what kind of cpu will dx10 cards require?

The fastest possible just as always?

I mean seriously this question depends on so many factors, such as the game in question, what features the game is utilizing on both the GPU and CPU, what in-game settings you have chosen, what resolution/aa/af levels you are running, etc......

Overall DX10 should be a bit 'easier' on the CPU, less overhead and all. In fact, DX9 in Vista will run faster due to this reduction in overhead.
 
I take "Require" as the base level that you need to even function, recommended is as Brent suggests and should always be the fastest possible.

Your CPU limitation is really what platforms are required for DX10. If the rumours are correct, then you'll need a PCIe platform (no DX10 for AGP, but again this was stated for each generation and eventually a lower performing AGP part was produced). Dual-core will also be a very important selection as Vista will be much better at multi-CPU/core support than previously and more DX10 game development will most likely utilize the additional cores for extra features/benfits.

So to get great performance all around, I'd say the following:

Required:
AMD - X2 3800+
INTEL - Pentium D 805

Both of them are very inexpensive now and perform fantastically for gaming and are also quite overclockable into the ranges of their more expensive brethren (sure the top end will OC even further, but the results of these budget bargains are fantastic).

Recommended:
AMD - X2 5000+
INTEL - Core 2 Duo X6800
 
Recommended:
AMD - X2 5000+
INTEL - Core 2 Duo X6800
Click to expand...

Woah...hello! Isn't it a little on the ludicrous side to recommend a $1,000 cpu (referring to the X6800)? How about a $220 cpu (e6400) and OC it to 3.2GHz (nearly all 6400s reach this speed), which is faster than that 6800 at stock and save yourself $800...That would be my recommendation.
 
Does that mean that my A64 3500+ will be obsolete when DX10 comes out? It seems hardly likely that dual core will be required..
 
Overthelimit said:
Does that mean that my A64 3500+ will be obsolete when DX10 comes out? It seems hardly likely that dual core will be required..
Click to expand...
no. It means that it depends on what game you are playing with which graphics card at which setting and what your preferences for "playable" are.
 
Dual core will not be required... but it will be recommended.

There are some upcoming DX10 games that utilize multi-core CPUs better, Alan Wake is an extreme example, but a very real game which will benefit from Quad Core CPUs since it issues out 5 threads. Other games like Crysis, UT2007, etc... can benefit with dual-core CPUs. There are some games now which do use dual-cores to varying effect, CoD 2, FEAR, Quake 4, and a handful of others. So again I reiterate, it depends on the games you want to play.
 
HighTest said:
I take "Require" as the base level that you need to even function, recommended is as Brent suggests and should always be the fastest possible.

Your CPU limitation is really what platforms are required for DX10. If the rumours are correct, then you'll need a PCIe platform (no DX10 for AGP, but again this was stated for each generation and eventually a lower performing AGP part was produced). Dual-core will also be a very important selection as Vista will be much better at multi-CPU/core support than previously and more DX10 game development will most likely utilize the additional cores for extra features/benfits.

So to get great performance all around, I'd say the following:

Required:
AMD - X2 3800+
INTEL - Pentium D 805

Both of them are very inexpensive now and perform fantastically for gaming and are also quite overclockable into the ranges of their more expensive brethren (sure the top end will OC even further, but the results of these budget bargains are fantastic).

Recommended:
AMD - X2 5000+
INTEL - Core 2 Duo X6800
Click to expand...


Hard to believe!
 
don't forget, DX10 cards will also require a fat wallet or possibly a credit card with a high limit.
 
GaMbiNo said:
Hard to believe!
Click to expand...

Perhaps, but let's wait for Vista to be released and actual DX10 games to ship that "require" not "recommend" DX10 capable hardware. I think you'll find that my speculation will be somewhat acurate. ;)

Note that this isn't in regards to DX9 gaming on Vista.
 
Seems to me that CPUs haven't been a decisive factor where game peformance is concerned for quite some time. [H]'s own CPU scaling article showed very little gain with any CPUs faster than a 3GHz P4. And this didn't seem to change much with the introduction of Conroe/C2D.

I'm hoping that the NVIDIA 8800 and new ATi part will finally make CPU upgrades worthwhile again (at least with SLI or Crossfire). . . but I'm guessing that even with them, we'll still be bottlenecked at the GPU.

If you have a recent vintage CPU, you're probably good to go for DX10. And if it's dual core and relatively new/fast, you'll be good to go for some time.

Of course, I'm just speculating. And could be terribly wrong.
 
HighTest said:
I take "Require" as the base level that you need to even function, recommended is as Brent suggests and should always be the fastest possible.

Your CPU limitation is really what platforms are required for DX10. If the rumours are correct, then you'll need a PCIe platform (no DX10 for AGP, but again this was stated for each generation and eventually a lower performing AGP part was produced). Dual-core will also be a very important selection as Vista will be much better at multi-CPU/core support than previously and more DX10 game development will most likely utilize the additional cores for extra features/benfits.

So to get great performance all around, I'd say the following:

Required:
AMD - X2 3800+
INTEL - Pentium D 805

Both of them are very inexpensive now and perform fantastically for gaming and are also quite overclockable into the ranges of their more expensive brethren (sure the top end will OC even further, but the results of these budget bargains are fantastic).

Recommended:
AMD - X2 5000+
INTEL - Core 2 Duo X6800
Click to expand...

lol, I'm going to have to disagree on both of those too.
 
It's true that games are GPU-bound these days, but a GPU still needs a CPU capable of feeding it data fast enough. The faster the GPU, the faster the CPU needs to be. With modern high-end cards, anything faster than a P4 3.2 GHz will be your performance plateu, but with G80 you'll be able to see gains from CPU's faster than that. There's unlikely to be much difference between, say, an E6400 and an E6600 with a G80, but you might see some difference between E6400 and E6300, which you generally don't with today's graphics cards.

So the short answer is that there won't be a dramatic change where you suddenly need a $1,000 processor to take full advantage, but don't go out and buy a Pentium D 805 thinking your performance will be the same as someone with a Core 2.
 
You can pretty much bet that any modern dual core cpu such as an X2 @2.4ghz+, C2D, etc., will be able to push a G80 pretty nicely if you are running at high resolutions and IQ levels. Why in the hell would anybody pay 450-600 bucks for a GPU only to run it in ugly mode :p


Right now games are big time gpu limited at high resolutions. Case in point, a stock X2 3800+ (2ghz) gets basically the same gaming speeds as when overclocked to 2.6ghz, using a 7900GT overclocked to near GTX levels...when playing at say 1600x1200 or better with IQ turned ON....try it. You'll see.
 
Brent_Justice said:
The fastest possible just as always?

I mean seriously this question depends on so many factors, such as the game in question, what features the game is utilizing on both the GPU and CPU, what in-game settings you have chosen, what resolution/aa/af levels you are running, etc......

Overall DX10 should be a bit 'easier' on the CPU, less overhead and all. In fact, DX9 in Vista will run faster due to this reduction in overhead.
Click to expand...


microsoft has already said DX9 will run close to 10% slower in vista due to WDM



so no
 
I think you are going to need at least a dual core to game decently on any game that comes out more than a year after vista. Single cores are starting to show their age. Last year at the this time my 3200+ was about as good as it got unless you wanted to shell out the dough for a dual core. Now my 3200+ is starting to show its age even to me. Im starting to wonder if it would be worth it to move my good video card over to my Intel 3.4 HT setup so I can atleast try to take advantage of multiple threads.
 
Verge said:
microsoft has already said DX9 will run close to 10% slower in vista due to WDM
Click to expand...
bologna

HighTest said:
Dual-core will also be a very important selection as Vista will be much better at multi-CPU/core support than previously and more DX10 game development will most likely utilize the additional cores for extra features/benfits.
Click to expand...
Care to enlighten me on how Vista has improved multi-core support when compared to WinXP (Pro) or most Linux distributions with an SMP kernel? I see a lot of people talking about how Vista's multi-processing support is "better" than WinXP, but have yet to see official documentation on this. In fact, I haven't even seen marketing documents that suggests this.


Nevermind, I think I found the huge multi-processor performance improvement:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Features_new_to_Windows_Vista
In previous versions of Windows, all processing needed to receive or transfer data over one network interface was done by a single processor, even in a multi processor system. Windows Vista can distribute the job of traffic processing in network communication among multiple processors. This feature is called Receive Side Scaling.
Click to expand...
 
Scyles said:
The internet DID say it, you don't know anything!

