backtop


Print 102 comment(s) - last by Tewt.. on Nov 20 at 6:55 PM

Game developers, hardware manufacturers and Microsoft all have something to say about the next-generation DirectX protocol, but none have anything to say too positive

AMD's Radeon HD 3850 and HD 3870 will be two of the hottest graphics adaptors for the 2007 holiday season.  The Radeon HD 3800 series, previously codenamed RV670, is a 55nm optical shrink of the 80nm R600 architecture.

One of the only features added to RV670 is the inclusion of DirectX 10.1 support, an API layer that will be rolled out with Microsoft's upcoming Windows Vista Service Pack 1. 

When asked about the advantages of picking up a DirectX 10 graphics adaptor today, versus waiting for NVIDIA or AMD DirectX 10.1 products, Microsoft's senior global director of Microsoft games on Windows, Kevin Unangst, replied, "DX10.1 is an incremental update that won’t affect any games or gamers in the near future."

Microsoft isn't the only developer downplaying DirectX 10.1. Cevat Yerli, CEO of Crytek, states,"We pride ourselves on being the first to adopt any important newtechnology that can improve our games so you would expect us to getwith DX10.1 right away but we've looked at it and there's just nothingin it important enough to make it needed.  So we have no plans to useit at all, not even in the future."

NVIDIA also has a response for AMD's DirectX 10.1 support, a feature of AMD's new HD 3800 series that the company has been rather vocal about.

NVIDIA's corporate roadmap details plans to include DirectX 10.1 in its ninth-generation GPU architecture, codenamed D9. However, the first D9 processors will not debut until next year, likely after the release of Microsoft's Vista Service Pack 1

NVIDIA's latest guidance describes DirectX 10.1 as "a minor extension of DirectX 10 that makes a few optional features in DirectX 10 mandatory."


Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Well, DX10 still hasn't caught on in earnest...
By HaZaRd2K6 on 11/13/2007 7:38:51 PM , Rating: 2
So why did anyone think that DX10.1 would be a huge improvement? DX10 is tied to Windows Vista and that discourages a lot of people who've heard horror stories about the OS.

Reading Maximum PC last week, I saw that the only reason the GF8 series doesn't support DX10.1 is because development of DX10.1 started too late to be included. And it doesn't give you many huge updates, either. According to Maximum PC, "The update ... is mostly incremental. ... [It] now makes several formerly optional feature mandatory, including 4x AA and 32-bit floating-point filtering."

Looks like my 8800 still has some time left.




RE: Well, DX10 still hasn't caught on in earnest...
By Noya on 11/13/2007 9:35:58 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
DX10 is tied to Windows Vista and that discourages a lot of people who've heard horror stories about the OS.


It's not just that. Most gamers are PC enthusiasts and have no problems with XP Pro, thus, no reason to upgrade to Vista.


RE: Well, DX10 still hasn't caught on in earnest...
By Rabbagast on 11/14/07, Rating: -1
RE: Well, DX10 still hasn't caught on in earnest...
By Frallan on 11/14/07, Rating: 0
RE: Well, DX10 still hasn't caught on in earnest...
By TomZ on 11/14/2007 8:06:45 AM , Rating: 1
I work at a small company, and we've got about a dozen machines we upgraded to Vista about a year ago. Not a single speed or stability issue in the bunch.

There are also tens of millions (hundreds by now?) of people out there using Vista, since a large portion of the PCs sold this year are running Vista. Funny with that large of a number that the Internet wouldn't be just flooded with complaints if what you're saying is true.

I think it's more likely that you're just ill-informed about Vista. Enjoy your ignorance.


RE: Well, DX10 still hasn't caught on in earnest...
By leexgx on 11/14/07, Rating: -1
By TomZ on 11/14/2007 8:54:25 AM , Rating: 5
As a counter point, my parents (not computer savvy) are running Vista and have been for quite a while without any problems. I haven't received a single "tech support" phone call from them. So I'm not sure why you wouldn't recommend Vista to others, but everyone's entitled to their own opinion.


By Spivonious on 11/14/2007 9:24:45 AM , Rating: 4
I couldn't resist...

quote:
It does not matter if millions of people are using Vista. It still does not change the fact that it's not a good OS to use for every task .

If you want everything to work out of the box , XP is there .

If you want to fuss around getting things to work or spending more money to update stuff that works perfectly fine then buy Vista.

For office-use Vista is probably fine (any software less than a year old) .

For large companies and gamers , Vista requires them to probably upgrade every PC and on the new PCs that they get with Vista the software they use probably will not work . Games perform not as smoothly as they do on XP . Games just work on XP ; not all games just work on Vista.

I have Vista on here in a dual boot configuration and I say it's got 1-2 years before I use it as my main OS and I do not recommend it to new users yet ( maybe after SP1 but probably not ).


If English is not your first language, then take this as a learning experience. It's a crazy language and I could never imagine trying to learn it.

If English is your first language, then you need to improve, because you came across sounding like an idiot.

Now, to my reply.

My parents have been running Vista for the past year and have had zero problems with it. My dad enjoys playing Half-Life 2 and Supreme Commander. It's true that Vista will struggle trying to run on a five year-old PC but most users upgrade their hardware more often or will simply buy a new PC with Vista preinstalled. My dad definitely prefers Vista to XP after he got used to the new interface (about two weeks). All of the existing hardware he had (scanners, printers, cameras, etc.) worked with no problems.

Yes it's a pain for large companies to have to upgrade every machine, but there's nothing telling them they have to do it all at once. My company still has some NT4 machines simply because that department hasn't gotten new PCs for a while. I don't think any company is going to upgrade hundreds of PCs to Vista at the same time.


By euclidean on 11/14/2007 1:12:39 PM , Rating: 2
My company just upgraded from Win2K back in August 2006 to WinXP. Took them 5 years of testing before they'd switch. Thought there a big stickler to having everything standard. In the last 10 months I've probably worked on roughly 1,200 machines all of which had XP installed on it when I was done with it if it didn't have it done already. basically when the company said switch, they dropped support for win2k, and whenever someone had an issue or got a new computer, it was switched or setup with XP. They're testing Vista right now and I guess we're looking at another year, maybe 2 before we switch. We have a few test servers already running win server 2k8...they plan on switching to that soon as well.

But ya, Vista is a great OS, sure there's a few bugs, but all these complaints i'm hearing from people are the same complaints I heard when XP hit the market...since XP SP1 though, I haven't heard virtually any complaints for XP.


By ioKain on 11/16/2007 9:51:47 AM , Rating: 1
^^ I think someone was feeling unimportant.


By howtochooseausername on 11/14/2007 12:28:26 PM , Rating: 4
I work in a large organization and consider myself a tech enthusiast.

My company plans to eventually go to Vista but only when we absolutely have to. Vista puts additional infrastructure requirements such as a license server that corporate is unhappy with. Also we have to recertify a bunch of apps that we use.

This wasn't the case when we moved from win2k to winxp.

Personally, I find Vista annoying, and as pretty as it is, it's just doesn't add functionality with all that prettyness. For my group, we are going to replace our desktops with Apple MBPs.

