with a top notch DX10 card + a 6ghz cpu you would get those kinda graphics running at 14 fps, it's just a demo of what is possible... kinda like the movie "cars", it was done on computers, so it's possible....just not YOUR computer.
Printable View
with a top notch DX10 card + a 6ghz cpu you would get those kinda graphics running at 14 fps, it's just a demo of what is possible... kinda like the movie "cars", it was done on computers, so it's possible....just not YOUR computer.
If Vista is not super slow when the final, non beta verson comes out, ill upgrade to vista once I get a dx10 card years from now.
There are a lot of misconceptions in this post:
1. Vista requires DX9 for the GUI because DX10 and Vista where developed at the same time. In order to get the GUI working in Vista, they had to use what was already available.
2. DX10 which was previously DX.Net is written on a kernal that has the .Net Framework incorporated. This is why DX9 games will be emulated on Vista and currently we have to run the .Net Framework on Windows XP.
3. I'm not seeing any difference in performance between XP and the most recent beta of Vista. Yes, it consumes more ram, but that is because it cache programs into memory plus the Aero desktop takes a little more. There may be a difference in speed, but it's not really felt.
4. DX10 is a major rewrite and should allow for more efficiency. Yes, DX10 doesn't add a ton of new features in general, but will allow a card to do more.
I didn't read this thread.
The DX10 image looks awful. The clouds and water both look like low quality JPEGs that were pasted into the crazy-pixelated trees and mountains image. If that is what DX10 looks like, I'll be staying with DX9 and the Source engine.
No different than the Nature scenes in 3DMark that run a 10FPS with the latest hardware (at the time, anyway).Quote:
Originally Posted by vairox
Is this one of the reasons that Vista seems slow? Or perhaps why gaming will be slower as DX9 has to be emulated?Quote:
Originally Posted by ksuohio
Another reason for me NOT to get windows Vista if any game thats not dx10 will be slower :mad:
Unless you plan to still run your 9700 Pro, I wouldn't think it'd be a large problem...Quote:
Originally Posted by Thunderbird1GHz
I arent spending $599, $699 or more when the first dx10 cards come out. Also theres tons of dx9 games I havent even played. I might upgrade my 9700pro to an x800xl to buy me another 6 months before getting Conroe.
emulation will always be slower than the real thing...though to be honest the build that came out after beta 2 is a huge improvement...I don't know why they didn't wait and name that beta 2 because it runs a lot better nowQuote:
Originally Posted by Boneycat
T-bird, not all DX10 cards are going to be 600 dollars. I'm sure you will be able to get a budget version card for under 150 bucks that has full DX10 support within a few months of release.
I remmeber when dx9 first came out it was $500. After a while a "budget" $200 9600pro came out. The ti4200 beat the 9600pro in games at that time. Only in recent games does the 9600pro win. A budget dx10 card wont touch a high end dx9 card for a long time. Also I have win2k and Vista is slower and uses too much ram and costs $ to license. Itll be a while before I jump on the dx10 bandwagon
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thunderbird1GHz
https://www.sharkyforums.com/
I can see why people would doubt the authenticity of the DX10 sample. It looks unreal. The water is so convincingly real, I feel like going for a swim.
This just brought the "real" world one step closer to us subterrainian, no-sunlight, basement dwellers. Imagine what FarCry did for DX9 and apply DX10 to that. It would be a pretty close approximation to a movie controlled game. Wait, is that a game or movie you're playing? Damn! ;)
LMAO!!!!!!Quote:
Originally Posted by vairox