DX10 or 9?

something daft already!! · 6 Nov 2007 at 13:25

All the DX10 games I have seen so far are no different visual wise to DX9. Lost planet, Gears of war, Bioshock, WIC. The only difference I can see is with DX10, you lose fps.

The difference between a DX9 card and a DX9c card was quite marked. Compare the likes of Rainbow 6 to say Far Cry and you will see what I mean.

I remember years ago when I had a 48k Spectrum and heard about the 128k one with 3 channel sound (through TV too!). There were no differences between the two systems apart from one was a little more modern than the other, a little more "tarty"

This seem the same for Vista and DX10, no real difference at all. I feel its a marketing ploy by Nvidia and Microsoft to make us shell out more hard earned cash. As proved by the "tuning" of Crysis to give DX10 in XP.

I wonder what DX10.1 will bring, better graphics or more of the same? I for one, will be sitting on the fence this time.

When I get Crysis, I will be running it in DX9 as DX10 is unplayable in my 3 month old system.

Curio · 6 Nov 2007 at 15:38

I agree. I'm fed up with the hype. Remember when 3DMark2001 came out and it had the "Nature" scene - now that was a big jump forward because DirectX 8 introduced shaders. Yet that wasn't hyped anywhere near as much as DirectX 10 has been - even tho DX10 doesn't even bring anything new to the table. But now of course Microsoft want to make gamers feel like they have to rush out and buy Vista, and nVidia/ATi are happy to jump on the bandwagon too.

Of course the technology has to start somewhere and this transitional phase is perfectly normal - it's the hype I can't stand. I mean, seriously, splash out right now on a new OS and hugely expensive video card for.....slightly better lighting effects in a handful of games :confused:

And it's hardly like you're expensive video card is going to be future proof - they're already talking about DX 10.1.

stude1983 · 6 Nov 2007 at 15:43

i think eventually when developers get their act together it will be a big step forward. its like when 9.b went to 9.c we started noticing changes in stuff like lighting and shaders ect.
i agree with you both mind that it might be a good idea to see what sround the corner tho!

Skyboat · 6 Nov 2007 at 16:37

It's definitely not worth it considering Vista is still a pile of performance poo compared to XP.

something daft already!! · 6 Nov 2007 at 17:00

Skyboat said:
It's definitely not worth it considering Vista is still a pile of performance poo compared to XP.

Actually its not. Install for install, Xp, matches Vista gaming wise, frame for frame. I used to Dual boot due to performance issues, but not any more. 3d mark 06 in Vista is 10,348 and in XP is 10,850. The only performance hit I get is with DX10 games

B@Th*nG · 6 Nov 2007 at 18:39

howiepoohs said:
Actually its not. Install for install, Xp, matches Vista gaming wise, frame for frame. I used to Dual boot due to performance issues, but not any more. 3d mark 06 in Vista is 10,348 and in XP is 10,850. The only performance hit I get is with DX10 games

that depends on the game, it's either comparable or worse across the board

B@Th*nG

Skyboat · 6 Nov 2007 at 18:43

B@Th*nG said:
that depends on the game, it's either comparable or worse across the board

B@Th*nG

Yeah indeed, of course the newer the game is, the better it'll run in Vista compared to XP. The OS still has a long way to go before it matures IMO.

LabR@t · 6 Nov 2007 at 20:41

howiepoohs said:
Actually its not. Install for install, Xp, matches Vista gaming wise, frame for frame. I used to Dual boot due to performance issues, but not any more. 3d mark 06 in Vista is 10,348 and in XP is 10,850. The only performance hit I get is with DX10 games

well i guess thats kind of the point isn't it? MS should have released DX10 for xp.

I still think it will happen , maybe not MS but dx10 on xp will happen

Ross1234 · 6 Nov 2007 at 20:45

LabR@t said:
but dx10 on xp will happen

already has

Sleepery · 6 Nov 2007 at 21:35

Skyboat said:
It's definitely not worth it considering Vista is still a pile of performance poo compared to XP.

Here we go :rolleyes:

Vista bashing is SO last week

Inazuma · 6 Nov 2007 at 21:39

DX10 was suppose to improve performance if not the graphics.... but it does neither

mark_t50 · 6 Nov 2007 at 23:19

I still dual boot between XP and Vista. Whilst Vista has improved a lot with patches, new drivers etc, there is still the odd game that just runs completely pap on it, the latest one I've come across being GT Legends where I get about a 70% drop in performance under Vista :eek:

As for the DX10 stuff, I've been really dissapointed with the few DX10 games I've tried so far and the performance drop is nowhere near worth the little extra effects you seem to get. Hellgate London on XP using DX9 I get an average 60FPS, on Vista using DX10 I get an average of 20-25FPS

To be fair this could just be really badly coded for DX10 though, but it is still quite daft to be getting such a difference.

I just hope that with further patches, driver updates and maybe when devs start getting used to DX10 ,that we start to see some of the benefits along with performance improvements.