From your favorite source: http://theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=34915
related: http://theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=34946

Also, RC2 gaming benchmarks are still lagging behind XP. All this DX10 optimism is probably going to end in disappointment.
Click to expand...
Ah, the Inq. Citing them is generally worse than just saying: "I read on the internet."

Yes, they are occasionally accurate, but even a broken clock is right twice a day.

H
 
Brent_Justice said:
Dual core will not be required... but it will be recommended.

There are some upcoming DX10 games that utilize multi-core CPUs better, Alan Wake is an extreme example, but a very real game which will benefit from Quad Core CPUs since it issues out 5 threads. Other games like Crysis, UT2007, etc... can benefit with dual-core CPUs. There are some games now which do use dual-cores to varying effect, CoD 2, FEAR, Quake 4, and a handful of others. So again I reiterate, it depends on the games you want to play.
Click to expand...

Brent answered question perfectly with answer depends on the TITLES.(not titties LOL)
question BRENT, whats ur sys specs? or at least what Card do you use?is it you dont want us to know if ur a Nvidia or Ati guy?
not even sure if ur a gamer, my apologies if so.
heh, anyways just curious.(considering what you get ur hands on,im sure whatever you have puts alot of us to shame)
 
rittia1962 said:
Woah...hello! Isn't it a little on the ludicrous side to recommend a $1,000 cpu (referring to the X6800)? How about a $220 cpu (e6400) and OC it to 3.2GHz (nearly all 6400s reach this speed), which is faster than that 6800 at stock and save yourself $800...That would be my recommendation.
Click to expand...
Pretty much... judging from Tom's Hardwares CPU-chart when it comes to games, the X2 5000+ and the E6400 are pretty evenly matched (the E6400 being more or less in the lead). This is running at stock speed.
Getting an X6800 is REALLY overkill, if you only intend to use your computer for gaming.

Anyway, does anyone know if non-DX10 graphics cards benefits from Direct-X 10?
 
The question is what cpu will dx10 cards require. The answer is anything that will fit in the cpu socket of the motherboard that supports your dx10 card. I don't know how anyone can suggest otherwise.
 
Theli said:
Pretty much... judging from Tom's Hardwares CPU-chart when it comes to games, the X2 5000+ and the E6400 are pretty evenly matched (the E6400 being more or less in the lead). This is running at stock speed.
Click to expand...





*cough* WHO? *cough*......what "high end hardware" gamer using a 21" plus display is going to be running games at 1024x768....??? Changing the tested resolution to 1600x1200 and up would make those scores quite a bit closer together.
 
TheRapture said:
*cough* WHO? *cough*......what "high end hardware" gamer using a 21" plus display is going to be running games at 1024x768....??? Changing the tested resolution to 1600x1200 and up would make those scores quite a bit closer together.
Click to expand...
Yes, that's why I think the E6400 is a better alternative than the X6800 seeing how the performance is pretty close to the X2 5000+. With higher resolution they will be an even better match.
 
Theli said:
Yes, that's why I think the E6400 is a better alternative than the X6800 seeing how the performance is pretty close to the X2 5000+. With higher resolution they will be an even better match.
Click to expand...



So it really does not justify "upgrading" to a Core2Duo if you already have a fast X2, such as my 2.6ghz overclocked 3800+. I get MUCH better results by getting myself a G80 video card, and adding another gig of ram to the 2gb I already have. Yes, the C2D's are slightly faster but at the high resolutions it is a very small percentage and the $$$ is better spent elsewhere.

Now someone with an old cpu like a single core A64 or a plain P4, well, they should upgrade if they really want to match the system up with a DX10 card....
 
TheRapture said:
So it really does not justify "upgrading" to a Core2Duo if you already have a fast X2, such as my 2.6ghz overclocked 3800+. I get MUCH better results by getting myself a G80 video card, and adding another gig of ram to the 2gb I already have. Yes, the C2D's are slightly faster but at the high resolutions it is a very small percentage and the $$$ is better spent elsewhere.

Now someone with an old cpu like a single core A64 or a plain P4, well, they should upgrade if they really want to match the system up with a DX10 card....
Click to expand...


exactly... unless they are happy with waiting for an agp version that probably competes well still in the value segment.


I've already got an x2 oc'd to 5000+ and going to a faster C2D system is going to get me almost nothing in game performance (I run 1920x1200) AND cost more than a 8800GTX.... which is my next upgrade :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top