HOLY CRAP! A DX10 BENCH G80 vs R600!!!!!

Based on what I've read (which admittedly isn't that much), it seems that comparison isn't worth much at this point. I assume the dx10 version of that game is pretty fresh. the R600 drivers appear to be pretty unpolished. I don't think we'll really know where things stand for a little while, time for another driver revision or three. Not that ati doesn't deserve getting beat, showing up so late the party, and after having already developed a unified shader arch. card for a console.
At the end of the day though, where the card stands now is relevant only if you're buying a card right now.
if you're a few months off from a new purchase, as I am, we can wait and see whats the best for the $....if you're in a budget, that is.

Wow! Those are nice lookin graphics!

I want to have graphics like that available to me...

Nice article! Come on ATI step up with the xtx

I double that.. those reviews are all I've been waiting for before buying a new rig. I recon an overclocked 6600 and a GTS 320 will do the trick couse that's what I'll be getting. Otherwise I just might add another 320 to the setup (going for ASUS SLI mainboard).

Anyhow.. I am very disapointed by ATI.. not because of the preformance (no right to be couse the price is so good) but by the fact that it runs so bloody hot.. lost 3 Nvidia cards to that They had plenty of time to think of a decent cooling and sort out drivers and now Nvidia has probably sold enought of their Ge8 series to get their initial investments back and ATI is just starting to sell theirs with a very disapoining launch for a very low price (for such card).

They are great looking.

*drools*

I love to play games in 1280x1024 rez, 1024x768 looks so jaggies, IMO.
This review about DX10 made me doubt again about upgrading. The games are running on 27 fps only, that's not even a "good" frame rate to play with, there'll be lots of hiccups too, i think.
This is just one game, what about FSX or Crysis ? does it will run only 5 fps on DX10 ?
What about the people who just buy 8600 series ? they can't even play in 1024 rez.

8) play on XP insted of vista then

Definitely going to have to upgrade to play that. 8O

Interesting. The 2900XT can keep up with the GTX in DX10, but falls behind slightly in image quality, which is one of it's advantages in previous cards?

It keeps up with the GTS, not the GTX.

I saw that bit about the image quality as well though, that's a big turnaround for ATI.

I'm at work so I can't see those.

I see.

I had only looked at the benchie linked by the OP.

The main thing is what you have are fundamentally DX9 built games right now, with DX10 tacked on top. They idn't design the grass, trees, terrain with DX10 code path in mind, what most of the early benchmarks show is still a fouundation of DX9 where most of the work is done, with certain features tacked on, like the displacement mapping on the mountains. They aren't saving code by doing the same thing with less, they have a dull mountain and they add features on top. It's different tan building the mountain for DX10, or having DX9 do the same thing and then see DX10 do it quiker. The same effect (for the mountains, not the floor) could be shown using parallax-oclusion/virtual-displacement mapping but that wasn't done in the original, so it's not a question of replacing code so much as taking it on afterwards.

When it's a ground up option where the development paths involved 2 branches DX9 vs DX10 and they were built to exploit the benefits of each, that's when we should start to see the benefits of DX10 in comparison to the older DX9 methods, for now it's more of an after-thought that will initially increase the load on the cards not reduce it.
I suspect there are many areas where crysis should see major differences and will be specifically coded to take advantage of DX10, like in the vegetation.

Just FYI the early demos of Crysis were mostly in 720P (ie 1280x720 / 1366x768) and it's often mentioned in the gameplay videos.