If you need any convincing that DirectX 10 is worth it or not, then this will blow you away. Throw away OpenGL, trash your DirectX 9 graphics card, it’s time to upgrade to cinematic-quality real-time computer generated graphics!
Hover over the image to load hover image. Please wait patiently.
As you can see from the comparison between the two screenshots, this is not fake. There is no structural changes between the two images; except only lighting, weather effects and the water. Infact, the reflection and refraction of mountains in the water didn’t even change, just the water texture! But the difference is nothing short of amazing.
These renders come from the Microsoft Flight Simulator X game. If infact, and only if, the DirectX 10 version is a real-time rendered screenshot straight from the game, then it gets me thinking, why not a virtual wallpaper? In the early betas of Windows Longhorn, there were hints of a 3D rendered wallpaper called “Aurora” which showcased moving light auras. If Microsoft can leverage the power of DirectX 10 to the desktop, literally, then the possibilities of 3D wallpapers are endless.
Edit: Some people say the DX10 version is purely a pre-rendered concept screenshot. However, the Windows Vista Team Blog claims it was “created using Microsoft Flight Simulator X in DirectX 10″. Regardless if it was pre-rendered or live-rendered, it would have used the capabilities in DirectX 10.
Updated: Changed face model to F.E.A.R.’s game model to better reflect the capabilities of DirectX 9. This is not a direct comparison and should be taken as a guide.
Comments for "DirectX 10 is freaking dooping fabulous"
bill
yawn
bob
yawn indeed. No proof, no votes.
spyder
what a terrable comparison
Allan
Sucks ass.
jsaltz
This is an abomination.
vlsi0n
Looks very good! ^ The comments above are by blind people, or blind fanboys.
Ari
Umm, what is supposed to be special about this? And also- better than OpenGL? Nice try, but not this time.
Xe0nSpeed
the above are mentally blind and probably survive of cheaply made apple hardware
well any way it is very good and when it hits the shelvs it shall be looking better
mac osx has been infact hacked silly apple meh n00bxors!
Pete
Wow check out those chunky edges…how crud.
Ben L.
I personally love it. The fish at the bottom is a great example. Its texture actually extrudes instead of just being a skin to give an illusion of bumpiness. The lake one is absolutely gorgeous, and the heads one… just wow. Also learning about that 3D dynamic background makes me very excited. Just imagine your background being a tavern, with people walking around, entering and leaving. It would bring a new level of heart-warmth to my desktop.
Sphinx
As a professional game artist who deals with every aspect of texturing/shaders/materials/geometry across 6 consoles I can tell you this comparison is pretty meaningless.
All the dx 10 screenshots (with the exception of the crysis shot (of the faces), perhaps) could be done in dx9 (albeit more expensively).
Unless you have a technical understanding of whats going on, its difficult to tell you why a dx9 shader looks worse than a dx10 shader. They just picked some arbitrary screenshots with bad art.
Dx10 is superior to dx9, but this doesn’t really tell you why or how.
ser1alsn1per
utter fucking horseshite
nice bit of photoshop
Richard
“Mentally blind”…. like the countless millions of people who believe anything coming out of Microsoft’s doors is a must-have, brilliant, revolutionary concept…. triple YAWN. Everything Microsoft has ever done has already be done before (and done better)…. they just throw a billion dollars at marketing.
The ZUNE!! ZOMG iPOD KILLER, does IT run DirectX 10??????????
Observer
Maybe i’m just crazy, but I bet if DirectX 10 was being developed by Apple or as an open source project, there would be a lot more praise and a lot less microsoft hate. Oh and, none of you can prove anything either…
boot20
Without a video, screen caps are meaningless. You could do this in DX9, it’s just a matter of what the VIDEO looks like…I’m willing to bet this is nothing more than geewiz and not reality.
Jim
you fucking idiots, move your mouse over for a before/after
Geoff
It’s got nothing to do with being an Apple fanboy. Sure, I own a Mac but I play games on my Game Cube, DS, PS2 and XBOX 360.. and sometimes on my PC. And I’m still not all that super impressed. But then, it’s not the graphics I care about anyway. I werves me some good gameplay, graphics is just icing.
Guybrush
Yeah, it’s pretty neat - those of us who do CG for a living (and are demosceners for a hobby) have been working with the nvidia coding demos, with effects like this and better than this, for the last 2 or 3 years.
