Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

DX10 games are out, and I'm running them all under DX9...

Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
September 22, 2007 9:32:49 PM

Having done a lot of testing with new DX10 titles, I'm coming to the conclusion that:

1. DX10 API has got problems
2. DX10 graphics hardware has got problems
3. Nobody understands how to use DX10 API effectively yet
4. Vista x86 and x64 is broken
5. ATI/nVidia drivers are crap

Which of these is true or perhaps a combination, but the end result is Vista as being a really bad choice for a gaming OS.

The Test games:

Lost Planet
World in Conflict
BioShock

Every single one of these titles can be made to look better under their DX9 versions and run at least 2X to 3X faster. I have noticed some very minor difference between the two DX10 and DX9 titles but the differences are so so so small as they really do not detract from image quality nor game play and they certainly aren't woth the 2X/3X performance hit incurred by DX10.

I've been testing away using both ATI and nVidia top end cards (SLI and Crossfire) and to say that I'm serious unimpressed is putting it mildly.

Sadly, if this is a reason to move to Vista, then I can see much disappointed.

From what I've seen of the Crysis Beta -- it will only be worse under DX10 not better.

Houston -- do we have a problem? I can understand the "maturing" of DX10 API and DX10 hardware, but I can't see this making up 2X/3X current performance difference between DX9 and DX10.

Who's to blame here? This really does want to make go out and by a console -- and I hate consoles. From a consumers perspective I can't see any reason to spend money on DX10 anything.

What a shame.

More about : dx10 games running dx9

September 22, 2007 9:52:01 PM

Its mainly sli/xfire drivers which arent great in Vista atm, but cmon give it time. Anyway Vista is much better then XP at most things expect gaming, and if I didnt lose nearly 20% of ym gaming performance in it, id be in it still.
September 22, 2007 10:47:29 PM

V8VENOM said:
Who's to blame here? This really does want to make go out and by a console -- and I hate consoles. From a consumers perspective I can't see any reason to spend money on DX10 anything.
I have an Xbox360 and Wii. Gears of War can be a lot of fun, and the graphics are damn good too, if not the best out there. Dead Rising is also a blast; I mean seriously, who doesn't love killing zombies? You can also stream all your media through the Media Center extender, or stream music while in game with Media Player 11 or Zune. The Wii isn't quite there as fun, but it's got some decent party titles. Sure I prefer to play games on my PC, but game consoles can provide a nice gaming experience too.
Related resources
Can't find your answer ? Ask !
September 23, 2007 12:08:25 AM

Blimey, you make so many overly generalised statements here, I don't know what to call you on.

OK, where do you get the evidence that DX10 runs 2-3X as slow? Certainly not Bioshock on the 8800GTX (and don't mention Lost Planet it is just a poorly ported XBox game).

DX10 is still immature - it will take quite some time for its potential to be realised in game engines, just like it did with DX9.

In the meantime, you can buy a X1950XT and get fast DX9 graphics, but a 8800GTX is even faster in DX9, and you get DX10 effects too if you want them.
September 23, 2007 12:27:29 AM

Actually Lost Planet runs horribly on both DX9 and DX10, but runs better on DX10 than it does on DX9... Bioshock only gets a 5% performance penalty at most for utilizing DX10 and soft particles do help the image quality.

Haven't had the pleasure of using World in Conflict yet, I should get it within a week, by then I'll have some insight on the game.
September 23, 2007 12:45:09 AM

Quote:
DX10 is still immature - it will take quite some time for its potential to be realised in game engines, just like it did with DX9.


I agree!
September 23, 2007 1:11:10 AM

To be honest thing are still pretty immature. Vista, and the G80's aren't even a year old and DX10 games are just barely out the door, much less out of the womb.

I think that in a year from now, we'll start to see alot more only DX10 games, and alot more of Vista's retardations will be resolved. Also there will be newer hardware by that time as well as more DX10 enhancements too.
September 23, 2007 1:36:24 AM

I've only listed three games (not many to really "call me on" -- but there aren't many titles out).

Have you run the Crysis 2nd Beta? OMG what a dog when you turn on AA/AF. In fact, just about any DX10 title with AA/AF turn on (even just 2X) drastically reduces performance.

As far as BioShock - yes I get good DX10 fps also -- but I have yet been able to turn on AA in DX10 using either ATI or nVidia -- even at 1920 x 1080 I want some AA and AF -- I'd settle on just 4X/4X, but if you can get AA to work in BioShock on either ATI or nVidia under DX10 then please fill me in on the secret.

World in Conflict DX10 doesn't support Crossfire at all and had only minor improvements under nVidia SLI (and I'm not sure that was due to SLI) and this is a "Best on nVidia title".

The only time I can get any of those DX10 titles to run at "ok" fps is when AA is turned OFF (again doesn't matter if this is ATI or nVidia in SLI or Crossfire).

The Cyrsis developers are our current best hope as they support multiple GPU and multiple CPU -- unfortunately their Beta is great if you don't turn on AA (familiar theme). Don't know about you, but it has been a long time since I ran any title without AA (or for that matter below 4X). Turning AA on (or up) in DX9 does not cause the same drastic drop in FPS as these current DX10 variants do. I'll take AA any day over a slightly improved shadow or marginally better fog/smoke.

