Evidence that DirectX 10 is meh?

After looking at Gamespot's article comparing DX9 and DX10 in Crysis I'm more convinced that DX10 is not that big a deal and more inclined to hold off on upgrading to Vista until I am absolutely forced to.

It looks like there is almost nothing you can do in DX10 that you can't approximate in DX9 and DX9 still performs better (barely at low resolutions, significantly at high ones). I'm sure people will claim that they see significant differences between the two, but I see nothing that's gonna affect how much I enjoy a game.

After looking at Gamespot's article comparing DX9 and DX10 in Crysis I'm more convinced that DX10 is not that big a deal and more inclined to hold off on upgrading to Vista until I am absolutely forced to.

It looks like there is almost nothing you can do in DX10 that you can't approximate in DX9 and DX9 still performs better (barely at low resolutions, significantly at high ones). I'm sure people will claim that they see significant differences between the two, but I see nothing that's gonna affect how much I enjoy a game.

giantraddish

I'm a Vista "early adopter" and I did so exclusively for DX10. Now I wish I would have waited as I can't stand Vista and I recommend that nobody EVER uses it for any reason. XP ftw.

I didn't get it for DX10 so it doesn't matter. It's different if you buy a PC with it preinstalled but to upgrade solely for DX10 is lame.

I didn't get it for DX10 so it doesn't matter. Upgrading anOperating Systemsolely for DX10 is lame.

Deihmos

Especially when DX10 is just a gimmick that doesn't do anything. I thought it was an astronomical leap forward in programming logic and optimization.

Well it actually might be exactly what it's marketed as...but Vista sucks so much that it negates any reason to use DX10.

Not DX10 games...just proof that DX10 is worth the money or actually does something.

At this point all that has been proven is that it doesn't run as well as DX9 or look any better.

And what sucks about Vista is the fact that it does everything that XP does but it does it worse/poorly. It's slower, FAR more cumbersome, consumes more electricity (because it's not optimized software), removes clarity from administrative tasks (try using Vista as a network admin...you'll HATE the networking system within 5 minutes), and there were a lot of things that were changed that didn't need to be changed...like UAC.

Vista is just Windows ME 2.0 and you really should pass it up if you haven't bought it already. Wait for Windows 7...I think that's what it's called at least.

[QUOTE="giantraddish"]

After looking at Gamespot's article comparing DX9 and DX10 in Crysis I'm more convinced that DX10 is not that big a deal and more inclined to hold off on upgrading to Vista until I am absolutely forced to.

It looks like there is almost nothing you can do in DX10 that you can't approximate in DX9 and DX9 still performs better (barely at low resolutions, significantly at high ones). I'm sure people will claim that they see significant differences between the two, but I see nothing that's gonna affect how much I enjoy a game.

D9-THC

I'm a Vista "early adopter" and I did so exclusively for DX10. Now I wish I would have waited as I can't stand Vista and I recommend that nobody EVER uses it for any reason. XP ftw.

Only a few people are still singing this tune. Vista is fine, the people who think it sucks are the ones who jumped on it when it first came out, which is a stupid thing to do anyway. All new OS's have bugs, Vista is fine now.

As for DX10 Crysis is only one game, it will not be the end all be all of DX10. I see a notable difference in World in Conflict since I actually played it in XP first then switched to Vista. I only played Crysis DX10 so have no clue about comparisons. All in all I think peopleput way too much stock in that game. It is not the definingfactor for anything.

DX10 simply increases performance(About 30% I believe) in comparison to DX9 when dealing with heavy shaders, lighting effects etc. Nothing else. The DX10 effects in crysis could be done in DX9, but it would take a larger toll on performance than DX10 would. onemic

That was definitely the marketing hype. But every benchmark I have seen so far (including Gamespot's Crysis benchmarks) has shown the opposite to be true. DX9 performs more efficiently on identical hardware than DX10. The article comparing Crysis in DX9 and DX10 also seems to show that there is no significant difference in appearance between DX9 and DX10. At the moment.

