Agent You need to quote people when you start calling foul. I've never seen anyone say that DX10 makes the computer faster. Thats just dumb. DX10 is an API. Its ONLY used for Multimedia applications.
As I qualify as an expert I need only quote myself, parroting others only shows ones lack of knowledge on a subject. And if you look back at where I pointed out several times people did claim, directly and indirectly, that DX 10 speeds up your whole computer so I was just setting the record straight. To often on boards like these people with a tad bit of knowledge, or who have access to others knowledge they only barely understand, go making statements that are either wildly incorrect or contextually misleading. It is even a stretch to refer to DX 10 as accelerating multimedia as you just did - DX10 is 3D acceleration and has little role in anything else in a real sense.
As I qualify as an expert I need only quote myself, parroting others only shows ones lack of knowledge on a subject. And if you look back at where I pointed out several times people did claim, directly and indirectly, that DX 10 speeds up your whole computer so I was just setting the record straight. To often on boards like these people with a tad bit of knowledge, or who have access to others knowledge they only barely understand, go making statements that are either wildly incorrect or contextually misleading. It is even a stretch to refer to DX 10 as accelerating multimedia as you just did - DX10 is 3D acceleration and has little role in anything else in a real sense.
I think your seriously OVER exagerating your knowledge. Since you want to argue my terminology I thought I'd give you some literature. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DirectX . You've STILL failed to quote anyone saying that DX10 made an entire computer run faster. Your debate skills are severly inept. You've told others they were dead wrong without any type of factualy based statements, and claim that being able to quote resources as being without knowledge. You obviously have no CLUE what DX10 does, because DX10 involves MUCH more then just graphics, like um SOUND? DX10's ability to handle sound and video more efficently, I don't doubt will increase your CPU overhead and thus very well may speed up an entire computer. We're not able to compair apples to apples because Vista is more resource hungry then XP. No DX10 doesn't make your computer any faster at say folding, however it does make your CPU handle graphics instruction sets more efficently, and thus frees up more of the power for those other tasks. I would be interested in what makes you think your an expert. You've made a dozen statments that can be proved entirely inaccurate via multiple online resources. I don't want to get into a P%ssing contest here. If all you want to do is prove other people wrong to make yourself feel smarter, take a few minutes to check your facts first.
Since you have trouble reading , it is only a couple posts back for crying out loud, I will re-quote my re-quote of the remarks I was saying where wrong/misleading:
Originally posted by AgtSmith
The original comment I replied to: Originally posted by Andorae
alright fools, now THIS is the reason why you should get vista with a DX10 card, since DX10 doesnt only get you better graphics, it also does this.
"Not just another version
DirectX’s popularity over the years has been steadily increasing. Classic games like Thief: The Dark Project, Max Payne, Grand Theft Auto III have used various versions of DirectX to support their graphics. In more recent times, we see top class games like Half-Life 2, Battlefield 2, World of Warcraft and Oblivion: The Elder Scrolls IV making use of DirectX 9.0b/c.
Suffice to say that the latest games use the newest available version of DirectX.
But hey, DirectX10 is not just another version of DirectX. This version has been re-built from the ground up to change the way applications think about material management and load balancing between the CPU and GPU. D3D10, as also DirectX10 is called, takes advantage of the improved communication between the CPU and GPU and efficiently manages the data transfer between them.
As a result of your graphics card becoming more powerful, not only do you get more pixels, but you get more materials and objects. The complexity of scenes and environments can increase exponentially without ever increasing CPU overhead. This means that the CPU handles all film-like (advanced) graphics effects, material management and so frees up CPU cycles to concentrate on AI and Physics."
read the bold, this is taken from http://windowsvistablog.com/blogs/windowsvista/articles/447226.aspx So you see, you make your pc faster and stuff with dx10, not just prettier games... but if you dont like vista now, wait until SP1 has been released atleast, because atm vista is still quite buggy.
I don't understand why you have so much trouble seeing the error in the highlighted remarks (by the poster and by the guy he quoted) but I don't think I can correct the malfunction in your brain causing you to miss it.
From the article at Driver Heavan, not sure how to respond other than to point out that is written about potential and claims.. Not the article starts by telling where he got the info - from ATI who was just launching their DX 10 hardware. Of course they are goign to make all sorts of hyped claims to excite people to buy their new hardware. I won't go into much of what he says in the rest but I will point out one thing, and let anyone here who has any experience with Vist alaugh at how ridiculous it is. The article claims:
Much smaller overhead per object which means that more objects can be utilised, making games more interesting and more fun to explore and interact with.
One thing to note:
If the same game was coded to run on both DX9 and DX10 there would be around a 20% performance increase just from the fact the overhead is lower in DX10.
Just consider that - sounds good on paper - that is what the tech reports and white papers say. But lets consider the REAL WORLD for a moment. Has anyone seen the resource usage in Vista just sitting at a desktop? DX 10 had GD better do things 40% more effeciently just to keep up, let alone being 20% faster than anything. Not a single legitimate benchmark set has shown Vista (DX 10) to do anything faster than XP (DX 9) does it and we haven't even gotten to the games that have all the glorious new graphics potential yet. On average, from what I have seen from testers and in my own experience is that vista (DX 10) is solidly 25% to 35% slower than XP (DX 9) for current generation games. Now, to be fair, no true DX 10 games are out yet (those designed from the ground up to be run in DX10) so time will tell. But consider that I can run any DX 9 game on XP with my DX 10 card and get great performance benifits but when I go to Vista/DX 10 and use a DX 10 card to do anything (DX 9 or some of the new DX9 + DX 10 games) it runs worse? It defies logic to say this is the second coming of frame rates, something is not right is all I am saying. Time will improve things but with DX 10 locked for now to Vista you cannot talk performance without addressing the lowest common denominator in the equation which is vista and the terrible Vista GPU driver support (which may or may not be related to DX 10 issues).
From Microsoft
DirectX 10 features heavily enhanced 3-D graphics-rendering capabilities and helps noticeably improve your computer's performance in games and high-end 3-D applications. DirectX 10 empowers games to present a new generation of visual effects, and deliver more visual detail per frame than ever before.
Providing a standard 3D development platform for Windows-based PCs, it also provides software developers access to powerful hardware features without the need to write hardware-specific code. For gamers and video enthusiasts, this translates to reliable, higher-performance graphics when you're playing games on your PC.
DirectX is for 3D - even the link you posted states this over and over and over again. The broader suite of components in DirectX is often referred to as multimedia but that is not a technical description of what DirectX is in terms of the graphical API. It is a bit confusing to some because the suite of components carries the same name as the individual component related to graphics but in common discussion, particularly in a game website forum - talking about DirectX is talking about the graphical component. And it is this graphical component that is the big change for Vista people are excited about in terms of seeing it reach its promoted potential. Interestingly, DirectSound which was a previous component of DirectX has been dropped in DX 10 which is another reason I was pointing out that suggesting DX 10 is a performance boost is just not right as in vista all sound is CPU accelerated which can be a big penalty to performance.
That is all sidetracking a bit, just related minutia I suppose. Ultimately though, to get back on point - when talking about DX 10 and the cool games and such we are talking not talking about the minor package components but the graphics API and this is what my comments where aimed at. Although, that being said - even considering the other components, the package as a whole the comments still stand. DX simply doesn't come into play except in games and other 3d accelerated applications. And if you are really talking about performance benefits from DX 10 an how they relate to non 3D stuff you cannot forget to account for the fact that each and every sound is being processed by the CPU whereas in XP (with DX 9) audio cards can handle sound acceleration (the developing Creative Alchemy experiment aside) - this could represent a noticeable impact on system performance during games and other demanding non 3d sound centric applications.
I am not anti DX 10, I am anti people making claims or implications about technologies that are, at best, inaccurate. DX 10 isn't going to make anyone's computer faster, any game run at higher frame rates, or anything of the sort and that is clearly what the post that I replied to originally was saying. DX 10 does promise, and I am among the anxious to see how much it delivers, great advancement in the way games look just as each previous DX version has done. However, this interest and excitement has to be tempered against other factors because unlike past DX versions this on is rigged to work only in Vista and Vista has major performance issues and some limitation that XP didn't (e.g. no sound card acceleration). Drivers for DX 10 from both ATI and NVIDIA are terrible bringing into question not only their capability with this new hardware but also DX 10 itself as it is proving to be difficult to work with. An example of this is the GPU virtual memory feature which in and of itself would have been a great benefit to 3d applications. NVIDIA had allot of trouble executing this as I understand it MS has had to revise DX 10 to drop the feature. See, another benefit of DX 10 is the requirement that to get certification you must support ALL features, previous DX versions let the graphics card companies support the ones they wanted and make certain choices in their designs but DX 10 enforces a stricter standard. Overall a good thing as it makes it less complicated for developers who previously had to code things for the variety of possibilities in terms of hardware feature support even amongst a single DX generation.
But again, side issues - right now DX 10 is unproven and while I would normally have no doubt about a version of DX substantively reaching the claims about its capabilities the fact that this version is tied to Vista makes things different as does the trouble NVIDIA and ATI are having with driver support. Sure, over time it will get worked out, eventually. But the problem with the delay in getting vista rolled out and therefore the delay in DX 10 getting rolled out is that games will have to be made with DX 9 in mind as the vast bulk of gamers will be on XP still meaning it is unlikely the potential will be tapped for DX 10 anytime soon. Furthermore, even though some things in DX 10 try to simplify and streamline development they are no severely complicating them as developing for XP and Vista is so dramatically different (on with DX9 and the other with DX 10 and one with hardware sound and the other with software accelerated sound). Add in to the mix that Vista's replacement (Vienna) is due in 2010 and it is easy to question if DX 10 will ever be realized because Vista is shaping up to be Millennium II. As I have gone on quite a bit I won't even mention here the problem MS created by releasing Vista in 32bit - meaning gamers are pretty much maxed out for memory (32bit can only addresses 4G of memory and hardware and such takes up as much as 1.5 of that 4G) and we all now haw each year games need more and more RAM.
Anyways, I am not anti DX 10, nor am I anti Vista (I have been using and testing Vista for over a year and a half) and it has major issues particuarly in terms of its performance. I deal in realistic appraisals and expectations and right now things are looking bad for Vista and DX 10 as a component of it. Just consider what I am saying in terms of the Ageia PhysX thing - another technology highly touted to be all so great but two problems have sputtered it. one, not enough out there to really develop for it so at best it offers add on stuff not true core changes. But also, it hasn't really lived up to its promises. Same with DX 10 / Vista right now - bad issues with Vista slowing deployment (particuarly with enthusiasts and gamers) leads to less development for it and less development makes realizing the potential harder. Luckily for DX 10 it has MS behind it and not small little Ageia - but the dynamics are similar and that is what I am trying to point out. It is actually ironic as it is the opposite side of the coin that has benifited MS for years - early success lead to market dominance and the whole why use anything else, now that cuts against them and with Vista having so many issues it is cutting harder. So, DX 10 is nto making anything faster, not even games for now. Over time it will get resolved (we all hope) and DX 10 might start to improve performance in games and 3d stuff while expanding what those games do - but that is all it does and as I have explained it has yet to show it will do that even if it seems inevitable that it probably will in the end.
ONCE AGAIN agent. You've completely sidesteped facts. You've repeated my facts, then argued them with your oppinions. You've yet to actualy be able to show me how DX10 Won't help system proformance. You copied and pasted a lot of info, but not a single bit of it is realevent to your arguement. I've never said that DX10 wasn't mainly for graphics. If your saying that Dx10 DOESN'T improve proformance, then your saying that everything that is being said by every single credible source is wrong. No credible source is saying that DX10 isn't what it claims to be, a side from yourself but as I said, I want CREDIBLE sources. Claiming your an expert doesnt make it so. DX10 is maining a graphical API, but not completely. It's a multimedia API, its more efficent the anything previously made. If you cannot see how freeing up more CPU processes by making graphics work less laboring would help a computers proformance, then I'm sorry your beyond help. DX10 is NOT backwards compatible, so the game will be made in DX10 and DX9. These are facts. For anyone who wants them. I'm done listening to your banter. I will not read this thread again. Its an gross waste of my time.
I cannot prove a negative, it is an impossibility. IF DX 10 is what you seem to think it is then where are the benchmark (not marketting articles( showing it? It is the responsibility of any new technology to demonstrate its value. DX 10 will certainly improve games when the drivers and Vista issues surrounding its use are sorted out. Whether it will make them look prettier and run fast at the SAME time is an unknown.
Find one legitimate source showing a single game, DX 9 or DX 10 running better in Vista than XP - you cannot becuase nothing runs better in Vista/DX 10 than in XP/DX 9. Until that hapens DX 10 is a promise and nothing more - a promise that may ultimately be realized but a promise at this point nonetheless.
Just wondering, IS AoC a DX 10 only game or will it also support dx 9?
It is supposed to be a DX 10 title meaning it is intended to take advantage of what DX 10 offers, but it will also be able to be run on XP in DX9 - so dual support I suppose. This will be the case with all games for, I would imagine, another year+ as Vista is getting deployed very slowly amoungst gamers so game developers cannot make a DX 10 only game and expect to have many buyers. Unfourtunately, this will hamper DX 10 being fully utilized in the performance aspect as for the most part these hybrid games will likely take advantge of DX 10 goodies but the DX 9 legacy support will limit how much real DX 10 code there can be.
Alot will be riding on AoC and Crysis - both due in the fall. If thier DX 10 counterparts are sufficiently better looking than when run on DX 9 and they run at least as well then it could migrate allot of people over. If they only offer minor improvements and performance is as poor in comparison as current titles are then Vista and DX 10 are in big trouble. Vista/DX 10 has to offer some tangible benifit to gamers/enthusiasts by years end or it is probably going to end up being MS's second version of Millennium - either the graphics in these games have to be dramatically better for similar performance hit or the performance has to be better for similar graphics (or better graphics and better performance).
I cannot prove a negative, it is an impossibility. IF DX 10 is what you seem to think it is then where are the benchmark (not marketting articles( showing it? It is the responsibility of any new technology to demonstrate its value. DX 10 will certainly improve games when the drivers and Vista issues surrounding its use are sorted out. Whether it will make them look prettier and run fast at the SAME time is an unknown.
Find one legitimate source showing a single game, DX 9 or DX 10 running better in Vista than XP - you cannot becuase nothing runs better in Vista/DX 10 than in XP/DX 9. Until that hapens DX 10 is a promise and nothing more - a promise that may ultimately be realized but a promise at this point nonetheless.
