Why Consoles Wil never see PC Quality Crysis.

[QUOTE="savage161"]

So what rig do recommend me to last until a 2011, Id like to upgrade a year and a bit after the consoles are released, Ive got $3000usd to spend, But i dont live in the us, Id like to import my stuff but i cant find a good website, But what would you reccomend in a setup that would last that long with a 22inch screen running at 1080x1680 or should i wait maybe for the gf 9 cards or the r700?.

mismajor99

Sarcasm I'm sure. Anyway....

Go to tomshardware.com , as it's one of the best sites out their for system building.

or: 

http://anandtech.com/

 or:

http://arstechnica.com/index.ars

or:

http://www.daniweb.com/

What Sarcasm, This how much i want to spend, i dont live in the us, Prices a dearer here, Id rather spend a bit then upgrade my computer in 2.5 years, The 7600gt costs $160usd, Do you think thats cheap because i dont, But i really want a gaming pc because atm ive only got a laptop which only has a core duo 1.66hghz, 1 gig of ram and ati 1400 which is a laptop version meaning weaker than the desktop ati1400, I like to have the chance to play all games and thats why i have all next gen consoles an xbox and both handhelds and now id like a gaming pc.

[QUOTE="mismajor99"][QUOTE="savage161"]

So what rig do recommend me to last until a 2011, Id like to upgrade a year and a bit after the consoles are released, Ive got $3000usd to spend, But i dont live in the us, Id like to import my stuff but i cant find a good website, But what would you reccomend in a setup that would last that long with a 22inch screen running at 1080x1680 or should i wait maybe for the gf 9 cards or the r700?.

savage161

Sarcasm I'm sure. Anyway....

Go to tomshardware.com , as it's one of the best sites out their for system building.

or:

http://anandtech.com/

or:

http://arstechnica.com/index.ars

or:

http://www.daniweb.com/

What Sarcasm, This how much i want to spend, i dont live in the us, Prices a dearer here, Id rather spend a bit then upgrade my computer in 2.5 years, The 7600gt costs $160usd, Do you think thats cheap because i dont, But i really want a gaming pc because atm ive only got a laptop which only has a core duo 1.66hghz, 1 gig of ram and ati 1400 which is a laptop version meaning weaker than the desktop ati1400, I like to have the chance to play all games and thats why i have all next gen consoles an xbox and both handhelds and now id like a gaming pc.

If you think $160 isn't cheap, then why is spending $3000 no big deal? Follow what organic said above. PM me if you want specifics.

[QUOTE="savage161"][QUOTE="mismajor99"][QUOTE="savage161"]

So what rig do recommend me to last until a 2011, Id like to upgrade a year and a bit after the consoles are released, Ive got $3000usd to spend, But i dont live in the us, Id like to import my stuff but i cant find a good website, But what would you reccomend in a setup that would last that long with a 22inch screen running at 1080x1680 or should i wait maybe for the gf 9 cards or the r700?.

mismajor99

Sarcasm I'm sure. Anyway....

Go to tomshardware.com , as it's one of the best sites out their for system building.

or:

http://anandtech.com/

or:

http://arstechnica.com/index.ars

or:

http://www.daniweb.com/

What Sarcasm, This how much i want to spend, i dont live in the us, Prices a dearer here, Id rather spend a bit then upgrade my computer in 2.5 years, The 7600gt costs $160usd, Do you think thats cheap because i dont, But i really want a gaming pc because atm ive only got a laptop which only has a core duo 1.66hghz, 1 gig of ram and ati 1400 which is a laptop version meaning weaker than the desktop ati1400, I like to have the chance to play all games and thats why i have all next gen consoles an xbox and both handhelds and now id like a gaming pc.

If you think $160 isn't cheap, then why is spending $3000 no big deal? Follow what organic said above. PM me if you want specifics.

Would you pay $160 for the 7600gs, Thought so, Actually its $180us:P, The 8800gtx is around $700usd here and the Ps3 is $800usd, We get ripped off, The quad core is $1900usd, Id like a website that points out what im getting how good it is and how long it would last.

I dont know if a core 2 duo is good enough and if i upgrade to a quad core or a 8 core will i have to change my motherboard because if rather slap in another gpu or add extra ram to make the top games run properly when the time comes when my computer cant run those new games as well.

