• Competitor rules

    Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.

DX10 - overhyped for some?

FatRakoon

FatRakoon

FatRakoon

Soldato
Joined
18 Oct 2002
Posts
10,475
Location
Behind you... Naked!
Recently I have been given a right telling off by a mae, as I am only playing D.O.W and its family.

So, I have gone back to COD4, BF2, Conflict, Vegas etc and Im glad cos I missed them.

Now, my mate and I were having a blast on COD4 when he turned to me and said that the display on the LAN machine he was on, was much better than his display on his own PC... The System he was playing on was just a basic Game system, not very high specs at all:-

MSI Neo4-F
X2-3800 @ 2.5
2GB Crucial
Zotac 8800GT
Audigy 1
120GBHD ( C:=20GB / D:=90-ish Gig )
Windows XP64 SP2

Certainly plays games well enough for the LAN of course, but my mates PC is a much higher spec.. I think its

A8R-MVP
X2-4600 @ stock
2GB ( Unknown )
PNY 8800GTS
X-FI Gamer
2x200GB RAID
Vista64

Anyway, he said *** visuals on his are poor compared to mine, he has DX10 and I have only DX9 since its XP and I told him to nudge the visual stuff up but he already has it full whack, he is on a 22" and 1280x1050 while *** screen on my lan is only 1024x768 capable and he is still adamant that my display is much better.

Its been over a week now where he has been back & forth and he still cannot get it to look as good as it does on mine?

Does that sound right?

Anyway, I have chucked Vista64 onto a PC and Im now comparing them directly against each other and sure enough, I cannot see any difference between DX9 and DX10, yet my mate is so gutted, that he has now asked me for XP64 and I can have his Vista64, I have said no thanks as I am now in posession of 6 no less licences of Vista that ar currently not in any systems while the XP64 ones all are.

Anyway, we did some other messing around today and visually, his setup on about on par with my X1900XT system...surely that not right at all?

Does XP64 really make games THAT much better than vista & DX10?

Cool!

Seriosuly though, any explainations or thoughts would be taken as evidence
 
what games are we talking about here? i find its much better running games at high end DX9 than using Dx10 at the moment. You can in vista just use DX9, nothing is forcing you to use Dx10. For my system it takes a HUGEEE performance hit using DX10. Also your friends CPU = very slow and also the graphics card is not all that amazing for running DX10 games being Coh,Assasins Creed, Call of jaruez, crysis etc etc all of them run very slow on the majoirty of systems.
 
None of the games he listed are DX10.

And I would not say your mates PC is much higher spec than the one above.
 
COD4 and UT3 are the games really.

Both of those are DX10 are they not?

No, sorry, the machines I have mentioned up there are his ( The bottom one ) and the one obove that is the one I have setup thats as close to his as I can get it ( For testing at home )... Its the one he is using now, or rather today.... At the time sorry, the graphics he was running with was actually the X1800XT... Sorry, we have been piddling about all day and I am a little tired so Im getting confused.

I guess you are right with the optional DX9/10 cos some games give you seperate loaders dont they? - Ah, so I am on DX9 with them all really... Erm, Lost Planet and Crysis are the only 2 I have then that have 2 loaders like that???

Right, so once again, Im on Vista and once again, Im proving its not for me for yet another reason and so, once again, I will be going back to XP64 - it seems?

I will install the few DX10 games I have then and re-do my trials ... Could have sworn COD4 was DX10 but now Im thinking of it, I did remember the ****-offs of Crysis when COD4 showed it looking better than crysis but only being DX9???

Comes flooding back like syrup with me im afraid.
 
some impressive dx10 stuff is starting to show up, but on say the 8800 series, they are just too slow.

maybe dx11 will give us something to shout about...
 
helmutcheese said:
COD4 is not DX10.
Click to expand...

And Crysis wont install now either, so stuff it... Stuff the bloody lot of it. :mad:


Devil_Spawn said:
some impressive dx10 stuff is starting to show up, but on say the 8800 series, they are just too slow.

maybe dx11 will give us something to shout about...
Click to expand...

DX11 ????

Dee Exx ****** Eleven???

Im only just talking 10 and you are on 11 :eek:


Sod it, whats wrong with DirectX2 Doom and Quake were ok on that!!!

LOL
 
maybe your monitor has a sharper picture than his and better contrast/colours.
there arent really many dx10 games out there that look better than dx9....most of them when looking for the difference the first thing u notice is the massive performance hit.
visual improvement is a lot harder to find in most
 
As mentioned, none of the games you listed have DX10 support. I would put it down to monitor / driver configuration.

Most titles featuring DX10 atm were built primarily for DX9 so aren't taking advantage of what DX10 is about. Often taking a rough stick to it's fabled efficiency by having much busier details in scenes, all of which isn't helped by graphics cards happily brandishing DX10 support but not being very fast when it comes to the rendering.

But look at DX9 (this might sound familier), was first released on some pretty shoddy games and the DX9 capable hardware around at the time could barely break 30fps on low resolutions. Of course forums were full of "omg DX9 sucks im sticking with DX8.1 forever!" posts. But the games got better, developers got more experience with the new API. The hardware got better, you can see the culmination of years of DX9 evolution today. I won't argue about the much faster uptake of DX9 compared to DX10, however I would put that more down to the circumstances around how you are able to have DX10 in the first place, rather than a failing of the API itself.
 
