DX10 - a look to upcoming dissapointments

[HannibalX]

I am by no means poor, I make a very "above average/upper middle class" living. It's not that I don't have the money for a GTX, it's just that I can't/won't spend that kind of money on a video card.

For less than half of the GTX cost I purchased by X1950 Pro which plays every game I own at 1680x1050 at full detail level.

Sure DX10 is coming, but it isn't here yet and so far there only seems to be one good looking game for it.

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: Ulfhednar
Stalker running smoothly on an X1950Pro with all sliders to the right at 1280x1024?

Fraps please!

Even my system runs Stalker like a pile of crap (usually under 50fps, so I can't enable vsync or I'm locked to 30fps) at 1680x1050, and it's not just the crap Nvidia drivers, and they are crap, it's also the buggy and unoptimised game.

It's not the ATI drivers being better with Stalker either, because you're making claims of better performance than my friend with an E6300 @ 3.2GHz and an X1900XT @ XT-X.

It's not your E4300 @ 2.76GHz either, my E6300 @ 3.5GHz would be blitzing this game were that the case.

*not* 12x10 - 14x9 ... which is LESS demanding than 12x10
... and ... AGAIN ... you are running at 16x10 [with nvidia drivers] ... i am running 1440x900

FRAPS will slow it down ... guaranteed ... i *know* when something is "smooth" or not
--STALKER is smooth with everything MAXED ... including HQ AF in CCC [although i usually run with it much lower because i can't see much 'difference' with it on]

--and i have Vsynch *off* ... i neither need not like it with STALKER ... [or most games]
think that is the difference ?


there is enough variability in STALKER - and it is CRAP optimized - except maybe for "some" rigs -
-- the *only pattern* i can find is that ATi generally does better than nvidia

and 16x10 kills MOST GPUs in STALKER

argue on

i *know* what i see and experience
:roll:

 

[MadBoris]

Originally posted by: otispunkmeyer
dude you got a long time to wait for DX10 games to be the norm. hell people here still use AGP *looks at apoppin*

cards like the 8800GTS and up are bought by mr computer enthusiast, and im sorry to tell you but we are very much the minority here. DX9 games will be around for a long time i suspect, thats what the majority have, all you guys buying into the DX10 before its even properly a-go are just going to get DX9+ garnish for a while.

That has never been in contention, I agree DX9 games will be the norm for years yet. Until MS finds away to stop supporting XP and thereby forcing developers not to program for it and consumers to move on to Vista, because surely there is not much other reason to move to Vista.

The 8800 was simply a great product for my needs since the cycle came around again for upgrade time. I usually always choose the 2nd step down in graphics cards, most bang for my buck with performance and longevity. Maybe I am in a minority, but I like to crank things up and I do have a 24" monitor being shipped in today, so need the power.

 

[apoppin]

I like to crank things up and I do have a 24" monitor being shipped in today

--24" monitor?!?
:Q

forget 'cranking things up"

right *now* you NEED the GTX

:roll:

 

[R3MF]

i survive with my 7950GT 512MB very well with todays games.

 

[Cheex]

I've been playing STALKER quite okay with my current setup @ 1024x768. I just hope I can go all out when my GTS gets here.

 

[0roo0roo]

well..atleast rams cheap now. all the 2gb under 100 dollars is amazing.

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: 0roo0roo
well..atleast rams cheap now. all the 2gb under 100 dollars is amazing.

DDR2 is cheap ... mine was just over $100 after MIR
... otoh, DDR is still expensive

 

[Laminator]

From my experience, people with crappier cards will accept much lower framerates. Perhaps this is why there are disputes on this board about which cards can play games "smoothly"...I used to play Battlefield 2 on a Radeon 9600 at 1024x768, medium settings. I played Call of Duty 2 at 800x600 (DirectX 9.0). They both seemed pretty smooth to me, but when I turned on FRAPS, I was getting average frame rates as low as 21 frames per second!

