[ENTERPRISE]

Quote:

DX10 Demos A while back, we took an extensive look at demos of the highly anticipated PC game Crysis, and compared video of the Windows XP version running DirectX9 to the new Windows Vista version running DX10 (see the THG video on Crysis). We looked at recorded video of actual gameplay demos from E3 2006 and CES 2007, and after careful examination of the footage, it occurred to us that both versions looked amazing. It was extremely tough to tell - both during gameplay and while watching the recorded video later on - which version had the better graphics. There is good news and bad news in this, of course. The good news is that Crytek appears to have designed an incredibly beautiful game that looks just as good on previous generation software. Thus, the majority of PC gamers, who are still running Windows XP with DX9, can rejoice in the comfort that they will likely not miss out on much if they refrain from upgrading to Windows Vista. Now the bad news: is DX10 all that it's cracked up to be?

http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/2007/0...cting_dx10_uk/

 

[ChielScape]

nice find.

 

[pheonixsingh]

same when dx9 came out and plus is only a 1st gen dx10 title

 

[pang786]

nice to know.

 

[mcogan10]

i hated that demo. with a passion.

 

[ELmo1989]

Think this once again get back to Drivers/ vista.
But it is intresting read.

 

[rabidgnome229]

Quote:

Originally Posted by pheonixsingh same when dx9 came out and plus is only a 1st gen dx10 title

That about says it. Crytec may be good - but somehow I doubt they were able to exploit DX10 to its fullest when most of the development was done not only before DX10 was released, but before it was finalized. If you compare Zelda: Majora's Mask to the first generation of PS2 titles Majora's Mask will probably win out a good amount of the time. Does that mean that the PS2's graphics API has few benefits over the N64's? No. The fact that Crytec was able to squeeze so much able out of DX9 as to rival its DX10 counterpart says more about crytec than it does about either DX9 or 10.

If you don't agree just bookmark this page. In 5 years look back at the OP's conclusions and you will see how laughable they are

 

[raven117]

lol u dont even have to compare different api's just look at dx9.0 to dx9.0c huge difference far cry(9.0) vs crysis (9.0c/d)

 

[J3r3my]

Yay no need for Vista...at least yet. M$ can take that big piece of bloatware they call an OS and shove it!

 

[Choggs396]

lol, kinda choppy....

 

[ENTERPRISE]

Its surprising how much you can squeez out of an older API. DX9 in some cases looks amazing.

 

[raven117]

there is supposed to be another service pack coming out for xp that brings over some shader 3.o features somone posted it here awhile ago in the news thread. so 9 will be better looking then ever as long as you can support shader model 4.0 i guess.

 

[l V l]

Doesn't really matter because dx10 is coming to xp.

 

[ENTERPRISE]

Quote:

Originally Posted by ClaytonCallihan Doesn't really matter because dx10 is coming to xp.

Unfortunately XP's is actually designed around DX9 really. I think we will see some problems with DX10 arriving on XP.

 

[Bal3Wolf]

I thk its possable for xp to run dx10 even tho ms is trying thier best to say otherwise vista runs dx9 in software mode kinda so xp could do the same to dx10 not sure how much of a perf hit it would take tho.

 

[Kramy]

Quote:

Originally Posted by rabidgnome229 That about says it. Crytec may be good - but somehow I doubt they were able to exploit DX10 to its fullest when most of the development was done not only before DX10 was released, but before it was finalized.

This is like saying an Assembler Guru couldn't utilize C++ to the fullest.

Technically, you're correct. But with enough brilliant engineers(which Crytek has, but Microsoft seems to lack

) a company can extend DX9/OGL to utilize whatever features a videocard offers. Just look at Valve - they didn't have problems getting HDR-like glow effects working on GeForce 6/7's.

DX10 will shave off millions of hours of dev time globally - but that doesn't change me thinking of it as a fancy code wrapper. DX10 also demands stricter compliance on the hardware end...but DX10 software is nothing revolutionary.

 

[MGX1016]

Quote:

Originally Posted by J3r3my Yay no need for Vista...at least yet. M$ can take that big piece of bloatware they call an OS and shove it!

Why do you stupid people hate Vista? Vista is awesome and by far one of the best young OS's. I love XP but remember XP when if first came out? Not only did Vista sell more in the same timeframe but Vista is about 303482393 times more stable and runs awesome with 2GB of ram.

------

On Topic: I think most DX9 games were limited to cards such as 7800GTX or such. Now with such powerful GPU's out developers can use them and create powerful games. Look at FSX. When it came out almost no system could play it.. Now a GTS (which is considered mid class) and an FX62 which should be considered middle class as well as it matches e66 @ stock can play it just fine almost maxed out.

Also DX9 is amazing and with so much time able to decode it I'm sure Cyrtek had it's nice time to play with it very detailed. Of course gameplay the DX10 version WILL have some perks and I believe with the extra time they have had to make the game super duper I'm sure some features just won't be in the XP version.

Now, off to make a Vista rules thread.

 

[Licht]

Like DDR3 DX10 needs time!

 

[rabidgnome229]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kramy This is like saying an Assembler Guru couldn't utilize C++ to the fullest. Technically, you're correct. But with enough brilliant engineers(which Crytek has, but Microsoft seems to lack ) a company can extend DX9/OGL to utilize whatever features a videocard offers. Just look at Valve - they didn't have problems getting HDR-like glow effects working on GeForce 6/7's. DX10 will shave off millions of hours of dev time globally - but that doesn't change me thinking of it as a fancy code wrapper. DX10 also demands stricter compliance on the hardware end...but DX10 software is nothing revolutionary.

I'm not saying anything about the crytec people. All I'm saying is that there are plenty of facets of DX10 that are not feasible to implement in DX9 that won't be seen for another half a decade. I'm saying that the article's author is just being silly by implying that because dx9 crysis looks almost as good as dx10 crysis that dx10 is not as powerful as its purported to be. It's entirely premature to make comments about how powerful dx10 is without even the first major title out

 

[pang786]

look at it this way: when dx9 first came out,it sucked big time but compare that with dx9c and see the massive difference in performance and looks.
this same rule will apply with dx10!
xD