-
We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.
Does the GTX295 really get trounced by the HD4870X2...
Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
apoppin
Lifer
You are right .. x1950 was my last DX9c card
- so, only *seven* videocards on Vista ... i also forgot to add my 8800GTX 😛
i tend to forget ancient history and how long i have actually gamed on Vista 😱
-- the POINT is that Vista has provided superior visuals over XP
,,, for 2 years already !
:clock:
what is the *reason* .. again .. for sticking with XP - while upgrading everything else?
😕
Heh, I think once Vista 7 finally launches we'll see the full extent of the Mojave-effect in action. It really is amazing seeing all the long-time Vista-haters lauding Win7 when its virtually indistinguishable from Vista SP1 when it comes to gaming. Outside of some UI changes its functionally the same as well. The biggest change I noticed outside of the task bar is with IE8, which can be updated in Vista as well for the same functionality.
As for DX10, most titles do show visible improvements over DX9 path, however, the performance hit is typically signficant also and may or may not be worth it. Also, it sounds like DX10 will become increasingly important going forward as both IHVs have been tweaking their drivers to extract more performance from multi-threading. What's unclear is if these benefits extend to DX9 as well and rely on Vista/Win7's WDDM and video driver model or if they're strictly tied to DX10 path benefits.
AnandTech: Drilling Down: DX11 And The Multi-Threaded Game Engine
Again, the article is ambiguous as to whether its a WDDM DX10+ driver model limitation for DX10+ paths only, or whether or not the benefits extend to older DX paths. Its clear however that both NV and ATI have already made significant gains in this area with various acknowledgements the recent driver gains have come from better multi-threaded driver optimizations. I believe the ATI improvements have been limited to DX10, but I'm pretty sure the Nvidia improvements have been realized in DX9 titles too (particularly with Big Bang 2).
I have to disagree. I like being able to run all the games at full resolution and settings on XP, while everything tends to grind to a halt using Vista. If I had a better computer, I would probably run Vista, but I don't and this one has no problems running anything I throw at it in XP.
My roommate has DX10, and I see no noticable difference between the games he plays and mine. I think your DX10 looks much better than DX9C is more of a placebo caused by you spending so much time installing and testing in both. When things take a lot of time, effort, or money to do, you tend to force yourself to believe they are much better than what you had before.
Not sure what these statements are supposed to mean, a nice by-product of Vista being able to run both DX9 and DX10 paths is that there isn't any additional effort except for maybe clicking a different .exe or placing a command line extension like -DX9 or -DX10 in the target line.
Also I see there's still plenty of misinformation about XP running significantly faster than Vista/Win7, when that really hasn't been the case in some time. You can see here XP tends to fall behind with Win7 and Vista trading top spot. I believe that FS article also has mid-range hardware similar to your own for comparison:
FiringSquad Win 7 Beta vs. XP vs. Vista
PCGH Win7 Early Preview
Win 7 Beta Review
apoppin
Lifer
look .. i am NOT directing my posts to you or to people who do not upgrade their HW often
i am speaking directly to people running SLi or CrossFire in XP; techies who LOVE AA/AF and know every MICRO-detail of AA/AF and have made substantial investments into their PC's HW to getting it to look Perfect
THOSE people - the ones who have the HW and buy THOUSANDS of dollars of SW every year [including games]
- but defend XP gaming to the death
THOSE people .. i cannot understand why they do not migrate .. for $100 😛
ONCE you DO .. you will NEVER go back to XP
[except for office aps]
or someone who defends XP gaming needs to explain it to me .. i sure as HELL can tell the DIFFERENCE and i really LIKE DX10 over DX9 - *generally* in most new titles.
Now i am NOT the ONE missing out on ANYTHING by running DX10 gaming in Vista
- i have a CHOICE .. that is what my $100 bought me - two years ago .. i can STILL run the DX9 pathway in Vista if i like
- but you guys cannot run the DX10 pathway in XP 😛
eklock2000
Senior member
Apoppin...will you buy me a copy of Vista?:beer::thumbsup:🙂
I think I know the answer, but...In your opinion, would it be better for me to spend $100 on Vista, or $150 on another HD4870 for Xfire considering a balance between performance and eye candy?
Thanks,
EK2K
I think I know the answer, but...In your opinion, would it be better for me to spend $100 on Vista, or $150 on another HD4870 for Xfire considering a balance between performance and eye candy?
