Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

DX10 is a Joke

Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
August 2, 2007 12:27:15 PM

Am I the only one thinking that DX10 is a joke at this point?

I just read this...

http://enthusiast.hardocp.com/article.html?art=MTM3MSwx...

... and man does that NOT sound good. I'm sure the difference between the ATI and Nvidia cards comes down to driver optimization, but still... are fuzzy shadows really worth all of this?!? Is that the best Vista and $300+ graphics cards can do for us? Man, talk about a let down. I keep thinking that at some point in my life we'll have life-like graphics... something indistinguishable from reality... but for now I guess it's just fuzzy shadows.

More about : dx10 joke

August 2, 2007 12:52:39 PM

I am thinking it is Vista limitations that will be sorted out shortly with patches. I really think MS should have made Vista 64 bit only and focus optimizing a smaller range of hardware. Trying to be everything to everyone does not look like it is possable. MS has some lapses in quality from the xboxes to the coding issues with Vista they need to focus on quality more. Maybe DX10.2 will be better. I don't know if you can blame just drivers if the whole spectrum of products is showing similier results.
August 2, 2007 1:08:21 PM

Thats funny... I remember people saying the exact same things about DX9 when it first came out. Give it some time... there still are not any DX10 games out... things will get better :D 
Related resources
a b U Graphics card
August 2, 2007 1:24:28 PM

Yeah, like we have all been speculating, DX10 has a long ways to go before any should feel the need to jump on the DX10 bandwagon. Buying a DX10 video card right now simply for the sake of having DX10 is not the thing to do. I think we are still at least 6 months away before anyone should start thinking about buying for DX10. The only real reason to buy cards like the 8800gtx is because they are simply so stinking fast running DX9.
August 2, 2007 1:25:31 PM

skittle said:
Thats funny... I remember people saying the exact same things about DX9 when it first came out. Give it some time... there still are not any DX10 games out... things will get better :D 

I'm pretty sure that was a DX10 game they reviewed.

If anyone actually takes the time to read the link they'll see what I'm talking about... they show DX9 screenshots and then DX10 screenshots. Yes, there is SOME difference, but nothing dramatic... and then they show the FPS and of course there is a penalty for that DX10 gaming goodness (obviously I'm being sarcastic) with lower FPS for both Nvidia and ATI.
August 2, 2007 1:40:46 PM

Yes, he who jumps in on the "bleeding edge" of technology usually gets cut by it. In 3-5 years when DX11 is being discussed you will see advantages to DX10, then everyone will be complaining about how worthless DX11 is. :lol: 
August 2, 2007 1:44:24 PM

That game is not a DX10 title.... its a DX9 DEMO that has DX10 effects tacked on to it... and an early one at that...


Here is an old exerpt from AnandTech:
http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=2281&p=1

"Direc tX 9 vs. DirectX 8: Image Quality
Remember ATI’s Shader Day last year where Valve announced that NVIDIA’s DirectX 9 hardware should be treated as DX8 hardware and nothing more? Well, things haven’t really changed – in our tests, NVIDIA’s GeForce 5900XT was between 50 and 72% slower in DX9 mode than in DX8 mode. In fact, the 5900XT is so slow in DX9 mode that ATI’s $80 Radeon X300 SE actually posts significantly higher average frame rates. So if you own a NV3x class GPU, you are pretty much excluded from running Valve’s DirectX 9 codepath. What, then do you lose by going down to the DirectX 8.1/8.0 codepaths?"

"At 1024 x 768 now all of the GPUs are in double digit performance losses, but even the GeForce 6200 with its 25% performance hit is nothing compared to the 5900XT which incurrs a 65% performance hit when going to DX9. "

... and yeah look around im sure you could find plenty of other reviews reiterating the exact same message.
August 2, 2007 1:54:00 PM

it's been known since day 1 that lost planet is not using all of the features of DX10. It has also been known that the first gen DX10 hardware is not fast enough to make the new DX10 shine (or even work with acceptable perforance). DX10 is a superior tech. Seriously, why are people posting this misinforming crap?

Edit: one thing I do find peculiar. Theoretically, DX10 should mean lower overhead apples vs. apples. The reverse is true with Lost Planet. I wish someone would analyze what is going on. Could be just poor coding. Lower overhead was one of the motivations in DX10, supposedly.
August 2, 2007 1:59:43 PM

skittle said:
That game is not a DX10 title.... its a DX9 DEMO that has DX10 effects tacked on to it... and an early one at that...


