DX9 vs DX10 screenshot

Printable View

Show 25 post(s) from this thread on one page

07-18-2006, 04:34 PM
Spank_Me_Hard

Quote:

Originally Posted by vairox

not sure, but I can guarantee it knowing M$.... why else would you buy vista? it's dog slow.

Does this surprise anyone?

Anytime a new OS is released from Microsoft, its slower than its predecessors.

WinXP was "dog slow" for the hardware in its day.
07-18-2006, 05:45 PM
richardginn

DX9 for the OS, DX 10 based video card to get all the goodies for some games.
07-18-2006, 06:19 PM
Kappa2001

to be honest.....

i don't really believe in that screenshot, it's just too good to be true :p
07-19-2006, 02:53 AM
MrBrett

That water looks freaking amazing!

I can't wait till we get some DX10 hardware prototypes out to game makers for some actual real-time renders. That stuff is incredible.
07-19-2006, 10:55 AM
Soul Assassin

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nithos

When they will be released is hard to tell. First off if Vista was on schedule it was to be released ~December 06, considering apparently it needs a dx10 card for the aero desktop you could assume that the cards should be coming out around the same time. But Vista is delayed who knows how long now so not very good assesment anymore.

Second, if you read some interviews from Crytek they say that they do not have any dx10 hardware to work on as of now, but are only doing emulated stuff. Thus since they dont have it means that consumers can wait for a bit longer. Although Crisis is going to be dx9/dx10 when it shippes a lot of the dx10 stuff will be put in later as updates (according to that article)

Overall the jump from 9 to 10 is not a big jump IMO tech wise as I believe 9 can do most of the stuff 10 can, the major difference is that 10 can do it at sustainable frame rates.

Anyway I say Q1 07 for first dx10 cards, possibly christmas since i'm sure they would want to hit that buying craze but even so at least 6months from now.

A couple of things:

1) Vista only requires dx9 for Aero, they removed the dx10 specification long ago.

2) The jump between dx9 and dx10 is immense. It's a complete rewrite, the first since the original directx spec back in 1995. So whether they look the same on the surface or not, dx10 is well beyond dx9.
07-19-2006, 11:01 AM
gkline

Quote:

Originally Posted by Soul Assassin

A couple of things:

1) Vista only requires dx9 for Aero, they removed the dx10 specification long ago.

2) The jump between dx9 and dx10 is immense. It's a complete rewrite, the first since the original directx spec back in 1995. So whether they look the same on the surface or not, dx10 is well beyond dx9.

Thus the need for GPU hardware to support it?
07-19-2006, 11:06 AM
Soul Assassin

Quote:

Originally Posted by gkline

Thus the need for GPU hardware to support it?

I don't understand your question.
07-19-2006, 11:16 AM
Nithos

Quote:

Originally Posted by Soul Assassin

A couple of things:

1) Vista only requires dx9 for Aero, they removed the dx10 specification long ago.

2) The jump between dx9 and dx10 is immense. It's a complete rewrite, the first since the original directx spec back in 1995. So whether they look the same on the surface or not, dx10 is well beyond dx9.

1) hmm missed that part, havent been paying too much attention to Vista lately, thx for the fix

2) yes it is a complete rewrite BUT as far as I know it does not contain extensive additions. It is essentially a streamlined D3D9 with some extra stuff. A lot of functions have been renamed, rewritten etc but overall its not overly technically superior than D3D9. Thank again I could be wrong but from what I read about it thats seems the case.
07-19-2006, 11:26 AM
gkline

Quote:

Originally Posted by Soul Assassin

I don't understand your question.

What I meant to say is until the release of Graphics Processing Units that natively support DX10 code it will be hard to really appreciate the difference.
07-19-2006, 08:13 PM
MrBrett

That is correct gkline. You will definitely need hardware built to DX10 spec before you'll be able to utilize all the cool new features, and render anything close to that screenshot at real time framerates.
07-19-2006, 08:18 PM
gkline

Quote:

Originally Posted by MrBrett

That is correct gkline. You will definitely need hardware built to DX10 spec before you'll be able to utilize all the cool new features, and render anything close to that screenshot at real time framerates.

Thanks. That's what I thought. ;)
07-19-2006, 10:28 PM
Thunderbird1GHz

Nice! The water and clouds look amazing! There was a big difference from dx7 to dx8 but dx9 was mostly a let down and one reason I kept my ti4200 so long and didnt bother with a dx9 card. Now im upset dx10 only works on Vista and you need a $699 video card too. Also Vista is so slow, ill probably get better performance sticking with this 3000+ Venice, win2k and dx9. Hopefully microsoft reconsiders or a third party writes dx10 for win2k. I am not getting windows Vista for several years till we see 10GHz cpus then even vista will fly on 10GHz.
07-20-2006, 07:19 AM
ewitte

We say Vista is slow but apparently the build they released near the end of June is a lot faster and uses even LESS memory than XP. A major improvement. Honestly I think they got too caught up with making DX10 a requirement that nothing could handle it at a reasonable speed since the hardware does not exist. Now that they bumped the requirements back to DX9 I believe things are going to improve a lot before its released.
07-20-2006, 07:49 AM
Chuck232

Quote:

Originally Posted by ewitte

We say Vista is slow but apparently the build they released near the end of June is a lot faster and uses even LESS memory than XP. A major improvement. Honestly I think they got too caught up with making DX10 a requirement that nothing could handle it at a reasonable speed since the hardware does not exist. Now that they bumped the requirements back to DX9 I believe things are going to improve a lot before its released.

You're talking about the build right after the Beta 2 CPP right? I read some stuff where people said it was actually faster than WinXP, although I think that may have just been because they were so used to the slow mo of Beta 2...

It's probably important to know that that build was based on the RC branch of Vista and not the Beta branch.
07-20-2006, 12:22 PM
ewitte

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chuck232

You're talking about the build right after the Beta 2 CPP right? I read some stuff where people said it was actually faster than WinXP, although I think that may have just been because they were so used to the slow mo of Beta 2...

It's probably important to know that that build was based on the RC branch of Vista and not the Beta branch.

If its putting enough CPU load on the GPU/Graphics memory I can see it being faster easily.

Eric

Show 25 post(s) from this thread on one page