Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Dissecting DX10, Part 1

Last response: in Video Games
Share
June 20, 2007 9:10:08 PM

The era of DirectX 10 is upon us, with newly released demo versions of Lost Planet: Extreme Condition, and Call of Juarez. TwitchGuru puts the demos to the test on a high-powered Dell XPS system, to find out if DX10 truly makes a difference.

More about : dissecting dx10 part

June 20, 2007 10:43:28 PM

well, basically, you didn't answer the burning question.
everyone expects that DX9 and DX10 will not differ in their graphic potential.
the real question is do you get more FPS for a given graphic setting?
there were no side-by-side comparisons.
mostly you showed that new video games on pc are an expensive pain, and on consuls, all works fine and beautiful.
god, Nekura was right.
they will denigrate pc gaming to the same level as manual transmissions of automobiles

i thank my daughter for helping me re-spell things correctly. even though i told her i don't give a flying rats ass
June 21, 2007 12:14:18 AM

I find the results disturbing. One of the promises of DX10 is that it would reduce the instruction path for basic operations, like setting variables and textures in the shader program. The other promise was that putting a lot more work on the GPU would speed things up and create new possibilities, like with the geometry shader.

The reality is that we need to spend over $1,000 to get an SLI setup that can actually run the new games? Not to mention the power requirements that these cards will have on our electric bills. Did they under-estimate the power a video card would need to actually do that much more work?

If so, I can see the PC gaming industry dying, as people switch to cheaper console systems like the PS3 and XBOX 360.
Related resources
June 21, 2007 2:07:37 AM

Guys I would first like to say that I love THG and that's why it pains me to say what I'm about to say. Poeple really need to do research before they base even early impressions on something especially when you have people out there that don't do any research themselves and take your word as 100% correct.

The developers for Lost Planet for the PC has public stated to reporters that Lost Planet running on DX10 is not running on DX10 for increased visuals but for increased performace in Vista. So you or anyone can one, base any kind of opinion of DX10 on a game that isn't using it for the graphical improvement and two, can't realistically base it on a Port from a console. Come on guys, when have you seen a console port, and port is the key word, that showed a leap in graphics going to the pc like if you were to compair a 100% designed for the pc game running at DX7vs8vs9? I'm not trying to flame but I was really disapointed of how quick you guys were to draw anytype of conclusion.

PS;
For wondering out there, I am far from a Windows fanboy.
June 21, 2007 2:22:05 AM

This was a decent article, however it failed to achieve it's purpose, and that's comparing DX9 / XP with DX10 / Vista. I mean I kept reading about how the game runs on vista with different settings, and I was thinking ok, when are they going to run these tests on XP? Perhaps a little revision might help turn this article into a better one (no offense, mind you).

On a side note, I think there is an error. To quote a part of the article: "After running the performance test several times on the Samsung display, we then hooked up the Dell XPS's original monitor - a Dell 24-inch UltraSharp LCD display - and maxed out the screen resolution to 2560x1600."

Now, excuse me but the last time I checked and that was a few moments ago on Dell's official website, I don't think that Dell's 24" monitor can do a resolution of 2560x1600. For a fact it can only do a max of 1920x1080, unless you guys here at TG had access to a new unreleased monitor. Either you meant to say an original 30" monitor or you meant to say a resolution of 1920x1080. I only point this out because if there is a 24" monitor that can do 2560x1600 I'd be very interested in knowing.
June 21, 2007 4:06:28 AM

first of all...dx10 and dx9 crysis look similar? are u kidding me, dx9 looks amazing, and the dx10 trailer blows it away, its noticible everywhere. there will never be a downwall of pc gaming u dont use half assed patched dx10 games to benchmark dx10, wich is sad. thats like using fugitive hunter to benchmark fighting games on consoles

some are good dx10 patches even http://www.gamespot.com/features/6164940/index.html
please calm down
June 21, 2007 4:09:53 AM

Quote:
This was a decent article, however it failed to achieve it's purpose, and that's comparing DX9 / XP with DX10 / Vista.

yes, exactly, you haven't told us any thing usefull
i don't like to be harsh, but don't promise one thing and give pablum
June 21, 2007 4:59:09 AM

remember this is part 1, we so far hav learned a negative side i assume? bad work on the dev part
June 21, 2007 7:33:10 AM

No difference between dx10 and dx9 :? ? lost planet is a bad demo, which has poor performance, and was released too early.

In crysis dx10 adds: depth of field, motion blur, very realistic soft shadows, light effects (see rays of sunlight passing through the leaves in the jungle) etc etc -i could go on for a while. I agree some of this is theoretically possible in dx9, but there is a distinct difference between theory and fact.

crytek has produced one of the best looking dx9 games ever, but it gets blown away by the dx10 effects, when switched on.