For my home computer, I'm willing to put up with some slowness for better visuals. But I just can't seem to get used to Vista. The layout of things in Control Panel are counter intuitive, and I have to work a lot harder to get things done. Even that I'm willing to put up with, but not the fact that my games run slower in Vista than in XP.

My analysis of Vista is that it is a lot of 'bling bling'; lots of pretty shiny things but no style or substance.


By hopsandmalt on 11/14/2007 11:31:38 AM , Rating: 4
I have to agree with TomZ. I am a gaming enthusaist myself, and I havent had a single problem with Vista. At release, sure there was a glitch or two, now, no way. All of my peripherals have solid drivers. Soundblaster and NVIDIA now have decent drivers.

My system is DDR3, I have 2 gig ram, several large HDs, dual core processor, and an 8800 ultra. Crysis runs perfectly maxed out. LOTRO has now incorportated DX 10 support and is absolutely beautiful with no glitches. World in Conflict, DX 10 support. Flight Sim X will have DX 10 support. The list is starting to grow, and I firmly believe that there are graphical differences between DX10 and DX 9.

One of the largest issues with Vista and gaming was fixed several months ago when Microsoft patched the issues with memory management and high end video cards. So... It is hard for me to see people write that there are still SO MANY ISSUES WITH VISTA, when there really arent any. I can frag like the best that are using XP.

Oh sorry, one more thing.... Someone mentioned something like: Aero=slow. Truth is, most games (good games) take Vista out of Aero mode before loading anyway. After all, why do you need Aero while playing a game?

Thanks!

Have a great day!


By Screwballl on 11/14/2007 12:12:11 PM , Rating: 4
So your one or two installs qualify as a large scale source of stability?
Come back when you have hundreds under your belt like me and have seen problems with well over 75% of all Vista installs in less than 3 days.


RE: Well, DX10 still hasn't caught on in earnest...
By TomZ on 11/14/2007 7:27:18 PM , Rating: 3
1. Since when does a "dozen" equal 1 or 2?

2. How many "problems" would you see when deploying any operating system to hundreds of machines? Nearly any install of any OS on any machine is going to have some minor issues, whether that is Vista, XP, or even Linux. Get real - software's not perfect.

3. 75% might be indicating you don't know what you're doing. You might not want your superiors to know about that figure. :o)


By elgoliath on 11/14/2007 7:34:57 PM , Rating: 2
I was thinking the same thing as your #3- I'll be the first to say Vista has had it's issues (tho not nearly as bad as some make it out to be), but if I had an issue with 75% I think I'd be looking for a new job....


By Screwballl on 11/16/2007 10:00:27 AM , Rating: 3
1. a dozen is nothing compared to a computer tech that has dealt with this in the real world with hundreds of installs... your few non-problematic installs is the exception rather than the rule. I have never had to stand by the computer to monitor the install process as much as I have had to with Vista. Since the Win3.1 days I have installed thousands and thousands of Operating systems and usually just check it, next, next next, yes, product key, then walk away. Vista has had so many problems that I have to waste my time monitoring it and watching the install the entire time. This is usually when I get several Vista installs going at the same time with the error/repair log next to the machine.

2 & 3. Looking back on OS installs, these numbers are from the owners own recorded statistics among several store, (only one of which I was employed but went out on my own), not my personal stats. These numbers reflect OS related problems:
Vista - 73% of them have problems during or just after installation. Extend this to more than 6 months and this number rises to around 90%.
XP - 16% had problems pre-SP1 and around 5% after SP1. More than 6 months with SP1 or 2 = 18% (if you include user error then it goes up to around 40%).
WinME - 60-70% had problems. Over 6 months closer to 95%
Win98 - 38% with 1st edition, 24% with 98SE. Over 6 months adds about 10% for every 6 months until it tops out around 85% due to age.
Linux - less than 10% but it depends on configuration and has gotten to the point that even if there is a hardware conflict it still works to the full extent minus that one device. I just got my X1950GT working in Fedora Core 8 and we all know how ATI/AMD is with their linux drivers. Over 6 months the number actually goes down because of how good the open source community is at fixing things.

The ONLY machines that seem to have very few to no problems with Vista are certain specific models from OEMs. If you look at all OEM models there is still a 30-40% "problem" rate among Vista machines within its first few weeks. Could be due to drivers or other issues but it is ALWAYS OS related. I have an XP Home (OEM - Dell) install that has run for 5 years now without a single problem EVER. I have other installs (Xp Pro) that have been running for 3 full years 24/7 without a problem. Yet I have heard of ONLY 1 Vista install that has run 8 months without a single problem. All the others have had at least a driver issue, OS crash, kernel dumps, hardware or software incompatibility among plenty of other problems.

I can care less of being voted down, I know there are plenty of MS fanboys that don't want people talking bad about their precious DX10 easter egg OS that is the greatest thing since the moon landing.
Granted some people may not have problems but also a good majority of them do not have the education to actually dig into their system and see that there truly is a problem that just has not taken a physical error message (yet) or even something as simple as going into the Device Manager and seeing something not working. This is where our numbers come from. Vista is inherently a very bad OS that should still be on the beta table ironing out its many built in problems.


RE: Well, DX10 still hasn't caught on in earnest...
By Aikouka on 11/14/2007 8:29:17 AM , Rating: 1
I've been running Vista Ultimate (32 and 64-bit) on two machines that I built and I haven't had a problem at all with them. Well, I did have my nVidia drivers blue-screen on me a lot in the beginning (only once during normal activity, but they'd mess up if I played a game (WoW) and a video at the same time), but everyone knew how bad the G80 Vista drivers were in the beginning :P.

There is one thing I've noticed about Vista though. It seems whenever I hear a horror story about it, I just have to ask one question, "OEM or home-built machine?" It seems the answer is always OEM. Now this doesn't mean someone with a home-built machine hasn't had a bad time, but in my experience, it seems most Vista woes tend to come from Dells, HPs, etc.


By Webreviews on 11/14/2007 10:01:20 AM , Rating: 2
I can speak to the fact that Vista can really choked on a system I had built from hand with reputable parts (Asus M2N-SLI Deluxe, AMD 6000+, XFX Nvidia 8600GTS, 4 GB RAM) and it would not even make it though the install process. It would hang and reboot ad infinitum. Eventually I gave up on even trying to install Vista and loaded XP on it. Woe to me for even thinking I could get Vista to install, let alone run it on this beast. Maybe when Vista SP1 comes out as a slipstream release in TechNet I'll try to load it again, but for now Vista is a No-Go in this lab.


