DX10

[Preacher]

OK I'm 11 months into enjoying my x1900xtx video card and I read that they will not be even trying to support DX10 on anything older than the GF8XXX series of cards. I'm not 100% on this but I remember reading that one of the major boosts to games like UT3 and the like will be it's use of DX10. Now combing these two ideas I have some questions

1. Will I have to upgrade my video card to play this game or will it also support DX9.0c?

2. If it does support DX9.xx will the gameplay be diminished enough to actually call for an upgrade?

 

See over the last few years I have upgraded when I didn't need to. My old system of A64 939 2.2GHZ w/ 1GB RAM and x800GTO 256mb video - 160GB IDE MAxtor - Asus A7v deluxe and the ol trusty sony DVDRW drive worked just fine for all the games I play (UT04, CS:S, Guild Wars, COD2 etc). My upgrade came in part because of a windfall of cash and someone wanting to buy my old system, but also because of some folks telling me that I won't be able to play the new games like BF2 and the like on my system (bull crap btw).

 

So far not one program (besides 3D Mark06) has bogged down my system on full settings even in the highest quality games like Fear and Quake 4.

 

Any thoughts, comments?

[Tracid]

I believe they will make the games compatible with DX9, but later down road they will be exclusive to DX10, only thing I hear is Crysis will be able to play on DX9 cards also, not sure about Unreal 3.

[VooDooPC]

I don't know why they would ever make exclusive DX10 games. DX9 has been out for five years and the only games I am aware of that are exclusive to DX9 are Rainbow Six Vegas and Splinter Cell Double Agent. Ubisoft got tons of flack and half the people who wanted to play the games couldn't. I can't imagine other companies doing that with DX9 years down the line and with DX10 even further down the line.

[boiler]

My guess would be that DX9 will still be supported by games for a while still, but it would not suprise me at all if in a year or so developers move to DX10 only. By then there will be plenty of "budget" model dx10 capable cards on the market, making a switch to DX10 more financially possible (for the developers and the end users)

 

In the games that will support both DX9 and 10, I would imagine the only real difference you would be missing is the upgraded look and performance of DX10. I'm sure stuff like Crysis will still be fun to play on DX9, it just won't look as pretty and may not have quite the amount of effects that DX10 can handle.

 

The way I'm looking at it, when I have the money to upgrade again to an 8800 or something, I'm going to do it soon. I want to have DX10 capability, and I know with the real life stuff thats coming up for me I gotta make this purchase relatively soon while I can still afford it! My 7800gt has performed admirably, but it has finally become the bottleneck in my system.

[dragonfly]

I'm 100% sure it'll support dx9, since F.E.A.R. supported dx8... And that's a fairly new game as far as dx9 goes.

 

FEAR Xp is a lot harder on systems fyi if you're trying to bog down your pc a bit... try that one wiht everythign maxed and at 1920x1200...

[Preacher]

Alas my monitor will only support 1280x1024 and FEAR at max has no hiccups on my PC. Quake 4 is a lot of fun to play for the eye candy with everything maxed and 16 AF. What sucks is both games are lame as multiplayer

[Cujo]

your monitor will extend the life of your old components due to it's low native res.

 

btw, guys the source engine is relatively new and it still supports dx7... i would say the card would be too slow to play the game comfortably long before a dx level of support is removed from the games. try playing any current game on a gforce3 card or radeon 8500le, both of which are dx8 compatible.

 

 

oh preach, making dx9 cards dx10 compliant is not possible. it's changes at the hardware level that are required. "trying" to add support to an older gen card is not the issue at all.

