DX12 info question

[Spaztazcular]

So I'm trying to decide on a new graphics card and was tempted to get a 970 to try and future proof myself a little bit since I can get one at a good price. My question is does any one have any good info on the DX12 stuff without it turning into a massive cat fight? The most recent thing I found is this, everything else involves that test from Ashes of Singularity game. Just don't want to buy a card and have to buy another in a few years, I like to wear my cards out (used a 560 for 4 years, it died 🙁). This was the card I was thinking about getting. Not really looking for a solution, more of a discussion.

http://www.pcper.com/reviews/Graphics-Cards/Fable-Legends-Benchmark-DX12-Performance-Testing-Continues

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814487088

 

[itmoba]

At this point in time, DirectX 12 is more of a gimmick than it is something which is being used. Unfortunately, the quality of code has been declining as the power of what's available has risen. I'm sure you've heard of many games which have been released and had major performance issues. This is because it's more important nowadays to push a product out than it is to maintain quality control ab initio. Some of the most praised and accoladed titles, in fact, have been plagued by the said problem (e.g., Gotham: Arkham Asylum).

Sadly, there's no way to future-proof your system. It's okay to wear out your hardware -- personally, I've obstinately done such. For example, I under-clocked my ATI X800 XL. Yes, you read it correctly, I under-clocked it so that it would continue to function after many years of (ab)use and a dying/dead fan.

 

[Spaztazcular]

At this point in time, DirectX 12 is more of a gimmick than it is something which is being used. Unfortunately, the quality of code has been declining as the power of what's available has risen. I'm sure you've heard of many games which have been released and had major performance issues. This is because it's more important nowadays to push a product out than it is to maintain quality control ab initio. Some of the most praised and accoladed titles, in fact, have been plagued by the said problem (e.g., Gotham: Arkham Asylum).

Sadly, there's no way to future-proof your system. It's okay to wear out your hardware -- personally, I've obstinately done such. For example, I under-clocked my ATI X800 XL. Yes, you read it correctly, I under-clocked it so that it would continue to function after many years of (ab)use and a dying/dead fan.

Yeah just didn't seem like I could reliably trust a lot of the information out there right now. I haven't really paid any mind to dx12 until right now because I wasn't planning to upgrade until all the cards where fully dx12 compatible, then my card died and forced my hand lol.

 

[itmoba]

Right now, the best bang for your buck is the Nvidia GTX 960. A lot of people on these forums have talked about buying or their purchased Nvidia GTX 980. Frankly, I think it's a waste of money. As a psychologist and a programmer, I'm candid when I say that these lavish expenses are typically precipitated by impulsive and unrestrained buying habits. If you're a sponsored professional gamer, then, it makes sense to drop $1000 on a graphics card because you're not actually paying for it -- it's subsidized by your sponsor. If you're in the CAD business, then, it absolutely makes sense to spend $4000 on a graphics card because (a) the quantity of VRAM is immense, (b) the VRAM is ECC, and (c) you're probably in a rendering farm. But, these not being often the case, the most you should practically spend is, say, $300 on a graphics card that'll be obsolete in 2 years time.

If you look at the Kepler and Pascal architectures of Nvidia, it's amazing to see the transition to 17 billion transistors (Pascal hasn't been released yet).

 

[Spaztazcular]

Right now, the best bang for your buck is the Nvidia GTX 960. A lot of people on these forums have talked about buying or their purchased Nvidia GTX 980. Frankly, I think it's a waste of money. As a psychologist and a programmer, I'm candid when I say that these lavish expenses are typically precipitated by impulsive and unrestrained buying habits. If you're a sponsored professional gamer, then, it makes sense to drop $1000 on a graphics card because you're not actually paying for it -- it's subsidized by your sponsor. If you're in the CAD business, then, it absolutely makes sense to spend $4000 on a graphics card because (a) the quantity of VRAM is immense, (b) the VRAM is ECC, and (c) you're probably in a rendering farm. But, these not being often the case, the most you should practically spend is, say, $300 on a graphics card that'll be obsolete in 2 years time.

If you look at the Kepler and Pascal architectures of Nvidia, it's amazing to see the transition to 17 billion transistors (Pascal hasn't been released yet).

I thought about the 960 and ultimately decided the 970 might be a better option since I was leaning toward the 4GB model of it anyways and the 970 wasn't much higher (I can actually pick up that EVGA 970 for around $300). I don't usually spend to much on graphics cards, I've never been one to care about having to always have the settings cranked at max. Just didn't want to buy the card and then find out that dx12 really screws that card over. Was also really interested in learning a little bit more about dx12 in the process.