[QUOTE="theboxmike"]

They said the same thing about Half Life 2...................

But that ended it up going to Xbox despite on how bad it was........it was playable and the Xbox only had 64 mb of RAM!!:lol:

trix5817

Yeah, and it looked like absolute CRAP compared to the PC version maxxed out. They even had to take parts of levels out:lol: 

The PC version was wayyyy better but the xbox one is still playable despite what you hermits try to make it out to be

Who gives a rat's ass?Michael85

AHA HA HA AH AHA HA HA HAH AHA HA :lol:

that was a classic ....... typical system war response

BTW I agree with the thread starter, PCs always get upgrades and will always beat the limited consoles.

Upgrading from Xbox 360 to the next xbox will cost us probably 400 or 500 bucks. That is the upgrade costs you PC guys spend in the same time as well. At least.  And next generation we will probably see games superior to Crysis on the next Xbox/PS4 or whatnot. So technically, you're wrong.

it would cost me $200 to run crysis in dx10 and $300 will quite likely max it out and there will be now console game before the next gen that looks as good as crysis with the same amount of enviroment interactivity and ai

FearlessSpirit

Minimum system RAM under WinXP in DX9? 768MB. Approximate running load of WinXP? ~300 MB. That is 468 MB of system RAM minimum. Both the PS3 and 360 have 512 for both RAM and VRAM. That would leave 44 MB for video processing.

Crysis is only coming to PC for a reason... the console hardware is nowhere near powerful enough to handle it.
foxhound_fox

only 768mb? thats not much my 2gb should do fine then.  consoles biggers limitation is ram like it always is console makers don't seem to like to put enough of the dirt cheap component in.  sad but true

They said the same thing about Half Life 2...................

But that ended it up going to Xbox despite on how bad it was........it was playable and the Xbox only had 64 mb of RAM!!:lol:

theboxmike

hl2 doesn't need much ram 256mb in 2004 is nothing.  a pc with 512mb ram and 9600 runs hl2 way better than xbox.  and hl2 has more loading time and shorter levels than most shooters from the same time.  hl2 was very cpu dependant and xbox has a good cpu unlike the 360

[QUOTE="mismajor99"]

[QUOTE="palaric8"]the average PC cant /-KinGz-

But Gaming PC's can and will. The game will scale nicely, according to the dev's, and with this extra time they spent cleaning up the game, I don't doubt it either. My X1950Pro 512 will run this game no problem, DX9 of course, but it will still look gorgeous. You don't need a DX10 card or Vista to run this bad boy.

I would preffer buying a DX10 card.. u won't be getting everything from crysis beauty with DX9... 

but still more than geow offers

Hmmm not true. ye the game looks amazine but will one day be considered normal and we will later on have consoles

that can do these graphics and even better. Even games now look pretty damn good (check out Torok for the PS3) 

Notice how the sheep never flamed the TC because they are reasonable people willing to listen and debate.

It goes to prove that sheep are the elite of the elite, while lems and cows are generally(not totally) little kids or big guys with a flee's size for a brain :D

"360 has more than a mere 1900XT card inside, and 3 CPU's"

 

ROFL. The 360 has a card rougly comparable to a X1800 with its crippled 128bit bus. And the 360 has a 3core in-order execution processor. Ever read my post? All these other "facts" are just crap you made up.

WhySoCry

 Not quite, the Xenos doesn't really have a comparable counterpart, because its architecture was completely different than anything that was on the market at the time the 360 was released.  It uses a higher SM than any other DX9 card and it uses a higher model DX. (DX9L I believe it is, DX9C with some DX10 capabilities), not to mention the daughter die 10MB eDRAM.

Who is classified as "sheep?WhySoCry

Sheep = nintendo fanboys

Cows = sony fanboys

Lemmings = microsoft fanboys

Hermits = pc gamers

manticore = whatever (and/or multiple consoles)

[QUOTE="WhySoCry"]Who is classified as "sheep?organic_machine

Sheep = nintendo fanboys

Cows = sony fanboys

Lemmings = microsoft fanboys

Hermits = pc gamers

manticore = whatever (and/or multiple consoles)

If you ask me, this whole classification is quite immature. We're all gamers, no matter what platform of preference. I myself find that having a PC and a console is the best solution for my gaming needs, as I strongly beleive they compliment each other, rather than oppose each other. Now, console vs. console is a whole other debate, but with lobby groups and people like Jack Thompson out there, gamers need to unite, not divide.   