WHO ever said anything about Vista Vs XP??? You're inept. DX10 vs DX9 Whats the difference? Go learn that. Thats what this conversation is about. DX10 is coded into vista yes, but its made for people like Nvidia and ATI. Why? Its more effiecent. It's a better way to handle graphical instruction sets. This isn't open for debate. Everyone thats writing drivers and games to take advantage of Dx10 says so. You'll never know because I doubt you'll be createing a driver, or writing code for a game. You say you can't prove a negative. I can. Does 2 + 2 = 3? NEGATIVE. 2 + 2 = 4. This is how you debate. You say somebody is wrong you show them whats correct. DX10 is an API. API tells code from a game how to be managed by hardware of a graphics card. If DX10 wasn't better then DX9 why would ANY company pick it up? Why would Nvidia invest millions of dollars into developing DX10 systems? Why would ATI be following Nvidia's lead? The simple answer. It's BETTER. Its More Efficent. If you compare XP to Vista you WON'T be getting real results because Vista isn't XP. Vista is much more proformance hungry then XP. This is the next step reguardless if you want to take it or not, not every step is linear, and sometimes you move in more then one direction.
By the way, Show me a DX10 Game thats out right now that I can try on DX9 also.
when the time comes for this game to be released all those who have bought/upgraded their computer in the last year should care about these projects. everyone else should just buy/upgrade to Vista. its so much easier and better than waiting for some software to come out so you can play this game on an XP.
MMO wish list:
-Changeable worlds -Solid non level based game -Sharks with lasers attached to their heads
Originally posted by FE|Tachyon WHO ever said anything about Vista Vs XP??? You're inept.
If you are touting DX 10 you have to run it in Vista - the two are inexorably linked. As for all the other blabber in your last post (the one you made after you made quite the scene about how you where not even coming back to this thread) just show me one real worl test that shows anything running better in DX 10 than it does in DX 9. You cannot, all of the current DX9/DX10 tiotles run far, far worse on Vista and DX 10 than on XP and DX 9. IN fact, few even have noticable improvements in graphcis in Vista/DX10 over the same thing in XP and DX9. Will later titles change this? probably. but until it happens it is just a claim, just a promise, just marketting to get people to buy Vista which is in DESPERATE need on something it offers that XP doesn't. Time will tell, I have little doubt eventually DX10 will deliver some to alot of what it has promised, but I am leary of the claims that it wil deliver all its graphical goodness along with better performance until I see it.
Originally posted by FE|Tachyon By the way, Show me a DX10 Game thats out right now that I can try on DX9 also.
World in Conflict is being tested around:
Since you like quotes so much, try this one on for size:
Overall, I can't help but feel a little disappointed to see yet another game where the inclusion of DirectX 10 functionality has done nothing for the title either graphically or from a performance standpoint - I really can't tell the DirectX 9 and 10 rendering paths apart, yet performance is lower to quite a considerable degree using the latter. Thus, it looks like we'll have to wait a little longer for that first title that really makes DirectX 10 a must-have commodity for a graphics board.
There are plenty of sites with reviews of some of the DX 10 games that have come out, and that are coming out. Go look for yourself - find one site that shows anything in Vista with DX 10 or even DX running anywhere near as good as it does in XP. It just isn't delivering at this point. You can make all the stupid comments you want here and quote all the marketting materials you want but reality is that as of today there is not a single game that runs faster in a Vista+DX10 environment than it does in XP+DX9 environment - period. Over time, I am sure the issues will get sorted out nad hopefully we will get the promised better graphics and better performance that the hype promises, but for now it is just a promise.
I have vista ultimate edition and guess what I used it for 2 days I am now back to xp pro cause so many things are not compatible with vista it is unreal I really liked vista but until software manufactures get on board and up to date with vista there is no real upside to it what for one or two games we better get a little more incentive then that an example is Nero the newest copy and wont install properly on vista so there is no update for a program that wont install on your system. in closing a lot of companys obviously were not and are not ready for vista what is the purpose of using it if I cant use some of my expensive software?? I would really appreciate feedback thank you
Well - allot of companies are trying to use the Vista release to force users to buy new versions of their software, others just got caught with their pants down and didn't have updates ready. For the most part this is not MS's fault - Vista was available for quite some time and MS made allot of effort to help companies get ready.
but at the same time, part of the problem is some trouble in Vista that are making it hard to get things to work well. Look how long we have been and still NVIDIA doesn't have WHQL certified DX 10 SLi drivers and the drivers they do have are pretty crappy. I believe there are some issues with DX10 at work here - perhaps it is complexity, perhaps it is just newness - but it is proving to be difficult to get things going and that hasn't been the case in previous DX releases.
SP1 for Vista, due to go out for testing soon (we hope) will hopefully address allot of these issues and get things back on track. The problem now is time, Vista needs a good finish to 2007 or it could be permanently set aside as troublesom and then DX 10 (great or not) will never be realized as there just won't be a large enough install base. The end of the year will tell us allot, Crysis and Age Of Conan are major games that are supposed to really bring DX 10 to life - if they can deliver then people will beging to migrate and things can get back on track. But if they disappoint then Vista, and DX 10 by its inclusion, will likely linger through a good part of 2008 and possibly longer.
FYI - for making CDs and such use this free program (works fine in Vista): ImgBurn
There are several hybrids out with benchmarks showing the same thing. Besides that - what does it matter if out or not - the DX9 version is in the same status as the DX 10 version - and clearly the DX 10 version shows little visual improvement and substantial performance problems over the DX9. Why is this so hard for you to comprehend? Have you never read and watched sportscasters and sports experts proclaim some college athlete entering the pros as the next great player only to never hear from him again? Have you not heard hype after hype about a movie only to see it and find it sucks? Do you think technology is any different? Is it so hard to fathom that DX10, while very promising, hasn't delivered yet and is having trouble in this regard? Jesus man, wake up and join the real world.
There are several hybrids out with benchmarks showing the same thing. Besides that - what does it matter if out or not - the DX9 version is in the same status as the DX 10 version - and clearly the DX 10 version shows little visual improvement and substantial performance problems over the DX9. Why is this so hard for you to comprehend? Have you never read and watched sportscasters and sports experts proclaim some college athlete entering the pros as the next great player only to never hear from him again? Have you not heard hype after hype about a movie only to see it and find it sucks? Do you think technology is any different? Is it so hard to fathom that DX10, while very promising, hasn't delivered yet and is having trouble in this regard? Jesus man, wake up and join the real world.
It's simple, as a software developer you know very well that DX9 software is already refined and finished, because they've been coding it for years now, however DX10 isn't. I wouldn't want my software benchmarked until it was complete because the scores woudn't be legit. They'd show a very finished example of DX9 and an unfinished DX10. Not to mention your not compairing apples to apples. Look at DX10 it looks MUCH better. You can do more with DX10 like Morphing animations so mobs can actualy morph into another thing instead of just reappearing out of a poof of smoke like in WOW when you shift as a druid. It's kind of like saying "Man my system crushes when i turn the settings all the way down" DX10 Raises the bar for top Max setting graphics. Is it that hard to realise that DX10 is a step FORWARD? Jesus man wake up and join the rest of the world, and the rest of the software development society, because every software developer out there is excited about DX10, why arn't you?
So now you are giving up saying DX10 is the second coming and believing the hype and saying it is new and needs fixing? Not that I agree with that wording of it but isn't that about the gist of what I have been saying all along, that it is as of yet unproven and many of the claims are just that - claims.
