I have a feeling about nVidia's 8800's

[ViperMichael]

are you all forgeting that Crysis was orginally a febuary release on EA posters in side a couple of games it sold, i have one. so that would have ment the G80 was only 4 months old. At the lauch of the G80 it played Crysis with a single card as the direct x 10 demo.

the devs have likely had the card long before the retail release.

this card cost 400 million dollars and 3 years to develop so it wasn't just a slight change, 6800 to 7800, this was a big change. At first glance i would say wait and see, but direct x 10 is more effiecent the direct x 9 and the hardware is any bit capable it should be fine. but this architechure has to last a while, direct x9 to direct x 10 is nothing about improving graphics it is about get information proccessed more efficently, either to make games run better or look better for the same resources don't forget that.

it is up to developers to decide how to spread the extra resoures, if graphics don't jump hugely then since it has been said the dx 10 is eight times (microsoft dx10 develpor said) more efficent the dx9 all games should run quicker in dx10 than dx9.

 

[gneGne]

So Crysis will be played in high rather than ultra high ... boo-hoo....... Seriously, who cares?

 

[aka1nas]

Originally posted by: Jeff7181
I've said this all along. People got all excited about the 8800 being a DX10 part when the only thing they should really be concerned with is their DX9 performance. I'm willing to bet the 8800 series won't have the balls to run real DX10 games. Just look at how the 9700 Pro performs in HL2... and imagine how it would perform in a game like F.E.A.R.

It's not rocket science... the 8800 will be "old technology" by the time you start seeing DX10 games.

The 9700 Pro was fine for the first wave or so of Dx9 games. It didn't really run out of steam until 2005 or so when later, Native DirectX 9 titles came out.

 

[Gstanfor]

Originally posted by: ShadowOfMyself

Originally posted by: Nightmare225

Originally posted by: Zstream
The dev's also stated the 2900XT runs better then the GTX so all it to be seen.

Again, I haven't seen any solid interview with them that stated this. Where's your proof? And I don't want a forum which says the devs said it.

And how come you don't have ATI viral forum marketers in your sig, I've run into quite a few of them over the years... :disgust:

Just to keep this from starting another flamewar, nearly everyone at B3D is trustworthy, you can bet on that

ROFLMAO! There is a few there I will listen to, if what they are saying lines up with what I hear elsewhere, otherwise they are as bad as most other forums (and considerably worse than some).

Whilever the likes of Digital Wanderer (banned almost everywhere - BUT B3D) and WaltC are allowed to post in B3D's forums you point is ridiculous.

 

[Jeff7181]

Originally posted by: SPARTAN VI

Originally posted by: Jeff7181
I've said this all along. People got all excited about the 8800 being a DX10 part when the only thing they should really be concerned with is their DX9 performance. I'm willing to bet the 8800 series won't have the balls to run real DX10 games. Just look at how the 9700 Pro performs in HL2... and imagine how it would perform in a game like F.E.A.R.

Hehe, run like crap.

But I don't understand why you chose HL2 and 9700Pro comparison? I'd compare a radeon 9x00 card and its performance in a DX8 game, and then its mundane performance in a DX9 game if I wanted to relate to how badly a g80 would do in DX10.

The 9700 Pro was the first "good" DX9 card. It was THE top of the line when DX9 was still in its infancy... and it still runs HL2 like crap.

The 9700 Pro was fine for the first wave or so of Dx9 games. It didn't really run out of steam until 2005 or so when later, Native DirectX 9 titles came out.

I can't disagree more. The 9700 Pro was never really "fine" for any DX9 game, IMHO. It ran HL2 like crap and it ran Far Cry like crap. It wasn't till the 6800 and x850's came around that you could actuallly play one of these games at resolutions 1280x1024 and above with anti-aliasing. Granted, this wasn't necessarily due to the hardware not being up to processing DX9 shaders, but it was an "old technology" card running a next generation application, and that's exactly what you're going to see with the 8800 and next generation games like Crysis.

This isn't to say anyone wasted their money on the 8800 series cards... they run current games very very well, but expecting them to run tomorrow's games equally as well is ignorant and ridiculous. I'm sure someone's going to tell me I don't KNOW and I'm just guessing. Sure... but it's an educated guess based on the history of the industry. When there's a change in technology, the first generation of hardware to support that new technology doesn't perform well and does even worse as software developers begin to exploit the techcnology to its fullest.

 

[swtethan]

my 5600U ran HL2 fine

 

[Jeff7181]

Originally posted by: swtethan
my 5600U ran HL2 fine

:laugh:

 

[aka1nas]

Originally posted by: Jeff7181

Originally posted by: SPARTAN VI

Originally posted by: Jeff7181

The 9700 Pro was fine for the first wave or so of Dx9 games. It didn't really run out of steam until 2005 or so when later, Native DirectX 9 titles came out.

I can't disagree more. The 9700 Pro was never really "fine" for any DX9 game, IMHO. It ran HL2 like crap and it ran Far Cry like crap. It wasn't till the 6800 and x850's came around that you could actuallly play one of these games at resolutions 1280x1024 and above with anti-aliasing. Granted, this wasn't necessarily due to the hardware not being up to processing DX9 shaders, but it was an "old technology" card running a next generation application, and that's exactly what you're going to see with the 8800 and next generation games like Crysis.

I think we are saying the same thing. Half Life 2 wasn't the first DirectX 9 game. It also wasn't released until the very end of 2004, over 2 years after the Radeon 9700 came out. There were titles with Dx9 functionality out before 2004, and the 9700 was capable of running them.

Likewise, Crysis is essentially a Dx9 game that includes a Dx10 renderer with a few extra effects. It's a Dx9 title with Dx10 functionality, not a game built from the ground up to exploit Dx10. While current Dx10 cards will probably not be able to max out all the details, the devs seem pretty confident that the current high end can at least run the game at decent detail.

 

[Hauk]

I don't feel cheated at all! I've gotten some serious use out of my GTX. It's nothing short of amazing to run any current game at max settings and still have overhead.

When beefy DX10 games make their appearance, I'll either SLI with another GTX ($300 range by then?), or will sell my current GTX and buy new.

$600 bucks well spent...

 

[Jeff7181]

Originally posted by: SteelSix
I don't feel cheated at all! I've gotten some serious use out of my GTX. It's nothing short of amazing to run any current game at max settings and still have overhead.

When beefy DX10 games make their appearance, I'll either SLI with another GTX ($300 range by then?), or will sell my current GTX and buy new.

$600 bucks well spent...

See... that's realistic. Someone who bought an 8800GTX on release day planning to play next generation DX10 games on it is not.

 

[destrekor]

all of y'all need to remember that basically everyone in the business is claiming native DX10 games perform better than DX9 games, even when they have more stressing visuals. The DX10 APIs are supposed to be amazing and do everything DX9 did with a lot more ease, as well as additional benefits without much loss of performance. So, essentially, if HL2 were coded natively for DX10, the same system configuration too.. the game would play with better performance on the DX10 version version the DX9 version.

everything rendered thus far for UE3 and CryEngine 2.0 are supposedly using 8800's, but not sure if they are in SLI or not. But the game is being built with the current gen in mind.. but mind you, like FarCry, it may not perform at its best until new cards come out. But expect High IQ settings, maybe not Ultra High. However, I will be running on 1280x1024 (might drop to 1280x800.. I like widescreen view, blackbars don't bother me when I sit this close to my monitor), so I imagine I may be able to squeeze quite a bit out of my 8800.

 

[Acanthus]

Originally posted by: PingSpike

Originally posted by: PC Surgeon
But wouldn't you guys that bought an 8800 feel cheated? Assuming that it has poor DirectX 10 performance, being touted as a DirectX 10 card and yet you can't play Crysis?

Why is the task of rending DX10 assumed to be so much different and more complicated then DX9? Of the few DX10 screenshots I've seen (at least the few that obviously weren't a photoshop job) I haven't seen anything that looks different then the best stuff rendered in DX9.

I see posts about DX10 all the time like its some sort of magic technology thats going to drastically change everything overnight...which to me doesn't line up with past versions and the fact that graphics advances will always continue to offer diminished returns of visual quality.

With 768MB and 1GB graphics cards, you are approaching "photorealistic" textures.

Geometry counts still have a long way to go too.

Graphics has plenty of room to grow in complexity and visual quality, on top of that theres the whole physics game.

 

[thatolchestnut]

Physics will start to evolve seperately from GPU's. The more realistic one wants physics to be in a game, the more intensive and taxing it will be on a system. As far as increases in GPU power, i think one will discuss it more in terms of efficiency than raw power.

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: PingSpike

Originally posted by: PC Surgeon
But wouldn't you guys that bought an 8800 feel cheated? Assuming that it has poor DirectX 10 performance, being touted as a DirectX 10 card and yet you can't play Crysis?

Why is the task of rending DX10 assumed to be so much different and more complicated then DX9? Of the few DX10 screenshots I've seen (at least the few that obviously weren't a photoshop job) I haven't seen anything that looks different then the best stuff rendered in DX9.

I see posts about DX10 all the time like its some sort of magic technology thats going to drastically change everything overnight...which to me doesn't line up with past versions and the fact that graphics advances will always continue to offer diminished returns of visual quality.

http://www.pcpro.co.uk/custompc/features/100495/the-directx-factor/page8.html#

here's a nice little screen shot comparison between DX9c and DX10

and what DX10 really *does*

 

[Keysplayr]

I bought an 8800GTS to play games NOW. It is nice to know that games like Crysis are being developed using G80, at least this way I know I'll have half a chance to play it at reasonable settings. I don't think there is anyone out there who shelled out cash for a G80 for the sole reason of playing DX10 games. Sure, it was on my mind, and glad it has DX10 compliance, but I really bought it to play games I currently have at 1680x1050 with all candy settings absolutely floored. As of now, this includes CoD2, PREY and now STALKER. I couldn't be happier (with a GTX, I bet I could be) and in no way shape or form do I expect a 1st run, 1 year old (by the time Crysis hits) technology to play something like Crysis at full tilt.

But then again, that's why I bought an SLI mobo. In case the cost of adding a second GTS outweighs price performance of say an 8900GTX. Just in case. I have the option.

PC Surgeon, did you actually buy an 8800 with the intent of not playing any existing games? Only DX10? I'm not flaming you here, just really asking. Besides, what else can you buy right now that plays DX9 so well?

I'm still marvelling at this cards power.

 

[apoppin]

i dont' think crysis is gonna really *push* the GTX like "real" DX10 next gen games

Alan Wake *requires* Dual Core ... and Vista as a minimum

by then you guys will probably think of upgrading again

i am just totally happy with the x1950p at my relatively mainstream resolution ... 14x9 ... it is totally *sufficient* for any current game

i dunno if i am gonna get bit by the upgrade bug or not ... i finally have an easy upgrade path with PCIe ... it is gonna depend on how these semi-next gen game will play ... probably by lat this year i will have a cheap option for the GTS or HD-2900xts ... or the newer cards ...

until then i am more than 100% satisfied with my current rig [actually i was 100% satisfied with my P4EE] ... so make it "125% satisfaction"
... should last at least into Q3 ... then it'll depend on the games and the then current price/perf of the GPUs ... at least my CPU/RAM won't be any issue

 

[Jeff7181]

Wonder how long it'll be before the 16x PCI Express bus is saturated by video cards and they switch to something new.

 

[Keysplayr]

Originally posted by: Jeff7181
Wonder how long it'll be before the 16x PCI Express bus is saturated by video cards and they switch to something new.

AGP has lasted since original MMX pentium/K6 platforms. And they are still making AGP cards. So, I would take a guess. A Looooooong time. That is of course, unless GPU's become integrated with CPU's as many have heard/read about. If that takes over, PCI-e may disappear altogether. But still, thats many years down the road.

 

[NoStateofMind]

Originally posted by: keysplayr2003
PC Surgeon, did you actually buy an 8800 with the intent of not playing any existing games? Only DX10? I'm not flaming you here, just really asking. Besides, what else can you buy right now that plays DX9 so well?

I'm still marvelling at this cards power.

Nope, not an owner of an 8800. I just wanted to know what people thought is all.

As for differences in DX9 and DX10, after seeing Crysis demos and such, there are no current games that compare to it graphically nor in physics.

 

[Keysplayr]

Originally posted by: PC Surgeon

Originally posted by: keysplayr2003
PC Surgeon, did you actually buy an 8800 with the intent of not playing any existing games? Only DX10? I'm not flaming you here, just really asking. Besides, what else can you buy right now that plays DX9 so well?

I'm still marvelling at this cards power.

Nope, not an owner of an 8800. I just wanted to know what people thought is all.

As for differences in DX9 and DX10, after seeing Crysis demos and such, there are no current games that compare to it graphically nor in physics.

And, there are no current games that are rendered in DX10 either. So we really don't know how it will be on the hardware. As others have stated, DX10, among other things, may be designed from a most efficient standpoint. Crysis, if dev'd under DX9 standards could quite possibly run slower than if done in DX10 for what it is.

I'd say, your feeling does not go without merit, but how many times in the past have people pondered this very type of question when considering a substantial purchase for their computers? True enthusiasts upgrade with almost every new refresh anyway (about every 6 to 8 months). By the time Crysis comes out, you know there will be new hardware, but at the same time, those who purchased G80's have had, and will continue to have a blast with this very nicely done hardware.

I know I will. Worth every penny, DX10 or not.

 

[lopri]

Same here. Got an 8800 GTX last year for $525 AR and played all games I wanted to play (especially Oblivion and Company of Hero - I still remember the God awful performance of G7x class cards' performance with those games). Sold it for $470 after 5 months because I don't have time to play games these days and there aren't many enticing titles as well. $10 per month for enjoying the top performance/great visuals isn't too bad, IMO.

