Annoyed with Direct X 10 Hype...

FrannoBaz · 24 Sep 2007 at 21:11

I find it really annoying that there is a massive hype about Direct X 10 taking load of the GPU and giving some to the CPU when its just Rubbish. Every game/demo i have tried with Direct X 10 has dreadful performance and it looks quite a lot worse than a good Direct X 9 game..... whats going on? :rolleyes:

muon · 24 Sep 2007 at 21:18

Im sick and tired of this next gen console crap. On my 360 in some of my newest games i can notice instances where the framerate drops and begins to stutter. And its supposed to be so much more powerful than my mega drive which never stutters.

You have to compare apples to apples. Even when comparing the latest games on dx 9 and 10, you have to appreciate that these games have a few more features (a few is the correct word) but the drivers/development for dx 10 games has only begun. DX9 is a very mature platform.

Kanifee · 24 Sep 2007 at 21:19

ok first off its your own fault for believing the hype without sounding to abrupt, secondly is your card the 8600gt so named in your sig?

to the reply there can your mega drive run bioshock? or connect to the internet and download demos for you? can it run anything over 45mb for that matter?

EDIT****
ill be a bit more forthcoming with my answer to the opriganel post, to be fair dx10 is still a rather young technology and drivers are being fine tuned every day to get the most from its platform, but that aside i have found nothing wrong with the way bioshock runs on my system even world in conflict runs fine same with medal of houner wich all have dx10

willhub · 24 Sep 2007 at 21:23

FrannoBaz said:
I find it really annoying that there is a massive hype about Direct X 10 taking load of the GPU and giving some to the CPU when its just Rubbish. Every game/demo i have tried with Direct X 10 has dreadful performance and it looks quite a lot worse than a good Direct X 9 game..... whats going on?

DX10 takes the load off of the CPU and puts the load onto the GPU.

muon · 24 Sep 2007 at 21:26

damian666 said:
to the reply there can your mega drive run bioshock? or connect to the internet and download demos for you? can it run anything over 45mb for that matter?

Im using hyperbole to make a point.

Kanifee · 24 Sep 2007 at 21:28

ghost101 said:
Im using hyperbole to make a point.

ah i understand and appolagise lol really surprises me when people actually take hype as gospal you can make any one believe anything as you so acuratly pointed out

i should pay more attention before jumping to the reply button

FrannoBaz · 24 Sep 2007 at 21:30

damian666 said:
ok first off its your own fault for believing the hype without sounding to abrupt, secondly is your card the 8600gt so named in your sig?

to the reply there can your mega drive run bioshock? or connect to the internet and download demos for you? can it run anything over 45mb for that matter?

EDIT****
ill be a bit more forthcoming with my answer to the opriganel post, to be fair dx10 is still a rather young technology and drivers are being fine tuned every day to get the most from its platform, but that aside i have found nothing wrong with the way bioshock runs on my system even world in conflict runs fine same with medal of houner wich all have dx10

Nah man... My card is a BFG 8800GTX my Sig was a little joke about Jacob Billing

Kanifee · 24 Sep 2007 at 21:32

then i dont know how performance is dissapointing for you my friend have you updated to the latest drivers?

LoadsaMoney · 24 Sep 2007 at 21:32

Yeah it is rubbish, Dx10 takes the load of the CPU and puts it on the GPU, not the other way around

, and theres nothing wrong with Dx10 performance, you dont even lose a frame going from Dx9 to Dx10, well thats on Nvidia cards, if your on ATi you lose 30+ :eek:

J.D · 24 Sep 2007 at 21:37

LoadsaMoney said:
Yeah it is rubbish, Dx10 takes the load of the CPU and puts it on the GPU, not the other way around , and theres nothing wrong with Dx10 performance, you dont even lose a frame going from Dx9 to Dx10, well thats on Nvidia cards, if your on ATi you lose 30+

Yeah, but that will be fixed I reckon. The x2900 hasn't been out as long as the 8 series cards and fine you know it.

FrannoBaz · 24 Sep 2007 at 21:37

LoadsaMoney said:
Yeah it is rubbish, Dx10 takes the load of the CPU and puts it on the GPU, not the other way around , and theres nothing wrong with Dx10 performance, you dont even lose a frame going from Dx9 to Dx10, well thats on Nvidia cards, if your on ATi you lose 30+

Im not really annoyed by Microsoft Direct X team.... Im really annoyed by the way that game developing teams claim that new games will be Direct X 10 and when they are actually released they are direct x 9 based... I don't like the way that they use "Direct X 10" Based as a Selling point. i.e Flight Simulator X - When they are clearly not.

helmutcheese · 24 Sep 2007 at 21:41

The fact the Nvidia is older than even Vista should have meant ATI made a better card as they had longer and Nvidia cards to sample and Dissect.

J.D · 24 Sep 2007 at 21:44

helmutcheese said:
The fact the Nvidia is older than even Vista should have meant ATI made a better card as they had longer and Nvidia cards to sample and Dissect.

You are joking right?. Vista has been in development for years and ATI and Nvida would have had access to this a LONG time ago. Nvidia had their card ready first and by a long time so if Vista was in RC1, or RC2 or even Beta stage that both companies would have had as much access as they wanted. So in that regard, Nvidia and the 8 series I'd say have had a longer time to mature DX10 performances.

ATI could have dissected the 8800 but had already made their minds up with the new architecture and went ahead with it but it's not pulled off this round but the future could hold it in a better light if both companies start to build cards this way.

helmutcheese · 24 Sep 2007 at 21:49

You think Im stupid, I did Beta test it officially and unoffically run every Alpha/Beta/RC build, both the OS and ATI/Nvidia cards would have been given out and avail as enginering samples for testing, they cant make a DX10 OS without hardware to test how it runs, and they cant make DX10 hardware without software for it to run.

I still say ATI had a better chance as they made the card well after Nvidia and could have looked at Nvidias Architecture for ideas etc.

You seem to forget Nvidia since launching the 8800's messed about with crappy driver support for XP and more so Vista, its only recently they are back to their good Detonator/Forceware support standards.

Seem funny as any other time your in the Green Corner with GTX/Ultra is best bla bla.

Rackerz · 24 Sep 2007 at 21:49

I just hope ATI fix their DX10 drivers, the XT is still like a baby when you look at how long the GTX has been out for, hopefully they improve in that timeframe.

RavenUK · 24 Sep 2007 at 21:51

The fact that most if not alll DX10 titles are being developed on Nvidia hardware gives them an advantage over ATI in all departments regardless of how long ATI have had to sort its Vista performance out. In these circumstances we can only hope for driver optimizations to keep up the performance.

LoadsaMoney · 24 Sep 2007 at 21:53

ATi were supposed to be the dogs gonads at Dx10, what with their work on the 360, hasn't turned out like that, Nvidia's first attempt at the whole new architecture and their streets ahead.

J.D · 24 Sep 2007 at 21:56

LoadsaMoney said:
ATi were supposed to be the dogs gonads at Dx10, what with their work on the 360, hasn't turned out like that, Nvidia's first attempt at the whole new architecture and their streets ahead.

Xbox is a weird sort of DX9 IIRC.

Rackerz · 24 Sep 2007 at 21:56

Yeah the 360 is hybrid.

RavenUK · 24 Sep 2007 at 21:57

What, in one game, bioshock, another title developed on Nvidia hardware, don't make me laugh, lets see performance in a steady stream of DX10 titles then judge.