After 970 and this scam, will you still buy a nvidia card?
I haven't read the links so I don't know the specifics but don't all those cards pre-date DX12?
Comment has been collapsed.
a lot of amd cards support dx12 stuff even if they are pre-dated
Comment has been collapsed.
Well, yes. But that is not the point. R9 390X is also pre-DX12, but it got big performance boost. The older R9 290X is now comparable to 980Ti, but it is "slightly" cheaper. Well, it's about half the price. Even the Radeon 6xxx series got big power boost (because Vulcan was supporting Async shaders, and AMD was putting a lot of it's R&D budget into this)
And there is no way to patch this using any kind of drivers or software upgrades. It is a hardware limitation. So in most new games you can get same performance with 350$ and 650$ GPU. If you got the 980Ti thinking "Now I got the most powerful GPU in the world!" than think again, you just got beaten by the guy with R9 390X. Right now nVidia's most expensive card is only second best.
In a 9-18 months nVidia will release GPU's which supports Async computing. It will give them big boost, and we will see a new 700+$ monster GPU capable of creating stuff much better than anything we have now. (add another 18-24 months before the software will catch up to fully use this power) The AMD cards can use it now. Async computing is used in both Xbox One and PS4 (both AMD as you probably know). AMD cards will use these features in two weeks time. (also this explains why the DX12 for PC will add much more than on XB1, and why PS4 is still more powerful - which also is the worst reason to buy PS4, console power is next to meaningless)
Comment has been collapsed.
In DX12. It does't change existing games performance unless they will be patched to DX12. DX11 performance won't change. So yes, W3 will still work better on 980Ti. In a year or so 70-90% of new AAA games will be on par (unless nVidia will pay developers to ignore DX12 for now)
Comment has been collapsed.
First one should be released next month. (DX12 dev kit is available to selected companies for almost 2 years now) Besides - how often do you change GPU? I buy them once every 3-4 years, and I would be very annoyed to find out that it is outdated after a year or two.
Comment has been collapsed.
unless nVidia will pay developers to ignore DX12 for now
I am quite fairly certain they will.
Unless DX12 really is important for Xbox One, then maybe MicroSoft would pay them more to do implement full DX12 support in everything.
Would be funny. Nvidia fanboys would bitch all over the internet on why are their overpriced card so slow compared the power hog AMDs. :)
Comment has been collapsed.
yes, the thing is AMD saw it commign i guess, and prepared their bodies, i mean cards, so even old card like mine 7870 apparently do well with DX 12 games. so, suck it nvidia you didnt saw the future comming i guess...
i find it pretty meh tbh, the first gen fully compatible DX12 will outperform any of the current cards on DX12 anyway, it happened before with 11 and 10.
Comment has been collapsed.
with mantle amd was also going the same way to use more and in an "intelligent" way the cpu together with the gpu.
so it is not only that amd "saw the future" coming, they worked on it.
btw. afaik nvidia and amd work with microsoft on dx12 so nvidia just ignore "the future"...
Comment has been collapsed.
I'm in a way glad that AMD were better at seeing it coming (even though I have an nvidia card). AMD have had a hard time competing with nvidia as of late, and while their cards have not been "bad", there has been fields where nvidia just crushed AMD (like power consumption). Now it's a competition again, which in the end is good for the consumer (even though it kinda sucks for me, as I went with the wrong card).
Comment has been collapsed.
Thanks for the links. It was an interesting read. I've always been more partial towards AMD, but I don't usually let that determine what I buy. Whatever fits the bill. Anyway, I haven't used my desktop for a long while, and if I go back to it I figure the 750 Ti will be good enough for my needs.
Comment has been collapsed.
Same here, superb card for the price and its temps run very cool.
Comment has been collapsed.
I have two. I'm in that boat.
Now technically one shouldn't have a problem as long as the cards can push >60fps for the foreseeable life of the card(s) in question. But if DX12 really brings such benefits, well, devs aren't going to hold themselves back will they?
Wait... oh right.
Anyway now we know why Nvidia released the 980ti so soon after the Titan X.
Comment has been collapsed.
Hahaha. This is the video game industry, son.
Rein in dev costs? Next you're gonna suggest they don't nickle and dime us with preorders and micro-transactions, not put their games behind DRM walls that only affect paying customers, and stop bribing the people who critique their games.
