There are so many misunderstandings around DX10 and it almost seems like two sides in a battle.
Microsoft on the one hand is trying to make DX10 the sole reason why Crysis looks better than Halo, which is complete bullshit. There is also a bunch of whiny gamers who can't see any instant change in the DX10 version of their game and thereby concludes that DX10 has nothing to offer over DX9 - this is also very wrong.
this isnt about which game looks better, this is about microsoft beeing fucking liars and nobody should beleve in a word that comes from their big mouths..
dx10 = bullshit, thats a fact, period
they could have done dx20 by the year 2006 if they wanted, but then they would lose money in the long run.. now think about it..
At the moment DX10 is just being used because of its optimizations, so yes the same stuff is being displayed on screen but because of DX10 its displayed more optimized. Running Crysis on DX10 on XP would run much worse that running it on Vista (because on XP its just "fake DX10", so to speak).
That being said, Vista being a complete whore of resources completely off-sets the whole point of DX10 (being incredibly well optimized) so in the end, you'll probs be better off with DX9.
That being said, Vista being a complete whore of resources completely off-sets the whole point of DX10 (being incredibly well optimized) so in the end, you'll probs be better off with DX9.
Or OpenGL 2.0 because it's in fact better optimized than DX9 (needs less calls for operations) and it's platform-independent. The OGL 3.0 specs are coming out soon, and with it, cards that support 3.0. 
Quote from SindwillerOr OpenGL 2.0 because it's in fact better optimized than DX9 (needs less calls for operations) and it's platform-independent. The OGL 3.0 specs are coming out soon, and with it, cards that support 3.0.
Isn't OpenGL also just an implementation rather than a hardware "need"? I remember *ages* ago reading a comparison of DX vs GL and it saying that DX is just a hardware API, whereas GL us a rendering system which *may* be hardware accelerated. I think thats why GL is more portable over DX.
Quote from WunderboyIsn't OpenGL also just an implementation rather than a hardware "need"? I remember *ages* ago reading a comparison of DX vs GL and it saying that DX is just a hardware API, whereas GL us a rendering system which *may* be hardware accelerated. I think thats why GL is more portable over DX.
Basically, yes. OpenGL is "just" a specification, a bunch of concepts and API calls that a GPU support to be "OGL 3.0 compliant" or something, while the actual implementation (WGL on Windows, AppleGL on OS X, GLX on X11-based systems) can differ. Sure, there actually are lots of software OpenGL implementations (like Mesa), but they are only intended for testing extensions which are not supported by the GPU or when there's no GPU support. But the fact that OGL is an open specification, in contrast to DirectX, which isn't open, makes it perfect for platforms other than Windows.
Woah Clayman, relax! 
Quote from SindwillerOr OpenGL 2.0 because it's in fact better optimized than DX9 (needs less calls for operations) and it's platform-independent. The OGL 3.0 specs are coming out soon, and with it, cards that support 3.0.
Nice. Hopefully that may bring OpenGL back into action, would be nice.
Quote from ^SlickAt the moment DX10 is just being used because of its optimizations, so yes the same stuff is being displayed on screen but because of DX10 its displayed more optimized. Running Crysis on DX10 on XP would run much worse that running it on Vista (because on XP its just "fake DX10", so to speak).That being said, Vista being a complete whore of resources completely off-sets the whole point of DX10 (being incredibly well optimized) so in the end, you'll probs be better off with DX9.
yeah, and the fact that we are talking about VISTA so it lowers the bars anyway, there we go..
are we talking about dx10 working better on vista than xp or the "new features" in dx10??
sure everything can be optimized, but you dont go and just create a nex dx because you optimized lines of code, that could have worked fine just as a dx9 update..
here you have the reality:
vista released, and needs reasons why people should buy it.. now you know why dx10 exists and why xna exists.. maximize profit, thats the whole plan..
or, im a total idiot, go ahead and prove me wrong and show me/tell me what dx10 can do..
Or OpenGL 2.0 because it's in fact better optimized than DX9 (needs less calls for operations) and it's platform-independent. The OGL 3.0 specs are coming out soon, and with it, cards that support 3.0. Smile
There's some complicated thing that happens when you issue a driver call with DirectX (drawprimitive, set texture etc) that results in a CPU performance drain, meaning you spend more CPU time using DirectX than when using the corresponding OpenGL calls. You can attempt to minimise this overhead by the grouping of draw calls, but unless you're pretty damn clever, it can be quite complicated to figure out how to group by texture/shader/vertex/index buffers etc.Afaik DX10 fixes the main overhead associated with driver calls, meaning you don't have to worry so much about all of that stuff.
Heh, in my complete ignorance I ended up trying to get DX9c do 1,000 individual draw calls (60 times a second), I could feel the lights starting to dim when I ran it.
With Gabe's Microsoft-bashing and "linux port-er wanted" on the Valve jobs page, I really think (read: hope) that HL3 is going to be OpenGL.
From what I've read DX10 completely or near enough re-writes how the GPU works with the CPU. I in no way am a programmer and everything I'm saying is just what I've gathered. I don't know if these optimizations actually need new hardware (new GPUS) or OS compatibility (Vista) but all I know is it allows more to be processed by the GPU without CPU interval.
Quote from claymanyeah, and the fact that we are talking about VISTA so it lowers the bars anyway, there we go..
Yeah, I already said that.
Also, I just read the following link and it shows a performance benchmark of GoW for DX9 and DX10, both on Vista. There is pretty much no graphical improvement in DX10 but there is a rather large loss for frame rate.
Which is weird because the main thing about DX10 is that its optimized better, its not that it has new technologies just that its been completely re-written to allow it to do more faster.
So now I'm really confused.
Gow Link: http://enthusiast.hardocp.com/article.h ... VzaWFzdA==
I whish we still lived in the era when OpenGL kicked direct3d ass! (Quake3 
)
":1i2bwf2b]I whish we still lived in the era when OpenGL kicked direct3d ass! (Quake3
I wish we would live in the era there they finally started with fuckin OpenRT implentation into theyr gpus...
Don’t have an account yet? Register yourself now and be a part of our community!