Thank you. Now it makes more sense.

Although that article is TERRIBLY misleading by referring to that game as a "Native DX10" title. Ugh.
August 2, 2007 2:10:19 PM

Yeah, Lost Planet is an XBOX 360 game ported to DX9. Then I guess the company thought, "Man the only way we're gonna sell this is to MAKE IT DX10!", so they added a couple of blah effects and said "WE GOTS DX10 DUDE." New games will use it much better, especially games that aren't console to PC ports.

Console to PC ports are the worst ever -- I'm still mad about Deus Ex 2.
August 2, 2007 2:12:33 PM

Rodney, I'm with you all the way man. Not seeing the point of buying a DX10 card for having DX10. The only reason I'd buy an 8800GTX/ultra(if I wons some cash or something) is to play everything on max. Definately not for the DX10.
August 2, 2007 2:38:44 PM

williamfontaine said:

Console to PC ports are the worst ever -- I'm still mad about Deus Ex 2.


Me too..I was so looking forward to that game..Original is a classic and imo is the best game ever made.
August 2, 2007 2:42:47 PM

airblazer said:
Me too..I was so looking forward to that game..Original is a classic and imo is the best game ever made.


I'll tell you whats a baaaad port....the resident evil games...now those are absolutely hopeless on pc's if your not using a joypad to play it.
August 2, 2007 4:02:59 PM

rodney_ws said:
Thank you. Now it makes more sense.

Although that article is TERRIBLY misleading by referring to that game as a "Native DX10" title. Ugh.


I agree with that. The article seems to do everything it can to refer to the game as a DX10 title. As it states-"We have all been waiting for a PC video game to be released into retail with "native" DirectX 10 support. We all thought Crysis would be the first game delivered with this support, but it isn't here yet unfortunately. Lost Planet: Extreme Condition is now on sale and does boast DX10 support".

At least in my opinion, those sentences couldn't be much clearer in stating that Lost Planet: Extreme Condition is a DX10 title, one that came out before Crysis. So either Lost Planet is a DX10 game, or Anandtech tried to pull one over on us.

As to the Anandtech article that Skittle referred, its an old one from 2004 about DX8 and DX9. I don't see how or why it should be used in reference to a new DX10 game. But then again, maybe I just see things a bit differently.
August 2, 2007 4:25:00 PM

rodney_ws said:
Thank you. Now it makes more sense.

Although that article is TERRIBLY misleading by referring to that game as a "Native DX10" title. Ugh.


That is not the only thing on that article... the [H] has really fallen IMO on their credibility. They are now such a biased site anymore that it sickens me.

first off: for no given reason they seperate the hd2900 to a chart w/ only the gts cards on it... no ultra or gtx... could it be that when the chart is scaled w/ only the gts cards that most of them look "better" for Nv? Unsure there.

second: on the first page of charts. 1600x1200 in dx9. The 2900 just kills the 640 meg gts and yet only gets this one line comment. "The Radeon HD 2900 XT is doing quite well here; for the most part even edging out the GeForce 8800 GTS 640 MB video card." lol, for the most part... it dominated the 640 almost the entire test! More importantly I think this is why the ultra and gtx are seperate b/c if they were on the same chart I wonder where they would scale compared to the "inferior" (and cheaper) 2900?

third: in the playable settings chart they show the 2900 with LOWER settings than the gts640 even though it stomped it in the apples to apples test... and then say that in dx9 it "matched" the performance of the 320.
wtf? nice subtle change there.

fourth: they only passingly mention that the 2900 takes a MUCH smaller hit on soft shadows but harp on the fact that they had to use an unreleased driver to get AF working. (they have done this many times with Nv drivers with no animosity)

finally: "Considering that the Xbox 360 uses an ATI graphics chipset you might assume the ATI Radeon HD 2900 XT would have the advantage in this ported game. However, all our gameplay testing in Lost Planet indicates that the experience is better with the GeForce 8 series video cards versus the ATI Radeon HD 2900 XT, especially in DX10."
This statement just flies in the face of that first chart in dx9 that shows the 2900 ruling the 8 series. (well, at least the gts640... we can't see the others) Considering that the xbox version is also dx9 and this version is NOT "native" dx10 it does not surprise me that it does well there.

