jmke

Call of Juarez enjoys a very large and noticeable visual difference in DirectX 10 versus DirectX 9. This is the first game to make us say “Wow!” at the visual quality improvements using DX10. We will explore GPU performance scaling and image quality comparisons using the 8800 Ultra, GTS, & 2900 XT.

http://enthusiast.hardocp.com/articl...50aHVzaWFzdA==

__________________

jmke

So they used higher res textures for DX10 version, why wasn't this possible for DX9, what was the blocking reason for that? the HDR does look better on DX10, again, what technical reason is there for not featuring this in DX9?

I hope Valve and ID software new engines will proof that DX9 is all you need

__________________

Sidney

I believe in what I can see; image quality does look better even from previous comparison of DX9 and DX10.
DX10 will only get better just like DX9 at the beginning, otherwise everything will remain the same over time which has been proven not the case in recent years in electronic technology.

__________________
lazyman

Opteron 165 (2) @2.85 1.42 vcore AMD Stock HSF + Chill Vent II

jmke

I believe in being deceived, why so? to sell DX10. Remove high res textures from DX9 version to make a visual difference obvious. I don't buy it.
If next-gen ID Software can render textures bigger and larger than Call of Juarez in DX9, I really don't see why they downsampled theirs... unless of course... to deceive.

no particular DX10 feature or IQ setting can not be performed by DX9. it will take more CPU overhead on DX9, but we have CPU cycles to spare.

n/o, you are wrong, DX6 -> DX7 -> DX8 were all big leaps image quality wise, offering more features for developers and artists to render more realistic graphics with video cards in Windows OS. DX8 -> DX9 difference was already less stellar, more "tweaks" and optimizations than really large improvements, still many developers were happy to switch over and require DX9 for their games. DX10 introduction has been covered by elitebastards quite in depth, from all their explanations one thing becomes clear, DX10 is about removing a layer between software and hardware, so more direct access to the GPU, the end result is less overhead... less CPU overhead to be exact. So in theory the same shader rendering will take less CPU time on DX10 compared to DX9. But wait just a minute, aren't games GPU limited? jeeeeeeeeeep.

So basically DX10 adds little to nothing revolutionary or evolutionary to the existing graphics quality rendered with DX9. If MANY game developers are crying out AGAINST DX10 (and not just because it's VISTA only, don't get us started there) it's not as clear cut as DX7->DX8 and DX8->DX9 situation. Pure image quality wise DX9 can render almost identical scenes compared to DX10, enough games now out there having both DX9/DX10 versions to proof this.

Than one game comes along with DX9/DX10 support, which simply shows higher resolutions in DX10, and lower ones in DX9. uhm... that's not a fair comparison; I want to know if there is a real technical reason why DX9 can not use that same high resolution texture.

__________________

Rutar

Especially since high resolution textures are cheap performance wise, you only need a lot of memory on the GPU.

Sidney

Never said I was right, therefore I wouldn't have been wrong.
Whether there is technical reason is a good question, remains to be answered. I believe the latest high tech spending is always an investment into future product; some people are willing and others are not.

Game developers are crying out for many reasons some of which could be financial. Again, it is not the matter of who is right or wrong, it does not exist in a game of whether you like it or not. As far as I am concern, it is not a video game but a game of financial gain. A technology that one day will merge GPU into CPU.

__________________
lazyman

Opteron 165 (2) @2.85 1.42 vcore AMD Stock HSF + Chill Vent II

jmke

if you buy a DX10 video card now, it won't be DX10.1 compliant

__________________