locotyyeah me too

my 4850 is getting old

i hope the price lower than 4850 at launch

40nm technology should be more affordable. I hope. :toast:

I'm greatly enjoying 2 X fired HD4770s right now. When July comes I'll be very tempted to snag some of the newer 40nm flavors but will probably wait till I get 64 bit W7.

I'm totally looking forward to these. :rockout:

Well, guess that 4890 isnt happening then

youll probably go with the RV870

I think ATI is gonna get a big can o woop ass from Nvidia in the next matchup now that Nvidia has moved to MIMD, unless ATI did also, Nvidia's cards are gonna absolutely destroy them in folding.

sounds like you dont like what you have.

who need dx11 card?

all dx11 games will be compatible even with dx9 and 10 i'm sure

yup and the market wont go anywhere just like it is now with DX10, DX10 seems to be dead

and why to wait and buy a dx11 card when the dx11 games will appear after 1-2 years and that card will be already "old" and again the need for upgrade...

hardware is ahead of software always;all this is the war between manufacturer who want to show their superiority and people jump in buy but can they use it?

They need something to get the devs to bother writing code for DX11 to get it to take off.

32ROPs?
I don't buy it.
Games are becoming more and more shading and texturing reliant and impact of pixel fillrate and the rest of ROPs area of work is diminishing. Compare G200 to RV770, eg. RV770 has much more shading power but "only" 16RBEs with a fraction of z compare capabilities vs. G200's 32ROPs and huge z-rate. Yet, gaming performance... ;) And RV770's RBEs are already much beefier than those in RV670 for what comes to z-rate.

Then again, AMD's RBEs are tiny compared to G200's and doubling them might be possible as crazy high speed GDDR5 (ie. 7Gbps) might allow an efficient use of them...

newtekie1I hope for the same thing, but I know it won't be true. At the very least I would like to see games built on DX11 first, and then adapted to DX10/9, instead of the way it is done now with games built on DX9 with DX10 features added in as an afterthought.

It would however be harder for the game devs that way. They've to make everything base on DX11 in terms of graphics and physics. And adapting it to DX10/9 would mean everything single one has to be adapted unlike current games. However, i also agree with you as that would be a TRUE DX11 game rather then games like STALKER Clear sky with DX10 as extra lightings (Not fully maximised).

erockerNo point, I just don't get the hype with new DX hardware. Remember DX 10? Remember people rushing out to buy DX 10 hardware when it took a long time to actually come out with a DX10 game? I just hope DX 11 fares better than 10 did is all.

Show me a game on the market that was developed for DX10. I have yet to see one on the shelves. Everything out now is DX9 with a DX10 hook.

TheMailMan78Show me a game on the market that was developed for DX10. I have yet to see one on the shelves. Everything out now is DX9 with a DX10 hook.

Stormrise.

ValdezStormrise.

vgaspeed.hu/temp/stormrise_0xAA.PNG

vgaspeed.hu/temp/stormrise_8xAA.PNG

Stormrise isn't 100% DX10. Its multi-platform. I know what your saying but its not technically DX10 as a PC gamer would expect. It can't be. The 360 and PS3 are not capable of running DX10. Plus it was released 3 days ago damn you! :laugh:

Cn't wait for benches to arrive:D

TheMailMan78Stormrise isn't 100% DX10. Its multi-platform. I know what your saying but its not technically DX10 as a PC gamer would expect. It can't be. The 360 and PS3 are not capable of running DX10. Plus it was released 3 days ago damn you! :laugh:

Just because a game has DX9 rendering paths, that doesn't mean it isn't a true DX10 game. People don't say Half Life 2 isn't a true DX9 game because it has DX8 and DX7 rendering paths...

newtekie1Just because a game has DX9 rendering paths, that doesn't mean it isn't a true DX10 game. People don't say Half Life 2 isn't a true DX9 game because it has DX8 and DX7 rendering paths...

Well its not and I'm "people".

IINexusIIim hoping i can play crysis smoothly on enthusiast with a 5870

Doh? I can play in DX10 on enthusiast with my GTX 260 216. Awesome card. :rockout:. But you have a 3850 so thats not gonna cut it for enthusiast.
But back to the topic. New cards from ATI, these should be interesting. Like always, we are all waiting to see what NVidia brings to the table. Hopefully both companies release cards that are right on par with each other so no price inflation happens. Made me laugh when the G200 series cards came out, then the RV770 based cards came out from ATI and NVidia dropped the prices on the G200's like it was diseased, lol.
Thanks ATI, thats how my GTX 260 became affordable!

newtekie1Just because a game has DX9 rendering paths, that doesn't mean it isn't a true DX10 game. People don't say Half Life 2 isn't a true DX9 game because it has DX8 and DX7 rendering paths...

