Status
Not open for further replies.

rantoc

Distinguished
Dec 17, 2009
1,859
0
19,780
0
Just get the driver/xfire support in BEFORE a new title is released, not months after and i'm happy! Was planing on another 7970 but got 2x 680 gtx instead because of the slow driver support. Get me right, the AMD hardware is good but their driver update speed when it comes to new titles is not! Heck the nvidia counterpart have full sli support with ambient occlusion already for diablo3 and its not even released....
 

bavman

Distinguished
May 19, 2010
1,006
0
19,360
46
[citation][nom]Yuka[/nom]Oh, come on AMD... My 4890 is still very serviceable and plays anything I throw at it... The whole HD4000 line still rocks =/Just drop it for the 2k and 3k 8(Cheers![/citation]

But if you spend $150 on an upgrade now you'll get a whooping .45% performance increase; and we'll officially support your card for monthly upgrades!!! YAY
 

jamie_1318

Distinguished
Jun 25, 2010
188
0
18,710
5
That would be true if the drivers were supposed to be performance enhancing. In reality the updates mainly fix support for modern games. A non issue for 3000 and 2000 series cards, but mid-high tier 4000 cards are still running modern games just fine on reduced settings. As an owner of a similar generation GTX 260 I would be pissed if they slowed support that much.
 

matt_b

Distinguished
Jan 8, 2009
653
0
19,010
11
My problem with this is that these generation of cards do not represent the model of previous card generations. DirectX 9 games are still THE primary titles out there, yet these DirectX 10 cards are being phased out. Anyone with at least an HD2900/3870x2/4850 or better today can still play many of the modern releases cranked up in detail/resolution. If the gaming market was primarily DirectX 10/11 moving on to 12, then yeah, let these cards go, they are no longer relevant. But as far as today's releases, these cards still pack features our console-burdened gaming developers haven't even gotten around to using yet - what gives? Furthermore, the fact that they are still relevant but being put on life support, aka "legacy", what impact will we see officially when Windows 8 releases?
 

soccerplayer88

Distinguished
Feb 1, 2010
227
0
18,680
0
[citation][nom]matt_b[/nom]My problem with this is that these generation of cards do not represent the model of previous card generations. DirectX 9 games are still THE primary titles out there, yet these DirectX 10 cards are being phased out. Anyone with at least an HD2900/3890/4850 or better today can still play many of the modern releases cranked up in detail/resolution. If the gaming market was primarily DirectX 10/11 moving on to 12, then yeah, let these cards go, they are no longer relevant. But as far as today's releases, these cards still pack features our console-burdened gaming developers haven't even gotten around to using yet - what gives? Furthermore, the fact that they are still relevant but being put on life support, aka "legacy", what impact will we see officially when Windows 8 releases?[/citation]

Well I would bet that the reason why we had so many DX9 titles was because over the past years, the vast majority of computers were still running Windows XP. Now that Windows 7 is edging out XP, we could maybe start seeing companies develop for DX11.

DX10 is garbage. Looks better then DX9 but performs worse. At least with DX11 you'll get the best of both worlds.

But your right, DX9 and legacy cards will probably be around a little while longer. Why consoles don't utilize even DX9 to it's full potential (save for a very few games) boggles my mind. Hopefully with the next generation of consoles, they'll step it up to DX11.
 

matt_b

Distinguished
Jan 8, 2009
653
0
19,010
11
[citation][nom]soccerplayer88[/nom]Well I would bet that the reason why we had so many DX9 titles was because over the past years, the vast majority of computers were still running Windows XP. Now that Windows 7 is edging out XP, we could maybe start seeing companies develop for DX11.DX10 is garbage. Looks better then DX9 but performs worse. At least with DX11 you'll get the best of both worlds.But your right, DX9 and legacy cards will probably be around a little while longer. Why consoles don't utilize even DX9 to it's full potential (save for a very few games) boggles my mind. Hopefully with the next generation of consoles, they'll step it up to DX11.[/citation]
Developing for DirectX 10/11 doesn't have to do with Windows XP as much as you make it out to be. Consoles run DirectX 9 hardware, so the games are developed accordingly. Computer games have been living off of the backs of console porting for years now, not the other way around. When the new generation of consoles come about, you will see the shift finally happen to the newer DirectX specs. DirectX 10 has still been around for what, four years going on five now? DirectX 10 does look better than 9 and does take a bit of a performance hit, but that's cause and effect in action just like any other transition for generations of DirectX, OpenGL, etc. (with the assumption that coding is done efficiently).
 

