I have no idea how you can say that, vista would be classed as a perfect OS if they had stuck with DX9 tbh, everything else about it is superior to XP, dx10 will shine in the future but atm hardware just isn't at the same level
Calling in the Jury on DX10....
- Thread starter bfar
- Start date
I have no idea how you can say that, vista would be classed as a perfect OS if they had stuck with DX9 tbh, everything else about it is superior to XP, dx10 will shine in the future but atm hardware just isn't at the same level
Why is that then?
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 7 Feb 2004
- Posts
- 9,511
If you think about it, Dx8 and Dx9 where all written for the same cards, where as Dx10 is for the newer cards but they are making the games compatible with the old Dx9 cards.
I am confident that when we see the first few purely Dx10 games then we will reap the benefits. But until everyone upgrades you wont see games companies writting purely dx10 games as the market isnt big enough yet.
I am confident that when we see the first few purely Dx10 games then we will reap the benefits. But until everyone upgrades you wont see games companies writting purely dx10 games as the market isnt big enough yet.
Permabanned
- Joined
- 28 Oct 2006
- Posts
- 6,552
- Location
- Bournemouth
xp fanboy in our realms
Associate
- Joined
- 24 Apr 2006
- Posts
- 477
- Location
- Dorset
I have tried I really have tried to use Vista but I always seem to go back to XP for my gaming as DX10 performance leaves a lot to be desired and with little benefit
lol.
Likewise. I gave Vista more than a fair chance recently and ended up installing XP x64 in the end.
It's just not worth the headaches yet. I'll give it another chance when it's had a service pack or two.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 33,188
90-99%(game depandant) of the look of the game is down to the textures, and design. people are looking at it like dx9 looks little different to dx10. crysis played on XP ISN'T DX9 and Crysis on vista ISN'T DX10. crysis is crysis, its textures, and design, and style, is the same on any dx version, the small things, like how some lighting is handled, and some other things are the dx9 and dx10 part. the differences aren't that small, but if dx9 isn only effecting how the game looks by 1%, and dx10 by 2%, its doing 100% more but you still can't damn notice it.
if every effect has an overhead, then only a certain amount of effects can realistically be done, the problem with dx10 is, the overhead is smaller, for the SAME amount of effects, but they are using a lot more effects, which increases gpu load.
for instance in world in conflict, dx9 has shadows on trees and houses, and basic unit shadows. in dx10 the shadows extend to not being a essentially a helicopter sprite shadow on the ground underneath it, the shadow gets nice, but the unit itself gets a shadow underneath the gun mounts/wing. its simply adding shadows to a heck of a lot more units, tree's and other things.
tbh, shadows on a copter, takes power, isn't really needed, barely noticed.
meh, my point is, you take out the dx9 effects aswell and crysis won't look massively different, the textures and 90% of the scene will remain identical, just lighted differently.
one of the biggest other differences is this.
dx8 gf4 ti4600 4 pipe card, dx9 9700/5900 8 pipe card. more memory, more everything, it did ok in dx9 and better looking games with more effects because it was twice as fast. in the case of 7900 to 8800, not everything on the card was doubled like back in the old days, we had a fairly major shift over to unified architechture, rops weren't double, i don't think the texture units were either. no idea how many other tweaks there were. we haven't had a double everything jump in power that we used to have.
but people are also kidding themselves about how much dx9 does, or dx10, and adding small effects takes a lot of power.
the problem is how intricate game makers are using effects, being over liberal. for instance a shadow from a tree is fine, but when you decide to make the tree sway in the wind, make the brances sway more than the trunk, and the leaves more than the branches, and change the shadow shape, then decide what that shadow is being cast on, draw the shadow over a bit of flat ground, a few blades of grass and bits of ground between blades of grass, its almost unnoticable, but takes a lot of juice to calculate where what and when to draw all of that. the geometry numbers being done on the gpu, instead of just drawing is phenominal.
