What is Digg?102 Comments
- Vertabreaker, on 04/09/2008, -0/+28Is it just me or is every Crysis benchmark the same? They all use the same GPUs, they all show the difference between DX9 and DX10, and they all prove the same point.....you can't play Crysis with all settings all the way up and get max frame rate without taking out a loan to pay for the PC.
- fleury29, on 04/09/2008, -1/+29SPOILER:
The Bottom Line
NVIDIA GPU based video cards have no real-world gameplay differences between DX9 and DX10, so there is no reason not to run in DX10. AMD ATI GPU based video cards do suffer a performance penalty for using DX10. If you are running an NVIDA GPU based video card, continue to run in DX10, but if you are running an AMD ATI GPU based video card you might want to consider running in DX9 for the best Crysis experience.
We feel that HardOCP should not let AMD’s poor DX10 performance retard our testing. DX10 is the future whether we like it or not, and we want to encourage game developers to continue to push the envelope and provide a good gaming experience. We also want to encourage NVIDIA and AMD to continue to develop and mature their DX10 drivers in both single and multi-GPU configurations for games. - Archaic1, on 04/09/2008, -13/+35You're right, but at least XP also added a lot of useful features and changes. Vista on the other hand represents nothing much more than a nicer interface at the cost of higher minimum system specs for most people.
- inactive, on 04/09/2008, -6/+23It added nothing, it was a Windows 2000 with a pretty theme.
- chewbie, on 04/09/2008, -0/+14driver rollback, the ability to disable devices to make them stop using power, NTFS's newer version, unattended instalation or the option for it to be able to install itself from servers, "last good configuration that worked", ClearType, the ability to receive updates from servers in enterprise environments
some of these "features" were added to win2000 after XP was out but i'm pretty sure that i left a few out - inactive, on 04/09/2008, -5/+18"...so there is no reason not to run in DX10..."
Sure there is: Vista. - inactive, on 04/09/2008, -24/+36When XP was out everyone was whining and crying that it was slow and unstable. Then everyone was forced to use it because most new software required it. At the same time it got stabler and stabler since third and first party software became more mature.
Take a look what OS almost all new PCs have on them for 'free'. Vista. You'll be using it. - Icecream, on 04/09/2008, -0/+10This simply isn't true. There aren't any games I have played in DX10 where I get equal or better frames then running it in DX9. I have an Nvidia card.
- mmockett, on 04/09/2008, -4/+14Despite the lack of difference between Nvidia cards running on DX10 and DX9, there is a huge difference between running Crysis on XP and Vista. I doubled my framerate when I downgraded to XP from Vista, even on the same 'high' quality settings an resolution. I only know this is the case for the 8800 GT but I wouldn't be surprised if it was true for most people. So seeing as you can only get DX10 on Vista, there is a big difference between DX9 and DX10, as the latter requires you run a sluggish operating system that halves the framerate. I don't know why this is the case - it could be bad drivers or just Vista's framework (superfetch etc) but I'm not going back to Vista until they sort it out or until hardware is good enough to close the gap...
- RockSlice, on 04/09/2008, -1/+11Buried for not being thorough enough.
If they'd done a bit of searching online, they would have found that you can still get the "Very High" settings on DX9. You just can't use the ingame config.
Also, they should have run the tests at that max quality setting, even if the framerates were less than 10fps - NJank, on 04/09/2008, -1/+10and when did I move to XP? 2004. about 3 years after it was released. 2 years after SP1. No compelling reason to do so beforehand. Same as now. But back then, I didn't consider Linux an option. I do now. Next computer, Windows is going to have to demonstrate something substantial for me to buy a system where there's a premium for Vista tacked on.
- robotto, on 04/09/2008, -0/+9Why consider this a spoiler?
- ripple123, on 04/09/2008, -3/+11Quiet now, pathetic loser.
- Brutis, on 04/09/2008, -2/+10This news was out when Crysis was released months ago........OLD
- ChayesFSS, on 04/09/2008, -1/+7I had Vista for a while on a new gaming PC and yea, the dx10 water in bioshock was nice but in the end it just wasn't worth it. I've since upgraded to XP and enjoy much better game play.
- jacksons98, on 04/09/2008, -2/+8Since when has Vista been Free? In case you don't know it adds about $100-200 to the cost of every computer sold.
