Sorry your browser is not supported!

What gpu does tgc use for testing? Because my 8800gts barely runs dx10. Like,the lag is so unbearable its not even funny. Like,I get 30 fps on a simple instancing demo,so... is tgc using the gtx model?

that tech demo is very old, don't use that to cast your judgement on the final product, I'd say most of the development time has been centered around making the engine faster without downgrading too much effect.

8800 (any model) is exceptional and will run X10 very well.

ok. I assume you have an 8800 since you beta test(right?) fpsc x10. what 8800 model do you have?

But should we wait till this X10.1 thing is sorted before buying a new video card?

no not really i don't think anyone developer will really use 10.1

agreed

If you want decent performance on dx10 in general,wait until the geforce 9 cards. Those will blow away even the 8800 ultra,and will cost what the 8800gts did when it first came out. Then the geforce 10 cards,which...I don't even think is going to be called the geforce 10,will come out.

how much was an 8800 when it first came out and would the lowest 9 series beat the highest 8 series (if they made a statement / based on the fact that the lowest 8 is better than the highest 7??)

thanks :/

@Squelchy Tom - the 8800gts 320mb was about 500$ when it came out. Now,the 9800gtx is supposed to be double the power of an 8800 ultra,which is the highest 8 series. Now,judging by that,I'd say the 9600 or 9500 card will be about or a little more than an 8800. But I could be terribly wrong. NVidia only said the 9800gtx was 2x more capable(and uses less energy) than the 8800gts.

I am sure that when the 9 series comes out the 8 series will significantly be reduced in price but I thought that the 9 series will not be out for a while, like 9 months or more.

i thought november?

The likelihood at this point of the G92 actually being twice as powerful as the G80, is quite subjective. Given they made the same claim about the 8800GTX over the 7900GTX, which it turned out that the 7900 under DirectX9 actually out-performed the 8800. While yes the 8800 Ultra in extreme performance demanding situations is capable of double the framerate (don't confuse with double the power, especially when we're talking 15fps to 35fps).. so as I said the likelihood of the G92 being much more than a slightly quicker Dx10.1 compliant card are between slim and none.

I'd also like to point out that on the market the 6800 cards are still being sold at the £200+ mark. So if you think you'll get an nvidia card cheap simply because there is a slightly quicker model on the market, good luck.

As far as the low-end cards go, while the top-end steadily increase performance wise and now there is so much variation in the top-end cards that quite frankly it's getting stupid... the bottom-end really haven't changed performance wise since the 6200.
All that has happened if they've got new features for developers to play with; and honestly imo that's awesome!

Because of this, developing a game between Shader Models doesn't require lots of rethinking for the entire media for a game just to run on the bottom-end. So realistically right now all you're basically paying for is a card with new bells and whistles.

Something else to point out is, NVIDIA are NOT the only graphics card manufacturer. In-fact ATI Radeon HD-Series is not only quicker under DirectX10, but also has more stable Vista drivers and is much cheaper. Plus there isn't a huge confusing long line of cards.

NVIDIA 8-Series

8800 Ultra
8800 GTXXX
8800 GTX
8800 GTS
8800 GT
8800 GS
8600 GTX
8600 GT
8600 GS
8500 GT
8500 GS
8400 GT
8400 GS
8400 GT w/TurboCache
8400 GS w/TurboCache
8300 GS w/TurboCache
8200 GS w/TurboCache

ATI Radeon HD-Series

2900 XT
2900 PRO
2600 XT
2600 PRO
2400 XT
2400 PRO

Performance-wise where do they all stand?
Well neither the 8800 Ultra or HD 2900 XT are going to be beating their predecessors in DirectX9.0c any time soon.

If you have a 7900GTX or X1900XTX.. keep them and ignore the Dx10 generation. No point in spending more money on a card that will run your current games like crap and currently only enhances a few Dx9 games (at lower framerates)

As far as the cards themselves go, the NVIDIA line has a very bizare performance curve; in the fact it's more of a sheer cliff-face after the 8600 GT.. that nose dives missing out the mid-range almost entirely and jumping right to budget range.. at mid-range prices.

Something that has put me right off their cards in recent years is.. well frankly look at the list! Look at the Radeon one... now look back at the Geforce one. Notice the subtle difference in models? What's more is I know how much my money will get me.

£35-50.. - Low-End (Equal to 8500GS/GT)
£60-120. - Mid-Range (Equal to 8600GS/GTX)
£180-200 - Top-End (Equal to 8800GTS/Ultra)

Not only are the cards better priced, but they more sense performance wise. The Pro versions are cheaper than the XT versions, but provide a bit less performance.

Oh and keep in mind if you go by what benchmarking websites say.. remember they get cards free; and often are told to make a manufacturers card sound like it is the bomb diggidgy. Spring 2006, and Radeon were basically the business; NVIDIA finally get the drop on the market to reclaim themselves as "first to market" with a brand new product line that without equal cards from the competitor make it very difficult to judge instantly get "god like" status for it. Now they're the business.

Atleast according to review sites. From what I've seen myself, GeForce cards are still under-performaning compared to their Radeon counter-parts. In the past really stable drivers let me happily gloss over this fact, but now with GeForce driver stability on Vista being what Radeon driver stability on XP was... well sorry but GeForce really aren't helping to keep the market sane, or trying to improve.

To me they seem like they're just cashing in on the Dx10 wave rather than producing decent hardware to actually run the software it's suppose to at a decent speed!