hell, i'm not sure with all the spare cpu power lots of us have that sending more info to the gpu so it has to do less calculations and could use its power to draw could be useful.
obviously more gpu power is needed, but games dev's need to be more realistic about the liberal use of effects that make next to no difference to the end picture. do you care if the shadow being drawn from a tree in the distance is interacting with the grass underneath it perfectly, even though you can barely damn well see it when standing still looking at it, let alone when you actually play the game and aren't looking for the differences.
if every effect has an overhead, then only a certain amount of effects can realistically be done, the problem with dx10 is, the overhead is smaller, for the SAME amount of effects, but they are using a lot more effects, which increases gpu load.
for instance in world in conflict, dx9 has shadows on trees and houses, and basic unit shadows. in dx10 the shadows extend to not being a essentially a helicopter sprite shadow on the ground underneath it, the shadow gets nice, but the unit itself gets a shadow underneath the gun mounts/wing. its simply adding shadows to a heck of a lot more units, tree's and other things.
tbh, shadows on a copter, takes power, isn't really needed, barely noticed.
meh, my point is, you take out the dx9 effects aswell and crysis won't look massively different, the textures and 90% of the scene will remain identical, just lighted differently.
one of the biggest other differences is this.
dx8 gf4 ti4600 4 pipe card, dx9 9700/5900 8 pipe card. more memory, more everything, it did ok in dx9 and better looking games with more effects because it was twice as fast. in the case of 7900 to 8800, not everything on the card was doubled like back in the old days, we had a fairly major shift over to unified architechture, rops weren't double, i don't think the texture units were either. no idea how many other tweaks there were. we haven't had a double everything jump in power that we used to have.
but people are also kidding themselves about how much dx9 does, or dx10, and adding small effects takes a lot of power.
the problem is how intricate game makers are using effects, being over liberal. for instance a shadow from a tree is fine, but when you decide to make the tree sway in the wind, make the brances sway more than the trunk, and the leaves more than the branches, and change the shadow shape, then decide what that shadow is being cast on, draw the shadow over a bit of flat ground, a few blades of grass and bits of ground between blades of grass, its almost unnoticable, but takes a lot of juice to calculate where what and when to draw all of that. the geometry numbers being done on the gpu, instead of just drawing is phenominal.
hell, i'm not sure with all the spare cpu power lots of us have that sending more info to the gpu so it has to do less calculations and could use its power to draw could be useful.
obviously more gpu power is needed, but games dev's need to be more realistic about the liberal use of effects that make next to no difference to the end picture. do you care if the shadow being drawn from a tree in the distance is interacting with the grass underneath it perfectly, even though you can barely damn well see it when standing still looking at it, let alone when you actually play the game and aren't looking for the differences.
This is my biggest beef with it. Designing an implementation that could only work on a new OS was hair-brained! Look at it from a developers point of view - in order to sell games they have to implement on DX9. To be future proof they also have to implement on DX10. This must cost a fortune in time, training and manpower, and it has an impact on the overall quality of the product.
It's going to be a couple of years yet before XP/DX9 is considered obsolete, and as such, it will be a long long time before we really see any DX10 games designed from the ground up. As it is, any DX10 games available feel like they've been badly patched on top of DX9 versions. That's not what the pre-marketing led us to believe. They plugged and sold us a product that isn't ready for the market.
I believe pure DX10 games will work very well, but we won't see them in bulk for 2 years.
I think the only for DX10 to shine is to impliment it in the beginning of development, adding DX10 functionality to a DX9 game is very likely to fail.
A few examples:
http://enthusiast.hardocp.com/article.html?art=MTQxMywzLCxoZW50aHVzaWFzdA==
http://enthusiast.hardocp.com/article.html?art=MTM5OSw0LCw=
http://enthusiast.hardocp.com/article.html?art=MTM3MSwzLCxoZW50aHVzaWFzdA==
I think most developers use the advanced graphics options for DX10 and that is killing performance, I have seen nothing yet of the claim that DX10 can do what DX9 does but faster.
