Big Crysis performance article

Maybe you should read the benchmarks before you start insulting people. It makes you look like a buttkissing MS fanboy with Balmer brown on your nose.
 
BladeVenom said:
Maybe you should read the benchmarks before you start insulting people. It makes you look like a buttkissing MS fanboy with Balmer brown on your nose.
Click to expand...

It's ignorant to say it's crap. DX10 was created to improve on DX9 for developers more than anything. To make it easier to do things than DX9 could do but required a massive amount of time/knowledge. The libs aremuch better in DX10. Yes it sure got marketed to seem different.. but I've seen plenty of devs talk about how it was intended to allow more games to look better, because it was easier.
 
If I remember the marketing, DX10 was also suppose to be more efficient and games were suppose to perform better. So far all the benchmarks I've seen DX10 runs slower. You might see it as an improvement, but most gamers are going to think it sucks.
 
BladeVenom said:
If I remember the marketing, DX10 was also suppose to be more efficient and games were suppose to perform better. So far all the benchmarks I've seen DX10 runs slower. You might see it as an improvement, but most gamers are going to think it sucks.
Click to expand...


Agreed.If what we have seen graphics wise and performance wise is of any indication DX10 is so far a wash.And eithier the game devs are idiot programmers,or Nvidia and AMD cant write drivers or design optimized hardware worth a damn.

At the rate this is going,we'll need quad 9800 ULTRA's to run Crysis's sequel @ 30 FPS @ 19x12 on very high.No seriously !

The G100 and R700 certainly wont do it (assuming they are both say 50 to 75% faster then 8800GTX SLI of today)....We need a quantum leap forward in SP horsepower to do
it.
 
when you look at the differences you see a mere 2-3 fps difference for most of the levels.

at this low of a fps level, unless I see dx9 running away with 40-50% better fps, we're looking at a game that is either VERY unoptimized in general or the hardware is simply not capable of decent performance.

Time will tell if the next generation of hardware, drivers and patches will show any significant increase but it's not telling much.

The comparison would be better served if the same effects and optimizations that dx10 is known for ie soft shadows, seemless blending of transparency with water/shadow and hdr enchancements beyond dx9, are actually implemented in dx9 and how much of a hit dx9 actually took to render the same image.

Unless you've worked with a dxsdk, you don't really appreciate the effort and difficulty put in to creating a graphics sdk.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top