Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Closed

DX 10 vs DX9 Worth the Extra frame loss?

Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
September 30, 2008 2:49:11 AM

Honest I've looked around:

Devil May Cry 4

Crysis Warhead

Lost Planet

None of them actually have a difference thats noticeable, especially during gameplay. (maybe the shadows and the Sun rays in World in C)

Any1 have any shots or opinions that I might've missed out?
September 30, 2008 2:51:30 AM

Same here. The only thing I was able to notice was the fur on people's coats in Lost Planet. It looks more... furry. :na: 

Definitely not worth it.
September 30, 2008 3:04:30 AM

Im sure the industry notices this as well, hince the lack of DX10 support. Also Funcom has yet to patch the DX10 client for Age of Conan, despite promising it at launch and then pushing it to August.
Related resources
September 30, 2008 3:09:33 AM

k because Devil may cry runs @ 60 on my Laptop and in DX 9 its @ 100 LMAO .....:|

hahaha
a b U Graphics card
September 30, 2008 12:30:43 PM

I have my 4850 in WinXP, and i'm not eager to go into the "Vista experience"... I've seen screenshot noting the differences, but they don't look THAT appealing to me to do the switch.

I'm happy with my games in DX9c: smooth and pretty. Crysis runs very nicely in WinXP, so does GRID, CoD4 and a lot of other titles that can't run well on Vista's DX9c (not well => lower FPS).

A friend of mine has Vista and we don't really see major differences among games (Crysis? lol).

Anyway, just my point of view.

Esop!
September 30, 2008 12:34:07 PM

Yuka said:
I have my 4850 in WinXP, and i'm not eager to go into the "Vista experience"... I've seen screenshot noting the differences, but they don't look THAT appealing to me to do the switch.

I'm happy with my games in DX9c: smooth and pretty. Crysis runs very nicely in WinXP, so does GRID, CoD4 and a lot of other titles that can't run well on Vista's DX9c (not well => lower FPS).

A friend of mine has Vista and we don't really see major differences among games (Crysis? lol).

Anyway, just my point of view.

Esop!


Vista runs dx9c just fine. Are you sure it's not the rest of your system holding back the 4850? :p 
a c 106 U Graphics card
September 30, 2008 12:46:40 PM

Personally I find DX10 more visually appealing. Is it needed, no. More a selling point for Vista........ and it was all a lie from the beginning. But having said that, when I purchase games they go on a DX10 machine and rarely on DX9 anymore. There is a difference and I can see it. If you compare the dx9 vs dx10 photos while on an xp machine, you're missing it because you can't really tell the difference. Also, an lcd looks much better than a crt...... dx9 vs dx10..... something else to think about.
September 30, 2008 12:57:29 PM

swifty_morgan said:
Personally I find DX10 more visually appealing. Is it needed, no. More a selling point for Vista........ and it was all a lie from the beginning. But having said that, when I purchase games they go on a DX10 machine and rarely on DX9 anymore. There is a difference and I can see it. If you compare the dx9 vs dx10 photos while on an xp machine, you're missing it because you can't really tell the difference. Also, an lcd looks much better than a crt...... dx9 vs dx10..... something else to think about.


How do you see dx10 on XP machine? If it's "photos," by which you probably meant screenshots, shouldn't they be the same even if the jpg is displayed on a Mac? :p 
a b U Graphics card
September 30, 2008 1:00:12 PM

dagger said:
Vista runs dx9c just fine. Are you sure it's not the rest of your system holding back the 4850? :p 


Actually, nope... There's a thingy about the way Vista do things that makes DX9 perform poorly compared to XP. They changed the API when doing DX10, and to provide backwards support, they... Well... have to "emulate" sounds features and other thingys from DX9c from XP. I don't have more info than that, but there has to be some benchies that prove my word XD

Sorry dear dagger for being a lazy boy XD

swifty_morgan said:
Personally I find DX10 more visually appealing. Is it needed, no. More a selling point for Vista........ and it was all a lie from the beginning. But having said that, when I purchase games they go on a DX10 machine and rarely on DX9 anymore. There is a difference and I can see it. If you compare the dx9 vs dx10 photos while on an xp machine, you're missing it because you can't really tell the difference. Also, an lcd looks much better than a crt...... dx9 vs dx10..... something else to think about.


Oh, man... That is sooooo relative to tastes... I mean... I've been playing FPS since i was 12 (Wolfenstein 3D was the sh!t X'D) on CRT's of all kinds. I won't argue that newer LCDs are so much better than 1st (20ns), 2nd (8ns) and even 3rd (5ns) gen LCDs regarding gaming, but I still prefer my good old refresh rate @85Hz when possible for gaming. The picture is very different indeed, it's crispier on CRTs than LCDs IMO. Hell, i even gamed on a Sony Trinitron 22" 1900x1200 at my university just for the fun of it and man, i DO tell you there is NO way an LCD wan kick a CRT's ass, at least not for the time being XD

Now, like i said, newer LCDs (2ns) actually show close to none difference in refresh to my eyes, but those are quite expensive atm :cry: 

Esop!
a b U Graphics card
September 30, 2008 1:00:46 PM

slight difference between dx9/dx10.
i dont mind the extra eye candy though.
=]
September 30, 2008 1:11:31 PM

invisik said:
slight difference between dx9/dx10.
i dont mind the extra eye candy though.
=]


At the fps cost? :p 
a b U Graphics card
September 30, 2008 1:19:23 PM

dagger said:
At the fps cost? :p 



well my 2 gtx260 pull over 100fps in every game but that one made by crytek.
=]
a c 106 U Graphics card
September 30, 2008 1:26:22 PM

invisik said:
well my 2 gtx260 pull over 100fps in every game but that one made by crytek.
=]



You don't have to get 500 fps when you play a game, and the newer titles will never come near the older games..... Quake, Medal, etc. It's the minimum fps we need to start worrying about.

And I disagree with the posters opinion that crt's look better than lcd's. I'll never go back.

ACTUALLY I meant to quote Dagger, sorry.
a b U Graphics card
September 30, 2008 1:35:26 PM

i no im just saying current games run fine.
=]
September 30, 2008 1:41:39 PM

Well I looked at alot of games, and other than Crysis, I don't see anything thats to run home to. Especially in Devil May cry 4, that game looks beautiful in both.


Only thing I notice is shadows are smoother, and in Crysis teh water has more ripple effects.


As for DX 9 runnign better in Xp, in all the test I've seen they were either on par and on some they exchanged blows, but only by 1 fps-3 fps which is pretty much the error margins.

Soo I really don't think there is a difference at this point.

I see more of a difference between dx 10.1 and 10.0 then 10.0 and 9.0c lol
September 30, 2008 1:44:37 PM

swifty_morgan said:

And I disagree with the posters opinion that crt's look better than lcd's. I'll never go back.


Well, it is a matter of opinion and what is your model of LCD. Several machines i made for the medical community recently too Samsung 22" CRT Monitors. They refused to use 2ns 500€ (also samsung) monitors. THey said the LCD had a very bad image quality. And after working a bit with them, im forced to agree. A cheap 22" CRT bring an expensive LCD to his knees.

Now, i won't go back to CRT either.

  • First off, my hardware has "Wife Seal of Approval". And big CRT on the living room, would not have that seal.
  • Second, space.
  • Third, i don't feel I'm getting a tan as byproduct of gaming. (Anybody remembered those old CGA phosphoric ?)

    On topic.

    From what ive seem from DX10.1, games/drivers are still being introduced. I will install vista 64 this week (wife just borked my OS, again, yay) and ill check the differences. With more eye candy, comes heavier loads, and less FPS. I'm kinda eager to move, and see the results. Free 4x AA is very nice !!! Or in one passage, witch is basically the same.

    If the results are satisfactory, im sure the wife will bork my OS. And ill go back to XP32, again.


    a b U Graphics card
    September 30, 2008 1:53:42 PM

    swifty_morgan said:
    You don't have to get 500 fps when you play a game, and the newer titles will never come near the older games..... Quake, Medal, etc. It's the minimum fps we need to start worrying about.

    And I disagree with the posters opinion that crt's look better than lcd's. I'll never go back.

    ACTUALLY I meant to quote Dagger, sorry.


    Depends when the Minimum FPS occurs. On consistent benchmarking, and using a normal distribution, u'd have to do 3x times tests to do min avg, avg avg and max avg of tests XD

    Well, maybe min avg and avg avg, that's 2x tests... But my statistics memory is running flat here, lol.

    Besides, when a singular point in gameplay shows the lower FPS, then it's a biased point away from the main sample wich doesn't come into the analisys but as a singularity wich doesn't alter the results.

    I'd say that it's a tricky thing to ask for "minimum FPS" when all these benchmarks don't use an statistical method to show results :p 

    And have you compared a "regular" CRT@75Hz vs a "regular" LCD@75Hz? I mean, watched gameplay and video playback on each? A regular TV (PAL or NTSC) can kick a CRT's or LCD's ass too actually... I remember playing NFS Porsche Unleashed on a 29" TV with my Radeon8500... Man, that was nice and awsome...

