Bit-tech tests Bioshock

[Silus]

Sillus bashes ATI every chance he gets. Is there a motive? I wonder? I never said anything about Sillus personally just my opinion from what I see from him day to day. I let that other guy know that there are people who work for Nvidia in these type of forums and shouldn't get too involved. It doesn't mean Sillus works for Nvidia.

You come here and say things like need carpool counseling LOL... I think you need come carpool with us. LOL

LOL. Are you for real ? Or your last comment was really sarcastic ?
You say you mixed me up with someone else, which nick starts with an S and now I'm bashing ATI whenever I can again ?
So what gives ? And btw, it's Silus. Just one "l".

 

[Silus]

I'm playing Bioshock in DX9 last night, let it tell you that "it looks good enough alrdy" and you can't use AA in dx10 anyways, also DX9 have more realistic shadows judging from those firingsquib shots

Once again, I was NOT disputing these benchmarks. As I mentioned before, these numbers are an indicative, but still real world gameplay is what settles the score and [H] has not given us their numbers yet. I was just pointing out the amazing display of fanboyism from Eastcoast, comparing his remarks from the past and present.

As to image quality, DX10 brings lots of improvements to the table in that regard. If we haven't seen much, in the games that already support DX10, it's only a problem of that game's specific DX10 implementation, as was already discussed.

 

[Silus]

Everyone knows 8800 series are more balanced for current games and have better image quality. I'm not doubting that. But as soon as an cheaper ATI card beats their card in a game they get angry.

No one gets angry with that and again, we had already seen that happens, even during R600's launch. Without AA, the HD 2900 XT usually takes the lead, even when compared with an Ultra.
If anything, one gets angry with these displays of loyalty to a company i.e. when the HD 2900 XT is faster in ONE game, we get a thread with "OMG HD 2900 XT crushes 8800 GTX/Ultra" or the thread I mentioned, from Eastcoast, with the Falcon Northwest Crossfire benchmarks, where we saw the "OMG HD 2900 XT Crossfire crushes SLI setup", which was soon after, proven false.

So you see, it's not the numbers that appear in these benchmarks, but rather some interpretations of them, which are only based on ONE game and still we get those OMG remarks. It gets tiresome and doesn't help anyone that comes here, to seek advice on which card to buy.

 

[Silus]

Again I apologize Sillus...

Apology accepted

 

[Frosteh]

What would that understanding be based on? I'm not certain about the 8800 but it seems quite likely that the 2900XT will, at least on the AA aspects of 10.1.

Like other revisions of DirectX this one has specific requirements on the hardware which need to be made before the card can run games designed under DX10.1. If the card can't run DX10.1 to start with there's no need to worry about MSAA performance or not since it's not forced in any other level of DX

Well it is VERY typical for Bioshock. Since you have try hack at it just to get it to run in AA, and the results suck hard. I'm not super certain here but this seems to intercept where the 2900XT was going and is built for. With DX10 you'll see more custom AA filtering by games as opposed to just the "filter it all" approach we've seen in the past.

There's no "hacks" involved, to get the current implimentation working requires forms of what you'd call "hacking" because the AA support isn't native in the drivers, which it SHOULD be, MSAA is standard to the DirectX API, it's totaly irrelevant if the game engine doesn't support it you can always enforce it through the drivers (the exception being games using deferred rendering which it appears Bioshock does not due to people getting AA to work)

Either way Bioshock and 1-2 other games are only a minority and AA is very much a large part of performance graphics cards, in my opinion unless ATI can start providing AA we know is possible in games then faster hardware or not, I'll be going Nvidia.

 

[Marvelous]

LOL. Are you for real ? Or your last comment was really sarcastic ?
You say you mixed me up with someone else, which nick starts with an S and now I'm bashing ATI whenever I can again ?
So what gives ? And btw, it's Silus. Just one "l".

Yes I was being sarcastic.

See what I mean... I can't even spell nor can I remember who is who.

 

[Marvelous]

No one gets angry with that and again, we had already seen that happens, even during R600's launch. Without AA, the HD 2900 XT usually takes the lead, even when compared with an Ultra.
If anything, one gets angry with these displays of loyalty to a company i.e. when the HD 2900 XT is faster in ONE game, we get a thread with "OMG HD 2900 XT crushes 8800 GTX/Ultra" or the thread I mentioned, from Eastcoast, with the Falcon Northwest Crossfire benchmarks, where we saw the "OMG HD 2900 XT Crossfire crushes SLI setup", which was soon after, proven false.

So you see, it's not the numbers that appear in these benchmarks, but rather some interpretations of them, which are only based on ONE game and still we get those OMG remarks. It gets tiresome and doesn't help anyone that comes here, to seek advice on which card to buy.

Maybe not you personally but others do...

I wasn't even any of those people... I think I was one of the ones who was bashing 2900xt for its performance if I remember. But it was still too early to make any assumptions how these cards will do in the future.

 

[KENNYB]

Do I need to mention the ultra? Maybe its just you make assumptions.. You see the benchmark for yourself and what do you see in windows xp? 2900xt beating out GTX and neck and neck with the ultra.

I feel like I'm talking to a 10-year-old. When did i dispute the validity of the benchmarks? I didn't.

I know in Vista frame rates drop because drivers aren't optimized but there's room for BIG improvement. Up until the hot patch this game wasn't even playable with an ATI card.

Pure spin. Maybe ATI should have delayed the 2900xt even more. It sure can't get any worse.

I can't help it you get angry whenever ATI wins a benchmark against your $600 retail price behemoth. You have a big problem with that.

There you again, making stories up

 

[Marvelous]

I feel like I'm talking to a 10-year-old. When did i dispute the validity of the benchmarks? I didn't.

Why did you reply if you agree? Let me guess? Your 8800gtx is getting beat by a $400 ati card in winxp.

Pure spin. Maybe ATI should have delayed the 2900xt even more. It sure can't get any worse.

fanboyism in its finest.

There you again, making stories up

I don't need to make up stories. When you are living proof.

 

[Caffeinated]

It goes both ways. No one is perfect and I never implied that I was. The intent of my posts is to defend my position. Regardless of your "take" on it. Others have made grammar and word usage errors throughout this thread (in which I made one example in a previous post).

"Others" in the thread didn't criticize someone else's grammar (incorrectly, I might add - the use of agenda in that context is grammatically correct). The last quote in my post contained your criticism so that you might see the irony. Apparently it escaped you.

 

[phide]

The only reason 8800s have better scores on older games is that they got the headstart to tweak the games.

That's simply incorrect. G80 is a more generalized architecture, not relying upon extensive compilation optimization to get performance. On the other hand, R600 demands extensive compiler optimization.

On newer games, even the game made for nvdia

What, pray tell, is a "game made for nvidia"?

Better cards in your wet dream only.

Wet dream/reality.

straw that broke the camels back.

That doesn't make any sense. Why refuse to buy a superior product, in most aspects, because consumers label it a superior product?

 

[Dwight]

No one could've said that, because even at R600 launch, we've seen quite a few benchmarks, where the HD 2900 XT, already won, even the Ultra.

LOL. Well I do know for a fact that more than one person was claiming it. Sure it was stupid to say it. Exactly my point in fact. Even with a moderate amount of AA on it was sizing up nicely. But the people saying it were in total denial of the fact that the 2900XT was already showing it was a Diamond in the rough (pun intentional), they just kept parioting the same brain-dead tripe out of the HOCP review. And you were there posting when it was being said. Do I need to go back and check to see if you were one of them? Because that post of yours I quoted sure as hell has the same ring to it.

 

[Dwight]

Like other revisions of DirectX this one has specific requirements on the hardware which need to be made before the card can run games designed under DX10.1. If the card can't run DX10.1 to start with there's no need to worry about MSAA performance or not since it's not forced in any other level of DX

Yeah, pretty much what I thought. You don't have a f*ckin' clue.

There's no "hacks" involved, to get the current implimentation working requires forms of what you'd call "hacking" because the AA support isn't native in the drivers, which it SHOULD be, MSAA is standard to the DirectX API, it's totaly irrelevant if the game engine doesn't support it you can always enforce it through the drivers (the exception being games using deferred rendering which it appears Bioshock does not due to people getting AA to work)

WTF man. You have to turn the game halfway back DX9 to get it to do AA in "DX10". Which means no, Bioshock doesn't actually do AA in DX10 at the moment. And the hack, or whatever you want to call it requiring commandline switches and crap, looks like ass (water ripples for one) when you do it because it's not running entirely in DX10 anymore.

Either way Bioshock and 1-2 other games are only a minority and AA is very much a large part of performance graphics cards, in my opinion unless ATI can start providing AA we know is possible in games then faster hardware or not, I'll be going Nvidia.

