who has the agenda here? My only agenda is to recommend the best card for the money based on all current data. I posted the data to back up my claims, something I haven't seen you do. I see lots of speculation that DX11 will get better and the drivers will get better and it will make a bigger visual difference without giving so much of a performance hit. But speculation is not facts, benchmarks, or data.
Unless you can find a way to run a graphics card without the rest of the system, I don't see how "just the card" has any real world significance in power draw or is appropriate at all. And I would have to see that data...who is the one giving out pure misinformation here?...the guy who post links to all the data or a guy who just claims things are true because he says them.
Depending on the games, settings, and resolutions all review sites will come to a slightly different conclusion about exact numbers. But they all pretty much fall into the same category that the 4850, gts 250, and 5750 are VERY close in performance, close enough you would probably not notice a significant difference when switching between the cards. Certain titles will slightly favor one over the other.
Your Quote "This class of cards is often used for 1680x1050 and the extra memory will make some difference at that resolution, especially when high levels of AA are applied and in certain games that are memory hungry a la GTA IV."
Please show the evidence there is a noticeable difference using benchmarks from the same card, one with 512 and one with 1gb. I've looked for this evidence, and have not found it.
Your quote "Your statement that Dirt 2 is considered THE benchmark is only true among people who have a similar agenda to your own. Stalker: CoP actually has much more obvious visual improvements from using DX11."
Once again, please show the evidence of the games looking that much better with DX11. The only benchmarks I've found show the cards run faster in DX10 than DX11 in that game. They also show very little difference between gts250, 4850, and 5750 in DX10.
Your quote " And for the third time, I don't think ANY of the DX11 benchmarks should be taken too seriously at this point. Initial implementations are almost always inefficient and tacked on. "
YES! This is my point. There are very few titles to choose from, and there won't be for quite some time. It doesn't make sense to spend a premium for something you won't be able to use much now, and will no longer have a price premium by the time it is widely available and ready to taken full advantage of. By the time DX11 is mainstreamed and optimized all the way around (games, hardware, drivers) there will be a whole new generation of hardware to choose from, and this generation will have lost its price premium. If at that time the data shows DX11 1) makes a significant visual improvement 2) does not cripple a game when enabled 3) there are enough games available that are of high quality that people want to play 4)does not have a huge price premium to get a small amount of visual gain.....THEN I will gladly recommend DX11 cards all day long based on their price/performance ratio. But I'm not holding my breath for all that to happen under this generation of video cards.
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram