has anybody seen what the manual configuration change of crysis to support the highest end graphics setup can do in windows xp? It looks absolutely amazing, its truly sad that these settings are officially only supported in windows vista because XP looks just as good.

God. Hey ATi, remember the number 9? It comes after 8, and it's just before 10.

Swapping a 3 in place of a 2 doesn't make a faster card. You're just rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic.

The dx10 API can communicate with the card in a fundamentally different way than dx9, and that's much faster. But devs aren't using it because most games are obviously written for dx9, so a couple of dx10 features are just bolted on like soft particles, instancing, AA, or better shaders.

At the dx10 course at siggraph this year, several devs talked about their experiences doing this. And, my takeaway was that Crysis was the only one presented that was radically changing their engine to really take advantage of dx10. I hope so.

none of the developers care about the current generation of DX10 cards in regards to DX10 performance calling it terrible and here we are looking at DX 10.1 cards that are mild revisions of the previous generation.

am I the only one still waiting for DX10 to offer something other than way more development time and way more hardware requirements in order to display more than just better looking water?

as a side note ATI had best release on time and in quantity at an aggressive price unlike their last video card that was 9 months late and required an additional 5 months to get decent drivers all while listing for too much damn money..... surprise surprise they lost more marketshare..... I'll give AMD credit for one thing, unlike ATI AMD is always good to go for a price war unlike ATI which just kept losing marketshare and being late.

Wow, that is a load of bull.
especially the 200$ comment.
8600's and 2600's go for around that.

The total gpu market, including those imbedded in chipsets is on the order of 100 million gpus per quarter.

So, the volume of the low end cards is staggering. A buck each, would be a lot of profit.

If this is true, then AMD/ATI is absolutely losing it. While it is true most of the volume is in cheaper cards, most of the profit is in the expensive ones. For as much as gamers are looking for a good value, having a ridiculously cheap card with mediocre performance isn't a good sell.

I continue to be underwhelmed by Direct X 10 graphics cards.

lots of speculations here, but I will let the numbers talk over the words.

but Fudzilla claims

I think I threw up in my mouth a little.

If its slower it should cost less. This isn't undercutting at all. Its simply the reality of it's value.

Cheaper the merrier. Honestly who wouldn't want to see real performing cards for under $200. 8-10%? That's like 4 fps. Does it matter? Anything over $200 it becomes a commodity that depreciate faster than you can collect $200.

ATI/AMD may actually make a similar amount of money to Nvidia because the 55nm process is cheaper than the 65nm one.

does that mean i can get a 3800 and cross fire it with 2900 xt, or do i have to match them up?

Wow. Can't say I'm surprised. But wow. R6 is dead, long live R7.

I thought the AMD card was supposed to use a lot less power in the 3800 version as well. If it's 10% slower, but $50 cheaper and has low power requirements it could still be a good card.

I mean, two 3800 series cards in crossfire may be a good deal for someone without a 600+ watt PSU.

We just have to wait for the reviews guys