Time to upgrade? REAL benefits of Directx10 demonstrated

After multiple disappointing Directx10 performances from Lost Planet, Bioshock, and Company of Heroes, maybe Directx10 has some merit after all. Does this mean I actually have to upgrade to Vista and a new card after all?

You do realize Call of Juarez has been out for a while, and has bad dx10 performance. Bioshock, of the games you listed, has great dx10 performance.Baselerd

I'm sorry, but that's just wrong. Bioshock supports Directx10, but shows little difference in appearance during gameplay as evidenced by Gamespot just this week.

Yes, Call of Juarez has been out for some time, but no, it does not have "bad dx10 performance." If you visited the site I originally referenced, you would see that visually the game is far superior to its DX9 version in appearance after the DX10 patch. It's just that DX10 cards are forced to process more graphically, making them seem slower than the DX9 cards than cannot support DX10 at all.

[QUOTE="Baselerd"]You do realize Call of Juarez has been out for a while, and has bad dx10 performance. Bioshock, of the games you listed, has great dx10 performance.Bozanimal

I'm sorry, but that's just wrong. Bioshock supports Directx10, but shows little difference in appearance during gameplay as evidenced by Gamespot just this week.

Yes, Call of Juarez has been out for some time, but no, it does not have "bad dx10 performance." If you visited the site I originally referenced, you would see that visually the game is far superior to its DX9 version in appearance after the DX10 patch. It's just that DX10 cards are forced to process more graphically, making them seem slower than the DX9 cards than cannot support DX10 at all.

I think the point is that Call of Juarez runs poorly in DX10 mode-you get bad frame rates, as it is poorly optimized. I would rather have decent frame rates on DX9 mode personally. Bioshock on the other hand offers little graphical difference but at least runs well.

[QUOTE="Baselerd"]You do realize Call of Juarez has been out for a while, and has bad dx10 performance. Bioshock, of the games you listed, has great dx10 performance.Bozanimal

I'm sorry, but that's just wrong. Bioshock supports Directx10, but shows little difference in appearance during gameplay as evidenced by Gamespot just this week.

Yes, Call of Juarez has been out for some time, but no, it does not have "bad dx10 performance." If you visited the site I originally referenced, you would see that visually the game is far superior to its DX9 version in appearance after the DX10 patch. It's just that DX10 cards are forced to process more graphically, making them seem slower than the DX9 cards than cannot support DX10 at all.

Dx9 vs Dx10 in bioshock is very llttle difference besides the use of AA, AF,shodows and maybe some extra lighting in Dx10. What ive been seening in these so called Dx 10 the effects can be pulled of with Dx 9 besides SM 4. Like the added textures with CoJ can be done with Dx 9 Look at for example Fakefactory's High Res. textures for HL2. They can do it in Dx 9 but they are trying Dx10 as a marketing ploy better graphics compared to Dx 9, that maybe the case down the road but right now not very much difference.

Call of Juarez with this new DX10 patch looks great, and seems to play very well.

But much like when it came to the debut of HDR, it seems DirectX10 in general favors cards that have a higher amount of video RAM. The way the 8800gts (320MB) card tanked compared to the 8800GTS (640MB) model - even running at identical clock speeds - seems to show that DirectX 10 wants a high RAM card (512MB or more) to be able to fully appreciate all the eye candy it can produce and still have a fluid running game.

The other note of concern is that they did not test in any widescreen resolutions whatsoever. I'd like to at least have a clue what to expect if I did get this game and ran it at 1680x1050 (my monitor's native res). 

I wonder what Crysis is going to look like on DX 10... Its only 25 DAYS Until the demo!HostileEffect