Will I need a DX11 card to use the new graphics?
By
azile,
Posted on: 2010-02-26 17:07 in CoH and CoV General Discussions
The best info is here, but current nVidia (non-DirectX 11) cards are on the list, so that implies DirectX 11 is not required.
Quote:
No. The game is purportedly built against OpenGL 3.0, based on the starting point for support being the 9800 GTX / GTS 250, and the RadeonHD 4850.
|
Originally Posted by dbuter
nVidia currently does not make a DX 11 card. I have a ATI card that is not DX11, and after this, I refuse to buy another one. So do I have to wait for nVidia to make theirs?
edit: Err, I think this game is OpenGL, isn't it. If so, I can just buy a new card today. |
Quote:
That's minimum support right now, though. There's nothing saying maximal settings won't require a later version of OpenGL to run Ultra Mode. That said as far as I'm aware most recent cards and operating systems support all recent versions of OpenGL, so I don't see a problem with this.|
Originally Posted by je_saist
No. The game is purportedly built against OpenGL 3.0, based on the starting point for support being the 9800 GTX / GTS 250, and the RadeonHD 4850.
|
Quick question: Whose design was OpenGL? I remember the "OpenGL vs 3DFX" debates back in the day between nVidia and Voodoo, if I recall correctly, and it seems that 3DFX died in that face-off, but was OpenGL an nVidia design, or did they just use that at the time?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Arcanaville
Samuel_Tow is the only poster that makes me want to punch him in the head more often when I'm agreeing with him than when I'm disagreeing with him.
|
I think it's an open standard. I know Apple contributes to it, as well as a few Linux companies.
Also people, please don't PM me about how nVidia is dying and I should only use ATI. Guess what? ATI can't write a decent driver to save it's life. I'm sick of them screwing up my computer when they do a driver update.
Quote:
The theory behind OpenGL support is that each successive API includes fallbacks for the older API's. So if you write an application that uses the Tessellation from OpenGL 3.2, theory states that if the OpenGL driver finds your hardware does not support Tessellation, it will render the scene without tessellation. You should still have the same basic polygon / structure build though. |
Originally Posted by Samuel_Tow
That's minimum support right now, though. There's nothing saying maximal settings won't require a later version of OpenGL to run Ultra Mode. That said as far as I'm aware most recent cards and operating systems support all recent versions of OpenGL, so I don't see a problem with this.
|
There's several threads, like this one, over on OpenGL about the fallback rendering paths.
Quote:
| Quick question: Whose design was OpenGL? I remember the "OpenGL vs 3DFX" debates back in the day between nVidia and Voodoo, if I recall correctly, and it seems that 3DFX died in that face-off, but was OpenGL an nVidia design, or did they just use that at the time? |
3DFX used a re-implementation of a subset of the full OpenGL command list in their Glide API. 3DFX's hardware was built to process this limited processing set entirely in the hardware, which was also why it was so fast compared to competitors: http://www.linuxselfhelp.com/HOWTO/3Dfx-HOWTO-7.html
Nvidia's support of OpenGL was a little bit more robust. Rather than simply reimplementing the specification, they just supported OpenGL directly. However, Nvidia achieved fame for their proprietary extensions to OpenGL, one of the advantages to the API. Vendors could make up their own extensions, which they didn't necessarily have to tell other OpenGL developers about. The most famous of these proprietary extensions was UltraShadow, which was used extensively in the Doom 3 engine to make Nvidia's GeforceFX look good compared to the Radeon's of the time.
***
OpenGL began to fade out in 2002 and 2003 for 2 very good reasons. Microsoft's DirectX API had leapfrogged OpenGL's performance support by a good measure with DirectX 9. ATi's Radeon 9500 and 9700 series were also perfectly capable of processing DirectX 9 commands fast enough to be playable in high resolutions like 1024*768 and 1280*1024.
The Professional Graphics Development Studio, 3Dlabs, pushed the development of OpenGL 2.0 forwards as the Architecture Review Board was basically twiddling their fan blade.
