budget gaming PC performs well vs. high-end

In article , Frank McCoy
says...

I also thought the whole *idea* of "upgrading" DirectX was to get
*faster* performance of video stuff, not slower.

No. the whole idea of upgrading DirectX is to get more visual effects.
That translates into lower framerates as the graphics card has way more
things to display for the same frame.

--
Conor

I'm not prejudiced. I hate everyone equally.

Frank McCoy wrote:


*My* computer has an AMD 2400+ with 1-gig (2 sticks) PC3200 memory in it
and an ATI 2006 "All In Wonder" card running an LCD screen (using the
VGA connector) at 1680x1050 pixels. I'm running memory-speed of 200mhz,
FSB of 266, and 133 bus-speed.

*The kid* has a different make (and supposedly much *faster*)
motherboard, with matched 500meg (again, 1 gig) memory for 128-bit
access instead of 64-bit like mine (it *requires* matched sticks). That
PC has an AMD 2800+ CPU, and a later (supposedly faster) video board
(also from ATI) without the extra bells and whistles of the AIW card.
That system has a 21" monitor, which normally is run at 1600x1200.

Is "*The kid*"'s video card model a dark secret? Is the motherboard's
model written in sanskrit?

When you leave out details, of course we then just have to accept your
intellectually incomplete assessment of the situation rather than
hashing out the realities of the performances. Who needs confusing and
hard to gather facts when it just 'feels' like it should be faster, right?

In alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt Conor
wrote:

In article , Frank McCoy
says...

I also thought the whole *idea* of "upgrading" DirectX was to get
*faster* performance of video stuff, not slower.

No. the whole idea of upgrading DirectX is to get more visual effects.
That translates into lower framerates as the graphics card has way more
things to display for the same frame.

Well, if the performance degrades that badly, how do you go back?
(Or can you without reloading Windows completely?)

--
_____
/ ' / â„¢
,-/-, __ __. ____ /_
(_/ / (_(_/|_/ / _/ _

I can't prove this, but what I suspect is that the Dx10 cards
running under XP, run in software only. That would make them
pretty slow, and also force them to cut back on graphics
quality. I have some Dx10 cards coming in for testing,
and I will post on the result. I will compare them to a
7950 GTS. The Dx10 cards are 8600 GTS , and are
suppose to be right much faster than the 7950. However,
I noticed in benchmarks on the web, that the 7950 was
nearly equal or better in most tests under XP. The PC
I will use is one monster of a machine, and with a 7950
in it, AquaMark3D benched at better than 133,000. I'll
have the 8600 mark sometime late next week. If anybody
knows about possible traps in this test, let me know
in a separate post, and we can rant about it there ...
like driver issues.

johns

"johns" wrote in message
oups.com...
I can't prove this, but what I suspect is that the Dx10 cards
running under XP, run in software only. That would make them
pretty slow, and also force them to cut back on graphics
quality. I have some Dx10 cards coming in for testing,
and I will post on the result. I will compare them to a
7950 GTS. The Dx10 cards are 8600 GTS , and are
suppose to be right much faster than the 7950. However,
I noticed in benchmarks on the web, that the 7950 was
nearly equal or better in most tests under XP. The PC
I will use is one monster of a machine, and with a 7950
in it, AquaMark3D benched at better than 133,000. I'll
have the 8600 mark sometime late next week. If anybody
knows about possible traps in this test, let me know
in a separate post, and we can rant about it there ...
like driver issues.

johns

No, they don't run in software mode. They run in DirectX 9 hardware mode.
There are no features, hardware OR software, of DX10 supported in XP at all.
There is no 'software DX10 mode.'

And, the 8600GTS is not "much faster than the 7950". The 8600's are lower
mid-range cards (even the GTS.) The 7950 should trounce the 8600GTS in
almost any DirectX 9 game. Unfortunately Tom's Hardware doesn't have the
7950GTS nor the 8600GTS in their testing library, but when comparing the
7950GT vs. the 8600GT, the 7950GT varies from 300% to 50% faster in the
1280x1024 resolution game tests I looked at.

If you want a DX10 card right now, only the 8800's are worth it, in my
opinion.

Of course, in my opinion, since nVidia is releasing new cards later this
year.. the best thing to do is wait, especially if you already own a top-end
DX9 card and XP only.

RF.

Rats. I kind of figured that. Problem is BFG seems to
have discontinued their 7950, and the company I am
buying from recommended the 8600 as a replacement.
My bosses went with it, and did not ask me. So I'm
still going to bench the 8600, and stick the "slow down"
figures right under their know-it-all noses. I knew that
7950 was the better card. I just don't understand BFG
dropping it ????

johns

Conor wrote:
In article .com,

What is happening ?

You're running the game using DirectX 9 and he's running the game
running DirectX 10. If he forced the game to run in DirectX 9, it'd
trounce yours.


I thought Vista had both 9 and 10. DirectX9 games use 9 and DirectX10 games use 10?


les...

I wonder why they didn't ask you - go on have a think it about it?

On Oct 20, 2:39 am, Frank McCoy wrote:

Funny:
I have a similar situation to what the person you replied to has.

I think the reason why my 7600GT performs well compared to the high-
end cards might be because it might be accelerated. The manufacturer
produced it for the China's market, and put a huge sink on the card;
maybe they overclocked the card to the smitherens,

http://images.google.com.au/imgres?i...%3Den%26sa%3DN

That is correct. DX10 games use DX10 IF you have a DX10 card, in Vista,
otherwise DX9.

Kurt

"Les Matthew" wrote in message
...
I thought Vista had both 9 and 10. DirectX9 games use 9 and DirectX10
games use 10?


les...