By dajeepster on 11/14/2007 11:16:53 AM , Rating: 2
I had a completly different experience. I have an Asus A8N-Sli Deluxe, AMD64 3000+, (2)Asus 6800GTS, 2 Gb DDR Ram pc3200 ECC... the only thing I couldn't do was run SLI initially... but that wasn't Vista64's fault.. it was nVidia because they didn't support it fully yet. I could do EQ2 and Battlefield2142 with no problem... until b2142 went to the 1.25 update. at that point my fps started to decrease. So I then changed the processor to an opteron 175 and my problems were solved for b2142... but Vista64 has been running flawlessly on that computer


By 3kliksphilip on 11/14/2007 9:27:30 AM , Rating: 3
I tried Vista as it first came out and I had so many problems that I reverted back to XP. However, I have tried again and have found fixes to all of the problems. It's a bit of effort at first, but once you're used to Vista it all becomes quite natural. I having problems when I upgraded from ME to XP (Though running 2 firewalls isn't a very good idea, I know that now).

MY PROBLEMS WITH VISTA...
*Sound drivers - I have now downloaded some decent X-fi ones, and it works perfectly (Apart from the odd silence, followed by a horrible HISSING sound until I restart)
*Solitaire in Vista sucks - I copied the XP version over to Vista and linked it up to xfire, problem solved.
*Kaspersky 6 isn't compatible - I have just bought Kaspersky 7

In conclusion, I only have very minor problems with Vista now, and I'm sure they will be ironed out in time.

And what about the advantages? I didn't have any problems with my Geforce 8800 drivers. In fact, the XP versions fogged everything up at a distance whilst Vista's were fine. I didn't expect it to be better, but it was. And Crysis looks great in DX10.
The interface looks shinier as well. Not much to shout about, but at least they're getting with the times. I also like the way it ACTUALLY looks up answers to problems you might have, especially with compatibility issues. I spent £70 on Vista, it'll last me a good few years, plus I'm completely legitimate and can download any of the addons I like. Not that I was illegal before or anything...


RE: Well, DX10 still hasn't caught on in earnest...
By omnicronx on 11/14/2007 10:00:28 AM , Rating: 2
Solitaire sucks? Its the same game re skinned.. Where do people come up with this stuff?


By 3kliksphilip on 11/14/2007 6:00:04 PM , Rating: 2
You clearly don't play Solitaire for several hours a day, every day. There are animations and the flash style means that there's delay on the mouse cursor when you move it, slowing the pace down considerably. Anybody who has played both will be able to feel the difference if they ever try to get a good time in it. My record on it is 90 seconds for 3 card solitaire Vista, compared with my 35 seconds on normal XP Solitaire (Best recorded is 36 seconds). Please don't imply that I'm making things up. I know my stuff.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=yOKQxIKYGxw

Feel free to make fun of me for playing Solitaire so much, but I find it fun, fast paced and great for my reflexes. As well as being a great party trick. This is one area where I'd rather have rubbish graphics and great gameplay. Anyways, back to he DX10 convo...


RE: Well, DX10 still hasn't caught on in earnest...
By TomZ on 11/14/2007 7:35:48 PM , Rating: 1
Uh, how about turning off Game > Options > Display Animations setting? LOL.


By 3kliksphilip on 11/16/2007 11:48:04 AM , Rating: 2
It fixes the animations, but keeps the laggy flash interface. Plus it's not compatible with Xfire.

I wouldn't have known the difference either if I didn't play it on a regular basis. But trust me, there is a big difference.


By afkrotch on 11/17/2007 8:27:03 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Nope i dont think there has to be problems to upgrade to something new. But as a pretty hardcore PC/game enthusiast I expect things to get better when I upgrade.

Therefore i will upgrade in the near future - I just bought a Lappy that comes with Vista installed i will upgrade that to Win XP as soon as I have everything in place for it.

The issue here is Instability and function. Vista just does not provide that and the price I pay is in speed. So for me its easy:

Speed+ Stability+ (Aero-) functionallity+ => Win XP
Speed- Stability- (Aero+) functionallity- => Vista

Ill go XP again...


That's stupid. Everytime a new piece of software or OS comes out, it's always has higher hardware requirements. Bet you the first Photoshop that came out is significantly faster than Photoshop CS2. Course the original doesn't have all the features of CS2.

It's no different between Windows XP or Windows Vista. Vista has a lot of new features and improvements. It does come at a price. Higher system specs. Stability is a standard issue with anything new. Be it a car, software, phone, etc. It just takes time for it to worked out.

It took me about 2 years to move from Win2k to WinXP. It'll probably take me 1 year to move to WinVista.


RE: Well, DX10 still hasn't caught on in earnest...
By mindless1 on 11/14/2007 5:32:17 AM , Rating: 2
Yes, those running Vista are mostly foolish OR just playing with a new toy. New toys are great, but they are still only toys.


RE: Well, DX10 still hasn't caught on in earnest...
By stmok on 11/14/2007 6:36:52 AM , Rating: 4
Microsoft tried to introduce reasons to upgrade to Vista.

DirectX 10 was the excuse they came up with for gamers.

The problem is, Vista's features aren't strong enough to upgrade to. (At least the reasons thrown out by Microsoft doesn't seem enough justification to a number of people).

Its not "WOW!" to them.

Its "OWW!"


RE: Well, DX10 still hasn't caught on in earnest...
By omnicronx on 11/14/2007 9:58:20 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
DirectX 10 was the excuse they came up with for gamers.
And i suppose the combustion engine was just an excuse for hardcore horse riders... It's called progress, DX9 lacks many many eye candy features most gamers would demand if they knew what it could look like. Gamers would flock to Vista if video card manufacturers worked a bit harder on their drivers. Amazingly this is not the first time that this has happened, when XP was introduced gamers out there swore they would never leave windows 98. History will repeat itself, there is no doubt in my mind.

As for Vista, the only problems I have run into so far , is i was unable to install an older version of photoshop, and i was unable to find x64 drivers for my soundcard. Besides that I find it more stable than XP, without a doubt..

What issues remain in Vista seem to be manufacturer drivers issues. Companies are lacking on the vista drivers, because most people still have XP. Why design Vista drivers, when your customer base is still on an old OS. Does not make one bit of sense to me, but if manufacturers were really trying to release better drivers, we would see more than the average 6 month driver role out.


By Screwballl on 11/14/2007 12:22:49 PM , Rating: 2
it would be fairly easy for them to release DX10 for XP.. it has the same effect on kernel changes that XP SP2 did. So why do they not want to release it on XP? To sell Vista. It is all a scam to sell more. Since DX10 is only relating to gamers, this is why 94% of the market still has XP (that and 96% of all systems out there cannot handle Vista properly).


By hopsandmalt on 11/14/2007 3:03:19 PM , Rating: 2
94% of the market?

Curious, but do you have that in writing somewhere?

Thanks.


By Screwballl on 11/19/2007 2:14:00 PM , Rating: 2
The numbers change depending on the source,
here it shows XP at 80% of the market with Vista at 8% for Oct 07
http://marketshare.hitslink.com/report.aspx?qprid=...

this one says 79.3% XP, 7.4% Vista
http://www.itfacts.biz/index.php?id=C0_20_1

If you look at my wording, it is relating to gamers, not ALL computers. Looking at the gamers segment, 94% of all gamers are still using XP depending on the game. If it is something liek Crysis then Vista numbers may be higher or other popular games like CS:S, XP will have the 95%+ range.
Steam keeps stats on their page all the time and of the Steam users that have responded , 84.5% are XP users, 14% are Vista.
http://www.steampowered.com/status/survey.html

XP started off much more accepted to begin with as well.
http://www.xitimonitor.com/en-us/internet-users-eq...
By the 7th month after initial release, XP had 15% of the market versus Vista only had 6.5%.