People are making a fair point that DX10 is still new technology and DX9 has had years to be optimized. Give Microsoft a few years to optimize and us a few years to upgrade hardware and we'll all be fine. I'm just sticking with DX9 as long as it's still breathing.

Not DX10 games...just proof that DX10 is worth the money or actually does something.

At this point all that has been proven is that it doesn't run as well as DX9 or look any better.

And what sucks about Vista is the fact that it does everything that XP does but it does it worse/poorly. It's slower, FAR more cumbersome, consumes more electricity (because it's not optimized software), removes clarity from administrative tasks (try using Vista as a network admin...you'll HATE the networking system within 5 minutes), and there were a lot of things that were changed that didn't need to be changed...like UAC.

Vista is just Windows ME 2.0 and you really should pass it up if you haven't bought it already. Wait for Windows 7...I think that's what it's called at least.

D9-THC

you're not the rational type, are you? Vista is faster because it pre caches apps and uses multi-core and gpus in a more efficient way to accelerate the interface and usability. It's been a LONG WHILE for Microsoft to come out with an independant graphical interface, MacOS users have had it for years. I'm not the biggest fan of the excessive loyality with Apple users, but they don't cry to their mommies when they release new costy updates/versions every years or so. Windows got it the other way around, how long would you have waited for MS to come up with a better OS that actually USES the enormous amount of ram that people have. When I click on my most used App or function, I already want it loaded in my ram, as simple as that.

Let me continue on the slower thing, do you know how crap effective xp is when it comes to indexing and file searching, it rapes my HD like hell, lags everything, and plain sucks at organising my data. When you have a big multimedia library, it's a must.

consumes more electricity? now you're being plain air. whatever, even the sleep mode is better...

Again, vague with the removes clarity from administrative tasks. If you're anything close to a power user you shouldknow the control panel is newb oriented and failed at that. It's much, much more natural now with the search function and who changes settings from there anyway? Somebody should learn My Computer -> Manage magical trick.

UAC is bad. I agree, that's why you disable it -first thing, in 30 sec.

The next Windows version is called Vienna, and will be very similar to Vista. By that time you probably will have forgotten about XP.

Dx10 is better then Dx9: Fact or theory? Fact.OoSuperMarioO

Theory, as of now. You'd better be with DX9 rather than DX10

Then DX10 is more optimized or w/e then it will be a fact.

But by then, the new windows OS will be out as well.

Dx10 is better then Dx9: Fact or theory? Fact.OoSuperMarioO

Theory, as of now. You'd better be with DX9 rather than DX10

Then DX10 is more optimized or w/e then it will be a fact.

But by then, the new windows OS will be out as well.

[QUOTE="OoSuperMarioO"]Dx10 is better then Dx9: Fact or theory? Fact.Sliverwarrior

Theory, as of now. You'd better be with DX9 rather than DX10

Then DX10 is more optimized or w/e then it will be a fact.

But by then, the new windows OS will be out as well.

[QUOTE="Sliverwarrior"]

[QUOTE="OoSuperMarioO"]Dx10 is better then Dx9: Fact or theory? Fact.OoSuperMarioO

Theory, as of now. You'd better be with DX9 rather than DX10

Then DX10 is more optimized or w/e then it will be a fact.

But by then, the new windows OS will be out as well.

I don't use vista nor watch youtube videos??

DX10 has the potential to be better than DX9, but right now its not.

It will be when they learn how to use it and optimize it better.

That is all

Do you remember articles like this:

In an earlier article, it was reported that Crysis was running at 60+ fps for most of the time at CES 2007. In this new article, Jack Mamais tells techspot that the game is running at a resolution of 2048x1536. Judging by the HUD size in the images below, this seems like it's true.Combine that information with the fact that most of the code is still unoptimized, and you can easily understand how well Crysis will run. Take note that Crysis was running in DX10 at CES 2007, so could Microsoft's claim of 6 to 8 time the performance be true? If you read some of the earlier news items or read the techspot link posted below, you'd also know that Crysis was running an unknown core 2 duo processor and a single 8800GTX.