[QUOTE="WhySoCry"]

"360 has more than a mere 1900XT card inside, and 3 CPU's"

 

ROFL. The 360 has a card rougly comparable to a X1800 with its crippled 128bit bus. And the 360 has a 3core in-order execution processor. Ever read my post? All these other "facts" are just crap you made up.

Nagidar

Not quite, the Xenos doesn't really have a comparable counterpart, because its architecture was completely different than anything that was on the market at the time the 360 was released. It uses a higher SM than any other DX9 card and it uses a higher model DX. (DX9L I believe it is, DX9C with some DX10 capabilities), not to mention the daughter die 10MB eDRAM.

Yes, the xenos is different, but when I say comparable, I mean performance wise. It uses the same SM, 3.0 and is based entirely off DX9 or parts of it. The only DX10 capability is memory export where it uses system memory in place of VRAM. 

How would you estimate a Xenon or Cell processor perform against a high end Core 2 duo or Core 2 extreme in raw floating point calculations, physics calculations and any other game-centric calculations?Smood

[QUOTE="WhySoCry"]

"360 has more than a mere 1900XT card inside, and 3 CPU's"

 

ROFL. The 360 has a card rougly comparable to a X1800 with its crippled 128bit bus. And the 360 has a 3core in-order execution processor. Ever read my post? All these other "facts" are just crap you made up.

Nagidar

 Not quite, the Xenos doesn't really have a comparable counterpart, because its architecture was completely different than anything that was on the market at the time the 360 was released.  It uses a higher SM than any other DX9 card and it uses a higher model DX. (DX9L I believe it is, DX9C with some DX10 capabilities), not to mention the daughter die 10MB eDRAM.

[QUOTE="Nagidar"][QUOTE="WhySoCry"]

"360 has more than a mere 1900XT card inside, and 3 CPU's"

 

ROFL. The 360 has a card rougly comparable to a X1800 with its crippled 128bit bus. And the 360 has a 3core in-order execution processor. Ever read my post? All these other "facts" are just crap you made up.

WhySoCry

Not quite, the Xenos doesn't really have a comparable counterpart, because its architecture was completely different than anything that was on the market at the time the 360 was released. It uses a higher SM than any other DX9 card and it uses a higher model DX. (DX9L I believe it is, DX9C with some DX10 capabilities), not to mention the daughter die 10MB eDRAM.

Yes, the xenos is different, but when I say comparable, I mean performance wise. It uses the same SM, 3.0 and is based entirely off DX9 or parts of it. The only DX10 capability is memory export where it uses system memory in place of VRAM. 

How would you estimate a Xenon or Cell processor perform against a high end Core 2 duo or Core 2 extreme in raw floating point calculations, physics calculations and any other game-centric calculations?Smood

Anything but a quad core would probably have a hard time against the Cell.  For Xenon...you'd probably need a dual core.  However in both cases you'd need to have code that's highly optimized for both the Xenon and Cell, since they're out-of-order. 

[QUOTE="WhySoCry"][QUOTE="Nagidar"][QUOTE="WhySoCry"]

"360 has more than a mere 1900XT card inside, and 3 CPU's"

 

ROFL. The 360 has a card rougly comparable to a X1800 with its crippled 128bit bus. And the 360 has a 3core in-order execution processor. Ever read my post? All these other "facts" are just crap you made up.

greg_splicer

Not quite, the Xenos doesn't really have a comparable counterpart, because its architecture was completely different than anything that was on the market at the time the 360 was released. It uses a higher SM than any other DX9 card and it uses a higher model DX. (DX9L I believe it is, DX9C with some DX10 capabilities), not to mention the daughter die 10MB eDRAM.

Yes, the xenos is different, but when I say comparable, I mean performance wise. It uses the same SM, 3.0 and is based entirely off DX9 or parts of it. The only DX10 capability is memory export where it uses system memory in place of VRAM.

You're buying a little to much into the Major Nelson hype.  Performance-wise, Xenos would have a tough time beating out an X1800.  It's frambuffer bandwidth is real high thanks to the eDRAM, but its bandwidth to texture/vertex memory is extremely limited due to a 128-bit bus that's shared with the CPU.  The spec isn't really much different SM 3.0, either. Main difference is really just the unified shaders and few extra instructions.  No way Xenos would keep up with an X1900 or 7900, where you've got  high-bandwidth and raw shader power.

[QUOTE="Nagidar"][QUOTE="WhySoCry"]

"360 has more than a mere 1900XT card inside, and 3 CPU's"

 

ROFL. The 360 has a card rougly comparable to a X1800 with its crippled 128bit bus. And the 360 has a 3core in-order execution processor. Ever read my post? All these other "facts" are just crap you made up.

WhySoCry

Not quite, the Xenos doesn't really have a comparable counterpart, because its architecture was completely different than anything that was on the market at the time the 360 was released. It uses a higher SM than any other DX9 card and it uses a higher model DX. (DX9L I believe it is, DX9C with some DX10 capabilities), not to mention the daughter die 10MB eDRAM.

Yes, the xenos is different, but when I say comparable, I mean performance wise. It uses the same SM, 3.0 and is based entirely off DX9 or parts of it. The only DX10 capability is memory export where it uses system memory in place of VRAM. 

 No, the Xenos uses SM 3.5 and MEMEXPORT isn't the only DX10 feature the Xenos uses, there are a few (Not many, but a few) other than MEMEXPORT.

[QUOTE="Smood"]How would you estimate a Xenon or Cell processor perform against a high end Core 2 duo or Core 2 extreme in raw floating point calculations, physics calculations and any other game-centric calculations?Teufelhuhn

Anything but a quad core would probably have a hard time against the Cell.  For Xenon...you'd probably need a dual core.  However in both cases you'd need to have code that's highly optimized for both the Xenon and Cell, since they're out-of-order. 

 No, in-order processors have nothing on a desktop processor, the Cell is about the equivelant of an Athlon 2600. (give or take a few Athlon notches)

[QUOTE="Teufelhuhn"]

[QUOTE="Smood"]How would you estimate a Xenon or Cell processor perform against a high end Core 2 duo or Core 2 extreme in raw floating point calculations, physics calculations and any other game-centric calculations?Nagidar

Anything but a quad core would probably have a hard time against the Cell. For Xenon...you'd probably need a dual core. However in both cases you'd need to have code that's highly optimized for both the Xenon and Cell, since they're out-of-order.

No, in-order processors have nothing on a desktop processor, the Cell is about the equivelant of an Athlon 2600. (give or take a few Athlon notches)

That's a good joke right there.  :lol:

The Xenon and Cell are console processors, they don't have to be OOOE.  OOOE is necessary for PC's, where you're running tons of old unoptimized code that's expected to run faster than it did on older processors.  Games for the PS3 or 360 are optimized specifically for their CPU.  In-order's are less tolerant to optimization, but have a much higher performance/price ratio (which is what consoles are all about).

Any code that's written to make use of the Cell's massive SIMD capacity and the parallel nature of the SPE's would perform orders of magnitude better than any 2600.  

[QUOTE="Nagidar"][QUOTE="Teufelhuhn"]

[QUOTE="Smood"]How would you estimate a Xenon or Cell processor perform against a high end Core 2 duo or Core 2 extreme in raw floating point calculations, physics calculations and any other game-centric calculations?Teufelhuhn

Anything but a quad core would probably have a hard time against the Cell. For Xenon...you'd probably need a dual core. However in both cases you'd need to have code that's highly optimized for both the Xenon and Cell, since they're out-of-order.

No, in-order processors have nothing on a desktop processor, the Cell is about the equivelant of an Athlon 2600. (give or take a few Athlon notches)

That's a good joke right there.  :lol:

The Xenon and Cell are console processors, they don't have to be OOOE.  OOOE is necessary for PC's, where you're running tons of old unoptimized code that's expected to run faster than it did on older processors.  Games for the PS3 or 360 are optimized specifically for their CPU.  In-order's are less tolerant to optimization, but have a much higher performance/price ratio (which is what consoles are all about).

Any code that's written to make use of the Cell's massive SIMD capacity and the parallel nature of the SPE's would perform orders of magnitude better than any 2600.  

 No, someone asked what type of processor would be the equivalent for each of the console processors, the fact is, as far as processing goes, both the Cell and Xenon would run an OS extremely slow. (Ever wonder why the Linix OS in the PS3 runs so slow?)

