• Competitor rules

    Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.

*** The Official HD2900XT Thread ***

Status
Not open for further replies.
willhub said:
Looks like DX10 Gaming is gonna be crap :(
Click to expand...
I doubt Call of Juarez was designed from the ground up with DX10

DX10 should be a more efficient way of doing things so I would have expected the opposite really.

I wouldn't put much faith in that one benchmark, no way you will be limited to 1024*768 without AA/AF running at <30fps
 
Anyone know if crossfire on these cards would support dual monitors unlike the 1900 series?

Also would 1 of these cards be worth upgrading from a crossfire 1900xtx/xt setup?

Thinking maybe of going single gpu due to the lack of benefit ive seen in crossfire, apart from a select few games.
 
willhub said:
Looks like DX10 Gaming is gonna be crap :(
Click to expand...

Based on one pre-alpha benchmark?

Look, there isn't going to be some big graphical leap going from DX9 to DX10. It was DX9 which introduced the principle of generalised pixel shaders, which allowed game developers to produce the customised graphical effects they want from queueing up a series of simple instructions. DX10 is simply an extension of this. Its standard allows for longer queues of larger pixel shaders, which is mainly a future-proofing maneuver as current hardware is not maxing out the shader standard for DX9. The other main benefit of DX10 is more standardised pathways to allow certain effects to be performed directly and so more quickly. There is also talk of minimising CPU overheads (by reducing the number of DX driver calls required for given instructions) but we will have to see how well this pans out.

In the end, you're going to see a *very* similar look in DX10 compared to DX9, with increases in relative performance. Of course, how much of this improvement is going to be killed off by vista is anybody's guess...

But anyway, don't judge all of DX10 gaming performance by one single pre-alpha demo. The fact that going from 1024*768 to 1600*1200 you increase the number of pixels by 144%, but that the framerate only goes down by 32% should tell you that something odd (ie some kind of expensive setup overhead) is going on in the background.
 
Final8y said:
Explain this ?
Click to expand...

Well, currently vista seems to have some kind of overhead - ie most games are running notably slower under vista than under XP. Of course this could all be sorted out by improved drivers by the time we see real DX10 titles - we'll have to wait and see.

My point was just that we don't know exactly how much faster DX10 will be over DX9 when performing the same (DX10 optimised) calculations, but since DX10 is only available under vista we might see a situation where DX9 running in XP might not be far behind DX10 in vista.
 
Duff-Man said:
Well, currently vista seems to have some kind of overhead - ie most games are running notably slower under vista than under XP. Of course this could all be sorted out by improved drivers by the time we see real DX10 titles - we'll have to wait and see.

My point was just that we don't know exactly how much faster DX10 will be over DX9 when performing the same (DX10 optimised) calculations, but since DX10 is only available under vista we might see a situation where DX9 running in XP might not be far behind DX10 in vista.
Click to expand...
The slower performance is because of drivers, not vista overhead.
Infact Vista has less overhead when gaming than XP.
 
Final8y said:
The slower performance is because of drivers, not vista overhead.
Infact Vista has less overhead when gaming than XP.
Click to expand...

Until mature drivers are available it's a moot point where the overhead comes from, whether it's driver inefficiency, increased cost of DX calls, or vista background processes.

And until MS gets specific about how vista reduces "DX overheads" and shows real world proof I'll remain skeptical about their claims. After all they have more than a small vested interest in people moving over to vista.
 
Duff-Man said:
Until mature drivers are available it's a moot point where the overhead comes from, whether it's driver inefficiency, increased cost of DX calls, or vista background processes.

And until MS gets specific about how vista reduces "DX overheads" and shows real world proof I'll remain skeptical about their claims. After all they have more than a small vested interest in people moving over to vista.
Click to expand...
The drivers are already to a point on my ATI cards that vista is no slower in most games i have now.
 
well i've taken the plunge and bought a Sapphire one, Should be with me tommorow :D
 
Last edited:
Dutch Guy said:
True, there is a difference between XP and Vista but the difference is small and gets smaller as the resolution increases, see http://www.guru3d.com/article/Videocards/431/19/
Click to expand...

OOH! thats on the new ati as well so it should improve with drivers.
It seems that there is some cpu overhead in vista on them stats at low res.

Lets see if that changes in the future with new tittles that make use of both DX9 & DX10 in other words the same game run on XP in DX9 & the same game run on vista in DX10.
 
Last edited:
Rivey said:
Decided to wait and see if an 8800GTS price drop occurs.

No high-res gaming for the immediate future. :o
Click to expand...
Why would Nvidia drop the price of the GTS?

It is already cheaper than the HD2900XT and has roughly the same performance.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom