Direct X 10

[stureandre]

Ok..

I'm getting kinda sick of reading all these review and oither info about DX 10. So all the previous info before it was released said it was going to save gaming and make it faster, while increasing picture quality. And what do we see? Even with Nvidia's fantastic 8800 series and ATI 2900 XT we get crap performance. No hiding it. Even though the picture quality is practially the same.. Very small difference.

The problem come in when people say that it is the HARDWARE's fault. COME ON!! IT IS NOT HARDWARE, IT'S CRAPPY SOFTWARE! IT's always crappy software.

For arguments sake, let us say that DX 10 picture quality is 100% and DX9 is 90%.. Assuming that DX 10 is now 10% better on average, it cost 50% performance..

Does anyone see anything wrong with these numbers?
It brings nothing to quality scene. Ok.. Better bump-mapping, some better smoke and stuff like that, but nothing revolutionary. And this should cut performance in half.. maybe more?

If I can get 100 fps in a game with DX9, then turn on DX10 with almost no improvements in the picture quality and then end up with 50 fps average, I truly hope I'm not the only one seing that there is something seriously wrong here. And I doubt that it is AMD/ATI or nVIDIA's fault. They make grat cards that are MORE than fast enough for DX9. DX 10 sucks and it needs to be fixed. Just to play Call of Juarez, Company of Heroes, of Lost Planet I should not have to upgrade to the new chip that comes this fall.. Performance should actually be FASTER with DX 10. Not half the speed of the original..

I could accept a 10% drop in fps initially untill they refined the sotware a little, but there is no sign of improvement at that front. The drivers can only do so much. MS and game companies need to take immidiate action and shape up and make their stuff properly from the get-go!

Of course there is the marketing thing going on in the background, but we as consumers need to take action and choose not to take it up the ***.

Anyways... Though I share some thoughts on the subject. Please let me know what you guys think. If you think I'm wrong let me know, convince me otherwise.

 

[ROEHUNTER]

I agree with you. I know alot of people are going to say "give it some time", but I still think these first few DX10 titles do not run as they should .

 

[videogames101]

There was just an Anand article about DX10, explaining this lack of results. In short, most DX10 games just aren't built from the ground up FOR DX10. Most are ports, Many are just a kinda of DX9 DX10 hybrid, and we rly won't see games really take advantage of the power of DX10 by being built for DX10 ONLY until a LARGE amount of consumers have DX10 hardware. So, in my opinion OP, your wrong, giving it time actually will work.

 

[stureandre]

I can see that point, but still.. 50% off the fps? That's still lame if you ask me. Even if it a port to DX 10, they should take the time to optimize their software better.

But that proves my point that it is not the hardware's fault. It is poor software that's the problem.

 

[aka1nas]

Did you actually try upgrading your drivers? For pretty much all of the Dx10 releases out so far, Nvidia has had a driver revision out almost immediately after the game was available that drastically improved Dx10 performance and/or image quality.

 

[stureandre]

Yes. I did try the new drivers. A little improvement, but not what it should be.

But just look at any review out there. The only game that I've seen so far that does not yank down the performance is BioShock. It's the same with DX9 and 10.

 

[Matt2]

You have to give it time. Games that are just now coming out all had DX10 added as an after thought.

We still have not seen a game that is native DX10, built from the ground up. By that time we will have more powerful hardware and DX10 will be in great shape.

 

[Zenoth]

The very first DX9 titles weren't that beautiful compared to DX8 games.

Heck even UT2004 which is DX8 has better textures and particle effects than early DX9 games.

Do give Dx10 time, it's what the engineers need. They aren't Gods, they need to learn the new parameters and possibilities and whatnot.

 

[thestain]

Why give software to run games exclusively and only on Vista time?

If it was somethign we could use on XP and maybe even Linux, hell yes, but to make one have to buy M$ newest and most invasive OS, why?