*shrug* The Nvidia cards are OK too. But it sure as hell isn't some sort of "safe" bet in comparision to going ATI.

 

[Silus]

LOL. Well I do know for a fact that more than one person was claiming it. Sure it was stupid to say it. Exactly my point in fact. Even with a moderate amount of AA on it was sizing up nicely. But the people saying it were in total denial of the fact that the 2900XT was already showing it was a Diamond in the rough (pun intentional), they just kept parioting the same brain-dead tripe out of the HOCP review. And you were there posting when it was being said. Do I need to go back and check to see if you were one of them? Because that post of yours I quoted sure as hell has the same ring to it.

You quoted me, but not what I said entirely. You missed an important part, which is expected actually (if you know what I mean). Here's what I said once more:

No one could've said that, because even at R600 launch, we've seen quite a few benchmarks, where the HD 2900 XT, already won, even the Ultra. The catch was, it didn't have AA

"It didn't have AA", being the important bit. And I hope you're not saying HD 2900 XT performs very well with AA on, otherwise you're showing that you really don't know what you're talking about and I suggest you read the countless reviews that show otherwise. The only benchmarks where the XT looks good, are exactly the ones where AA is not present or simply not available to be used, with ATI hardware. Bioshock is one example of that.

About my posts, regarding R600 launch in [H]'s evaluation. I maintain everything I said back then and these reviews change nothing. Too late in the game, with lackbuster performance and too many drawbacks to be considered a must buy. Apart from all that, it still fails to deliver good performance, when AA is on, which is one of the reasons why people buy a $400 card in the first place. If you can put all of this behind you, I can only recommend it if it's found cheaper than a GTS 640.

And these are NOT magic drivers working. This is the same behaviour we've seen before, as I've said 3 times now, in this same thread. The HD 2900 XT wins in some benchmarks, when AA is off. That simple. If you still believe in magic drivers that will boost the XTs performance beyond GTX levels, you need to re-evaluate your perception of hardware and driver related issues. Also if you think winning benchmarks without AA and losing with AA, is a good thing for a $400 card, then I really don't know what more can I say...

 

[KENNYB]

Why did you reply if you agree? Let me guess? Your 8800gtx is getting beat by a $400 ati card in winxp.
fanboyism in its finest.

I rest my case.

I don't need to make up stories. When you are living proof.

Don't need to make up stories? How about I cut and paste your asinine remarks/replies from other threads? You're the king at saying one thing and meaning something else.

 

[Marvelous]

I rest my case.

You should rest alright. LOL Get over it dud. Your card got beat by a POS ATI card that cost 50% less.

Don't need to make up stories? How about I cut and paste your asinine remarks/replies from other threads? You're the king at saying one thing and meaning something else.

When truth is revealed change the subject or turn it on them.. Oldest trick in the book. Let me know when you want to reveal facts....

Like this one....

"My gtx is getting beat by a cheap radeon" Oh no! LOL

Let me guess you are one of those peeps who stalk people right? I've had too many stalkers in my life... Actually it's the story of my life. I don't need another one.,

 

[Eastcoasthandle]

If anything, one gets angry with these displays of loyalty to a company i.e. when the HD 2900 XT is faster in ONE game, we get a thread with "OMG HD 2900 XT crushes 8800 GTX/Ultra" or the thread I mentioned, from Eastcoast, with the Falcon Northwest Crossfire benchmarks, where we saw the "OMG HD 2900 XT Crossfire crushes SLI setup", which was soon after, proven false.

This is one example of a inaccurate assumption. What I discussed with you is my defense of what I said regarding the R600 in Bioshock using Bit-tech and Gamespot. Your reason for arguing with me is nothing more then emotional knee-jerk response of my opinion. Which has nothing to do with what I said about the review nor my opinion on the video card.

"Others" in the thread didn't criticize someone else's grammar (incorrectly, I might add - the use of agenda in that context is grammatically correct). The last quote in my post contained your criticism so that you might see the irony. Apparently it escaped you.

You are grasping straws here and posting off topic. Your response is vague and you only regurgitate what you said in your previous post (which I already gave your response, no need to repeat it again). However, if you have an opinion on the Bioshock review itself please feel free to respond. LOL

 

[ManicOne]

The only thing I have to add to this is:

Lack of driver optimisations are not a valid argument for inferior performance (on AMD's part) in DX10. Why?