All running in real time, of course. This pic is absolutely possible, in realtime, at full resolution. If you refuse to believe that, it’s because you’re wasting your time gaming when you would be graphics hacking.
For a cool desktop renderer, try ‘Drempels’. It’s a nifty rendery thing that works now, on XP. You can even get the source and put whatever you want in it’s framework.
Shug
I’m guessing you’re all mac lovers and scared that opengl will die. Well good for you, i hope it does die, because it always has been and always will be an inferior piece of utter useless software. Don’t be jealous that opengl is a piece of tripe.
scaryfish
That fish looks scary
Fred
This is sweet and can’t wait for Halo 3 with this, or I hope it does and sometime before I dead. But I am curious why their are people that do not like this or are not excited about this. The new macs will able to take advantage of this also since they will have dual boot to windows.
Long Zheng
Regardless of how it is done, whether more polygons or better textures, but if they can do this in real-time and get it running smoothly, then the end result is all that matters!
Mr. Foo
Sorry to ruin your hype, but that FS X screenshot is not from the game . It is made by a computer graphics artist - thou it looks very cool and similar to that DX9 screenshot.
Benny
I don’t think DX10 is anything too special but when I see DX9… jeez its about time for an update!
Chris
and how exactly do you find that out Mr. Foo… as far as i know their arent any DX10 cards out yet, so unless u’re on a dev team or work for ati/nvidia i doubt you’ve been able to confirm this either way
Anders
haha, DirectX 10 is so great it turned the fat white guy with a cactus into like a black guy’s head! now that’s hi-tech. I bet opengl can’t do that! *yawn*
Andy
For all of you PC haters; you get yourself a dual AMD64 processor machine with 4gb of RAM and 2 x Nvidaia 7900 512m graphics cards in SLI and tell me that it doesn’t beat the ass off ANY mac!
As for the DX 9/10 comparison; yes a lot of it can be done in 9; but we’ll have to wait and see what it brings…
thiago
UMA BOSTAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
Dave
I’m not holding my breath about DX10….
Michael McMillan
The first picture had rays of light shining on shadowed landscape. The water in the direct x 9 screen had landscape reflected in the water. The direct X 10 version had more realistic waves, but the reflections were wrong. Water on the wave which was angled towards me should have shown sky in the reflection and some of the ground beneath the waves. Instead it showed me the mountain, just like in the direct X 9 version.
ok, the faces were cool, but the first face was a game face, who knows what the second face was, but it was much more complex, and you probably wouldn’t see 1000 like faces in game play. I have seen graphics like the same face back in the early 90s from pre-rendered content, and they had better lighting.
If I had modeled that fish I would be pissed, you screwed it up, the lips are all wrong. You just increased the magnitude of the bump map, whoop de do.
-TheYeti
Mikecron
Can’t remember if it was Maximum PC or PC Gamer, but they indicated that the “screenshot” of the mountain & lake was in fact an artist’s rendition of what they expect DX10 will be capable of.
•••
Why did you not compare same images for dx9 and dx10? That way, we can really tell the difference. I say this is marketing stunt.
Long Zheng
Because I don’t have a DX9 version of the same rendering.
Anonymouse
There are some people here who know what they are talking about, and some real idiots.
bitcheasy
sweet pics man, direct x is the best
loquacious
This is me making the little sicky noises.
Colin
Wow, over 5 years, and this is all they can do with DirectX 10? Looks more like marketing hype than anything.
I think our company will move over to OpenGL 2.0 because Microsoft just doesn’t have it anymore…
Jehuty16
Ok, lets get something straight. The first image supposedly from Flight Simulator X, the “DirectX 10 version” is an Artist’s interpritation of what DirectX 10 will look like. This was stated in Maximum PC Magizine. Compairing the fat guy from F.E.A.R. to those faces (even though impressive) has no relation whatsoever and shouldn’t be here. Lastly the fish. The DirectX9 version looks like someone just turned down the quality on thier DirectX9 graphics card, then put is back up to full for the “DirectX 10 version”
- Love Jehuty16 =P
Spicy7
This really isn’t that impressive. The water on the Flight Sim X DX10 version looks really good. That’s about it though… Is that all a DX10 card will get me is better textures/lighting?
