That's very good news about DX11. Its time to put computing levels to the limit and beyond... I'm really getting tired of buying hardware that offers marginal performance with expensive costs. These companies need to realize we are still in a recession, we still want to purchase their products, but with fair capitalism. Props to AMD for first rant/bragging rights ^_^

Will DX11 be available for Windows Me?

when do you think the first DX11 games will hit the shelves?

Upgrade for Vista? Why didn't Microsoft ever release 10 for XP? Did they really think they could convince gamers to move to the untested Vista just by tying DX10 to the OS? Did anyone upgrade to Vista solely for DX10, and was it worth it?

DX11 cards are good for one reason, and that reason is that we'll be seeing new GPU product lines. Maybe NVIDIA will finally create a new graphics chip, heck, maybe even two new chips, maybe.

I believe it will only be available for Vista and Win7, not XP or earlier. Just like DX10.

so basically dx11 claims to be faster and better?
i think i remember that claim few years ago about dx10...
i hope microsoft can deliver as 'hyped' this time

Please tell me you're not still using that abomination of an OS...

I feel the same way... I hate Vista so my gaming PC has never had it. Don't realy think I've been missing much but I guess its all relative

I read that the Battlefield Bad Company 2 was easily ported to DX11 using the Frostbite engine. I think it's being released this Fall.

Some of those video links are broken/misdirected.

How come even oldish graphics cards could support up to DX9, but then we needed new ones for DX10, and soon 11?

Anyways, AMD should have the advantage with DX11 since tessilation is a requirement and they have been using a tessilator for a few generations now, while Nvidia has refused to use one.

I'm weighing the pros and cons between a Lynnfield system, and one centered around the i7 920. The 2.8GHz Lynnfield processor will be faster in games that aren't threaded well, due to its aggressive turbo mode. When 3 or less cores are active, the Lynnfield processor should be faster, and only when that 4th core is needed will the i7 920 end up more effective.

I ponder for a second whether DX11 will change the picture at all. If DX11 uses multi-core CPUs more efficiently, and that 4th core is utilized more, then perhaps the i7s will be the way to go.

Unfortunately, any way I slice it a Phenom II system just won't be good enough compared to a Lynnfield. And since the only reason why Phenom IIs are viable, is because of bad scaling, and poor support for multiple-cores and threads... DX11 could amplify that gap between Intel and AMD processors in new games.

AMD has about to November to release something that doesn't suck, or the shit's going to start hitting that fan hard for them.

Nice, all we need is MS to change something in DX11 and AMD is screwed. Haven't they learned anything from the original Radeon scandal?

But can it run Crysis?

Sounds like it's something being said to keep the investors happy.

"AMD has about to November to release something that doesn't suck"

So now Core 2 Duos suck right, since Phenom IIs are comparable to them.

Awesome. Hopefully we will start seeing DX11 games and cards start rolling out this Fall. That way, by the time I want to upgrade from my AMD 4830, which won't be until next summer, there ought to be a cheap DX11 5830 (or nVidia equivalent) and a good range of game titles

That must be a joke. Any card for more than 80 bucks should be able to run Crysis by now. I'm sure whatever DX11 cards we see in the future will handle it easily.

Oh boy. OK, the kernel . If anyone has taken notice, DX10.1 vs DX10, youll see much higher fps using DX10.1, already out, already being used. Better MT could and should help both Intel and AMD, and especially real cores .
Ummm speculation has it releasing when W7 does, which isnt the end of 09, guess the writer of the article didnt read what ATI is demoing?

The $200 2.66GHz chip with HT disabled has performance superior to a Q9650, which is a $300 Core2 gen chip... So YES, Core2 will "suck" for new gaming systems once the Lynnfield processors are released. I didn't think to mention that, however, since its obvious that the new generation Intel processors will be superior to the last. AMD however, has been a gen behind for a looong time now. My point is when multiple threads are better utilized in the near future, they're current offering are going to start looking worse than they already do.

Really? I thought benchmarks have shown that the difference is almost negligable between 10 and 10.1, even with games which claim support for 10.1. Supposedly, thats why Nvidia hasn't bothered making 10.1 cards. Can you give me a link to some evidence which suggests otherwise?

I'll stick with my dual 9600GT until the GTX3xx or DX11 since GTX2xx still utilize GDDR3, i read something about GTX3xx will be using GDDR5 which is a good news.
And just hope that nvidia stop using the G92 as a base to design a new chip by throw in more SPs or transistors and moving it to a smaller die process, but i also read something about GTX3xx will be a cGPU design and use MIMD

When DX10.1 features are used, less passes are needed during the AA process, resulting in higher frame rates. Unfortunately, the list of games that support DX10.1 is pretty sad, thanks to Nvidia.

This sounds wonderful, I hope AMD lives up to their promises.

AMD is screwed in the CPU market right now...
Let's hope that buying ATi was the right way to go.

The better multi-core support is the part that interests me. I like ATi cards but I also like Intel CPUs.

Its all good, I7 and Phenom 2 are both over kill for 99.9% of computing tasks. I still feel like my phenom 9600BE is mild over kill. Lucky for us PC gamers were entering that Console VS PC gaming time line in between console releases where we don't only have our keyboard and mouse, but also have superior graphics tools to experience a superior total game environment. Lets rejoice that were not on the "10 year cycle"!

The links are everywhere, its about 10-20% increase, google is your friend.

I see alot of crapping on AMD here, and whats really funny is, the main difference between i7 and C2D is SMT, which really wont be enhanced by W7, but real core perf, where AMD does ok

SMT? your kidding me right?

Theres nothing wrong with that to me, it shows your not a fanboy




Well that all depends, how long has Intel had that old piece of tech for now?

Conroe... Aug 2006. Penryn quad (which has superior CPUs to the Phenom II line) Aug 2008. Deneb was Feb 2009... so, I guess that puts AMD about 6 months behind on releasing competitive mainstream. For the high end... they got nothing.

DX11 THAT's what is only holding up Duke Nuke Em Forvever...LOL