| Page 12 of 56 |
|
|
 Posted: Mon, 5th Nov 2007 22:14 Post subject: |
|
 |
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ashmolly
Posts: 1075
Location: Trump's Merica
|
| Posted: Mon, 5th Nov 2007 22:22 Post subject: |
|
|
LOL @ the DX9 vs. DX10
Cracks me up everytime....
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
swebarb
Posts: 2154
Location: Vikingland
|
| Posted: Mon, 5th Nov 2007 22:23 Post subject: |
|
|
rofl good thing im not on vista, what a joke it is, haha better fps.. yeah right.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Mon, 5th Nov 2007 22:31 Post subject: |
|
|
Yeah the DX10 part for Gears seems to be a disaster.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Mon, 5th Nov 2007 22:33 Post subject: |
|
|
Whats funnier is how epic stated several times...
That the only reason they were using DX10 was for multisampling. And yet they still tried to do a quality & performance comparsion.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Surray
Posts: 5409
Location: Europe
|
| Posted: Mon, 5th Nov 2007 22:35 Post subject: |
|
|
| Ashmolly wrote: |
LOL @ the DX9 vs. DX10
Cracks me up everytime.... |
8800 GTX, DX10, all on MAX 1600x1200, avg fps 40.9
8800 GTX, DX9, all on MAX 1600x1200, avg fps 58.1
obviously DX10 sucks... well no, not really. if you look closely you'll notice that on DX9, no anti aliasing is supported. and anti 4xFSAA at 1600x1200 with everything on max reducing FPS by that amount is perfectly normal.
the HD 2900 XT on the other hand has a similar FPS drop on DX10 without AA involved at all. Doesn't surprise me though, as 2900XT DX10 performance is known to suck.
sure, dx10 performance here isn't very good, but it's not as bad as it might seem.
the really strange thing here is that dx10 doesnt actually seem to do anything besides enable anti aliasing, and even with that disabled the performance at dx10 drops.
it's just weird. they shouldn't have done anything with dx10 in this game at all, seeing how the 360 version obviously had nothing of the sort and they seem to have just quickly added some random shit and say it uses dx10
at least the anti aliasing works properly and looks good though, if you got a hard that can handle it.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Mon, 5th Nov 2007 22:41 Post subject: |
|
|
| Surray wrote: |
8800 GTX, DX10, all on MAX 1600x1200, avg fps 40.9
8800 GTX, DX9, all on MAX 1600x1200, avg fps 58.1
obviously DX10 sucks... well no, not really. if you look closely you'll notice that on DX9, no anti aliasing is supported. and anti 4xFSAA at 1600x1200 with everything on max reducing FPS by that amount is perfectly normal.
the HD 2900 XT on the other hand has a similar FPS drop on DX10 without AA involved at all. Doesn't surprise me though, as 2900XT DX10 performance is known to suck.
sure, dx10 performance here isn't very good, but it's not as bad as it might seem.
the really strange thing here is that dx10 doesnt actually seem to do anything besides enable anti aliasing, and even with that disabled the performance at dx10 drops.
it's just weird. they shouldn't have done anything with dx10 in this game at all, seeing how the 360 version obviously had nothing of the sort and they seem to have just quickly added some random shit and say it uses dx10 |
This post completely fails.
Take a look at -all- of the graphics cards.Notice that the 8800GT and 8800GTS640/320 are also about 15fps lower on average in DX10, without any extra settings on.
What a completely failure of an attempt to defend this bs.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Mon, 5th Nov 2007 22:43 Post subject: |
|
|
| Naish wrote: | Whats funnier is how epic stated several times...
That the only reason they were using DX10 was for multisampling. And yet they still tried to do a quality & performance comparsion. |
Yes but what they were trying to make obvious was the huge performance hit between DX versions with NO AA involved in either. And there being no IQ differences, they couldn't justify the loss in performance.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Surray
Posts: 5409
Location: Europe
|
| Posted: Mon, 5th Nov 2007 22:46 Post subject: |
|
|
| Yuuichi wrote: | This post completely fails.
Take a look at -all- of the graphics cards.Notice that the 8800GT and 8800GTS640/320 are also about 15fps lower on average in DX10, without any extra settings on.
What a completely failure of an attempt to defend this bs. |
where exactly did I say that performance only drops when using AA? I'm just saying the performance drop isn't as high as people seem to think.
dx10 performance is still a joke considering there is no enhanced visual fidelity to be gained by using it, but an 8800 GTX or GT can handle it just fine and are perfectly playable still.
also noone forces anyone to use dx10, so everything is fine. just use dx9 and be happy.
who cares about dx10 anyway.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Mon, 5th Nov 2007 22:48 Post subject: |
|
|
use AA2x e go good 
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Mon, 5th Nov 2007 22:48 Post subject: |
|
|
Yes, and the ONLY reason they used DX10 was for AA. They probably didn't write anything to optimize it for DX10, hence my original post.
You can also just use DX9 AA using by renaming the exec to... well, there's quite a few games with profiles now. ATI users, well, nobody gives a shit about the 5 of you anyway.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
LeoNatan
☢ NFOHump Despot ☢
Posts: 73196
Location: Ramat Gan, Israel 🇮🇱
|
| Posted: Mon, 5th Nov 2007 22:52 Post subject: |
|
|
| Naish wrote: | Yes, and the ONLY reason they used DX10 was for AA. They probably didn't write anything to optimize it for DX10, hence my original post.
You can also just use DX9 AA using by renaming the exec to... well, there's quite a few games with profiles now. ATI users, well, nobody gives a shit about the 5 of you anyway. |
Yeah yeah, but that's not interesting at the moment, while bashing DX10 blindly is. Come back in a year, when devs start making games with DX10 as the primary target, and real advantages become apparent.
Last edited by LeoNatan on Mon, 5th Nov 2007 22:53; edited 1 time in total
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Mon, 5th Nov 2007 22:54 Post subject: |
|
|
| LeoNatan wrote: | | Naish wrote: | Yes, and the ONLY reason they used DX10 was for AA. They probably didn't write anything to optimize it for DX10, hence my original post.
You can also just use DX9 AA using by renaming the exec to... well, there's quite a few games with profiles now. ATI users, well, nobody gives a shit about the 5 of you anyway. |
Yeah yeah, but that's not interesting at the moment, while bashing DX10 blindly is. Come back in a year, when devs start making games with DX10 as the primary target, and real advantages become apparent. |
Hahaha, sounds about right. If you're buying this we definaitly have to play co-op sometime.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ashmolly
Posts: 1075
Location: Trump's Merica
|
| Posted: Mon, 5th Nov 2007 22:56 Post subject: |
|
|
| Naish wrote: | Yes, and the ONLY reason they used DX10 was for AA. They probably didn't write anything to optimize it for DX10, hence my original post.
You can also just use DX9 AA using by renaming the exec to... well, there's quite a few games with profiles now. ATI users, well, nobody gives a shit about the 5 of you anyway. |
lol @ATi users. But seriously there is room for improvement, as with all games. They can wait for new drivers, maybe patch the game. I would love to see DX10 work flawlessly. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Surray
Posts: 5409
Location: Europe
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
LeoNatan
☢ NFOHump Despot ☢
Posts: 73196
Location: Ramat Gan, Israel 🇮🇱
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Surray
Posts: 5409
Location: Europe
|
| Posted: Mon, 5th Nov 2007 23:02 Post subject: |
|
|
hardocp is using some seriously high resolutions and considering that the fps (on dx9) were good.
if you're playing on 1280x1024 or something similar the game should run great even on lesser cards.
