Assassin's Creed uses dx10.1?

[bka4u2c]

Well, I have certainly enjoyed playing AC so far. Runs great on my system in my sig. And I certainly won't be installing a patch that removes 10.1 support unless I run into problems playing the game. I'm probably only 1/3 through the game so who knows what might pop up later but so far its been a fun title and not too bad graphically. I'm going to read through the thread that was linked for the patch but so far no crashes or any major issues.

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: bka4u2c
Well, I have certainly enjoyed playing AC so far. Runs great on my system in my sig. And I certainly won't be installing a patch that removes 10.1 support unless I run into problems playing the game. I'm probably only 1/3 through the game so who knows what might pop up later but so far its been a fun title and not too bad graphically. I'm going to read through the thread that was linked for the patch but so far no crashes or any major issues.

it DOES appear to run exceptionally well on 3870; i agree you should not take DX10.1 out unless you get issues, somehow, later.

However, for us guys with lesser GPUs or NVIDIA GPUs it appears to need to be "reWorked" since Obi screwed it up.

Right? am i missing something here?


EDIT: 1/3 of the way thru? is it repetitive?

 

[taltamir]

No it doesn't, and doesn't on any NV hardware since DX10.1 isn't supported. The skipped render pass/20% AA improvement only exhibits itself in DX10.1 mode, which by default requires 1) Vista 2) SP1 and 3) ATI HD 3000 series hardware. Any problems related to this DX10.1 glitch wouldn't impact NV as it simply cannot. I did not see any specific mention of this problem on NV hardware by the Devs or in that link.

I have a feeling the 8800-series problems relate to the 174.XX beta drivers as they are clearly hit and miss with AC based on Guru3D forums feedback. Many users indicate crashes in either DX9 or DX10 or both, but 169.44 runs the game fine. I've had no problems with 174.32, 174.85 and 174.93 in AC or other titles, but 174.74 gave me alt-tab crashes and another gave a BSOD on boot. If I had to guess that's the reason 174 have not been WHQL'd as a unified driver package, as there still seems to be lingering problems with older 8-series parts.

Again, the game runs spectacularly at 1920x1200 max everything, no AA (disabled in menu) 16 AF between 30-60FPS with Vsync on. If every game ran as well and looked as good as AC I wouldn't have anything to complain about.

I am in a similar boat. My 8800GTS 512MB with 174.74 drivers run AC on DX10 with max EVERYTHING and Vsync on 1920x1200 (except one option, don't remember which, that is grayed out on 1/3 and I can't change at all, neither up OR down) and is rather smooth. So I really don't see the point in any of this.

 

[ronnn]

Benskywalker nicely summed up the point of all this. Will ati hardware get similar gains throughout using dx 10.1 software? If so ...... nice one for ati.

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: ronnn
Benskywalker nicely summed up the point of all this. Will ati hardware get similar gains throughout using dx 10.1 software? If so ...... nice one for ati.

agreed .. the problem - currently is - will there be a properly running game that (1) really takes advantage of it?; after patching has (2) similar gains? and (3) will a second game comes out before GT-200?

If all of those come to pass, then - then ..-> "nice one AMD"

it is premature to make that call now, i think

i can say i hope DX10.1 DOES make nice gains