I have little doubt that DX 10 will turn out to be better than DX 9, I have never said it wouldn't. But I do seriously question whether it will be the panacea that the Vista inspired marketing materials make it out to be. For one, it needs Vista to work (whether that ever changes or not it is the way it is for the forseeable future) and Vista itself is such a terrible platform in terms of performance that even if DX 10 where all it is hyped to be and more it would likely not be enough to make up for the weaknesses of the Vista platform overall. Additionally, complexity breeds difficulty and if we look at the 260 we get a bit of insight into DX 10 development in so far as developing for the 360 is very much similar to developing for DX 10. There is a steep learning curve and developers are just now starting to get somethign from the code base on the 360 and it has been out for years, the PC 'version' is even more complex to get the most out of since the hardware variety is so great so it is very reasonable to suggest that it could take even longer to get the best DX 10 has to offer. Lastly, NVIDIA and ATI are having heaps of trouble making thier hardware work with Vista/DX10 - and as I understand NVIDIA had to appeal to MS to drop the memory virualization component of DX10 because they could not make it work. All these things tell me that unlike previous versions of DX this one has major hurdles to rolling out and reaching its potential, if you cannot see that then I suspect you are just buying the hype a bit too much.
Why not wait till something that is 100% dx10 comes out before going on and on and on and on about how DX10 is not all that. Lostplanet is NOT a DX10 game. And COJ looks better after the PATCH. Still not 100% dx10 game. Microsoft has only had ONE reason for anything it does. Its SELF! Thank God Apple and Linux is still our there. As for DX10 vista only. Its just a matter of time. Someone out there will figure it out. They always do. For one reason. Because they say it cant be done. LOL just hide and watch.
I never thought this was a discussion about the obvious. Watch ANY car commercial, and they all say, Best Car in its Class. How can everyone be the best? Its called MARKETING! Everyone sells their product up. Everyone. Mac's do it, and they do it well. OMG MAC!!! SO SAFE SO SECURE!! PFFT ... Its 90% Marketing Hype. Not that Mac's are pretty safe, and pretty darn secure, but they arn't the Holy Grail of Operating system.
Why not wait till something that is 100% dx10 comes out before going on and on and on and on about how DX10 is not all that.
Better still - why not let it prove itself before proclaiming it the greatest thing in gaming? So many people have swallowed the pill on this one allready, I will wait for it to prove itself. It would be one thing if it wasn't tied to Vista so strongly, but since it is I have to take the claims with a big extra grain of salt as I have been working with Vista for over a year and a half and it is so far from being a platform suitable for any kind of performance intensive application it is just not funny.
Also, and this is really the point, so long as Vista has adoption/deployment issues (and it has big ones) there isn't going to be any real DX10 games. Yes, Crysis and AoC and some others this fall are labeled as DX10 but they all will be made for XP and DX9 as well menaing the full effort of development is not going into DX10. No game for some time to come, probbaly at least well into 2009, is going to be 'real' DX10 because there won't be anywhere near enough machines out there to return the cost of the game if it is DX 10 only. SO expecting anything but a DX 9 game with some extra goodies rolled in DX 10 for the next year or so is pretty foolish. It is the same issue PhysX has - not enough adoption so games can only code in extras since the bulk of the game customers will not have a PhysX card. DX 10 won't be as bad as PhysX as MS is bigger and has more resources and credibility but the dilemma is the same.
Originally posted by FE|Tachyon
I never thought this was a discussion about the obvious. Watch ANY car commercial, and they all say, Best Car in its Class. How can everyone be the best? Its called MARKETING! Everyone sells their product up. Everyone. Mac's do it, and they do it well. OMG MAC!!! SO SAFE SO SECURE!! PFFT ... Its 90% Marketing Hype. Not that Mac's are pretty safe, and pretty darn secure, but they arn't the Holy Grail of Operating system.
That is all I am saying - don't buy the hype. Wait until they deliver, they have a long way to go. And not to start another hot topic but in reality Macs are not all that secure - they are just all that obscure. big difference.
Nonetheless, the fall will tell us alot - but if you think this fall games are goign to magically perform wonderfully with Vista/DX 10 given the existing huge performance problems with Vista you are living in Candyland.
Why not wait till something that is 100% dx10 comes out before going on and on and on and on about how DX10 is not all that.
Better still - why not let it prove itself before proclaiming it the greatest thing in gaming? So many people have swallowed the pill on this one allready, I will wait for it to prove itself. It would be one thing if it wasn't tied to Vista so strongly, but since it is I have to take the claims with a big extra grain of salt as I have been working with Vista for over a year and a half and it is so far from being a platform suitable for any kind of performance intensive application it is just not funny.
Also, and this is really the point, so long as Vista has adoption/deployment issues (and it has big ones) there isn't going to be any real DX10 games. Yes, Crysis and AoC and some others this fall are labeled as DX10 but they all will be made for XP and DX9 as well menaing the full effort of development is not going into DX10. No game for some time to come, probbaly at least well into 2009, is going to be 'real' DX10 because there won't be anywhere near enough machines out there to return the cost of the game if it is DX 10 only. SO expecting anything but a DX 9 game with some extra goodies rolled in DX 10 for the next year or so is pretty foolish. It is the same issue PhysX has - not enough adoption so games can only code in extras since the bulk of the game customers will not have a PhysX card. DX 10 won't be as bad as PhysX as MS is bigger and has more resources and credibility but the dilemma is the same.
Originally posted by FE|Tachyon
I never thought this was a discussion about the obvious. Watch ANY car commercial, and they all say, Best Car in its Class. How can everyone be the best? Its called MARKETING! Everyone sells their product up. Everyone. Mac's do it, and they do it well. OMG MAC!!! SO SAFE SO SECURE!! PFFT ... Its 90% Marketing Hype. Not that Mac's are pretty safe, and pretty darn secure, but they arn't the Holy Grail of Operating system.
That is all I am saying - don't buy the hype. Wait until they deliver, they have a long way to go. And not to start another hot topic but in reality Macs are not all that secure - they are just all that obscure. big difference.
Nonetheless, the fall will tell us alot - but if you think this fall games are goign to magically perform wonderfully with Vista/DX 10 given the existing huge performance problems with Vista you are living in Candyland.
You shift gears more then an 18 wheeler.
This fall DX10 games will perform great of the highest end machines. Maybe slightly better "Benchmarks" will be on DX9, but DX10 has better shader effects, and will simply look better. THE HARD reality of things is this, BETTER LOOKING = SLOWER. Its always been true. Why would this be any different? You want something to look better? Its going to cost you resources. Regardless these are inescapable facts. You cannot possible expect anyone to believe otherwise, and if you do your only deluding
I am not sure what you are even arguing at this point - you seem to be capable of making claims about the future performance despite evidence in the present that points to a rocky road. All I am saying, all I have said, is that there are some major issues surrounding DX10 and that despite the hype, despite the claims, despite the marketing it is not proven and there is good reason to question how things are going to unfold. Originally, I jumped in on the claim by someone that DX 10 makes your whole computer faster (which is a complete mischaracterization) along wth other comments saying DX10 was going to do all the wonderful graphics and do it with better performance. Certainly, a big part of DX 10 is an attempt to makes things more efficient and to yield more for less - but the early indications say otherwise. I seriously am beginning to wonder if you are not some kind of viral marketing troll because you are just being so ridiculous in presuming facts not in evidence and ignoring the ones that are in front of us.
Then it's illegal and the cops will take care of the rest.
Actually, there wouldn't be anything illegal about it at all.
If I own XP (which I do) and I pay for (therefore own) a game that needs dx10, and someone makes an open source "wrapper" ( a bit of code) for the dx9 driver to communicate with dx10 software/hardware, there is absolutely nothing the cops or MS could do.
