m9750 and directx 10 - Page 2

For those with m9750's I still think DirectX10 is not worth worrying about now for four reasons:

1. I suspect x10's eye candy will only be a 5% improvement at best. That is noticable but if you like a games content, 5% won't matter.

2. You have to run Vista to use x10 and it will be a while before gamers prefer vista for games.

3. The 7950 GPU will work with x10 with driver updates. The 7950 hardware is not optimized for x10 but the 7950 is so good and fast that it might not have to be optimized to still be excellent with x10.

4. It will be a while before many games take advantage of x10 and when they are available, x10 drivers for the 7950 will probably already be available.

My comments are based on some assumptions that what I have read is correct. Almost all I know about this stuff I learned online within the last month. There is a possibility that my reasons above are based on misunderstandings and please feel free to correct me. If I am way wrong, I will cancel my m9750 order.

dt

That one is just one of the greatest myths concerning DX10. In order for a card to be able to drive DX10 the card HAS to have DX10 support at hardware level. DX10 cards have a few components as well as other routines on its GPU to be able to drive DX10. No amount of hacks or drivers will make a DX9 card like the 7950 "magically" run DX10. While some rumor that 7xxx cards have hidden DX10 support no one has been able to discover or activate this nor Nvidia themselves have confirmed this capability. Hence, the reason for the 8100/8300/8400/8600/8700 series to exist.

Hehe, I was thinking of getting a DX9 notebook, then a DX10 one (by waiting), but I've seen (videos) that even 8800 Ultras LAG WITH DX10 ON MEDIUM-HIGH SETTINGS. That's insane, the best desktop GPU lagging with the newest DX10 games... the 8800M is probably going to be even worse. I think that leaves me no choice but to wait for the G92 and get a desktop instead. *starts to count his money*

Well if it's any consolation the G92 should supposedly be out soon enough. It's getting close to being nearly a year since the 8800GTX was released...

Thanks, Moidock, for setting me straight about x10 hardware.

Since this thread is wondering toward the next generation computers, I have a question about future games. Will games be that much better with quad core and GPUs that are twice as fast? Games are already very good and current computers can play them at high frame rates with high settings at higher than HDTV resolution. I am wondering if computer speed and technology is outpacing game development. What I am really wondering is, "How long before I think my m9750 sucks?" I can see the past technology growth got us to using HDTV resolution at high rates and that is awesome but do we need more than that? When do we get to the point that humans can't tell the difference in more shaders or higher resolution?

dt

When i can have sex with my m9750 and it helps with the mortgage payments.

You should be a little more optomistic! The m9750 is an awesome machine. There are those on this forum that bought the m9700 before the m9750 came out and they are totally happy with their purchase.
Once you but something, you will start getting behind the so-caled "Technology Curve". You have to look at the m9750 in the here an now. It is a kick-ass machine.
I will be getting one and I know that I will be happy with it for many years.

For resolution we have already got to the point where a normal human eye cant tell the difference 720p and 1080p side by side. And for shaders i think that the only things that can be improved would be the little details and the "smoothness" of an image...they could probably even improve the color quality

Keep in mind laptops will never perform at the level of current desktops. They'll always be behind because it takes a while to adapt the technology to a smaller form factor. You want the best bang for your buck? Get a desktop. Hands down.

That statement on resolution is subjective. Particularly it's dependent on the actual screen size and the viewing distance along with the actual source material being displayed. As far as when will it be more than we need? When it literally looks like we're looking out of a window when we're looking into out televisions.

At this point, I think it would be hard to notice much performance difference in the latest greatest desktop and an sli m9750. I was wondering if, maybe five years from now, there still won't be a huge visual difference in game play between todays m9750 and the latest desktop because resolutions won't have increased and other finer performance improvements might not be as substantial as the performance improvements during the last five years, for example. When I ordered my m9750, that is what I was thinking. Maybe it was wishful thinking but maybe not. I am curious what others have to say and appreciate everyones comments here. Visual performance might be subjective in that some might prefer great game play and care less about the visual detail or realism and some might love the realism and get lost in it regardless of the game play. It seems to me that eventually we will get to a point where better game realism just isn't worth the price for most people and the market for the fastest gaming computers will slowy decline. This could turn into a conversation about console vs pc. By the way, I would get a desktop but I move back and forth between two houses and I don't want to have to move a desktop everytime. dt

I doubt nothing will change that much in 5 years. Screen resolutions could easily go higher, and there are still many areas of advancement still to be made when it comes to visual displays. Basically until you get to the point where you think you're looking through a window when you turn on your tv, we're not done pushing things yet.

The inherent problem is that technology moves at such a rapid pace that things getting "outdated" is inevitable. And sure what we regard today as enough or of the highest visual quality can somehow always seemingly be improved. Sure there probably is a limit we'll reach where its not worth it anymore, but I doubt we've even begun to get anywhere close to that at this point.

As far as caring about gameplay over graphics, yeah I mean we'll get to a point where the graphics won't matter and it'll be the great gameplay that does. But consider this situation: If you had a choice between a system that offered the same gameplay as another, but one was just visually more advanced, which would you go with? Assuming the price is reasonable enough, I'd like to think at least that people would tend towards the one with the better visuals.

I think one big assumption that's being made is that gaming will continue to be an expensive investment in the future. If anything with how fast technology is growing, I think we're far more likely to see the opposite happen with the cost of entry into gaming (with great gameplay and visuals) at a much lower price-point. I mean things tend to get cheaper to make as you go along.

if a tv looks like a window we would be like the birds... =(

I hear you there, that's why I got my 7700. However, even with a 7900 GTX upgrade, I'm still wanted the power of a desktop. They're cheaper and IMO easier to maintain. I move 500 miles between work, college and home every 3 months so I got a desktop replacement laptop. I've only completed my first year of school and I'm just going to bite the bullet and get a desktop. I'll have the AW when I need portability, but I'm doing way more than my 7700 is capable of. I thought it was the right choice at the time; in all honesty I should have gotten and ultra-portable notebook and a nice desktop, but hindsight is 20/20. Good luck on your decision.

Interesting comments by everyone.

Corvette, what are you doing with your computer that is so demanding? Playing games or school stuff?

dt

Yeah, games are moving faster than you can upgrade. I was all set with a 3.6 ghz Pentium 4 and my Quadro played NFS Most Wanted at full spec, and the game came out 2 days after I got my system. The world was good. Now, I've dropped $500 on a 7900 GTX and playing Crysis looks like it will be tight at best for me. That's a lot of money for only 2 years of use. In highsight, I should have bought a desktop and upgraded it for a lot less. On top of that, I have a file server with 1.5 terabytes (see sig) and its almost full. No way to fit that kinda of space into a laptop, but again, I never foresaw myself storing that many files when I bought my AW. Just a shame I "locked" myself out of so many things a desktop is capable or more capable of.

the thing that makes me uneasy is that all notebooks r using centrino duo for dx10 =/ (well... havnt seen or heard about a c2d with dx10)

the good things is that centrino duo does support 7950GTX (dunno if u found that answer to that yet..)