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

[Templar]

It will hit 9800+ in 3DMark05, and at 600/1800 it will break the 10000 barrier.

http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=27624

Imagine it with an overclocked FX57.

 

[Collin]

Wow, I want one. Although I'm gonna wait for the R580, which apparently is scheduled for release Q1 06'.

 

[insert-username]

nVidia is going by the logic that it's not too expensive if people will buy it. And people will buy it - it's a monster of a card, even at $US649. Tech geeks and overclockers are absolutely drolling right now. As for the next generation, it's looking like Q2 next year:

nVidia G80 GPU is expected to be released in Q2 2006. G80 is the first nVidia GPU to feature Shader Model 4 support. It is expected to interface to GDDR4 memory at a clock speed of around 1.6Ghz or more.

ATI R580 GPU is expected to be released in Q2 2006 on a 90nm process. The R580 is expected to be a refresh version of R520 with an increased number of pixel and vertex shaders (currently considered to be 24 pixel pipelines and possibly 8 or 10 vertex shaders). - from MikesHardware's excellent roadmap

If that roadmap is correct, ATi could have more problems. They're not expected to release a card capable of challenging the GTX until Q2 next year. That's three to four more months that nVidia gets to dominate the high and mid range of the market. Plus, nVidia will have their next-gen core ready at about the same time (I assume it'll be on a 90nm process). For the moment, ATi's got it's work cut out for it. The R580 has to be competitive, or it may have to sit on the sidelines for another 6 months. We'll just have to see how things turn out...


I_F

 

[Stan..]

You probably haven't heard of Linux, eh?

EDIT:
Why are you selling Vista to kick ass. It will be another can of worms just like XP.

 

[Collin]

Im not a full-on gamer, so I dont need the best. An entry level card is suffice for my graphic design.

256MB 7800GTX = entry-level?

 

[Stan..]

Obviously a penguin fanboy.

Not really, but I am just tired of these kinds of threads where someone gets the gusto to say something outlandish without practical evidence of what he is claiming. They said the same about XP, and we all know what the public opinion of that was.

 

[Stan..]

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).

The man has taste.

 

[Dumsum]

I'm running Vista now (beta tester) using integrated Intel graphics on my laptop... 16MB shared memory. And it runs fine. So there's really nothing to worry about, especially since the code will be more optimised in final releases to cater for these situations.

 

[insert-username]

Hey lets insult someone for using a superior platform and trying to tell others about it. Hey that's logical.

Superior in some ways, inferior in others.


I_F

 

[insert-username]

Superior:

- Far more secure (though I wager that if as many hackers targeted Linux as they did Windows, it would have just as many holes)
- There's about a thousand different distributions, so it's relatively easy to get one to suit your exact needs
- Cheaper than Windows if you buy/download it, though Windows is cheaper to get with a prebuilt PC (since it's already on it)
- It's most likely faster since Windows is 90% bloatware


Inferior:

- Horrendous driver support, though this is slowly improving
- Horrendous program compatibility - though more programmers are writing for Linux, there are generally superior platforms available on Windows
- Very bad for gamers, since the great percentage of games are built for Windows. Games which do support Linux are often not optimised for the platform either.
- No one standard - platforms mix and match different functionalities and features
- Windows is bloatware, but it has pretty much everything the everyday user needs and is also fairly user friendly. Linux in general is far harder to master for everyday Joe.

That's all I can think of for now. Both platforms have their advantages and disadvantages. Saying that one is unilaterally better than the other, Windows or Linux, is a lie, full stop.


I_F