DX10 is marketing hype (I know we all knew that) that looks like a collaboration of Microsoft, nVidia, and ATI -- yeah Vista is nice, so long as you don't play any games on it using DX10. I do like Vista and most of my DX9 titles work great under it with only about a 10% performance hit.

DX9 was NOT crap out of the gate, it was about the same as DX8 and didn't cause major performance problems when certain features were enabled. DX9 was an evolution and developers caught up quickly. What is going on with DX10 almost a year after release is a disaster -- something is wrong with DX10 and it's not just a matter of "maturing" software/hardware. Improved drivers, nor improved game engines can make up this current DX10 AA problem.

Just looks at many of the posts here and elsewhere -- many folks are reverting back to XP for gaming or running the DX9 version rather than the DX10 version under Vista. Not sure how this is any type of "show case" for DX10 and Vista?

Anyway, I really would be interested what you folks are getting with AA turned to min 4X on these DX10 titles at higher resolutions (beyond 1280 x 1024) without having turn down all graphics options (leaving them at high or max).
a c 130 U Graphics card
September 23, 2007 7:15:31 AM

Apparently if you have XP you can emulate DX10 effects on vista all you have to do is install a E6600 and remove about half off your ram :lol: 

Seriously though Vista has its faults but sooner or later we will all end up running it as more and more stuff will be only Vista compatible. I know it will be a while but i will be looking at a new machine next year and don't want vista due to its problems but don't want to be having to buy it a year later either.
On the Dx10 side of things well Vista SP1 is bringing in DX10.1 so who knows even if DX10 will be given a chance to mature.
Given everything that's up in the air at the min ie every thing i think its safer to say stuff the lot of it and keep running XP with a decent DX9 card like a 8800gts.
On a side note do you think its possible to make a card that will only run DX10 and upwards?
September 23, 2007 7:57:52 AM

What about World in Conflict?
September 23, 2007 10:44:29 AM

T8RR8R said:

I think that in a year from now, we'll start to see alot more only DX10 games


Perhaps, but I doubt games will require DX10 hardware only for sometime to come. A game developer releasing a game that will only run for a minority of users with such hardware is not a good move.
September 23, 2007 10:57:18 AM

blade85 said:
Im no Vista fan (I still use XP myself) but i think it has come a fair way since it was released. But yes i agree dx10 is still very immature.

Here are some comparisons: http://www.firingsquad.com/hardware/amd_nvidia_windows_vista_driver_performance_update/


I agree. I have to use vista ultimate all day at work and have been trying to like it since June. The fact is I just don't like it. For me it gives me nothing that 'I' could not do under XP and it takes longer to do it. boot times, opening a spreadsheet or word document, the windows explorer, copy and replace dialogs etc etc. UAC drives me mad. Every time I run visual studio 2005 it warns me. At some point this becomes an obsessive anoyance.

Anyway I am putting together a new machine over the next couple of months and it is going to have XP on it for gaming and everything else. I can put up with a little less glitter and wait for Vista maturity. come feb 2008 and sp1 I will look again.
September 23, 2007 11:21:23 AM

Are you sporting the latest drivers etc? I had better framerates in World in conflict under dx10 than under dx9 as well as better graphics. Don't tell me that u had trouble picking up the god rays etc that are available only under dx10. As for dx10 taking a long time to mature, I agree, but the problem is more due to our impatience at having swallowed down all the pre-release hype than to anything else.
September 23, 2007 11:47:22 AM

V8VENOM said:
DX10 is marketing hype (I know we all knew that) that looks like a collaboration of Microsoft, nVidia, and ATI --



Now thats pure crap coming out of you mouth and you know it deep down inside, there was no thought behind that statement. :pfff:  I'd like to see some links for your statement above or did you just pull that right out your... :lol: 
September 23, 2007 12:09:23 PM

what I found funny, was that on the "games for windows" website they were comparing dx9 and 10 that is, DX9 FROM HALO 1 TO DX10 FROM CRYSIS I MEAN WTF!!
a c 169 U Graphics card
September 23, 2007 12:14:17 PM

It will take 1-2 or even more years for games to be fully DX10 optimized
September 23, 2007 1:57:16 PM

Oh..... come on it's never been DX10 it's the damn Vista
September 23, 2007 2:14:15 PM

hmm... they are in many ways one in the same thing though I suspect Vista is more of a problem than programmers progamming dx10 poorly
September 23, 2007 2:31:37 PM

spuddyt said:
what I found funny, was that on the "games for windows" website they were comparing dx9 and 10 that is, DX9 FROM HALO 1 TO DX10 FROM CRYSIS I MEAN WTF!!
It's funny, because Halo originally came out on the Xbox, which had a Direct X8.0 based GPU. :p 
a b U Graphics card
September 23, 2007 2:42:52 PM

What are you talkin aboot?
I have lost planet and I'm getting 45 fps in the perfomance test @1280 by 1024 32 bit most options high and others on mid.....
I love this game and it totally kicks the crap out of the X-box!
September 23, 2007 2:49:57 PM

SystemLord,

I wish it were crap, so I'd feel better about spending $2000 on video cards so I can do this testing. Please prove me wrong and show me where DX10 is working for you compared to DX9?

