No DX10 games to date.

Krenum

Krenum

Fully [H]
Joined
Apr 29, 2005
Messages
19,193
you know whats funny I read all these posts about DX10 and how it performes on DX10 Cards , but if you really think about it, there arent any truly DX10 games. Most of them are DX9 titles masked with DX10 features, or there patched. Take Lost Planet... it was a console port with DX10 features, company of hero's , patched with DX10 to enable direct X 10 features, Even the newest Bioshock and World in Conflict although there Awsome games (my fav atm) still not fully dedicated to DX10, any game that you have to enable (DX10 rendering in the options menu) isnt a DX10 game.

Discuss.
 
A game developer would be stupid to make a dedicated DX10 game, considering that would alienate 99% of the market, as not everyone has a DX10 card and Vista. Yes, its ridiculous for people to bitch about DX10 while it doesn't really matter at all, but we bitch about everything here, so toss it on the fire.
 
Duro said:
A game developer would be stupid to make a dedicated DX10 game, considering that would alienate 99% of the market, as not everyone has a DX10 card and Vista. Yes, its ridiculous for people to bitch about DX10 while it doesn't really matter at all, but we bitch about everything here, so toss it on the fire.
Click to expand...

Actually, Crysis breaks the mold of slapping on DX10 "add-ons" on top of DX9. Sure a company would be stupid to only develop a DX10 version. The key is developing them separately of each other, that's how you do it right. Sites bitch about DX10 because they need more site-hits, they have no other news, so they review the DX10-patched games and all of a sudden they represent the future of DX10. Bores one to tears, I know :eek:. Sure, I think the [H] could've worded their initial review of LP DX10 concerning what real DX10 games will likely be like, a little better. What's even more funny, is that another patch for LP was released that further improved DX10 performance.

This tells me that as always, it all eventually, comes back to the programmers every time (efficiency in this world is like money). Proof of this is that Crytek will be finally getting ---STABLE--- drivers (stability was the problem) from Nvidia that handle Crysis to their performance expectations by the end of this month. This shows that the hardware is "up to snuff", it just has to be done the right way. It wouldn't hurt Vista to have another performance update (or two) either. It all comes down to efficient API use and implementation by the developer and drivers.
 
I hope they fix all the bugs in VIsta soon, Microsoft screwed alot of people on empty promises , Despite its flaws I do like the operating system , I just refuse to use it right now. and your right , advancement does start with the developers and programmers. Is it me or do you guys think that Nvidia and ATI jumped the gun on releasing DX10 capable cards?
 
Even some dx9 games arent fully dx9. Call of Duty 2 could be played on dx7 does this mean its a dx9 slap on no. And developers arent going to make a dx10 only game due to 80% of the market still on dx9 so it would be seriously silly off them. I dont care if its dx9 with dx10 slaped on if it performes better on dx10 then the rest doesnt matter.
 
ganstafm said:
Even some dx9 games arent fully dx9. Call of Duty 2 could be played on dx7 does this mean its a dx9 slap on no. And developers arent going to make a dx10 only game due to 80% of the market still on dx9 so it would be seriously silly off them. I dont care if its dx9 with dx10 slaped on if it performes better on dx10 then the rest doesnt matter.
Click to expand...

the problem with that is it doesnt perform better in dx10 than 9.
 
Mainly due to drivers. Its new ground for both nvidia and ati so it wil take a while to fix.
 
Krenum said:
I hope they fix all the bugs in VIsta soon, Microsoft screwed alot of people on empty promises , Despite its flaws I do like the operating system , I just refuse to use it right now. and your right , advancement does start with the developers and programmers. Is it me or do you guys think that Nvidia and ATI jumped the gun on releasing DX10 capable cards?
Click to expand...
Same, I like Vista, but it on the backburner for now until it is fixed.

ATI sure didn't jump anything.:eek:
 
Duro said:
A game developer would be stupid to make a dedicated DX10 game, considering that would alienate 99% of the market, as not everyone has a DX10 card and Vista. Yes, its ridiculous for people to bitch about DX10 while it doesn't really matter at all, but we bitch about everything here, so toss it on the fire.
Click to expand...

Internet is where people whine or bitch. :p
 
Krenum said:
there arent any truly DX10 games.
Click to expand...
Define "truly DX10". A game that has a render path that leverages SM4.0 features? A game that features shaders that are 25% SM4.0-only? 50%? 75%? A game that only has a SM4.0 render path?

