AT's Real World DirectX 10 Performance: It Ain't Pretty

[postmortemIA]

Originally posted by: Matt2
Yeah, but I wanted to get a new video as my X1900XTX gets blown to bits by almost every game at 1900x1200.

I think i might as well wait for some refreshes.

Game on 1600x1200 1:1..if you can't, time for a new card.

 

[cm123]

how in the hell can one be new to vista and dx10 if your in the industry?

How many years have we had public betas even, the 8800gtx is about 1yr old now too... not like companies have not had some time.


Its starting to look clear, forget this gen. of dx10 cards and look to whats coming next, we need lots of power and some good dirvers - solves the problem...


...not normal, yes things not look that great with XP, however you could install MS top OS (XP Pro) and top hardware, have very playable system, Ultimate 64 and many dx10 games (few there are and demos etc...) with things cranked up, not playable in many cases... try it and see...


sure drivers blaa blaa and such, bring on the 8900 GTX - lets see the many times more powerful card, just wonder what AMD has to answer the 8900?

 

[MarcVenice]

Why forget them ? The higher end cards still give plenty of performance in dx9, better then any dx9 card out there, they aren't any different from the 6x00 move to the 7x00 series. I bet my ass that they will be needed for games like assasins creed and such, even though those aren't dx10.

People are just negative about dx10, and think negative about dx10 cards as well. But they are nothing new under the sun, they are just better cards then the previous generation, and dx10 capable, like other cards would be shader 3.0 capable instead of shader 2.0.

 

[cm123]

Originally posted by: cm123
how in the hell can one be new to vista and dx10 if your in the industry?

How many years have we had public betas even, the 8800gtx is about 1yr old now too... not like companies have not had some time.


Its starting to look clear, forget this gen. of dx10 cards and look to whats coming next, we need lots of power and some good dirvers - solves the problem...


...not normal, yes things not look that great with XP, however you could install MS top OS (XP Pro) and top hardware, have very playable system, Ultimate 64 and many dx10 games (few there are and demos etc...) with things cranked up, not playable in many cases... try it and see...


sure drivers blaa blaa and such, bring on the 8900 GTX - lets see the many times more powerful card, just wonder what AMD has to answer the 8900?

why forget them? - if we have better... yep your totally right, current cards cut most todays games and people are giving dx 10 bad rap - i'm totally with you on that, however that being said, lets bring on some new hardware that handles dx 10 and puts this to rest.

I myself have played few dx10 titles on ultimate 64 system, seen framerates way down in single digits - not fun playing, there is the need for cards like the 8900 series coming, I just really hope AMD has something to offer back as otherwise we can expect more crap drivers and high prices...

 

[HannibalX]

Originally posted by: apoppin
my prediction:

SLI and X-fire will get much more popular due to these performance-hogging titles

--it IS a conspiracy
:Q

That's not far off seeing as both companies have been known to fix prices on highend parts.

 

[sliderule]

If it came to that I'd just buy a console, and I hate consoles.

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: MarcVenice
Why forget them ? The higher end cards still give plenty of performance in dx9, better then any dx9 card out there, they aren't any different from the 6x00 move to the 7x00 series. I bet my ass that they will be needed for games like assasins creed and such, even though those aren't dx10.

People are just negative about dx10, and think negative about dx10 cards as well. But they are nothing new under the sun, they are just better cards then the previous generation, and dx10 capable, like other cards would be shader 3.0 capable instead of shader 2.0.

except ... *except* ... the low/mid range is NO improvement over their DX9 predecessors they are replacing ... both nvidia and AMD spent the big bucks on the high-end and it looks like the midrange was an afterthought to earn them maximum dollars. it is though they KNEW that they didn't have to. Maybe there is some 'deal' from way back when and only the fanboys take the casualties.
:Q

the HD2900xt convincingly beats the x1950xtx and is a worthy successor just as the 8800 beat the 7850 series before it ...
--but *but* ... the performance of the mid-range is ... is ... really pretty sad ; it appears they are just cashing in on the "vista DX10" hype ... it may just set back PC gaming a full year.

i am starting to dislike both companies pretty equally
EDIT: clarification: i hate the tactics they employ; i really like their high-end products this year and last

 

[MarcVenice]

true the mid-end cards suck. But it's not like the 7600gs card and the 7300gt cards outperformed the high end 6x00 parts, is it ?

 

[evolucion8]

Originally posted by: apoppin

Originally posted by: Sylvanas
If memory serves me correct when the 9700pro came out heralding the new generation of DX9 it breezed through the new DX9 titles.... no such thing this generation.

i don't think so ... performance hogs like DE-IW killed it

and the 9600p was pretty weak also

we survived DX9 and i think it will be oK for DX10 .. if nvidia and AMD get a move on .. perhaps they really are conspiring to max their individual profit by releasing similar low end junk
:Q

maybe intel will shock em both on the low end

That can be called an exception of the rule, early DX9 like Halo and Aquanox played flawlessly with the 9700PRO, even second generation of DX9 games like Far Cry and Half Life 2 played on the highest quality settings with 2x Anti Aliasing. (I played Half Life 2 at 1024x768 with everything maxed and 2x FSAA and the game never dipped below 30fps) Far Cry played with everything maxed at 1024x768 without FSAA, I was able to turn FSAA at 2x, but sometimes would dip to low 20's and that's out of my tastes.

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: MarcVenice
true the mid-end cards suck. But it's not like the 7600gs card and the 7300gt cards outperformed the high end 6x00 parts, is it ?

of course not

the thing to take note of is the lowest performance increase ... percentagewise of the DX10 parts over the DX9 parts they are replacing:
they cannot play any curent DX10 game satisfactorily and have arguably "the same" DX9 performance as the parts they replace -
--UNLIKE with the higher end series [29xx/88xx] cards

and don't forget, evolucion8, DE-IW was quite an "exception" ... it ushered in the DX9 Unreal2.x engine with the most awesome SHADOWS & LIGHTING of their time ... even the 9800xt didn't run it very well ... x850xt finally had the "muscle"
--and the "improved" Unreal2's Thief-DS - which cleaned up a lot of the DX9 coding inefficiencies of DE-IW - still looks really nice on the x1950 series with the texture packs.

 

[postmortemIA]

Originally posted by: apoppin

Originally posted by: MarcVenice
true the mid-end cards suck. But it's not like the 7600gs card and the 7300gt cards outperformed the high end 6x00 parts, is it ?

of course not

the thing to take note of is the lowest performance increase ... percentagewise of the DX10 parts over the DX9 parts they are replacing:
they cannot play any curent DX10 game satisfactorily and have arguably "the same" DX9 performance as the parts they replace -
--UNLIKE with the higher end series [29xx/88xx] cards

and don't forget, evolucion8, DE-IW was quite an "exception" ... it ushered in the DX9 Unreal2.x engine with the most awesome SHADOWS & LIGHTING of their time ... even the 9800xt didn't run it very well ... x850xt finally had the "muscle"
--and the "improved" Unreal2's Thief-DS - which cleaned up a lot of the DX9 coding inefficiencies of DE-IW - still looks really nice on the x1950 series with the texture packs.

Isn't DE-IW slow because it was a console port?

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: postmortemIA

Originally posted by: apoppin

Originally posted by: MarcVenice
true the mid-end cards suck. But it's not like the 7600gs card and the 7300gt cards outperformed the high end 6x00 parts, is it ?

of course not

the thing to take note of is the lowest performance increase ... percentagewise of the DX10 parts over the DX9 parts they are replacing:
they cannot play any curent DX10 game satisfactorily and have arguably "the same" DX9 performance as the parts they replace -
--UNLIKE with the higher end series [29xx/88xx] cards

and don't forget, evolucion8, DE-IW was quite an "exception" ... it ushered in the DX9 Unreal2.x engine with the most awesome SHADOWS & LIGHTING of their time ... even the 9800xt didn't run it very well ... x850xt finally had the "muscle"
--and the "improved" Unreal2's Thief-DS - which cleaned up a lot of the DX9 coding inefficiencies of DE-IW - still looks really nice on the x1950 series with the texture packs.

Isn't DE-IW slow because it was a console port?

it also had some pretty nifty new features that challenged the latest-and-greatest of the time
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deus_Ex:_Invisible_War

Invisible War uses a heavily modified version of the Unreal Engine 2 developed by Epic Games, Inc. Amongst the added or replaced features are a custom renderer with real-time lighting and the Havok v2.0 middleware physics engine, as opposed to the Unreal Engine's Karma middleware solution. Havok v2.0 is also seen in such titles as Max Payne 2: The Fall of Max Payne and Painkiller. Many objects in the world have size, weight, mass and can be picked up and thrown, nudged, or blown around by the force of an explosion. Lights can be moved, and this alters the shadows cast by objects.

you mean was it "cross platform" ... like the majority of new games ... yes

But then so was Thief-DS a cross-platform game ... it debuted 6 months after IW, it had a much better implementation of the same code, looked AND ran much better

 

[Laminator]

I actually played Deus Ex: Invisible War on a 9700 (can't remember if it was a PRO or not), 1024x768, maximum settings, no AA and it played perfectly well. Good stuff. Too bad the weapons sucked. Baton + full strength augmentation + full EMP melee augmentation = ultimate cyber ninja.

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: Laminator
I actually played Deus Ex: Invisible War on a 9700 (can't remember if it was a PRO or not), 1024x768, maximum settings, no AA and it played perfectly well. Good stuff. Too bad the weapons sucked. Baton + full strength augmentation + full EMP melee augmentation = ultimate cyber ninja.

i doubt it was "max" ... i don't think you can play it even today on a 9700p after it is fully optimized "fully maxed out" on the DX9 pathway with full lighting and shadows enabled - i played on a 9800xt and had occasional slowdowns at 10x7. In fact, i upgraded from r8500/125M for Thief DS and IW just to play satisfactorily the DX9 pathway ... it was so ugly without the new shadows and lighting that Unreal engine debuted.

... and the weapons did not suck. Did you play it on "tourist"?

 

[CP5670]

I played it on a Geforce 3 (slideshow at any settings), a 6800GT (borderline, ran okay at 800x600 with lighting and shadows turned down a bit), two 7800GTs (ran well at 1024x768 with same settings, struggled at anything higher) and eventually an X1900XTX (runs smoothly at 1600x1200 with all settings except AA). That game was probably the worst bloatware I had encountered at the time. I think it was the first major DX9 game, although Far Cry came out six months later and both looked and ran far better.

 

[Keysplayr]

Actually, Nvidia releasing a 64 shader 8600GTS or something like that, would probably fill that gap nicely. Maybe with the 65nm shrink we can have something like it.