Now for the big one, internet based usage of browsers and OS and everything:
http://w3counter.com/globalstats.php

Stats for 10Nov07 show 80.87% XP and Vista at 4.46%
stats for 10Oct1007 show 82.98% versus 4.11. So in 30 days Vista gains 0.35% and XP loses 2.11%... also on each graph it shows linux growing almost as fast as Vista is.


By TomZ on 11/14/2007 7:32:46 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
it would be fairly easy for them to release DX10 for XP.. it has the same effect on kernel changes that XP SP2 did. So why do they not want to release it on XP?

Please try to engage your brain before spouting off here. As you are well aware, DX10 depends on WDDM, and changing from WDM to WDDM is a huge change. Now considering that Microsoft is selling Vista now and would like to see that successful, what financial incentive does Microsoft have to make such a huge investment and risky change to XP?

You state some alterior motive, but you ignore the most basic reality - there is no business case to be made for DX10+WDDM on XP - none.


By afkrotch on 11/17/2007 8:45:57 AM , Rating: 2
I find Vista is pretty stable. I'm using Win2k Pro, WinXP Pro, and WinVista Home Premium (came on my laptop). My only issues with Vista is the GUI interface and Nvidia's drivers.

I don't have an old dated computer, so I can run all the pretty Aero crap, just choose not to. I turned off the Themes service in both WinXP and WinVista. I prefer the minimalistic nature of Win2k.

I plan to get Vista Business for Crysis.


RE: Well, DX10 still hasn't caught on in earnest...
By tmouse on 11/14/2007 8:20:44 AM , Rating: 3
While I get your point, a resonable counter point is only a fool buys a new car everytime a new model comes out.


By afkrotch on 11/17/2007 8:51:56 AM , Rating: 2
Have fun in your 6 year old car.


By Drexial on 11/14/2007 11:13:12 AM , Rating: 2
I Feel the best way to describe the issues i have with Vista are mostly summed up in interfaces and priorities.

The interface did not need to change the way it did in Vista. Most people became familiar with windows through XP and XP had a good interface. There was nothing complicated about it that it needed to change the way it did. Moving settings around and making them easier to access for the general consumer makes it easier for them to break and harder for someone, that used to know where everything was, to fix. They took options and featured that have been in place since 95 and moved them around to make it 'easier'.

As far as priorities, it was clearly just a move to get people into something new they didn't really need. There was nothing revolutionary added to Vista, that wasn't available in some form or another before. They really just gave XP a shiny look, thats about it.

When project longhorn was first started YEARS ago, it had just about all the changes that would really set it apart from previous forms of Windows. making a lot of the right changes to increase efficiency. I was personally really excited about its release, it looked like the changes they really needed to make were all going in there. But alas all that went away when the decided they couldn't manage themselves well enough to complete it, or get it working in any form. Which is something that i feel shows how MS is getting stale. The core of the OS is still the same NT from 10 years ago, they haven't been able to create anything original in just about as long, just recreations of the same or they bough out another company to take what they started and re brand it with the MS logo.

In the end the changes to vista were all superficial, it didn't get people to buy new machines cause they didn't change enough to really peek anyones interest. The only reason people came in to buy new PCs is simply because their 98 machine died (yes A LOT of people are still using 98 at home) or they have a college student that wanted a laptop for school. No one i came across was rushing out to buy Vista because it was Vista. What do they have to offer next? Vista 2, which i believe is slated for release in 2 years.

Its not because Vista absolutely sucks what ever piece of the anatomy you chose, its because it really isn't what one should expect from a BILLION dollar company. They have as many programmers working at MS then probably most others combined. Its not that it doesn't work, Its just not what we should settle for, especially somtehing that was in development for 6 years. It tells my they think we will jump all over something that was half assed thrown together at the last minute. Its like putting 20% more into a paper you used last year and then added glitter to the cover to make it stand out more.

As far as my history with computers, i have been using them since DOS, i have had much experience with every OS MS has released and am currently a Tech for an insurance company. I worked at a computer sales store when vista was released, so i saw why and how computers were being sold. Maybe 5% of the sales were due to Vista.


By Screwballl on 11/14/2007 12:10:05 PM , Rating: 2
That is exactly it, 95% of gamers today still use XP and will continue using XP for at least another year or two. Only those wanting extra eye candy and a slower system will go to Vista. Of that 5% left over, most of them have a dual boot XP/Vista setup with around 30-50GB for Vista and use it only for DX10 games, otherwise everything else including everyday use is still in XP.

Personally with my usage, Vista is Windows Me version 2 and I will refuse to go to it. I get a fast responsive system (Core2 E6600, 2 GB RAM, 256MB PCIe video) under XP... yet this exact same system under Vista a few weeks ago was so dirt slow, I felt like it was XP running on a 233MHz Pentium2 with 32MB of RAM. That and the crashes, the new updates and patches several times per week, new drivers every week, unstable system all around...

Now I am happy dual booting XP Pro and Fedora Core 8 and will be going to cedega once ATI/AMD releases decent linux video drivers for the X1950 (and no the X1900 series will not work).


RE: Well, DX10 still hasn't caught on in earnest...
By rcc on 11/14/2007 1:49:33 PM , Rating: 1
Nice numbers, which cheek did you pull them from?

Seriously though, we all have to go with our own experiences. Of my 10 immediate "gamer" friends, 3 have Vista installs, and none have any complaints, other than why'd they move that.... So, that would be 30%, +/- a bit, some of us have multiple computers.

I bought Vista for a new system I built solely because I needed a new license, and I didn't want to buy one for the "old" OS, one does have to look ahead occasionally. It works fine. Does it do anything for me that xp didn't? No, I really have no need of it, and wouldn't have upgraded an existing system because of that. But, it works fine.

This is a marked contrast to XPs release where there were specific reasons and needs to upgrade, yet, there was still that core that bitched about the new OS, what a dog it was, etc, etc. Somethings never change.

So, am I going to upgrade my XP systems to Vista, no. But if I need to buy a new license (novel concept, I know), it will be Vista.

As far as speed goes, the Vista system is an E6600, 2 GB, Asus m/b, and 8800 GTS, it runs great.


By Nik00117 on 11/14/2007 4:36:41 PM , Rating: 2
I agree with you, I run Vista without issue.

I mean today I spent 2 hours playing COD4 online. Frames never hit sub 40, and I had all the tricks and treats on.

Vista is a good OS, its not a bad one its not a great one but its decent.

Quite frankly out of al my gamer friends roughly 40% of them are vista, another 20% are considering it seriously in the near feature and the other 40% prob aren't that far behind.

I think Vista is a quality OS that is veryw ell polished especially for how new it is. Look at long it took XP to mature.

Lets wait til SP1 and see if we got such big mouth poeple then.