If you think the G92/98 and Intel's Penryn processors will save the day, then good luck to you. I will of course be getting them as soon as they come out but I'm expecting about a 10-20% performance increase from the CPU and I have no idea what the GPU will do but it's specs look A LOT like current 2900XT 1GB cards spec so I don't see miracles there either.

Being a software engineer I also know that you can optimize, but you can't pull off miracles. And what is needed to make DX10 work with AA is a miracle.

But please do post your DX10 AA results vs. DX9 AA results.

In World in Conflict there was one and only one extra DX10 feature "shadows from Clouds" -- nice to have, but not worth a huge drop in FPS.
a b U Graphics card
September 23, 2007 3:37:05 PM

I have been playin World Inc Conflict for a week now, Looks AMAZING on DX10, NOTICEABLY different than DX9 with excellent frames. With my humble hardware. 8800gtx, e6600, 2gb ram. Dx10 is on the upswing!
September 23, 2007 4:40:22 PM

Honestly if you're unable to get DX10 working at acceptable framerates on the titles you mentioned earlier with the kind of hardware you are boasting to have I would have to assume you are nothing short of a computer handicapped user. Please do yourself a favor and ask someone who knows what they're doing to set up the systems for you and then do some benchmarks.
a b U Graphics card
September 23, 2007 6:02:34 PM

Well, I run Lost Planet in DX10 with C8xQ AA and 8x AF with lots of eye candy just fine. 40FPS+ (up to 60 with Vsync). But that's only at 1280x1024. I want widescreen. :( 

It will take a while for it to mature. It was the same with previous DX versions, and will just take some time. So be patient. :) 
September 23, 2007 6:18:30 PM

I am shocked and appalled that a person with an Apple avatar (with a Windows logo inside; let me guess, something like Apple pwns Windows?) would criticize Vista and DX10 without providing any data.

I guess you choose to ignore the reports that BioShock runs faster in DX10 on nVidia high-end hardware (non-SLI. SLI DX10 drivers still appear to be pretty raw). Or the fact that most agree that soft particles and water effects are a noticeable improvement over DX9 (shadows are better, too, but not such a dramatic difference in IQ). Or that at least one review reported better models in DX10.

Or the fact that DX10 offers noticeable image quality enhancements in World in Conflict.

As people have noticed above, Lost Planet is really a non-issue.

Anyway, go on; DX10 is just marketing, Vista is bad, etc. Don't let me stop you.


September 23, 2007 10:12:55 PM

Russki,

The old mis-quoter post -- read what I said again and stop filling it in with stuff that has not been written by me.

Lost Planet is just a bad port -- hence why it's price has dropped to bargin bin already -- so yes we can choose to toss this pile of bad Lost Planet port code out the window.

Reports?? I'm talking real world experience not 2nd hand info -- so do you have BioShock? Are you running it on DX10? If so, please list your system specs, your nVidia control panel settings, and the graphics options you selected in BioShock. Are you running DX10 BioShock with AA? If so, please share and provide a screen shot.

Jedimaster,

I'm primarily interested in resolutions beyond 1280 x 1024 and more specifically with AA enable (4X or higher)

Emp,

Pearls of wisedom -- you have anything useful to contribute?

Annisman,

Could I get some screen shots of your graphics settings, nVidia control panel, OS version, in game graphics settings?

Some screenshots:

My PC's current configuration (ATI xFire -- nVidia SLI to be posted later but the issue is about the same in most cases):
http://www.nocomsleft.com/Graphics/BenchMarks/PCATIXFir...

ATI Control Panel Settings:
http://www.nocomsleft.com/Graphics/BenchMarks/WorldinCo...
http://www.nocomsleft.com/Graphics/BenchMarks/WorldinCo...
http://www.nocomsleft.com/Graphics/BenchMarks/WorldinCo...
http://www.nocomsleft.com/Graphics/BenchMarks/WorldinCo...

WIC In-game graphics Settings:
http://www.nocomsleft.com/Graphics/BenchMarks/WorldinCo...
http://www.nocomsleft.com/Graphics/BenchMarks/WorldinCo...

WIC BenchMark DX10:
http://www.nocomsleft.com/Graphics/BenchMarks/WICBenchD...

WIC BenchMark DX10 Crossfire:
http://www.nocomsleft.com/Graphics/BenchMarks/WICBenchD...

WIC BenchMark DX9
http://www.nocomsleft.com/Graphics/BenchMarks/WICBenchD...

And now the kicker --

DX9 InGame screenshot
http://www.nocomsleft.com/Graphics/BenchMarks/WICDX9SS2...

DX10 InGame screenshot
http://www.nocomsleft.com/Graphics/BenchMarks/WICDX10SS...

I can show you BioShock but I can't get AA to work at all in DX10 regardless of video cards used -- so not really much point cause no AA is basically one or two steps backwards, not forwards. Again ALL testing is done in 1920 x 1080.

If this isn't hyped DX10 marketing BS then I don't what it is, but count me out for DX10 titles until I seem something more concrete than "wait til the developers mature, or wait til the drivers mature, or wait for the real DX10 hardware to arrive with the real CPUs..." heard it all before -- save your money folks.

So maybe you folks that want to "believe" in DX10 would be so kind as to post your screenshots with all the graphics options/details intact -- that would be appreciated.













