June 15, 200718 yr I'm considering an upgrade and I have Win XP. From what I have heard this means I can't have DX10. Does this mean that it's pointless to consider a nvidia 8XXX series card? Or is such card more powerful than a 7600 even if only using DX9?
June 15, 200718 yr You have understood correctly. There is and will be no DX10 for Windows XP. However that doesn't mean that a Geforce 88xx is not more powerful than a 76xx, because it'll still have have a significant impact on FSX performance.Pat
June 15, 200718 yr Since there isn't (effectively) any DX10 content yet, you can look at any of the hardware review sites and get comparisons of 8XXX vs various other nvidia and ati offerings running on Win XP and Vista. Hardocp.com has some that look at FSX. But be aware that duplicating the reported FSX FPS in these tests on your system can be difficult.scott s..
June 15, 200718 yr >There is and will be no DX10>for Windows XP.>PatMight be someday? Try this link: http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20070...linux-os-x.html Noel System: 9900X3D Noctua NH-D15 G2, MSI Pro 650-P WiFi, G.SKILL 64GB (2 x 32GB) 288-Pin PC RAM DDR5 6000, WD NVMe 2Tb x 1, Sabrent NVMe 2Tb x 1, RTX 4090 FE, Corsair RM1000W PSU, Win11 Home, LG Ultra Curved Gsync Ultimate 3440x1440, Phanteks Enthoo Pro Case, TCA Boeing Edition Yoke & TQ, Cessna Trim Wheel, RTSS Framerate Limiter w/ Front Edge Sync. Aircraft used in MSFS 2024: Fenix A320, Aerosoft CRJ, FBW, WT 787X, I-Fly 737 MAX 8, Citation Longitude.
June 15, 200718 yr Take a look at Tom's Hardware's Spring VGA Sharts for 2007. Very informative for directly comparing the 88 series to the 79 (and all other current cards). Not really much difference between them depending on what graphics configuration you run in FS, which is handy when one is $500 cheaper than the other. In some cases the 79 series comes out on top! Of course the 88 series offers the future proofing when DX10 does have support.http://www23.tomshardware.com/graphics_2007.htmlKen.http://www.kennair.comSYSTEM: PC1-AMD Athlon XP 3200, 2Gb RAM,NVidia 6600GT 256Mb AGP, NVidia 6200 128Mb PCI,2x17" LCD's, 3x17" CRT, Triple Head 2 GoPC2-AMD Sempron 2400, 1Gb RAM, ATI 9200 256Mb AGP. Virtual Reality Flyer using X-Plane 11
June 15, 200718 yr Looks like 88 is roughly 25-30% faster at higher resolutions, at least in non FSX games. Noel System: 9900X3D Noctua NH-D15 G2, MSI Pro 650-P WiFi, G.SKILL 64GB (2 x 32GB) 288-Pin PC RAM DDR5 6000, WD NVMe 2Tb x 1, Sabrent NVMe 2Tb x 1, RTX 4090 FE, Corsair RM1000W PSU, Win11 Home, LG Ultra Curved Gsync Ultimate 3440x1440, Phanteks Enthoo Pro Case, TCA Boeing Edition Yoke & TQ, Cessna Trim Wheel, RTSS Framerate Limiter w/ Front Edge Sync. Aircraft used in MSFS 2024: Fenix A320, Aerosoft CRJ, FBW, WT 787X, I-Fly 737 MAX 8, Citation Longitude.
June 18, 200718 yr Hi Ken, unfortunately, THG scoops loads of baloney. Those charts serve to let users make questionable decisions IMsnsHO. Not your mistake, I know. :-) As somebody hinted, their results are 'very difficult' to reproduce. 'Very difficult' = Impossible! ;-) Considering Nvidia's lack of driver support today, single monitor users are currently on the simpler side of life with Radeon GPUs. Again, just mnsHO. @ all, when talking display adapters, why not mention the display(s) as well? ;-) It makes a big difference whether somebody is rendering 1x 1024x768 or 2x 1920x1200... Hope this adds to thoughts, good luck and kind regards Jaap
Create an account or sign in to comment