the truth of how they feel is here "In DirectX 9 mode the Radeon HD 2900 XT does well, comparing to the 640 MB GeForce 8800 GTS." If roles were reversed they would have said something like "the 8800 gts 640 is better than the 2900 in dx9 mode" but b/c the 2900 is really better, it only "compares" to the gts640. lol

Honestly, I am not saying "ati rules" here... it does take a massive hit in dx10 and that worries me. I am just saying that the [H] is simply removing all credibility by printing bald-face lies like that. Sure, the focus of their conclusion was that dx10 sucks and that is a good thing that more ppl realize this. But seriously, they have hated the 2900 since its birth and will not admit that it does some things very well. Because of that they ignore the reality in their own tests and try to swing everyone to buy a gf8. (not a bad purchase at all mind you, just annoying that it is not the whole truth) They are not a credible review site anymore IMO.

ok, done...

/rant.
August 2, 2007 4:31:26 PM

sailer said:
I agree with that. The article seems to do everything it can to refer to the game as a DX10 title. As it states-"We have all been waiting for a PC video game to be released into retail with "native" DirectX 10 support. We all thought Crysis would be the first game delivered with this support, but it isn't here yet unfortunately. Lost Planet: Extreme Condition is now on sale and does boast DX10 support".

At least in my opinion, those sentences couldn't be much clearer in stating that Lost Planet: Extreme Condition is a DX10 title, one that came out before Crysis. So either Lost Planet is a DX10 game, or Anandtech tried to pull one over on us.


simple logic here... it was made for the xbox360 first, which is dx9 with "some" dx10-"LIKE" functions. This means that "natively" it is dx9 as that was the first code it was built on. Anything after that is an addition, which means that while you can add dx10 functionality that requires dx10 and thus can technically be referred to as a dx10 game... it is far from "native".

Even unreal engine 3 will have dx10 but still not be a true native dx10 as it was originally dx9 and 10 was added later. Crysis I am unsure of but I would bet it is the same. Company of Heroes has a dx10 patch but it is not native either. (but has been out for a while now so it was before even lost planet... another thing the [H] missed) Call of Juarez is just a sucky game so who cares about that. ;) 

it will be some time before we get true "native" dx10 games methinks.
August 2, 2007 5:47:43 PM

and besides, DX10 support and native DX10 are two very different things...
a b U Graphics card
August 2, 2007 7:30:36 PM

sojrner said:
That is not the only thing on that article... the [H] has really fallen IMO on their credibility. They are now such a biased site anymore that it sickens me.


Yeah I noticed that too.

The thing I also found funny, is they had a GTS-320, GTS-640, GTX and Ultra, but couldn't spring for a second XT to give us and idea of what 1GB versus 512MB would do?
Doesn't help when there's an eVGA ad at the top of each page.

Also their review just proved to me how their 'best playable' has lost any meaning. At the same setting the GTS-320 was never better than the XT, yet for their best playable they dumb down the options as if it needed to be treated like the FX5900 mentioned above in skittle's quote. Yeah, fo best playable I'll stick to bit-tech, because the apples-apples test show a completely different story in this review.
August 2, 2007 7:32:57 PM

we have seen working demos of it for years now... looked frackin sweet back then too but is it dx9 w/ 10 added or did they have a dev version of dx10 when the first trailers were showing? dunno...

hope it's not another stalker though...
August 2, 2007 7:36:24 PM

TheGreatGrapeApe said:
Also their review just proved to me how their 'best playable' has lost any meaning. At the same setting the GTS-320 was never better than the XT, yet for their best playable they dumb down the options as if it needed to be treated like the FX5900 mentioned above in skittle's quote. Yeah, fo best playable I'll stick to bit-tech, because the apples-apples test show a completely different story in this review.


agreed, when one page shows the 2900 stomping em down, but the "best playable" is lower than the card it just beat in the apples to apples test you know they are trying to create a picture on a paint-by-numbers set when they cant even count. lol

and ya, bit-tech seems to be pretty good up til now... hope they don't fall as well. :pfff: 
August 2, 2007 8:53:37 PM

You know guy's every body is right. DX 10 looks great but MS still needs to fix alot of codes and bugs.

For example, I have a EVGA 7950 gx2, and I think it runs great....until I resantly install STALKER, and I tried to render everything in DX 9 and set it to 1280*1024 and can't even get desant fps, then I was so mad I set it to DX 8 and everything ultra high and it runs beautiful? Maybe I'm having a problem, but I did everything from updates to reinstalling it. and still I get bad fps on DX 9?

As far as the 2900 vs the 8800 they both are a great card, it's up to you what you want to par it with. I personaly like Nvidia because my first graphics card ever was an radeon 7200. Then I got a ti 4600, damn I still love that card. That's were I desided that Nvidia was a better company than ATI, but I could be very wrong.
August 2, 2007 9:02:09 PM

Emperor36 said:
You know guy's every body is right. DX 10 looks great but MS still needs to fix alot of codes and bugs.

For example, I have a EVGA 7950 gx2, and I think it runs great....until I resantly install STALKER, and I tried to render everything in DX 9 and set it to 1280*1024 and can't even get desant fps, then I was so mad I set it to DX 8 and everything ultra high and it runs beautiful? Maybe I'm having a problem, but I did everything from updates to reinstalling it. and still I get bad fps on DX 9?

As far as the 2900 vs the 8800 they both are a great card, it's up to you what you want to par it with. I personaly like Nvidia because my first graphics card ever was an radeon 7200. Then I got a ti 4600, damn I still love that card. That's were I desided that Nvidia was a better company than ATI, but I could be very wrong.


if by "better company" you mean that they made a good card X-years ago then both fit that spot just as both have released stinkers. (although nothing comes close to Nvidias FX-fiasco)

if by "better company" you mean they are morally better... uhh... not sure that either falls into that spot. ;) 

if by "better company" you mean that you owned a bad card from the other one and bought a good one from them and have never looked back... well, I am sure alot of ppl share your sentiment for one or the other... however irrational that fanboi-ism is.

if however, you just mean that you have always had good luck with Nv (and were mercifully kind and never bought an FX card) and see no reason to buy anything else as it fulfills all your needs in a gpu... fair enough, I wont argue. B)

lol
August 2, 2007 9:27:00 PM

sailer said:
...So either Lost Planet is a DX10 game, or Anandtech tried to pull one over on us.

As to the Anandtech article that Skittle referred, its an old one from 2004 about DX8 and DX9. I don't see how or why it should be used in reference to a new DX10 game. But then again, maybe I just see things a bit differently.


1.) Neither... lost planet is trying to pull a fast one... its like this: look! we have DX10 instancing ontop of DX9 code!!!

2.) That article i dug up was to just get people to remember that they are saying THE EXACT SAME THINGS about DX10 as they were of DX9 a couple of years ago. Its pretty simple...
August 2, 2007 9:39:02 PM

Emperor36 said:
You know guy's every body is right. DX 10 looks great but MS still needs to fix alot of codes and bugs.

For example, I have a EVGA 7950 gx2, and I think it runs great....until I resantly install STALKER, and I tried to render everything in DX 9 and set it to 1280*1024 and can't even get desant fps, then I was so mad I set it to DX 8 and everything ultra high and it runs beautiful? Maybe I'm having a problem, but I did everything from updates to reinstalling it. and still I get bad fps on DX 9?

As far as the 2900 vs the 8800 they both are a great card, it's up to you what you want to par it with. I personaly like Nvidia because my first graphics card ever was an radeon 7200. Then I got a ti 4600, damn I still love that card. That's were I desided that Nvidia was a better company than ATI, but I could be very wrong.


Not to mention it's not MS that needs to fix bugs but nV. Their Vista driver support has been appalling. And now the texture memory issue...(ppl don't seem to get the distinction between OS and drivers...)
August 2, 2007 10:12:10 PM

Emperor36 said:
You know guy's every body is right. DX 10 looks great but MS still needs to fix alot of codes and bugs.

For example, I have a EVGA 7950 gx2, and I think it runs great....until I resantly install STALKER, and I tried to render everything in DX 9 and set it to 1280*1024 and can't even get desant fps, then I was so mad I set it to DX 8 and everything ultra high and it runs beautiful? Maybe I'm having a problem, but I did everything from updates to reinstalling it. and still I get bad fps on DX 9?

As far as the 2900 vs the 8800 they both are a great card, it's up to you what you want to par it with. I personaly like Nvidia because my first graphics card ever was an radeon 7200. Then I got a ti 4600, damn I still love that card. That's were I desided that Nvidia was a better company than ATI, but I could be very wrong.


