Since I'm not hugely impressed by the jump from the 8series to the GTX line, I was curious when the next true evolution is coming? Similar to the 7 to 8 series jump. That was some performance gains there! Think we will have to wait until the recession is over to see it?
![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
Any rumors on the next Gen Cards?
- Thread starter Sunin
- Start date
cannondale06
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Nov 27, 2007
- Messages
- 16,180
well the DX11 cards certainly wont be a refresh.
Hard and Confused
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Sep 13, 2008
- Messages
- 1,944
An instruction set away from DX11 = possibility for a refresh. You don't have to change the physical architecture to get new DX capabilities.
MurderCityDevil
Gawd
- Joined
- Dec 6, 2007
- Messages
- 724
excellent...this means since dx11 games won't be really available (i don't think), we will get huge gains in current dx9 and 10 gains. I still am waiting for a single card that can max crysis on a measly 22inch monitor.
cannondale06
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Nov 27, 2007
- Messages
- 16,180
you can already do that easily with a custom config. I can run it on a setting that looks better than DX10 all Very High and runs better too. thats at 1920x1080 with a 192sp gtx260. at 1680x1050 a gtx285 could do it plus 4x AA while getting an even better framerate. just to be clear the config I am running is DX10 and 64bit and visually exceeds the standard Very High DX 10 settings.
stonewalker
Gawd
- Joined
- May 26, 2007
- Messages
- 765
I think he means in maxing it out is that there are no dips below 60fps at his resolution@very high settings. That's what I feel is maxing crysis out, well for me it's 1080p@very high settings.
cannondale06
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Nov 27, 2007
- Messages
- 16,180
no dips below 60fps? good luck getting any remotely modern game to do that.
bigdogchris
Fully [H]
- Joined
- Feb 19, 2008
- Messages
- 18,707
What I read about the new DX11 is that when you design a game for DX11, its really the same as DX10 with extra features. They said you'll be able to run a DX11 game on DX10 hardware and it will simply turn the bonus effects off (the ones that extend 10 to 11). It will basically remove the need to design a game for both, like Crysis/Far Cry 2.
cannondale06
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Nov 27, 2007
- Messages
- 16,180
Crysis didnt really do anything with DX10. why do you think that you can enable very high settings(enthusiast) in Warhead DX9? its because 99% of the stuff they did in DX10 could be done in DX9 too. Far Cry 2 is the only game that actually took advantage of DX10 and ran faster too just like we were told DX10 would do in the beginning.
28 noobs later
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- Mar 19, 2009
- Messages
- 130
I agree. Far Cry 2 was a HORRIBLE, BORING game, but I think it looked really good and it ran great. With everything maxed (1080p) I was getting almost 75 FPS with my OC'ed 260gtx set up. According to the benchmark tool anyway.
God that game could have been great.
Agreed, suffers from the same curse as another prolific Ubisoft title, Assassin's Creed: mindless repetition.
Both games really have the exact same faults, an overworld that while beautiful, becomes very boring because there's virtually no variety, some really poor AI, and some of the most repetitive gameplay ever.
I quit Far Cry 2 when I did the third weapons mission and realized there was never going to be a different mission, I was going to do the same thing over and over again to unlock weapons.
Sure, attacking a "weapons convoy" is cool the first time you do it. Even the second time. Then when I went to unlock the third set of guns and the guy said "you're going to attack a rival dealers' weapons convoy" I groaned. I drove up, saw the exact same vehicle formation that were going to fall to the exact same tactics as before and said "Fuck this shit" and uninstalled the game.
IMO it's more accurate to describe CryEngione2 as the peak of DX9 engines. DX10 effects optional extras. Also proves why it's better to do those things native on DX10 on their next try.
The GTX 2xx series provided a 2x jump in performance over the 8 and 9 series, which was the same jump from the 7 to 8 series (minus the filtering improvements). So I don't see how one was more impressive over the other, in terms of performance.
As for the new cards. there are rumors of a new high end chip GT212 (not new architecture), with 384 Stream Processors, due out somewhere near the end of Q2 2009, but other rumors say that this chip won't see the light of day and NVIDIA will go directly to GT300 (which should use a new architecture), which we basically know nothing about.
I don't see how you say it is a 2x jump in performance. Benchmarks, folding, etc all disprove this.
Every game, bench, app I've used points to about a 25-30% increase. Not 2x. I'm not going from 30fps to 60fps. I'm going 30 to 40.
I do hope they jump to GT300 as it seems it will be time to upgrade 88 series by then.
Every game, bench, app I've used points to about a 25-30% increase. Not 2x. I'm not going from 30fps to 60fps. I'm going 30 to 40.
I do hope they jump to GT300 as it seems it will be time to upgrade 88 series by then.
Not all of them. It depends on the game and benchmark conditions. As you go up in resolution, you'll see the 2x (or nearly 2x) performance jump, from a 8800 GTX / 9800 GTX to a GTX 280.
This is a review at the time of release:
http://techreport.com/articles.x/14934/10
Obviously things have improved in terms of drivers, etc, so these numbers are outdated, but the point is at the time of release, the advantage at higher resolutions is 2x or nearly 2x the performance of a G80, G92 based card. This doesn't happen in all instances, because not all games utilize the shader power that new cards provide. There's no black and white performance increase (i.e. always 2x or 3x times the performance of a previous generation), but the GTX 2xx series surely provided that in most cases. Same thing happened with the 7 to 8 series. A 8800 GTX wasn't always 2x faster than a 7900 GTX, but it was nearly that in most cases. The only difference I see in regards to the GeForce 7 series to GeForce 8 series, was the filtering (IQ) improvements, which the GTX 2xx series didn't really improve.
Mr. Bluntman
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Jun 25, 2007
- Messages
- 7,088
Do you need your vision checked or have you been spending too long playing consoles? While I won't argue that both engines are also capable of great graphics, Crysis is easily by far the best looking game (still) out there for the PC, but only if you have the hardware to run it.
cannondale06
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Nov 27, 2007
- Messages
- 16,180
there are parts that dont look very good for such a demanding game. the Crysis games can certainly be modded to look quite stunning though. I am running Warhead on a better than enthusiast DX 10 setting at 1920x1080. it looks better and is more playable since my gtx260 certainly could not handle the stock DX10 enthusiast settings at 1920x1080.
I think i would have to agree that there are some parts of the game where it is just not that good looking. Case in point is that level in Warhead towards the end when you are at that airport and you just got out of the flight control tower to stop the 'artifact' from being transported. The level just does not look good at all but it could be more art design than anything.
That said I do think AC looks awesome at 2560 x 1600 everything maxed out including 4xAA. It surely does not have all that foliage and stuff to render but nonetheless AC does look really good for what it IS rendering.