- Smills, on 04/09/2008, -1/+7Indeed, I recently purchased a $7,000AU PC (like $6400US) and it still cannot run Crysis on very high at 1920x1200 res.
- seraph582, on 04/09/2008, -1/+71.2 does increase performance, but the ini file hack makes DX10 mode unnecessary, and the fact that you're running it in XP instead gives it another 20% extra FPS, so screw losing those frames just for Vista/DX10.
- Trax91, on 04/09/2008, -1/+7***** WHOOSH
- Zaggynl, on 04/09/2008, -2/+7doh, reverse the fps: 25 fps in dx9 and 20 fps in dx10
- GeekyGerge, on 04/09/2008, -1/+6DX10 Wasn't a triumph.
- diggduggjoe, on 04/09/2008, -0/+5Win2K or XP are good operating systems. XP is the upgrade to 2K and it shows, but for simply getting work done they are both still great. Vista does not add enough to warrant the performance hit. With Windows 7 rumored to be modular, making a huge investment in Vista may be a waste of money. Vista is the new ME. The greatest thing XP had over 2K is with XP Home drivers were made for most everything. During 2K/Win9x times, a lot of gaming hardware was unsupported on 2K. There is the occasional rogue hardware with XP Home (HP) only drivers, but that is uncommon.
- whyufail, on 04/09/2008, -2/+7On a direct side by side comparison, Vista still under performs, assuming you can get the thing working in the first place. During just a few months trial, I had three games simply NOT load with Vista period. For the record, you may as well throw anything with OpenGL out the window once you install Vista.
- mmockett, on 04/09/2008, -0/+4What would you suggest then? I got the latest drivers, had SP1 and it was still really slow. I don't have anything against Vista apart from this so I'm all ears...
- sega01, on 04/09/2008, -1/+5OpenGL FTW!
- whyufail, on 04/09/2008, -1/+5We have the hardware. Now if only we had a decent OS to use it on...
- darkixion, on 04/09/2008, -4/+8No, that's not what I meant.
- darkixion, on 04/09/2008, -7/+11I don't recall whining and crying when XP came out. I was actually happy that I finally had an OS that didn't crash all the time and was faster than previous. Everyone else I know seemed to indicate the same too. This doesn't seem like history repeating. Vista really is rubbish and no-one I know who had it likes it, whereas those who switched to XP welcomed the upgrade.
- eN1X, on 04/09/2008, -0/+4I run the game at 1440x900 in DX9 with the Very High crack and it looks beautiful. I compared DX9 and DX10 on Very High settings and I couldn't find any differences at all besides the fact that DX9 gives me about 10-15 frames better performance. As far as I'm concerned DX10 is a joke as of right now.
Running on Core 2 Quad Extreme QX6850 @ 3.67ghz, 2 8800GTX's in SLI & 4GB DDR2 RAM @ 1066mhz - whyufail, on 04/09/2008, -1/+5Same thing here. I installed Vista, gave it a shot on Bioshock and Hellgate, and while there was one or two new shinys here and there, the horrors of dealing with Vistas crap(compatibility and performance issues) far outweighed the minute benefits. The partition is still there for now, but I don't see me ever using that crap again.
- whyufail, on 04/09/2008, -1/+4Fairly exciting game? Are you sure you were playing Crysis, the worlds most overhyped benchmark software. I hesitate to refer to it as a "game".
- Archaic1, on 04/09/2008, -0/+3He was probably making a point about it being very difficult to buy a PC package without an OEM operating system licence, so it therefore might as well be considered part of the price as a whole even if you're just going to uninstall it.
- estvir, on 04/10/2008, -1/+4That's why he said 'free' (See what's surrounding the word?) and it doesn't add $100-200, it's more like $50.
- theaceoffire, on 04/09/2008, -0/+3oooo, too late. You should have tried to get dugg up BEFORE you insulted people.
- RoboDonut, on 04/09/2008, -6/+9I think you mean Windows 2000.
Windows 2000 was perfectly stable and faster than XP. - wafflesomd, on 04/10/2008, -0/+3Will it ever? No.
There's nothing that DX10 does that couldn't be done in 9.
Can we move to OpenGL now? - theaceoffire, on 04/09/2008, -1/+4Based on it being Windows, I assume it won't be released for a while.
- mugicha, on 04/10/2008, -0/+3Sorry good buddy, but your comment fails. Think back on what XP was replacing: Windows 98 for most people, and ME for those unlucky bastards who got suckered into it. XP was such a massive upgrade from 98 that you can't really compare them. Granted, XP had issues when it first came out, but SP1 smoothed most of those out, and with SP2 XP really came into its own. Vista, on the other hand, offers very little that is new or better. The Aero interface? Beryl and OSX both make Aero look silly. And what happened to the file system and other features that we were promised but that didn't end up in the released version? Also, the argument that DX10 could not have been released for XP makes no sense. You're telling me a billion dollar software company could not figure out how to integrate it into their own operating system? Sorry, I don't buy that at all. And if it is true, what does that say about Microsoft's competence?
Vista does not make sense from a user's perspective. The only reason it exists is because Microsoft needed to release a new product. I'm no Linux fanboy either, but it seems to me that in the future the only viable model for software development, at least for something as complex as an operating system, is open source. As Vista shows, this thing has gotten too big for even a large corporation like Microsoft to deal with by themselves and not ***** up. Don't be so sure that in a few years time we'll all just "be using" whatever Microsoft decides to shove down our throats because its time for them to make another billion dollars. - pk7677, on 04/09/2008, -0/+2game-wise
- CarzorStelatis, on 04/09/2008, -0/+2That's funny because my copy of Unreal Tournament GOTY runs better set to OpenGL than DirectX.
- BabyWookie, on 04/09/2008, -0/+2I though that it was fun as hell. Enough for me to play through three times, with the last time playing on Delta difficulty.
- xNIBx, on 04/09/2008, -1/+3Hardocp is the worst reviewing site ever. They always compare graphic cards at different settings and resolutions(set up by them according to what THEY find playable). On this comparison they compare dx9 with dx10 on crysis ON MEDIUM SETTINGS!!!!! I mean how stupid can they be? Try comparing the best you can get on dx9 with the best that you can get on dx10. Then you can really have a comparison of what each can offer.
Even though all current games dont have huge differences between dx9 and dx10 paths(since they were made during dx9 era and since dx10 adoption will be slower due to vista exclusiveness and dx9 level consoles), the differences between these 2 paths will be even smaller when you arent comparing them on high settings. And that is because the most important bell and whistles of dx10 can be seen on high settings. - Zaggynl, on 04/09/2008, -4/+6Although there are higher requirements, a lot of existing features have been upgraded.
Superfetch and Networking are examples of such.
Not everyone agrees they are that great though, but it might get a lot better with a service pack or two, just as Windows XP did. - paulsmith288, on 04/09/2008, -2/+4A ps3 hardware system is cheaper than a Vista licence.
VISTA ultimate : £336
PS3 : £265
http://www.supremetronics.co.uk/microsoft-windows- ... - Aidanjalali, on 04/09/2008, -3/+5The fact that you have to use VISTA to run games in DX10, which is natively not as efficient as XP "yet", means that breaking even is probably a good thing. How about benchmarking: DX9 in XP, DX9 in VISTA, and DX10 in VISTA. That'd be good to see.
- Mejogid, on 04/09/2008, -0/+2It's really not that much of a push to drop down below AA4x, particularly at high resolutions/pixel densities.
- BlackKnight6, on 04/09/2008, -1/+3I dual boot Vista and XP, I have Crysis installed on both. I could not tell the difference between XP and Vista performance. Try right clicking Crysis and running in DX9 to compare to XP, don't just run the game (which will make it run DX10). Superfetch releases RAM instantly when a program requests it. If superfetch didn't release RAM the game would have stuttering, not lower framerate (yes if it stutters the average fps is lower but when not stuttering it is the same as no hard drive activity).
And for the last time, Nvidia and Ati need to improve DX10 performance, not MS... - CarzorStelatis, on 04/09/2008, -0/+2Company of Heroes has a framerate difference, but that's because it ties API to quality settings. So 'Very High' is DX10, and lower is DX9. If they allowed the same quality settings for each API then there would probably be little difference.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 102 discussions
Digg is coming to a city (and computer) near you! Check out all the details on our 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is