I had the same problem with STALKER and an 7950GX2, whatever i tried the game played like a slide show most of the time until I installed Forceware ver. 91.47 which by the way are the best drivers for a GX2. This solved my problem, hope it helps you too...
August 2, 2007 10:19:43 PM

skittle said:
1.) Neither... lost planet is trying to pull a fast one... its like this: look! we have DX10 instancing ontop of DX9 code!!!

2.) That article i dug up was to just get people to remember that they are saying THE EXACT SAME THINGS about DX10 as they were of DX9 a couple of years ago. Its pretty simple...


Ok, fair enough. I just missed the point you were trying to make with the Anandtech article. That happens with me from time to time.

As far as Lost Planet goes, I'm not so sure it its the fault of the game company trying to pass one off on us or Anandtech misrepresenting it. The wording that Anandtech used seemed pretty explicit that the games was a DX10 title. Yes, I understand that some titles are coming on with DX10 patches and/or enhancements. I also expect that for years to come, most games will be DX9 games with DX10 enhancements for those that have DX10. It will probably be a long time before a game comes out that is strictly DX10 to its core, requiring the use of DX10 and not be playable on a DX9 card. But that's my guess and I could be wrong.
a b U Graphics card
August 2, 2007 11:30:49 PM

skittle said:

2.) That article i dug up was to just get people to remember that they are saying THE EXACT SAME THINGS about DX10 as they were of DX9 a couple of years ago. Its pretty simple...


That article actually wasn't talking about DX9, it was talking about the FX's inability to use DX9, different than the implementation and ALL hardware not being able to do it. The article you linked to was the second half of the story, which is clarified in the first section;

"All of the GPUs we compared in Part 1 of our Half Life 2 performance guides not only default to the DirectX 9 codepath, but also perform very well under it."

So that article doesn't actually support the statement that this situation is similar. I'd even say the water differences between the two are more dramatic in HL2 that the more subtle DX9/10 differences in Lost Planet.
August 3, 2007 12:02:34 AM

I wonder when DX10 will work it's way into WinXP..Hopefully somebody out there can figure out how to get it to port/work win xp. Getting a new rig around november or so...I don't want to have to go vista this soon -_-
August 3, 2007 12:06:43 AM

Valdis: Considering Alan Wake's release date has now slipped into 2009, I'm not holding out any hope of it being the vanguard of DX10 technology.
August 3, 2007 12:34:28 AM

There is one point that most everyone is missing and thatis while they say over and over it is a dx10 title the point is they tell you that it is the first game to feature dx10 out of the box. That is the thing everyone is missing. Weather or not the game was made specifically for dx10 is irrelevant the fact is it does support dx10 out of the box and it is the first for that. I am no dx10 fan though I think for the most part is it not what it is cracked up to be, good coding goes a LONG way in to how good a game looks and performs. And as for splitting the cards in the charts that ie because the 2900xt cant compete apples to apples with an 8800gtx. Is it the top of the line ATI card yes but it is not in the same league as the 8800gtx or ultra. they were trying to show how the cards performed but seperated them because of the performance difference between the two. that way you can look and say here is how the amd cards preform and here is how the nVidia card perform.
August 3, 2007 1:27:11 AM

I can't believe how many people have been sucked in by DX10 marketing.IMO it has not lived up to any of the hype.Maybe at some point but I will believe it when I see it BTW what does anybody think a great performing DX10 card is going to look like?
August 3, 2007 1:29:48 AM

umm... its going to be called the 9800gtx ... costing 500$ - 700$

looks like a huge video card that pulls 5ghz on air.
August 3, 2007 1:45:45 AM

So I guess the only people that will be playing DX10 with any kind of quality will need to buy a new top of the line card.Doesn't sound real profitable for game developers.But what do I know,I still believe it all when I see it.
August 3, 2007 1:48:51 AM

MS is to DX10 as Intel is to netburst.
a b U Graphics card
August 3, 2007 1:52:41 AM

biohazard420420 said:
There is one point that most everyone is missing and thatis while they say over and over it is a dx10 title the point is they tell you that it is the first game to feature dx10 out of the box. That is the thing everyone is missing.