Starting with the Geforce 6000 series, we also saw Nvidia take a step back from OpenGL and work more on DirectX support... largely because although 3Dlabs was pushing for an updated OpenGL specification, the Architecture Review Board was still pretty much playing Phil Keaggy's Doin' Nothin'.
It wasn't till 2007 that things began to change for OpenGL, with the Khronos group basically doing what 3DFX had done years before, and making a list of gaming specific commands from the full OpenGL API: http://www.opengl.org/pipeline/article/vol004_2/
It's expected that 3DFX's legacy of hand selecting gaming specific calls will continue with the expected OpenGL 3.0 ES or 3.2 ES specifications. Rumor has it that Activision Blizzard, EA, and Transgaming had quite a bit of input on what's expected to be the next short list of OpenGL 3.x gaming specific calls.
**
I hope that answered the question :P
Quote:
I'm afraid you got that backwards. Nvidia's the one whose been having driver issues. Please get out of 2003.
|
Originally Posted by dbuter
Also people, please don't PM me about how nVidia is dying and I should only use ATI. Guess what? ATI can't write a decent driver to save it's life. I'm sick of them screwing up my computer when they do a driver update.
|
Interestingly, it actually does. Thanks a bunch, Saist. I love hearing about the history of technology like that. I kind of miss my Discovery Channel right about now. Stupid cable provider!
That makes a lot of sense, in retrospect, and brings back memories of the phrase "3DFX Glide," though I can only recall the phrase itself, not what I remember it meaning. I vaguely remember this being a feature of the original Half-Life, allowing me to select between OpenGL, 3DFX (possibly 3DFX Glide) and software rendering, back when games still supported that and when graphic cards and 3D accelerators came separately.
Any idea why Microsoft keep pushing to restrict DirectX for XP? Or is it just to push people to buy Windows 7?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Arcanaville
Samuel_Tow is the only poster that makes me want to punch him in the head more often when I'm agreeing with him than when I'm disagreeing with him.
|
Quote:
Other than Microsoft just loves to be in control of everything? |
Originally Posted by Samuel_Tow
Any idea why Microsoft keep pushing to restrict DirectX for XP? Or is it just to push people to buy Windows 7?
|
My opinion is that Microsoft does utitilize DirectX as leverage on game developers. As far as I'm aware, and anybody whose actually more familiar with the DirectX API can answer this... previous API specifications aren't always implemented in the Current implementation.
With OpenGL, the fallback rendering path is supposed to be part of the OpenGL driver. The idea is that if you make API calls that the hardware does not support, OpenGL just does not run those calls, but still builds the scene anyways. There are some API calls that are deprecated: http://www.gremedy.com/tutorial/_add...sarydeprecated :: Although this is how I understand the fallback process, that doesn't mean that I'm right here, or that this is how it actually winds up working. Somebody who actually has experience writing to the OpenGL API's is better qualified to speak on how the fallbacks actually work.
With DirectX... the memory that sticks in my head comes from Half Life 2. At the time Half Life 2 was launched Valve software said something about having to maintain a separate rendering path for DirectX 9 support, DirectX 8.1 support, and DirectX 7 support. They couldn't just write one coding path, and let the driver / underlying system figure out what to display / what not to display.
***
Since DirectX puts an additional burden on graphics developers, there is a financial limit on just how much work can go into a project that will give a return. As OpenGL shows, the graphics API is not as integrated as Microsoft would like to have everybody believe. The Graphics API of DirectX 10 was developed as an update for WindowsXP to begin with, something Microsoft doesn't really like to talk about.
The... implication... is that Microsoft is using DirectX to force publishers into a hard spot. Either the publisher okays funding for coders to work the hours needed to maintain and support separate rendering paths... or... they don't. Microsoft's pressure on the publisher is what winds up putting pressure on the consumer.
There's no technical reason that I'm aware of that Microsoft cannot implement DX10 and DX11 atop Windows Xp. That OpenGL can render the exact same scene with the exact same image quality pretty much torpedoes arguments that the graphics API won't work at all.
***
The other aspect to think about here is Microsoft's business model. Microsoft's primary business model is built upon people buying new computers and replacing their operating system with new paid for versions. It's often referred to in the Linux communities as the Microsoft Tax. Steve Ballmer and Bill Gates are actually on record as stating that they believe that all computers should ship with a copy of Windows. Microsoft is also on record, both directly and through the Business Software Alliance, of taking computer manufacturers who sell computers that don't include Windows... into Court on charges of piracy. It's not possible that somebody makes living or runs a shop selling computers with no os or with Linux... if you sell a computer without Windows installed and without paying Microsoft... well...
Really, Microsoft's business practices resemble something along the lines of the Capone's or Winter Hill Gang. Which is probably also why Microsoft has been convicted of federal / state level crimes on 5 continents. (I'm not aware of any convictions in either Australia or Antarctica.)
Given that this is their business model, things start to fall apart when people don't buy completely new computers with Windows pre-installed, or don't buy Windows at all. So, Microsoft keeps trying to come up with ways to keep people buying. Remember, the original idea with Windows XP is that it was to be licensed software with consumers paying a yearly fee, whether or not Microsoft updated the OS. Microsoft actually did launch a subscription type service in 2008: http://arstechnica.com/microsoft/new...are-bundle.ars
***
From my point of view, more publishers and developers are coming to the realization that DirectX probably wasn't the way to go. I suspect Khronos is probably talking with some of the other major publishers about what they can do to get around the intentional restrictions put in place on Windows Operating systems. Linux aside, OpenGL allows developers and publishers to do what Microsoft does not want them to do:
Reach the most amount of potential payers for the least cost.
Interesting jesaist, it's always nice to know about how your graphics drivers etc work, and i agree, ATi's drivers are vastly improved compared to when i was running my 9600pro and moved UP to a X1650. I now run Nvidia on both of my PC's and the drivers only get updated when a game demands it. I'm a firm believer in 'if it ain't broke, don't fix it'! Having said that I'll be picking up an Ati 5850 as my next card (probably!) along with a move to a 1920x1200 24" monitor at some point this year. The current 8800GT and 22" 1680x1050 TFT will be moving to the other PC which currently runs a 17" CRT and 9600GT!
I do think, however, that Direct X was good for the PC gaming scene to begin with. There were so many different engines and so many different performance differences from one game to the next that something had to be done. Some games didn't like this version of a driver, other games demanded you had this one, if you had this driver combined with this sound card driver the game would crash etc etc. It was also a good thing as it game developers something to aim for. It still wasn't ideal, the graphics available on an Xbox 360 show what is possible when you have a fixed spec and you can program and develop to it's advantages rather than having to make your graphics scalable and the engine run on hundreds or even thousands of different specifications that could be classed as a 'PC'.
Microsoft decided as a business step not to launch Direct X 10 onto Windows XP purely to push sales of it, the same reason Halo 2 PC was DX10 only when it was proved it could be run on windows XP, and indeed it was cracked to do just that. There are still very few pure DX10 games as far too many people still run Windows XP! IMO there will never be a pure DX11 game either, and most probably no one will ever make a pure DX version only game ever again, MS game studios excepted, purely to drive the next OS!
Defiant 50's
Many and varied!
@Miss Chief
Direct X9 is listed as a minimum requirement for CoH/V for the GUI and sound, not the 3D rendering.
Speeding Through New DA Repeatables || Spreadsheet o' Enhancements || Zombie Skins: better skins for these forums || Guide to Guides
Quote:
Oh, I'm not going to argue that for a while, Microsoft was actually the good guy for gaming. The DirectX API integration was something that the *nix world had never thought of, and even today developers get confused over what API's and development tool kits are available and what can be used to reach the most users. (if you haven't seen the video at this link, take the time to sit through it)|
Originally Posted by Miss Chief
I do think, however, that Direct X was good for the PC gaming scene to begin with. There were so many different engines and so many different performance differences from one game to the next that something had to be done. Some games didn't like this version of a driver, other games demanded you had this one, if you had this driver combined with this sound card driver the game would crash etc etc. It was also a good thing as it game developers something to aim for. It still wasn't ideal, the graphics available on an Xbox 360 show what is possible when you have a fixed spec and you can program and develop to it's advantages rather than having to make your graphics scalable and the engine run on hundreds or even thousands of different specifications that could be classed as a 'PC'.
|
Granted, I am of the opinion that publishers can take the API confusion problem into their own hands. It's also my expectation that at least two game publishers involved with Khronos will probably be force that issue.
Quote:
| Microsoft decided as a business step not to launch Direct X 10 onto Windows XP purely to push sales of it, the same reason Halo 2 PC was DX10 only when it was proved it could be run on windows XP, and indeed it was cracked to do just that. There are still very few pure DX10 games as far too many people still run Windows XP! IMO there will never be a pure DX11 game either, and most probably no one will ever make a pure DX version only game ever again, MS game studios excepted, purely to drive the next OS! |
***
Quote:
| Direct X9 is listed as a minimum requirement for CoH/V for the GUI and sound, not the 3D rendering. |
Quote:
As I recall, they really, REALLY wanted to give people some reason to 'upgrade' to Vista since the consensus was that XP pretty much had everything casual users and most gamers needed from their OS. |
Originally Posted by je_saist
Ai. I'm reminded of that line from Star Wars... the one about systems slipping through tightening fingers. *** |
Of course, Vista turning out to be a major crock didn't help their case, and they burned a /lot/ of credit trying to force it on people.
My characters - all on Virtue.
Gabe's Internet [censored] Theory
RMT spammers WILL steal your credit card.
Quote:
Watching a documentary on the rise and evolution of Microsoft is actually a scary thing, because it demonstrates their cut-throat business model very, very clearly. Basically, it comes down to forcing themselves into a majority monopoly, and then using this monopoly to basically bully retailers into stamping out other business.|
Originally Posted by je_saist
The other aspect to think about here is Microsoft's business model. Microsoft's primary business model is built upon people buying new computers and replacing their operating system with new paid for versions. It's often referred to in the Linux communities as the Microsoft Tax. Steve Ballmer and Bill Gates are actually on record as stating that they believe that all computers should ship with a copy of Windows. Microsoft is also on record, both directly and through the Business Software Alliance, of taking computer manufacturers who sell computers that don't include Windows... into Court on charges of piracy. It's not possible that somebody makes living or runs a shop selling computers with no os or with Linux... if you sell a computer without Windows installed and without paying Microsoft... well...
Really, Microsoft's business practices resemble something along the lines of the Capone's or Winter Hill Gang. Which is probably also why Microsoft has been convicted of federal / state level crimes on 5 continents. (I'm not aware of any convictions in either Australia or Antarctica.) |
Take, for instance, the fate of Netscape. For a while, their Navigator was either the only or the best Internet browser out there, I don't remember, while Microsoft were dicking around trying to develop Internet Explorer. However, when they did, their approach was to basically force retailers to NOT install Netscape Navigator on the boxes they were selling and install Internet Explorer, instead. They did this by essentially giving retailers a choice - dump Navigator for Internet Explorer, or you don't sell Windows, and for lack of another operating system that will run on your computers, you don't sell computers at all. This is monopoly in its purest form, where a large business has enough control to remove a competitor from the scene by unethical means.
I can't really fault Gate's original popularity campaign strategy, I really can't. Basically, what they did was to give their operating system to as many manufacturers essentially for free with I think a certain amount or "rent" on it and just make it so EVERYONE was using Windows because it was so gosh-dang cheap and available. However, once the market depended on Windows, they pulled the reigns tight and simply didn't permit any other business to thrive. Yes, we have Linux, largely because it's not sold and not to the broader public, and we have Mac on machines that may or may not run Windows anyway, but by and large, they just don't seem to appreciate competition.
Which is kind of funny when you consider what Google have done and how they've basically snatched "the Internet" from right under Microsoft's nose. Yeah, Microsoft would like you to use Bing to search with and Internet Explorer and they try to develop their own proprietary interactive content codecs and sites that only work in Internet Explorer, but the fact remains that they have not, in any way, shape or form, been able to monopolise the Internet, because no-one wants their software in this field. Yes, people still occasionally use Internet Explorer, and some unfortunate souls even use Outlook, but Firefox and now Chrome have replaced their browsers, Google is the thing to search with, and now more and more developers are designing software and APIs designed to work on their systems, but bypass their malicious rules.
I still prefer Windows to any other operating system for the simple fact that it runs practically everything, whereas other systems simply do not, but the way Microsoft have been jerking me around with "exclusive" features restricted for no reason other than to get me to fork over more cash to "unlock" them does not sit well with me. Better that City of Heroes uses OpenGL, it seems.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Arcanaville
Samuel_Tow is the only poster that makes me want to punch him in the head more often when I'm agreeing with him than when I'm disagreeing with him.
|
Yeah my friend and I are kind of leery of Google in some regards. It seems Google wants to become the 'next Microsoft'...wanting them to control/have information on you/on everything. Don't get me wrong, Google is great for some things but...I don't know...I'm not trusting Google 100% anymore (that started a year or two ago).
Leader of The LEGION/Fallen LEGION on the Liberty server!
SSBB FC: 2062-8881-3944
MKW FC: 4167-4891-5991
If Apple ran everything, we would all be safe basking in the glory of Steve, and have no worries about any of these crazy options.
I have a NVIDIA GeForce 8800GTS 512MB. Will that work?
That's what I have, Forbin, and from what I understand, no, it will not run Ultra Mode except MAYBE at minimal settings and not all the options enabled. I plan to upgrade.
Of course, if I get into the closed beta this week and I enable Ultra Mode and it WORKS...
... I still wouldn't be able to tell you. 
Michelle
aka
Samuraiko/Dark_Respite
Dark_Respite's Farewell Video: "One Last Day"
THE COURSE OF SUPERHERO ROMANCE CONTINUES!
Book I: A Tale of Nerd Flirting! ~*~ Book II: Courtship and Crime Fighting - Chap Nine live!
MA Arcs - 3430: Hell Hath No Fury / 3515: Positron Gets Some / 6600: Dyne of the Times / 351572: For All the Wrong Reasons
378944: Too Clever by Half / 459581: Kill or Cure / 551680: Clerical Errors (NEW!)
THE COURSE OF SUPERHERO ROMANCE CONTINUES!
Book I: A Tale of Nerd Flirting! ~*~ Book II: Courtship and Crime Fighting - Chap Nine live!
MA Arcs - 3430: Hell Hath No Fury / 3515: Positron Gets Some / 6600: Dyne of the Times / 351572: For All the Wrong Reasons
378944: Too Clever by Half / 459581: Kill or Cure / 551680: Clerical Errors (NEW!)
Ya know Je, I have read many of your posts that express your love for ATI. While all of the links you give seem like good information, and you have strong arguments. My experiences in the past with ATI have been so bad I can't bring myself to give them another shot. So, if they were the last video card maker on earth, I may would give them a try again.
You bring up 2003 in another post, but that is the problem, ATI has burned a ton of bridges for many long time computer gamers. That's just my take on it.
Types of Swords
My Portfolio
I wouldn't be so sure about specifications of graphics cards. I curreently have an 8800GT 512MB which is one small step (for man?) below your cards Dark Respite and Forbin. Currently I run CoH and lots of other games on a 22" TFT which runs at 1680x1050. I've had my card for two years and I'm beginning to wonder if I have some sort of magical overclocked from the factory super 8800GT or something. Every game I've played on it, from CoD4 to MW2 to STO beta right through to Fallout 3 and everything else I've ever tried, I've just put the res up to 1680x1050, put everything on maximum in the options and played away with no problems. Other people I know that have an 8800GT, same as mine are complaining of slowdown or having to drop details to get good framerates yet I'm still playing away merrily and I can't see any slowdown at all. Best thing I would suggest is wait and see. Even if your card isn't enough to put all the bells and whistles on right now, I'd still expect some optimisation from the Dev's as this is often the last thing done when it comes to graphics. You'll also have the added bonus of your desired card being cheaper (probably!) when you come to buy.
Defiant 50's
Many and varied!
@Miss Chief
I don't post on the boards often, but this seemed to warrant some commentary. Also, I'm a lot more familiar with OpenGL than Direct3D, although I do have experience with both.
Quote:
I go into a bit more detail below, but this isn't accurate. What's happening in this particular example is that the programmer has to explcitly check for two pieces of hardware functionality: Programmable Shaders (GLSL), and Multitexturing. If they don't exist, he then turns off a particular portion of the render path. The driver does not handle this task automatically. Attempting to call the functions where the hardware does not support them causes an error. Some of us have seen this in COH. If we try to run it on a machine with default drivers or a lousy video card, a message pops up to the effect of: Unsupported Extension: GL_ARB_MULTITEXTURE. |
Originally Posted by je_saist
The theory behind OpenGL support is that each successive API includes fallbacks for the older API's. So if you write an application that uses the Tessellation from OpenGL 3.2, theory states that if the OpenGL driver finds your hardware does not support Tessellation, it will render the scene without tessellation. You should still have the same basic polygon / structure build though.
There's several threads, like this one, over on OpenGL about the fallback rendering paths. |
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by je_saist
It wasn't till 2007 that things began to change for OpenGL, with the Khronos group basically doing what 3DFX had done years before, and making a list of gaming specific commands from the full OpenGL API: http://www.opengl.org/pipeline/article/vol004_2/
It's expected that 3DFX's legacy of hand selecting gaming specific calls will continue with the expected OpenGL 3.0 ES or 3.2 ES specifications. Rumor has it that Activision Blizzard, EA, and Transgaming had quite a bit of input on what's expected to be the next short list of OpenGL 3.x gaming specific calls. |
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by je_saist
Other than Microsoft just loves to be in control of everything?
My opinion is that Microsoft does utitilize DirectX as leverage on game developers. As far as I'm aware, and anybody whose actually more familiar with the DirectX API can answer this... previous API specifications aren't always implemented in the Current implementation. With OpenGL, the fallback rendering path is supposed to be part of the OpenGL driver. The idea is that if you make API calls that the hardware does not support, OpenGL just does not run those calls, but still builds the scene anyways. There are some API calls that are deprecated: http://www.gremedy.com/tutorial/_add...sarydeprecated :: Although this is how I understand the fallback process, that doesn't mean that I'm right here, or that this is how it actually winds up working. Somebody who actually has experience writing to the OpenGL API's is better qualified to speak on how the fallbacks actually work. With DirectX... the memory that sticks in my head comes from Half Life 2. At the time Half Life 2 was launched Valve software said something about having to maintain a separate rendering path for DirectX 9 support, DirectX 8.1 support, and DirectX 7 support. They couldn't just write one coding path, and let the driver / underlying system figure out what to display / what not to display. Since DirectX puts an additional burden on graphics developers, there is a financial limit on just how much work can go into a project that will give a return. As OpenGL shows, the graphics API is not as integrated as Microsoft would like to have everybody believe. The Graphics API of DirectX 10 was developed as an update for WindowsXP to begin with, something Microsoft doesn't really like to talk about. The... implication... is that Microsoft is using DirectX to force publishers into a hard spot. Either the publisher okays funding for coders to work the hours needed to maintain and support separate rendering paths... or... they don't. Microsoft's pressure on the publisher is what winds up putting pressure on the consumer. |
OpenGL 3 has a similar mechanism: if you define an OpenGL context to be "forward-looking," you set the minimum version of compatibility - say 3.1, and you're strictly forced to comply with OpenGL 3.1+ function calls. For instance - because the fixed function pipeline was deprecated in 3.0, and removed in 3.1, certain basic calls to it like glTranslate() will throw an error. There is also a backwards compatible context, where deprecated calls aren't removed. However, the interaction between some deprecated OpenGL calls and the new OpenGL 3 calls is undefined. Thus, if you opt to use both the deprecated and new features, the action that will be taken is whatever the driver feels like doing, which can be the right thing, but is not guarenteed to be. Because of this, it can preferred to have a forward-looking OpenGL 3 context, especially with new code, or heavily optimized code. So you wind up with two seperate render paths with OpenGL (one for 2.1, another for 3, if you are planning on supporting both), much like you would with different versions of Direct3D. Personally, I'm curious what route the devs choose for Ultra Mode.
The deprecation in OpenGL 3 is long overdue. The Fixed Function pipeline has been around since the late 80s (OpenGL's been around since '92), and it's not indicative of how things are rendered anymore. Initially, The new features of OpenGL 3 were not going to have explicit backwards compatibility with 2.1 (Google "OpenGL Longs Peak" if interested in the history), but ultimately the Architecture Review Board decided to maintain backwards compatability, at the cost of performance. The majority of fixed function pipeline calls have a significant performance hit for rendering scenes with a large number of vertices.
Ultimately, OpenGL and Direct3D have different design philosophies. Like all APIs, they are slaves to the hardware. Which is "better" is really a matter of what the task at hand is.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by je_saist
There's no technical reason that I'm aware of that Microsoft cannot implement DX10 and DX11 atop Windows Xp. That OpenGL can render the exact same scene with the exact same image quality pretty much torpedoes arguments that the graphics API won't work at all.
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by je_saist
I'm afraid you got that backwards. Nvidia's the one whose been having driver issues. Please get out of 2003.
|
Anyhow, hopefully this helps clear things up a little.
Quote:
Thanks D_R. If I get into this closed beta I'll be able to find out for certain. If I do have to upgrade I have a couple of months to save up for it.|
Originally Posted by Dark_Respite
That's what I have, Forbin, and from what I understand, no, it will not run Ultra Mode except MAYBE at minimal settings and not all the options enabled. I plan to upgrade.
Of course, if I get into the closed beta this week and I enable Ultra Mode and it WORKS... ... I still wouldn't be able to tell you. Michelle aka Samuraiko/Dark_Respite |
I might just add more memory as well.
Quote:
That would be me, for one. (Their "support" on my Radeon 7000 series made me decide never to buy them again at the time.) |
Originally Posted by Zyphoid
You bring up 2003 in another post, but that is the problem, ATI has burned a ton of bridges for many long time computer gamers. That's just my take on it.
|
However, they've since had several changes - including being purchased by AMD. Enough changes that, yes, I've decided to give them another shot in my new rig (as opposed to putting off finishing it until something decent from nVidia is actually in stock) and so far, I've been happy.
Quote:
*actually chokes*|
Originally Posted by Memphis_Bill
That would be me, for one. (Their "support" on my Radeon 7000 series made me decide never to buy them again at the time.)
However, they've since had several changes - including being purchased by AMD. Enough changes that, yes, I've decided to give them another shot in my new rig (as opposed to putting off finishing it until something decent from nVidia is actually in stock) and so far, I've been happy. |
If you call what they did back in the Rage days and the original Radeon days support... you'd be perfect for helping to sell call-center services situated in India to US corporations.
Really, ATi's turn around from heel to hero can be traced to two events:
ATi's purchase of ArtX, which directly lead to the Radeon 9700 release, and then the resulting Catalyst Overhaul.
AMD's purchase of ATi, which lead to a complete OpenGL overhaul, www.x.org/docs/AMD, www.radeonhd.org, another overhaul of the Catalyst driver set (the 2D/3D driver source is now shared between all driver sets), as well as hiring this guy.
Anyways, I hope you stay happy MB
nVidia currently does not make a DX 11 card. I have a ATI card that is not DX11, and after this, I refuse to buy another one. So do I have to wait for nVidia to make theirs?
edit: Err, I think this game is OpenGL, isn't it. If so, I can just buy a new card today.