Obviously no. Dx10 has been a huge letdown this far there's no denying it, WiC seems to be the only game that really benefits from it. In Crysis the Very High settings could be enable in XP too together with the DX10 exclusive effects ..and it ran better than on Vista with DX10.

And did you see the Gears benchmark:

DX10 On = No Advantage

We are not sure exactly what turning on DX10 does, but we do know it causes a large performance drop on every video card. In our testing we found absolutely no image quality differences by turning this to "On." The only benefit was being able to use "On/Antialiasing" for 4X AA, but you need a very fast video card to use that setting. If you have a GeForce 8800 GTX/Ultra level video card you can enjoy that setting. But on the GeForce 8800 GT/GTS and Radeon HD 2900 XT you will have to sacrifice other in-game options or resolutions in order to use 4X AA. It is rather a shame because we noticed that 4X AA does improve the visual quality of this game in a noticeable way.

Hopefully it will start proving itself in the near future but this far it has only distracted the developers from polishing the aspects of the games that truly matter, and lowered performance with some very minor visual improvements. Vista and DX10 are failures this far which is sad because it was supposed to be the "next gen of PC gaming".

My take on Crysis and DX10 is that the game was built on DX9 because hardware supporting the API was -not- in their hands when they hard coded. They must have slowly tried to convert what they, (from Crytek) started working on just after Farcry. Sadly, the Gamespot article is a slap on the face of many of us, who decided to go DX10 almost entirely for it. Microsoft should respond officially with a concrete response to the article.

But all this aside, I wouldn't see why from all the 10 updates we had over the years of DX, 10would be a conspiracy to buy Vista and that DX9 is perfect as it is.... OpenGL will be very relevant on comparing newupdates vsDX9.

[QUOTE="D9-THC"]

Not DX10 games...just proof that DX10 is worth the money or actually does something.

At this point all that has been proven is that it doesn't run as well as DX9 or look any better.

And what sucks about Vista is the fact that it does everything that XP does but it does it worse/poorly. It's slower, FAR more cumbersome, consumes more electricity (because it's not optimized software), removes clarity from administrative tasks (try using Vista as a network admin...you'll HATE the networking system within 5 minutes), and there were a lot of things that were changed that didn't need to be changed...like UAC.

Vista is just Windows ME 2.0 and you really should pass it up if you haven't bought it already. Wait for Windows 7...I think that's what it's called at least.

CubePrime_basic

you're not the rational type, are you? Vista is faster because it pre caches apps and uses multi-core and gpus in a more efficient way to accelerate the interface and usability. It's been a LONG WHILE for Microsoft to come out with an independant graphical interface, MacOS users have had it for years. I'm not the biggest fan of the excessive loyality with Apple users, but they don't cry to their mommies when they release new costy updates/versions every years or so. Windows got it the other way around, how long would you have waited for MS to come up with a better OS that actually USES the enormous amount of ram that people have. When I click on my most used App or function, I already want it loaded in my ram, as simple as that.

Let me continue on the slower thing, do you know how crap effective xp is when it comes to indexing and file searching, it rapes my HD like hell, lags everything, and plain sucks at organising my data. When you have a big multimedia library, it's a must.

consumes more electricity? now you're being plain air. whatever, even the sleep mode is better...

Again, vague with the removes clarity from administrative tasks. If you're anything close to a power user you shouldknow the control panel is newb oriented and failed at that. It's much, much more natural now with the search function and who changes settings from there anyway? Somebody should learn My Computer -> Manage magical trick.

UAC is bad. I agree, that's why you disable it -first thing, in 30 sec.

The next Windows version is called Vienna, and will be very similar to Vista. By that time you probably will have forgotten about XP.

I'd like to edit this because I sound like a dick... Sorry man. But the Gamespot forums are not permitting me....