Ever since I got my 7900GT, I can't go below, say 60 FPS for shooters. I can tell the difference between 60 and 45 and it's horrendous. 35-40 FPS in NFS:MW used to seem silky smooth to me...now I cringe when it goes under 60 FPS. Even games like STALKER and Oblivion are unenjoyable at 30 FPS, which is why I have them on my computer but won't play them until I get an upgrade (thanks, unnecessarily massive hard drives). One exception is Command and Conquer 3, which seems to be capped at 30 FPS but feels pretty smooth to me at that rate.

It's all a matter of perception. Once you go up, you won't be able to go back. Actually, part of me wishes that I hadn't gotten such a good graphics card so that I could appreciate a game's gameplay more as opposed to its graphics. On the other hand, games are a LOT easier at 60 FPS compared to 21 FPS.

 

[apoppin]

i *know* what is fluid

i watched the progression of my Video cards with the first scene in 3DMark05 ... choppy and stuttery with a 9800XT ... the x850xt made it barely tolerable ... bottoming in the 20s ... my x1950p also showed a big jump where the entire scene is totally *fluid* ... dropping to low 30s at 'points'

totally UNlike 3DMark06"s first scene which makes my x1950p look like my 9800xt did

with my P4 EE running STALKER outside, with many things going on and grass density "maxed" ... if i were moving very slowly, it was OK ... but if i spun around, everything went chug-chug ... so i lowered grass density to 10% ...

*now* that same scene with C2D can be 100% grass density with sun and grass shadows ... no 'spinning' gives any slowdowns

 

[CrystalBay]

The funny thing about STALKER and ATI cards is supposedly the lighting is partial software , TWIMTBP game.


Thats a rumor anyway...

 

[VERTIGGO]

Originally posted by: yacoub

Originally posted by: Nightmare225

Originally posted by: Kromis

Originally posted by: MadBoris
Yeah I heard in a dev interview that apparently Crysis will not be able to be fully maxed out in settings regardless of any current commercially available hardware. That is promising and kind of scarry all at once.
I only have original FEAR, not the expansion, may check it out.

I guess when those first cards came out I was thinking the new amount of RAM being 640MB was going to be a new standard baseline for large 2048 textures and shadow maps, only to realize they now have 256MB as the common baseline. Just makes it seem like the 768MB or 1GB RAM cards are way overkill with all the 256MB value cards still majority.

:shocked:H MY G:shocked...

Yup, I remember a quote in a magazine where they said they had a mode which would make Quad-core dual GTX systems work with FPS in the low teens...

It's funny how programming ineffeciencies are now bragging rights.

Absolutely not. If you remember their first title Far Cry had a configurator with which you could adjust the graphics to unrealistic levels (level of detail, view distance for sprites, max light sources, etc.) The sheer amount of features in Crysis are a testament to their hard work at efficiency (as long as it does work on our 2-3 year old systems), but they are giving users the ability to get more out of it as hardware improves.

 

[Ulfhednar]

Originally posted by: apoppin
FRAPS will slow it down ... guaranteed ... i *know* when something is "smooth" or not
--STALKER is smooth with everything MAXED ... including HQ AF in CCC [although i usually run with it much lower because i can't see much 'difference' with it on]

I wasn't asking for a Fraps video, I was asking for a Fraps benchmark.

The benchmark doesn't have any adverse effects on performance.

Originally posted by: apoppin
i *know* what i see and experience
:roll:

And I *know* that what's smooth to some is a slideshow to me, but I suppose you get used to it if you're stuck with the hardware you have and after a while you think it looks smooth.

 

[apoppin]

actually FRAPS does slow down the performance

if you are running at 16x10 and i am running at 14x9 our HW is pretty well matched for our respective resolutions
--C2D @ 2.81G / 2x1GB PC6400 / x1950p will not suffer whatsoever at 14x9

i'd say STALKER runs a bit smoother than the first scene in 3DMark05 where my Frame rate dips - once - to 29 .... everything else is mostly mid30s, 40s and 50s

and it's true there are some HW "elitists" that *need* FRAPS to make them feel better about what they experience
:roll:

i am just not one of them

 

[Acanthus]