The system cost to generate same performance, picture quality, etc.. is way higher with Direct X 10 than Direct X 9, not the least being the need to move to Vista, even though it could have worked with XP. yep and some of the nicer video cards for Direct X 10 just don't perform well under Vista and Direct X 10.. hmmm

Me thinks, developers would do better finding a way to get their games optimized on XP and non M$ OS's than kissing Bill's ____ nightly.

The Stain

 

[stnicralisk]

Originally posted by: stureandre
Ok..

I'm getting kinda sick of reading all these review and oither info about DX 10. So all the previous info before it was released said it was going to save gaming and make it faster, while increasing picture quality. And what do we see? Even with Nvidia's fantastic 8800 series and ATI 2900 XT we get crap performance. No hiding it. Even though the picture quality is practially the same.. Very small difference.

The problem come in when people say that it is the HARDWARE's fault. COME ON!! IT IS NOT HARDWARE, IT'S CRAPPY SOFTWARE! IT's always crappy software.

For arguments sake, let us say that DX 10 picture quality is 100% and DX9 is 90%.. Assuming that DX 10 is now 10% better on average, it cost 50% performance..

Does anyone see anything wrong with these numbers?
It brings nothing to quality scene. Ok.. Better bump-mapping, some better smoke and stuff like that, but nothing revolutionary. And this should cut performance in half.. maybe more?

If I can get 100 fps in a game with DX9, then turn on DX10 with almost no improvements in the picture quality and then end up with 50 fps average, I truly hope I'm not the only one seing that there is something seriously wrong here. And I doubt that it is AMD/ATI or nVIDIA's fault. They make grat cards that are MORE than fast enough for DX9. DX 10 sucks and it needs to be fixed. Just to play Call of Juarez, Company of Heroes, of Lost Planet I should not have to upgrade to the new chip that comes this fall.. Performance should actually be FASTER with DX 10. Not half the speed of the original..

I could accept a 10% drop in fps initially untill they refined the sotware a little, but there is no sign of improvement at that front. The drivers can only do so much. MS and game companies need to take immidiate action and shape up and make their stuff properly from the get-go!

Of course there is the marketing thing going on in the background, but we as consumers need to take action and choose not to take it up the ***.

Anyways... Though I share some thoughts on the subject. Please let me know what you guys think. If you think I'm wrong let me know, convince me otherwise.

100 is really not 10% better than 90, 99 is 10% better than 100, 100 is closer to 11.11111111111111111111111..........% (11 and 1/9%)

 

[Arkaign]

GL > DX

That is all

 

[cmdrdredd]

Originally posted by: stureandre
I can see that point, but still.. 50% off the fps? That's still lame if you ask me. Even if it a port to DX 10, they should take the time to optimize their software better.

But that proves my point that it is not the hardware's fault. It is poor software that's the problem.

The games made for DX10 can run ported DX9 code with new DX10 features added on top (most games will be this way for a bit) and the benefit of this is DX10 will use DX9 code faster than DX9 can. FPS will go up.

It goes down so much now because of shoddy programmers and lazy developers.

 

[cmdrdredd]

Originally posted by: thestain
Why give software to run games exclusively and only on Vista time?

If it was somethign we could use on XP and maybe even Linux, hell yes, but to make one have to buy M$ newest and most invasive OS, why?

The system cost to generate same performance, picture quality, etc.. is way higher with Direct X 10 than Direct X 9, not the least being the need to move to Vista, even though it could have worked with XP. yep and some of the nicer video cards for Direct X 10 just don't perform well under Vista and Direct X 10.. hmmm

Me thinks, developers would do better finding a way to get their games optimized on XP and non M$ OS's than kissing Bill's ____ nightly.

The Stain

Like it or not, Vista will become 100% necessary to own. It's for a few reasons. 1) MS wants money from it 2) there are more features available in Vista that protect copyright and 3) XP is showing it's age and XP x64 was never adopted widely enough. The need for more than 3GB of memory is hitting some people hard.

You can fight it all you want but you are losing and you will lose the fight. Many people here including myself have moved to Vista long ago and have never thought about using XP again.

 

[stureandre]

Vista is crap. It should NOT be necessary.. It's turning out to be ME all over again.
Vista can turn out nice, if they really start to fix all the small issues.

To be quite honest I love XP. It's a great OS. Vista is just too damn bloated.

And the fact that they cant make DX10 for XP is just bull.. There was a feature in DX10 that made it incompatible with XP, but that specific feature is now removed(it was a GPU virtuilization feature), so there is really no problem making it for XP. But are they? Of course not.

We are the consumers. We should have the right to choose from something that works great, and something that works.. well .. not so great. MS should put forth the effort to make DX10 for XP, it would be a great gesture which shows that MS really care.

 

[SickBeast]

Developers won't flock to DX10 until a critical mass has upgraded to Vista. That hasn't happened yet, and probably won't for the next few years. It's going to delay the transition to DX10 quite a bit, and the platform may indeed be DOA.

Crysis may be make-or-break for the software.

The fact that Vista is getting so much bad press doesn't help matters.

IMO what's happening is a sign of arrogance on Microsoft's part. Really they're being anti-competetive with themselves which is kinda scary. They obviously think they own the PC gaming market.

I hope there's a shift to OpenGL which would open up the market to the Mac and Linux. That right there could boost game sales 10%. :light:

 

[cmdrdredd]

Originally posted by: stureandre
Vista is crap. It should NOT be necessary.. It's turning out to be ME all over again.
Vista can turn out nice, if they really start to fix all the small issues.

To be quite honest I love XP. It's a great OS. Vista is just too damn bloated.

And the fact that they cant make DX10 for XP is just bull.. There was a feature in DX10 that made it incompatible with XP, but that specific feature is now removed(it was a GPU virtuilization feature), so there is really no problem making it for XP. But are they? Of course not.

We are the consumers. We should have the right to choose from something that works great, and something that works.. well .. not so great. MS should put forth the effort to make DX10 for XP, it would be a great gesture which shows that MS really care.

In fact you are wrong. Vista runs fine, is plenty stable and fast, and does not crash.

Stop comming here to whine about it.

For every one person like you who cries about how terrible Vista is there are 10 using it daily with no trouble. MS doesn't care about the few like you anyway.

Did you make your account here specifically to hear yourself whine, moan, cry, and blatantly bash a piece of software that definately works fine as long as developers and manufacturers get their code right? MS isn't responsible for every driver for every peripheral and every bit of code for every game. If a developer can't program for DX10 properly, it's not the fault of MS.

 

[40sTheme]

Originally posted by: cmdrdredd

Originally posted by: stureandre
Vista is crap. It should NOT be necessary.. It's turning out to be ME all over again.
Vista can turn out nice, if they really start to fix all the small issues.

To be quite honest I love XP. It's a great OS. Vista is just too damn bloated.

And the fact that they cant make DX10 for XP is just bull.. There was a feature in DX10 that made it incompatible with XP, but that specific feature is now removed(it was a GPU virtuilization feature), so there is really no problem making it for XP. But are they? Of course not.

We are the consumers. We should have the right to choose from something that works great, and something that works.. well .. not so great. MS should put forth the effort to make DX10 for XP, it would be a great gesture which shows that MS really care.

In fact you are wrong. Vista runs fine, is plenty stable and fast, and does not crash.

Stop comming here to whine about it.

For every one person like you who cries about how terrible Vista is there are 10 using it daily with no trouble. MS doesn't care about the few like you anyway.

Did you make your account here specifically to hear yourself whine, moan, cry, and blatantly bash a piece of software that definately works fine as long as developers and manufacturers get their code right? MS isn't responsible for every driver for every peripheral and every bit of code for every game. If a developer can't program for DX10 properly, it's not the fault of MS.

You are a lucky one. You may not get crashes, but my friends computer on Vista crashes and BSODs every damn game he plays except for Bioshock.

