new review on dx 10

dafloppyone · 28 Sep 2007 at 20:05

http://www.firingsquad.com/hardware/geforce_radeon_directx_10_performance_update/

Shocky-FM · 28 Sep 2007 at 20:34

Damn, ATI really need to sort out there DX10 support. :eek:

Jabbs · 28 Sep 2007 at 21:46

To me it looks like both cards suck badly at dx10 not just ati, terrible really that is.

willhub · 28 Sep 2007 at 21:54

Damn, NV/ATI really need to sort a new card out for the end of this year. :eek:

mrk · 28 Sep 2007 at 21:55

Damn! just damn!

McBain · 29 Sep 2007 at 01:29

The shot of the boat under the water is crazy....

yaboy · 29 Sep 2007 at 01:40

Great read (y)

RavenUK · 29 Sep 2007 at 01:43

Meh, crap unoptimised so called DX10 games, one of any worth is WIC, the rest suck, lets see how crysis performs then judge. Firingsquad are smoking the green beef as well.

Drukk · 29 Sep 2007 at 01:49

I see they are talking of 3 and 4 way crossfire / SLI. Would anyone actually buy that many graphics cards for the performance increase it will give? You'd end up spending like 1000 pounds just on graphics cards!

Scougar · 29 Sep 2007 at 07:25

Stunned. In some games 2900 REALLY takes a pounding

Those 8800's just are well designed, even in dx10 it seems. Some results are seriously strange though (being SOO low).

At least I'll be on dx9 for a while lol.

Matthew

gurusan · 29 Sep 2007 at 08:13

Scougar said:
Stunned. In some games 2900 REALLY takes a pounding Those 8800's just are well designed, even in dx10 it seems. Some results are seriously strange though (being SOO low).

At least I'll be on dx9 for a while lol.

Matthew

I think its ATI's drivers that need to be optimized for DX10...

Kanifee · 29 Sep 2007 at 09:19

Im confused a little!so at the moment DX10 is just used for effects on DX9 games?
if so how long will it be before we see the first true 100% dx10 platform?

As for the benchmark's nothing majourly new to offer us than we all ready know, performance wise we new that ATI were struggling a little but that they have also made good ground on the performance they used to have on release. And the Nvidia cards as allways performing well but like a previous poster said badly coded games make for a bad format to benchmark so pointless really.

Scougar · 29 Sep 2007 at 09:20

I seem to remember it being, Nvidia for dx9, AMD for dx10. What has happened that has caused such a shift?

Matthew

RavenUK · 29 Sep 2007 at 09:29

Blah blah blah, DX10 is in its infancy with developers jumping on the bandwagon for sales purposes only, give it another year then judge, no need to get your knickers in a twist over some crappy X10 bolt ons with today's games.

nxr · 29 Sep 2007 at 10:09

Scougar said:
I seem to remember it being, Nvidia for dx9, AMD for dx10. What has happened that has caused such a shift?

There hasn't been a shift. The 2900 being better for DX10 was just speculation and FUD, probably based on the uselessness of nvidia's early vista drivers and a misguided belief that AMD couldn't possibly do any worse.

Firegod · 29 Sep 2007 at 11:07

Seems like SLI GTS 640Mb is a good performer though! Nice, may have to invest in another.

LoadsaMoney · 29 Sep 2007 at 13:26

Bioshock on the GTS Dx9 = 53, Dx10 = 53.4, thats at 1600x1200 0xAA/16xAF

Bioshock on the 2900 (same res, settings) Dx9 = 73.8, Dx10 = 42.1. :eek:

Doesn't look like its Nvidia's Dx10 drivers that are crap to me, as they run slightly faster in Dx10, not like ATi's who drop over 30+ frames.

willhub · 29 Sep 2007 at 14:27

LoadsaMoney said:
Bioshock on the GTS Dx9 = 53, Dx10 = 53.4, thats at 1600x1200 0xAA/16xAF

Bioshock on the 2900 (same res, settings) Dx9 = 73.8, Dx10 = 42.1.

Doesn't look like its Nvidia's Dx10 drivers that are crap to me, as they run slightly faster in Dx10, not like ATi's who drop over 30+ frames.

So its drivers? I guess ATi have got the chimps in the driver department now.

ergonomics · 29 Sep 2007 at 14:36

im liking the 640mb sli also........ i never knew they would beat the ultra by that much, VERY tempted to stick another one in my set up now, regardless of a couple of sli issues.

edit: just seen they dont beat the ultra by that much in dx10, perhaps not so keen now lol

HangTime · 29 Sep 2007 at 16:53

damian666 said:
like a previous poster said badly coded games make for a bad format to benchmark so pointless really.

I disagree with this kind of attitude. People often come out and say "these benchmarks don't matter, they are just down to badly coded games".

But, at the end of the day from a GAMING perspective, the reason for poor performance is completely irrelevant. It could be crap drivers, it could be crap code, it could be the OS, it could be because the year ends in the number 7. I don't know about anyone else, but when I'm playing a game at it starts chugging along at 20fps, I don't say to myself "Man, this is so smooth, thank god it's only bad code slowing down the framerate, that means I can't notice it!!".

The bottom line is benchmarks are all worth considering if they are from popular games no matter how good or bad the code is.

To use an analogy, if you go to the supermarket and there are two packets of cheese, one nice and fresh and the other had a hole in the packet and has gone a bit mouldy, you don't say "ah that mouldy cheese is fine, only reason it's like that is because there's a hole in the packet".