Read.

No, someone asked what type of processor would be the equivalent for each of the console processors, the fact is, as far as processing goes, both the Cell and Xenon would run an OS extremely slow. (Ever wonder why the Linix OS in the PS3 runs so slow?)

Nagidar

Who cares how they fast they would run an OS?  They're game consoles.  They're optimized for games, not for checking your email.  :?
 

[QUOTE="Nagidar"]

No, someone asked what type of processor would be the equivalent for each of the console processors, the fact is, as far as processing goes, both the Cell and Xenon would run an OS extremely slow. (Ever wonder why the Linix OS in the PS3 runs so slow?)

Teufelhuhn

Who cares how they fast they would run an OS?  They're game consoles.  They're optimized for games, not for checking your email.  :?
 

 I was pointing out a fact, both the Cell and Xenon are "dumbed down" compared to desktop processors.

Good for gaming? Yes (The Xenon more than the Cell, the Cell is better suited for multi-media than gaming)

As good as a desktop processor? no.

 EDIT: BTW, you said it right, they are GAMING consoles, people seem to forget that and the games on the console is what matters, the rest is a bonus.

" No, the Xenos uses SM 3.5 and MEMEXPORT isn't the only DX10 feature the Xenos uses, there are a few (Not many, but a few) other than MEMEXPORT."

Shader model =/= unified shaders. It just allows for shaders to be programmable with either vertex or pixel. Unified shaders aren't even required for DX10. The Xenos is SM 3.0. There was no DX10 hardware back in 05 when the console was released. Infact, ATi hasn't released anything DX10 yet. Mem export is the ONLY dx10 feature, prove me otherwise.

" No, the Xenos uses SM 3.5 and MEMEXPORT isn't the only DX10 feature the Xenos uses, there are a few (Not many, but a few) other than MEMEXPORT."

 

Shader model =/= unified shaders. It just allows for shaders to be programmable with either vertex or pixel. Unified shaders aren't even required for DX10. The Xenos is SM 3.0. There was no DX10 hardware back in 05 when the console was released. Infact, ATi hasn't released anything DX10 yet. Mem export is the ONLY dx10 feature, prove me otherwise.

WhySoCry

"Xbox360 cannot run DX10," said an ATI spokesperson. "The Xbox360 has unique features including memory export that can enable DX10-class functionality such as stream-out. From what we're hearing, Crysis will support DX9 with some sort of use for DX10 features. It's likely that those DX10 visuals can be replicated on the Xbox360, but it can't be properly called DX10."

Link.

Xbox 360 - Shader Model 3.0+ / Unified Shader Architecture
PS3 - Shader Model 3.0 / Discrete Shader Architecture

Link.

[QUOTE="WhySoCry"]

"360 has more than a mere 1900XT card inside, and 3 CPU's"

 

ROFL. The 360 has a card rougly comparable to a X1800 with its crippled 128bit bus. And the 360 has a 3core in-order execution processor. Ever read my post? All these other "facts" are just crap you made up.

Nagidar

Not quite, the Xenos doesn't really have a comparable counterpart, because its architecture was completely different than anything that was on the market at the time the 360 was released. It uses a higher SM than any other DX9 card and it uses a higher model DX. (DX9L I believe it is, DX9C with some DX10 capabilities), not to mention the daughter die 10MB eDRAM.

You're either plain ignorant, or outright lying.

The Xenos is based on R520 architecture (same as the X1800-series,) and its performance is roughly equivalent to the X1800XT card found in desktop PCs. There's a couple quotes I could dig up from ATi themselves if you'd like, and one developer actually says the X1800XT will actually even outperform the Xenos at higher resolutions in certain situations.

The only significant break away from traditional architectures are that it has 10MB of eDRAM, which is used for framebuffers (though you can't triple-buffer high resolution frames with such a small amount of VRAM, even with tiling) and unified shader/vertex pipelines.

The additional "features" offered by "DX9L" and its revised shader model are trivial. And there's no such thing as having "some DX10 features." You either have them all, or you have none of them. The Xenos has none.

[QUOTE="WhySoCry"]

" No, the Xenos uses SM 3.5 and MEMEXPORT isn't the only DX10 feature the Xenos uses, there are a few (Not many, but a few) other than MEMEXPORT."

