View Single Post
Old 09-26-08, 06:03 AM   #35
Rollo
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 1,719
Default Re: Why did NVIDIA skip the revision of Direct X 10.01 on their 9800 GTX/GX2/GTX 260/

Quote:
Originally Posted by Xion X2 View Post
Of course it's "in the works." It takes a good amount of time to design and develop games--especially those based on new tech.
Well, then I'm accurate in my statement "there are no DX10.1 games". AFAIK, there's only a handful of RTS games coming. I don't play RTS games, why would I care about DX10.1?


Quote:
Originally Posted by Xion X2 View Post
Hardware choices are often influential on the developing community. We're seeing that with ATI at the moment. They own the minority marketshare yet some development teams are spending a wealth of their time still choosing to implement the new standard.
ATi may well be paying them for additional development time to develop their own market.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Xion X2 View Post
Perhaps it's because I'm old-fashioned, but I don't give a damn about stereoscopic or CUDA right now. I care about what benefits gaming performance most, and from what I'm hearing from developers, that's DX10.1. It's Microsoft's API.. they're the ones who built the OS, and they're touting it as a performance booster.
I disagree with this. I'd guess 98% of the market owns 19X12 or less monitors. We've seen ONE game where DX10.1 benefitted performance 20%, and that was with render errors, so we don't even know if that is an accurate representation of DX10.1 performance increases. With $150 cards running games well at 19X12 these days, I don't think we "need" 20% more performance more than we need stereo and CUDA. For that matter, anyone who "needs" 20% more performance can get half of it by OCing, or get much more than 20% by going multi GPU. Anyone who "needs" 20% can have it pretty cheap these days.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Xion X2 View Post
PhysX has potential, and it would be nice if we could reach a standardization, but that is a failed attempt by you to parallel the DX10.1 argument. Nvidia owns Ageia and the PhysX technology; ATI does not own DX10.1. DX10.1 is a technology that both are free to share on equal ground.

I mean, get real. You can't expect ATI, a competing graphics company, to quell its own ambitions for a superior physics processing and humbly take shelter under Nvidia's PhysX umbrella knowing they would always play second fiddle to them. If Nvidia really wanted partnership on this venture, then they wouldn't have bought Ageia to gobble up all the technology to themselves. Their primary focus is gaining marketshare.. just the same as ATI.
I don't think I've "failed" to make a parallel at all-
You condemn NVIDIA for making the choice not to adopt a technology I see as meaningless, yet dismiss ATi not adopting technologies that will actually greatly change the level of immersion in games.

You have a double standard.
__________________
Rig1:
intel 990X + 2 X EVGA 3GB GTX580 + 3 X Acer GD235Hz
3D Vision Surround

Rig 2:
intel 2500K + NVIDIA GTX590 + Dell 3007 WFPHC

[SIZE="1"]NVIDIA Focus Group Member
[B]NVIDIA Focus Group Members receive free software and/or hardware from NVIDIA from time to time to facilitate the evaluation of NVIDIA products. However, the opinions expressed are solely those of the Members.[/B][/SIZE]
Rollo is offline   Reply With Quote