Oreo
This looks like the same terrain rendered in Bryce and then again in terragen. This is meaningless without video.
James
Try the Crysis HD trailer. That’s pretty awesome, IIRC it’s DX10 in realtime, too :]
jsaltz
It sucks. End of the story.
Nicholas
One word - SHAME!
Great spin! You just rubbed DX9 in the face, didn’t you? Well fact is, DX9 is not as incompetent as you made it. The fat guy is prime example. OMG that is DX8, just look at it! That is soooooo obviously DX8 level graphics and TURNED DOWN. And you pair it up with DX10 turned up?
You know, even the 4 year old GeForce FX 5200 Dawn demo looks better than any of the “DX9″ proofs you’ve shown here:
http://www.nzone.com/object/nzone_dawndemo_home.html
…and yeah, we’re talking about Shader Model 1.0 here…
Let’s get the facts straight. Shader Model 3.0 can do almost everything Shader Model 4.0 can do in terms of the final result. Yes it lacks Geometry Shaders so SM3 will lag behind SM4 in terms of performance. But so what? If you could SLi say 8 SM3 GPUs, there’s nothing stopping SM3 from rendering very similar results that you shown in DX10.
What DX10 really improved on DX9 is performance, expandability.
hmmm.. i wonder if ppl will do these kinds of exaggerated comparisons when DX11 comes out - beauty DX11 vs the ugly DX10
anyway, this article just ticked me off by insulting DX 9 so badly.
Long Zheng
No one is insulting DirectX 9. I’m sure like every demo material, comparisons are chosen to show the best of the difference. But having said that, there is nothing too unrealistic about these comparisons. These demoes are DirectX 10 running on DirectX 9 hardware.
George
DirectX10 running on Directx9 GPU huh? lol i think u got everything mixed up.
well for me u know this is not a fair comparison. everything seems so waterdowned in the 9 version, and everything seems so levelled up in the 10.
the second image, the ugly guy, is not the same as the 10 example of invidiual faces. case in point - the 9 version has NO ANTIALIASING, whereas 10 has.
and….. ummm why is the hair in the ugly dude image look like a block of cream? Radeon X1xxx and geforce 7xxx both can render realistic hair, so i really dunno what you’re on about…
lol and hey… Xbox 360 runs DirectX9… so dun tell the whole world that this is the limit of xbox 360? more like the xbox 360 can render the “directx 10″ images…. seriously….
overall… like others have said above… this is a poor comparison…
Ezbez
@Michael McMillan - Those faces are, as you call it, “game faces”. They appear in the up comming game Crysis. They are rendered in real-time in the game, though not 1000s at once. It’s an FPS, so mabye a couple dozen people on screen at most. However, same goes for the FEAR DX9 screenshot.
And as for the fish, it’s not just “increasing the magnitude of the bumpmap.” Bump mapping only affects lightning, while these are actually 3D bumps on it, which can’t be achieved through either bump mapping or parralax mapping (since you can see the spines sticking out over the standard mesh). And the lighting is much better in the DX 10 version. It’s not as shiny as the DX 9 one.
I agree completely with your points about the water though.
scifishooterguy
Those replies near the top of this page, are by a bunch of dumb asses, who dont know what the hell their talking about. Their is no overly done photoshop, for that Flight Simulator X comparison. That is the freking real thing. And it “is” amazing. And the comparison between FEAR graphics and the new Crysis graphics are also freaking amazing.
Squid
This is a completely meaningless comparison.
DirectX 9 can do pretty much everything DirectX 10 can, but with higher hardware requirements.
Now, for those images:
The “DirectX 10″ version of the first image is not a DirectX 10 rendering.
A similar rendering can be achieved with DirectX 9, though.
The second DirectX 10 image demonstrates detailed artwork, not the capabilities of the DirectX 10 API.
The same face models can be rendered using DirectX 9 with little difference.
The third DirectX 10 picture…
It’s been done a million times using DirectX 9.
I’ve seen better things done in DirectX 9.
The only reason pathetic little fanboys haven’t, is because the only technologies they’re aware of are those implemented in computer games, which are meant to be run on their average hardware.
To all DirectX 10 fanatics: you haven’t seem even a slice of the capabilities of DirectX 9 and won’t see even a slice of the capabilities of DirectX 10 either.
