Nvidia G92 will push the limits to 1 TearFlop

[gxsaurav]

Why are you guys worried? Your graphics card does everything & will do everything for many years to come. It took 4 years for Microsoft to jump from DX 9 to DX 10, it will take more with DX 11 because DX 10 is a new tech, they will simply optimise it more in form of DX 10.1 & 10.5 etc.

If you are buying a new card & computer then just get a DX 10 based 8600GT/2600 HD with 256 MB RAM if you are a gamer running games at 1024X768 (mostly).

If you just want a graphics card to run Windows Vista, then get a DX 10 based 8400GT/8500GT/Radeon 2400 HD or even Intel GMA X3100/X3000.

If you already have a DirectX 9 based graphics card like nVidia Geforce 6 or 7 series or Radeon X1400/X1600 with 256 MB RAM, then stick to it. No need to upgrade. DirectX 10 games are not out yet & these cards will hold DX 9 games easily along with Windows Vista.

 

[nvidia]

it does not make any sense to say that it will take the same time to move from dx10 to dx11.... it only depends on the reliability of the current version in use.... so if dx10 does not come up to the mark dx11 may come out faster!!!!!!!!!!

 

[faraaz]

Ideally when choosing a video card, it is important to me that the few games I play run at over 30 fps because that's movie quality speed IIRC (or was it 25 frames?? Talking about PAL here...)

Therefore, any card that lets you play a game at oh...I dunno...300 frames per second isn't really worth it...having said that, I am very happy at the moment with my ATI Radeon X1600 and am NOT going to upgrade until there's a game out which uses DX-10 ONLY and will only run at like 4 fps on my current card at any rate.

In the foreseeable future, I can only think of Dragon Age, Spore and Bioshock as games that I want to play. Of the above, Bioshock is the only one that can merit investment of that nature...and even then, its available on an XBox 360. So I'm thinking...why bother?