    Like I said, it was a matter of taste XD

    Esop!
    a c 106 U Graphics card
    September 30, 2008 2:04:20 PM

    Depends when the Minimum FPS occurs. On consistent benchmarking, and using a normal distribution, u'd have to do 3x times tests to do min avg, avg avg and max avg of tests XD

    Well, maybe min avg and avg avg, that's 2x tests... But my statistics memory is running flat here, lol.

    If I wasn't confused b4, I am now...lol


    Besides, when a singular point in gameplay shows the lower FPS, then it's a biased point away from the main sample wich doesn't come into the analisys but as a singularity wich doesn't alter the results

    I agree
    a b U Graphics card
    September 30, 2008 2:12:03 PM

    radnor said:
    Well, it is a matter of opinion and what is your model of LCD. Several machines i made for the medical community recently too Samsung 22" CRT Monitors. They refused to use 2ns 500€ (also samsung) monitors. THey said the LCD had a very bad image quality. And after working a bit with them, im forced to agree. A cheap 22" CRT bring an expensive LCD to his knees.

    Now, i won't go back to CRT either.

  • First off, my hardware has "Wife Seal of Approval". And big CRT on the living room, would not have that seal.
  • Second, space.
  • Third, i don't feel I'm getting a tan as byproduct of gaming. (Anybody remembered those old CGA phosphoric ?)

    On topic.

    From what ive seem from DX10.1, games/drivers are still being introduced. I will install vista 64 this week (wife just borked my OS, again, yay) and ill check the differences. With more eye candy, comes heavier loads, and less FPS. I'm kinda eager to move, and see the results. Free 4x AA is very nice !!! Or in one passage, witch is basically the same.

    If the results are satisfactory, im sure the wife will bork my OS. And ill go back to XP32, again.


  • This is very off-topic, sorry XD

    Well, it's actually a matter of depth and light more than refresh. An LCD for the medical community costs like US$3K, and by all means, they're NOT regular LCDs XD

    I can tell you first hand cause i also did some research on my community Radiology center here in Chile (actually, one of the biggest hospitals/clinic). The must be at least 16bit grayscale in deph, 24bit desirable, insane res (1900x1200 in 19") and must come in pairs. Also, those things have to be compliant with a lot of things (medical thingys), and they include a dispositive that TELLS YOU when the LCD has less luminosity than when bought, wich means you have to change it. That's very important for telemedicine and the image method the hospital chooses to use and a lot of blah blah there.

    Long topic to discuss, but well...

    Sorry again for the hard off-topic xP

    Esop!
    September 30, 2008 2:40:00 PM

    Yuka said:


    Long topic to discuss, but well...

    Sorry again for the hard off-topic xP

    Esop!


    We will meet in this forum another day for that off-topic :kaola: 
    We shall meet, Chilean one. You won't stand a chance vs Portuguese Beer.

    Those were home-use PCs. I know the nifty price medical LCDs have.





    September 30, 2008 4:06:01 PM

    Comparing dx10 and dx9 by using screen shots does not work. The difference moving up to dx10 is incremental but it is there.

    The problem of course is the cost of getting there is far more than the improvement; diminished returns.

    You will always have the groups with older hardware trying to convince themselves they aren't missing anything and the group who spent a fortune overstating how great it is.

    The weekend before last my 9yr old son and I were playing through Warhead simultaneously. He was playing fine in dx10 fine until the hovercraft level at which point I had him relaunch in dx9. On my newer machine I played through at enthusiast levels and appreciated the subtle differences. IMO if you can pull the frames in dx10 run it.
    September 30, 2008 4:12:58 PM

    dagger said:
    Vista runs dx9c just fine. Are you sure it's not the rest of your system holding back the 4850? :p 



    do you take the time out to read the guys post b4 commenting, he is happy with xp and his 4850
    September 30, 2008 4:53:17 PM

    It just depends which frames they are. If your loss is from 50fps down to 40fps, yes, it's worth it, but if you lose frames from 35fps to 25fps, then no, probably not. And if you have to turn off eye-candy to get an acceptable fps, then you're really defeating the purpose.

    Something more than a DX10 vs. DX9, is that you get diminishing returns on the effects in a game. Why do you think it's taken so long for these new effects to be in games? It's because they take a lot of processing power, and don't change all that much. DX10 will be worth it, but only if you're shoving loads of $$$ into your graphics, but that's the only reason you'd care, anyway.
    September 30, 2008 5:23:00 PM

    rangers said:
    do you take the time out to read the guys post b4 commenting, he is happy with xp and his 4850



    Don't start b!tching in my thread plz

    Its a suggestion not an order, your comment had no reason to posted as it was.

    Completely unnecessary


    Windows XP does hold back DX cards because you could have both the cake and frosting. Play DX 9 if they want to, or move to the more demanding and slightly glossier DX 10 plus don't forget that Vista is going to support 10.1.



    Please don't post ur accusing and completely unreliable posts in here.

    TGGA if you catch a glimpse of this thread you can close I got what I wanted out of it Thank You very much.
    September 30, 2008 6:51:09 PM

    L1qu1d said:
    Don't start b!tching in my thread plz

    Its a suggestion not an order, your comment had no reason to posted as it was.

    Completely unnecessary


    Windows XP does hold back DX cards because you could have both the cake and frosting. Play DX 9 if they want to, or move to the more demanding and slightly glossier DX 10 plus don't forget that Vista is going to support 10.1.



    Please don't post ur accusing and completely unreliable posts in here.

    TGGA if you catch a glimpse of this thread you can close I got what I wanted out of it Thank You very much.


    if i remember right you said if there is something you said, and i dont like just to tell you to shut-up.
    so if you dont want comments in ur thread, shut-up
    a b U Graphics card
    September 30, 2008 7:45:12 PM

    rangers said:
    if i remember right you said if there is something you said, and i dont like just to tell you to shut-up.
    so if you dont want comments in ur thread, shut-up


    Oh, come on ranger XD

    You sound like that typical old hag from the upper floor / next house meddling into someone else's affair XD

    Thanks for making that point stand out though :) 

    Quote:
    It just depends which frames they are. If your loss is from 50fps down to 40fps, yes, it's worth it, but if you lose frames from 35fps to 25fps, then no, probably not. And if you have to turn off eye-candy to get an acceptable fps, then you're really defeating the purpose.

    Something more than a DX10 vs. DX9, is that you get diminishing returns on the effects in a game. Why do you think it's taken so long for these new effects to be in games? It's because they take a lot of processing power, and don't change all that much. DX10 will be worth it, but only if you're shoving loads of $$$ into your graphics, but that's the only reason you'd care, anyway.


    That's true, very true. When you go from "smooth" to "smooth" FPS, no big deal actually. But when going "smooth" to "slide presentation" FPS, it's a no no.

    There's always something in between that you can get wich suits your needs in all ways, unless the game doesn't have them, lol. I put this example: In Crysis i have everything in High, but disabled Motion Blur cause, well... I HATE THAT THING! >_<'

    Quote:
    Windows XP does hold back DX cards because you could have both the cake and frosting. Play DX 9 if they want to, or move to the more demanding and slightly glossier DX 10 plus don't forget that Vista is going to support 10.1.


    Very true also, i might go into Vista just to check out my aging system's performance with the 4850. It's a good thing that my University has MSDN alliance, but too bad they take like 1 month to give you your bloody key, lol.

    Anyway, like No1sFanboy pointed out, i can't figure it out only by screenshots, that's true. The "feeeeeeeling" that comes to actual gameplay under DX10 has to be seen real time for that. I'll go over to a friend's house who has Vista installed with GRID, CoD4 and Crysis. We'll run some apples to oranges tests, lol.

    And, if someone knows... Is it true that DX8.1 and below has terrible support under Vista? Practical question: will the 4x4 Evo2 run on Vista like it did on WinXP? Also, how's OGL support there? I still play UT2004 u know :p 

    Esop!
    a b U Graphics card
    September 30, 2008 8:11:20 PM

    Closing at the request of the OP.

    My opinion as a final op-onion.

    DX10's implementation sofar has been mild, the differences subtle. Whether or not that is worth the fps is usually a personal choice. But if you get image quality improvements and a performance boost like in Assasin's Creed, that's even nicer. But for the games listed, it's going to be more subtle and require the tradeoff (many people seem to prefer hacking DX9 to add some features rather that go full-on DX10).

    As for CRT versus LCD once again it's a preference thing, but you'd be hard pressed to convince me that most consumer LCDs are even close to high quality CRTs like the P260 I'm looking at right now. Some HDR LCDs are pretty sweet, and can do a better job for the ends of the colour gamut, but there gradation is a little harsher than on a CRT. The newer colour LED lit LCDs are pretty sweet though and offer gamut and gradient that surpases the best CRT. However, I don't know anyone who would pay that money for a home gaming monitor though.

    Anywhoo, once again, personal preference, and I prefer Laser lit HDR monitor and DX11. :kaola: 
    !