally make a normal mid-level card (8600GTS is not), in form of G92. Competitive with current tops, which, due to expense of 384-bit bus layout, won't get cheap.


You'd need a 750 to 800 watt PSU to run a 8800 GTX and the rest of the assembly just fine.
A quality 500W PSU, like Seasonic, is enough (recommended 450 for non-SLI). A poor PSU sucks regardless of how many watts it claims.

Not really. FX or 5000 series were DX 2.0, and these series were a failure. Radeon 9000 series beat them on all counts - performance, o/c, quietness.
Of course, then came Nvidia 6000 series, which were DX 3.0, and fully fledged DX 3.0.


You mean SM 2.0 and 3.0? :D

Yes, PS 2.0 and 3.0, of course.

A quality 500W PSU, like Seasonic, is enough (recommended 450 for non-SLI). A poor PSU sucks regardless of how many watts it claims.

Well, I have an E6600 in the mix, so that extra wattage is justified.