O BTW, I did have a dual boot of XP and Vista. Removed XP completely i'm 100% vista. Everything I do is in Vista.

I have yet to have one system crash, although I did have my occisional issue with vista not seeing my speakers being plugged in. But then again the sound card was a older card and on its last legs.

Vista boots up plently fast, not any slower then XP.

The search feature is handy

I like how they have the folder systema nd how its a bit different then XP.

I like how they make it look better. Also the power rating I think is a great idea. Now when I sell a computer to someone I can go, see power rating of 4.5 or 4.6 powerful enough to run this and that.

Vista is a good OS, should really diss it and not even pay attention to it.


By Tewt on 11/20/2007 6:55:42 PM , Rating: 2
I believe the 95% comes from the Steam polling where a little less than 5% of gamers own an 8800 series card. Slightly bigger sampling than your 10 friends at a little less than a million players. http://www.theinquirer.net/gb/inquirer/news/2007/0...

I am more inclined to believe his ~5% than your 30%. Who is pulling what numbers out of what cheek?


RE: Well, DX10 still hasn't caught on in earnest...
By jajig on 11/14/2007 1:05:01 AM , Rating: 3
I hate AA >:( I like my blocky pixels, if I wanted AA I'd put on a pair of someone else's glasses and smear my monitor with vaseline :'(


By StevoLincolnite on 11/14/2007 4:39:18 AM , Rating: 5
I Spray Windex in my eyes for free HDR and Bloom as well as blur effects.


By tmouse on 11/14/2007 8:52:46 AM , Rating: 1
While its not a major factor to run out and buy a card based on DX10 or DX 10.1, companies do not develop and release incremental updates for shits and giggles. My guess is Microsoft has recorded a fair amount data relating to some form of performance loss and/or stability issues when these "soon to be mandatory" features are just optional and not implemented. I think Kevin's quote is a bit out of context and was made to sooth developers, but he might have gotten a memo from on high something like this:
Dear Kevin,
You’re doing a smack up job but please think twice and keep your yap closed on comments that make us look like we are spending development time and money on useless upgrades. Hugs and kisses Bill and Steve.


I don't get it
By Mk4ever on 11/13/2007 7:34:21 PM , Rating: 2
Everything has a reason.

AMD/ATI is recently under high pressure for products that don't perform as everyone expects, and under financial pressure.

If 10.1 isn't useful, why did they bother when they could focus on other things?

Is it something in 10.1 that could fix something with their cards' performance?

Is 10.1 really important but is being downplayed for reasons other than performance/quality?




RE: I don't get it
By Inkjammer on 11/13/2007 8:58:09 PM , Rating: 3
I'd just go so far as to say DX10 isn't useful. I think ATI is trying to embrace the new standard for long term usage, but the inherit problem is not an ATI one.

DX10 was, in theory, supposed to provided even greater framerates and graphics options due to parallel programming/processing. So far, it's only paralleled dissapointment. No game has managed to utilize the standard with any tangible performance, and as such DX10 is a bust - for now. It may change once a DX10 game coded from the ground up comes out, but until that game arrives, we'll never know the advantages of DX10.1 over DX10.

Perhaps the performance/benefit is there. Somewhere. As it stands, for gaming DX9 and XP are still dominating. DX10/10.1 and Vista have yet to prove... well, anything. I think ATI is hoping that there's a light at the end of the DX10 tunnel. And Nvidia... well, I just think they realize DX10.1 doesn't matter given the current state of DX10 gaming as a whole.


RE: I don't get it
By murphyslabrat on 11/13/2007 9:44:21 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
DX10 was, in theory, supposed to provided even greater framerates and graphics options due to parallel programming/processing...No game has managed to utilize the standard with any tangible performance, and as such DX10 is a bust

No, it was intended to expand the graphics card's feature set and programmability. It is conceivable that this could increase framerates, but developers have focused more on appearance and visual quality. Take a look at some of the Crysis DX9 vs DX10 videos on youtube to find out what I mean.

Framerates aren't the whole story in visual quality and gaming experience. If they were, you would be playing at 800x600, and only because you can't play at 640x480 anymore. Of course, you would have anti-aliasing and Anistropic filtering off, you wouldn't have volumetric lighting or real-time and soft shadows, you wouldn't have any physics settings turned on...in short, you would have a game from 2000. DX10 aims to offload some geometry functions to the GPU, as well as providing greater flexibility -- and, therefore, visual immersiveness -- to the game.

To recap, DX10 was not aimed at framerates, but to make that slideshow prettier.


RE: I don't get it
By GlassHouse69 on 11/14/2007 1:27:12 AM , Rating: 3
you are completely incorrect. The person you commented on is completely correct.

It has turned out the way you state, but that is not at all what dx10 was meant for or advertised for. It was supposed to give incredible levels of "image quality" with a dramatic increase in frames for the quality. 10-15% frame rate increase for the given quality, plus that quality would be even more, er, quality. the collective "we" on anandtech was super happy/excited to hear about this boost in gaming speed with higher image quality.

insert laugh here.

now, it is a set of standards locked into vista only. tricks and things that are not fast running, just look potentially better.


RE: I don't get it
By tcsenter on 11/14/2007 9:08:45 AM , Rating: 3
By "the collective we on Anandtech", I assume you mean the small percentage who were easily influenced by or contributed to the fervor of unfounded rumors and unqualified speculation about the meaning of DX10, often gleaned from other enthusiast forums or websites, rather than the 'collective we on Anandtech' who repeatedly tried to put down the unfounded rumors and speculation, pointing to numerous reputable industry sources including those close to Microsoft who stated DX10 brings major 'under-the-hood' architectural and programming changes that will mostly be transparent to the end-user, and in fact clarified that GPU efficiency improvements enabled by DX10 are not likely to increase performance as much as enable higher detail or quality with less performance cost.

The same 'collective we on Anandtech', I might add, that repeatedly found itself having to put down the fervent rumors that DX10.1 will force everyone to buy a new DX10.1 compliant GPU.

I'm sure that's what you meant to say.


RE: I don't get it
By Canizorro on 11/14/2007 9:55:11 AM , Rating: 2
Well on Microsoft's own website describing Direct X 10, they refer to graphics performance quite a bit. Direct X 10 might be just a quality improvement and all "reputable sources" might have said that as well, but the point was that it is being touted by Microsoft to give a performance improvement as well as a visual improvement (In italics).

"DirectX 10, the latest version of the DirectX suite of multimedia application programming interfaces (APIs), puts gamers and multimedia buffs on the leading edge of PC graphics performance .

DirectX 10 features heavily enhanced 3-D graphics-rendering capabilities and helps noticeably improve your computer's performance in games and high-end 3-D applications. DirectX 10 empowers games to present a new generation of visual effects, and deliver more visual detail per frame than ever before.

Providing a standard 3D development platform for Windows-based PCs, it also provides software developers access to powerful hardware features without the need to write hardware-specific code. For gamers and video enthusiasts, this translates to reliable, higher-performance graphics when you're playing games on your PC."

So I am not sure what you are talking about rumors and speculation, it's a fact.


RE: I don't get it
By elgoliath on 11/14/2007 2:30:03 PM , Rating: 2
While there is some merit to what you are saying, I thought it was common knowledge that this would apply to future games, aka games that are programed for DX10 rather than games made for DX9 with some DX10 functionality. I don't think you can say whether or not DX10 does improve performance/frame rate for an equivalent level of detail/resolution when you are using DX9 games to do the testing, not to mention the added resource usage of Vista. Now, if they said that DX10 will increase the performance/frame rate of all/most existing DX9 games, then yeah, that would be a lie.


RE: I don't get it
By Canizorro on 11/14/2007 5:56:00 PM , Rating: 2
Yes but on the same token, there are no games that are built from the ground up for DX 10. The description should read that you would gain performance and detail quality from all of your DX 10 games. Not all your games on your computer that the description states. It needs to be clarified that this is for DX 10 games and provides no improvement in DX 9 games. To the consumer, it's not really logical to think they would assume this from the description. The desrciption leads to the idea that performance and quality is increased in all your games, which are all DX 9 titles at this time. It's misleading and that was the point of the OP.


RE: I don't get it
By elgoliath on 11/14/2007 6:52:49 PM , Rating: 2
I agree with you there, but as we all know, there is always a disconnect between the engineers/programmers and the marketing department. That's where it's our job as tech minded folks to clear crap like that up. I'm just happy that the performance hit for DX9 games in a DX10 environment are fairly close performance wise. Whether or not we know what they really 'meant' by those statements doesn't really matter as the statements themselves are fairly broad to begin with-

That being said, I'll be the first one to complain if the first batch of DX10 games doesn't live up to a bit of the hype.I don't dislike MS, but I don't trust them either :D


RE: I don't get it
By tcsenter on 11/16/2007 4:35:43 AM , Rating: 2
Well you have shown quite a fundamental difference between language such as "helps", "enables", "empowers", and your addition of especially bold adjectives such as "incredible" and "dramatic" increases in performance and image quality, further implying you were promised it all (incredible quality with dramatic increase in frame rates for the quality which will be higher...blah blah blah).

There is no question DX10 brings advances that 'help' and 'empower' developers to achieve more realism or detail, more efficient utilization of resources, and more detail-per-frame than DX9.

If developers chose to spend most or all of that increased efficiency and utilization to push more detail at the expense of frame rates, that has always been a design decision available to the developer. DX10 didn't take that away, in fact it probably increased the potiental for it over SM3.0 by giving developers nifty new features to play with (e.g. SM4.0).

Further, I don't see it implied there would be no learning curve for DX10 development, as though you will realize the FULL potential of DX10 the first time DX10 code is executed on DX10 hardware. We have been here a few times before; people complained the first DX9.0 games ran slower on DX9.0 hardware, DX8.0 is slower than DX7.0, blah blah piss and moan.

AFAIK, we still do not have a complete implementation of GPU scheduling and memory virtualization in Vista. A partial implementation of it is used by Desktop Window Manager for Aero and desktop compositing, but I don't believe it is utilized to benefit 3D gaming because one or more GPU vendors complained it needed more time to get it working.

DX10 is not "done" anymore than DX9 was "done" with its initial production release.


RE: I don't get it
By Haltech on 11/13/2007 11:14:27 PM , Rating: 2
Remember, DX9 took 3 versions to be what it is today. i.e. 9.0a, 9.0b and 9.0c


The usual from the Hardware companies.....
By sapiens74 on 11/13/2007 7:35:11 PM , Rating: 5
Downplay a feature as useless until your hardware ships with the "useless" feature enabled

Then claim its the best thing since sliced bread




RE: The usual from the Hardware companies.....
By djkrypplephite on 11/13/2007 7:42:58 PM , Rating: 5
I don't believe it, I mean, sliced bread is pretty great.


RE: The usual from the Hardware companies.....
By RIPPolaris on 11/14/2007 3:53:50 AM , Rating: 1
"The greatest thing since sliced bread"

So this is it, huh folks? a couple hundred-thousand years...THE F**KING PYRAMIDS FOR CHRIST'S SAKE! Great Wall of China, Panama Canal, even a lava lamp, to me is greater than sliced bread. I don't see what the big deal is. You got a knife, you got a loaf of bread, SLICE THE F**KING THING!


By MGSsancho on 11/14/2007 4:56:19 AM , Rating: 2
fine the greatest thing since spray bottles with fans on them


RE: The usual from the Hardware companies.....
By willow01 on 11/14/2007 6:20:56 AM , Rating: 5
The point is you don't need the knife, it is already sliced...


By gaakf on 11/14/2007 8:56:40 AM , Rating: 2
rofl


By Tarmax on 11/14/2007 7:41:08 AM , Rating: 1
George Carlin ftw lol

/end_useless_post


By tmouse on 11/14/2007 8:26:40 AM , Rating: 2
Wow you fell very strongly about bread...Well you see fresh bread is FAR better than store bread, and sinced its not sliced you cut REALLY BIG slices that make great monster sandwiches BUT in the long run the weight gain will kill you, so I guess thats what makes sliced bread so great. There is generally more for others (however its mostly because its not as good).


By nicknet on 11/14/2007 5:58:12 AM , Rating: 2
ahhhh that made me chuckle....


There is DX10.1 for GPGPU.
By itaru on 11/13/2007 11:08:35 PM , Rating: 2
DX10.1 is not a thing for the game.
The main change of DX10.1 is making to virtual by WDDM2.1.
And, the thing corresponding to WDDM2.1 is a very difficult thing.

WDDM2.1 is very important for GPGPU.
It is natural that AMD attaches importance to DX10.1.
They seriously think GPU is used for the operation.

Latest F@H might correspond to the Radeon HD 3800 series.
This is not in nVIDIA yet.

SC2007 demo: new GUI and GPU clients
http://folding.typepad.com/news/2007/11/sc2007-dem...




RE: There is DX10.1 for GPGPU.
By sxr7171 on 11/14/2007 2:55:47 AM , Rating: 3
Thanks. That explains everything.


RE: There is DX10.1 for GPGPU.
By Screwballl on 11/14/2007 12:53:59 PM , Rating: 2
if English is not your native language then I understand... otherwise WTF DID YOU JUST SAY??


RE: There is DX10.1 for GPGPU.
By overzealot on 11/14/2007 10:42:01 PM , Rating: 2
It's pretty obvious for anyone with half a brain that english is not his/her first language. That said, I fully understand what they said. Maybe you just don't try hard enough?


But here is the thing
By stonemetal on 11/13/2007 7:45:21 PM , Rating: 1
It is rather useless, until Microsoft releases DX10.1 it can't be used until it is released. The reason why ATI is so focused on it is because they can't compete in speed so they are claiming to have a better product by way of features. Just like AMD claiming native quad core as some sort of advantage even though they don't currently hold the speed crown. Funny that since they are the same company.




RE: But here is the thing
By sapiens74 on 11/13/2007 7:52:05 PM , Rating: 4
Yeah but Nvidia swore that DX 10 was the next big thing and had their cards ready well before launch, but no good working Vista drivers until recently.

