tenaciousleydead
Distinguished
tkpb938: I also don't consider really wanting something a solution for there being a pure lack of 8800GT's
There are certain statements that I took issue with, and I think the article would have been better off without them:
"Contrary to what their name may imply, let's right away cut through the marketing smoke screen, which AMD couldn't resist to pull once more;" - statements like this right at the beginning automatically make you appear biased and undermine your credibility.
We guess not."The difference between the two Radeon HD 3800s, even though they're based on the same chip, is important and, first and foremost, physical." - I would think the difference in clocks and memory types would be more important to most people than the slot and fan size. I guess not.
First off, I beg to differ with the assertion that this is not an important evolution compared to the Radeon HD 2900 series. Using your own data, the HD 3800 series uses a smaller process, is cheaper, consumes less power, and is quieter for about the same or better performance. Which of these is unimportant to the consumer? I agree that these changes may not have warranted the series number change, I thought that ATI was free to call their products whatever they want. THATS why I left that portion out.Please quote entirely. We said "Contrary to what their name may imply, let's right away cut through the marketing smoke screen, which AMD couldn't resist to pull once more; no, the Radeon HD 3000 does not introduce a new architecture at all, neither is it an important evolution compared to the Radeon HD 2900."
I thought your role was to report the facts and benchmark results to your readers in a clear and concise manner and let them determine what is best for them. Am I wrong?We believe it is our role to determine what's marketing and what's not. Are we wrong?
And THAT is why people say that your articles have been increasingly less useful lately. You seem to think that the number of slots occupied and what pretty color an item is painted is more important to technology review readers than technical differences such as clock speed and memory type. It Isn't."The difference between the two Radeon HD 3800s, even though they're based on the same chip, is important and, first and foremost, physical." - I would think the difference in clocks and memory types would be more important to most people than the slot and fan size. I guess not. - [your reply] - We guess not.
Direct3D 10.1
With its new range of GPUs, the Radeon HD 3000, AMD is the first to support the next version of Direct3D: Direct3D 10.1. But what does this new revision of Microsoft's API has in store for us?
Incompatible?
When the first pieces of information on Direct3D 10.1 first leaked this summer, some websites echoed a troubling rumor; this new version would be incompatible with the previous one! However, as is often the case on the web, it all came to nothing, as Direct3D 10.1 is fully compatible with its predecessor.
Direct3D 10.1: What's New
Let's be clear right from the start; the new things brought by this new API aren't revolutionary. Direct3D 10 was a big makeover and as always with such endeavors, there are small errors. Thus Direct3D 10.1 must be seen as an incremental update, correcting, thanks to time and distance, small holes in the previous API, and bringing a few add-ons in order to erase some of the restrictions that still existed.
All the improvements may be summed up in three categories:
* Stricter specifications in order to limit discrepancies between multiple implementations
* A handful of new features, such as Cube Map Arrays, Shader Model 4.1 and Multiple Render Targets
* A clear focus on rendering quality and more precisely, antialiasing
With Direct3D 10.1, Microsoft has focused on rendering quality more than any of the other new features, so to speak. And the main focal point was antialiasing.
And Practically?
Practically, don't hope for much in the meantime. We are still waiting for developers to master Direct3D 10 and for them not to be limited by the Direct3D 9 versions of their engines that they still must upgrade, so there's little chance that they'll run towards Direct3D 10.1; the hardware is barely out and the API won't be available until Vista's Service Pack 1 in 2008.
For more detailed information, see our writeup on Directd3D 10.1.