September 23, 2007 10:24:45 PM

Are you that ignorant? Could you stop blaming the lack of AA in bioshock on DX10? The unreal engine 3 DOES NOT support AA, you can force it on some titles, but you can't expect it to work properly, so stop spitting the same poison over and over will you?

I just got World in Conflict today and I will try DX10 some time in the near future (right now I'm still testing Windows XP 64, so I can't use DX10 for now), but I haven't heard anything horribly bad about it.

I'm not sure if you have actually bothered to check the current driver situation or you just ran here and posted as fast as you could expecting everyone to agree with you, but as far as I can see nvidia (And Im sure ati also) are still working on their WiC drivers, so it's no surprise that the performance is less than stellar on dual card systems (which already have issues on vista).

There are also some graphical effects that need to be captured on video or seen first hand to be appreciated properly. Either way if you don't like how DX10 looks or works, then by all means USE DX9 DAMNIT! I'll be happy playing Crysis on DX10 when it's released.
September 23, 2007 10:27:07 PM

At least Bioshock doesn't really hurt performance by running under Direct X10, but you're pretty much right. Direct X10 is purely marketing BS at the moment, and the games that actually use some if it's features such as the Call of Juarez Direct X10 benchmark result in awful performance on today's hardware.
September 23, 2007 10:38:36 PM

Who knows, it could eb the cards havent optimized hardware for these types of games yet. Next gen you may see almost no difference at all in performance between DX9 and Dx10.

But nobody knows, so dont bother telling me im wrong lol, im not even saying im right :D 

But DX9 is getting to a point where the new GPU's can run it fine iwth excess on max settings, that to me sais that its time for a change and a bit btter result. What ya really need is screenshot comparisons of dx9 and dx10, but at high and low resolutions.
September 23, 2007 11:43:39 PM

Emp,

Dial down that agro -- just makes you look worse. So that is your contribution, a mis-quote? Where did I blame DX10 for no AA in BioShock? Man, you really haven't been around much, no miracle driver update by ATI nor nVidia is gonna bring the game to DX9 performance levels. Load up WIC and get back to me. I'd post a video run of WIC showing the DX9 & DX10 if you find a place other than my web site to host a massive file even for just a few seconds of footage.

So ATI have to release new drivers for each and every DX10 game that comes out?! Are you insane?



September 24, 2007 12:21:35 AM

V8VENOM said:
SystemLord,

I wish it were crap, so I'd feel better about spending $2000 on video cards so I can do this testing. Please prove me wrong and show me where DX10 is working for you compared to DX9?

If you think the G92/98 and Intel's Penryn processors will save the day, then good luck to you. I will of course be getting them as soon as they come out but I'm expecting about a 10-20% performance increase from the CPU and I have no idea what the GPU will do but it's specs look A LOT like current 2900XT 1GB cards spec so I don't see miracles there either.

Being a software engineer I also know that you can optimize, but you can't pull off miracles. And what is needed to make DX10 work with AA is a miracle.

But please do post your DX10 AA results vs. DX9 AA results.

In World in Conflict there was one and only one extra DX10 feature "shadows from Clouds" -- nice to have, but not worth a huge drop in FPS.


In your last statement you say how DX10 is marketing hype, but then you refer to DX10 as a platform. Its either marketing hype or its a real platform, you can't have it both ways. You can't expect DX10 to be amazingly great and powerful when it is so new. You have to be realistic about new stuff, it takes some time to mature. NVidia didn't spend $400 million on the 8800 series for nothing.

There is not one game out now that is built from the ground up solly made in DX10, all they have done is add a few minor features that use DX10. We have yet to see a game made from the ground up use all DX10 software/hardware has to offer.
September 24, 2007 12:27:47 AM

I tried Lost Planet on XP and Vista x64 on my machine (DX9) and it runs horribly under Vista. I had the settings turned up moderately high in XP and it ran pretty smoothly, but now in Vista even with almost everything turned down/off it runs poorly. Thats unfortunate since BioShock on Vista seems to run about on par with XP for me.

-mcg
September 24, 2007 12:36:40 AM

MrCommunistGen said:
I tried Lost Planet on XP and Vista x64 on my machine (DX9) and it runs horribly under Vista. I had the settings turned up moderately high in XP and it ran pretty smoothly, but now in Vista even with almost everything turned down/off it runs poorly. Thats unfortunate since BioShock on Vista seems to run about on par with XP for me.

-mcg


Well with what you just said it seems that its the Dev's fault for the bad performance in Lost Planet not Vista. People you can't blame Vista for every game that doesn't run well, its up to the Dev's and the NVidia drivers to not just Vista.
September 24, 2007 12:53:53 AM

V8VENOM said:
Having done a lot of testing with new DX10 titles, I'm coming to the conclusion that:

1. DX10 API has got problems
2. DX10 graphics hardware has got problems
3. Nobody understands how to use DX10 API effectively yet
4. Vista x86 and x64 is broken
5. ATI/nVidia drivers are crap


You know that your not the only person on the planet to have figured this out, you act like your the only person that knows Vista, NVidia's drivers and the Dev's have things that need to be worked out before games start to run good on Vista. I knew this was going to happen, I told all my friends that they would be installing back Windows XP and dumping Vista after a while till it matures.

There are some DX10 games that do run pretty good at this point, but the graphics drivers need some work to. I believe that the AA problem is driver related and not Vista's fault. Just take a chill pill a be calm and wait for things to mature instead of complaining about it.
September 24, 2007 1:40:33 AM

V8VENOM said:
Emp,

Dial down that agro -- just makes you look worse. So that is your contribution, a mis-quote? Where did I blame DX10 for no AA in BioShock? Man, you really haven't been around much, no miracle driver update by ATI nor nVidia is gonna bring the game to DX9 performance levels. Load up WIC and get back to me. I'd post a video run of WIC showing the DX9 & DX10 if you find a place other than my web site to host a massive file even for just a few seconds of footage.

So ATI have to release new drivers for each and every DX10 game that comes out?! Are you insane?


Sorry, but when someone keeps quoting over and over how Bioshock can't use properly AA when it's not the API or the OS fault but the engine itself, you just get to a point where you got to set him straight roughly. If you read two of your posts above you clearly state how Bioshock cannot use AA on DX10, but it can't even use it on DX9 properly, you have to force it.

By this I'm not saying DX10 is the gaming panacea that M$ is trying to make us think it is, but it isn't all that bad and might actually be a good thing once it's implemented properly. So far I have seen how Bioshock and Lost Planet (Two titles I own and have played) run either on par or smoother (not by much) on DX10 compared to DX9.

As I said earlier, I'm running at the moment XP 64 and I'm not going to format again just to benchmark for you WiC DX9 vs DX10, I have no idea how it performs either on DX10, but first I'm going to enjoy my game and then I'll worry about benchmarking it and what not. Also, have you tried 163.71 drivers for WiC? You mentioned you were using the latest drivers, well are those the latest WHQL or Beta?

You might think that Ati and nvidia have some kind of super programming machine behind making the drivers, but to your surprise (And the surprise of many others) it's actually people who are making the drivers, these people are also learning how to optimize for the new API as time goes by (Remember this is new for them too) especially with such a radical change in architecture. Reminds of the HD2900XT, how even I believed it's AA couldn't be fixed, and here 2 months later we see an HD2900XT delivering quite decent AA performance.

Now with that I'm not excusing poor driver support from either nvidia or ati, but at least I understand that they are still learning all the kinks of this API since it's new for them. Remember that DX9 has been out for YEARS now, DX10 has been out to developers for maybe a year and a half or so. They will get it right, if they don't they'll start to lose money because the competition then will. Where's the proof of this? That we are getting new drivers to improve performance on a lot of titles.

Remember how Vista performance used to trail behind by 30-50%? everyone said that vista would never be a viable gaming OS, now it's on par with XP, with this I'm saying, they'll get the dual card setup right, it'll take time yes, but eventually it'll happen, same thing is happening with DX10, we were losing maybe half the performance for lousy effects and now we see games that actually don't lose performance by using these effects. It's all about stuff being implemented and coded properly, and this takes TIME.
September 24, 2007 3:41:16 AM

V8VENOM, what did I fill in, precisely?! Did you not call DX10 marketing hype? Did you not say that Vista is broken (by the way, just how is it broken? And, I can't help it, everytime I see someone use that language I can't help but think about that moron Gutmann) Did you not sy that nVidia [and ATI] drivers are crap, when others are perfectly able to make it run BioShock in DX10 (without AA) as well or faster than DX9? Isn't it you who is guilty of unsupported statements, then?

Or, at the very least, selective benchmarking. Such as forcing AA on an engine that is not meant to support it, as someone has pointed out numerous times above.

September 24, 2007 8:48:36 AM

Im pretty sure once vista and the net gen of DX10 cards come out itll be mainstream and its advantages will be use dmore by game creators, who then rather then making a DX9 game which si compatable with DX10, will make a DX10 game which is backwards compatible with DX9.

Only a matter of time.
September 24, 2007 11:20:54 AM

I got in my first hour or so of World in Conflict in yesterday and ....wow. OK the truth is I have not tried it in DX9 to compare but it is amazing.
The bleeding edge is never going to be easy but it sure seemed worth it yesterday. I don't know what to get from these posts. Are you suggesting that we freeze technology and use dx9/xp for eternity?

I've played several titles on Vista now and the only problem I've had is exclusive to Punkbuster and online play with Vista. I've reinstalled XP on an E-sata drive for a dual boot setup but currently prefer Vista. I suggest if you want to be ahead of the curve with the newest games but have issues simply live with dual boot for now. On a side note my original XP ser# that is supposedly invalid after upgrading to Vista reactivated without trouble.
a b U Graphics card
September 24, 2007 12:11:59 PM

From what I recall, DX10 needs from the ground up, certain coding for everything to work properly. If a game includes AA in DX10 then it should be fine, if it doesnt, you cant really force it, not without obvious disastreous results. I could be wrong, but DX10 was to be written for this type of performance IIR, and if its not there, good luck. But once it IS included, then itll work (supposedly) better, and certainly better/easier for the devs
September 24, 2007 1:37:02 PM

Macdows... I mean V8VENOM.

What is your computer hardware? Have you acctually ran these games on your machine... or do you use other peoples words.

Everyone knows that there is a performance hit in Vista. Woopty Freakin Doo! We all knew this from day one.

I also do not see your problems with these games. I was running Lost Planet on my system (q6600 oced to 3.2 air cooled - 4 gb ram - 8800 gtx bfg oc2) and I was getting about 60 fps (hit 40 but ran mostly at 57-60). Bioshock never gets choppy on me. I havent ran any frame calculators on my machine for Bioshock... but then again I don't care becuase it runs like butter. I do not know about the other game you mentioned.

The only way I can figure that you dont get playable DX10 games (if you are even running them on your system) is if you have either a nvidia 8400 or an amd... ati... dammit 2400.
September 24, 2007 1:46:47 PM

Hatman said:
Im pretty sure once vista and the net gen of DX10 cards come out itll be mainstream and its advantages will be use dmore by game creators, who then rather then making a DX9 game which si compatable with DX10, will make a DX10 game which is backwards compatible with DX9.

Only a matter of time.

Well, yes, that's the point. But also it is good to see that Bioshock can run the same or faster on DX10; in the end, that's what at least some of the major API revisions were intended to do, so it's good when promises become reality.
September 24, 2007 3:47:30 PM

Russki,

No I didn't say Vista is broken. Yes I did say DX10 is marketing hype -- why -- because removing AA and adding better shadows/smoke to keep playable frame rates -- I don't consider this progress. Do you? How is turning off or down graphical features (many of which you can leave on in DX9) in DX10 to get playable frame rates considered progress? BioShock does NOT support AA in DX10 period so what exactly is your point? I've been very clear BioShock runs great -- but without AA in DX10 who cares? You like seeing jaggy lines and consider that progress? Sure remove AA and all of a sudden you get good fps -- wow big surprise there.

The ATI and nVidia drivers are still crap (at least under Vista x64), there are a host of games that don't work correctly -- each month nVidia and ATI are busy releasing "fixes" to address the issues. nVidia does appear to be the more "compatible" but both still have a long list of optimizations and fixes. So you think:

1. buy a game
2. hope it works with all the features
3. find out it doesn't submit a support ticket
4. wait a few months
5. try out the new driver
6. doesn't fix it, goto step 4

-- this is good? In my book, this crap! Hence the drivers are crap. Yes the drivers should work to the specifications of DX10 and the developers should be coding to those specifications -- and this leads into my DX10.1 discussion below...

N01sFanboy,

I don't have issues with Vista? Most DX9 games work very well under Vista (as per my screen shots -- can you tell the difference?) - it's DX10 and AA which appears to be the problem. A problem Microsoft appear to be aware of and are trying to address with DX 10.1

This article and many like it:
http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,1558,2168429,00.a...

Microsoft's bomb drop about DX 10.1 -- specifically "4x AA mandatory" -- so yes it appears Microsoft are aware of their issues with DX 10 and are basically telling the hardware manufacturers you better make AA work well (as in playable fps) in DX 10.1. As I'm sure everyone knows, current DX10 hardware will not support DX 10.1 in Vista SP1 (no big surprise there).

Like I said -- for the mainstream they should wait and save their money for DX10.1 hardware (as it will work with DX10 titles) and Vista SP1 and then wait for the games to be updated with DX10.1. But as it stands now, current DX10 hardware is expensive and consuming copious amounts of power and just NOT producing the results in DX10 that support AA (seems great for DX9) titles.

FYI, Microsoft don't retain the XP activation database for more than 6 months (I've heard even less time than that) and they do allow a certain number of activitations with a specific time period.

September 24, 2007 4:54:32 PM

V8VENOM said:
I've only listed three games (not many to really "call me on" -- but there aren't many titles out).

Have you run the Crysis 2nd Beta? OMG what a dog when you turn on AA/AF. In fact, just about any DX10 title with AA/AF turn on (even just 2X) drastically reduces performance.

As far as BioShock - yes I get good DX10 fps also -- but I have yet been able to turn on AA in DX10 using either ATI or nVidia -- even at 1920 x 1080 I want some AA and AF -- I'd settle on just 4X/4X, but if you can get AA to work in BioShock on either ATI or nVidia under DX10 then please fill me in on the secret.

World in Conflict DX10 doesn't support Crossfire at all and had only minor improvements under nVidia SLI (and I'm not sure that was due to SLI) and this is a "Best on nVidia title".

The only time I can get any of those DX10 titles to run at "ok" fps is when AA is turned OFF (again doesn't matter if this is ATI or nVidia in SLI or Crossfire).

The Cyrsis developers are our current best hope as they support multiple GPU and multiple CPU -- unfortunately their Beta is great if you don't turn on AA (familiar theme). Don't know about you, but it has been a long time since I ran any title without AA (or for that matter below 4X). Turning AA on (or up) in DX9 does not cause the same drastic drop in FPS as these current DX10 variants do. I'll take AA any day over a slightly improved shadow or marginally better fog/smoke.

DX10 is marketing hype (I know we all knew that) that looks like a collaboration of Microsoft, nVidia, and ATI -- yeah Vista is nice, so long as you don't play any games on it using DX10. I do like Vista and most of my DX9 titles work great under it with only about a 10% performance hit.

DX9 was NOT crap out of the gate, it was about the same as DX8 and didn't cause major performance problems when certain features were enabled. DX9 was an evolution and developers caught up quickly. What is going on with DX10 almost a year after release is a disaster -- something is wrong with DX10 and it's not just a matter of "maturing" software/hardware. Improved drivers, nor improved game engines can make up this current DX10 AA problem.

Just looks at many of the posts here and elsewhere -- many folks are reverting back to XP for gaming or running the DX9 version rather than the DX10 version under Vista. Not sure how this is any type of "show case" for DX10 and Vista?

Anyway, I really would be interested what you folks are getting with AA turned to min 4X on these DX10 titles at higher resolutions (beyond 1280 x 1024) without having turn down all graphics options (leaving them at high or max).


My sentiments exactly. Time to get on the stick Microsoft and give those who game a new DX API that allows for efficiency and not just marginal graphic improvement hype at the cost of FPS! Better reconsider dropping support for XP until that is obtainable. We "gamers" require decent FPS along with the latest bells and whistles, why else do you think we spend thousands on our PC`s?
September 24, 2007 6:38:43 PM

V8VENOM said:
Having done a lot of testing with new DX10 titles, I'm coming to the conclusion that:

...
4. Vista x86 and x64 is broken
...


V8VENOM said:
Russki,

No I didn't say Vista is broken.


?????? Are my eyes deceiving me or did you just contradict yourself?

Again, the AA issue in Bioshock is an engine issue, not DX10 issue. By the way, according to the information available, AA can be forced in the DX9 mode, but it is not supported nonetheless and may result in image quality / performance problems. You may disagree with the developer's decision, but don't blame it on the platform. Why did they decide to do it that way? I would guess because they felt that the trade-off between HDR and AA was worth it and with ever-increasing resolutions the value of AA diminishes while HDR effect is noticeable regarding of resolution, but that is just guesswork.

I can't argue that the drivers may be immature. I do tend to blame IHVs for that. They certainly had plenty of time to get them working, but, as always, support takes second seat to development, 'cause they're in the business of making money, and support does not [directly] result in any additional revenues.

I do agree with virtually every design decision, at least in the intent, that went into Vista / DX10 (particularly the latter, which was formulated with input from developers and hardware vendors, so both interested parties were reportedly involved in the process). The notable exception would be the sound / networking issue, where I disagree with both the design intent and the poor implementation.

The biggest problem is this - and this shows up time and time again - many of the older titles were optimized to run best on the platform that was current at the time of the development, sometimes utilizing techniques that are not good practice and relied on the specific features of that platform. This is a sacrifice that many make, and often it is required for best performance, but may lead to unforeseen limitations. Those are the titles that have problems with portability. The funny part is, it is due to the inappropriate coding techniques, and not problems with the platform per se. Yet everyone is quick to blame the platform. It is the thing to do du jour, after all, right?

And if you recall XP migration issues - well, they were worse. Heck, in the simulation community (you're a sucker, right?) many still run Win98 SE to play the excellent Jane's simulations...
a b U Graphics card
September 24, 2007 6:57:39 PM

Guys, calm down. Let's not rip into this guy just for the sake of conflict, althought not all his points are entirely developed, he brings some truth to the table. DX10 IS a marketing Hype, nobody can argue that ( At least ATM it is ) When the 8800 came out many of us ( including myself) ran to get it for DX10 compatibilaty ( and DX9 dominance of course) DX10 was supposed to be some amazing new tech. so far it has not developed to this stage. Vista does drop frames in most games, but that has nothing to do with DX10, at least for DX9 titles, this we all knew. Just recently however I played WIC w/ DX10 on Vista and this is by far the first semi- victory for Vista/DX10, it looks incredible and if you have the proper hardware it doesnt run poorly either. My point being, give it a chance, and understand that DX10 is just being utilized.
September 24, 2007 9:10:39 PM

annisman, you just can't make blanket statements like that. DX10 is marketing hype?! Yet you say that WIC on DX10 is good?

And whose marketing hype is it? And what is marketing hype? Do you mean there are no substantive changes in DX10? That's wrong. Do you mean that DX10 is pretty much DX9 plus some bells and whistles? Wrong again; there are some major architectural changes to the API, with some features that have long been requested by the developers.

Do you mean DX10 does not make your eyes pop out when you play old games? Who said it would? Do you mean there are no titles that would exploit DX10 fully yet? Who said there were? Do you mean that current DX10 hardware may be immature to fully nandle the technology? That's true, but what is the hype then; is the API overhyped, or is the hardware? And if it is hardware, is it any different than any new hardware release by either nV or ATI?

I am not trying to "get on" anyone, but you just can't make blanket statements like that without being ready to answer some questions.
September 24, 2007 9:30:08 PM

Russki,

No, but you like to pluck things out of context ... if you notice that was one option out of several listed. "OPTION" -- again please read it in context, not out of context.

Yes I know DX9 version can force AA by renaming the games EXE (for ATI side and for nVidia it's drivers are "aware"). But like I said AA and DX10. So AA is working for Unreal 3 engine -- is that what you're saying?

Oh BTW some links on fixes for Vista provide by nVidia but also available via Microsoft's KB

http://www.nvidia.com/object/windows_vista_hotfixes.htm...

Note: that some of these hot fixes are NOT part of the Windows Update database so you do have to manually download and install. So yeah, Vista was actually broken -- or handicapped anyway.

When an Graphics API is sold as being the next best tool with some incredible special effects and performance enhancements, BUT in reality it delivers very similar visuals to DX9 with considerably worse frame rates then yes, I would consider DX10 a flop and/or marketing hype. Show me otherwise, you have yet to show anything? Crysis Beta 2 looks great, but turn up details even at 1280 x 1024 and you have a slide show -- who wants to play a slide show?

Annisman,

Have you run WIC under DX9? You really don't need to defend me, trust me -- I've done my homework and I've been around here a long long long time. I provide real world experience, not what XYZ said from MNO web site. But as is the norm, much of what anyone says gets pulled out of context and implied beyond what is actually written.

It seems I'm the only one who can actually deliver screens shots and post my findings. I've asked for you folks to provide them and NO ONE has come thru -- why is that? Lets see the facts, not "well my impression is it's great" -- this appears to be the norm a Tom's where most reference someone else's review/articles. Do your own, show your own results with your own hardware -- I did -- just how "developed" do you want my points to be?

As I've consistantly pointed out is that DX10 with AA seems to have some serious performance issues -- now exactly who is at fault I don't know, it is the DX10 API, is it Vista, is it game developers, is it the drivers, is it the hardware?? Push this one step further and you have Microsoft pushing out DX10.1 with the requirement for 4XAA -- hmmmm...this should be making you folks go "oh why is that?"

Some of you that have been around for a LONG LONG time will have a pretty good idea at the answer. Yes Microsoft did work with ATI/nVidia closely -- hence why the 4XAA got pushed out of DX10 and into DX10.1 -- simply because ATI/nVidia had no real solution and knew exactly what the implications were with their hardware. Microsoft was giving the vendors some time (to do it right DX10.1) and also giving themselves something to include in Vista even if not a good solution (aka DX10).

Whether you want to believe this or not, I really don't care -- but just look at the facts, compare your frame rates, and ask yourself if the current state of DX10 was worth the effort to get there? I'm sure it will mature, it always does eventually, but that isn't the point. What we have now are DX10 games that look the same (or in some cases worse) than DX9 versions -- occassionally you'll get some very minor FX tossed in under DX10 or worse the FX cause such a drastic FPS hit you have to disable in order to get playable fps.

September 24, 2007 11:02:37 PM

V8VENOM, we might be talking semantics, but and option would typically be preceded by something that would identify it as such (the word "either," for example), which was not done. As a matter of fact, the sentence read "...I am coming to a conclusion that:", followed by an enumerated list, which ordinarily is meant to imply that all of the items are true.

Anyway; moving on.

Your point #2; being able to force AA and being designed to run AA turn out to be two different things. Again, I can not speculate as to the intent of this limitation of the engine beyond what I offered above, but it is there, and it is documented. Stop blaming the wrong thing.

Thirdly, you suggest that because there is a hotfix that is not a part of the update database something is broken? You mean to say that all software that is patched is broken or handicapped (most software does not even have an automatic updater). Or do you mean to say there are bugs? And we already knew the latter, there is no need to sensationalize it.

As far as getting into an opinion-based "DX9 looks just as good as DX10" argument - well, that's a matter of personal preference where I have to disagree.

With respect to your point that an individual's results should be trusted more than MNO website reviews - I beg to differ. That's the sole purpose of those websites, to provide reputable objective reviews based on "scientifically" (giving them some slack) conducted experiments. They do the following, though:

1) document their configuration;
2) document their test set-up;
3) provide benchmarks;
4) provide screenshots for IQ comparison.

I have not seen you do either. Although I am sure you are, yourself, satisfied in the accuracy of your measurements and opinions, there is little evidence for anyone else. And when what you report contradicts what the reputable sources report with adequate documentation as to their findings, it makes an observer question your statements.
September 24, 2007 11:35:39 PM

Russki,

"Which of these is true or perhaps a combination, but the end result is Vista as being a really bad choice for a gaming OS." Sorry if this was confusing to you and/or others -- but I read it as "either" aka options.

You seem to just wanna debate for the sake of debating? I don't, I wanna see real world result from real people with real systems not some "lab setup"?

Obviously you did NOT go to the links to my web site that I provided in this thread with my test setup and my benchmark results -- screen shots clear as day including side by side comparision of images take from DX9 and DX10 for WIC. Also includes benchmark results. You need to re-read this thread cause it sure seems like you pull out what you want and skip over other parts to augment your cause. But again, I'd love to see YOUR own results on these DX10 titles -- please do share.

The problem with so many folks relying on other web sites running their own custom set of tests is that usually by the time they are posted a patch or new driver or OS update etc. etc. has come out and pretty much obsoleted the review/benchmarks. This is exactly why I take whatever I read at these sites as "interesting" but not really decision making material. You don't know who owns the site, you don't the people posting the results, you know nothing about the site and/or who really sponsors it -- just as you know nothing about me and what I've posted. But I'm not trying to sell you anything, I'm encouraging you and others to do your own testing and publish your results with DX10.

1. Show your Control Panels settings
2. Show your system specs including OS
3. Show your ingame settings
4. Show your bench results (either with Fraps or ingame tools)

So where are yours? You've keep seeming to argue points but have nothing show?
!