Actually, that's exactly what it means. A true DX10 game would require DX10 to run. All we've had so far are DX9-based engine games with some DX10 optional features hacked in, because the install base for Windows XP is too massive for a developer to make a game Vista/7 only.

I read an interesting article with Carmack awhile back where he stated from a business standpoint, it only became economically feasible to drop all support for Windows 98 in 2006, but that didn't limit them in gaming engines because Win98 could use DirectX 9. Even if the same model holds exact (could be better, or it could be worse because WinXP had five years to proliferate the market vs three years for Win98), then game developers will need to continue to support Windows XP through 2012, meaning that every game that comes out will need to be written for DirectX 9 with optional DX10/11 effects hacked into the engine.

Microsoft fucked up hard when they decided to not release DX10 on XP, thinking that would surely drive a massive upgrade to Vista.

TheMailMan78Stormrise isn't 100% DX10. Its multi-platform. I know what your saying but its not technically DX10 as a PC gamer would expect. It can't be. The 360 and PS3 are not capable of running DX10. Plus it was released 3 days ago damn you! :laugh:

Stormrise PC is a full dx10 game, it has no dx9 renderpath and requires vista (sp1) to run.

For consoles they made a dx9 renderpath, but on PC it is the first dx10.x only development.


Anyway it is a crappy game :D

Shadinmeaning that every game that comes out will need to be written for DirectX 9 with optional DX10/11 effects hacked into the engine.

Or, first they make the dx10/11 code, after that, they make the dx9 code (if i'm correct, stormrise was written this way).

ValdezOr, first they make the dx10/11 code, after that, they make the dx9 code (if i'm correct, stormrise was written this way).

I was under the impression that Stormrise was a console game primarily that they ported to PC using only the DX10 API (aka, lazy and financially suicidal in the current market). Of course then they gave interviews and hyped it all up.

eidairaman1sounds like you dont like what you have.

Largon is right, games have taken a turn and are favoring advanced shading techniques and using physics more and more instead of increasing the numbers of pixels on screen, and the reason is that developers know their is a limit to how many rops a card can have because the more rops you have the more memory peices you need on the board with current architectures.

the best example of this is cryostasis, its a very good looking game that is a bitch to run because it uses many shading techniques ontop of physics.

ShadinActually, that's exactly what it means. A true DX10 game would require DX10 to run. All we've had so far are DX9-based engine games with some DX10 optional features hacked in, because the install base for Windows XP is too massive for a developer to make a game Vista/7 only.

I read an interesting article with Carmack awhile back where he stated from a business standpoint, it only became economically feasible to drop all support for Windows 98 in 2006, but that didn't limit them in gaming engines because Win98 could use DirectX 9. Even if the same model holds exact (could be better, or it could be worse because WinXP had five years to proliferate the market vs three years for Win98), then game developers will need to continue to support Windows XP through 2012, meaning that every game that comes out will need to be written for DirectX 9 with optional DX10/11 effects hacked into the engine.

Microsoft fucked up hard when they decided to not release DX10 on XP, thinking that would surely drive a massive upgrade to Vista.

That is not what it means, it is entirely possible to write a game engine for DX10 or DX9 or whatever, then put in rendering paths for lower DX versions. Just because a game has a lower DX version compatibility, that doesn't mean it wasn't written for the higher DX versions first.

It is all a matter of how the game developer writes the game, they can write it for DX10 then take features out to make it work with DX9, or they can write it for DX9 and add in features for DX10.

In the case of Half Life 2(or the source engine) it is a true DX9 engine, written for DX9 with features disabled in the DX8/7 rendering paths.

So I say again, just because a game has rendering paths for lower DX versions, that doesn't mean it isn't a true DX10/11 game.

ShadinI was under the impression that Stormrise was a console game primarily that they ported to PC using only the DX10 API (aka, lazy and financially suicidal in the current market). Of course then they gave interviews and hyped it all up.

Your impression would be correct.