alidan

Splendid
Aug 5, 2009
5,303
0
25,780
0
[citation][nom]soccerplayer88[/nom]Well I would bet that the reason why we had so many DX9 titles was because over the past years, the vast majority of computers were still running Windows XP. Now that Windows 7 is edging out XP, we could maybe start seeing companies develop for DX11.DX10 is garbage. Looks better then DX9 but performs worse. At least with DX11 you'll get the best of both worlds.But your right, DX9 and legacy cards will probably be around a little while longer. Why consoles don't utilize even DX9 to it's full potential (save for a very few games) boggles my mind. Hopefully with the next generation of consoles, they'll step it up to DX11.[/citation]

everyone hated vista, and was a joke, the only thing they had to get people to buy it was dx10, and because so few people gamed on it, compared to xp, they stuck with dx9
if ms supported xp with dx10, we would have made the jump long ago.

there is also a few facts.
there is noting in dx 10 that dx9 cant do, or at least fake doing.
everything substantial from dx10 was cut because nvidia complained, while amd was ready for the full dx10
dx11 is the first generation new dx to be on a widely used os. but still, well programed dx9 game looks equal to or better than dx11...

you have to take in the significance of dx9... it was a GIGANTIC leap forward, and none of the other dxes have so far been able to compeat.

dx10 may have with tessellation if that wasnt ripped out of it, and dx11... well... they used 9 so long they got all the kinks out of how you program for it, if you dont program 11 right, it looks as good as 9 but worse preforamnce.

now to add to the mix, we dont have single card gpus that can handle full world tessellation yet, or companies have NO idea how to do it.
 
G

Guest

Guest
[citation][nom]rantoc[/nom]Just get the driver/xfire support in BEFORE a new title is released, not months after and i'm happy! Was planing on another 7970 but got 2x 680 gtx instead because of the slow driver support. Get me right, the AMD hardware is good but their driver update speed when it comes to new titles is not! Heck the nvidia counterpart have full sli support with ambient occlusion already for diablo3 and its not even released....[/citation]

Before??? Share your time-machine with us please!!!!

[citation][nom]Yuka[/nom]Oh, come on AMD... My 4890 is still very serviceable and plays anything I throw at it... The whole HD4000 line still rocks =/Just drop it for the 2k and 3k 8(Cheers![/citation]

I threw something at my card and it exploded. Cheers!

[citation][nom]bavman[/nom]But if you spend $150 on an upgrade now you'll get a whooping .45% performance increase; and we'll officially support your card for monthly upgrades!!! YAY[/citation]

What is whooping performance? YAY!

[citation][nom]memadmax[/nom]Thats ok.The older cards you can't do much more with as far as updates are concerned.[/citation]

It's not ok...at all.

[citation][nom]Jamie_1318[/nom]That would be true if the drivers were supposed to be performance enhancing. In reality the updates mainly fix support for modern games. A non issue for 3000 and 2000 series cards, but mid-high tier 4000 cards are still running modern games just fine on reduced settings. As an owner of a similar generation GTX 260 I would be pissed if they slowed support that much.[/citation]

Get ready to be pissed.

[citation][nom]matt_b[/nom]My problem with this is that these generation of cards do not represent the model of previous card generations. DirectX 9 games are still THE primary titles out there, yet these DirectX 10 cards are being phased out. Anyone with at least an HD2900/3870x2/4850 or better today can still play many of the modern releases cranked up in detail/resolution. If the gaming market was primarily DirectX 10/11 moving on to 12, then yeah, let these cards go, they are no longer relevant. But as far as today's releases, these cards still pack features our console-burdened gaming developers haven't even gotten around to using yet - what gives? Furthermore, the fact that they are still relevant but being put on life support, aka "legacy", what impact will we see officially when Windows 8 releases?[/citation]

You will see an impact of tile-based proportions.

[citation][nom]soccerplayer88[/nom]Well I would bet that the reason why we had so many DX9 titles was because over the past years, the vast majority of computers were still running Windows XP. Now that Windows 7 is edging out XP, we could maybe start seeing companies develop for DX11.DX10 is garbage. Looks better then DX9 but performs worse. At least with DX11 you'll get the best of both worlds.But your right, DX9 and legacy cards will probably be around a little while longer. Why consoles don't utilize even DX9 to it's full potential (save for a very few games) boggles my mind. Hopefully with the next generation of consoles, they'll step it up to DX11.[/citation]

Why you haven't reverted back to Windows XP boggles my mind.