[QUOTE="OoSuperMarioO"][QUOTE="Sliverwarrior"]

[QUOTE="OoSuperMarioO"]Dx10 is better then Dx9: Fact or theory? Fact.Sliverwarrior

Theory, as of now. You'd better be with DX9 rather than DX10

Then DX10 is more optimized or w/e then it will be a fact.

But by then, the new windows OS will be out as well.

I don't use vista nor watch youtube videos??

DX10 has the potential to be better than DX9, but right now its not.

It will be when they learn how to use it and optimize it better.

That is all

[QUOTE="onemic"]DX10 simply increases performance(About 30% I believe) in comparison to DX9 when dealing with heavy shaders, lighting effects etc. Nothing else. The DX10 effects in crysis could be done in DX9, but it would take a larger toll on performance than DX10 would. giantraddish

That was definitely the marketing hype. But every benchmark I have seen so far (including Gamespot's Crysis benchmarks) has shown the opposite to be true. DX9 performs more efficiently on identical hardware than DX10. The article comparing Crysis in DX9 and DX10 also seems to show that there is no significant difference in appearance between DX9 and DX10. At the moment.

People are making a fair point that DX10 is still new technology and DX9 has had years to be optimized. Give Microsoft a few years to optimize and us a few years to upgrade hardware and we'll all be fine. I'm just sticking with DX9 as long as it's still breathing.

The reason you see the opposite is that most games(All actually, except crysis) is that when DX10 mode is enabled a bunch of settings exclusive to DX10 are also enabled. These extra shaders, textures, and whatnot slow down performance, albeit at less a degree than if they were enabled on a DX9 rig. That's the reason why most games with DX10 mode on drop drastically in performance. Not only that, but because DX10 is vista only, which is known to be a resource hog, it's no surprise that performance drops dramatically. IF DX10 was available for XP the drop would probably be alot less substantial.

BTW crysis actually allows the use of DX10 mode without turning on DX10 specific features, meaning that you should see an FPS increase instead of a decrease if you just turn DX10 mode on and don't put any settings to "very high"

[QUOTE="Sliverwarrior"][QUOTE="OoSuperMarioO"][QUOTE="Sliverwarrior"]

[QUOTE="OoSuperMarioO"]Dx10 is better then Dx9: Fact or theory? Fact.OoSuperMarioO

Theory, as of now. You'd better be with DX9 rather than DX10

Then DX10 is more optimized or w/e then it will be a fact.

But by then, the new windows OS will be out as well.

I don't use vista nor watch youtube videos??

DX10 has the potential to be better than DX9, but right now its not.

It will be when they learn how to use it and optimize it better.

That is all

Just look at the article the guy posted.

Having your FPS drop while there is barely any noticeablechanges...

What I mean is: DX10 is simply not worth it compared to DX9 right now.

Its still too early to be bashin DX10, as there are no REAL dx10 games, all games that claim to be are more like ports, with tiny pathetic "enhancements" nothing has been designed ground up for dx10 YET.

Having said that, everything so far has been a joke of low frame rates and barely any noticeable improvements

Its still too early to be bashin DX10, as there are no REAL dx10 games, all games that claim to be are more like ports, with tiny pathetic "enhancements" nothing has been designed ground up for dx10 YET.

Having said that, everything so far has been a joke of low frame rates and barely any noticeable improvements

[QUOTE="OoSuperMarioO"][QUOTE="Sliverwarrior"][QUOTE="OoSuperMarioO"][QUOTE="Sliverwarrior"]

[QUOTE="OoSuperMarioO"]Dx10 is better then Dx9: Fact or theory? Fact.Sliverwarrior

Theory, as of now. You'd better be with DX9 rather than DX10

Then DX10 is more optimized or w/e then it will be a fact.

But by then, the new windows OS will be out as well.

I don't use vista nor watch youtube videos??

DX10 has the potential to be better than DX9, but right now its not.

It will be when they learn how to use it and optimize it better.

That is all

Just look at the article the guy posted.

Having your FPS drop while there is barely any noticeablechanges...

What I mean is: DX10 is simply not worth it compared to DX9 right now.

[QUOTE="Sliverwarrior"][QUOTE="OoSuperMarioO"][QUOTE="Sliverwarrior"][QUOTE="OoSuperMarioO"][QUOTE="Sliverwarrior"]

[QUOTE="OoSuperMarioO"]Dx10 is better then Dx9: Fact or theory? Fact.OoSuperMarioO

Theory, as of now. You'd better be with DX9 rather than DX10

Then DX10 is more optimized or w/e then it will be a fact.

But by then, the new windows OS will be out as well.

I don't use vista nor watch youtube videos??

DX10 has the potential to be better than DX9, but right now its not.

It will be when they learn how to use it and optimize it better.

That is all

Just look at the article the guy posted.

Having your FPS drop while there is barely any noticeablechanges...

What I mean is: DX10 is simply not worth it compared to DX9 right now.

Optimized DX9 > Un-Optimized DX10(not to mention the lack of any "real" DX10 games yet.

[QUOTE="D9-THC"]

Not DX10 games...just proof that DX10 is worth the money or actually does something.

At this point all that has been proven is that it doesn't run as well as DX9 or look any better.

And what sucks about Vista is the fact that it does everything that XP does but it does it worse/poorly. It's slower, FAR more cumbersome, consumes more electricity (because it's not optimized software), removes clarity from administrative tasks (try using Vista as a network admin...you'll HATE the networking system within 5 minutes), and there were a lot of things that were changed that didn't need to be changed...like UAC.

Vista is just Windows ME 2.0 and you really should pass it up if you haven't bought it already. Wait for Windows 7...I think that's what it's called at least.

CubePrime_basic

you're not the rational type, are you? Vista is faster because it pre caches apps and uses multi-core and gpus in a more efficient way to accelerate the interface and usability. It's been a LONG WHILE for Microsoft to come out with an independant graphical interface, MacOS users have had it for years. I'm not the biggest fan of the excessive loyality with Apple users, but they don't cry to their mommies when they release new costy updates/versions every years or so. Windows got it the other way around, how long would you have waited for MS to come up with a better OS that actually USES the enormous amount of ram that people have. When I click on my most used App or function, I already want it loaded in my ram, as simple as that.

Let me continue on the slower thing, do you know how crap effective xp is when it comes to indexing and file searching, it rapes my HD like hell, lags everything, and plain sucks at organising my data. When you have a big multimedia library, it's a must.

consumes more electricity? now you're being plain air. whatever, even the sleep mode is better...

Again, vague with the removes clarity from administrative tasks. If you're anything close to a power user you shouldknow the control panel is newb oriented and failed at that. It's much, much more natural now with the search function and who changes settings from there anyway? Somebody should learn My Computer -> Manage magical trick.

UAC is bad. I agree, that's why you disable it -first thing, in 30 sec.

The next Windows version is called Vienna, and will be very similar to Vista. By that time you probably will have forgotten about XP.

After looking at Gamespot's article comparing DX9 and DX10 in Crysis I'm more convinced that DX10 is not that big a deal and more inclined to hold off on upgrading to Vista until I am absolutely forced to.

It looks like there is almost nothing you can do in DX10 that you can't approximate in DX9 and DX9 still performs better (barely at low resolutions, significantly at high ones). I'm sure people will claim that they see significant differences between the two, but I see nothing that's gonna affect how much I enjoy a game.

giantraddish

Actually if you look at the comparisons between DX9 and DX10 in Bioshock that gamespot did you will see that the water and smoke look better in DX10 (Especially the water). I could not find the article I saw when it first came out but here is another article where they do a brief comparison.

[QUOTE="giantraddish"]

After looking at Gamespot's article comparing DX9 and DX10 in Crysis I'm more convinced that DX10 is not that big a deal and more inclined to hold off on upgrading to Vista until I am absolutely forced to.

It looks like there is almost nothing you can do in DX10 that you can't approximate in DX9 and DX9 still performs better (barely at low resolutions, significantly at high ones). I'm sure people will claim that they see significant differences between the two, but I see nothing that's gonna affect how much I enjoy a game.

Philmon

Actually if you look at the comparisons between DX9 and DX10 in Bioshock that gamespot did you will see that the water and smoke look better in DX10 (Especially the water). I could not find the article I saw when it first came out but here is another article where they do a brief comparison.

[QUOTE="Philmon"][QUOTE="giantraddish"]

After looking at Gamespot's article comparing DX9 and DX10 in Crysis I'm more convinced that DX10 is not that big a deal and more inclined to hold off on upgrading to Vista until I am absolutely forced to.

It looks like there is almost nothing you can do in DX10 that you can't approximate in DX9 and DX9 still performs better (barely at low resolutions, significantly at high ones). I'm sure people will claim that they see significant differences between the two, but I see nothing that's gonna affect how much I enjoy a game.

OoSuperMarioO

Actually if you look at the comparisons between DX9 and DX10 in Bioshock that gamespot did you will see that the water and smoke look better in DX10 (Especially the water). I could not find the article I saw when it first came out but here is another article where they do a brief comparison.

Let's not talk about these guys who totally rejects any facts we throw at them because of their fanboyish-ness.

[QUOTE="OoSuperMarioO"][QUOTE="Philmon"][QUOTE="giantraddish"]

After looking at Gamespot's article comparing DX9 and DX10in Crysis I'm more convinced that DX10 is not that big a deal and more inclined to hold off on upgrading to Vista until I am absolutely forced to.

It looks like there is almost nothing you can do in DX10 that you can't approximate in DX9 and DX9 still performs better (barely at low resolutions, significantly at high ones). I'm sure people will claim that they see significant differences between the two, but I see nothing that's gonna affect how much I enjoy a game.

Sliverwarrior

Actually if you look at the comparisons between DX9 and DX10 in Bioshock that gamespot did you will see that the water and smoke look better in DX10 (Especially the water). I could not find the article I saw when it first came out but here is another article where they do a brief comparison.

Let's not talk about these guys who totally rejects any facts we throw at them because of their fanboyish-ness.

we actually may have to wait for nvidia's 9000 series for Crysis's full potential, apparently crytec couldn't live up to it's own standards according to this link

http://img140.imageshack.us/img140/6115/comparisonshotxt0.jpg

oh, and it looks like GFW is trying to fool everyone, look at the comparison at the bottom of the screen :lol:

http://www.gamesforwindows.com/en-US/AboutGFW/Pages/DirectX10.aspx

anyone with at least half a brain would know that is total BS. THEY ARE COMPARING CRYSIS TO THE FIRST HALO FOR CRYIN' OUT LOUD!

we actually may have to wait for nvidia's 9000 series for Crysis's full potential, apparently crytec couldn't live up to it's own standards according to this link

http://img140.imageshack.us/img140/6115/comparisonshotxt0.jpg

oh, and it looks like GFW is trying to fool everyone, look at the comparison at the bottom of the screen :lol:

http://www.gamesforwindows.com/en-US/AboutGFW/Pages/DirectX10.aspx

anyone with at least half a brain would know that is total BS. THEY ARE COMPARING CRYSIS TO THE FIRST HALO FOR CRYIN' OUT LOUD!

ElArab

I'm sure the differences will be more pronounced in the future. I'm thinking DX10 just has more potential.BlackBart2

Currently:

No Dx10 Cards can Handle Dx10's Advanced Features.

Dx10's Advanced Features barely exist because many programmers haven't learned them yet

Drivers haven't been made to use the few Features that DX10 has already introduced.

Its a learning curve obviously for everyone.

Personally I have Vista and XP installed dual booting.

So I don't feel that bad.

I do feel bad looking back at this formentioned screen shot.

http://img140.imageshack.us/img140/6115/comparisonshotxt0.jpg

Holy poop thats a difference. Although i do think Crysis looks amazing now the other one is real life its so realistic!

Right now XP > Vista for gaming

However, you never know in a month that might change due to a driver. 1 Driver correctly programmed could change the whole game really really quickly.