 

Shader model =/= unified shaders. It just allows for shaders to be programmable with either vertex or pixel. Unified shaders aren't even required for DX10. The Xenos is SM 3.0. There was no DX10 hardware back in 05 when the console was released. Infact, ATi hasn't released anything DX10 yet. Mem export is the ONLY dx10 feature, prove me otherwise.

Nagidar

"Xbox360 cannot run DX10," said an ATI spokesperson. "The Xbox360 has unique features including memory export that can enable DX10-class functionality such as stream-out. From what we're hearing, Crysis will support DX9 with some sort of use for DX10 features. It's likely that those DX10 visuals can be replicated on the Xbox360, but it can't be properly called DX10."

Link.

Xbox 360 - Shader Model 3.0+ / Unified Shader Architecture
PS3 - Shader Model 3.0 / Discrete Shader Architecture

Link.

One minor example of "DX10-level functionality" doesn't constitute support of DX10 in any degree. You can even emulate "DX10 functionality" in DX9, but that completely defeats the purpose of DX10, which is efficiency. The only reason games are moving to support DX10 is because of the potential for performance improvements.

ATI themselves have said the Xenos doesn't support DX10 features. I don't think it gets any clearer than that.

DX10, duh

jees, pointless thread

[QUOTE="Smood"]How would you estimate a Xenon or Cell processor perform against a high end Core 2 duo or Core 2 extreme in raw floating point calculations, physics calculations and any other game-centric calculations?Teufelhuhn

Anything but a quad core would probably have a hard time against the Cell.  For Xenon...you'd probably need a dual core.  However in both cases you'd need to have code that's highly optimized for both the Xenon and Cell, since they're out-of-order. 

I belive they are in-order processors. PC CPUs are out of order. 

[QUOTE="Nagidar"][QUOTE="WhySoCry"]

" No, the Xenos uses SM 3.5 and MEMEXPORT isn't the only DX10 feature the Xenos uses, there are a few (Not many, but a few) other than MEMEXPORT."

 

Shader model =/= unified shaders. It just allows for shaders to be programmable with either vertex or pixel. Unified shaders aren't even required for DX10. The Xenos is SM 3.0. There was no DX10 hardware back in 05 when the console was released. Infact, ATi hasn't released anything DX10 yet. Mem export is the ONLY dx10 feature, prove me otherwise.

Velocitas8

"Xbox360 cannot run DX10," said an ATI spokesperson. "The Xbox360 has unique features including memory export that can enable DX10-class functionality such as stream-out. From what we're hearing, Crysis will support DX9 with some sort of use for DX10 features. It's likely that those DX10 visuals can be replicated on the Xbox360, but it can't be properly called DX10."

Link.

Xbox 360 - Shader Model 3.0+ / Unified Shader Architecture
PS3 - Shader Model 3.0 / Discrete Shader Architecture

Link.

One minor example of "DX10-level functionality" doesn't constitute support of DX10 in any degree. You can even emulate "DX10 functionality" in DX9, but that completely defeats the purpose of DX10, which is efficiency. The only reason games are moving to support DX10 is because of the potential for performance improvements.

ATI themselves have said the Xenos doesn't support DX10 features. I don't think it gets any clearer than that.

Wow, that quote was from ATI, they said it doesn't constitute DX10 because it isn't full fledged DX10, its DX9L, which is DX9 with DX10 functionality/features.

You're starting to read to closely into it, the sign you're losing this arguement.

[QUOTE="Velocitas8"]

One minor example of "DX10-level functionality" doesn't constitute support of DX10 in any degree. You can even emulate "DX10 functionality" in DX9, but that completely defeats the purpose of DX10, which is efficiency. The only reason games are moving to support DX10 is because of the potential for performance improvements.

ATI themselves have said the Xenos doesn't support DX10 features. I don't think it gets any clearer than that.

Nagidar

Wow, that quote was from ATI, they said it doesn't constitute DX10 because it isn't full fledged DX10, its DX9L, which is DX9 with DX10 functionality/features.

You're starting to read to closely into it, the sign you're losing this arguement.

DX9L has no support of DX10 features. It has features unique to DX9L, and the Xbox 360 that offer a couple instances of similar functionality to DX10.

Maybe you should READ the quotes that you post?

Forgive me for being skeptical that this is an ATI quote, but that link is to an Xbox fan site, with no link to a source simply stating "1UP" :roll: (the other is to another forum..LOL)

Oh, and there's no argument. You're wrong. Period.

[QUOTE="Nagidar"][QUOTE="Velocitas8"]

One minor example of "DX10-level functionality" doesn't constitute support of DX10 in any degree. You can even emulate "DX10 functionality" in DX9, but that completely defeats the purpose of DX10, which is efficiency. The only reason games are moving to support DX10 is because of the potential for performance improvements.

ATI themselves have said the Xenos doesn't support DX10 features. I don't think it gets any clearer than that.

Velocitas8

Wow, that quote was from ATI, they said it doesn't constitute DX10 because it isn't full fledged DX10, its DX9L, which is DX9 with DX10 functionality/features.

You're starting to read to closely into it, the sign you're losing this arguement.

DX9L has no support of DX10 features. It has features unique to DX9L, and the Xbox 360 that offer a couple instances of similar functionality to DX10.

Maybe you should READ the quotes that you post?

Forgive me for being skeptical that this is an ATI quote, but that link is to an Xbox fan site, with no link to a source simply stating "1UP" :roll: (the other is to another forum..LOL)

Oh, and there's no argument. You're wrong. Period.

I'm wrong? I post links about this stuff and all you have is word of mouth? Yea, thats it, whatever helps you sleep better at night their little guy.

[QUOTE="Velocitas8"][QUOTE="Nagidar"][QUOTE="Velocitas8"]

One minor example of "DX10-level functionality" doesn't constitute support of DX10 in any degree. You can even emulate "DX10 functionality" in DX9, but that completely defeats the purpose of DX10, which is efficiency. The only reason games are moving to support DX10 is because of the potential for performance improvements.

ATI themselves have said the Xenos doesn't support DX10 features. I don't think it gets any clearer than that.

Nagidar

Wow, that quote was from ATI, they said it doesn't constitute DX10 because it isn't full fledged DX10, its DX9L, which is DX9 with DX10 functionality/features.

You're starting to read to closely into it, the sign you're losing this arguement.

DX9L has no support of DX10 features. It has features unique to DX9L, and the Xbox 360 that offer a couple instances of similar functionality to DX10.

Maybe you should READ the quotes that you post?

Forgive me for being skeptical that this is an ATI quote, but that link is to an Xbox fan site, with no link to a source simply stating "1UP" :roll: (the other is to another forum..LOL)

Oh, and there's no argument. You're wrong. Period.

I'm wrong? I post links about this stuff and all you have is word of mouth? Yea, thats it, whatever helps you sleep better at night their little guy.

[QUOTE="Nagidar"][QUOTE="Velocitas8"][QUOTE="Nagidar"][QUOTE="Velocitas8"]

One minor example of "DX10-level functionality" doesn't constitute support of DX10 in any degree. You can even emulate "DX10 functionality" in DX9, but that completely defeats the purpose of DX10, which is efficiency. The only reason games are moving to support DX10 is because of the potential for performance improvements.

ATI themselves have said the Xenos doesn't support DX10 features. I don't think it gets any clearer than that.

Vandalvideo

Wow, that quote was from ATI, they said it doesn't constitute DX10 because it isn't full fledged DX10, its DX9L, which is DX9 with DX10 functionality/features.

You're starting to read to closely into it, the sign you're losing this arguement.

DX9L has no support of DX10 features. It has features unique to DX9L, and the Xbox 360 that offer a couple instances of similar functionality to DX10.

Maybe you should READ the quotes that you post?

Forgive me for being skeptical that this is an ATI quote, but that link is to an Xbox fan site, with no link to a source simply stating "1UP" :roll: (the other is to another forum..LOL)

Oh, and there's no argument. You're wrong. Period.

I'm wrong? I post links about this stuff and all you have is word of mouth? Yea, thats it, whatever helps you sleep better at night their little guy.

I never said it was a DX10 card, I said the Xenos was capable of some DX10 effects. Nothing more.

"Shader Model 3.0+ / Unified Shader Architecture"

So Unified shaders automatically make it SM 4.0? UM, NO. They are using it as a comparison to the discrete pipeline RSX.