Purchase predicament: DX10 vs. DX9

[ethugholla]

I've read almost every article and review, compared all the cards and everything and I'm still at a loss.

Here are my conclusions about the state of the Video Card world:

1. Current top-of-the-line cards cannot handle DX10.

2. DX10-intensive games will not be out for another year.

3. Mid-range cards DO NOT EXIST. Mid-range being the HD2600 and the 8600.

4. nVidia and ATi both have new line-ups (released within the next 6 months) that are up to 2x better than the top-of-the-line cards.

5. DX10 is hardly matured. Therefore, can we take these benchmarks for games that are DX10 seriously?

Are these conclusions valid, or are they mere assumptions with no foundation?


Now where am I supposed to stand? I'm building a computer that I'm hoping can withstand the next few generations of games. Based on the conclusions I've made, it seems that the mid-range cards can hardly perform, and are even out-performed by DX9 cards. That seems ridiculous to me. How good, exactly, are the top of the line cards?

It looks to me as if purchasing a high-end card at this point in time seems like a waste, as it doesn't feel like this batch of cards can sustain quality over time.

My plan as of right now is to get a DX9 card, such as a x1950 xt or a 7900GS, wait a year or two and then upgrade to a mid-range / top of the line card then. I know it's extremely hard to predict, but is my plan good? Will DX9 be able to run the games over the next year?

Pulling the trigger now doesn't seem right to me; unless there's a good deal lurking. With such a poor mid-range showing, it seems like a sharp divide between good performance (8800 Ultra) and mediocre DX9 performance (x1950).

Waiting seems hard to do, but if its the best option, I can wait, but not for long. Anyone have any feedback? Tear me to shreads if you have to, I need an answer.

 

[aka1nas]

Get an 8800 GTS. The 320MB version is fairly "cheap", handles Dx9 titles better than the 79xx and X1950 series, and will still probably provide a decent showing in Dx10 stuff.

 

[Polish3d]

If the expense is that important, I would do what you said and get an x1950xt card. They are actually quite fast, I just left an x1900xtx for my 8800 GTX. The XTX is fast and good, the GTX is monster-fast.


As a general point though, in 1.5 years, is the 250 you save now really going to "be around" to be put toward that super vid card? Most likely not, you'll spend it on something else.

However, around November, the next gen should be out, and getting a cheaper card in the meantime isn't a bad idea

 

[Keysplayr]

1. We don't know for sure yet.
2. We don't know that either.
3. They exist just fine. Viable solutions? Depends on what you do.
4. That's the rumour.
5. DX10 is mature. It's whether or not the devs can code it well.

The only thing you can do for the most longevity as of right now, is a 8800GTX whether it can handle DX10 or not. Nothing more powerful is available right now. Buy a card that you can live with for games you play, right now.

 

[RussianSensation]

Cards made today are meant for today's games, not tomorrow's games. But if you don't introduce new features like PS4.0 and DX10, there will never be DX10 games. Today is no different than 1 year ago or 5 years ago in that:

1) you buy the card you can afford;
2) focus on price/performance ratio (X1950XT for $150 after MIR and 8800GTS 320mb for $260 after MIR. Both are going to be fast enough for 1 year, with the latter holding out longer without AA at higher resolutions due to faster GPU), unless you have $ to buy top of the line every time;
3) there will ALWAYS be something faster every year;
4) there is really no such thing as futureproofing in graphics;
5) if you are going to buy top of the line card, you should buy it at the very beginning of its generation to get the most value out of it;
6) if you are concerned about PC gaming as being costly, buy a console because no one said PC gaming was cheap.

Let's not worry about DX10 vs. DX9 vs. the questions you posed. Let's focus on reality of releases for a second. We know cards get delayed. But let's say GF9 comes out November of 2007. People will say wait for R700 in 2 months it'll be faster. You wait 2 months and then R700 gets delayed...then what? You wait again? If you didn't wait for R700 and you bought GF9, you probably paid $400-500 for it. You'll never win. It's either compromise and get mid-range to mid-high end and upgrade more often, or get the fastest card and watch its value drop every 12 months like a rock.

 

[bryanW1995]

I had the same dilemma last month. I couldn't resist the lure of the 150AR x1950xt so I bought it. I figure that I'll still be able to get $100 + for it when I upgrade to the R700 or G92 or whatever cool new thing that nvidia/ati comes out with next, so I'll only be out $50. Even the 8800gts 320 will lose significantly more than $50 once the next gen comes out, so you need to decide if you can live for a while with the weaker performance of the x1950xt.

 

[n7]

Great recommendations here.

X1950XT is a very good card for cheap; far better than the "mid-range" garbage nV/AMD released this gen.
For a good step to high end w/o spending a ton, the 8800 GTS 320 MB is indeed a nice option.

 

[Sonikku]

Go with the X1950XT. I would not even consider paying more for a DX 10 card until the games I wanted were making good use of it with capable cards performing comfortably at reasonable prices. Don't buy for the future. Buy for today.

 

[Acanthus]

Originally posted by: n7
Great recommendations here.

X1950XT is a very good card for cheap; far better than the "mid-range" garbage nV/AMD released this gen.
For a good step to high end w/o spending a ton, the 8800 GTS 320 MB is indeed a nice option.

I agree with N7s reccomendation.

Dont buy anything for DX10 if you plan on upgrading the vid card next year.

 

[bigsnyder]

Got a used X1900XT 512MB right here on the forum. Very pleased. Should be enough until DX10 hardware matures more.
Surely $150 at that time will buy a nice upgrade.