 

when games are programmed they are programmed with different code paths. when you enter mat_dxlevelx in your console in source you are changing the code path that the game is running on. support for dx9 will be in games as long as the programmers continue to add those code paths. some are lazier than others. the new consoles using ati and nvidia hardware are ruining games in that regard cause they're mostly ported over from the console version which run on dx9 parts. that is why games like those mentioned above don't support older gen hardware. programmers are lazy and companies don't want to pay the fees to correctly port games. the best pc games are those developed solely for the pc like ut and hl. games like graw and the nfs series are really quite horrible on the pc and have that unfinished feeling mainly because pc gaming is an afterthought to those developers.

[dragonfly]

And that's why everyone should play UT.

[ZeroDamage]

Cujo is right about all that. I also want to point out that you can have a DX8 based video card like a Geforce 4 and still have DX9 installed. Most any game made for the foreseeable future will be backwards compatible down to DX8-9 even if they support some extra features for DX10. Do not worry about it, everyone with a modern system should be fine (X800/6x00 based cards).

[Preacher]

It just seems to me that software rarely catches up to hardware (benchmark stuff excluded). The last time I really had a hard time playing a game was when I had a 64mb gf mx400 trying to run UT2003. It worked but bogged it down. I got an AIW ATI 64mb 7500 series card and it ran in my system for a few years with not much going wrong. I then went to the ATI 9600XT HIS OCed version 256mb card and was blown away at how much better things could be playing CS and then finally CS:S. My next upgrade was to the x800GTO 256mb card and honestly the performance boost I felt in the games I already played was only minimal. When I built my system last year with the x1900xtx I really felt like I was overkilling it. Since then none of the games I like to play bogs my system down at all (Titan Quest, FEAR, Q4, Oblivion etc)

 

My intension was when an upgrade was wanted that I would simply add another x1900 crossfire ed card into the mix but they are becoming fairly difficult to find plus with the new dx10 tech coming out it almost seems pointless to go to that expence.

[Allanon]

And as most gamers normally run rigs with components which are 2-3 years old I doubt companies will switch to DX10 only as Mookie said, it's not that hard to make it DX9. However, I do remember reading that the whole point of switching to DX10 and vista was to start all over again with windows and PC's. So, while I doubt it would happen, I can bet that a few companies will use DX10 only including maybe EA and some others

[Cujo]

It just seems to me that software rarely catches up to hardware (benchmark stuff excluded). The last time I really had a hard time playing a game was when I had a 64mb gf mx400 trying to run UT2003. It worked but bogged it down. I got an AIW ATI 64mb 7500 series card and it ran in my system for a few years with not much going wrong. I then went to the ATI 9600XT HIS OCed version 256mb card and was blown away at how much better things could be playing CS and then finally CS:S. My next upgrade was to the x800GTO 256mb card and honestly the performance boost I felt in the games I already played was only minimal. When I built my system last year with the x1900xtx I really felt like I was overkilling it. Since then none of the games I like to play bogs my system down at all (Titan Quest, FEAR, Q4, Oblivion etc)

 

My intension was when an upgrade was wanted that I would simply add another x1900 crossfire ed card into the mix but they are becoming fairly difficult to find plus with the new dx10 tech coming out it almost seems pointless to go to that expence.

 

 

again, you're not noticing a huge difference because your monitor is limiting the performance you can extract from your system. try running those games on my 24inch dell at 1920x1200 and you'll start feeling a bit held back. if i was gaming only on a 19inch lcd i would not have the parts i have today in my system.

 

i recommend crossfire/sli only to those with the money to burn. i've never felt it was worthwhile for 95% of the population as they're all gaming on monitors like yours. anyone that can afford a high end crossfire/sli system should also be able to afford a high end 24 or 30inch monitor.