Comment has been collapsed.
I think it is. Games are not expensive to make because of technology or a market demand for technical improvements. They're expensive to make because the guys in upper management are idiots who can't/won't keep things under control, or are possibly even sabotaging development intentionally knowing that the sales will disguise their grafting.
Case in point, Doublefine. Repeatedly.
-Edit- I'm an arse.
Comment has been collapsed.
LOL
Short version:
Nyoko7: Graphic cards are expensive to develop.
SimonSays: NO! Games are not expensive to develop! (p.s. They are. CoD is developed by an army of 600+ people and it takes them 3 years to make a game. In USA it costs between 50 and 150 thousand dollars a year to hire a single good game developer/programmer/3d artist. Do the math.)
Comment has been collapsed.
And that was because I failed at reading the topic at hand and jumped to the old dead horse about -game- development costs, instead of card development costs. I faled der reddin comprehenshun.
And yes, cards are expensive to develop. Insanely so. But that's a matter of course when you need specialized factories just to make chips at a nano meter scale, trying to solve problems that require advanced understanding of physics let alone mathematics or computer science, in a business environment locked down by patent law.
Comment has been collapsed.
i have an amd. so....
but the FPS problem willget fixed when enough people scream i think. it is more like a driver thing (why are drivers so bad optimised and bugy in the last 2-3 years?)
Comment has been collapsed.
I've tested my EVGA GTX 960 4GB SuperSC ACX 2.0+ (SLI) on 3DMark with DX11 vs DX12 and I got an amazing FPS increase with DX12. I think on DX11 it was at 30-40, then DX12 hit up to 100+. Now that's only for 3DMark and not for actual gaming so I'm just basing it off of 3DMark for now.
DX11 Multi-threaded draw calls per second - 2,386,267
vs.
DX12 draw calls per second - 15,811,415
Comment has been collapsed.
The problem with these synthetic tests are that everybody is cheating on them. Once we see an actual DX12 game with an engine that wasn't "sponsored" by nvidia come out, we will see the truth.
On the other hand, nVidia has enough money to bribe the most prominent engine manufacturers (like they already do) to make the stuff run well only in their cards. The only thing added on top now would be that they will be holding back the games on purpose. Not that it'd be any problem for publishers. coughUbiSoftcough Not to mention that the Unreal Engine is in their pocket and in the past decade it was the most widely used one in AAA gaming.
So in the end, it seems like nVidia lied (not a particularly surprising thing) and they will just keep things as they are now.
Comment has been collapsed.
Indeed, the comment might have ended up sounding harsher than I meant. Just found it a little ironic that you would bash nVidia for shady dealings with devs while the topic is nVidia's cards failing to deliver in a test made by devs with strong connections to AMD.
Anyways I am neither red or green, had 2 ati's and 2 nvidias, currently stuck with 660ti, so I am not really bothered by this since I will have to upgrade in a year anyways. Too bad for the guys with 970 and 980 though if the problem turns out to be real, though it will just mean that their cards were just yucky in perf for money compared to AMD's current setup, in the end AMD's top stuff was just able to tie nVidia's top stuff thanks DX2 (considering Furys were not tested for an ?unknown? reason).
Comment has been collapsed.
Well, I bash on nVidia because it is a known thing that they do "bribe" most of the top engine creators, essentially using their own market position to suffocate the competition.
I'd do that if AMD did the same thing. It's not just the unethical side, since business in this level is always more or less unethical by the everyman's point of view. It's also about that they are slowly edging to monopoly, which you can already see the insanely ridiculous pricing they use. And monopoly in anything is never a good thing. Even in software. Remember the crowning achievement of MicroSoft, Windows 2000 and ME? That showed us that you always need a form of competition.
Comment has been collapsed.
I think you don't know what you're talking about just because of your meme-ing. Care to elaborate why it doesn't mean much?
Comment has been collapsed.
first dx12 game benchmark says hi
(just look how theres a minimal fps boos on 980, and there are some cases where dx11 had better fps.)
Comment has been collapsed.
I don't really care about DX12 anymore.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LclXKwQq2JM
Comment has been collapsed.
