well they don't really use DX 10.1 they just similar API use, Nvidia still uses DX 10 though, but it works in the same way, so both cards will be able to profit from this when the Drivers are released.
I guess it wouldn't make sense if Ubisoft advertised the game as a 'Way it's meant to played' if the game really needed ATI hardware to be experienced to the full and add to the fact Far cry was developed on Nvidia Hardware.
well it can lol at the moment. DX 10.1 isn't going to be enough to put the ATI single GPUs over the Nvidia GPUs, its just nice to have a card that plays about as fast as the top end Nvidia, while maintaining about half the price.
This is meaningless. Dx10.1 is just another gimmick to confuse people. Nvidia already have one pointless gimmick (physx), do they really need to get onboard ATI's share of this crap too? It's not like you can notice any difference in Assassin's Creed dx10.1, back when it's still supported. Far Cry 2 is just an underwhelming console port no matter how many gimmicks they try to load it up with.
nVidias software solution for partial DX10.1 is only good if its included in the game, for one, and it isnt full DX10.1 either for another. We will soon actually see the difference very soon, as 2 games are coming soon, and then well finally be able to see the difference , hopefully not only in performance, but if the games are using it, in features as well
FC2 runs like poo in Vista for me. Looks like it skips a few frames every 5 seconds and objects go from point A to point C...pretty annoying. It is Vista 32 with 4GB of RAM...but...I wouldn't think there is a shortage of RAM there.
I was excited about a DX10.1 performance gain over DX9/XP but it is the same old same old. Wonder if drivers can help it out.
I have hopes that DX11 can step things up a bit with the multithreading support. With both NV and ATI supporting DX11, hopefully there will be a quicker adoption among developers than with DX10.1.