DX9 vs DX10 screenshot

Printable View

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

07-28-2006, 01:59 AM
Boneycat

Quote:

Originally Posted by ronopp007

LMAO!!!!!!

Indeed!!! That's some funny arse s***!
07-28-2006, 06:40 AM
Transfurzz

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.

Games ? ................ No !
07-28-2006, 08:21 AM
gkline

vairox, that photo is worth a thousand Tbird posts! :D :cool:
07-28-2006, 03:34 PM
Delphi00

Quote:

Originally Posted by Terry

Oops :o
I guess it really is "photoshopped" to some extent.

I literally just stared at the pictures for like a couples minutes but the version at guru3D has better resolution.

OK. I haven't read the articles in the link yet so, are the pictures photoshopped or not? And if they are, in what ways? :p

EDIT: Why is it that the first picture is set in a different weather than the second one. The first picture has fairly clear skies and the second picture is set in very cloudy sky. I've certainly seen dark clouds before in today's games.
07-28-2006, 03:55 PM
Un4given

T-Bird, please do me just one favor. Stop saying, "I aren't..." because you are driving me nuts; and yes it's a short drive!

You can say "I'm not..." or "I am not...", but don't say I aren't!!!
07-30-2006, 03:33 PM
Coolme

OK for the sky and the sun rays but personally I prefer the water from the 1st screenshot, it looks more transparent and more what water feels like.
07-31-2006, 01:32 AM
McRontaya

Direct X 10 is gonna own, period.
07-31-2006, 02:09 PM
THE SHADOW

Not too impressed to be honest, all it is every year is just another jump towards the holy grail of PC graphics, perhaps we could let the developers catch up now for a while so that we get good game ideas (not just the next best engine, graphics) that actually work with our current hardware across the board and actually use the features all these chips are supposed to be able to do since, hmm late 90's. I mostly feel short changed with games these days with some notable exceptions.

Nice graphics are the icing but what is the point of having a nice topping if the rest of the cake tastes like crap, rehashed ware?

I'm getting too old for gaming, or tired from it ;)
07-31-2006, 02:16 PM
Un4given

Quote:

Originally Posted by THE SHADOW

Not too impressed to be honest, all it is every year is just another jump towards the holy grail of PC graphics, perhaps we could let the developers catch up now for a while so that we get good game ideas (not just the next best engine, graphics) that actually work with our current hardware across the board and actually use the features all these chips are supposed to be able to do since, hmm late 90's. I mostly feel short changed with games these days with some notable exceptions.

Nice graphics are the icing but what is the point of having a nice topping if the rest of the cake tastes like crap, rehashed ware?

I'm getting too old for gaming, or tired from it ;)

But that is exactly what DX10 is supposed to do. Microsoft has set the specifications for DX10 and the shader language. In the past Microsoft would only set the requirements, like it had to support this function in the pixel shaders, and that function on the vertex shaders, etc. Then ATi and NV would develop their own shader models to meet these requirements. This time it has all been laid out, including the entire shader engine. Now ATi and NV will be working with the same shader engine. Now programmers need only program for that DX10 shader engine and don't have to do it separately for ATi and NV.

Ultimately, this should give programmers a far easier time to develop their games because everyone is on the same page as far as the DX API is concerned.
07-31-2006, 02:58 PM
Elxman

Impressive but they still need to get some more realistic coloring.
07-31-2006, 03:02 PM
Adisharr

I'm not buying a new graphics card until someone writes a decent driver for my Virge.
07-31-2006, 03:23 PM
Un4given

Quote:

Originally Posted by Adisharr

I'm not buying a new graphics card until someone writes a decent driver for my Virge.

Ummm, so you are saying that you are never buying a video card ever again? ;)

S3 is dead my good man, it's time to move on. :D
07-31-2006, 03:43 PM
s1203372

Quote:

Originally Posted by Thunderbird1GHz

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

In case it's too far back for you to remember, the 9700 and 9500 were released at about the same time. You should know that, since you ran a soft-modded 9500 for so long... Next, the release price for the 9700 pro on the day of release (8/19/2002) was $399, and there were plenty available. The 9500 Pro was $199.

How does the foot taste?

Edit: Oh, and the 9500 Pro slapped the 4200 silly - it was competing with the 4600.
07-31-2006, 04:17 PM
THE SHADOW

Quote:

Originally Posted by Un4given

But that is exactly what DX10 is supposed to do. Microsoft has set the specifications for DX10 and the shader language. In the past Microsoft would only set the requirements, like it had to support this function in the pixel shaders, and that function on the vertex shaders, etc. Then ATi and NV would develop their own shader models to meet these requirements. This time it has all been laid out, including the entire shader engine. Now ATi and NV will be working with the same shader engine. Now programmers need only program for that DX10 shader engine and don't have to do it separately for ATi and NV.

Ultimately, this should give programmers a far easier time to develop their games because everyone is on the same page as far as the DX API is concerned.

Good points and some of us have been reasoning for such a move for years now (me included I might add). I will believe it when I see it, the proof is in the pudding, catch my drift? I have seen too many promises and see them only shattered afterwards. But all of these new shiny shaders mean sweet fa, if the idea or the game behind those shaders is totally useless. I want to see more innovation in gaming land, not BF, FIFA, HL (I could go on) #10.

yes, please give us better graphics but oh please, bring some goddamn new ideas with them!

:)
07-31-2006, 07:45 PM
Chuck232

Quote:

Originally Posted by Un4given

But that is exactly what DX10 is supposed to do. Microsoft has set the specifications for DX10 and the shader language. In the past Microsoft would only set the requirements, like it had to support this function in the pixel shaders, and that function on the vertex shaders, etc. Then ATi and NV would develop their own shader models to meet these requirements. This time it has all been laid out, including the entire shader engine. Now ATi and NV will be working with the same shader engine. Now programmers need only program for that DX10 shader engine and don't have to do it separately for ATi and NV.

Ultimately, this should give programmers a far easier time to develop their games because everyone is on the same page as far as the DX API is concerned.

So does that mean there's not going to be any more 'my GF 6800 is better than your X1800 because it runs Doom 3 faster?' comments? ;)

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