All the code does is bridge the gap between dx9 and dx10, which the SDKs for both are readily available from MS.
No copyrights are broken or infringed.
It's called reverse engineering. Wiki it. It's illegal.
Comments
Agent You need to quote people when you start calling foul. I've never seen anyone say that DX10 makes the computer faster. Thats just dumb. DX10 is an API. Its ONLY used for Multimedia applications.
As I qualify as an expert I need only quote myself, parroting others only shows ones lack of knowledge on a subject. And if you look back at where I pointed out several times people did claim, directly and indirectly, that DX 10 speeds up your whole computer so I was just setting the record straight. To often on boards like these people with a tad bit of knowledge, or who have access to others knowledge they only barely understand, go making statements that are either wildly incorrect or contextually misleading. It is even a stretch to refer to DX 10 as accelerating multimedia as you just did - DX10 is 3D acceleration and has little role in anything else in a real sense.
--------------------------------
Achiever 60.00%, Socializer 53.00%, Killer 47.00%, Explorer 40.00%
Intel Core i7 Quad, Intel X58 SLi, 6G Corsair XMS DDR3, Intel X-25 SSD, 3 WD Velociraptor SATA SuperTrak SAS EX8650 Array, OCZ 1250W PS, GTX 295, xFi, 32" 1080p LCD
I think your seriously OVER exagerating your knowledge. Since you want to argue my terminology I thought I'd give you some literature. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DirectX . You've STILL failed to quote anyone saying that DX10 made an entire computer run faster. Your debate skills are severly inept. You've told others they were dead wrong without any type of factualy based statements, and claim that being able to quote resources as being without knowledge. You obviously have no CLUE what DX10 does, because DX10 involves MUCH more then just graphics, like um SOUND? DX10's ability to handle sound and video more efficently, I don't doubt will increase your CPU overhead and thus very well may speed up an entire computer. We're not able to compair apples to apples because Vista is more resource hungry then XP. No DX10 doesn't make your computer any faster at say folding, however it does make your CPU handle graphics instruction sets more efficently, and thus frees up more of the power for those other tasks. I would be interested in what makes you think your an expert. You've made a dozen statments that can be proved entirely inaccurate via multiple online resources. I don't want to get into a P%ssing contest here. If all you want to do is prove other people wrong to make yourself feel smarter, take a few minutes to check your facts first.
Since you seem to be a DX10 Nay Sayer why don't you get acquainted with DX10? www.driverheaven.net/articles/dx10/
www.microsoft.com/windows/products/windowsvista/features/details/directx.mspx
Since you have trouble reading , it is only a couple posts back for crying out loud, I will re-quote my re-quote of the remarks I was saying where wrong/misleading:
I don't understand why you have so much trouble seeing the error in the highlighted remarks (by the poster and by the guy he quoted) but I don't think I can correct the malfunction in your brain causing you to miss it.
From the article at Driver Heavan, not sure how to respond other than to point out that is written about potential and claims.. Not the article starts by telling where he got the info - from ATI who was just launching their DX 10 hardware. Of course they are goign to make all sorts of hyped claims to excite people to buy their new hardware. I won't go into much of what he says in the rest but I will point out one thing, and let anyone here who has any experience with Vist alaugh at how ridiculous it is. The article claims:
Much smaller overhead per object which means that more objects can be utilised, making games more interesting and more fun to explore and interact with.
One thing to note:
If the same game was coded to run on both DX9 and DX10 there would be around a 20% performance increase just from the fact the overhead is lower in DX10.
Just consider that - sounds good on paper - that is what the tech reports and white papers say. But lets consider the REAL WORLD for a moment. Has anyone seen the resource usage in Vista just sitting at a desktop? DX 10 had GD better do things 40% more effeciently just to keep up, let alone being 20% faster than anything. Not a single legitimate benchmark set has shown Vista (DX 10) to do anything faster than XP (DX 9) does it and we haven't even gotten to the games that have all the glorious new graphics potential yet. On average, from what I have seen from testers and in my own experience is that vista (DX 10) is solidly 25% to 35% slower than XP (DX 9) for current generation games. Now, to be fair, no true DX 10 games are out yet (those designed from the ground up to be run in DX10) so time will tell. But consider that I can run any DX 9 game on XP with my DX 10 card and get great performance benifits but when I go to Vista/DX 10 and use a DX 10 card to do anything (DX 9 or some of the new DX9 + DX 10 games) it runs worse? It defies logic to say this is the second coming of frame rates, something is not right is all I am saying. Time will improve things but with DX 10 locked for now to Vista you cannot talk performance without addressing the lowest common denominator in the equation which is vista and the terrible Vista GPU driver support (which may or may not be related to DX 10 issues).
DirectX is for 3D - even the link you posted states this over and over and over again. The broader suite of components in DirectX is often referred to as multimedia but that is not a technical description of what DirectX is in terms of the graphical API. It is a bit confusing to some because the suite of components carries the same name as the individual component related to graphics but in common discussion, particularly in a game website forum - talking about DirectX is talking about the graphical component. And it is this graphical component that is the big change for Vista people are excited about in terms of seeing it reach its promoted potential. Interestingly, DirectSound which was a previous component of DirectX has been dropped in DX 10 which is another reason I was pointing out that suggesting DX 10 is a performance boost is just not right as in vista all sound is CPU accelerated which can be a big penalty to performance.
That is all sidetracking a bit, just related minutia I suppose. Ultimately though, to get back on point - when talking about DX 10 and the cool games and such we are talking not talking about the minor package components but the graphics API and this is what my comments where aimed at. Although, that being said - even considering the other components, the package as a whole the comments still stand. DX simply doesn't come into play except in games and other 3d accelerated applications. And if you are really talking about performance benefits from DX 10 an how they relate to non 3D stuff you cannot forget to account for the fact that each and every sound is being processed by the CPU whereas in XP (with DX 9) audio cards can handle sound acceleration (the developing Creative Alchemy experiment aside) - this could represent a noticeable impact on system performance during games and other demanding non 3d sound centric applications.
I am not anti DX 10, I am anti people making claims or implications about technologies that are, at best, inaccurate. DX 10 isn't going to make anyone's computer faster, any game run at higher frame rates, or anything of the sort and that is clearly what the post that I replied to originally was saying. DX 10 does promise, and I am among the anxious to see how much it delivers, great advancement in the way games look just as each previous DX version has done. However, this interest and excitement has to be tempered against other factors because unlike past DX versions this on is rigged to work only in Vista and Vista has major performance issues and some limitation that XP didn't (e.g. no sound card acceleration). Drivers for DX 10 from both ATI and NVIDIA are terrible bringing into question not only their capability with this new hardware but also DX 10 itself as it is proving to be difficult to work with. An example of this is the GPU virtual memory feature which in and of itself would have been a great benefit to 3d applications. NVIDIA had allot of trouble executing this as I understand it MS has had to revise DX 10 to drop the feature. See, another benefit of DX 10 is the requirement that to get certification you must support ALL features, previous DX versions let the graphics card companies support the ones they wanted and make certain choices in their designs but DX 10 enforces a stricter standard. Overall a good thing as it makes it less complicated for developers who previously had to code things for the variety of possibilities in terms of hardware feature support even amongst a single DX generation.
But again, side issues - right now DX 10 is unproven and while I would normally have no doubt about a version of DX substantively reaching the claims about its capabilities the fact that this version is tied to Vista makes things different as does the trouble NVIDIA and ATI are having with driver support. Sure, over time it will get worked out, eventually. But the problem with the delay in getting vista rolled out and therefore the delay in DX 10 getting rolled out is that games will have to be made with DX 9 in mind as the vast bulk of gamers will be on XP still meaning it is unlikely the potential will be tapped for DX 10 anytime soon. Furthermore, even though some things in DX 10 try to simplify and streamline development they are no severely complicating them as developing for XP and Vista is so dramatically different (on with DX9 and the other with DX 10 and one with hardware sound and the other with software accelerated sound). Add in to the mix that Vista's replacement (Vienna) is due in 2010 and it is easy to question if DX 10 will ever be realized because Vista is shaping up to be Millennium II. As I have gone on quite a bit I won't even mention here the problem MS created by releasing Vista in 32bit - meaning gamers are pretty much maxed out for memory (32bit can only addresses 4G of memory and hardware and such takes up as much as 1.5 of that 4G) and we all now haw each year games need more and more RAM.
Anyways, I am not anti DX 10, nor am I anti Vista (I have been using and testing Vista for over a year and a half) and it has major issues particuarly in terms of its performance. I deal in realistic appraisals and expectations and right now things are looking bad for Vista and DX 10 as a component of it. Just consider what I am saying in terms of the Ageia PhysX thing - another technology highly touted to be all so great but two problems have sputtered it. one, not enough out there to really develop for it so at best it offers add on stuff not true core changes. But also, it hasn't really lived up to its promises. Same with DX 10 / Vista right now - bad issues with Vista slowing deployment (particuarly with enthusiasts and gamers) leads to less development for it and less development makes realizing the potential harder. Luckily for DX 10 it has MS behind it and not small little Ageia - but the dynamics are similar and that is what I am trying to point out. It is actually ironic as it is the opposite side of the coin that has benifited MS for years - early success lead to market dominance and the whole why use anything else, now that cuts against them and with Vista having so many issues it is cutting harder. So, DX 10 is nto making anything faster, not even games for now. Over time it will get resolved (we all hope) and DX 10 might start to improve performance in games and 3d stuff while expanding what those games do - but that is all it does and as I have explained it has yet to show it will do that even if it seems inevitable that it probably will in the end.
--------------------------------
Achiever 60.00%, Socializer 53.00%, Killer 47.00%, Explorer 40.00%
Intel Core i7 Quad, Intel X58 SLi, 6G Corsair XMS DDR3, Intel X-25 SSD, 3 WD Velociraptor SATA SuperTrak SAS EX8650 Array, OCZ 1250W PS, GTX 295, xFi, 32" 1080p LCD
Just wondering, IS AoC a DX 10 only game or will it also support dx 9?
ONCE AGAIN agent. You've completely sidesteped facts. You've repeated my facts, then argued them with your oppinions. You've yet to actualy be able to show me how DX10 Won't help system proformance. You copied and pasted a lot of info, but not a single bit of it is realevent to your arguement. I've never said that DX10 wasn't mainly for graphics. If your saying that Dx10 DOESN'T improve proformance, then your saying that everything that is being said by every single credible source is wrong. No credible source is saying that DX10 isn't what it claims to be, a side from yourself but as I said, I want CREDIBLE sources. Claiming your an expert doesnt make it so. DX10 is maining a graphical API, but not completely. It's a multimedia API, its more efficent the anything previously made. If you cannot see how freeing up more CPU processes by making graphics work less laboring would help a computers proformance, then I'm sorry your beyond help. DX10 is NOT backwards compatible, so the game will be made in DX10 and DX9. These are facts. For anyone who wants them. I'm done listening to your banter. I will not read this thread again. Its an gross waste of my time.
I cannot prove a negative, it is an impossibility. IF DX 10 is what you seem to think it is then where are the benchmark (not marketting articles( showing it? It is the responsibility of any new technology to demonstrate its value. DX 10 will certainly improve games when the drivers and Vista issues surrounding its use are sorted out. Whether it will make them look prettier and run fast at the SAME time is an unknown.
Find one legitimate source showing a single game, DX 9 or DX 10 running better in Vista than XP - you cannot becuase nothing runs better in Vista/DX 10 than in XP/DX 9. Until that hapens DX 10 is a promise and nothing more - a promise that may ultimately be realized but a promise at this point nonetheless.
--------------------------------
Achiever 60.00%, Socializer 53.00%, Killer 47.00%, Explorer 40.00%
Intel Core i7 Quad, Intel X58 SLi, 6G Corsair XMS DDR3, Intel X-25 SSD, 3 WD Velociraptor SATA SuperTrak SAS EX8650 Array, OCZ 1250W PS, GTX 295, xFi, 32" 1080p LCD
It is supposed to be a DX 10 title meaning it is intended to take advantage of what DX 10 offers, but it will also be able to be run on XP in DX9 - so dual support I suppose. This will be the case with all games for, I would imagine, another year+ as Vista is getting deployed very slowly amoungst gamers so game developers cannot make a DX 10 only game and expect to have many buyers. Unfourtunately, this will hamper DX 10 being fully utilized in the performance aspect as for the most part these hybrid games will likely take advantge of DX 10 goodies but the DX 9 legacy support will limit how much real DX 10 code there can be.
Alot will be riding on AoC and Crysis - both due in the fall. If thier DX 10 counterparts are sufficiently better looking than when run on DX 9 and they run at least as well then it could migrate allot of people over. If they only offer minor improvements and performance is as poor in comparison as current titles are then Vista and DX 10 are in big trouble. Vista/DX 10 has to offer some tangible benifit to gamers/enthusiasts by years end or it is probably going to end up being MS's second version of Millennium - either the graphics in these games have to be dramatically better for similar performance hit or the performance has to be better for similar graphics (or better graphics and better performance).
--------------------------------
Achiever 60.00%, Socializer 53.00%, Killer 47.00%, Explorer 40.00%
Intel Core i7 Quad, Intel X58 SLi, 6G Corsair XMS DDR3, Intel X-25 SSD, 3 WD Velociraptor SATA SuperTrak SAS EX8650 Array, OCZ 1250W PS, GTX 295, xFi, 32" 1080p LCD
WHO ever said anything about Vista Vs XP??? You're inept. DX10 vs DX9 Whats the difference? Go learn that. Thats what this conversation is about. DX10 is coded into vista yes, but its made for people like Nvidia and ATI. Why? Its more effiecent. It's a better way to handle graphical instruction sets. This isn't open for debate. Everyone thats writing drivers and games to take advantage of Dx10 says so. You'll never know because I doubt you'll be createing a driver, or writing code for a game. You say you can't prove a negative. I can. Does 2 + 2 = 3? NEGATIVE. 2 + 2 = 4. This is how you debate. You say somebody is wrong you show them whats correct. DX10 is an API. API tells code from a game how to be managed by hardware of a graphics card. If DX10 wasn't better then DX9 why would ANY company pick it up? Why would Nvidia invest millions of dollars into developing DX10 systems? Why would ATI be following Nvidia's lead? The simple answer. It's BETTER. Its More Efficent. If you compare XP to Vista you WON'T be getting real results because Vista isn't XP. Vista is much more proformance hungry then XP. This is the next step reguardless if you want to take it or not, not every step is linear, and sometimes you move in more then one direction.
By the way, Show me a DX10 Game thats out right now that I can try on DX9 also.