A game that has a SM4.0 render path is a 'DX10 game' regardless of whether or not it also has SM2.0/3.0 render paths. I don't think there are any 'degrees' of DX10-ness. Either it is, or it is not.
 
Krenum said:
I hope they fix all the bugs in VIsta soon, Microsoft screwed alot of people on empty promises , Despite its flaws I do like the operating system , I just refuse to use it right now. and your right , advancement does start with the developers and programmers. Is it me or do you guys think that Nvidia and ATI jumped the gun on releasing DX10 capable cards?
Click to expand...

Fix what? Vista runs great.
 
phide said:
Define "truly DX10". A game that has a render path that leverages SM4.0 features? A game that features shaders that are 25% SM4.0-only? 50%? 75%? A game that only has a SM4.0 render path?

A game that has a SM4.0 render path is a 'DX10 game' regardless of whether or not it also has SM2.0/3.0 render paths. I don't think there are any 'degrees' of DX10-ness. Either it is, or it is not.
Click to expand...

Very well put.
 
I was really happy to read about Bioshock...

I searched for comparitive screenshots... had a hard time finding any at first...

then I read a lot of forum posts. People had to asist others in finding differences.

that is not like at all dx8-dx9. differences were massive.

the 1st poster is correct, there are not any dx10 games out.
 
If the game utilizes the DX10 API and runs in Shader Model 4.0 it is "DX10". The level of added effects or differences over DX9 in that game are irrelevant in terms of making that determination. Remember, DX10 can allow developers to add more content and effects, but they don't have to, they may utilize DX10 to achieve performance optimizations with shaders or to reduce per-object state changing overhead compared to DX9, as an example.

Now, I think what you may be after is a real practical gameplay experience improvement from using DX10. This means the addition of content and effects to better improve image quality and gameplay. I agree there is more hype than actual improvements right now in games adding DX10 support. There is one game though that has a huge gameplay difference between DX9 and DX10, Call of Juarez, we will have an article up about that this week. For now, we will have to keep waiting for more games with DX10 support to examine them.
 
phide said:
Define "truly DX10". A game that has a render path that leverages SM4.0 features? A game that features shaders that are 25% SM4.0-only? 50%? 75%? A game that only has a SM4.0 render path?

A game that has a SM4.0 render path is a 'DX10 game' regardless of whether or not it also has SM2.0/3.0 render paths. I don't think there are any 'degrees' of DX10-ness. Either it is, or it is not.
Click to expand...

Lost planet is not a DX10 game, why ? because it was not originally designed for DX10 only until it was released on the computer did it inherit DX10 functionality.

Company of hero's is not a DirectX 10 title , until it was patch for DX10 Functionality.

Bioshock is not a Direct X10 game , though it does have the option to render in DX10 the function is not enabled by default.

Crysis is not a DX10 game, though it does have the option to render in DX10, the function is not enabled by default.

is that clear enough for you sir , does that make sense ? or is it just pretzel logic?.

anyways you seem to know more than I about render paths, but do you atleast see my point? when will we see fully operational DX10 titles ? I suppose that would all depend on the Developers and the Graphics card companys?.
 
I don't think you guys who say these games aren't directx 10 understand what it means to be directx10. Like the people who posted above said, "There is no degree of dx10-ness". Either it has the functionality (patched or not) or not at all. All that its saying is it can be rendered in either 9 or 10. So if it has the option of both it can't be dx10? Even though its being rendered in dx10? If thats the case then no games are truely any type because every game is scaleable up and down to different versions.
 
nothing new though, even when DX9 came out , how long did it take for a fully DX9 capable game to come out (BF2 is the first one i can think of that was DX9 hardware required)...


for the longest time after DX9 came out it was just DX8.1 with DX9 capabilities..
 
Krenum said:
Lost planet is not a DX10 game, why ? because it was not originally designed for DX10 only until it was released on the computer did it inherit DX10 functionality.

Company of hero's is not a DirectX 10 title , until it was patch for DX10 Functionality.

Bioshock is not a Direct X10 game , though it does have the option to render in DX10 the function is not enabled by default.

Crysis is not a DX10 game, though it does have the option to render in DX10, the function is not enabled by default.

is that clear enough for you sir , does that make sense ? or is it just pretzel logic?.

anyways you seem to know more than I about render paths, but do you atleast see my point? when will we see fully operational DX10 titles ? I suppose that would all depend on the Developers and the Graphics card company's?.
Click to expand...


