Originally posted by mcharj11

 

Originally posted by ladyattis

 

---

Originally posted by n25philly
*cough* *cough* not DX10 *cough* *cough*

---

 

*cough* *cough* Crytek's art assets don't look any different between DX9 and DX10 *cough* *cough*

-- Brede

 

At high setting snthere is little no difference between DX9 and 10 but at V.High DX10 beats 9 even with the hack. As the hack isn't the full V.High settings. This is pointless however as Crysis like all games that advertise DX10, aren't even proper DX10 games. They are DX9 with some of the features getting a DX10 make over to look better but this causes bad performance in most cases. A game that is built from the ground up with DX10 would not have the performance issues that all these so called DX10 games are having.

Exactly.  DX10's most compelling feature is that a game coded from the ground up for DX10 ONLY should be able to push graphics like we've never seen, and do it far easier than DX9 ever could. 

Take the same exact game, one made exclusively for DX9 and the other for DX10, run them side by side and the DX10 version in theory should look better and play far smoother.

As for DX11, has that even been announced yet?  Granted, I haven't been paying much attention in that area recently, but this would seem to buck the trend, so to speak.  DX10 is hardly out yet, so it would make far more sense for ms to release several versions of 10 before they move onto 11, though I could be wrong.  But either way, 11 will still be another version of 10, just like 7 8 and 9 were all of the same api, simply with more and more features.  So, 11 should be able to run in vista, just as 9 could be used in several different versions of windows. 

With the trouble ms had getting people to adopt the vista platform, I can't see them coding 11 to be a windows 7 exclusive.  DX10 was supposed to be a vital selling point for vista, however hardly any games at all support dx10 at this point, and none whatsoever are coded exclusively for it.  Making 11 available to users of vista and windows 7 would kick developers in the ass, and then we would see more games take advantage of it.  As it stands, sadly, it simply isn't profitable for devs to make dx10 games.

Which also brings us to the 64 bit debate.  Really, if 64 bit was the standard, we wouldn't see a fraction of the problems with it as we do now.  I would say less than a quarter of vista and xp users use 64 bit, so 32 bit drivers and issues get the priority.  Even though, in the near future, 64 bit will be needed to play games.  Why would it be needed?  If you are using a 32 bit environment, this gives you 4 gigs of address space, which is divided among your memory and pci devices, and this includes your video card.  I run vista 32, with 4 gigs of ram and a single 8800gtx, which has 768mb of video ram.  Combine that 768 with my other pci devices and I am left with 2814mb of usable physical memory.  The overhead of Vista alone, with my firefox process (88356K) adds up to 949mb of that ram used.  (this drops off somewhat while gaming, as dwm and some other processes go idle somewhat, taking less resources)  This leaves me with about 1865mb available for gaming. 

Does anyone else see games needing more than this in the future?  I'm playing a game right now that when at max settings, uses upwards of 1500mb.  Within the next couple of years I can see this breaking the 2gb barrier, and then we'll be in trouble.

Sorry about going off topic, I just got a little bit sidetracked.  Some of this crap is just frustrating is all.

Originally posted by Narishma

As for DX11, has that even been announced yet?

Don't worry. Far as I know, dx 11 hasn't been announced, only Windows Vienna to replace Vista next year.

my computer is still running DX9 on Windows XP...- -|||   Does  DX10 do great work on games...?

  My vision has been too impaired by video games to notice any difference anyways :P