Any new DX is useless for a good two years as hardware and software manufacturers catch up


RE: But here is the thing
By murphyslabrat on 11/13/2007 9:35:19 PM , Rating: 2
However, that does not necessarily discount the merits of purchasing compliant hardware now. Unless you upgrade more often than once every couple years, this will allow you to play upcoming games, even after the new tech becomes standard. This allows for a slower upgrade cycle, albeit slightly more expensive and/or under-performing.

While great in theory, a friend of mine bought a Geforce 8600 (not sure which variant), and found the practical side of that argument. Or, more accurately, he has yet to find it . ^^j


RE: But here is the thing
By mindless1 on 11/14/2007 5:36:19 AM , Rating: 1
yes, it does discount the merits because by the time your aged hardware becomes useful with a given DX version, it's processing power is low enough that you can't actually use those features for more than viewing a slide-show.

Do not ever buy into the future for gaming, it's a terrible waste of money unless you're only waiting a month for the next best GPU price-tier to stabilize.


.
By Lonyo on 11/13/2007 7:33:56 PM , Rating: 1
I'm not sure why anyone should care about what the Crytek guy says. After all, Crytek are one of the companies who decided to make some graphical options DX10 only by not letting DX9 users turn them on, when they run fine under DX9 (according to those who used little tricks to enable Ultra high in DX9).

Also, didn't everyone already know DX10.1 was only a small step? I mean it's fairly obvious from the name alone.




RE: .
By dubldwn on 11/14/2007 12:47:43 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
according to those who used little tricks to enable Ultra high in DX9

Oh, that's a fact. Did you read Gamespot's comparo?
http://www.gamespot.com/features/6182140/index.htm...
...and it runs faster in hacked XP! So, yeah, the true benefits of dx10 have yet to hit.


RE: .
By darkpaw on 11/14/2007 9:17:03 AM , Rating: 3
And you also must have skipped this sentance of the article:

quote:
The hacked very high quality settings under Windows XP were almost 20 percent faster than the Vista frame rates, but comparing frame rates between the two is pointless because it isn't an apples-to-apples comparison. The image differences between the two versions indicate that they don't have an identical workload.


Sure it ran better, but even they say it can't be directly compared.


RE: .
By tfk11 on 11/14/2007 11:08:30 AM , Rating: 2
You must have skipped the image comparisons.

Of the 12 scenes they compared I could only see an improvement in one of them. So they both look like apples to me...


Damn
By Ard on 11/14/2007 12:10:21 AM , Rating: 2
Hell, when even MS is downplaying DX10.1, you pretty much know it's worthless. There's go AMD's supposed trump card.




RE: Damn
By mcnabney on 11/14/2007 1:05:22 AM , Rating: 3
Microsoft has a way of really screwing AMD. They held back on the 64 bit o/s development and deployment until Intel pulled their act together.


RE: Damn
By MGSsancho on 11/14/2007 5:07:15 AM , Rating: 1
no they diddnt. the first usable 64b ISA for M$ was IA64 (Itanium). and they had code running it in 2001. windows server 2004 and 2008 have a distro that runs on it. heck M$ had EFI support in 1999 as well. It was microsoft that told Intel, Yo were only doing 1 real effort for 64B code. and were using AMD cuz its the easiest to go for, cheaper to develop, and easiest to port out tool set for. It was intel who wanted x86 to die and have IA64 take over. but AMD shook up things with the K8. and as far as OS development, the NT kernel was never originally ment to be a 64b os. thus the lackluster performance of XP64. well after SP1 it runs good.

if anything, AMD should thank M$ for sticking with their 64b ISA


RE: Damn
By Screwballl on 11/14/2007 12:44:54 PM , Rating: 1
MS has been in bed with Intel and nvidia for a very long time now so anytime AMD/ATI release something worthy, MS tries to downplay it using various methods. They did the same thing with AMD64 until Intel stole that and renamed it EM64T... Then they were all about adding Virtualization and whatever Intel approved of through software capabilities/compatabilities...


Crytek and Crysis are awesome.
By gochichi on 11/13/2007 7:54:42 PM , Rating: 1
I really like what Crytek did with Crysis . This game is a must have for anyone with an 8800GTS or above, and I doubt that will change for at least two years.

I reckon Crysis wants sales of their software NOW, and that means sales of current high end video cards, not waiting around for next year's latest and greatest. So it's understandable that they're supporting the current hardware.

As for me, I think Crysis is surprisingly fun at 932 x 600 or whatever randomly low resolution works best on my 8600GT and Medium settings. Will be waiting for 8800GT level stuff to reach the $200.00 price point. I'd rather have even better performance for $300.00 (by better I mean at least 40% better than 8800GT) but that's going to take forever it looks like.




RE: Crytek and Crysis are awesome.
By neothe0ne on 11/13/07, Rating: 0
RE: Crytek and Crysis are awesome.
By toyota on 11/13/2007 10:48:42 PM , Rating: 1
the game is ugly as hell on low settings. the surroundings popping in is bad enough at medium settings and simply kills the immersion on low settings. on low it looks much worse than any other modern game by far.


RE: Crytek and Crysis are awesome.
By darkpaw on 11/14/2007 9:11:26 AM , Rating: 2
I have to agree here. On medium it cripples my system even at an unplayable 800x600. At low it looks worse then three year old games.


By Screwballl on 11/14/2007 12:48:37 PM , Rating: 2
plays great in DX9 on my system at all medium.. it is playable but choppy with all high settings
played at 1440x900 since I have a 19" widescreen
E6600, 2GB DDR2, X1950GT, XP Pro 32bit


Here before?
By Mitch101 on 11/13/2007 8:07:15 PM , Rating: 3
I have been down this road before with Smartshader 2.0 vs 3.0 debate. If you didnt have 3.0 marketing would claim all your games would look like crap. While it wasnt a necessary item at the time of its release and still isnt its a nice feature I wish I had. If I had SmartShader 3.0 on my current video card I probably wouldnt be looking to upgrade just yet.

Is it necessary: NO
Is it nice to have: YES

If it doesnt cost you any more then why not its a small way of futureproofing your investment.

Dont think for a second that NVIDIA would be doing the same if they have it and ATI didnt.




RE: Here before?
By Crank the Planet on 11/13/2007 9:06:33 PM , Rating: 3
Nice djk*...

It doesn't matter if it's useless right now. The fact is they are supporting more advanced features. They are going above and beyond the norm. Just like as has been said- if Nvidia had it they would be marketing the H&^^ out of it. As Nvidia said it was not something that met their timeline for their current product ( doesn't that mean they got caught with their pants down :) hehehe )

But honestly every company does this. When 10.1 comes out you bet Nvidia will have a compatible product. Then 6 mo. to a year later Intel hardware will be DX 10.1 capable- LMAO
More like 2 years.


Burn...
By shabby on 11/13/07, Rating: 0
RE: Burn...
By MGSsancho on 11/14/2007 5:13:02 AM , Rating: 2
it take at least 3 years from conception to a product being on the shelfs. In business you have to look ahead. ATI, nVidia, and M$ are starting to draft out dx11. there are some stuff about it on the web but I haven't heard of any confirmed news yet.