Is HL2 a DX9 game =p? you have the option of not running it under DX9 ^^ how about Stalker? it allows for DX8 lighting?

DX is an evolution. not a rebirth. it grows, adds features, changes, and from what I gather ^^ each new revision, mostly allows you to do what you did with the last revision, but more efficiently while adding some new features. This allows more realistic graphics usually because we have less resource use going on and more resources available for those extra effects.
 
Krenum said:
I hope they fix all the bugs in VIsta soon, Microsoft screwed alot of people on empty promises , Despite its flaws I do like the operating system , I just refuse to use it right now. and your right , advancement does start with the developers and programmers. Is it me or do you guys think that Nvidia and ATI jumped the gun on releasing DX10 capable cards?
Click to expand...



Sorry, how did MS screw anyone? No one held a gun to your head and said buy it? and what bugs?. you mean the 3rd party driver and support, that isnt MS fault... i am sick of people bashing Vista as if they were FORCED to buy it......

you can run dx 9 games on vista...


this is no diff then when NVIDIA release SMS3 card and everyone bought them cause ATI didnt have them so NVIDIA was better!!!!!! even though no games for months supported them.....


it is marketing, sell a card with "future" tech in it and people think it is a better deal cause now they think they are "investing" in something that is m "future proof", even though it may not even perform well enough to use that tech.


ATI didnt jump the gun with DX10, NVIDIA did.
 
Krenum said:
anyways you seem to know more than I about render paths, but do you atleast see my point?
Click to expand...
I understand your point -- the titles we've seen so far are more-or-less 'hack jobs'. I assume Crysis will be the first of the wave of 'built for DX10' titles, if that's what you mean. Whether or not these really perform any better than the patch jobs is up to debate at this point. Still, Crysis is a DX10 game just like Lost Planet, UT3 or BioShock. I don't make any distinction in that regard -- if it uses a single SM4.0 function, even in an optional path, it's a DX10 game in my book.

Still, I'd imagine that Crysis' DX10 path will still utilize SM3.0 shaders, and possibly even SM2.0 shaders. As Viper said, these shader models are very much incrementally evolutionary.

As for when we'll see 'fully' DX10 titles, that may very well be five years off. BioShock was the first game, if I'm not wrong, to actually require SM3.0, which first hit the ground in 2004. Hell, it still sort of-kind of runs without it, too.
 
Miscommunication said:
Actually, Crysis breaks the mold of slapping on DX10 "add-ons" on top of DX9. Sure a company would be stupid to only develop a DX10 version. The key is developing them separately of each other, that's how you do it right. Sites bitch about DX10 because they need more site-hits, they have no other news, so they review the DX10-patched games and all of a sudden they represent the future of DX10. Bores one to tears, I know :eek:. Sure, I think the [H] could've worded their initial review of LP DX10 concerning what real DX10 games will likely be like, a little better. What's even more funny, is that another patch for LP was released that further improved DX10 performance.
Click to expand...

Kinda like the OP?

Another thread bumping real info down the page :(

Need a whole forum for DX10.
 
MrGuvernment said:
Sorry, how did MS screw anyone? No one held a gun to your head and said buy it? and what bugs?. you mean the 3rd party driver and support, that isnt MS fault... i am sick of people bashing Vista as if they were FORCED to buy it......

you can run dx 9 games on vista...


this is no diff then when NVIDIA release SMS3 card and everyone bought them cause ATI didnt have them so NVIDIA was better!!!!!! even though no games for months supported them.....


it is marketing, sell a card with "future" tech in it and people think it is a better deal cause now they think they are "investing" in something that is m "future proof", even though it may not even perform well enough to use that tech.


ATI didnt jump the gun with DX10, NVIDIA did.
Click to expand...

yeah , ATI sure didnt thats why there card sucks.

http://www23.tomshardware.com/graphics_2007.html?modelx=33&model1=857&model2=706&chart=318

anyways look at that.

I really dont want to get into a argument with anyone , my point has been made, thats the way I see it, and like one of the persons before me said we will prolly not see fully DX10 titles for antoher 5 years I assume.
 
ad do you think they are overly worried at the 2900 dx10 performance? no, why, cause they know they have a good year + to get a really good dx10 card out..

how long has the 8* line up been out for NVIDIA? that was jumping the gun, as nvidia usually does.
 
Krenum said:
yeah , ATI sure didnt thats why there card sucks.

http://www23.tomshardware.com/graphics_2007.html?modelx=33&model1=857&model2=706&chart=318

anyways look at that.