Originally posted by: apoppin
actually FRAPS does slow down the performance

if you are running at 16x10 and i am running at 14x9 our HW is pretty well matched for our respective resolutions
--C2D @ 2.81G / 2x1GB PC6400 / x1950p will not suffer whatsoever at 14x9

i'd say STALKER runs a bit smoother than the first scene in 3DMark05 where my Frame rate dips - once - to 29 .... everything else is mostly mid30s, 40s and 50s

and it's true there are some HW "elitists" that *need* FRAPS to make them feel better about what they experience
:roll:

i am just not one of them

You know if you hadnt got a 850w PSU and went with a better mobo youd be sitting pretty with a much faster C2D right now

 

[apoppin]

yes .. and i would have also needed to spend at least $40 more for the MB AND buy a new PCIe video card for $350
--and get "not much more" for 14x9


and that OCZ PS was CHEAP ... well under $200 ... i got it for FUTURE sli or xfire and QC

how much *smoother* do i want STALKER to run ?


as SOON as i upgrade my video card - looks like a HD2900xt - now - i will get a *real* PCIe Gigabyte MB
--that comes when i *need* to upgrade

and i ain't *done* yet with my OC ... it *easily* does 312 FSB ... i have been 'inching it' up every time i reboot
:gift:

 

[Acanthus]

Originally posted by: apoppin
yes .. and i would have also needed to spend at least $40 more for it AND buy a new PCIe video card for $350
--and get "not much more" for 14x9


how much *smoother* do i want STALKER to run?


as SOON as i upgrade my video card - looks like a HD2900xt - now - i will get a *real* PCIe Gigabyte MB
--that comes when i *need* to upgrade

and i ain't *done* yet with my OC ... it *easily* does 312 FSB ... i have been inching it up every time i reboot

$40 more? My thermaltake 500w was $55 from newegg. The Gigabyte 965P-DS3 2.0 (the same one i selected) was only ~$115. You have a $200 PSU.

While the vid card change wouldve costed you a bit, PCI-E is pretty much an inevitability.

GIVE IN TO US!!!

Edit: since we both bought our a E4300s at the same time, id shoot straight for 3.1ghz, thats where i topped out. Being from the same batch yours is very likely to hit the same ceiling.

 

[apoppin]

well good luck with your TT for sli

OK ... make that $90 more for your motherboard than mine
:Q

and to get *better* than my x1950p, i'd need a GTS ... more $300




it's $180 PSU

and perfect for the 'future' ... it's what *allows* a superb OC

and WHEN i *do* get a new MB, it'll be like getting a brand new CPU - also

 

[ColdFusion718]

Originally posted by: apoppin

I like to crank things up and I do have a 24" monitor being shipped in today

--24" monitor?!?
:Q

forget 'cranking things up"

right *now* you NEED the GTX

:roll:

I have a 30" monitor and I can tell you that I can't play games anywhere near it's max resolution. I've been very much involved in the Media Center stuff for the past 2 years (nothing but headache).

I'm going to head back to PC gaming soon! What's a necessary set up to run games like HL2/CS:Source at 2560 x 1600?

 

[betasub]

Originally posted by: ColdFusion718
I'm going to head back to PC gaming soon! What's a necessary set up to run games like HL2/CS:Source at 2560 x 1600?

HL2/CS:Source doesn't tax the video system excessively, but for that res you'll need dual-link DVI output from a "last gen" high-end card (e.g. NVidia 790x/795x series or ATi 18xx/19xx series) or better (NVidia 88xx series), with minimum 512MB memory to handle the anti-aliasing

 

[betasub]

double post

 

[swtethan]

oc'ed my card runs source 1280x1024 @ max settings/HDR w/ 8xqAA 16xAF 250fps stress test

 

[Golgatha]

Originally posted by: Nightmare225

Originally posted by: Kromis

Originally posted by: MadBoris
Yeah I heard in a dev interview that apparently Crysis will not be able to be fully maxed out in settings regardless of any current commercially available hardware. That is promising and kind of scarry all at once.
I only have original FEAR, not the expansion, may check it out.

I guess when those first cards came out I was thinking the new amount of RAM being 640MB was going to be a new standard baseline for large 2048 textures and shadow maps, only to realize they now have 256MB as the common baseline. Just makes it seem like the 768MB or 1GB RAM cards are way overkill with all the 256MB value cards still majority.

:shocked:H MY G:shocked...

Yup, I remember a quote in a magazine where they said they had a mode which would make Quad-core dual GTX systems work with FPS in the low teens...

I betcha that's one beautiful slide show though.

 

[Acanthus]

Originally posted by: apoppin
well good luck with your TT for sli

OK ... make that $90 more for your motherboard than mine
:Q

and to get *better* than my x1950p, i'd need a GTS ... more $300




it's $180 PSU

and perfect for the 'future' ... it's what *allows* a superb OC

and WHEN i *do* get a new MB, it'll be like getting a brand new CPU - also

Actually even an Antec Truepower 420w (even using a 20-24pin converter) can power this system fine...

You severely overestimate how much power you need.

All im saying is if you sold off your old stuff, bought a resonable power supply, and bought better hardware that actually affects performance, youd be in a better place performance wise right now.

If you really are planning to go to 8800GTX SLI then more power to you, but as you said before, you dont even game at a high resolution.

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: Acanthus

Originally posted by: apoppin
well good luck with your TT for sli

OK ... make that $90 more for your motherboard than mine
:Q

and to get *better* than my x1950p, i'd need a GTS ... more $300




it's $180 PSU

and perfect for the 'future' ... it's what *allows* a superb OC

and WHEN i *do* get a new MB, it'll be like getting a brand new CPU - also

Actually even an Antec Truepower 420w (even using a 20-24pin converter) can power this system fine...

You severely overestimate how much power you need.

All im saying is if you sold off your old stuff, bought a resonable power supply, and bought better hardware that actually affects performance, youd be in a better place performance wise right now.

If you really are planning to go to 8800GTX SLI then more power to you, but as you said before, you dont even game at a high resolution.

let me start all over ... i appreciate your comments ... but they are a case of too little too late and 20/20 hindsight

first of all my rig was well over 3 years old ... when i upgraded to x1950p ... i needed a better PSU and went for an 'on sale' OCZ 850w because i am looking ahead to next big upgrade, next year.

along came a really good deal ... swap my P4 @ 3.31G for an "EE" for "$80 net" that does nearly 3.8Ghz and gets over 9300 in 3DMark05 ....

since my 7 year-old 19" CRT failed a few days later, it turned out to have been fortuitous

OK ... i was 100% satisfied with my rig for 19" WS gaming

UNTIL my MB's PCI slots failed ...

THEN, i went for a $25 MB that would allow me a fair OC now and keep my AGP x1950p that i am tickled pink [-er green] with.

and i got the e4300 which is a wonderful OCing CPU with the *only lack* being 2MB cache instead of 4. My P4EE pays for it.

Since DDR2 is so *dirt cheap* i got 2x1 GB of "overkill" Corsair XMS that will run much faster in a 'real' MB ... my 1.5GB PC 3500 pays for it.

So now i have a very decent gaming rig [again] ... maybe 20% more powerful than my P4 rig ... and paid for by my old parts.

AND - best of all - when a decent price-performing GPU comes along [and no, it won't be the Ultra] - hopefully "on sale" - i can immediately put it in my PCIe slot and sell my x1950p while AGP still has good value.

THEN i can upgrade to a nice xfire or sli MB .... and my CPU will go from 2.8 to over 3.0Ghz along with RAM that is now 'stuck' at PC5300 speeds to 'fly' at 6400 speeds ...
--it's like "unlocking a level" ... "free" extra performance in my existing HW

then i will get a 16x10 [at least] LCD and use *this one* as my 2nd display

after that it's QC and who-the-hell-knows ... i may be living on the street by then ... if my HW purchases get ahead of my income





it's ALL 'master-planned ... determined by fate ... a 'little' at a time ... bit by bit ... each piece bringing more and more performance to the entire rig ...
--incremental HW *budget* upgrades that ultimately lead to the same thing you will have
:laugh:

i have been doing it this way for many years

--there IS method in my madness