Interesting DX9 vs DX10 caps

Glordit said:
I myself still think Dx10 is not ready yet nor is Vista, it just has bad performance IMO, Dx10 was just created to give a reason for people to buy Windows Vista! ;)
Click to expand...

I totally agree with you! That is, for normal people with normal systems, not enthusiasts who are able to spend a buttload of cash on their rigs.
 
Glordit said:
I myself still think Dx10 is not ready yet nor is Vista, it just has bad performance IMO, Dx10 was just created to give a reason for people to buy Windows Vista! ;)
Click to expand...

exactly! another marketing scheme to buy Vista. as of next year jan or feb, support for XP will be discontinued. another move on their part to promote windows '98, i mean Vista. the b@stards.
 
ShockG said:
DX10 is about performance more than visual features
Click to expand...

I have to disagree there. It may be my configuration (I feel that I can tweak things here and there), but here is my experience:

I run Crysis at 1920*1080 since my display's native resolution is 1080p. In DX9 mode, I get 25-30fps consistently, which in my opinion is playable. In DX10 mode, I get around 23-28 fps, but whenever there is water nearby, my frame rate drops to around 11 fps, which is unplayable. In general, on my system, Crysis runs 2-3 fps slower in DX10 mode than in DX9 mode, except for rendering water, where the difference is huge.

Running Vista x64 btw.
 
one of these sites like guru3d had a feature where they benchmarked running games in vista with dx10 and with dx9. their results on the same settings leaned to dx9 performance.
 
milomak said:
one of these sites like guru3d had a feature where they benchmarked running games in vista with dx10 and with dx9. their results on the same settings leaned to dx9 performance.
Click to expand...

Yep, I was under that impression too from I've read.
 
MrE said:
Ya but that's one game, and generally Vista is the same or a little slower with games, for now.
Not talking about dudes with uber rigs, just us mere mortals.
How much slower? Like I said, in all the reviews and tests I've read, XP is the same if not slightly faster, even with the latest drivers.
Click to expand...

+1 Have not seen any reviews where they show Vista faster than XP, even in the OP's post the ign link shows XP running very high settings being considerably faster than Vista
 
1. Any game that was capable of running on XP will not magically be DX10 under Vista. That is Far Cry, Half-Life 2 etc... are all DX9 and will continue to be for eternity. When running under Vista they use DX9.0L still as Vista has separate DX9 and DX10 API's (or at least renderers).

2. A DX10 native game is not the same as a DX10 enabled game (like Crysis, UT3, GOW are all enabled)

3. Any tests done to determine performance between Xp and Vista are not DX9 vs DX10 since the titles used are DX9 and on both Operating systems DX9 is being used. These tests are OS vs OS not API vs API... There hasn't been a DX9 vs DX10 comparison and there is unlikely to be one as there is not game that's going to be native DX10 and native DX9 at the same time.

4. Keep in mind that XP's driver model is far simpler than the one employed by Vista. So it has less overhead han the Vista driver but the Vista driver has less execution time overhead (hardware assisted state changes etc...). XP has had 6 years of driver tweaking, Vista has had 11 months.
 
ShockG said:
1. Any game that was capable of running on XP will not magically be DX10 under Vista. That is Far Cry, Half-Life 2 etc... are all DX9 and will continue to be for eternity. When running under Vista they use DX9.0L still as Vista has separate DX9 and DX10 API's (or at least renderers).

2. A DX10 native game is not the same as a DX10 enabled game (like Crysis, UT3, GOW are all enabled)

3. Any tests done to determine performance between Xp and Vista are not DX9 vs DX10 since the titles used are DX9 and on both Operating systems DX9 is being used. These tests are OS vs OS not API vs API... There hasn't been a DX9 vs DX10 comparison and there is unlikely to be one as there is not game that's going to be native DX10 and native DX9 at the same time.

4. Keep in mind that XP's driver model is far simpler than the one employed by Vista. So it has less overhead han the Vista driver but the Vista driver has less execution time overhead (hardware assisted state changes etc...). XP has had 6 years of driver tweaking, Vista has had 11 months.
Click to expand...

Well said :) Hopefully you won't have such a tough time explaining what you mean by "DirectX 9 games don't run in DirectX 10" as I did :D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X