 

[PingSpike]

Originally posted by: Acanthus

Originally posted by: PingSpike

Originally posted by: PC Surgeon
But wouldn't you guys that bought an 8800 feel cheated? Assuming that it has poor DirectX 10 performance, being touted as a DirectX 10 card and yet you can't play Crysis?

Why is the task of rending DX10 assumed to be so much different and more complicated then DX9? Of the few DX10 screenshots I've seen (at least the few that obviously weren't a photoshop job) I haven't seen anything that looks different then the best stuff rendered in DX9.

I see posts about DX10 all the time like its some sort of magic technology thats going to drastically change everything overnight...which to me doesn't line up with past versions and the fact that graphics advances will always continue to offer diminished returns of visual quality.

With 768MB and 1GB graphics cards, you are approaching "photorealistic" textures.

Geometry counts still have a long way to go too.

Graphics has plenty of room to grow in complexity and visual quality, on top of that theres the whole physics game.

Yes, there's plenty of distance to go...but each generation is doomed to have a more disappointing change then the last. What was more impressive? DX7 to DX8? Or DX8 to DX9? You double the polygons on an ultra low poly model, it looks a ton better. You double it again, it looks a little better. But it still requires twice the horsepower for less gain.

I just don't think a game is going to come out with DX10 on it and be much better looking then the current best DX9 games. Are these games better looking because of DX10 features...or because cards are faster and they can cram more polygons in the models while making more liberal use of visual effects? Its a combination of the two, but I think most people give the new API a lot more credit then it deserves.

 

[TanisHalfElven]

Originally posted by: gneGne
So Crysis will be played in high rather than ultra high ... boo-hoo....... Seriously, who cares?

i agree. if it look anywhere near as damned good as oblivion with mods (and plays above 30 fps constant) i'll be happy.

 

[TanisHalfElven]

Originally posted by: Jeff7181

Originally posted by: SPARTAN VI

Originally posted by: Jeff7181
I've said this all along. People got all excited about the 8800 being a DX10 part when the only thing they should really be concerned with is their DX9 performance. I'm willing to bet the 8800 series won't have the balls to run real DX10 games. Just look at how the 9700 Pro performs in HL2... and imagine how it would perform in a game like F.E.A.R.

Hehe, run like crap.

But I don't understand why you chose HL2 and 9700Pro comparison? I'd compare a radeon 9x00 card and its performance in a DX8 game, and then its mundane performance in a DX9 game if I wanted to relate to how badly a g80 would do in DX10.

The 9700 Pro was the first "good" DX9 card. It was THE top of the line when DX9 was still in its infancy... and it still runs HL2 like crap.

The 9700 Pro was fine for the first wave or so of Dx9 games. It didn't really run out of steam until 2005 or so when later, Native DirectX 9 titles came out.

I can't disagree more. The 9700 Pro was never really "fine" for any DX9 game, IMHO. It ran HL2 like crap and it ran Far Cry like crap. It wasn't till the 6800 and x850's came around that you could actuallly play one of these games at resolutions 1280x1024 and above with anti-aliasing. Granted, this wasn't necessarily due to the hardware not being up to processing DX9 shaders, but it was an "old technology" card running a next generation application, and that's exactly what you're going to see with the 8800 and next generation games like Crysis.

This isn't to say anyone wasted their money on the 8800 series cards... they run current games very very well, but expecting them to run tomorrow's games equally as well is ignorant and ridiculous. I'm sure someone's going to tell me I don't KNOW and I'm just guessing. Sure... but it's an educated guess based on the history of the industry. When there's a change in technology, the first generation of hardware to support that new technology doesn't perform well and does even worse as software developers begin to exploit the techcnology to its fullest.

i think your wrong here. my x800gt (barely faster than a 9800pro) blew away lost coast and HL2 with everything at high. i don't see how 9700pro could have sucked completly.

 

[Brunnis]

Cevat Yerli of Crytek said this about Crysis DX10 performance when interviewed by PC Gamer magazine:

"The DirectX 9 version will look good, I promise you that, but DirectX 10 will of course look better. We have volumetric lighting and shadows and the HDR lighting is much more detailed, to name a few things. Then there's also a few optimizations that make the game run better in Direct X 10. We'll do a lot with Direct X 9, but Direct X 10 is the "real" Crysis.

Translated from the original Swedish article.

When it comes to DX10 performance on the 8800 series, I personally don't think we'll see any sort of resemblance with the GeForce FX and DX9 fiasco.

EDIT: To clarify: While the 8800 series may be too weak to run games at max settings when DX10 becomes mainstream, it seems as if the move from DX9 to DX10 might actually provide a slight performance increase. So, there's probably little reason to believe that the DX10 part of the cards is borked.