DX 10 whats the deal

[Madaz]

The other day i bought Assasins creed took it home and then popped it onto my system.
i was a little suprised that although my systems at least matched the recomended settings on the box that my system didnt reach the required vista rating for the game, 5, only scoring a 4.7. (bloody aero experience rating, everything else is higher than 4.7)

Anyway, i gave it a shot and no suprised the game just wouldnt work, and just kept crashing, i played with the setup reducing the res and the detail etc but to no avail . I wasnt too worried because i knew i could take the game back, gotta love EB, but i thought that i would look online first anyway just to see if there was anything i could do.

Turns out after reading a guide on tweakguides.com, awesome site, that the game has 2 modes DX10 and DX9, and that the game automaticly launches in DX10 mode.

so i start the game up in DX9 mode and everything is working just fine. Same problem with world in conflict, dx10 made it run like crap and crash.

is this happening to everyone?

my system is a toshiba satellite p200 T7700 core 2 duo 2.4 processor 3gb ram 512 radeon HD2600 video card.

also has ayone here used redyboost and is it any good?

 

[bunnyfubbles]

are your drivers up to date?

with 3GB of ram, readyboost is most likely going to be a waste

 

[Madaz]

Hi Bunny, yeah drivers are up to date, i dont know what the problem is, unless its a heating issue, and then there isnt much i can do about it.

 

[zerocool84]

Assasin's Creed was a bad port and people got bad performance with better systems than you and trying to run it on DX10 with that video card is not what you want to do. Just run it in DX9.

 

[error8]

Yes, you have problems because that videocard is not made for direct X 10 gaming. Is much too weak, even though it supports it. Anyway, playing the latest games on laptops is never a good thing to do.

 

[Sam25]

I would agree with zerocool, the HD 2600 XT isnot going to run the game a whole lot better under DX10. I had a 2600XT on an Acer desktop PC and I remember it struggled to run Far Cry 2 on it.

 

[AstroManLuca]

The performance hit is large unless you're on very new (current generation) hardware (Radeon HD4xxx or GeForce GTX 2xx). Even my previous card, a Radeon 3850, was unable to handle DX10 effectively in most games that supported it. My 4870 is fine though.

DX10 doesn't seem to even change much in terms of visual quality though. There are a few times when you may notice a difference when comparing screenshots side-by-side, but most of the time it makes very little difference. I think the biggest advantage of DX10 centers around effects along the edges of surfaces - it smooths the transition from shoreline to water, for instance, and you've got features like ambient occlusion that put little shadows along wall edges and corners. EDIT: Is ambient occlusion actually DX10 only or is it available in DX9 as well?

 

[aka1nas]

Originally posted by: AstroManLuca
The performance hit is large unless you're on very new (current generation) hardware (Radeon HD4xxx or GeForce GTX 2xx). Even my previous card, a Radeon 3850, was unable to handle DX10 effectively in most games that supported it. My 4870 is fine though.

DX10 doesn't seem to even change much in terms of visual quality though. There are a few times when you may notice a difference when comparing screenshots side-by-side, but most of the time it makes very little difference. I think the biggest advantage of DX10 centers around effects along the edges of surfaces - it smooths the transition from shoreline to water, for instance, and you've got features like ambient occlusion that put little shadows along wall edges and corners. EDIT: Is ambient occlusion actually DX10 only or is it available in DX9 as well?

Dx10 doesn't really let you do anything that was flat-out impossible in Dx9. Some effects are just way more efficient to implement in Dx10 due to the architectural changes made to the API (batching up of certain API calls to lower transactional overhead was one of the big changes, IIRC).

To actually see any of that in action, the developers have to design software that will actually take advantage of that well. It's also hard to compare apples-to-apples between Dx9 and Dx10 modes on the same game because most developers are opting to showcase the Dx10 mode with significantly heavier effects, which sometimes might outweigh any performance improvements that Dx10 might have had.

 

[Fox5]

Originally posted by: AstroManLuca
The performance hit is large unless you're on very new (current generation) hardware (Radeon HD4xxx or GeForce GTX 2xx). Even my previous card, a Radeon 3850, was unable to handle DX10 effectively in most games that supported it. My 4870 is fine though.

DX10 doesn't seem to even change much in terms of visual quality though. There are a few times when you may notice a difference when comparing screenshots side-by-side, but most of the time it makes very little difference. I think the biggest advantage of DX10 centers around effects along the edges of surfaces - it smooths the transition from shoreline to water, for instance, and you've got features like ambient occlusion that put little shadows along wall edges and corners. EDIT: Is ambient occlusion actually DX10 only or is it available in DX9 as well?

DX10 offers graphics that are way more accurate, problem is the fakes are already too good.

For instance, is it a big graphical difference if smoke and fog conforms to terrain, rather than just being a big cloud present independent? Is a 100% accurate reflection that much better looking than an approximation that works almost perfectly until you get to very large angles? Is more realistic lighting and shadowing better when you need to be right up close to the object to notice?

I know Company of Heroes has some nice effects going on, but you need to really be looking to notice them. The game is zoomed out, and seems designed to hide the imperfections of dx9.
Crysis looks great in DX10 with settings maxed, but even my 9800GTX+ can't handle that.

 

[Madaz]

thanks for your input guys, i appreciate it.

is it possible to replace GPU's in a notebook and get a noticable change in performance, or should i just backup and pour a beer on the bastard and claim insurance for a new one?

 

[Modelworks]

One developer told me "There isn't enough new in DX10 to make it worth the effort when 75% of your customers use DX9"

DX11 will be worth it. Hardware tessellation is a huge feature. How many times in a game have you seen a round object like a barrel or tree have flat edges ? Tessellation takes that away by dividing the object into more faces so objects can be simple on one video card and complex on another. Developers don't have to design objects to fit lower end cards.

If a game like crysis used DX11 it would look like it does now with current cards and automatically become more detailed with DX11 capable cards without any change in programming or need for patching.

 

[roid450]

I run Crysis/Crysis Warhead and Assassins Creed in DX9, DX10 gives me mouse and keyboard lag in Crysis and I get a lil more FPS using DX9 on Enthusiast for Warhead:

DirectX 9.0c CUSTOM 1X @ Map: ambush @ 0 1680 x 1050 AA 0xx
==> Framerate [ Min: 21.86 Max: 37.89 Avg: 31.06 ]

Custom is all Enthusiast with motion blurr off.

 

[brandonb]

The only thing that will really provide any significant boost to rendering would be ray tracing.

The texturing a polygon method can only bring you so far. Cube maps (reflections off shiney paint on a car for example) is very slow to process, so many objects have to share all the same cube maps and they are usually very low detail. Sure DX10.1 provied the ability to generate cube maps faster, but it doesn't buy us much.