ATI is releasing a product that will have unused feature. yes you rais a good point. lets see how this works out 12 months from now and then lets ask if it was a waste of money to develop for. Who knows, maybe those instructions and registers are useful for GPGPU applications.


RE: Burn...
By DingieM on 11/14/2007 6:01:18 AM , Rating: 2
Even more, ATI may be able to use their shader 4.1 implementation to optimize and/or enhance the rendering speed.
After all it is a enhanced version of the R600 family.


of course they downplay it
By mindless1 on 11/14/07, Rating: 0
RE: of course they downplay it
By Screwballl on 11/14/2007 12:57:21 PM , Rating: 2
This is a matter of "Do we release the hardware first or the software first?"
Nvidia sees it as "we have DX10 and thats good enough for now to have market dominance".
ATI/AMD sees it as "we need the next step to get more market share so lets play into 10.1 and jump in there first".

Either way the software is not there for most gamers except a few first gen releases... DX9 took a few years to mature and so will DX10.


RE: of course they downplay it
By mindless1 on 11/16/2007 11:00:11 PM , Rating: 2
I don't see which comes first as a problem so long as a given DX generation of card is backwards compatible and a given game also backwards compatible.

The real thing I'm seeing is that ATI may have made a useful stride but is not catering to what gamers really need, I mean the average gamer is just looking for something like a 8800GT that plays modern games at under $200 price point. I'm often surprised just how old some gamer's cards are and yet they still like the gaming experience enough to play quite a bit so maybe I'm wrong there, that they don't want to even approach $200 but somebody has to fuel the video card economy.


wow seriously?
By cleco on 11/14/2007 11:01:59 AM , Rating: 3
MY PROBLEMS WITH VISTA...
*Sound drivers - I have now downloaded some decent X-fi ones, and it works perfectly (Apart from the odd silence, followed by a horrible HISSING sound until I restart)
*Solitaire in Vista sucks - I copied the XP version over to Vista and linked it up to xfire, problem solved.


One of the main reason you don't like vista is because of solitaire... That must be one of the dumbest things I ever heard.

Whoever said about upgrading their vista to xp, it should be downgrade. XP is old. thats like saying "i'm upgrading my 2008 truck to a 1982 Chevy Custom deluxe.

anyways. Vista is not great but its getting there. SP1 shows great performance gains over the current status. Aero GUI is 10000x better than xp's dx8 gui.

Also on the buiness side of vista, it allows network adminstrators more control of the user's pc with more group policys compared to xp.

Only downsides of vista in my experience is 64bit programs are still scarce and you need 3gb to play next-gen games.




Look into the future...
By inighthawki on 11/13/2007 7:49:34 PM , Rating: 2
Just because the feature is not used now doesn't mean it doesnt have benefits. In 1, 2, or even 3 years when this feature is put in newer games, people will be glad to know that their "old" hardware can support it. I myself am kinda mad for the fact that my x1900XT can't support DX10, but then again, 2 years ago when i bought it, directx 10 was meaningless wasn't it?




Crysis
By stu4500 on 11/13/2007 11:56:10 PM , Rating: 2
I run a E6850 and 2 8600 GTS in SLI amd I can run 1280x1024 with the high settings no problem at all in XP




Nuff said then
By boogle on 11/14/2007 8:52:16 AM , Rating: 2
So it seems only ATI really care about DX 10.1, simply because they support it and NV don't. I suppose that's fair game to them - play to your strengths etc. etc.

But the 2900XT has horrific DX10 performance, and if you read ATI's marketing spiel, they would have you believe the 2900XT was designed for DX10 performance above all else. Whoops.

So how is a card that can barely run DX10 games - going to handle games than use DX10.1's features? It's like selling a GeForce 8200 as a DX10 power machine - it just doesn't work like that. Supporting a feature - and then giving good performance in said feature is a completely different matter. How exactly are ATI going to handle the AA requirement of DX10.1? Their current AA implementation kills off your framerate like crazy even in games where it's meant to be faster.

Although I suppose if F@H is a big thing for you - more power to you. But ATI should outright say that it's mostly a F@H thing, rather than 'omg this will make games look 10x better than they do now with no performance loss'.




By Darkskypoet on 11/14/2007 9:25:05 AM , Rating: 2
Really now... nVIDIA would be marketing the ass off a donkey if they had it, the benefits in games are probably rather miniscule, but it does fit the bill for other uses of the rv670 chip. Mainly Professional accelerators, and GPGPU work. Both of which are sectors AMD has been doing quite well in with r600-esque chips, even r580 did well in the GPGPU arena.

However, sometimes s**t happens. r600 was delayed much like the x1800 line. Also, r600 didn't hit performance expectations, much like x1800 line... However.. x19xx chips were golden vs the competition, with x1950's selling extremely well for quite some time.

rv670 is meant to hit a sweet spot with pricing. In fact it'll be 2 x 3850 ftw. Once pricing stabilizes these two will give you better bang for your power useage and cash. Consider the sheer number of enthusiast intel boards out there that support cross fire vs the number of intel boards supporting sli... Visualized that yet? Rv670 is a budget refresh of r600 like tech, and for the price and O/C of the lesser 3850 series plus the very good performance they wring out of cross fire, this card will do well. DX10.1 or no.

Another thing to consider here, is that DX10.1 initself is more then likely quite useless for most people. It's more a proof of the more advanced, more general purpose / programmable nature of the AMD/ATI product vs. the nVIDIA product.

Unfortunately they gambled with it in r600 and had a card for 3 market segments that decidedly didn't do as well in gaming as in the others. This time around, it'll be a bit different.

Best of all the prices for a decent mid range card are where they should be, and because AMD came to the party this time around, we can thank them for a ~250 GTX.




Optical Shrink
By drivendriver on 11/14/2007 10:33:30 AM , Rating: 2
Please stop using the terms "optical shrink" erroneously. A die shrink is not necessarily an optical shrink. If a chip is an optical shrink of an older chip, it cannot include new features. If it includes new features, it cannot be an optical shrink.




wut is it with dat pic ??
By Mezo on 11/17/2007 6:45:46 AM , Rating: 2
will someone explain ???




This is news?
By Justin Case on 11/18/2007 3:32:15 PM , Rating: 2
It's called DX 10.1 and not DX 11 for a reason; it has very little impact on current software (and GPUs aren't really fast enough to make full use of the new capabilities yet, so developers probably won't bother trying to use them for another 6 months or so).

AMD has full hardware support for DX 10.1, so obviously thy're going to brag about it, and NVidia doesn't, so obviously they're going to say it's irrelevant (until they do, too, and then they'll "discover" how great it is).

In other news, nothing new.

This article could at least have included a list of the differences between DX 10 and DX 10.1...

http://www.teamati.com/DirectX%2010_1%20White%20Pa...




Poor aim at market targets.
By Hieyeck on 11/14/07, Rating: 0
"If you mod me down, I will become more insightful than you can possibly imagine." -- Slashdot














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki