Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

3D Wall article kills highend video cards

Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
April 11, 2007 7:03:06 PM

I was going to go highend PCIe DX10 (after a DX10 game arrives) videocard however with the 3D Wall article I dont think I will.

If I want to do a 3D wall then I will not be getting the "bang for my buck" with a high rez highend card since I cannot pay a reasonable amount for a projector that has 1900X???? or 2500X???? native rez. Thus Ill get a cheaper projector and be satisfied with a lower rez like 1280X720.

I will be happy with a 1280X720 native projector and if so why get an expensive card ?

This make me want to at least try the upcoming AGP DX10 cards when they arrive (if a DX10 game is out).
April 11, 2007 7:35:17 PM

Remember, the high end video cards allow you to turn on more of the often mentioned "eye candy" that graphics nuts are so fascinated with.

You could get a 7900 GS (I think that was the card they used) - and it would work fine at that resolution, but you notice that the writer had to turn down the FSAA and probably the Ansiotropic Filtering.

If you had a card like the X1900XTX you would not ever need to turn down FSAA. I hope.

Also, the eye candy using the DirectX10 shader system is even better, so this ultra high quality provides some incentive to purchase the king of GPUs: an 8800 series card.

Remember, more power means more eye candy a higher resolutions. Even on low resolutions though, the extra eye candy can be seen.
-cm
April 11, 2007 7:45:40 PM

From your posts it seems like you think resolution is the only thing that matters in games, and you're very wrong if you think that. Even at 1280x1024 I found ways to cripple my X1900XTX to a point where I had to turn things down. Likewise you could run at a 1600x1200 res and turn down everything else in the game, and btw its not just AA and AF, and get playable framerates.
Still, you're right in general, usually high end cards do their best at high res and high settings, so if you're going a low res you don't really need one.

Just one question though, why are you looking for a projector? Wouldn't it be better to get a decent sized LCD and game on that? The main reason I say this is because 1280x720 will look pretty bad when projected onto a large screen. I don't know the prices on projectors, but my 37" LCD was pretty cheap for 1080p, and works very well for games.
Related resources
April 11, 2007 7:52:52 PM

Quote:
... at 1280x1024 I found ways to cripple my X1900XTX to a point where I had to turn things down.


!!?!?
-cm
April 11, 2007 7:55:09 PM

You're still going to want a high quality DX10 card. It takes some serious horsepower to drive Oblivion or Titan Quest at 1280x1024 (I haven't tried S.T.A.L.K.E.R. yet) so no matter what you'll be putting a decent amount of cash into an R600 or G80 series card.

So far my 7950GT has worked well with my projector's native 1024x768 resolution, but I expect that within a few months I'll be upgrading both the card and the projector to keep up with next generation demands.
April 11, 2007 9:31:30 PM

I want a video wall not a big LCD.

This projector will require a highend videocard:

Epson Home Cinema 1080p
1920X1020 native
$2900
1200 lumens

I guess I'll be getting a highend card afterall.
April 12, 2007 3:16:43 AM

1200 lumens is the best you could find (or perhaps afford)? My $900 cheapo is 2000 ANSI lumens, but alas only 1024x768 native with a 1280x1024 interpolation mode.
April 12, 2007 3:42:40 AM

ALSO - Before you buy a projector check out the bulb prices and the bulb life. They can cost $200 to $500 and last anywhere from 2000 to 5000 hours. Replacement can be a shock. CHECK IT OUT FIRST.
a b U Graphics card
April 12, 2007 4:16:48 AM

Quote:
... at 1280x1024 I found ways to cripple my X1900XTX to a point where I had to turn things down.


!!?!?
-cm
Maybe he pulled off a few VRAM chips :?
a b U Graphics card
April 12, 2007 4:20:56 AM

It would be pointless to have a dx10 card on AGP anyway as many people with AGP systems are still running athlon XPs and P4s. So a dx10 card is gonna hit a huge bottleneck. Better just to get a whole new system with PCIe than spend $500 on a card that wont perform anywhere near its capabilities.
a b U Graphics card
April 12, 2007 4:33:37 AM

Quote:
Someone correct me if i'm wrong but i don't think they will be making any DX10 cards for AGP. Isn't the AGP interface a bit slow for supporting the full abilities of a dx10 card?


Well ATi has publically stated that their rialto chip supports the R600 series, nV's been making reply noises that they will provide an updated HSI bridge for the DX10 cards (current solution doesn't work with GF8s). GeCube has also said they plan to make AGP DX10 ATi cards when the time is right.

IMO these will all be half-hearted solutions aimed at the mid-range, and for older proffesional workstation solutions. I don't expect them to be worth the money nor really a good solution for the average user, and considering that this will likely be a crippled solution and the poor performance of those mid-range GF8600 results, I don't see it being worth it for what is bound to be alot of money.

I also don't expect these AGP solutions for about 3+ more months, just like last generation's card (with the exception of the X1300 and X1600 both of which weren't really worth it even with only a short wait).

I suspect he X2600/GF8600 will be the limit, and also it'll cost at least $50 extra for anything with an AGP flavour.

But we'll see, maybe I'm wrong, but I wouldn't personally put my hopes in that pathway for gaming, only for people using it in a lighter environment where they want to see DX10 effects or work with them in a dev capacity, but not actually gaming.
a b U Graphics card
April 12, 2007 4:38:53 AM

Like I said, considering the likely age of most AGP systems, the cards will be bottlenecked anyway. Crippled card + crippled system = waste of money
a b U Graphics card
April 12, 2007 4:45:56 AM

I agree the only time I see it as a truely worthy concern is in proffesional rigs where there is 4 Xeons or Opterons on a system that was upgraded around a quality AGP Pro slot FireGL or Quadro.

But definitely doesn't make sense for gaming IMO,except if it's a mediocre competant rig and someone is doing casual gaming with everything turned on low, but then, why not get a cheaper and better DX9 card.

Also Devs may just want to run an effect, and don't mind 5 fps just to make sure it works, but that's not like making it run, for that they'd get a better rig, but if you're just punching code then code monkey no need fps. :twisted:

I woul never recommend one to even a medium gamer, too many restrictions.
April 12, 2007 1:33:21 PM

Quote:
... at 1280x1024 I found ways to cripple my X1900XTX to a point where I had to turn things down.


!!?!?
-cm
Maybe he pulled off a few VRAM chips :?

I guess... [/laughing at the buddha cat]
-cm
April 12, 2007 2:09:12 PM

Quote:
Just one question though, why are you looking for a projector? Wouldn't it be better to get a decent sized LCD and game on that? The main reason I say this is because 1280x720 will look pretty bad when projected onto a large screen. I don't know the prices on projectors, but my 37" LCD was pretty cheap for 1080p, and works very well for games.


I got a projector, we got it for movies, and decided to hook up the computer to it. It is a 1280x720 projector, and the image is about 9x5 feet. Games look great, and it really immerses you. I don't have the 3D glasses, but it is still amazing.

When looking at projectors we considered a LCD or Plasma, but at the $1200 dollar limit we had , the LCDs and plasmas had pretty crummy pictures, and the screens were only 35"-42". But with the projector we have a very good image and a 144" picture. No regrets in getting that.
!