I know how to work with the hosts file. But how can you if it does anything? Anyone that has Windows 10 agreed to their EULA which states they can pretty much look at everything that's on your computer and everything you do with it. I don't think they'd let anyone breach that even with blocking IP addresses with hosts files (how do you know if there isn't something hidden in Explorer.exe reversing any changes done to the registry or hosts files?)
Comment has been collapsed.
thats why tools like this http://www.oo-software.com/en/shutup10 exists.
Comment has been collapsed.
Sadly every company will try to rip you off. There is no benefit for being a fanboy of any due this reason alone.
Just cause one product is good doesn't mean the rest will be. Also if one product ends up being bad doesn't mean the rest will be(however the likelyhood will be higher).
So you always have to do research every time you buy something and not trust the brand. Such is the sad state of things. And even then it isn't always enough to prevent from being ripped off badly.
Comment has been collapsed.
How come this is the news now when there was this article back in July.
Comment has been collapsed.
Lmfao, who cares? By the time enough Dx12 games arrive to make it worthwhile, we'll all probably have shiny new fully Dx12 compliant GPUs anyway.
Anyone remember when Dx10 released and how long it took for even a handful of Dx10 games arrived? The same for Dx11, and Dx12 will be no different.
Comment has been collapsed.
Do you have a source you can cite for saying Dx12 games will come out faster? The pattern in PC gaming, however, supports a new Dx is never adopted right away. Hell, Dx9 games are still being released regularly, and the last update for that was over 10 years ago. ;)
ARK is still in beta, and Ashes is one game. Games aren't developed overnight. It will be at least the 2nd half of 2016 before we start seeing a decent number of Dx12 games imho, with a scant few coming in Q1 2016.
Comment has been collapsed.
1) You still haven't cited a source for anything, so it's all speculation on your part. Every new version of Dx improves performance and/or features in gaming, yet the history of Dx over the past 15+ years is proof enough that it takes a good amount of time for developers to adopt it - primarily because most AAA games that will come out in the next year were already in development before the new Dx was ever released in a game engine. i.e. UE4 is the only engine currently using Dx12, and it's still in beta. It'll be a while before a decent number of develops start using it, and by then new, fully complaint Dx12 cards will be released. The people crying now about not having full Dx support are crying about something they can't even use yet. Like I said, it'll be a good while - at least a few months into 2016 - before we start seeing a halfway decent number of games that even use a small part of the features Dx12 has to offer.
2) Microsoft has been trying to "force" every Dx update on developers since the beginning of Dx, and still developers are using older versions of Dx and game engines to make games. They have no leverage to force anything on anyone as long as they keep supporting older versions of Dx n every new OS, and to remove support for those older versions would be market suicide.
Comment has been collapsed.
As for point 2: not really. MS totally didn't care about DX10 or 11 because X360 wasn't really able to use them.
And DX12 can finally give MS some power to get closer to PS4.
There's a reason why Win10 was given away for free. Normally, developers would say "well, we could make game for XB1DX12, but then we'd need to make other build for all those people with Win7". And now MS can answer "don't worry about Win7DX9 people, they will see your great DX12 game and download free Win10".
Comment has been collapsed.
The average consumer base is only a very small percentage of licensing for Microsoft. They're really not losing any money giving Win10 away for 'free' (and I use that term very loosely) to the average consumer. Sales of corporate licences and OEMs comprise most of the profits of any Microsoft operating system. They're still charging OEMs and corporate licensing, so they're still making money hand over fist there.
Windows 10 was "given away" to consumers to unify the mobile and PC markets - til now they've been split between operating systems. Microsoft knows that the mobile market has been dominated by Android and Apple, and they want their cut - by offering the same OS on all platforms so people don't have to split their attention (and more importantly, their wallet). Microsoft is also counting on app sales (primarily through the mobile platform) to offset and exceed the small amount they're losing by allowing home users to upgrade for free. It's the same reason Amazon sells a $400 piece of hardware (the latest Kindle HDX) for $200 - they are counting on people spending money in their appstore.
Microsoft allowing home users to "upgrade for free" had nothing to do with gaming or Dx12, or even the Xbox One. More people spend money on their mobile devices every year than both the PC and console platforms put together. Believe it or not, PC and console users dawrf in comparison to the mobile market these days, and Microsoft wants a piece of that pie. Hopefully it will benefit us somewhere down the road as PC gamers, but I doubt it. Think about it for a minute - how many "crappy mobile ports" have you seen on Steam lately? If you ask me, it's hurting PC gaming more than helping it.