Computer games won’t look as good as those pictures anytime soon.
It just doesn’t depend on the API that much.
Advanced techniques and high quality models reqire high end hardware.
Some gamers do have such hardware, but most don’t, so the developers don’t even bother.
Frank
It’s been said a bunch of times, and I will say it again, the comparison is worth nothing.
The first scene uses a majorly different water shader, which you would find perfectly capable of running under DX9 (if it indeed uses the new geometry shader it would be emulated, but for just water it’s not a major overhead). The sky is nothing that’s not been done before DX10, the terrain in the background features some more shadows, also done before in DX9.
The faces comparison compares a model of maybe 100 vertices with a model with literally thousands of vertices, so that’s no good. And as said above, Nvidia demo’s from a while ago demonstrate similar results.
Only the fish presents what seems to be a worthy comparison. The new geometry shader as opposed to bumpmapping, but even here it seems the lightning conditions have slightly changed (either the light is aimed differently, or they removed the specular component, making the DX9 version more ’shiny’).
I’m not saying DX10 is a bad thing (I personally do prefer OpenGL though), but this comparison is worth nothing. Go look up some tech demos and see what’s already possible, then compare.
Nicholas
To Long and anyone who cares about the real situation here:
Quote from Long:
“No one is insulting DirectX 9. I’m sure like every demo material, comparisons are chosen to show the best of the difference. But having said that, there is nothing too unrealistic about these comparisons. These demoes are DirectX 10 running on DirectX 9 hardware.”
As a matter of fact, even though you didn’t explicitly insult DX9, you implicitly insulted DX9 by not giving DX9 a “fair go” at showing it’s full potential. You turned down the graphics for DX9, obviously. and turned all the way up for DX10? How is this even a comparison?
OK, I’m gonna go into finer detail. DX9 has two modes - DX9-compliant, and DX9-compatible. DX3D10 (referred to as DX10 to ease reading) has one mode only - DX10-compliant. That means, no cap-bits or optional capabilities for DX10. It will have all the features available for every DX10 card. Performance is the only differentiator for DX10 cards.
DX9-compat does not contain all the feature set in the DX9 specification. DX9-compliant does. For the fairest comparison, you should have the *SAME* rendering for both DX9-compliant and DX10-compliant.
So… are the Dx9 images rendered from DX9-compliant or DX9-compatible? Well I can guarantee you 2000000% they are DX9-compat. Why? why do I even have to say this? GeForce 5200, with it’s “old and vintage” DX9-compliant Shader Model 2.0, was capable of rendering Dawn in real-time - all the way back in 2002. Yeah it’s been 4 years but look at her hair, does it resemble anything like the Fat Bastard “DX9″ image you’ve shown. The Dawn demo didn’t take *FULL* advantage of DX9 yet, as the GeForce 5xxx cards had sucky performance.
GeForce 7800’s Luna is a better representation of the full potential of DX9, but still not quite there yet. watch the video and see for yourself.
http://www.nzone.com/object/nzone_luna_home.html
For FSX - I can tell you that the engineers at MS didn’t take full advantage of DX9 if that shot was true. Well I can’t blame them, they have to build so many scenes for every single corner of the…. say Earth…
—————–
All I want to tell you is that DX9 is a very advanced and mature architecture. It is very capable of rendering extremely realistic graphics such as the movie Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within.
Yes DX10 is an improvement, but I can tell you the improvement will be less on “rendering complexity” and more on efficiency - efficiency so that more human-like objects can be rendered at the same time compared to DX9. So—– if 1 DX10 GPU can render the Crysis demo in real-time, it might take 2 DX9-compliant GPUs to do the same thing.
so pleaaaaaaaseeee.. don’t insult something that has brought us so much grahpics joy for the past 4 years… would you do these kinds of comparisons when DX11 comes out? (Oh DX10 sucks so much, DX11 is the REAL cinematic-quality technology, see these comparisons -_-)
P.S. Procedural Shading, FP32 color precision, and HDR (high-dynamic-range) - first introduced with DX9, is enough to render Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within - with negligible differences.
wildcard
They have this same shot of fsx in Maximum PC this month. This is a graphic artists interpretation of what directx 10 will look like vs directx 9.
AlligatorX
Absolutely retarded.
OMG Who Cares
Come on guys. It’s ONE comparison and they did their best at compairing it. Really, get it yourself if you REALLY want to know the comparison then post your own site with it.
The fact is, it may not be the best comparison out there, but it’s ONE.
Man, you guys take this WAY to personally.
- Concerned Citizen -
dL.Priest
Uhm, the picture of the guy holding the cactus..the mouse over..those “DirectX 10″ rendered heads? No sorry, those are from the CGI mini-movie from the Animatrix, “Final Flight of the Osiris” I do believe.
Jowunger
Microsoft seem to fool it users (again) just to sell another copy of vista. If you look at the original page at http://blogs.technet.com/windowsvista/articles/447226.aspx then it is very obvious that they just put a bad pic (they call it DX9) and a nicer pic (they call it DX10).
Those 2 rendered backgrounds with the moutain and water is just another Microsoft trick to fool users into vista. DX9 can render it much better then that, but would it help to sell Vista better? nah, I dont think so. Just use lower rendering settings and call it DX9
We know that Halo graphic sux and the comparison from halo head (DX9) and Crysis head (dx10) just shows that. If you look at ‘Halflifes 2 Episode One’ graphic (oh yeah, its DX9 !) you will see just as good as they write ‘only DX10′ can do. Sorry, but rubbish should go straight into the garbage.
Don’t believe everything and everyone, even if it seems trustable. Don’t trust me either. Just take a look yourself and ’sense it’.
Good Day!
Jow
Nathan
These examples aren’t very good, but there are better ones available. Take a look at Crysis footage, specifically the tech demo. That footage uses real DX10 in real-time and specificly labels the improved features of dx10 over 9 that are used. (ex. volumetric shading, active mapping, tons more unique object support, geometric shading, etc.)I don’t recommend the in-game footage currently available just because the player is making it obvious that he/she is trying to show off the features, and because they are overglorifying one of the enemies in the game (common trait of trailers of games still in beta). The graphics you see in all the videos are all real-time though, and are extremely impressive.
SuB
whoever said that the amd64 system with sli will own any mac, take a look at the Mac Pro, pwned? i think so…
Anonymouse
“whoever said that the amd64 system with sli will own any mac, take a look at the Mac Pro, pwned? i think so…” NOT! that mac is good…for a mac but if against a proper pc purly shit on a stick not only that but a rip for $1457.58 you can get 5.2 dual core 64 AMD, dual 7900 gts, 540w power suply, 2 gb of ram and a case,cd drive,hard drive,mother board,suond card and so on if you like mac i think you should see a doctor you fucking retard!!!
Mitch 74
A comparison could be made the day the Wine team starts implementing DirectX 10 - from what they say, it should be ‘relatively easy’ once they switch to WGL - meaning that owners of OpenGL 2.0 cards may have full DirectX 10 support using libwine under Windows XP, or using Wine under Linux…
Read the WWN #320 on winehq.org for more details. Of course it’s still preliminary - but considering we’re talking about guys who’ve reimplemented all Direct3D versions, they may know what they’re talking about.
James
Too bad that the DX 10 image is an artist rendition of a mountain. The information was rleased in the september issue of Pc Format by a developer team. Microsoft flight simulator will be using DX 9 for the most part, as DX 10 is still only in early development.
AllFiredUp
I would love to see FSX look like that, but the DirectX10 shot is an artists concept of what goal the designers want to strive for.
see: http://media.pc.ign.com/media/792/792287/img_3876940.html
and
http://pc.ign.com/articles/729/729154p1.html
Artists Concepts, NOT actual DirectX 10 screenshots.
Hope that clarifies things
I don’t know about the rest, I was only interested in FSX.
nicscool
“DirectX10 running on Directx9 GPU huh? lol i think u got everything mixed up.”
Using the DirectX SDK you, developers can render in a software emulation mode with the DirectX Sdk. The DirectX redistribute is not capable of this. Basically it allows you to render anything in DirectX 10 mode, even if your system doesn’t have the right hardware. But this very sssslllloowww. It’s obviously a picture.
Łukasz
DX9 pic are low quality and detail….
DX10 pic are very very high quality!
Stinky situation….. bad…
Mike
Doesnt really prove alot, id like to see more about this.
I have it on good faith dx10 will be a huge hit as my
fav mmorpg is writing a seperate client specifically to
benefit from the new gfx, little pissed my 7800gtx is
garbage again though
lol, i just love microsoft hating nublars.. go back to your
linux where nothing is compatible and stay there.. no need
to come on here and whine about your own stupidity.
sgtslaughter
well fu?k me imagine high definition monitor and 2 dx10s be off tap
Kwiatek
a ja was pierdole głupie angole:) możecie mnie cmoknąć w pałe
yes yes yhym ofcourse:) pierdole was serdecznie 
jesteście włochatymi chujami to właściwie pędzlami:D nic nie wiecie nic nie umiecie pojebańce poprostu:]Pędzle pierdolone w odbyty a niech was zerzra binladeny cwaniaki kurewskie możecie nakicać :] jednym słowem grettings and SERDECZNIE CHUJ WAM W DUPE !!!!!!!!!!! :]
Kwiatek from POLAND
blblub
@Ben L.: thats called displacement and it’s possible in realtime since ages…
comparing fear with crysis is like comparing quake 2 with quake 3 it’s stupid… no crysis shot is done with DX10 because there is simply no real working hardware for this yet, all images are just emulated…
and comparing an ugly Flightsimulator shot with an enhanced shot isn’t that wise either, the water and sky effects are also possible with DX9, they just need more work
skatehead
lol you are gay whoever posted this
oii
http://www.ogre3d.org/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=25487
Schirmchen
Yeah,
Very good!
I like it. I will buy such a new Graphiccard!
The Water ist sooooo realistic!!!
Nice Nice Nice!!!
The one and only Schirm…
4
>>“whoever said that the amd64 system with sli will own any mac, take a look at the Mac Pro, pwned? i think so…” NOT! that mac is good…for a mac but if against a proper pc purly shit on a stick not only that but a rip for $1457.58 you can get 5.2 dual core 64 AMD, dual 7900 gts, 540w power suply, 2 gb of ram and a case,cd drive,hard drive,mother board,suond card and so on if you like mac i think you should see a doctor you fucking retard!!!
Intel architecture > AMD intel architecture.
Intel roadmap > AMD Road Map
Mac Pro > the pc you just described
spyder
speaking flight sim X, has anyone seen how rediculously low the framerate is in the TV commercials???
Steve
you guys are nerds
WBCS-Neo
The “presumably” DirectX10 examples could easily be achieved using DirectX9 and even probably down to DX7 and most likely all you would need for the finishing results is nothing more than to add the finishing settings and allow it to render in something as simple as Bryce3D etc.
What should be shown is realtime rendering video’s showing with DX9 then DX10, pictures prove nothing in the DX world.
Try again!
sqrt
Google for: “DirectX 9″ “DirectX 10″ “Throw away OpenGL”
Now tell me guys, do you trust spam?
Some of these images compare standard DirectX 7/8 renderings with something that could be achieved with advanced DirectX 8/9 renderings. The point is that theyr’e fake.
If Microsoft is behind these posts then these guys must be really desperate to promote Vista this way.
And what does “Throw away OpenGL” mean?
DirectX 10 is not yet available and it’s features are allready available under OpenGL.
I wonder if it’s possible to connect these posts with Microsoft. If we can do that then Microsoft could be sued for false advertising or something like that
Ali
Heres an awesome site on directx 10. Hope you guys can contribute.. http://www.dxten.com
Gary
Didn’t read all of the comments but a lot of the people that left them have no clue what they are talking about. If you actually want to know why DirectX 10 is superior to DX9 or OpenGL for that matter read the siggraph white paper by David Blithe on the subject. The images that you showed don’t really explain the reasoning, but DX10 is not just an API it also is a requirement for graphics cards and by not being backwards compatible manages to be 10 times faster in many cases.
MacAndPcLover
For those who want the Mac/PC debate and fanboy insults (Are they really insults, anyway…) The Mac is now essentially a PC. Plain and simple. Where the PC has a 100% advantage is with SLI/Crossfire. I have a Mac Pro with 2 x Dual Core Xeon 2.66Ghx and an ATI X1900XT. Nice card - Nice machine. I get about 9k on 3D mark 06. I get 11k on my PC with one GeForce8800GTX and 17k in SLI with my e6600 Oc’d from 2.4Ghz to 3.6Ghz aircooled, 2gb PC 8000 DDR2, 300Gb SATA II.
The point is, I can run anything on both without breaking a sweat. I can overclock the PC and it’s video cards. I can’t however, overclock the Mac. The video, sure, but only to the PC’s stock speeds.
Direct X 10 is nothing until there is supported software. The only thing that is currently out now is a lame direct x 10 demo from nVidia. The only thing DX10 really does is change the 3d data is processed within the GPU.
The images above are fakes. They are professional painting, renderings, and conceptual images. Look at the video for Crysis. It looks GOOD. Compare that to the pictures here, those head renderings are WAY off. Think about it before you jump the gun on what to actually expect.
Sky
O ssssssshh my directx 9 iz a pice of Shh!@# but a DirectX 10 video comes whit a price
Kurov
Well now thats a great crap! well i’m not a apple lover (i hate it, starting by Jobs)! i’ve played a lot of titles, DX7,8 and 9 titles! Well some dudes around here say that DX10 beats Playstation 3 and Xbox360… well why don’t you go to gamespot.com and compare the Splinter Cell Double Agent screens (the X360 and the PC ones) All i want you to do is to check that Chrysler 300C! The screenshot gives you the answer! First of all those pictures are concept-art! Why? i tell you! close to the right shore of the lake where those pine trees are, you can se in the watter some little waves, if you check out carefully you can still see them on the suposed DX10 picture! the fish was edited! the faces? well please, i’ve seen much better faces on DX9 its all a matter of textures! Microsoft and the Gaming industry, and i mean the graphic chips producers are bullshiting us!This is a great maneuver to sell Vista thats why it’s an exclusive! Xp is more than able to run the crapy DX10! I made better look videos using 3D Studio in my X1600! DirectX-10 was not necessary!
Kurov
Bill Gates is a pusher!!
DUST180
DX10 does beat PS3 and Xbox360 because DX10 came out after PS3 and Xbox360. So there for its impossible for DX10 to be on PS3 and Xbox360 all it is on the PS3 and Xbox360 is that they pushed DX9 to its limits on quality.
DUST180
And the above images are fake but not totally fake because i have the game FEAR and the graphics do lokk somtin like that but look at the guys arms and hands. It is a real screen shot but the screen shot was edited.
whatever
Ok every is like fuck windows hating people ur a bunch of dumb asses
look at what microsoft has you doing….. o shit
i need to veiw my games in high def. I shell out 200+ dollars for just that
they have a fucking monoply
all they care about is your money
so what will they do
start phasing out Xp a perfectly(ish) good system
so bill gates gets more fucking money
he has too dam much allready
i think that there is also nothing wrong with open gl and dx 9 and like some one has said above this post
I like games for the game play
graphics are just a side item
Nifen
has anyone noticed that if you stair at the picture of the tree’s and the water (in directx 10) top picture, that it appears to move.
I think i’ve just been at work toooo long today…
andy112382
Alright, look I use these machines everyday as a PC tech, work on computers from windows 98 through windows vista, not to mention I am running Vista Ultimate as of two weeks ago on my own computer, and I have one thing to say to those who are like ‘there is no difference from dx 9 to dx 10′ or ‘forget vista’ before you even use it or have a computer capable of even running it the way it was meant to run………SHUT UP! For cryin’ out loud, please don’t talk about stuff you don’t know.
Who cares if the shots above are concepts or actual shots, or whatever. Look up crysis for example, run that video. Go to Nvidia and download the Lost World demo and play it on a capable DX 10 machine, or run games such as Supreme Commander in dx9 then dx10 and compare, or heck just run 3d mark 06 on dx 9 and 10 and compare….the direct x 10 will blow you away, unless you are some stubborn hardass who thinks you are the center of the universe and there is no way you could be wrong….in that case save yourself and don’t post stuff you know nothing at all about.
andy112382
**Lost Planet was the demo I meant to say, not Lost World.
nmn
To be honest, i think DirectX 10 is wonderful. But you must keep in mind - especially when comparing to OpenGL - its just because its new - and really - its about time.
Oh, and btw… OpenGL is not really that bad. A few engines i’ve tried have gone fro