*There is no proof nor logic to this POV. If we used this argument all the time then we could claim that a 9800Pro could be as fast as an 8800 in DX9, with the right optimisations. We just haven't seen them yet.....

*Performance in today's games are measured today. If and when performance improves across driver revisions, then scores can be updated to reflect this. I have never experienced a gpu review that has forgiven performance in an application based on unfounded rumours of driver enhancements. You don't buy a 2900 today in order to game in 6 month's time, especially on an assumption that things will improve.


I for one hope AMD strikes back well, if only to bring competition back to the field. This argument is worthless however, only highlighting what blind faith does to intelligence - "Forget logic, I have [insert video card brand here]!!!!!"

 

[KENNYB]

When truth is revealed change the subject or turn it on them.. Oldest trick in the book. Let me know when you want to reveal facts.... (

Facts? As in you saying one thing but meaning something else?
From ST6's thread, discussing the effects of CPU cache size on total system performance:
http://hardforum.com/showthread.php?t=1217443&page=2

That equates to roughly 20-25% speed difference at same clock speed.

Corrected by SEALTeamSix:

This means there will be a 20-25% performance increase across all applications.

But you didn't really mean that did you?

No it doesn't mean it's going to run 25% across all applications.

That line of reasoning would do a congressman proud here in the states. It's okay kid, i deal with ESL students everyday

 

[KENNYB]

32? LOL...
Actually, I'm about to hit 32 myself. I've already graduated from college though, but don't feel bad, you'll make it eventually.

And resulting to calling a person gay. Sounds like you have issues kid, serious homophobic issues.

 

[Marvelous]

32? LOL...
Actually, I'm about to hit 32 myself. I've already graduated from college though, but don't feel bad, you'll make it eventually.

And resulting to calling a person gay. Sounds like you have issues kid, serious homophobic issues.

I asked if you were gay not call you gay because you have nothing better to do than follow a guy in a forum to spread stupid lies.

And yet you still jerk the stick~ Wow you finally about to graduate. Took you good 15 years. LOL

FYI I didn't type that... But you already knew that. No wonder I want to leave your shitty country.

This means there will be a 20-25% performance increase across all applications.

 

[KENNYB]

For me personally, these latest bench marks don't mean much. When I first started playing Bioshock, I was playing at 1920X1200 and even at that resolution the jaggies still bothered me. So, I downloaded the 163.44 beta drivers, got AA working correctly, and now I'm happy as a clam. So, any benchmarks that test without AA is worthless to me. Come on, I spent over $600 for my GPU to not use AA? Don't think so.

I thought I'd finish the game before making a final judgment on the need for AA. Despite being pretty awesome without AA, I did see the need for it sometimes. Yeah, if i didn't see the need for AA i would have opted for a mid-range card.

 

[ManicOne]

Marvelous right now you are just making an ass of youself. You have ignored my posts completely, have resorted to name calling, labelled others fan.boys, and called a guy gay because he has taken issue with your line of reasoning (or, more correctly, lack of reasoning).

Why the mods haven't come through with a bigger whack-stick is beyond me. You've had your "gay" post removed but in the very next post tried to justify it. Your posts right now are truly stupefying.


edit: And I just saw your last reason for editing. WTF is wrong with you man?

Reason: I was jerking my stick for Kenny

 

[KENNYB]

I asked if you were gay not call you gay because you have nothing better to do than follow a guy in a forum to spread stupid lies.

And yet you still jerk the stick~ Wow you finally about to graduate. Took you good 15 years. LOL

FYI I didn't type that... But you already knew that. No wonder I want to leave your shitty country.

Actually, i bounced around for a few years before going back to college. In between i spent 6 years in the Navy stationed at SEALTeam3, of all places. When you look back at your pathetic life, what have you done?

And yes, you called me "gay" followed by a raunchy PM. I'll post that also if you don't mind.

 

[Marvelous]

Marvelous right now you are just making an ass of youself. You have ignored my posts completely, have resorted to name calling, labelled others fan.boys, and called a guy gay because he has taken issue with your line of reasoning (or, more correctly, lack of reasoning).

Why the mods haven't come through with a bigger whack-stick is beyond me. You've had your "gay" post removed but in the very next post tried to justify it. Your posts right now are truly stupefying.