Can't understand any of the setups, a 8800gt for a 1024x768 setup i mean, wtf, and 1280x1050 stretched to a 22" display which should be 1680x1050, meaning it will be horribly horribly stretched sideways when the system, both, could play a 1680x1050 rig easily with full settings.

That aside, DX10 and DX9, think of them like SSE3/4 registers in a chip to a certain degree. THey more than anything give you ways to speed up processes and add some efficiency. the DX version has 100% no effect on several key area's, game/level design, textures (quality, size, attention to detail, resolution, etc, etc, etc), lighting in general(dx versions have in the past made certain lighting methods fantastically faster than previously doable but nothings really unworkable if you want to do it).

DX version eases things for designers, but the end of the day, design is just that, you get good designers, and bad designers. You get good painters and bad painters, you get good sculpters and bad ones, the medium doesn't make a game look good or bad, its just a way to get to where you want the design to be nothing more nothing less.

Crysis is technically far far superior than Cod4, theres simply not argument in my mind. IF you loaded up a COD4 map that was the size of a Crysis map with as deep a depth of field able to see things as far and have the same effects, it simply would not work at all.

THeres always a trade off, COD4 has some pretty textures and puts all its power into a fairly limited area, limited lighting effects, limited in a lot of ways as are ALL games. All games have limits or they wouldn't work. You simply can't have the detail levels of a COD4, or a DOOM 3 in vast open expansive levels, to have open expansive levels you do sacrifice how much juice you can put into the extreme up close detail. Crysis however looks pretty damn good upclose, and brilliant at range, it runs pretty slow but was still more than playable on high settings for me on release and nothing comes close to the detail generated by the engine once everything is taken into account, close up things, ranged, number of tree's, bushes, people, size of maps, lighting, physics effects. But none of that is down to DX10 or DX9, its simply the guys that made the game being good at what they do, nothing more, nothing less.
 
Oh yea should have noticed that, 1280x1024 on a 22" monitor is awfull!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
 
OP full of BS imo, CBA to pick holes in the post - seems to me another jump on the "Vista is rubbish, XP 7 yr old OS rules" thread.
 
Seems to me he is not running the native res of the monitor, or he just has a really bad TN monitor. Get him to switch to the native res of the screen (surely something close to 1600). (surely you mean his screen is 1680 not 1280?)

Might help if he turns on vivid colours (inside NVidia control panel) since his monitor doesn't sound very good (or just badly setup).

Also, make sure he has the proper refresh rate set as this can effect things. (I have found at least with my screen).

This issue is NOT dx9/dx10 related, or even xp/vista related.

EDIT: Is your LAN screen a CRT (big monitor) rather than an lcd screen? If it's a crt it will blow the tn panel away for quality of image most likely.

Matthew
 
Last edited:
amigafan2003 said:
OP full of BS imo, CBA to pick holes in the post - seems to me another jump on the "Vista is rubbish, XP 7 yr old OS rules" thread.
Click to expand...

Not quite. I see where you are coming from, but Im all for Vista.

I used to hate it and I want to move to it fully and right now Im running it, but the fact remains that my mates system does not look as nice as mine does.

In all honesty, I have put Vista64 onto my system and Im tryign to work out if its any worse or any better and to be truthful, there are some water scenes in UT3 that I feel are better, but I have not had them both side by side comparing them yet. to see that sort of thing.

-

CRT v LCD
All my LAN PCs are CRT except my own ones... My No1 down here is a Fuji 19" and the one in the LAN room is a 19" erm... Cheapie job. I would like a bigger scren but Im also happy to wait till I have to get one cos these screens are fine for me.
 
Vista will display DX9 games exactly the same as XP (or XP64). I have XP/XP64 and Vista 64, and the only difference is XP is marginally faster. XP64, and Vista64 seem very comparible in performance.

Perhaps your friends LCD panel isnt very good, and certainly it will look poor running 1280x1050.. Didnt even know that was a possible resolution, 1280x1024 and 1680x1050 are the "natural" resolutions one being "standard" and the other "widescreen" but then perhaps that was just a type.

Havent noticed any visual differences between Vista and XP64 when gaming. Obviously the Vista desktop is prettier though with Aero :)
 
TBH I reckon Dx10 will be largely bypassed and games will eventually be in either DX9 for the masses or DX11 for the enthusiasts, from what I've seen of Dx10 implementations so far it's a waste of space anyway.
 
Last edited:
Why though? Surely the masses will carry on whining and moaning like they always have.

[generic]Pfft, DX9 is good enough for me, I refuse to leave XP, moan moan moan. DX10 isn't even good anyway, look at Crysis, it's just the same. Crysis is the game on which I base all conclusions![/generic]
 
Easy fix....DX10 for XP.


Then you do not have to choose between DX10 for games, and all your other apps working (WITHOUT spending 1000's buying the vista versions).

Installing a new OS for a few nice smoke effects in 1 in a 1000 games is not logical captain.

I dual boot ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom