Here are some early DX10 Benchmarks

Whats even better is that the sites you got them from are well known, established sites that give solid reviews.

w00t good finds.
 
looks like firingsquad's conclusion about the 2900xt is the same as [H]'s, but at least the dx10 performance looks promising
 
snowysnowcones said:
Ugly scores for DX10... 30 fps?! :confused:
Click to expand...


no doubt....with "high-end" V cards even.....

if DX10 is "supposed" to be more EFFICENT then DX9 , this doesnt show it.....maybe they can keep workin and making it better...or we'll have to have throw the system budget out the window....:rolleyes:

looks like the mid-range cards will choke big-time...unless maybe sli'd or CF with a cpu like the e6600 oc'd....




its getting closer......
 
Firing Squad said:
Reviewers were given the opportunity to test a very early beta build of the game, the results of which you see above
Click to expand...

I wouldn't be worried about the performance of a very early beta. The CoH DX10 patch isn't even in beta yet. I don't know of any others off the top of my head.
 
This is exactly why I'm skipping this generation of cards. In my opinion it is an obsolete generation. Great performance on games out now (nothing too great :rolleyes: ) nothing the previous generation doesn't handle...average to low performance on everything coming out (hoping for some great games :) )
Im hoping also ATI realized this, and is saving their big guns for the next generation so they will target the market when everyone NEEDS a better card to play these games, and dont just get it because its the best thing out ATM.

Ill pay ~500 for a card that will play all the new games with a solid 45+ Fps on high settings good resolution...I wont pay that much now for a card that will play it low-med resolution, medium settings
 
Kano said:
The IQ is noticeably better on the nvidia card.
Click to expand...

ahh, the IQ looks the same, the only difference i see is the position of the flame, and the haze from the fire being in a different place

the whole firepit thing is hard to tell from a pic that small, they should blow it up
 
I must admit that those fps numbers ahve me reconsidering the timing of my upgrade. I badly need an upgrade, but if all I can hope for is 25 fps for $350 in DX10, that card wont last 1 year. And Im looking specifically to upgrade to play a DX10 title later in the year/early next year (depending on release of AoC).

I may be better off buying a cheap high end from last gen or maybe getting a 2600 xt or 8600 GTS and simply upgrading again in 1 year (I dont upgrade that often).
 
Microsoft can't do jack shit. Vista and DX10 are both horribly crappy things by themselves, but in combination...oh god...
 
Dethman said:
This is exactly why I'm skipping this generation of cards. In my opinion it is an obsolete generation. Great performance on games out now (nothing too great :rolleyes: ) nothing the previous generation doesn't handle...average to low performance on everything coming out (hoping for some great games :) )
Im hoping also ATI realized this, and is saving their big guns for the next generation so they will target the market when everyone NEEDS a better card to play these games, and dont just get it because its the best thing out ATM.

Ill pay ~500 for a card that will play all the new games with a solid 45+ Fps on high settings good resolution...I wont pay that much now for a card that will play it low-med resolution, medium settings
Click to expand...

Games have always been ahead of the capabilities of hardware, if you buy the newer generation of cards they wont be able to perform as well on games that come out after Crysis, etc. Its just the way it is, its much easier to develop software because there are virtually no limitations while hardware just tries to keep up.
 
Tzzird said:
looks like firingsquad's conclusion about the 2900xt is the same as [H]'s, but at least the dx10 performance looks promising
Click to expand...
That because they bench with only AF enabled, not without.
So if that how you want to play it, it sucks. If not it's not that bad but keep off AF and maybe AA to.
for now.(Drivers?)

It's looks like the R600 for now get a large penalty for using AA with AF.
In this case the AF give it a back seat.
No AA with no AF HD2900 beats GTX in DX10 in CoJ 1600X1200.
with 6,3% wich reachin like Ultra performance.

Wich makes me think?
1280x1024 No AA/ no AF GTX wins with magic driver. This resolution is the most CPU and also software(driver) depandand one, but in this case in DX10 mode? Wenn R600 isn't hold back with AA/AF!
Are R600 Driver on a very low level?