I can care less ManicOne and you are not a mod and I got a warning from Dr. Evil. I don't read your posts because I don't have any interest in you nor do I follow people around in forums quoting someone else's post and tell me I wrote it. Mentally sane people don't do this. Only stalkers and crazy people do.

 

[ManicOne]

I can care less ManicOne and you are not a mod and I got a warning from Dr. Evil. I don't read your posts because I don't have any interest in you nor do I follow people around in forums quoting someone else's post and tell me I wrote it. Mentally sane people don't do this. Only stalkers and crazy people do.

Pot, kettle, you know where I'm going with this dont you?

 

[Marvelous]

Actually, i bounced around for a few years before going back to college. In between i spent 6 years in the Navy stationed at SEALTeam3, of all places. When you look back at your pathetic life, what have you done?

And yes, you called me "gay" followed by a raunchy PM. I'll post that also if you don't mind.

Who cares if you bounced back from killing innocent people. I wouldn't join the your navy if you told me I can be president of the United States. What have I done? You should really be asking what have you done to me.

I asked you a question. If you look at PM it has a question mark. With more questions.

 

[Marvelous]

Pot, kettle, you know where I'm going with this dont you?

I get it but I don't care about life. I already gave that up long time ago.

 

[KENNYB]

Who cares if you bounced back from killing innocent people. I wouldn't join the your navy if you told me I can be president of the United States. What have I done? You should really be asking what have you done to me.

I asked you a question. If you look at PM it has a question mark. With more questions.

Getting into political discussion with you would be pointless. If our lives were reversed, you would have lived my life exactly as i did. Don't delude yourself into thinking that you would have been the one that would have changed the evil empire from within.

Furthermore, if you feel so slighted that I've harmed you or your people you can always leave the US, renounce your citizenship, and burn your passport.

P.S. Since his whole I'm 32 and in college post was deleted I have to quote him from memory (and everyone knows how faulty that is). He implied that he was living in the US, in college, but wants to leave.

 

[tickle_me_emo]

Just read all 10 pages and

yeah, i can't add anything constructive

 

[SEALTeamSix]

Just read all 10 pages and

yeah, i can't add anything constructive

Agreed - Let's get back to talking about Bioshock and graphics cards...

 

[Brackle]

wow 10 full pages of arguing about 1 benchmark....LOL

Guys both are good cards, both play bioshock well in DX9

So can we agree to disagree? omg its a fucking benchmark LOL

Anyway good to see the 2900XT showing some strength. But again its 1 benchmark...LOL

 

[Red Falcon]

I asked if you were gay not call you gay because you have nothing better to do than follow a guy in a forum to spread stupid lies.

And yet you still jerk the stick~ Wow you finally about to graduate. Took you good 15 years. LOL

FYI I didn't type that... But you already knew that. No wonder I want to leave your shitty country.

LOL! Still at it!

My friend is getting a demo of Bioshock soon. Once he gets it, I will post what kind of performance (or lag) our machines can get with it. I'll install it on the machine in my sig (but with an 8500GT 512MB), he will be using these specs:

3700+ (939)
6800GT AGP 256MB
1.5GB RAM

It will probably run like @$$ on both of our machines unless we turn settings down, but it will be good to know what it will be capable on with machines like ours.

Good luck to everyone!

Marvelous: I wish I had your video card right now.

EDIT: Wow, I didn't know you got banned. Guess you went too far with the spamming.

EVERYONE: Marvelous just did this to make everyone angry. Just don't take anything he says (or said) personally.

Too bad, he actually had some good info for a few people. See you around Marvelous.

 

[Dwight]

You quoted me, but not what I said entirely. You missed an important part, which is expected actually (if you know what I mean). Here's what I said once more:

Funny, I didn't include it but I addressed it. However you missed it. Even with a reasonable amount of AA on the 2900XT was doing well in many instances. Of course when someone used x24 AA or something similarly innane where action mattered it bogged. Or in cases of specific bugs that existed in those drivers.

About my posts, regarding R600 launch in [H]'s evaluation. I maintain everything I said back then and these reviews change nothing.

So I guess if I do go back I'll see you spouting drivel? Yeah, thought so. Of course you still maintain it. You have'n gotten any smarter.

 

[Frosteh]

Yeah, pretty much what I thought. You don't have a f*ckin' clue.

Care to enlighten me, don't beat around the bush, If I'm wrong about something then just let me know, I'd prefer to be corrected and know the truth than wrong and blind to it.