A few examples:
http://enthusiast.hardocp.com/article.html?art=MTQxMywzLCxoZW50aHVzaWFzdA==
http://enthusiast.hardocp.com/article.html?art=MTM5OSw0LCw=
http://enthusiast.hardocp.com/article.html?art=MTM3MSwzLCxoZW50aHVzaWFzdA==
I think most developers use the advanced graphics options for DX10 and that is killing performance, I have seen nothing yet of the claim that DX10 can do what DX9 does but faster.
A perfect operating system ? Thats a laugh, its riddled with bugs and dosn't add much new to an operating system at all. The perfect OS would be one with less than 50million lines of code, thats for sure.
Also...you can play DX9 in vista, and still have lower performing gameplay than a comparative XP computer.
can't say i agree with that..
vista & 2000 are more similar than 2000 and 98
vista has not been 'completely re-written'
Soldato
- Joined
- 11 Jan 2007
- Posts
- 8,797
- Location
- *̡̡ı ̡̡͡|̲̲̲͡͡͡ ̲▫̲͡ ̲̲̲͡͡π̲̲͡͡ ̲̲͡▫̲̲͡͡ ̲|̡̡
Caporegime
- Joined
- 8 Jul 2003
- Posts
- 30,063
- Location
- In a house
Nothings gone wrong, Dx10 is new, its what happens when something new comes out, overtime it gets better as everyone learns how to do it.
Soldato
- Joined
- 11 Jan 2007
- Posts
- 8,797
- Location
- *̡̡ı ̡̡͡|̲̲̲͡͡͡ ̲▫̲͡ ̲̲̲͡͡π̲̲͡͡ ̲̲͡▫̲̲͡͡ ̲|̡̡
Not in my experience. XP and Vista dual booting with same drivers give same performance in games and 3d mark.
I must admit I'm a bit dissapointed with the overall look of the few DX10 games I have, I struggle to find much difference over the DX9 versions to be honest, but maybe it's early days still, or maybe I just expected to much.
I do find that some games run better on Vista than others. I dual boot and have benchmarked a bit and I find that WoW runs identical on both os's, Quake 4 actually runs better on Vista, but then other stuff runs terrible such as GT Legends where It becomes unplayable on Vista.
The strange thing is that I've found the recent games to be worse, games like Hellgate London and Crysis run much worse on Vista for me. This all means that I have gone back to using XP as my gaming os and only occassionaly boot into vista to update drivers and see if it has improved any. It's a shame really as I really like the look and feel of Vista.
I do find that some games run better on Vista than others. I dual boot and have benchmarked a bit and I find that WoW runs identical on both os's, Quake 4 actually runs better on Vista, but then other stuff runs terrible such as GT Legends where It becomes unplayable on Vista.
The strange thing is that I've found the recent games to be worse, games like Hellgate London and Crysis run much worse on Vista for me. This all means that I have gone back to using XP as my gaming os and only occassionaly boot into vista to update drivers and see if it has improved any. It's a shame really as I really like the look and feel of Vista.
Anyone that believes DX10 has been a huge advance over DX9 is lying to themselves. Probably because they payed silly money for a GTX or ultra and want to believe that having these cards is giving them loads of extra effects and visuals + performance. I installed vista to play bioshock in DX10 and it didnt look much diffrent from my mate playing it in DX9.
No, I have Vista installed as dual boot, I love Vista & there are some games I play using it. I also use it for everything that isnt gaming. But look as Crysis, it plays slower using vista even under DX9 mode & that's just one example. As much as i would like to use Vista for all my games there are some more demanding games that are slower on Vista then XP, hence why I think Vista is the problem, not DX10
I do enjoy World in Conflict though, it runs nicely in DX10
Garyj881 said:
Yes I am, its normal DDR though. not DDR2 or anything. I read somewhere it's happy at that so tried it & its all good