Thanks,
EK2K
evolucion8
Platinum Member
I was able to play Call of Juarez at 1024x768 (Old CRT) with 4x FSAA and everything on very high with my HD 3850 512MB AGP and the Pentium M @ 2.70GHz, of course it always ran between 29fps to 38fps and never went above loll. Call of Juarez really looked much better in DX10, Far Cry 2 is barely noticeable, Crysis the same, Lost Planet LOLL, the same with Devil May Laugh, I mean Cry, is a pity that there are almost no titles which improves the visuals and performance using the DX10 deathpath.
nitromullet
Diamond Member
http://www.techarp.com/showart....aspx?artno=609&pgno=1
That looks like it's for OEM purchases made between June 28, 2009 - January 31, 2010 (tentatively).
nitromullet
Diamond Member
This is a little different... Now, you're nickle and diming between $100 on Vista and $150 on a 4870. A few days ago you were buying not one, but TWO GTX 295's.
btw... did Fry's actually get them in stock?
eklock2000
Senior member
Did I ever say two 295's...? If I did, it was a mistake. My original intentions were to invest in the latest and greatest hardware in hopes of future proofing. The discussions in this thread have helped me to realize that the best thing for me is to save that money (and keep saving) for an investment in Win7, GT300, i7, etc. I still want an incremental upgrade to satisfy my "itch". So Vista or Xfire?
apoppin
Lifer
get both
i don't know why you are looking to me to "buy you something"; i have enough issues affording my own HW and SW; hell, i just upgraded to MS Office 2007 [after 10 years with '97]
😕
first of all, if you get the 2nd 4870 .. you will see everything exactly the same .. only faster
if you just get Vista, you will have superior visuals .. but now everything will be slower
if you have to pick ONE, get Vista
- you will find a way to upgrade your HW, very shortly, i am sure 😛
eklock2000
Senior member
Aww, you know I was jus' playin'. I figured since you have like 20 vidcards, you could sell a couple and help a brother out😉
Vista would be a no brainer if it wasn't such a PITA for the wife...:roll: Thanks for your suggestions!
EK2K
nitromullet
Diamond Member
You did imply it (at least that's how I read it).
Either way, glad we could help you with your upgrade and save you some cash in the process.
If you're unsure about Vista and you know for sure you'll get Win 7 when it goes RTM, then there's no point in getting Vista now. Just run Win 7 Beta and ride the updates through RC and RTM. MS has said there's not going to be any gaps in licensing, you'll just have to put up with typical Beta stuff like random driver/app incompatibility. For the most part most Vista apps/drivers work fine in Win7, but there are still enough exceptions to make it worth noting.
apoppin
Lifer
That is really a practical suggestion
buy a 2nd 4870 and get the Beta for win7
- least amount of money spent and you will get DX10
:thumbsup:
then if you really like the DX10 features but don't like the beta status of the OS, get an upgradable version of Vista; you will know by then which ones for sure are
- i just went with Vista64 .. because .. well, why not .. it is an 'upgrade' version and i might get lucky; in the meantime i will know about the current state of gaming in Vista32 vs Vista 64
🙂
buy a 2nd 4870 and get the Beta for win7
- least amount of money spent and you will get DX10
:thumbsup:
then if you really like the DX10 features but don't like the beta status of the OS, get an upgradable version of Vista; you will know by then which ones for sure are
- i just went with Vista64 .. because .. well, why not .. it is an 'upgrade' version and i might get lucky; in the meantime i will know about the current state of gaming in Vista32 vs Vista 64
🙂
eklock2000
Senior member
That's why I come here...excellent advice, pure genius. Thanks!
...day late and a dollar short though:frown:
http://technet.microsoft.com/e...alcenter/dd353205.aspx
"Sorry, Windows 7 Beta downloads are no longer available. However, you can still register for a product key or look up the key you?ve already gotten."
...day late and a dollar short though:frown:
http://technet.microsoft.com/e...alcenter/dd353205.aspx
"Sorry, Windows 7 Beta downloads are no longer available. However, you can still register for a product key or look up the key you?ve already gotten."
Hmmm looks like you'll have to find a download mirror. You can still get a key by using the links at the bottom (I just did), otherwise you can try this link with some public keys.