I suggest you do this article again, when games that are specifically designed for dx10 showcasing are out (e.g crysis) not when a couple of patched demos are available....
June 21, 2007 2:57:43 PM

Yeah, it's probably too early to draw any conclusions about DX10 yet, as one company's drivers aren't polished yet, and, from what I've seen, the other's are barely passable. Add that to the fact that we have 2 games for it, soon to be 3, and a demo. From my personal experience with CoH, games run better at the same settings on DX9. Add that DX10 and shit kinda hits the fan, frame rate wise.
June 21, 2007 3:45:32 PM

Quote:
well, basically, you didn't answer the burning question.
everyone expects that DX9 and DX10 will not differ in their graphic potential.
the real question is do you get more FPS for a given graphic setting?
there were no side-by-side comparisons.
mostly you showed that new video games on pc are an expensive pain, and on consuls, all works fine and beautiful.
god, Nekura was right.
they will denigrate pc gaming to the same level as manual transmissions of automobiles

i thank my daughter for helping me re-spell things correctly. even though i told her i don't give a flying rats ass


I started a thread a while back ago, something like Post your Lost Planet benchmarks. I included screen res and driver versions using an OC'ed rig that would be comparable to the Dell if not better in my opinion since it was a hell of a lot cheaper.

I actually tested and posted DX9 vs DX10 benchmark comparisons. To answer your question, No, DX10 does not give you a performance advantage over DX9. It is slower by about 10 -15%. DX10 is visually slightly better but the performance hit is not worth it.

I came to their conclusion a long time ago but backed it up with more data then they did.
June 21, 2007 4:20:40 PM

Some of you guys need to relax. :roll: If I'm not mistaken...the title reads, "...Part 1". This leads me to believe there will be further articles on the subject....
June 21, 2007 4:35:55 PM

As a couple folks already pointed out, this is just part 1. The aim with this initial article was to give people a glimpse of what the DX10 demo of Lost Planet looks like and how it runs on a high-powered, expensive machine like the Dell XPS. The comparison to DX9 and XP performance numbers is coming soon. We've finished up the review of Call of Juarez for DX10 and then we'll move on to how the games perform on XP versus Vista.

Quote:
I actually tested and posted DX9 vs DX10 benchmark comparisons. To answer your question, No, DX10 does not give you a performance advantage over DX9. It is slower by about 10 -15%. DX10 is visually slightly better but the performance hit is not worth it.


Thanks for ruining the surprise, Warzme. Just kidding...nice work. Do you have the link to that thread?

We've come to similar conclusions so far. You get get slightly better visuals with DX10 but considering the hardware and power required to run the game on Vista versus XP, it's not really worth it.

Who else has played the demo on Vista? Any thoughts?
June 21, 2007 5:03:29 PM

textures = much better dx10 and some effects. idk does everyone here think they did a half assed job? i mean capcom games on pc arent the greatest.

jus wat ive seen
June 21, 2007 5:15:29 PM

I have a thought. Let's not rate console ports for the purpose of PC gaming performance. Console ports are notoriously gimpy and that's the reason most of us never buy them - I never buy a game that's console first, PC second. Hopefully, if more of us do that, it will send developers a message that we're not going to buy cheap imitations of a console game, forcing them to develop games specifically for the PC parallell with developing them specifically for the console.

Let's just call this what it is and say that Crapcom did a crappy job programming these games for the PC, not to mention DirectX 10, and that this performance study was pretty much a waste of time.
June 21, 2007 5:16:54 PM

Quote:
As a couple folks already pointed out, this is just part 1. The aim with this initial article was to give people a glimpse of what the DX10 demo of Lost Planet looks like and how it runs on a high-powered, expensive machine like the Dell XPS. The comparison to DX9 and XP performance numbers is coming soon. We've finished up the review of Call of Juarez for DX10 and then we'll move on to how the games perform on XP versus Vista.

I actually tested and posted DX9 vs DX10 benchmark comparisons. To answer your question, No, DX10 does not give you a performance advantage over DX9. It is slower by about 10 -15%. DX10 is visually slightly better but the performance hit is not worth it.


Thanks for ruining the surprise, Warzme. Just kidding...nice work. Do you have the link to that thread?

We've come to similar conclusions so far. You get get slightly better visuals with DX10 but considering the hardware and power required to run the game on Vista versus XP, it's not really worth it.

Who else has played the demo on Vista? Any thoughts?

Here is the thread:

http://forumz.tomshardware.com/hardware/Post-DX10-Lost-...

I started with just Vista DX10 and through the discussion updated the DX9 numbers with some screen caps. No charts or graphs just lots of folks talking about what they got and their opinions. geek stuff
June 21, 2007 5:32:38 PM

Nice work, Warezme. I experience similar results with multi-GPU enabled, by the way. Maybe an improvement of 5 to 7 FPS, but no more. And we got the same error message when we installed the XP version of the demo regarding DX9. So there you go. Thanks again for the thread.

Quote:
Let's just call this what it is and say that Crapcom did a crappy job programming these games for the PC, not to mention DirectX 10, and that this performance study was pretty much a waste of time.


I actually think that Capcom did a fine job porting Lost Planet, considering they could have just ported it to XP and not bothered with Vista. The demo looks great, and it provides the higher level of detail and calrity you'd expect in PC graphics. The key here is how does the game look and perform on Vista with DX10 and what kind of frame rates the demo gets on some high level hardware. So I don't think the performance study was a waste of time, but that's just my opinion.
June 21, 2007 5:43:52 PM

Quote:
. .....So I don't think the performance study was a waste of time, but that's just my opinion.


the way I look at any performance study is a good thing because it lets everyone at least get an idea of what the game will do. It would suk if all we had to go by was the Game developers glowing reviews to go by.
June 21, 2007 9:19:57 PM

I think the game was unfairly reviewed. THere are options for Concurrent Rendering and other things of that nature that I think if enabled during the test would boost performance given the CPU that was used for the benchmarking.

Because with a Quad Core system there is no reason the game should only reach low 100's in the FPS because my system ( AMD 64 4000, Geforce 7900GS ) can play the game at about 30 FPS.


Plus the game is designed so that even at 30 FPS the graphics still run smooth. Lost Planet really is like playing a CG Movie sequence. So they say it ran sluggishly at 22 to 30 FPS when it reality the game was still running without a chink really.
June 22, 2007 12:22:28 AM

Quote:
I actually tested and posted DX9 vs DX10 benchmark comparisons. To answer your question, No, DX10 does not give you a performance advantage over DX9. It is slower by about 10 -15%. DX10 is visually slightly better but the performance hit is not worth it.


so, dx10 is a lot like vista itself, prettier and slower. i'm not suprised, but the whole point of dx10 was to calculate graphics in a more efficient way so that you would get the same graphics at a much higher fps.
didn't they pick up on any of these issues during the long vista beta testing?

didn't mean to sound so negative. thg is the best.
June 22, 2007 2:38:40 AM

One problem with comparisons of DX9 vs DX10, is separating the DX issue from the Vista issue, from the early drivers issue.

I haven't personaly seen enough to make a "Tom's Hardware" class statement on this.

There's also the non-trivial question of backwards compatibility. I recall a few instances where DX9 games seemed to drop in performance when switching to DX 10 on identical hardware.

A caveat. I'm not a testing specialist.
June 22, 2007 2:33:03 PM

My hope is that ultimately, Vista and DirectX 10 make gaming better the more mature they become. Because for now, they're dragging fairly robust systems down.
June 25, 2007 8:29:59 AM

Quote:

The reality is that we need to spend over $1,000 to get an SLI setup that can actually run the new games? Not to mention the power requirements that these cards will have on our electric bills. Did they under-estimate the power a video card would need to actually do that much more work?

If so, I can see the PC gaming industry dying, as people switch to cheaper console systems like the PS3 and XBOX 360.



^ This

It makes £600 for a PS3 look like a bargin + it can run a tiny bit of linux!
I fell rather sad reading about frame rates drop to 40fps using SLI.
Console ports hold the PC back.
June 25, 2007 12:27:50 PM

Quote:
It makes £600 for a PS3 look like a bargin + it can run a tiny bit of linux!I fell rather sad reading about frame rates drop to 40fps using SLI.Console ports hold the PC back.


Console ports INDEED.

I have been ranting on the codemasters forum RE: DiRT performance. The game won't run over 30FPS at 1920x1080 in Ultra or High settings.It appears to be programmed to auto level itself or something. My machine should not be having these performance issues.

Their take was that DiRT was designed to be "future proof" and no PC currently available could run the game in Ultra Mode at 1920x1080, but machines available in 6-8 months would. 8O

I said thats total BS! In 6-8 months I will have chunked the game in a dusty shelf and moved on. Good luck with that "logic" Codemasters, you just gave all current gamers the middle finger.

After hacking around and making some minor :wink: game settings, I am now able to run 1920x1080 in Ultra mode. The framerate sits solid at 30FPS no matter the situation so its completely smooth. I figure I hit the sweet spot for this console mod
June 26, 2007 9:18:32 AM

Looking at all those screens, it looks no different from how it looked on the 360. I just think that all this hoo-ha about DX10 demos is silly. You can’t expect a game that has DX10 extensions bolted on to give a true view of how games will look. But then again it has already been said, all that the DX10 version adds is slightly better graphics.
June 26, 2007 10:45:25 AM

Quote:


I have been ranting on the codemasters forum RE: DiRT performance. The game won't run over 30FPS at 1920x1080 in Ultra or High settings.It appears to be programmed to auto level itself or something. My machine should not be having these performance issues.


I can't stand codemaster stuff. sweatshop factory games.

FPS
If you have motion blur and other simulated camera effects, 30 FPS should look great on a TV. I'd be interested to know about TV / monitor frame rate calibration.
With cards getting 160fps ratings and other unusable / un-viewable rates, perhaps it time to look at minimum lowest screen rate.
If a game doesn’t drop below 30 FPS with everything turned up to max then that card is a winner.

To lock the code so it doesn’t run over 30fps is mental.
It would be nice to thing that the extra fps you could of had is being used for A.I.
!