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: cmdrdredd
You can fight it all you want but you are losing and you will lose the fight. Many people here including myself have moved to Vista long ago and have never thought about using XP again.

QFT. :thumbsup:

XP is a distant (and long, happily forgotten) memory.

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: 40sTheme
You are a lucky one. You may not get crashes, but my friends computer on Vista crashes and BSODs every damn game he plays except for Bioshock.

Which, naturally, means that EVERY Vista machine has such issues.

Why does every thread have to turn in to a "OH NOES VISTA IS TEH SUX!" rant?

 

[SickBeast]

IMO Vista crashes *less* than XP at this point.

The issue is the lack of a performance boost with DX10. If people are going to pay $150 for Vista, they expect performance to go up, not down.

 

[n7]

People expect the wrong things.

Those buying Vista purely for DX10...well, let's just say they're not likely to be as happy as those of us who bought it for the improvements other than DX10 it offers.

DX10 support is just a bonus.

 

[Ylurien]

Alright, so what exactly ARE the improvements?

It seems like every time someone defends Vista, they don`t ever have any specifics to back up why they choose to defend the OS.

I have yet to run Vista myself, but there`s just an astounding lack of positive, CONCRETE feedback about the thing and it hasn`t made me excited to upgrade yet.

Is the OS bloated? Does it take longer to do the same functions? If it does, and there are no added benefits, this means that Vista is INFERIOR to XP in this respect. DX10 not running well is understandable, but please PLEASE tell me what there could possibly be about Vista that would warrant a $150 upgrade. All these people smugly saying, "I`ve upgraded to Vista and I`m never gonna look back"... Are you all running supermachines, so much so that you can`t see the differences in speed between the 2 OSs when you run games or day to day operations? Or is there honestly no speed difference (but really, Vista should run FASTER as it`s newer technology).

Give us the scoop, Vista users! For once!

 

[ConstipatedVigilante]

I really don't see Vista becoming a mainstream operating system for another 2-3 years. Developers won't develop exclusively for DX10 while 20% or more of their customer base still has DX9 cards and XP. And, as Ylurien says, I really haven't heard any good arguments for Vista yet. It uses memory more efficiently? Well that's great, except that you need at least 1gb to run it in the first place.

 

[CP5670]

XP seems to have better game compatibility right now, and that's basically all I care about. Vista will eventually pull ahead in this respect though, so I will upgrade at that point.

 

[stureandre]

Originally posted by: cmdrdredd

Originally posted by: stureandre
Vista is crap. It should NOT be necessary.. It's turning out to be ME all over again.
Vista can turn out nice, if they really start to fix all the small issues.

To be quite honest I love XP. It's a great OS. Vista is just too damn bloated.

And the fact that they cant make DX10 for XP is just bull.. There was a feature in DX10 that made it incompatible with XP, but that specific feature is now removed(it was a GPU virtuilization feature), so there is really no problem making it for XP. But are they? Of course not.

We are the consumers. We should have the right to choose from something that works great, and something that works.. well .. not so great. MS should put forth the effort to make DX10 for XP, it would be a great gesture which shows that MS really care.

In fact you are wrong. Vista runs fine, is plenty stable and fast, and does not crash.

Stop comming here to whine about it.

For every one person like you who cries about how terrible Vista is there are 10 using it daily with no trouble. MS doesn't care about the few like you anyway.

Did you make your account here specifically to hear yourself whine, moan, cry, and blatantly bash a piece of software that definately works fine as long as developers and manufacturers get their code right? MS isn't responsible for every driver for every peripheral and every bit of code for every game. If a developer can't program for DX10 properly, it's not the fault of MS.

No.. I disagree. For me, Vista is not that great. Ok fine, it runs ok. But I would take XP over Vista ANY day. Vista is bloated, still lots and lots of bugs in different games etc. But this is not supposed to be a Vista vs XP thing. I was attemting to get a a cross the point that MS should gibe DX10 to XP, and not force us to make transition to Vista since the OS is not really ready for prime time.