Just google "Why is Windows 10 Free?" and you'll see exactly what I mean.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/gordonkelly/2015/06/12/free-windows-10-is-a-noble-but-stupid-idea/
http://www.theverge.com/2015/7/29/9066749/microsoft-windows-10-office-app-free-upgrade-model
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/the-real-reason-microsoft-is-offering-windows-10-for-free/
Comment has been collapsed.
I mistyped a bit, I'm not saying DX12 is ONLY reason why it's free.
But MS is not stupid, they saw there are games that sold better on PC than on XB1. Devs wouldn't go full DX12 knowing they need to make DX9 version anyway for at least half of PC market, they would simply not use DX12.
Giving free access to DX12 to every PC gamer will give them argument why devs can move to DX12 without much costs, while improving XB1 graphics, which in turn will allow MS to catch Sony a bit.
Comment has been collapsed.
Devs wouldn't go full DX12 knowing they need to make DX9 version anyway for at least half of PC market, they would simply not use DX12.
Bingo! That's exactly what I said in the beginning. That's why developers never adopt a new Dx engine immediately. Even with Win10 being "free", there's still a huge part of the market using Win7/8/8.1 (with the "if it isn't broke don't fix it "mentality). It's going to be much easier to release Dx9/11 games for a long time until more of the market has moved to Dx12 - especially since every Dx version is backwards compatible. That's just good business sense by developers across all platforms. Granted, MS made a smart move and is accelerating that move much better than in the past, but it's still going to be a slow process. At an educated guess, I'd say it'll be at least mid-2016 before we see even a handful of Dx12 games. Development takes time, especially with a new Dx/game engines.
Comment has been collapsed.
On the other hand, doing an engine that can switch between DX12 and DX9, especially for AAA companies, should be a cakewalk. It would also make more people switch to higher-end cards and Windows 10, so there is a justification for MS to try to sponsor companies who develop for Xbox to do that. And it'd translate back to PC.
Comment has been collapsed.
Where do you get the information that such an engine would be a cakewalk? I've seen nothing to support that assertion anywhere. If anything, a game that uses both Dx9 and Dx12 will slow people from upgrading their GPUs. Why buy a new GPU to play a game in Dx12 when the same game will run in Dx9? ;)
Also, look at the Steam surveys -- and look at how many people are using GPUs from not one, but several generations ago. A new Dx is only going to make people want to upgrade, but again, there's a HUGE part of the market using budget video cards -- a much larger part than is using high end cards. People seem to think most gamers are using 960/970/980 or 270/280/290x but the simple fact is that that's an extremely small part of the market. This is why GPU makers always release their high end cards first - to soak up whatever sales they can before releasing the much-better-selling budget cards.
People like me - I upgrade my rig every year - but people like me are in the minority of the gaming market.
EDIT: it's going to take several big-name AAA Dx12-only games to *force" anyone to upgrade, and even then it won't be enough people to matter. This is one reason why consoles are much more attractive to the majority -- that console is always the common denominator amongst the userbase.
Comment has been collapsed.
Upgrade doesn't only mean the top tier card. And DX12 can benefit all cards. On low-end it especially matters if you can get +10-20% more performance or not; it can mean the difference between at least stable 30 fps or not (since now that is the minimum desired value, not 60 like it used to be).
In one of the big DX12 reveal articles they mentioned that an engine with a switch between DX12/9 will be a lot more easier to program than one with DX11/9. Something related to the fact that it is a lower-level API now.
Comment has been collapsed.
But thing is, when dev go DX12, he don't abandon half of market, because market only needs to download Win10.
60% of times, 9 out of 10 will do it for game they want :P Rest would not buy it anyway until $5 sale :)
If it was paid Win10, devs would be more cautious. But with free patch they will focus more on making proper DX12 version, as that will allow them to make better games on XB1.
Also, mid2016 for handful of DX12 games?
That's still much better numbers than how DX11 was implemented in games :P
Comment has been collapsed.
Yeah mid-2016 is an optimistic estimate on my part, taking into account the 'free' upgrade (as a side note - I refuse to take part in the free upgrade. I plan on purchasing a retail copy). I always hope tech moves forward faster, but it rarely does.