[citation][nom]matt_b[/nom]Developing for DirectX 10/11 doesn't have to do with Windows XP as much as you make it out to be. Consoles run DirectX 9 hardware, so the games are developed accordingly. Computer games have been living off of the backs of console porting for years now, not the other way around. When javascript:%20void(0);the new generation of consoles come about, you will see the shift finally happen to the newer DirectX specs. DirectX 10 has still been around for what, four years going on five now? DirectX 10 does look better than 9 and does take a bit of a performance hit, but that's cause and effect in action just like any other transition for generations of DirectX, OpenGL, etc. (with the assumption that coding is done efficiently).[/citation]

Coding is never done efficiently.

[citation][nom]alidan[/nom]everyone hated vista, and was a joke, the only thing they had to get people to buy it was dx10, and because so few people gamed on it, compared to xp, they stuck with dx9if ms supported xp with dx10, we would have made the jump long ago. there is also a few facts. there is noting in dx 10 that dx9 cant do, or at least fake doing.everything substantial from dx10 was cut because nvidia complained, while amd was ready for the full dx10dx11 is the first generation new dx to be on a widely used os. but still, well programed dx9 game looks equal to or better than dx11...you have to take in the significance of dx9... it was a GIGANTIC leap forward, and none of the other dxes have so far been able to compeat.dx10 may have with tessellation if that wasnt ripped out of it, and dx11... well... they used 9 so long they got all the kinks out of how you program for it, if you dont program 11 right, it looks as good as 9 but worse preforamnce.now to add to the mix, we dont have single card gpus that can handle full world tessellation yet, or companies have NO idea how to do it.[/citation]

True! I need that preforamnce!!

 

BulkZerker

Distinguished
Apr 19, 2010
846
8
18,995
2
Well this is a good thing, and also a bad thing. With the new model hopefully the team working on the more modern cards won't have to fiddle with making the coding for the older cards on top of the new cards. And the team working on the old cards (a smaller team obviously, hence the quarterly GPU driver updates) will work larger fixes into the driver updates and thus have STABLE drivers, not bleeding edge might blow up in your face performance drivers which AMD/ATI and nVidia are both guilty of kicking out the door.
 

aotterst

Honorable
Apr 24, 2012
1
0
10,510
0
[citation][nom]bavman[/nom]But if you spend $150 on an upgrade now you'll get a whooping .45% performance increase; and we'll officially support your card for monthly upgrades!!! YAY[/citation]

I pretty sure the 4890 is faster than anything that can be bought in that price range.
 

zakattak80

Distinguished
Oct 15, 2011
244
0
18,690
4
[citation][nom]aotterst[/nom]I pretty sure the 4890 is faster than anything that can be bought in that price range.[/citation]


the 4890 is a more efficient version of the 4870. which means its no better then a 5770.
 

hannibal

Distinguished
I have AMD X1800 and it has been on legacy support for years and still I am able to play the most modern games around (not with all eye candy but still). So if you have 4870 or similar don't be too alarmed. It will be fine card for many many years! And if the rumours about the next consoles are true, 4870 is fast enough for next 6-7 years or more.
 

tomskent

Distinguished
Nov 25, 2010
177
0
18,690
4
Nvidia doesnt even support older card driver updates at all, let alone do quarterly updates.

Also, as AMD states, the Drivers are mature enough that they dont need to be updated that often, its not like they are not supporting them.
 
[citation][nom]bavman[/nom]But if you spend $150 on an upgrade now you'll get a whooping .45% performance increase; and we'll officially support your card for monthly upgrades!!! YAY[/citation]

[citation][nom]Yuka[/nom]Oh, come on AMD... My 4890 is still very serviceable and plays anything I throw at it... The whole HD4000 line still rocks =/Just drop it for the 2k and 3k 8(Cheers![/citation]

A $150 upgrade could be something such as a 6870, 5850, 5870, GTX 560, or GTX 470 and all of these cards are significantly ahead of the 4890.