Not really. I think what you miss is that having it 'ship with DX10' doesn't mean much, if all it is is a tack-on solution. It would be like adding an ABS module to drum brakes just so you can say 'it's the first to ship with ABS'. Not a real demo of the technology or benefits.

Quote:
Weather or not the game was made specifically for dx10 is irrelevant the fact is it does support dx10 out of the box and it is the first for that.


Which is irrelevant to the dicussion of the benefit of DX10. If it does little with the technology, the 'ships with DX10' statement is only relevant to wikipedia.

Quote:
And as for splitting the cards in the charts that ie because the 2900xt cant compete apples to apples with an 8800gtx. Is it the top of the line ATI card yes but it is not in the same league as the 8800gtx or ultra.


Completely spurious defence of that choice. The GTS-640 and GTS-320 are in that same league, yet are tested right alongside. Don't see how the inclusion of one more card would've been problematic, unless [H] can only use 4 pastel colours at the same time. :heink: 

Quote:
they were trying to show how the cards performed but seperated them because of the performance difference between the two. that way you can look and say here is how the amd cards preform and here is how the nVidia card perform.


Look at the table again, if that were the case you would only have 1 card in the second graph, so your statement doesn't make sense there either. Maybe that glaring single card in its own graph would've kicked them to get an XT-1GB, but I doubt it.
August 3, 2007 3:33:49 AM

Emperor36 said:

For example, I have a EVGA 7950 gx2, and I think it runs great....until I resantly install STALKER, and I tried to render everything in DX 9 and set it to 1280*1024 and can't even get desant fps, then I was so mad I set it to DX 8 and everything ultra high and it runs beautiful? Maybe I'm having a problem, but I did everything from updates to reinstalling it. and still I get bad fps on DX 9?


Hmm, I can play Stalker on Max with FDL (minus the heavy grass) at 1024x768 and get acceptable performance. If they ever get around to releasing the 1.004 patch, it is expected to have a 10-15% optimzation, perfromance gain. I have the X1900XTX. Game does play smoother under XP than Vista.

A modder created the float32 mod and it changes\replaces some shaders (for the better) and that Mod is being implemented into the 1.004 patch. You can get it now at http://www.thefloatingpoint.org.

Quote:
MS is to DX10 as Intel is to netburst

But if MS made DX1-9.0c, why is DX10 so bad ? I'm glad they opted to start from scratch. And has been pointed out many times, DX10 is not even a full year old and the big titles for it hasn't been shipped. I agree at this point, there isn't much to any of the DX10 games thus far and the hardware is nothing to write home about (in terms of DX10 performance), But by the time there is DX10 or 10.1 only games, the hardware will be just fine.

Short answer: way to early to call.
August 3, 2007 3:49:13 AM

I don't think is joke is just not here yet. Lost Planet is however a joke with or without DX 10. DX 10 will bring a new level of realism to games once the hardware is up to the challenge and it's mainstream. Right now none of the current hardware choices are there.

The other problem is PC gaming is almost dead. Games now have to be dumbed down for youth as they don't seem to have the attention span to tackle anything difficult which challenges them to think. This makes the console a much better choice for game developers.
August 3, 2007 3:54:07 AM

Well no games yet that fully used the DX10 features and I'm hoping that Crysis will. Right now it's not that worth to go DX10 gaming.
August 3, 2007 4:11:41 AM

The World in Conflict beta look pretty damn good. Simply the best RTS graphic to date. The beta was in a league of it's own. So its getting there slowly. Crysis just keeps getting pushed back. I have both games pre-ordered and knew about the Crysis slip a week ago. I really wouldn't be surprised if it slips further.
August 3, 2007 4:24:20 AM

TheGreatGrapeApe said:
unless [H] can only use 4 pastel colours at the same time. :heink: 



THATS IT! you found the reason grape! it makes sooo much more sense than Nv-biased reviewing... lol


:ouch: 
August 3, 2007 6:29:16 AM

it will take time for dx10 to improve on dx9.. as with ddr2 ram and ddr3.. id rather get ddr2 ram now but in a few months ddr3 will be the better buy.. its the same with dx10, we just have to wait a bit to see what it can do
August 3, 2007 7:34:36 AM

So you think that forceware 91.47 is the best driver for the 7950gx2?

Wow, that's crazy, but you make a good point if you want to see good frames. Nv needs to make some kick a$$ drivers so ppl don't get pissed off.