1600x1200 no aA/ no AF.
Is this R600 bandwide that speaking? or influence of drivers is lowered due to the higher render mode and some of it's potential shines true.
Why does GTX fall back? what is his achilles in this?

I thinkin R600 get crap beaten wenn AA AF is enabled. That GTX wins doesn't mean it better in dX10 it depends where the bottleneck is.

For R600 it's AF and AA.

Even if R600 Geoshaders kick ass and Testalation unit. Aa AF kicks it back.

So is this a driver isue or a architectural fault or is it "The way it ment to be optimised for".
I thought with Dx10 all feature are supported performance may differ.

What holding back the GTX in 1600x1200 No AA/no AF?

I haven't seen a Review wich compare
No aa/ no AF
aa/ AF
No aa/ AF
aa/ no AF

And the 2 4 6 8 16 24 AA/AF flavors.

Looks like a lot of work.
 
They said this is still an early beta build of CoJ. In addition, these programmers more than likely have very little experience with DX10, and NV/ATI drivers probably don't have a lot of DX10 optimizations yet, since they don't have any game platforms to optimize for.

I wouldn't be surprised if we saw significant improvements from both GPU camps when these games mature a bit more.
 
ishkawa said:
Games have always been ahead of the capabilities of hardware, if you buy the newer generation of cards they wont be able to perform as well on games that come out after Crysis, etc. Its just the way it is, its much easier to develop software because there are virtually no limitations while hardware just tries to keep up.
Click to expand...

Im sorry, as of right now, they are pretty much even, if not hardware above, seeing GTX plays any game with decent FPS... The games IM looking forward to play are coming out late 07 early 08 (if they're not pushed back).

My opinion, its smarter to wait for the next gen card hopefully releasing around that time, rather than buying a card 6-8 months in advance, I don't see the point in that..Unless you really like a game out now and you want optimal performance and you need a GTS/X, to accomplish that. I dont think there are many games that fit into that category.
 
I'm not sure if that blur is actually bad filtering or just that heat wave ripple effect going in a slightly different direction.
 
The filtering is much better on the Nvidia card on the left side of the fireplace on the inside face, you can tell where the displacement mapping is being filtered well and then blured with the ATI rendering.

Overall IQ seems to be fairly good on both cards, it could be its just a bug with rendering the displaced surfaces at high angles for ATI, who knows, either way Im going to wait until some people post benchmarks with the final version as this does seem to be a little dodgy, using older beta versions with dodgy drivers and strange settings.
 
I dont care if it is bettert at DX10 if it cant at least hit 45 fps in DX10 (talking FPS games here). Arguiing that its better b/c it can do 20 fps instead of 15 fps is pointless; it basically means this card (and the 8800s) are really Dx9 cards with some DX10 support; as such its not a terribly important factor in my mind. BOTH companies showing came out weak in these DX10 benchmarks.
 
dracop said:
I dont care if it is bettert at DX10 if it cant at least hit 45 fps in DX10 (talking FPS games here). Arguiing that its better b/c it can do 20 fps instead of 15 fps is pointless; it basically means this card (and the 8800s) are really Dx9 cards with some DX10 support; as such its not a terribly important factor in my mind. BOTH companies showing came out weak in these DX10 benchmarks.
Click to expand...

This is ONE dx10 game that both sites benchmark. Ever thought that the issue could lie in the coding of Call of Juarez in dx10?
 
The DX9 version of CoJ is incredibly unoptimized as is...
Serously we need to wait for more DX10 games and demos to come out before we throw current generation cards out the window.
 
Dethman said:
...this generation of cards...Great performance on games out now (nothing too great :rolleyes: ) nothing the previous generation doesn't handle...average to low performance on everything coming out
Click to expand...

Uhh, not true. The previous gen definitely can't handle games at 2560x1600. And "average-to-low on everything coming out" isn't true either, as I can play Dark Messiah, Supreme Commander, and Titan Quest at 2560x1600 with high details on and good frames.
 
I cant explain my self 100% each post i make, i wasn't taking in account that high of resolution, its not too common
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top