Wouldn't common sense tell them that they shouldn't support DX10.1? DX11 is already on the horizon. Oh wait, maybe they should trade there common sense in for a newer model, because theres looks to be failing the miserably.

Why would common sense tell them to step back a version when ATI has already gone 2 generations on 10.1 and will end up going into 3 generations by the time RV800 arrives still well before the launch of Windows 7 and any likely release of DX11 which is still a work in progress on paper.

It pays to realize what a company has already established themselves in before assuming things about them. the 3000 series has been 10.1 the 4000 series has been 10.1 and the 5000 series is already looking to remain 10.1 compliant based on prior R&D.

Marketing hype makes 11 sound like it's right around the corner, but it's very doubtful as MS is barely able to generate partners willing to develop on 10.0 let alone 10.1 extensions.

Like I said, why support something that no one uses? Even if DX11 isn't coming anytime soon. DX10 and 10.1 Require vista, which few will touch anyways. So honestly, I don't see the sense in doing it.

Indeed why support Direct X 10 even right? I mean the latest Valve survey shows 9.66% of users with DX10 hardware and Vista, why introduce new shader models and specifications to help remove the old methods of fixed function pipelines and shaders.

It's like trying to say that the DX10 spec didn't bring about performance changes in hardware. If that is the case then the X1950XTX should be on par with the HD4870.

New function sets bring new improvements to hardware as companies learn to implement them in more effective ways. The improved mandate on AA performance and methods pushed ATI to leap ahead of the 3000 series with radically improved AA on the 4000 series.

There's always something for gamers to gain in performance over the old spec, if there wasn't they wouldn't bother introducing it and having people work with it, developers wouldn't find new ways to bend that code into use for their upcoming titles, many companies already admit to using the embedded DX10 profiles in game to benefit hardware owners.

There is no loss for the consumer in getting added instruction sets, if anything it gives them that one step above the competition when new specs arrive.

This of course is all on top of the fact that it would be a giant financial blunder on their part to throw away that R&D to redevelop silicon based on 10.0 I mean honestly if you want to talk common sense then the most realistic method would be to go with what you've already founded and not re-invent the wheel and waste valuable assets since doing otherwise is just being irresponsible when your company is already strapped for money. Why make something from scratch when your existing instruction set was perfectly fine and performing exceptionally well?

I don't see how investing double for lesser features exactly makes any sort of sense though, or how it's remotely financially responsible or a good return to the consumer who is enjoying the 4800 series quite a bit right now with impressive price to performance benefits.

It's not like ATI is exactly passing down the R&D cost to the consumer with the 3850 at $100 the 4850 at around $170 and the 4870 around $290.

DX10 is a right-wing conspiracy!

Nice job missing my entire point, Vegimite. I am not interested in what DX 10 brings to the table, Or Vista. I am saying I do NOT see the wisdom in pushing support for something that you can only use with Vista. [unless my understand of how all that works is horribly mistaken].

I also never said they should go back to DX9 or DX10 or anything like that, either. I just said I don't see much point in pushing it FORWARD, if a very small amount of people are actually going to ever use it.

Vista is not a good OS, not even half good, really. It is a resource hungry pile of code. Not much more. And I know very FEW gamers who prefer Vista over XP. XP runs smoother, it uses less resources, meaning more free for the games, and it is just all around more user friendly.

Your understanding is horribly mistaken. Instructions that pass through DX10 can be adapted to DX9 gaming engines supporting both standards. It's why you can hack your UT3 to use DX10 variables, why you can hack Crysis to use DX10 variables and why DX10 is simply DX9.0L and many features within it can either be attempted or successfully run by computers running DX9 as is. It's why games continue to tax DX9 systems because they're pushing the added features that they can use and raising the bar even now thanks to advancements in the 10 and 10.1 libraries. If they really wanted to force people to only have respectable gaming on DX10 only they wouldn't be updating 9.0c every few months when major titles are released. Every new title pushing next-gen that someone plays has reaped some benefit from what 10 brought to the engine libraries for all.

Companies aren't silly, they know that they can enable certain calls if the supporting hardware is there, it's why people will use XP and change configs to completely harness the features available from the game. It's why all these things that we never saw really used before are being experimented with on 9 and 10 because the call was always there but now there's a better way to run it and both sides can benefit from particle systems and fog and lighting.

They already did the groundwork and have functional architecture on 10.1 and have had it running for quite some time yet your statement was

quote iamjoe56

Wouldn't common sense tell them that they shouldn't support DX10.1?

which means if they're already supporting it and have an strongly developed architecture that they should apparently go back to the R600 which is outdated and poor performing in comparison and start from that instead. Common sense at the time told them to get their footing right in new advancements as they come instead of sitting out and being last to the party (SM3.0 support for example) and so they did this almost a year ago to be a step up on the competition.

I never said Vista was good, great or anything. Don't try and shovel that onto me like I tried to give some shelter to the mutant OS based on Windows 2003.

Yes, I know some DX10 features can be hacked and used in DX9. I am not stupid.

I just don't see the point of developing a GPU that can use DX10.1 or 10 in full, when next to no one will use that feature. People use DX9 a TON still, Now bigger and better cards are great things, yes, but why cram it full of something few will ever use?