My point was this -- by the time enough Dx12 games are released on PC to make a difference, a good part of us will have already upgraded to fully Dx12 compliant hardware anyway. You can bet both nVidia and AMD are working their butts off right now on new cards to take full advantage. Which card performs better in Dx12 right now is irrelevant, really. It's nothing more than smoke and mirrors from a marketing standpoint. :P
Comment has been collapsed.
Ahh, you see, I'm too poor to buy next-gen GPUs, so I hoped to get GF980Ti next year, when it will fall to like $500 on the fullDX12-cards-hype.
But with that info my whole plans might go to gutter, as it might turn out GF980Ti might be good paper weight in 2017, not a gaming card :)
Time to wait and see how this whole thing will end.
Comment has been collapsed.
I'm in the same boat. I upgrade every year, but I almost never buy the top of the line card. I've bought a few top end cards over the years and almost always regretted the money spent after. I'm using two 970's right now, and would only be using one except that my wife bought me a second as a birthday gift.
The happy ending though is this -- next year's $300 card will probably be faster than this year's $1000 card. :P
Comment has been collapsed.
I've steered clear of anything nVidia since most of their practice is simply to buy out developers by helping to "optimize" their games so they perform badly on competitor's hardware. They try to steer the industry towards their proprietary standards while their cards usually gives a subpar performance when any open standard is used.
AMD's OpenCL performace is usually miles ahead of what nVidia can provide so they steer their Gameworks developers towards PhysX/CUDA instead which will run on the CPU instead on competitor's hardware. Now that DX12/Vulkan/Mantle are able to make use of AMD's power directly, without big green stifling it, nVidia will have some catching up to do in terms of hardware.
Comment has been collapsed.
Always hated that attitude from nVidia but also what is sad is devs selling out to them without thinking in the players, or at least in the ones at the AMD side and how this kind of stuff impact on the industry. I use my pc not just for playing but also for working and AMD products have never let me down. So I'm staying with them for the moment.
Can I ask you a kind of "off topic advice"? ._.
I need to upgrade my GPU and maybe my CPU. Currently using a Phenom II X4 965 and a HD6670. Was thinking in buying a FX processor (maybe 6300?) and a R9 280/290 (a "gtx 960 equivalent"). What can you tell me? I'm in quite undecided at the moment xD Using an ASUS M5A87 motherboard by the way.
Comment has been collapsed.
I'll give you a lil advice :3
Amd cpus right now are a bit outdated plus new cpus (2016 zen) will have a different socket, so new motherboards will not be retrocompatible. I don't know how strong the Phenom II x4 is but I'd wait a lil bit to replace it with another amd one, until zen comes out (or go with intel skylake, new socket as well, should give you some upgrade options in the future).
For gpus: It depends on your budget, a 380 or a 280x isn't a bad choice, especially the 280x should be quite cheap if you find some left in stock. You could even find some cheap 290! But stay away from 290 reference coolers :p
Also I wouldn't recommend an asus matrix 290(x), the cooler doesn't fit on the gpu too well and it overheats, had a personal experience with that, the card was gorgeous though :>
Comment has been collapsed.
Thanks for your kind advice :D You gave a lot to think about, I will reasearch a little more. Thanks again!
Comment has been collapsed.
I've always been partial toward Intel's CPU so I'm a bit out of the loop on AMD's side. Then again, I don't follow things as closely as I once did and usually research my CPU/GPU when I'm ready for an upgrade. So I'd listen to Pesmerga's advice since he seems to be on top of this.
As far as the GPU is concerned, I usually go with as big as I can get within a set price point. Tom' Hardware chart usually comes handy when the time comes to pick the best price/performance ratio for my purchase.
Comment has been collapsed.
I don't have a good comparison in modern games, but just looking at AnandTech's Bench, the FX 6300 isn't that much faster than the Phenom II X4 965. I'm not sure it's worth the upgrade. If you want to stay on the AMD side, the 8350 may be a better bet (for general use), but if you want better gaming, a Core i5 would be the way to go.
Comment has been collapsed.
Yeah but in that case (either 8350 or i5) I need to also change the motherboard. I'm thinking in maybe just change the GPU now despite not making the most of it with my current cpu/mb and some time later upgrade the cpu/mb. Thanks for commenting!
Comment has been collapsed.
Why would you need to change the MB for the 8350? Googling the MB you have, it looks like it supports up to 140W CPU's.
A GPU upgrade will definitely help for games (and for any software you use that supports GPU acceleration, although NVIDIA is the better choice for this).
Comment has been collapsed.
I thought that because of the 870 chipset the mb wouldn't make the most of the 8350 but will check it again. Thanks!
Comment has been collapsed.
If you really need to change, even as an avid AMD fan I'd say get a new mobo and an Intel i5-4790. If you want to stick with AMD, then an FX 8150 or 8350. The FX 4000 series was abysmal, the 6000 series only slightly less abysmal.
For GPU, R9 290, 290X, 295. If you cannot afford that much, then 270. If you are a graphic designer and want something long-term, wait for the new 300 cards.
By the way: that Phenom II CPU is soooooo good. I'm still using it today with a Radeon HD 6850. Not only I have no bottlenecks, but even new games can still run on medium/low in 1080p. I love that CPU and GPU line so much. ^^
Comment has been collapsed.
Yeah I work in grapich design an thy old Phenom has been great for me :D. Thanks for commenting, nice tips.
Comment has been collapsed.
Then wait for new 300s. The larger amount and faster VRAM will be beneficial for you if you cannot get the money for a really expensive FirePro or Quadro. In the long run it will be better for you, IMO, to use this old card for a little time and get something for the next 4-5 years instead of going for high-end 200 series that may be obsolete for that work in 2 years. FOr gaming, they may be viable for 3-4 years, but for graphical work, you simply cannot ever have enough VRAM…
Comment has been collapsed.
A few points for fanboys (any):
DX11 sucks in cpu performance / drawcalls
AMD drivers / software stack suck performance wise
DX12 games are already here
AMD always had higher FLOPS/mm2 for several generations
nVidia always cheat and buy developers
Microsoft and DX12 is AMD friendly for once (Xbox ONE hardware)
OpenGL / Vulkan are all in about standards
Gsync and Freesync/VESA differences
Comment has been collapsed.
Comment has been collapsed.
Not a fanboy, but thanks. I have been enjoying nvidia's products since 2001. Every time I need a new GFX-card, I will compare both ATI(AMD) and NVIDIA products, but so far the choice have always been NVIDIA. Here Fury X costs in a shop about 740€ and cheapest non-reference GTX980Ti is 715€. Buying from a "dealer", then the prices are 689€ and 695€.
Comment has been collapsed.
Well I guess keep on enjoying them and you might as well go SLI since they will go down in price. Nvida has always been more expensive for not much more and they have only gone down hill in recent years on many different fronts.
EDIT: I bought I 290X for $299.00 because I waited for the best deal to come up. Where do you live that cards cost that much??
Comment has been collapsed.
I live in Estonia, but the prices are somewhat same in all EU (yes, there are places, where you might get it 50-60€ cheaper, but then there will be the shipping cost that cuts the before mentioned win to half). Unfortunately we don't get the prices that are in the USA. I really wish that AMD would come up with something better than they have so far, because good competition between AMD and NVIDIA is the thing that would benefit us, the consumer, most.
Comment has been collapsed.
Damn, that's brutal. If you want someone in the US to buy a cheap card and mail it to you then you should PM me :) I've actually sent many packages to Estonia before and international shipping is cake for me. If I weren't serious I wouldn't waste my time writing this
Comment has been collapsed.
Thanks :), but bought the new one about a month ago (all blame goes to Witcher 3 :D) and I won't probably think of a new card (unless something will happen to it) before Mass Effect 4 comes out.
Comment has been collapsed.
Not a fanboy, but this seems to be relevant.
http://www.eteknix.com/looks-like-amds-furyx-also-missing-directx-12-features/
Comment has been collapsed.
there’s no such thing as “full support” for DX12 on the market today
The difference is than AMD, unlike nVidia, never claimed to have full support. They also don't expose features in their drivers that the GPU can't perform.
This was the cause behind this whole debacle, having nVidia drivers report that the GPU can do Async Compute while in reality it just can't. They tried to cheat their way in claiming they were 100% compliant and got caught in their lies.
Comment has been collapsed.
I honestly would just for the GUI.
After all Windows 8.1 has been superior to 7 for over a year now. Much faster startup, better native support for new technologies, better GUI (although metro is problematic to some extent. That has been solved in 10). To me W7 feels like XP now. Obsolete in every way.
And again even if no DX12, W10 still has WDDM 2.0, which gives performance boost in CPU limited games. Even in DX9 and 10 and 11 and 12 :D Actually it will benefit OpenGL/Vulkan too.
Comment has been collapsed.
And I thought I was a spoiled PC gamer... I have a EVGA SC GTX970 FTW+ and I have been able to run everything released so far on max settings with only tiny tiny miniscule bits of lag on seriously demanding games... I also have a ton of other high quality parts though. So I'm sure I won't notice if I don't get the full boost of DX12. I didn't even mind when I had cheaper parts and wasn't pulling over 30 fps... Be thankful for what you have guys. Things like this happen all the time and it could have been worse... there may even be worse problems yet to be discovered for different cards/parts so you might have actually got off lucky.
Comment has been collapsed.
Want to agree with you, but this info totally broke my GPU exchange plan for 2016.
Plan was simple: buy GF980Ti after Nvidia releases new cards, bringing $1000 price-tag down to like $500. Now it looks like it will be bad plan, because lack of proper DX12 support means lack of proper DX12 console ports :(
Comment has been collapsed.
We will be able to play DX12 games... I thought it was just at a little frame drop/performance cost? I wouldn't let something like 7fps ruin your entire plans man.. Also don't forget about overclocking... if you are safe you can probably make up that performance drop and more like it's nothing
Comment has been collapsed.
It's hard to say right now, because we still don't have enough DX12 ports, so we have no idea how console-games will be made.
If they will focus on using that technology everywhere, current GeForces might turn out to be useless.
Anyway, waiting for 2016, will check what will happen and decide then. Worst case scenario, I'll go with Radeon, even through my history with them was rather sad (bought one of newest Radeons in 2007, had 1 FPS in Half Life 1 while Mass Effect was working like it should...).
Comment has been collapsed.
I'm sure nvidia will fiddle a driver to convert async shaders/compute to serial, as it does now, but more efficiently. But there's no doubt that nvidia will suffer hard on DX12 games with kepler (700 series) and Maxwell (900 series). Pascal (1000) might have fixed this, but since the chip has already been taped out, there is no way for them to fix it, if Pascal doesn't support async shaders before this DX12 demo came out.
Comment has been collapsed.
Also count in that vram will be a bottleneck later\it will be harder for nvidia to have fixes for games in dx12 (so they don't use the ghetto ~500mb of vram), sadly i have a 970 too, but i wasn't able to get a refund when the vram scam got out. (because i live in a shit country)
tl;dr the 970 is the least futureproof card out there.
Comment has been collapsed.
758 Comments - Last post 42 minutes ago by orono
20 Comments - Last post 44 minutes ago by Saaguen
5 Comments - Last post 47 minutes ago by Stakaniy
31 Comments - Last post 1 hour ago by devotee
2 Comments - Last post 1 hour ago by yush88
12 Comments - Last post 2 hours ago by Konsterter
1,958 Comments - Last post 2 hours ago by MeguminShiro
44 Comments - Last post 14 minutes ago by LittleBibo1
34 Comments - Last post 19 minutes ago by Shanti
84 Comments - Last post 27 minutes ago by Bum8ara5h
709 Comments - Last post 28 minutes ago by emanuelml
488 Comments - Last post 49 minutes ago by nilander
120 Comments - Last post 1 hour ago by CultofPersonalitea
101 Comments - Last post 1 hour ago by CultofPersonalitea
https://www.reddit.com/r/pcmasterrace/comments/3j2wpj/x_post_rpcgaming_nvidia_gpus_do_not_support_dx12/
https://www.reddit.com/r/AdvancedMicroDevices/comments/3iwn74/kollock_oxide_games_made_a_post_discussing_dx12/cul9auq
TL;DR: Gefore 900 series doesn't support Async compute\shaders, nvidia cards will suck at dx12 games, especially if you wanna use VR. (also it does explain why did nvidia cards had worse FPS in dx12 than in dx11 in some cases in that RTS benchmark.)
Edit: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dnn0rgDaSro
Comment has been collapsed.