FS seems to show that the difference is pretty minimal between the games (except in Crysis, where XP is much faster than Vista) That is good to see. I was basing things on when I went to buy my GPU a year and a half ago when XP scores were much better than Vista scores for most games. (At least the way I remember. I was actually very suprised to see how much different the scores really were!)
As for saying that I don't see much improvement in DX10 over DX9C. I just don't. I have only seen Crysis, Crysis Warhead, and World at War on DX10, but none of them seemed any different than on my machine. I expected it to look much better, but I didn't notice any difference whatsoever.
Obviously everything that can be done on DX10 can be done on DX9C, as they have the same features, but DX10 should be more efficient which allows more things to be done. I just don't notice the differences when actually playing a game.
I still stand by the feeling that people who think that DX10 is MUCH better than DX9C are fooling themselves. It is most assuredly better, but to say it is night and day, and you are missing out on the great features of DX10 probably are forcing themselves to notice the minute differences. Again, I may very well be wrong, but that is my opinion on that matter.
Again, I dont' really care to try and convince people who have already demonstrated they're firmly entrenched Vista-haters, there's really no point in doing so. If you're truly interested there's plenty of good review sites that show the differences between DX10 and DX9 and the differences aren't insignificant, but the difference in performance can also be significant. PCGH and HardOCP both do excellent jobs of showing side-by-side comparison screenshots.
I don't understand why you would think of me as a "Vista-hater", but then I don't understand why someone would get passionate about a piece of software. I don't have Vista, nor do I plan on putting it on this machine. I do plan on putting it on my next machine, unless Windows 7 is out and proves to be reliable by that time.
I remember seeing comparisons of DX9 and DX10 in 2007 that showed no noticable difference, but that is probably far different now. Even so, I don't want to spend change my operating system just for DX10 when my current one seems to work alright, and I don't have a problem with the visuals from DX9C.
I was just arguing the counterpoint to Appopins "I'd like to let you know that most of us are laughing at you behind you back, btw, about your stubbornness to upgrade to Vista and DX10
--DX9 is inferior visually; there is ZERO advantage to running ancient XP for gaming .. unless you cannot upgrade your HW ".
Not "upgrading" has nothing to do with stubborness. It is a decision that Vista and DX10 don't provide me with anything that I feel is worth the hassle of switching OSes. I also don't feel like learning the nuances of the new OS. I did install it on my Roommates computer (Vista Home Premium 64) when I built it for him, and it seems to work fine for him. But I don't see any compelling reason to buy a copy for myself.
Oh right, I actually thought you had experience based on your "everything grinds to a halt in Vista" comment, along with some of the other comments you made that are common misconceptions perpetuated by Vista-haters. Makes more sense knowing you don't actually have Vista, you're basing your comments on your roommate's machine.
I wouldn't expect to see any difference in COD5 btw, being a DX9 title and all. 😉 Crysis does look good in either DX9 or 10 but there's still a decent different, particularly with shadows, water and particles. If that's all you're basing your comparison on, Crysis and a DX9 title its not surprising you don't think there's much difference, but there's many more DX10 games that do look much better than DX9. Again, just look at a list of DX10 games, then check out the side-by-side comparisons on HardOCP or PCGH, if you're truly interested.
I wouldn't expect to see any difference in COD5 btw, being a DX9 title and all. 😉 Crysis does look good in either DX9 or 10 but there's still a decent different, particularly with shadows, water and particles. If that's all you're basing your comparison on, Crysis and a DX9 title its not surprising you don't think there's much difference, but there's many more DX10 games that do look much better than DX9. Again, just look at a list of DX10 games, then check out the side-by-side comparisons on HardOCP or PCGH, if you're truly interested.
apoppin
Lifer
my ears were burning 😛
i stand by what i said .. and i did not single anyone out
it just makes little sense to me IF you upgrade your HW and buy lots of games - many many hundreds of dollars a years .. and don't upgrade the OS. Back in '07, Hellgate: London PROVED DX10 looked a HELL of a LOT better AND ran FASTER than on DX9c
- there is a REAL difference - unless you refuse to look .. and clearly you won't; you cling to your XP security blanket and show links from when Vista beats XP. The ONLY time XP was superior to vista was wheb the graphics drivers for Vista were f-dUp; 2 year ago! There is nothing i can say to you. DX9c is nice .. sure.
:roll:
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 24K
-
-