I really dont want to get into a argument with anyone , my point has been made, thats the way I see it, and like one of the persons before me said we will prolly not see fully DX10 titles for antoher 5 years I assume.
Click to expand...

I don't think ATI card suck too bad. Sure their dx9 performance isn't up to snuff because they built a card with dx10 in mind than brute force of the Geforce 8 series with half dx9 and half dx10 in mind. I think Nvidia went the correct path and ATI went the future route. It still perform and can be better card than Geforce 8 series in dx10 games.
 
Marvelous said:
It still perform and can be better card than Geforce 8 series in dx10 games.
Click to expand...

While I agree that the X2900 does perform in DX9 games, although not as good as the 8800 series cards, any speculation about the future DX10 performance of the X2900 cards is just that -pure speculation. By the time that we will have a proper DX10 title to test the cards on we will see who takes the performance crown. Assuming that this game will be Crysis, there's a good chance, that nVidia will have renewed their GPU by then (also speculation on my part.).
 
Check this out:
http://blogs.msdn.com/ptaylor/default.aspx

Look through Phil's posts.

They're rebuilding the FSX engine in DX10. Not 'adding it on'

I think they want FSX to be a poster child for DX10. In the current form, 17% better performance on the same system over DX9. Now they are working on additional features. We'll see what the release code of SP2 (DX10 plus other features/fixes) actually brings.
 
Darth Bobo said:
While I agree that the X2900 does perform in DX9 games, although not as good as the 8800 series cards, any speculation about the future DX10 performance of the X2900 cards is just that -pure speculation. By the time that we will have a proper DX10 title to test the cards on we will see who takes the performance crown. Assuming that this game will be Crysis, there's a good chance, that nVidia will have renewed their GPU by then (also speculation on my part.).
Click to expand...

I wouldn't call it pure speculation.

We know that if coders used more tessellation and shaders that ATI would be on top. But of course what is the point of running a dx10 game @ 20fps. :*(

http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/video/display/directx10-games.html



* Despite its unassuming performance in DirectX 9 benchmarks, the ATI Radeon HD 2900 XT is capable of beating the Nvidia GeForce 8800 GTX, which is much more expensive, in DirectX 10 applications provided that the Catalyst driver has game-specific optimizations. Of course, Nvidia’s ForceWare driver has to “know” the particular game to run it at a high speed, too.
 
Why do people still post these "benchmarks"? Just to point out that CoJ is just a crappy game in DX10, it's not playable at all when you turn the sliders up (otherwise it looks like a DX9 title). All of the other (2) games showcased what you say to be true, until you turn on AA as everyone should know. Not to mention those ancient (even at the time of the benchmark) forceware drivers, sigh* :(.
 
MrGuvernment said:
how long has the 8* line up been out for NVIDIA? that was jumping the gun, as nvidia usually does.
Click to expand...
Just because ATi is constantly late to the party, so to speak, doesn't mean that NVIDIA is jumping the gun. I don't seem to recall any particular faults in NV40, nor do I see any faults in G80.

One could say that ATi typically "jumps the gun" by taping out chips that are fundamentally broken and actually releases chips that have portions of logic that are entirely non-functional.

Marvelous said:
Despite its unassuming performance in DirectX 9 benchmarks, the ATI Radeon HD 2900 XT is capable of beating the Nvidia GeForce 8800 GTX, which is much more expensive, in DirectX 10 applications provided that the Catalyst driver has game-specific optimizations.[/I]
Click to expand...
That's true in the scenarios X-bit presented, though it certainly hasn't been proven to be true in general. One would be fruitless in taking X-bit's commentary, applying it to future scenarios, then assuming that it's always going to work out that way.

AMD's more on top of the driver situation as it stands today, which I think accounts for a great deal of their performance lead in DX10. That says nothing about the architectures themselves and how capable or incapable they are with SM4.0 in general. Speculation is speculation.
 
From what I can tell, there are two groups in this thread. The people that think DX10 means that the game is 100% DX10, with no other options for any lower settings, etc. For them, I would like to see them play Call of Juarez DX10, Lost Planet DX10, etc on their 7900 and XP. Your opinions about whether or not those are "true DX10" games can be put to rest when you make the attempt. Or is there an "in-between" when judging what is and isn't?

Those that are making sense are describing how any game that utilizes the benefits of DX10, to any degree, is DX10. Makes too much sense to even understand the adverse argument.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top