I'm going to try that float32 and see what happens, hope I can render Stalker in Full DX 9 mode in game settings (fingers crossed).

Thanks Guy's.... :sol: 
August 3, 2007 8:21:41 AM

rodney_ws said:
I'm pretty sure that was a DX10 game they reviewed.

If anyone actually takes the time to read the link they'll see what I'm talking about... they show DX9 screenshots and then DX10 screenshots. Yes, there is SOME difference, but nothing dramatic... and then they show the FPS and of course there is a penalty for that DX10 gaming goodness (obviously I'm being sarcastic) with lower FPS for both Nvidia and ATI.


Oh I agree that there are Very small difference's between the to DX9/DX10. I have seen Crysis in both and wasn't impressed, but like all new things it will take some time before we see a big difference in DX10 and by then there will be something better. When I purchase the G92 it won't be because of DX10. Company Of Hero's was from the ground up DX10 but look how great it looks in DX9.
August 3, 2007 11:27:52 AM

bydesign said:
Crysis just keeps getting pushed back. I have both games pre-ordered and knew about the Crysis slip a week ago. I really wouldn't be surprised if it slips further.


well the official release date is novermber 16.
August 3, 2007 12:16:06 PM

DX10 can do lots of things DX9 can't. It's not just more efficient so to those of you saying that really have no idea of what your talking about.
From Wikipedia because apparently some people are to lazy to use the web.
# Fixed pipelines[12] are being done away with in favor of fully programmable pipelines (often referred to as unified pipeline architecture), which can be programmed to emulate the same.
# Paging of graphics memory, to allow data to be loaded to video memory when needed and move it out when not needed. This enables usage of the system memory to hold graphics data, such as textures, thereby allowing use of more and higher resolution textures in games (this was possible with older DirectX APIs by using the GART).
# There is no limit on the number of objects which can be rendered, provided enough resources are available.[13]
# Virtualization of the graphics hardware, to allow multiple threads/processes to use it, in turns.
# New state object to enable the GPU to change states efficiently.
# Shader model 4.0, enhances the programmability of the graphics pipeline. It adds instructions for integer and bitwise calculations.
# Geometry shaders, which work on individual triangles which form a mesh.
# Texture arrays enable swapping of textures in GPU without CPU intervention.
# Resource View enables pre-caching of resources, thereby reducing latency.
# Predicated Rendering allows drawing calls to be ignored based on some other conditions. This enables rapid occlusion culling, which prevents objects from being rendered if it is not visible or too far to be visible.
# Instancing 2.0 support, allowing multiple instances of similar meshes, such as armies, or grass or trees, to be rendered in a single draw call, reducing the processing time needed for multiple similar objects to that of a single one.

Look here for the list of games with DX10 "native" support
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_games_with_DirectX...
August 3, 2007 12:44:46 PM

uberman said:
MS is to DX10 as Intel is to netburst.

Celarly a statement from somebody who does not know what they are talking about. Please put a sock in it. There are NO parallels to be drawn between the two.
August 3, 2007 12:47:37 PM

@ Skyline0511, Were not saying it can't, were saying not right now. DX10, its to early to see a big difference now. I believe that in the next 1-2 years we'll see some awesome things that DX10 will do.
August 3, 2007 12:48:12 PM

I don't recall anyone saying that it is *just* more efficient. But there is lower overhead. The point I was making was that, all things equal, DX10 path should be faster than DX9 for the same code due to the lower overhead. The fact that it is not in Lost Planet raises some questions. About Lost Planet, not DX10. I think I saw an article that showed that some games w/ a DX10 path actually do benefit from the increased efficiency. I am too lazy to dig it out at the moment, though.
August 3, 2007 12:58:15 PM

russki said:
I don't recall anyone saying that it is *just* more efficient. But there is lower overhead. The point I was making was that, all things equal, DX10 path should be faster than DX9 for the same code due to the lower overhead. The fact that it is not in Lost Planet raises some questions. About Lost Planet, not DX10. I think I saw an article that showed that some games w/ a DX10 path actually do benefit from the increased efficiency. I am too lazy to dig it out at the moment, though.


It all depends if the game is made from the ground up in DX10, if it is then thats a good thing because look at what happened to Company Of Hero's it looks very great in DX9 cause it was first for DX10. If its made for DX9 and the game makers aim to put in some DX10 effects then thats not aways a good thing.
!