Graphics Card - Do I wait for DX10?

gharkins · Post by **gharkins** » Mon Jun 19, 2006 10:38 am

Hey,

I am looking to buy a top of the range graphics card, and knowing that the new DX10 is coming out with Vista (or before), should I buy something like the Sapphire Radeon X1300: http://www.bonafidereviews.com/article.php?id=122 now (maybe SLI?) and buy the Ati R600 when it is released hopefully in Q4 of 2006 or the XFX GeForce 7900 Extreme Edition now and cope with a DX9 based G/C?

Replies greatly appreaciated.

G

Post by **Rusty075** » Mon Jun 19, 2006 11:03 am

There's no way I would drop huge cash for a top-end card right now. (well, I never would, but that's just me) I'd go mid-range...you get 80% of the performance for 1/3rd the price and 1/3rd the heat. Games-wise I can't think of anything coming in the next 6 months that won't play on mid-range hardware. There's nothing out now that won't play on a <$200 card either.

And skip Sli, now and forever. It's a marketing ploy designed to separate fools from their money. The small performance boost it gives in exchange for paying 200% more for a card is less than the boost you'd get by just moving up to a single, more powerful card for less money.

jackylman · Post by **jackylman** » Mon Jun 19, 2006 12:14 pm

No, don't wait. Get the card you want now. DX10/Vista won't be out for a while, and games that take advantage of it will take even longer.

Rusty075 wrote:And skip Sli, now and forever. It's a marketing ploy designed to separate fools from their money.

Unless you run really high resolutions. Otherwise, I agree with you.

There's nothing out now that won't play on a <$200 card either.

Oblivion needs more than a 7600GT.

Gordoco · Post by **Gordoco** » Mon Jun 19, 2006 6:50 pm

I agree with jackylman. It will be a long while before there are any games that absolutely require DX10. Microsoft is apparently subsidizing some game companies to release DX10 games at Vista launch, but I doubt those games won't also be available for current generation cards. There just won't be enough consumers with DX10 hardware for DX10-only games to be financially viable, even with incentives from Microsoft. And Vista itself just needs a DX9 card for all its eye candy.

GamingGod · Post by **GamingGod** » Mon Jun 19, 2006 7:19 pm

from what ive read the new families of video cards from both camps wont be released until end of the year. I dont know about you but that seems like a long wait. Also there are those rumors around that say they will require a seperate 300w power supply just for the video card! Probably will run VERY hot! Im hoping these rumors arent true.

frostedflakes · Post by **frostedflakes** » Mon Jun 19, 2006 8:28 pm

Unless you're a hardcore gamer, I'd go ahead and buy low-end/midrange now, and spend a bit more money on a good card once Vista/DX10 becomes available and more utilized. Something like a 7600GT should be more than enough for most current games (even Oblivion, just don't expect to be able to play at high resolutions or with a lot of the eye candy enabled), and has a pretty low power consumption and heat output as well.

darthan · Post by **darthan** » Mon Jun 19, 2006 10:22 pm

I'd say get a card now. First gen cards tend to not actually be good enough to run the first games to utilize the new DX version. Remember the 9700Pro couldn't exactly run Half-Life or Doom 3 at top quality settings. The x800s and the 6800s sure could though. Current graphics cards have solid implementations of DX9 and will run current games extremely well. As far a sbuying a future proof card goes, well, there's usually these sliders marked "detail level" and "anti-aliasing" in game control panels. Just move 'em to the low end and you're card is future proof. And that's the only way to future proof any sort of computer technology.

jackylman · Post by **jackylman** » Tue Jun 20, 2006 4:47 am

frostedflakes wrote:Unless you're a hardcore gamer, I'd go ahead and buy low-end/midrange now, and spend a bit more money on a good card once Vista/DX10 becomes available and more utilized.

And when will that be? Every time I read a headline about Vista, it has the word, 'delayed' in it.

The 7900GT the OP wants will last AT LEAST one year. I see no reason to suffer low-end performance to be the first in line for an overpriced DX10 card that doesn't initially benefit too many apps.

Edit: The 7900GT should also have good resale value, even when the DX10 cards come out.

~El~Jefe~ · Post by **~El~Jefe~** » Tue Jun 20, 2006 5:59 am

I would say: enjoy your computing now, not later. never wait for M$ to dictate what machine you are going to get or want. Games comming out this 2007 will work perfectly fine on a dx 9 high end card.

i dislike mid range cards. they never seem to be worth the price anymore, so quickly do they become obsolete for gaming that the 150 dollars could be better saved on a more higher end one.

cheapest higher end cool running is a regular clocked 7900GT nvidia.

JVM · Post by **JVM** » Tue Jun 20, 2006 6:23 am

If you have PCI-E, you can get a Gigabyte passive 7600 GT for $169.99 after rebate -- I have this card and the temp is idling in the mid-40's!

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.a ... 6814125025

AEmer · Post by **AEmer** » Tue Jun 20, 2006 5:53 pm

Hi all, I'm new to SPCR, but I mean to stick around for a bit

I'm in Gharkins situation, except I'm in the midst of building my first quiet system and I need a graphics card to go with it, so I've been doing a little research that I'd like to put to the test by airing it.

Anyhow, I have been very interested in the passive Gigabyte 7600 GT - a well performing mid-range card by all standards, that's what I hear. And it's the fastest silent by default card, if you're not into warranty breaking.
The only letdown that the ram-block runs very hot if your system isn't properly vented, according to THG, but then, you didn't break the warranty, so if it breaks, you're not screwed.
Finally...it's priced in line with other 7600GT's, making it about 35-40% cheaper than the cheapest 7900GT, on top of which comes the silent cooling you'll need.

But that's all statistics...some first-hand experience from JVM on how the card performes in games would be nice..Does it have "problems" with any games?, what kind of settings are you running?

---

As for oblivion requirring a high-end card (I hope this is still of interest to the thread starter!, I don't intend to de-rail the thread):

http://www.firingsquad.com/hardware/obl ... efault.asp
http://firingsquad.com/hardware/oblivio ... rformance/

I found the article to be fairly worthwhile.

I'm confident the game can be set to enjoyable framerate with a 7600GT in 1024X768. A higher resolution would be nice, but for most people, 30 fps is a minimum for a seamless gaming experience, and that's what you can get at the reviews 'low' setting.
But the reviews does not actually examine directly the difference between the 7600GT and the 7900GT, which is a damn shame, since the cards are very different, and likely perform differently.

I found a way to remedy the lack of common grounds for comparison, somewhat, because another test show that when under considerable load, the graphics card is always the bottleneck for oblivion.:

Using the geforce 6800 in the article as refference for recalculating between the two settings(since it's benchmarked in both) shows that the 7900GT is 60% more effective than that 7600GT when it comes to the most shader-intensive and generally intensive area (the undergrowth) of the test. The same method used for the mountainous area yeilds the 7900GT card only a weak 25% advantage over the 7600GT.
These calculations were all done at the 1024x768 setting and with HDL.
As far as I can see from the specifications of the two cards, the 60% gain can be expected to be the greatest gain the 7900 can have over the 7600 within oblivion at that resolution, whereas if you cut down a few of the most shader-demanding features (that aren't that interesting anyway, imo...the grass mentioned in the article is essential!), the gain figure should be about the 25% seen in the mountains on average...

Of course, this is all very speculative, since not all system components are common, but I recon it is enough to show that even for oblivion, the better price/performance combination between the 7900GT and 7600GT is the 7600GT, and that Oblivion _is_ playable with it...

...so...Considering upcomming boards will be using 65nm technology, as well as using the (hopefully) much more effective direct x 10 api as basis...my goal, unless someone convinces me otherwise, is to get me a gigabyte 7600GT and keep it for a years-time, and then upgrade...

I hope the post was helpful.

JVM · Post by **JVM** » Tue Jun 20, 2006 6:19 pm

I don't play any intensive games, just baseball and chess

I have a Samsung 19" LCD 1280x1024 32 bit color @60 Hertz.

I've tried various settings, including but not limited to, High Performance all the way through Quality, AA set to 2 through 8S and AF all settings including 16.

I have yet to play with Display adapter scaling -- presently on Monitor scaling.

I get idle temp at around 45C with room temperature of around 72-74F

For what I do, the card works fine. After playing my baseball game, the CPU temp goes up around 6C maximum, MB goes up 1-2C

I'm presently using the 84.21 driver.

AEmer · Post by **AEmer** » Wed Jun 21, 2006 7:36 am

Hmm...everything sounds good, thanks for the info

Jay_S · Post by **Jay_S** » Wed Jun 21, 2006 11:50 am

jackylman wrote:The 7900GT the OP wants will last AT LEAST one year.

Or it will last 2-3 days. To get an idea of the magnitude of this issue, just google "7900gt problems". This seems to be a problem with all 7900gt's, overclocked or not. Although there's a lot of conjecture and finger pointing, there does not seem to be any hard facts about what exactly is wrong with so many of these cards. In the arstechnica link above, the OP had success by massively underclocking his video ram.

If you are set on a 7900gt, make sure it's from a mfg with excellent cust service!

Jay