does anyone need a ddr5 video card for dx9 games?

[matt798]

dx9 is old technology and even dx11 came out in windows 7.

of course windows 7 is outdated itself as most motherboards only need a bios update for best performance on windows 8

when your system has windows 8 properly installed in the UEFI format it will be the most efficient and have better memory management and multi threaded support

 

[CraigN]

Not sure what your question is - GDDR5 graphics cards have been out for awhile. It's still useful for people to have because there are still games you can turn DX11 settings off, i.e. lower end systems that can't handle tessellation effects. Besides, GDDR5 is just slightly faster DDR3 anyway, but why anyone would by a DDR3 graphics card in this day and age is beyond me.

 

[matt798]

i do indeed feel the same but if you where playing dx9 games on a fx system they would be best with a ddr3 card for best cpu headroom with no oc

dx9 games can have high physics but are only properly supported with the technology of dx11

 

[CraigN]

Even my old GeForce 460 was GDDR5. There are still demanding DX9 games, or games that are demanding that can be run in DX9 mode, necessitating faster video memory still. There is no reason to buy a GDDR3 card unless you're on a pretty extreme budget. I'm still really not sure what the point of this post is?

 

[matt798]

i myself have a cheap video card i throw in my fx for the old dx9 technology

 

[CraigN]

Ok. Well have fun with that.

 

[matt798]

in fact it will let me max settings on any dx9 game even with a fsb of 200

 

[matt798]

as i said windows 7 and dx9 is old technology and amd was way ahead of its time and would have released 8 sooner

 

[matt798]

the fx chip can easily out beat the i7 in gaming scenarios when proper system scaling is at work

http://www.hsafoundation.com/

 

[CraigN]

I only replied because I believed you were asking a legitimate question. You seem to only be interested in convincing (I'm guessing yourself?) someone that it's worthwhile to buy a slow-memory GPU in a world where we're moving away from DX9 games, so much so that NVIDIA is dropping driver support for non-DX11 cards, and AMD likely will be (if they haven't already) following suit.

If that's what makes you happy, fine, but don't triple post, and don't post threads seemingly asking a question when you don't seem to want an answer.

The most recent GDDR3 card to get released was a GeForce 610, and anyone buying that isn't buying it to play games.

Also, there's maybe a handful of games where the FX chip catches up to an i7 in gaming. Any CPU intensive game, a current generation i7 will run circles around the FX8350 because of it's poor single-threaded performance. Skyrim and Starcraft II, and just about any MMO ever are the most commonly benchmarked examples of this.

 

[matt798]

i thought you may have something worth wild to say but it seems you are not able to provide with any real world information. Microsoft itself is one the highest authorities in technology as is always working on something new

 

[matt798]

the fx becomes very powerful with a large fsb and is best done by professionals of course

 

[CraigN]

...

You're on Tom's Hardware, and by greater extension, the internet. There's a dozen reviews here that provide all the real world information you're looking for. You just have to look for it.

Don't criticize me. You turned a question about why do you need GDDR5 cards for DX9 Games (To which I answered: Because there are very few DX9-only games now, most games are going to DX11, Nvidia and soon AMD are discontinuing DX9 cards and driver support, so, you need a GDDR5 card if you expect to keep games playable, which is a perfectly worthwhile answer, and unless you're buying a super low end Nvidia, or a 4 year old card, GDDR3 is a waste of money.) into a debate about FX chips, making your question seem more like bait to try and discuss your views than a legitimate question. So in that case, I'm going to leave these here for you, and then be done with this thread and say have a nice day.

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/product/697?vs=836

4770K handily beats the FX8350 on every benchmark that Anandtech threw at both of those chips.

http://cpuboss.com/cpus/Intel-Core-i7-4770K-vs-AMD-FX-8350

CPU Boss shows that the 4770K beats the 8350 in single and multithreaded benches.

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/core-i7-4770k-haswell-review,3521-12.html

Tom Hardware's own review, 4770K beats the 8350 in all productivity tasks they bench it against.

http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/2013/06/01/intel-core-i7-4770k-cpu-review/6

Gaming benchmarks. Look what's consistently near the bottom.


To even come close, you have to spend extra on cooling to OC an FX8350 to come close to a 4770K. Some work productivity tasks, yes, the true multiple cores on the FX8350 wins out, such as rendering and compiling, but not by a significantly large margin that the 4770K can't close in the right overclocker's hands.

AMD hasn't updated their performance line in almost two years. Even Mantle isn't breathing fresh life into them because Mantle seems to only be giving large gains to slower CPUs, not the higher end ones (<10% performance increase in FX chips with Mantle+AMD cards).

 

[matt798]

4ghz sir... i am talking the highest levels of professional performance.

my friend has the 8320 oc on a 990 chipset with a 254 fsb at over 5ghz.

i asure you it is at least as good with a powerfull gpu for any game and even better in some.

if there was a new 28nm fx with the same fsb it would have more than perfect performance for any gaming scenario with high cpu headroom to match

 

[matt798]

a 28nm fx system with a large fsb could be sold by amd as a professional gaming and rendering system

 

[matt798]

^or any company they wish but my point is that with proper amd specification it would in my opinion would be amazing!

 

[matt798]

give your best advice and take it