[bkwegoharder]

I'm hearing that when the 9800GT series cards use DX10 they lose performance even if the game settings are the same with DX9 and DX10. I went from 31.8 fps to 36.79(You might as well say 36.8fps) When using high settings in Crysis with DX9 and DX10 with 2xAA. so I went from lower 30fps to upper 30fps. All in all it was like a 15 or more % increase. I hear that the 8800 series cards LOSE performance with DX10. Why is that. Maybe it has to do with the Radeon 4800 cards being made more up to date with DX10 requirements(I'm talking about DX10.1)?

 

[Squall-Leonhart]

Only when developers suck at programming.

 

[makotech222]

microsofts fault too. dx11 should fix it up much better though.

 

[Squall-Leonhart]

haha, simply having Dx11 makes Dx10 perform better (true story)

 

[skoreanime]

Well, when 10.1 was released, developers had a bit more tools to work with...but nothing ground breaking.

It really is just lazy developers.

Or smart ones, depending on your view. M$ is already pumping out 11, so why go and learn 10 when you can learn 11? It's like this last couple generation of tech stuff was just fillers for the good things to come. Both software wise and hardware.

 

[bkwegoharder]

11 is basically 10 just added on. so when you learn 10 you learn 11. it is not like with DX9 to 10 where there was this huge and radical change. That is why DX11 will be backwards compatible.

I also searched on the internet, and I found something that explained a little bit on the Nvidia situation. The Nvidia cards have a relatively small amount of shader units, but the units are strong. The radeon cards have a huge amount of units, but they aren't as strong individually as the nvidia cards. DX10(and probably 11) supposedly favors more shader units, while the old way of doing things favored the stronger units I guess. Well from what I'm grasping from what it says.

 

[Squall-Leonhart]

thats been the way Dx has worked for ever..
but Dx11 has optimised Dx10 with multithreading n stuff.

 

[skoreanime]

11 is basically 10 just added on. so when you learn 10 you learn 11. it is not like with DX9 to 10 where there was this huge and radical change. That is why DX11 will be backwards compatible.

I also searched on the internet, and I found something that explained a little bit on the Nvidia situation. The Nvidia cards have a relatively small amount of shader units, but the units are strong. The radeon cards have a huge amount of units, but they aren't as strong individually as the nvidia cards. DX10(and probably 11) supposedly favors more shader units, while the old way of doing things favored the stronger units I guess. Well from what I'm grasping from what it says.

Well said.

It's those slight differences that gives Nvidia the edge in some games, and ATI in the rest. But it looks like M$ does want to make things more unified down the road. I think they're looking ahead, cause from what we've heard in the past years, AMD/ATI, Nvidia and Intel look like they might be going back to the days of one dedicated processor to do the whole bit.

But could you imagine AMD/ATI or Nvidia coming out with their own simple OS purely for gaming? That would rock.

 

[Ahielia]

But could you imagine AMD/ATI or Nvidia coming out with their own simple OS purely for gaming? That would rock.

I'd totally get that.
I can do web browsing on my laptop

 

[redlofredlof]

Only when developers suck at programming.

my point exactly

 

[fivefeet8]

11 is basically 10 just added on. so when you learn 10 you learn 11. it is not like with DX9 to 10 where there was this huge and radical change. That is why DX11 will be backwards compatible.

Dx11 is simply a superset of Dx10. It incorporates all the features of previous Dx API revisions. Dx11 does have a few things that are fairly different from Dx10. The requirement of a fixed function Tessellation unit.

I also searched on the internet, and I found something that explained a little bit on the Nvidia situation. The Nvidia cards have a relatively small amount of shader units, but the units are strong. The radeon cards have a huge amount of units, but they aren't as strong individually as the nvidia cards. DX10(and probably 11) supposedly favors more shader units, while the old way of doing things favored the stronger units I guess. Well from what I'm grasping from what it says.

Depending on the definition of "strong" and "shader units", the shader Units on AMDTI can theoretically be stronger. Nvidia and AMDTI don't count them the same.

 

[Cid Highwind]

You really can't just compare both shaders to each other. As for DX10 being slower, I really wonder by now. I've seen some examples that already show DX10 being faster than DX9, and for ATi that's not even including the DX10.1 advantages yet. I'm really tempted to check this out personally because I think the entire "OMG DX10 is so much slower" has in reality become an outdated myth.

 

[Squall-Leonhart]

Its because games that use Dx10 are just using it for additional effects.

for the most part, the Dx10 games are using Dx9 for most of the effects that, if they were rewritten to be done using Dx10, would be faster.

 

[bkwegoharder]

but I'm getting improvements in ALL games, that includes the games that are mainly DX9 with just a bit of DX10 thrown in. I got a massive drop in performance with Resident Evil 5 as well with DX9. And both DX9 and DX10 looks almost exactly the same.

 

[runawayprisoner]

Some of the ways people handle effects in DX9 can be simplified in DX10, so performance in DX10 should be higher. It's just lazy developers not going in-depth or not experimenting enough to find the actual improvement. Most would just use the basics of DX10 and do some roundabout stuffs to achieve the same effect. Of course that would be slower than using something else natively.

 

[Sonic2036]

I have directX10 and I didn't know open LG does that with it o.o
but I think the reason is that DirectX10 for Windows XP is incomplete and its already revealed by Microsoft. but DirectX10 with Full Preference For Windows Vista (and Build in vista specially for vista) works well.

 

[Squall-Leonhart]

Microsoft has not released any form of Dx10 for XP. Dx10 was a marketting ploy to get people to buy vista that has all but failed

 

[bkwegoharder]

It didn't fail. The market share for XP has drastically decreased, and the market share for vista is getting close to 30%. actually I heard that the transition was faster than the transition with Windows 2000 to XP.

 

[Squall-Leonhart]

Stop overestimating Vista's use.

SALES = / = USERS.

 

[bkwegoharder]

Stop overestimating Vista's use.

SALES = / = USERS.

Doesn't matter, it is an absolute lie for anyone to say that Vista is unsuccessful.

http://www.tweakguides.com/VA_3.html