Likot Mosuskekim, Woodcutter cancels Sleep: Interrupted by Elephant.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Tue, 6th Nov 2007 00:10 Post subject: |
|
|
Seams like some developers are just hiding some options in xp, dx10 its pure marketing shit an excuse to sell the crapy vista.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Tue, 6th Nov 2007 00:35 Post subject: |
|
|
| GeorgeIvanovich wrote: | | Seams like some developers are just hiding some options in xp, dx10 its pure marketing shit an excuse to sell the crapy vista. |
if vista didn't have DX10 then there would be no reason to upgrade from XP seeing as it's perfectly stable smooth and hardly uses any recourses |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
LeoNatan
☢ NFOHump Despot ☢
Posts: 73196
Location: Ramat Gan, Israel 🇮🇱
|
| Posted: Tue, 6th Nov 2007 07:47 Post subject: |
|
|
| GeorgeIvanovich wrote: | | Seams like some developers are just hiding some options in xp, dx10 its pure marketing shit an excuse to sell the crapy vista. |
In this case Epic is not hiding the AA option. They are using DX10 shaders to smooth edges.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chiv
Posts: 27530
Location: Behind You...
|
| Posted: Tue, 6th Nov 2007 07:54 Post subject: |
|
|
which is why they put dx10 into vista... they needed *something* to attract people... i was GOING to update to vista just for dx10 before the end of the year... now... meh im not bothered until i start seeing some huge dx10 differences.
and yeah, developers are obviously making features that are quite happily available in xp, dx10 only features just because msoft slipped em some cash.. im not a conspiracy nut, but come on, this shits rediculous.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Tue, 6th Nov 2007 07:56 Post subject: |
|
|
| Surray wrote: | hardocp is using some seriously high resolutions and considering that the fps (on dx9) were good.
if you're playing on 1280x1024 or something similar the game should run great even on lesser cards. |
I didn't know 1600x1200 is seriously high resolution? It's not very High resolution at all I don't think. They are testing enthusiast class cards, some of which cost more then peoples cars. Why would they bother testing at a lower res? Besides thats irrelevent since they don't do apples to apples shit and instead aim for the "Highest Playable" settings.
Their review method is much better then the bars from left to right giving you the average.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
JBeckman
VIP Member
Posts: 34968
Location: Sweden
|
| Posted: Tue, 6th Nov 2007 08:01 Post subject: |
|
|
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Tue, 6th Nov 2007 08:36 Post subject: |
|
|
| JBeckman wrote: | http://www.gamespot.com/pc/action/gearsofwar/review.html?sid=6182319&tag=topslot;title;1#
Gamespot review with a 9/10 score. |
gamespots worth about as much as my American dollar |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
-=Cartoon=-
VIP Member
Posts: 8823
Location: South Pacific Ocean
|
| Posted: Tue, 6th Nov 2007 08:39 Post subject: |
|
|
| SpykeZ wrote: | | JBeckman wrote: | http://www.gamespot.com/pc/action/gearsofwar/review.html?sid=6182319&tag=topslot;title;1#
Gamespot review with a 9/10 score. |
gamespots worth about as much as my American dollar |
Run, Crouch, Shoot
Its the winning combo at gamespot
Well you can forget bout the crouch part aswell for most games
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Tue, 6th Nov 2007 08:43 Post subject: |
|
|
| -=Cartoon=- wrote: | | SpykeZ wrote: | | JBeckman wrote: | http://www.gamespot.com/pc/action/gearsofwar/review.html?sid=6182319&tag=topslot;title;1#
Gamespot review with a 9/10 score. |
gamespots worth about as much as my American dollar |
Run, Crouch, Shoot
Its the winning combo at gamespot
Well you can forget bout the crouch part aswell for most games |
Odd, I thought it was just pretty gfx that made them decide when a game is good or not. Simple minded monkeys are easy to please |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
-=Cartoon=-
VIP Member
Posts: 8823
Location: South Pacific Ocean
|
| Posted: Tue, 6th Nov 2007 08:44 Post subject: |
|
|
<goes and plays the most complex game on my hard drive>
victoria revolutions!!
which gamespot gave 6.3 .. yet most the user reviews on gamespot are 9..
=D
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Page 12 of 56 |
All times are GMT + 1 Hour |
It's able to run like every new game I can think of in 1024 or 1280 resolution with top notch details (DX9 and except Crysis... this PC-killer is by far the only game that made me go beneath high settings <shadders to be precise, the rest is at high in 1024 with AA>)... So perhaps, turning off highest texturing and running the game in humane res (like 1024 or 1280 mentioned above, at some point even 800x600 with AA is acceptable) I can still manage to get around 30-40 fps... what you think ?
