WindowsVista+directX10 leaving ur comp in the dust (1 Viewer)

[Enoch]

ive just heard about directx10 and how great it is...

but ive also heard that "vista and directx10 arent designed with current graphics harware in mind" and according to MS, well need next-gen cards

how gay is that?...im just thinking about buying a new comp..now i either have to wait for "next-gen cards" or buy one now and lag behind every1 else wen post-r520 come out

 

[MedNez]

I don't know if Microsoft would realistically design Vista for only a new breed of cards, they'd lose millions of possible consumers who don't want to upgrade. It's more likely it'll run on current systems, but newer cards may have an advantage with graphics options.

 

[Collin]

Link? 10char

 

[Templar]

Vista would be able to run on integrated systems but with less fancy appearance. It should run perfectly well on a low end graphics card and there is no reason why it will even require a R520 or even the previous generation when even current games don't need it to play smoothly (provided AA etc are not cranked up to the max).

 

[Enoch]

^ templar im not sure why ud need such a GPU requirement to run an OS..but yeah indeed u need it to run the directx10 and vista...not sure but perhaps something to do with the "windows vista dislay driver model"

Link? 10char

um i subscribe to Atimc mag. i just got it today..and theres an article on directx10..

 

[Collin]

You don't NEED a DX10 video card to run Vista, the principle is just that it's DX10 ready. As a user you just need a DX9 video card. Even something like an old Radeon 9600PRO would do. Using a DX9 card will work fine with Vista, you just simply won't reap the rewards of whatever DX10 will bring and on the desktop level supposedly Vista doesn't use any DX10 features. DX10 cards are NOT a prerequisite for running the OS.

You can also look at it from another point of view: If it was a prerequisite, that means every machine out there which will integrate Vista will need a shiny new $800 video card, of course (by the time Vista comes out, only the newest video cards should support DX10).. now you don't even need 1/10th of a brain to figure out that that business concept is the most absurd ever.

Here's Microsoft's page for some other graphics based info on Vista.

 

[Templar]

Considering it's only an OS, there is no reason why a video card with software support for DX10 only and not hardware will not run it to its full potential.

Hardware DX10 support is nice, but it's not like there's going to be squillions of Windows logos flying around the sun in full SM3 glory and 4xAA that needs to be displayed.

I'm willing to believe that even a GeForce4 Ti will run it well enough with no difference.

 

[Collin]

They cannot do that!

Well they are buddy, so what are you gonna do about it? Buahahaha.

 

[insert-username]

You can deactivate Aero "Glass" and stick to the plain basic Aero. Besides, calm down. DirectX10 and Vista are both in early betas and won't be out for another year. In one year's time, I'm pretty sure integrated graphics will have improved to the point where they will be able to run Vista comfortably, and discreet graphics chips to the level where they can take Glass easily. When XP came out, everyone thought its requirements were steep. Now, any new computer can take it. There's no reason to have hissy fits over it now.


I_F

 

[Templar]

It's not like Aero Glass is going to be more taxing than Doom 3 with 4x AA, so I'm sure my current computer is up to the task.

 

[Collin]

Doom 3 doesn't scare me anymore.. F.E.A.R makes my computer beg for retirement loolol.

For the sake of seeing if my video card would cry, I cranked it up to 16*12, 4xTSAA/16xAF, all candy goodness on. Man, wasn't F.E.A.R Slideshow Edition fun.

 

[Enoch]

hey jkdragon wot u running?

 

[Collin]

You mean my PC specs?

 

[Enoch]

yeah ....

 

[Collin]

Main components: Athlon64 3200+ @ 2.31GHz (very tame OC, I know), 1GB Corsair TwinX DDR400 OCed, Radeon X800XT-PE @ 570MHzcore/610MHzmem OCed. Running that on a Asus K8V mobo. At the moment I'm running two HDs, one Seagate 40GB PATA for hosting the OS (been on that for 3 years, what a great hard disk.. ), Western Digital 250GB SATA.. been on that for 1 year.. I use that for all data storage (minus program installing except for Games), old 5.1 Sound Blaster Live! card, 480W Thermaltake PSU all inside a nice Tsunami case (rock on Templar).

 

[equiski]

Pentium 4, LGA 775 overclocked from 3gHz to 3.9gHz.
1024gb DDR2 Low-Latency ram.
MSI Mobo
1x 40gb HDD
1x 160gb HDD
1x Gigabyte x300 128mb Video Card
Ultra-cool/Expensive/Heavy PC-61 Lian Li Case.

Im thinking of buying new ram/water cooling...

Why not use the money to buy a better graphics card?

 

[Collin]

Why not use the money to buy a better graphics card?

Precisely. Unless he doesn't play games and just wants to watercool his CPU for the sake of seeing how much higher he can squeeze his P4.. although I don't see point of that.

 

[Collin]

Why not get a 512MB GTX? Clocked at 550/1800 and cheaper too.

 

[insert-username]

Why not get a 512MB GTX? Clocked at 550/1800 and cheaper too.

Cheaper than the 256MB GTX? Reports indicate the 512MB model will be even more expensive than the x1800 XT, at $US649-799 RRP or so. At $US799, it's better value to get two 256MB GTX and run SLI. But leaked tests show that if you have to have the best, the 512 GTX kicks everyone's ass three ways backwards.


I_F

 

[Collin]

Why not get a 512MB GTX? Clocked at 550/1800 and cheaper too.

Cheaper than the 256MB GTX? Reports indicate the 512MB model will be even more expensive than the x1800 XT, at $US649-799 RRP or so. At $US799, it's better value to get two 256MB GTX and run SLI. But leaked tests show that if you have to have the best, the 512 GTX kicks everyone's ass three ways backwards.


I_F

Upto US$800? Wow, I think the people who are the happiest right now about those figures are the ATi execs. Not sure about currency right now, but US$800 = ~AU$1,100? Considering the 256MB retails at around AU$700 at the cheapest, the 512MB's double memory and 30% OC deems the $1,100 price tag to be roughly in proportion (assuming it does actually offer a 30%+ performance increase.. but I haven't actually looked at any benchmarks yet).