WTF man. You have to turn the game halfway back DX9 to get it to do AA in "DX10". Which means no, Bioshock doesn't actually do AA in DX10 at the moment. And the hack, or whatever you want to call it requiring commandline switches and crap, looks like ass (water ripples for one) when you do it because it's not running entirely in DX10 anymore.

What I'm trying to say is that AA is part of the API already and that as long as Bioshock is coded according to the DX specs that AA is perfectly possible (with the exception of deferred rendering), current implimentations are hacks because no official support yet exists from Nvidia or ATI, either no support at all or limited support through beta drivers.

I read lots of good things on the 2k forums around release day with Nvidia users who had got the latest beta drivers applying Directx without issue.

*shrug* The Nvidia cards are OK too. But it sure as hell isn't some sort of "safe" bet in comparision to going ATI.

Well I suppose that depends if you use AA a lot, I personally do because I spend a lot of money on high end kit, it's an expectation I've grown to have after many years of better and better looking and performing AA.

 

[Dwight]

Care to enlighten me, don't beat around the bush, If I'm wrong about something then just let me know, I'd prefer to be corrected and know the truth than wrong and blind to it.

There is a thread on it around here. But basically all of it. DX is just an API specification for the manufacturer to support calls by the OS. Technically, if someone had nothing better to do, you could even write the driver over a DX9 card to provide DX10. In that case it would be entirely pointless because the huge number of things implemented in the driver instead of hardware would make it so slow as to be useless. However in incremental adjustments like 10 to 10.1 it is much more viable. Especially if the application developer knows to use only a sub-set of the extras provided by 10.1, such as the AA improvements that are said to be fairly minor.

What I'm trying to say is that AA is part of the API already and that as long as Bioshock is coded according to the DX specs that AA is perfectly possible (with the exception of deferred rendering), current implimentations are hacks because no official support yet exists from Nvidia or ATI, either no support at all or limited support through beta drivers.

Thus my comment that it is normal not to use AA for Bioshock. Further sadly AA isn't always an improvement. 2K left out AA from DX10 on Bioshock [for now] for a good reason.

Well I suppose that depends if you use AA a lot, I personally do because I spend a lot of money on high end kit, it's an expectation I've grown to have after many years of better and better looking and performing AA.

There is the rub. AA isn't really a problem on the 2900XT. Dumb AA is, but not AA. The future is moving away from dumb AA. But due to the development pipeline we haven't seen it come out in applications yet.

 

[phide]

So, you're saying that hardware resolve is "dumb", whereas shader resolve is "smart"?

In the future, yeah, we're going to see the majority of titles using mixed samples per scene and stuff like gamma-correct multisampling, stuff that really demands that resolve be done in shader logic, but that future isn't now.

Call of Juarez is currently the only title that offers features what one might refer to as "smart" AA. UT3 may as well, but Tim Sweeney has been very vague about it so far. The so-called "dumb" AA is the current staple, so buying a card that excels at said "dumb" AA seems fairly "smart", if you ask me.

As for why Irrational didn't allow for multisamping in BioShock, we don't exactly know they did that (unless you know something I don't), so saying that they did so for a "good reason" doesn't make any sense. It probably wasn't even their choice -- Epic probably hasn't delivered a renderer to any licensee that supports it.

 

[Silus]

Funny, I didn't include it but I addressed it. However you missed it. Even with a reasonable amount of AA on the 2900XT was doing well in many instances. Of course when someone used x24 AA or something similarly innane where action mattered it bogged. Or in cases of specific bugs that existed in those drivers.

No, you did not address a thing, since the HD 2900 XT fails to perform, even with "just" 4xAA. Call of Juarez being the ONLY exception. Get your facts straight.

So I guess if I do go back I'll see you spouting drivel? Yeah, thought so. Of course you still maintain it. You have'n gotten any smarter.

Do you have anything relevant to say here ? Or do you just want to start a flamewar ?

I wonder where all these fanboys come from...Maybe you're one of those that Marvelous mentioned. The ones that get payed to spread PR BS from a given company.

 

[annaconda]

I think all these DX10 video cards out there are Crap. $500-$600 video card and you cannot even play some DX9 game right. I am staying with my X1900XT 512mb for a while.

 

[jmackay]

I think all these DX10 video cards out there are Crap. $500-$600 video card and you cannot even play some DX9 game right. I am staying with my X1900XT 512mb for a while.

Huh?