Oh heck gonna say it !....Death to DirectX .... Opengl ftw. There I've gone and said it now
I yes .... I a knows its only a 3Deee graphics API and not sound.. but who needs sound eh ? Pfffft!
when the time comes for this game to be released all those who have bought/upgraded their computer in the last year should care about these projects. everyone else should just buy/upgrade to Vista. its so much easier and better than waiting for some software to come out so you can play this game on an XP.
MMO wish list:
-Changeable worlds
-Solid non level based game
-Sharks with lasers attached to their heads
If you are touting DX 10 you have to run it in Vista - the two are inexorably linked. As for all the other blabber in your last post (the one you made after you made quite the scene about how you where not even coming back to this thread) just show me one real worl test that shows anything running better in DX 10 than it does in DX 9. You cannot, all of the current DX9/DX10 tiotles run far, far worse on Vista and DX 10 than on XP and DX 9. IN fact, few even have noticable improvements in graphcis in Vista/DX10 over the same thing in XP and DX9. Will later titles change this? probably. but until it happens it is just a claim, just a promise, just marketting to get people to buy Vista which is in DESPERATE need on something it offers that XP doesn't. Time will tell, I have little doubt eventually DX10 will deliver some to alot of what it has promised, but I am leary of the claims that it wil deliver all its graphical goodness along with better performance until I see it.
World in Conflict is being tested around:
Since you like quotes so much, try this one on for size:
Overall, I can't help but feel a little disappointed to see yet another game where the inclusion of DirectX 10 functionality has done nothing for the title either graphically or from a performance standpoint - I really can't tell the DirectX 9 and 10 rendering paths apart, yet performance is lower to quite a considerable degree using the latter. Thus, it looks like we'll have to wait a little longer for that first title that really makes DirectX 10 a must-have commodity for a graphics board.
There are plenty of sites with reviews of some of the DX 10 games that have come out, and that are coming out. Go look for yourself - find one site that shows anything in Vista with DX 10 or even DX running anywhere near as good as it does in XP. It just isn't delivering at this point. You can make all the stupid comments you want here and quote all the marketting materials you want but reality is that as of today there is not a single game that runs faster in a Vista+DX10 environment than it does in XP+DX9 environment - period. Over time, I am sure the issues will get sorted out nad hopefully we will get the promised better graphics and better performance that the hype promises, but for now it is just a promise.
--------------------------------
Achiever 60.00%, Socializer 53.00%, Killer 47.00%, Explorer 40.00%
Intel Core i7 Quad, Intel X58 SLi, 6G Corsair XMS DDR3, Intel X-25 SSD, 3 WD Velociraptor SATA SuperTrak SAS EX8650 Array, OCZ 1250W PS, GTX 295, xFi, 32" 1080p LCD
I have vista ultimate edition and guess what I used it for 2 days I am now back to xp pro cause so many things are not compatible with vista it is unreal I really liked vista but until software manufactures get on board and up to date with vista there is no real upside to it what for one or two games we better get a little more incentive then that an example is Nero the newest copy and wont install properly on vista so there is no update for a program that wont install on your system. in closing a lot of companys obviously were not and are not ready for vista what is the purpose of using it if I cant use some of my expensive software?? I would really appreciate feedback thank you
Well - allot of companies are trying to use the Vista release to force users to buy new versions of their software, others just got caught with their pants down and didn't have updates ready. For the most part this is not MS's fault - Vista was available for quite some time and MS made allot of effort to help companies get ready.
but at the same time, part of the problem is some trouble in Vista that are making it hard to get things to work well. Look how long we have been and still NVIDIA doesn't have WHQL certified DX 10 SLi drivers and the drivers they do have are pretty crappy. I believe there are some issues with DX10 at work here - perhaps it is complexity, perhaps it is just newness - but it is proving to be difficult to get things going and that hasn't been the case in previous DX releases.
SP1 for Vista, due to go out for testing soon (we hope) will hopefully address allot of these issues and get things back on track. The problem now is time, Vista needs a good finish to 2007 or it could be permanently set aside as troublesom and then DX 10 (great or not) will never be realized as there just won't be a large enough install base. The end of the year will tell us allot, Crysis and Age Of Conan are major games that are supposed to really bring DX 10 to life - if they can deliver then people will beging to migrate and things can get back on track. But if they disappoint then Vista, and DX 10 by its inclusion, will likely linger through a good part of 2008 and possibly longer.
FYI - for making CDs and such use this free program (works fine in Vista): ImgBurn
--------------------------------
Achiever 60.00%, Socializer 53.00%, Killer 47.00%, Explorer 40.00%
Intel Core i7 Quad, Intel X58 SLi, 6G Corsair XMS DDR3, Intel X-25 SSD, 3 WD Velociraptor SATA SuperTrak SAS EX8650 Array, OCZ 1250W PS, GTX 295, xFi, 32" 1080p LCD
"a game thats out"
this is why i get fustered with this person. I say show me blue, and he grabs some yellow, and says "HERE SEE LOOK YELLOW"
There are several hybrids out with benchmarks showing the same thing. Besides that - what does it matter if out or not - the DX9 version is in the same status as the DX 10 version - and clearly the DX 10 version shows little visual improvement and substantial performance problems over the DX9. Why is this so hard for you to comprehend? Have you never read and watched sportscasters and sports experts proclaim some college athlete entering the pros as the next great player only to never hear from him again? Have you not heard hype after hype about a movie only to see it and find it sucks? Do you think technology is any different? Is it so hard to fathom that DX10, while very promising, hasn't delivered yet and is having trouble in this regard? Jesus man, wake up and join the real world.
--------------------------------
Achiever 60.00%, Socializer 53.00%, Killer 47.00%, Explorer 40.00%
Intel Core i7 Quad, Intel X58 SLi, 6G Corsair XMS DDR3, Intel X-25 SSD, 3 WD Velociraptor SATA SuperTrak SAS EX8650 Array, OCZ 1250W PS, GTX 295, xFi, 32" 1080p LCD
It's simple, as a software developer you know very well that DX9 software is already refined and finished, because they've been coding it for years now, however DX10 isn't. I wouldn't want my software benchmarked until it was complete because the scores woudn't be legit. They'd show a very finished example of DX9 and an unfinished DX10. Not to mention your not compairing apples to apples. Look at DX10 it looks MUCH better. You can do more with DX10 like Morphing animations so mobs can actualy morph into another thing instead of just reappearing out of a poof of smoke like in WOW when you shift as a druid. It's kind of like saying "Man my system crushes when i turn the settings all the way down" DX10 Raises the bar for top Max setting graphics. Is it that hard to realise that DX10 is a step FORWARD? Jesus man wake up and join the rest of the world, and the rest of the software development society, because every software developer out there is excited about DX10, why arn't you?
So now you are giving up saying DX10 is the second coming and believing the hype and saying it is new and needs fixing? Not that I agree with that wording of it but isn't that about the gist of what I have been saying all along, that it is as of yet unproven and many of the claims are just that - claims.
I have little doubt that DX 10 will turn out to be better than DX 9, I have never said it wouldn't. But I do seriously question whether it will be the panacea that the Vista inspired marketing materials make it out to be. For one, it needs Vista to work (whether that ever changes or not it is the way it is for the forseeable future) and Vista itself is such a terrible platform in terms of performance that even if DX 10 where all it is hyped to be and more it would likely not be enough to make up for the weaknesses of the Vista platform overall. Additionally, complexity breeds difficulty and if we look at the 260 we get a bit of insight into DX 10 development in so far as developing for the 360 is very much similar to developing for DX 10. There is a steep learning curve and developers are just now starting to get somethign from the code base on the 360 and it has been out for years, the PC 'version' is even more complex to get the most out of since the hardware variety is so great so it is very reasonable to suggest that it could take even longer to get the best DX 10 has to offer. Lastly, NVIDIA and ATI are having heaps of trouble making thier hardware work with Vista/DX10 - and as I understand NVIDIA had to appeal to MS to drop the memory virualization component of DX10 because they could not make it work. All these things tell me that unlike previous versions of DX this one has major hurdles to rolling out and reaching its potential, if you cannot see that then I suspect you are just buying the hype a bit too much.
--------------------------------
Achiever 60.00%, Socializer 53.00%, Killer 47.00%, Explorer 40.00%
Intel Core i7 Quad, Intel X58 SLi, 6G Corsair XMS DDR3, Intel X-25 SSD, 3 WD Velociraptor SATA SuperTrak SAS EX8650 Array, OCZ 1250W PS, GTX 295, xFi, 32" 1080p LCD
Why not wait till something that is 100% dx10 comes out before going on and on and on and on about how DX10 is not all that. Lostplanet is NOT a DX10 game. And COJ looks better after the PATCH. Still not 100% dx10 game. Microsoft has only had ONE reason for anything it does. Its SELF! Thank God Apple and Linux is still our there. As for DX10 vista only. Its just a matter of time. Someone out there will figure it out. They always do. For one reason. Because they say it cant be done. LOL just hide and watch.
I never thought this was a discussion about the obvious. Watch ANY car commercial, and they all say, Best Car in its Class. How can everyone be the best? Its called MARKETING! Everyone sells their product up. Everyone. Mac's do it, and they do it well. OMG MAC!!! SO SAFE SO SECURE!! PFFT ... Its 90% Marketing Hype. Not that Mac's are pretty safe, and pretty darn secure, but they arn't the Holy Grail of Operating system.
Better still - why not let it prove itself before proclaiming it the greatest thing in gaming? So many people have swallowed the pill on this one allready, I will wait for it to prove itself. It would be one thing if it wasn't tied to Vista so strongly, but since it is I have to take the claims with a big extra grain of salt as I have been working with Vista for over a year and a half and it is so far from being a platform suitable for any kind of performance intensive application it is just not funny.
Also, and this is really the point, so long as Vista has adoption/deployment issues (and it has big ones) there isn't going to be any real DX10 games. Yes, Crysis and AoC and some others this fall are labeled as DX10 but they all will be made for XP and DX9 as well menaing the full effort of development is not going into DX10. No game for some time to come, probbaly at least well into 2009, is going to be 'real' DX10 because there won't be anywhere near enough machines out there to return the cost of the game if it is DX 10 only. SO expecting anything but a DX 9 game with some extra goodies rolled in DX 10 for the next year or so is pretty foolish. It is the same issue PhysX has - not enough adoption so games can only code in extras since the bulk of the game customers will not have a PhysX card. DX 10 won't be as bad as PhysX as MS is bigger and has more resources and credibility but the dilemma is the same.
That is all I am saying - don't buy the hype. Wait until they deliver, they have a long way to go. And not to start another hot topic but in reality Macs are not all that secure - they are just all that obscure. big difference.
Nonetheless, the fall will tell us alot - but if you think this fall games are goign to magically perform wonderfully with Vista/DX 10 given the existing huge performance problems with Vista you are living in Candyland.
--------------------------------
Achiever 60.00%, Socializer 53.00%, Killer 47.00%, Explorer 40.00%
Intel Core i7 Quad, Intel X58 SLi, 6G Corsair XMS DDR3, Intel X-25 SSD, 3 WD Velociraptor SATA SuperTrak SAS EX8650 Array, OCZ 1250W PS, GTX 295, xFi, 32" 1080p LCD
Better still - why not let it prove itself before proclaiming it the greatest thing in gaming? So many people have swallowed the pill on this one allready, I will wait for it to prove itself. It would be one thing if it wasn't tied to Vista so strongly, but since it is I have to take the claims with a big extra grain of salt as I have been working with Vista for over a year and a half and it is so far from being a platform suitable for any kind of performance intensive application it is just not funny.
Also, and this is really the point, so long as Vista has adoption/deployment issues (and it has big ones) there isn't going to be any real DX10 games. Yes, Crysis and AoC and some others this fall are labeled as DX10 but they all will be made for XP and DX9 as well menaing the full effort of development is not going into DX10. No game for some time to come, probbaly at least well into 2009, is going to be 'real' DX10 because there won't be anywhere near enough machines out there to return the cost of the game if it is DX 10 only. SO expecting anything but a DX 9 game with some extra goodies rolled in DX 10 for the next year or so is pretty foolish. It is the same issue PhysX has - not enough adoption so games can only code in extras since the bulk of the game customers will not have a PhysX card. DX 10 won't be as bad as PhysX as MS is bigger and has more resources and credibility but the dilemma is the same.
That is all I am saying - don't buy the hype. Wait until they deliver, they have a long way to go. And not to start another hot topic but in reality Macs are not all that secure - they are just all that obscure. big difference.
Nonetheless, the fall will tell us alot - but if you think this fall games are goign to magically perform wonderfully with Vista/DX 10 given the existing huge performance problems with Vista you are living in Candyland.
You shift gears more then an 18 wheeler.
This fall DX10 games will perform great of the highest end machines. Maybe slightly better "Benchmarks" will be on DX9, but DX10 has better shader effects, and will simply look better. THE HARD reality of things is this, BETTER LOOKING = SLOWER. Its always been true. Why would this be any different? You want something to look better? Its going to cost you resources. Regardless these are inescapable facts. You cannot possible expect anyone to believe otherwise, and if you do your only deluding
I am not sure what you are even arguing at this point - you seem to be capable of making claims about the future performance despite evidence in the present that points to a rocky road. All I am saying, all I have said, is that there are some major issues surrounding DX10 and that despite the hype, despite the claims, despite the marketing it is not proven and there is good reason to question how things are going to unfold. Originally, I jumped in on the claim by someone that DX 10 makes your whole computer faster (which is a complete mischaracterization) along wth other comments saying DX10 was going to do all the wonderful graphics and do it with better performance. Certainly, a big part of DX 10 is an attempt to makes things more efficient and to yield more for less - but the early indications say otherwise. I seriously am beginning to wonder if you are not some kind of viral marketing troll because you are just being so ridiculous in presuming facts not in evidence and ignoring the ones that are in front of us.
--------------------------------
Achiever 60.00%, Socializer 53.00%, Killer 47.00%, Explorer 40.00%
Intel Core i7 Quad, Intel X58 SLi, 6G Corsair XMS DDR3, Intel X-25 SSD, 3 WD Velociraptor SATA SuperTrak SAS EX8650 Array, OCZ 1250W PS, GTX 295, xFi, 32" 1080p LCD
Actually, there wouldn't be anything illegal about it at all.
If I own XP (which I do) and I pay for (therefore own) a game that needs dx10, and someone makes an open source "wrapper" ( a bit of code) for the dx9 driver to communicate with dx10 software/hardware, there is absolutely nothing the cops or MS could do.
All the code does is bridge the gap between dx9 and dx10, which the SDKs for both are readily available from MS.
No copyrights are broken or infringed.
It's called reverse engineering. Wiki it. It's illegal.
CURRENTLY PLAYING SHAIYA