Check this out DX9 versus DX10

[Papa6]

This is too great. But I see a new era in PC gaming. Your GPU will be responsible for everything but AI and physics.

the official DX10 website with vista is .. NOTE the screenies...just awesome.!Here

[ROCO*AFZ*]

This is too great. But I see a new era in PC gaming. Your GPU will be responsible for everything but AI and physics.

the official DX10 website with vista is .. NOTE the screenies...just awesome.!Here

Looks like we have a new Vista fan

Seriously though, good find. I had read a lot on these but with no DX10 games we haven't seen any real examples.

Our Action Pack should be arriving soon (hopefully... grr MS) so i'll have an inhouse / home copy to play with

[Papa6]

I'm understanding that with the motion blur as stated in the DX10 website, Crysis will be one of the first titles to ship for Vista/DX10.

@RocoAFZ, no worry about your inhouse copy, My Vista is on it's way..and it's mine and FREE from power together a MS thing

[Kamakazi]

I'm waiting to be impressed, and that first comparison is horrible, didn't Halo: Combat Evolved come out years ago for the PC.

[WhiteKnight77]

Actually, the first DX10 game has shipped. Flight Simulator X has been out for a couple of months now. It works with both DX9 and DX10 hardware.

[Papa6]

I'm waiting to be impressed, and that first comparison is horrible, didn't Halo: Combat Evolved come out years ago for the PC.

what about Halo 2? no matter but they wanted to show the differences in models of DX versions of old and show what will come about with DX10

[Sup]

The first two examples aren't fair at all.

The faces aren't even the same technique. Halo uses simple, few hundred polygon diffuse only models. Crysis has spec, normal, probably some kind of SS, and likely over a thousand tris in those heads. DX10 accounts for very little of the difference you're seeing.

The second example is nice and all, but I doubt our computers are actually going to be running an awful lot of displacement mapping of any sort in realtime. Polycounts skyrocket.

Edit:

Growing vines, again; nice in theory, but you need to sacrifice an awful lot of other assets in order to get a game that won't run at negative 34 fps for that kind of thing.

Object based motion blurring is cool, but it's definitely not 'the future.' The Xbox360 has been rendering it in games since it first came out.

Flight sim comparison was awesome, though.

[KRP 56]

The first two examples aren't fair at all.

I'll agree with that. There's a lot of DX9 games that have faces modeled much better than what their using as an example.

[Papa6]

But not like DX10 apparently. I'm amazed.

[Sup]

But not like DX10 apparently. I'm amazed.

You're wrong, actually.

Dx10 has nothing to do with asset generation. maybe it can run shaders a little faster, but those crysis heads look no better than the dx9 ones shown earlier, or even, save their increased texture resolution and overplayed spec, Half Life 2's characters.

[Colin]

Nice pics, theG8800 is capable of doing in game physics, lets hope they get some vista final release drivers sorted as the RTM dont have any

Its going to be a great year for FPS.

[Papa6]

But not like DX10 apparently. I'm amazed.

You're wrong, actually.

Dx10 has nothing to do with asset generation. maybe it can run shaders a little faster, but those crysis heads look no better than the dx9 ones shown earlier, or even, save their increased texture resolution and overplayed spec, Half Life 2's characters.

Sorry to disagree with you. but DX10 is a HUGE leap once I read up on what it brings to the table. It offloads your CPU and dumps the rendering to the GPU and the CPU can do the physics and AI stuff. So yes, DX10 has a LOT to do with asset generation if I'm understanding you to mean drawing vertices? or are we talking some different thing here?

[SnowFella]

I'd say you are. What Sup is talking about when mentioning asset generation is how the face in this example is modeled. The Halo faces look to be a few hundred polygons max and only using a colour map for texture while the Crysis faces would have a few thousand polys and be using colour, specular, normal and most likely subsurface scattering maps.

In this perticulare case I'm fairly sure it's more like a few tens of thousands polys in the faces as they look to be highpoly eyecandy, modeled and textured with extreme resolution maps to look great inside the engine but if used in games would give you a slideshow.

[rossiski]

I really hope that some of the comments around the web are incorrect about Vista and consequently DX10 or our superfast rigs are going to be devoting all their bandwidth to verify that DRM content is still protected.

Deliberately disabled functionality???

[Sup]

Yeah, I'm talking about the creation of the art assets that are put into the engine; not the way the engine itself handles the code.

Must be nice for graphics programmers, but as the art goes there's no big leap in what can be done. Those crysis heads could be easily outmatched in dx9, it's just a matter of good modeling and texturing.

SnowFella, save maybe some higher than normal resolution textures, I'd assume those crysis heads are pretty typical. In the background ones especially, there's not really all that much modeled detail. Nothing out of line with what I'd expect (or what I've seen running on the xbox360 already. PCs should be passing it now, shouldn't they?) Obviously they're all the highest LOD, though. (A bit off topic, but I think the eyebrows and facial hair look really awful, too. I guess a little is expected from photosourced textures but they're terrible. Really stick out, seeing the rest of the face.)