[Tek-Almighty]

It just seems to me that software rarely catches up to hardware (benchmark stuff excluded). The last time I really had a hard time playing a game was when I had a 64mb gf mx400 trying to run UT2003. It worked but bogged it down. I got an AIW ATI 64mb 7500 series card and it ran in my system for a few years with not much going wrong. I then went to the ATI 9600XT HIS OCed version 256mb card and was blown away at how much better things could be playing CS and then finally CS:S. My next upgrade was to the x800GTO 256mb card and honestly the performance boost I felt in the games I already played was only minimal. When I built my system last year with the x1900xtx I really felt like I was overkilling it. Since then none of the games I like to play bogs my system down at all (Titan Quest, FEAR, Q4, Oblivion etc)

 

My intension was when an upgrade was wanted that I would simply add another x1900 crossfire ed card into the mix but they are becoming fairly difficult to find plus with the new dx10 tech coming out it almost seems pointless to go to that expence.

 

 

again, you're not noticing a huge difference because your monitor is limiting the performance you can extract from your system. try running those games on my 24inch dell at 1920x1200 and you'll start feeling a bit held back. if i was gaming only on a 19inch lcd i would not have the parts i have today in my system.

 

i recommend crossfire/sli only to those with the money to burn. i've never felt it was worthwhile for 95% of the population as they're all gaming on monitors like yours. anyone that can afford a high end crossfire/sli system should also be able to afford a high end 24 or 30inch monitor.

 

ditto..

 

if you look at benchmarks on HardOCP or any other decent site, they all point to the same thing...unless you are running DX10 OR you are running super high res (19 x 12 or higher) cards like the X1900 and 8800 GTX are overkill, because they pump out frames as fast as you need.

 

The real deciding factor will be nex gen games run in DX10 at high res...hasn't happened yet, but 2 more months will tell.

[dragonfly]

Weren't they testing UT3 with 8800gtx's on dell 24" and 30"'s and getting good frames?

[Tracid]

Now that I thought about it, I don't mind if games become exclusive to DX10, the thing that infuriates me is that I need to get Vista for it. Why have previous DX compatible with all M$ OS but not DX10. I'm sure they can make DX10 work with XP or 2000. They just freaking greedy and trying to force Vista on us.

[Cujo]

xp is an aging operating system and dx9 has been around nearly as long. vista is the future, get used to it.

 

would you rather spend your money/resources on supporting the past or developing the future?

Edited April 7, 2007 by Cujo

[boiler]

<rant>

vista is not as evil/awful as so many people seem to think that it is. Yes, you would have to spend money to upgrade your OS when you think that XP is perfectly fine. Bottom line for me is it's been five+ years since I bought XP, we've had a good run together, but after five years I can justify moving on to the next thing. An OEM copy of vista home premium is around $120 at Newegg, so it's not an astronomically high price compared to some of the computer components people buy.

 

I am already running Vista on my laptop (came pre-installed), and I'm happy with it. When DX10 games start coming out, then I will upgrade my home computer to vista ultimate ($190 OEM) and look forward to another good 4+ year run. Once all the driver/compatibility issues with vista get worked out, it should be pretty solid. I'd rather MS work on the issues with Vista than spend time/resources making DX10 backwards compatible with XP. From what I've read, DX10 and Vista are fundamentaly different from nearly the ground up compared to XP and DX9. I don't think it would be quite as easy to do as others might. </rant>

 

bottom line imo is preach, stick with your current hardware until you are unhappy with it's performance and can afford an upgrade. we/ms can't tell you when that might be

[Preacher]

I'll prolly upgrade to Vista eventually and then to a DX10 card, for now my system is doing good, running cool and playing all the games I want to play. My next upgrade will prolly be to a 22-24" LCD I found a nice scepter 24" LCD for $399 and might just push for that to be my b-day present from the wife (boy will I be surprised

 

why get that crappy system builders version when you can get the full version cheaper http://www.computersworth.com/item.cfm?id=976 or http://www.muotitek.com/estore/control/Muo...&srccode=PW

Edited April 8, 2007 by Preacher

[boiler]

those two links ARE the oem system builder versions

 

package might look different but that might be it

[Cujo]

ya, they're oem. retail versions include both 32 and 64 bit so they wouldn't specify unless it's oem.

[Preacher]

<-- Vista noob