[citation][nom]matt_b[/nom]My problem with this is that these generation of cards do not represent the model of previous card generations. DirectX 9 games are still THE primary titles out there, yet these DirectX 10 cards are being phased out. Anyone with at least an HD2900/3870x2/4850 or better today can still play many of the modern releases cranked up in detail/resolution. If the gaming market was primarily DirectX 10/11 moving on to 12, then yeah, let these cards go, they are no longer relevant. But as far as today's releases, these cards still pack features our console-burdened gaming developers haven't even gotten around to using yet - what gives? Furthermore, the fact that they are still relevant but being put on life support, aka "legacy", what impact will we see officially when Windows 8 releases?[/citation]

We have plenty of DX11 games nowadays. Older cards also don't support many of the GPU acceleration technologies that the newer OSs and programs are supposed to bring to us, so they are becoming less important on a grand scale. Oh, and go ahead and try using a 4870, 4890, 260, etc on BF3 in 1080p and we'll see how far those quality settings and the AA can be cranked up. The same goes for plenty of other games nowadays such as Metro 2033, Crysis 2 with the DX11 update, and many more.

Consoles are getting their refresh within the next few years (hopefully soon) and they're not PCs, so they should not be used as obstacles any greater than they already are for PC gaming progress.

[citation][nom]alidan[/nom]everyone hated vista, and was a joke, the only thing they had to get people to buy it was dx10, and because so few people gamed on it, compared to xp, they stuck with dx9if ms supported xp with dx10, we would have made the jump long ago. there is also a few facts. there is noting in dx 10 that dx9 cant do, or at least fake doing.everything substantial from dx10 was cut because nvidia complained, while amd was ready for the full dx10dx11 is the first generation new dx to be on a widely used os. but still, well programed dx9 game looks equal to or better than dx11...you have to take in the significance of dx9... it was a GIGANTIC leap forward, and none of the other dxes have so far been able to compeat.dx10 may have with tessellation if that wasnt ripped out of it, and dx11... well... they used 9 so long they got all the kinks out of how you program for it, if you dont program 11 right, it looks as good as 9 but worse preforamnce.now to add to the mix, we dont have single card gpus that can handle full world tessellation yet, or companies have NO idea how to do it.[/citation]


DX 11 is better than DX9. Tessellation takes huge processing resources and that is why it isn't being used completely yet. The fact that Nvidia's Kepler cards have crap compute performance compared to even older generations such as Fermi tells us that Nvidia seems to not have much faith in tessellation anyway.
 

dragonsqrrl

Distinguished
Nov 19, 2009
1,280
0
19,290
3
[citation][nom]tomskent[/nom]Nvidia doesnt even support older card driver updates at all, let alone do quarterly updates.Also, as AMD states, the Drivers are mature enough that they dont need to be updated that often, its not like they are not supporting them.[/citation]
I'm not sure what you mean... Nvidia provides non-legacy Windows 7 driver support for all their cards since the Geforce 6 series.
 
[citation][nom]hannibal[/nom]I have AMD X1800 and it has been on legacy support for years and still I am able to play the most modern games around (not with all eye candy but still). So if you have 4870 or similar don't be too alarmed. It will be fine card for many many years! And if the rumours about the next consoles are true, 4870 is fast enough for next 6-7 years or more.[/citation]

The 4870 isn't fast enough for 1080p with the highest settings in plenty of games. The 4870 and 4890 are comparable to the 6770 and 5770 in performance.
 

jacobdrj

Distinguished
Jan 20, 2005
1,475
0
19,310
5
My fairly new 4870x2, that I got for quite a good deal, is not supported well by the current drivers... The driver fails all the time, and is quite frustrating. I understand it is relatively old tech, but I would have hoped that the LAST thing I should be worried about at this stage in the product life-cycle is unstable software.
 

hannibal

Distinguished

Ofcource, but I mean that 4870 does not become obsolete or useless only because it is now going to legacy support. There are tittles that are too demanding at highes settings, but 4870 is still a card that has "umph" for most games at reasonable settings!
 


That's no different than saying that the 6770 has enough "umph" for most games at reasonable settings. You can only get reasonable settings in some games withthese cards if you use a resolution that is lower than 1080p.
 

drevas

Distinguished
Nov 14, 2010
13
0
18,510
0
"That's no different than saying that the 6770 has enough "umph" for most games at reasonable settings. You can only get reasonable settings in some games withthese cards if you use a resolution that is lower than 1080p."

Do you realize how many people game on 19" - 22" Monitors? A Bunch. In fact, I would wager that Gamers cruising in 1080p are still the minority. I dropped a spare 4870 in my son's computer to improve the visuals he was getting in the Old Republic on his 22", and he was very pleased.

I game on a 24" at 1080p and I like my "old" 6850 just fine. The hardware is still ahead of the software for the average gamer.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS