DX10 - Marketing BS?

See this:

http://uk.gamespot.com/features/6182140/index.html

Also, the following is a screenshot from my friend's PC:

http://i37.tinypic.com/v9ilk.jpg

Pretty impressive... Also, it's Direct X 9. Maybe DX10 is easier for developers to use or something... But pretty much anything DX10 can do, DX9 can also do. It's just a question of how long it'll be before developers make games that will have no compatability with DX9.

All the pre-rendered DX9 vs DX10 images and videos are just for marketing. I'm pretty sure DX9 can produce graphics just as good if the hardware and developers are up for it.

Well, I could just be horribly wrong here... Maybe DX9 really can't do what we've seen in the pre-rendered videos. Meh, discuss :\

 

Hang on, I thought the only reason Crysis "DX10" can be enabled on XP is because not every feature in Vista Very high = all DX10. As in DX9 can render some of the stuff but the developers just disabled it to promote DX10?

 

Yeah, "very high" was disabled in DX9 to promote DX10. You can just hack the game and enable the "DX10" settings.

 

Dx9 can do what Dx10 can. Dx9 just requires more horsepower to do it, apparently. Even games coded for DirectX 10 don't necessarily take advantage of its postprocessing features because the hardware still isn't powerful enough to do it!

I don't buy it. In the end, Dx10 is nothing but smoke and mirrors down a long pipe dream corridor with darkness at the end of the tunnel.

 

But there are some DX10 exclusive effects that can't be enabled even with the hack.

 

Check out these vids to see the difference between DX10 and DX9:

http://www.bit-tech.net/news/2007/05/26/crysis_dx9_dx10_comp/1

 

If DX10 requires less horsepower than DX9, then how do you explain lower frame rates with DX10 compared to DX9?

 

crysis isn't a directx10 game.... it's a directx9 game that uses directx10 extensions. so yes, everything directx10 can do, so can directx9, but only when referring to crysis since it's not really a directx10 game.

 

Blah, my internet is going too slow to download those 50mb videos...

But, I'm guessing they are just the pre-renders after looking at the date on that link you posted... In other words, those videos are just marketing gimmicks.

Another good example of how disappointing DX10 is this:

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=Xs7GBZ0RYAA

 

I don't think anything has been truly coded for DirectX 10 only that actually uses DirectX 10 effects. Most are just DirectX 9 coded for DirectX 10.

I can't see why any developer would code strictly for DirectX 10 only for several reasons:

(1) Hardware that can actually process it appropriately is very expensive
(2) It would be PC game exclusive since X360 runs DirectX 9
(3) It would have a very limited customer base

 

I think newer versions of DX are just like games such as CRYSIS....they push hardware companies to produce better preforming equipment, and they also push the consumer to purchase said equipment. This way, we do have some advancement in technology, as well as competition in prices. Sure, it probably is just smoke and mirrors as htwingnut said...But atleast we're moving up cause imagine if everything was still in DX7....X)

 

Yeah it's failed so far as a BS marketing campaign.

They can't stop using DX.9 if they want to make money.

 

so dx9 is better in gaming than dx10? how do i downgrade if i have dx10? just uninstall and install dx9?

 

uninstall vista, install xp, install dx9

dx10's failure is only eclipsed by the failure of vista itself

 

DO i need to change to xp as well if i want to install dx9?

 

99% games are already DX.9...

Games like Crysis (dx.10), you just need to enable DX.9 instead of DX.10 if you haven't done that already.

no

 

so i just have to uninstall 10 and install 9? is it advisable in vista to have 9?

 

Windows Vista ships with DirectX10 and works DX9 games using a variant of DirectX9.0c (involves some kind of emulation). You don't uninstall DX10 unless you're doing a clean reinstall of the platform.

Occasionally Vista does a crappy job of running DX9 games because its emulation doesn't work perfectly. What that requires is an update of the latest DirectX runtime libraries from Microsoft's website to get the emulation working properly again. I had this problem when I first installed the Witcher (a DX9 game).

 

i already did a clean install on my machine.. is there an option not to install direct x when reinstalling?

 

dx9 on vista is not emulated. dx9L is just dx9 tweaked for vista. if it comes out slower than xp or if it just fails to play a game at all, it is because of general sloppiness, not emulation issues.

 

so, this begs the question...


Is ATI trying to pull the wool with their DX 10.1 crap? When are we going to see DX 10.1 games? lol

 

Looks like plenty of sloppiness then since DX9 errors on a Vista machine should clearly not happen for an API specifically tweaked for the current OS.

To the OP: It is impossible to install an OS without DirectX coming as part of the package. Even if you did succeed in getting a DirectX-free installation you wouldn't be able to play any recently released game on your OS.

 

anyone have any insight to DX 10.1?

 

Didn't you read about the Assassin's Creed DX10.1 fiasco? The game is supposed to be a "The way it's meant to be played" game sponsored by Nvidia but due to be coded for DX10.1 ATI cards were crushing NV cards...Pissing off your cash faucet is not what you want if you are a dev/publisher so DX10.1 support was axed from the game... But the other problem is that nobody want to code exclusively for dx10 as that would alienate quite a bit of people who either don't have Vista or just donn't have enough horsepower to run games running exclusively in DX10.... I'm pretty sure if Microsft decided to release DX10 on XP too the popularity would somewhat increase but then who would buy/keep Vista?

 

ah, that makes sense now. Thanks

 

and i was wondering why DX9 Performs better lol

 

Well obviously DX10 looks better and it was implied that DX9 doesn't render the same effects as it would require more powerfull hardware to do so.

 

I'm going to draw a graph to explain this. Give me a few minutes.



As you can see, this graph basically shows that DX10 is more efficient than DX9 (it sort of depends on your definition)

Today, we are on the left hand side of that critical point. One day, we won't be. Of course, that doesn't mean that 8, 9, or even gtx 200 series hardware will be able to handle those effects.

Most recent API revisions have been like this. DX8.1 could handle dx9 effects, but dx9 yields better visual quality at the same (or better) performance level if hardware is sufficiently fast and the scene being rendered is sufficiently complex. Same deal with dx9 and dx10. Dx10 is more efficient, but there is more overhead than dx9 as well.

 

masterchef, are you an engineer? You must be because only a geeky engineer would draw a graph to represent this concept. (I am one, so take no offense)

 

yep. 10char. recently changed majors to computer science of all things. im starting some software projects targeted for windows, mac, and iphone to make a ton of money so i can drop out of college

 

You should make the axes log(performance) vs. log(graphics) because I'm sure its exponential . And what are the units, FPS vs. GFLOPS?

 

yeah. actually i linearized the curve by making my axis logarithmic. you just can't tell because i didn't gridlabel anything.

but it works out in my head that way.

 

that'd be really interesting if we could really get some data on graphic settings [GFLOPS] against performance [FPS]

 

the software has to exist first. one day you will get your test.
there really isn't anything that has been designed for dx10. games coming out either forgo dx10 altogether, get designed for dx9 and then get ported to dx10, or in the most extreme case get a sort of hybrid dx9-10 development.

 

The sad thing is that Microsoft had great promise in promoting PC games, but just handled it all very poorly.

They had several good ideas:

(1) DirectX 10 - graphics that would surpass any of the curent gen consoles (Xbox 360, PS3)

(2) Live Anywhere - Take Xbox's 'Xbox Live' but use it for Windows. Awesome idea. All 'Games for Windows' branded games would be supported to find friends to play online with.

(3) 'Games for Windows' branding - Commonize the storefront boxes, meet certain minimum system requirements, and have in-store demos

All of these tanked. If nothing else, with the launch of Vista, Microsoft should have had this right. It would have encouraged sales of Vista, DirectX 10 hardware, and prolierated a large base of new unique PC titles that wouldn't be possible graphically on consoles.