<
>
 Thread (14 posts)
Lord.Bachus  10/26/07 1:10:07 AM

Rank: 10/100 Rank: 10/100 Rank: 10/100 Rank: 10/100 Rank: 10/100

Novice Member

Joined: 5/14/07
Posts: 297

live is like a box of.....

I can play the game with DX9 1680x1050 at 50fps with all settings max.

 

But when i switch to DX10 all settings max, it drops to 10 fps.... They promissed they where going to repair that... but i wonder if they will ever fix such a decrease in framerate.

I have to say tough that the game looks a lot better in DX10.

 
Kordesh  10/26/07 1:21:00 AM

Rank: 25/100 Rank: 25/100 Rank: 25/100 Rank: 25/100 Rank: 25/100

Apprentice Member

Joined: 1/12/06
Posts: 533

I've ran the game in both DX9 and DX10 and while the DX10 version was a bit slower as to be expected with the additional effects, it wasn't so drastic as to be unplayable. Far from 10fps.  I was running all settings maxed but at a lower resolution which is my monitors native. I would like to see if they could bring it up a bit though.

 
Yukkione  10/26/07 1:22:36 AM

Rank: 2/100 Rank: 2/100 Rank: 2/100 Rank: 2/100 Rank: 2/100

Novice Member

Joined: 10/28/05
Posts: 624

People are saying that latest build runs dx10 fine. So maby just hold on a sec till it's released.

 
reggie  10/26/07 4:14:52 PM

Rank: 48/100 Rank: 48/100 Rank: 48/100 Rank: 48/100 Rank: 48/100

Advanced Member

Joined: 11/10/03
Posts: 66

i tried dx10 with the latest build on my vista x64 with 2 gig ram and a 8800gts card. Wasnt playable. In the streets there was to much slowdown, pauzes, and the same in the stations.

Also i had freezes, my pc freezing up and needing a hard shutdown, with dx9 for some reason. Dx9 performance was good though no slowdowns.

I ended up dual booting to xp where i had no problems at all.

 
Kordesh  10/26/07 4:22:28 PM

Rank: 25/100 Rank: 25/100 Rank: 25/100 Rank: 25/100 Rank: 25/100

Apprentice Member

Joined: 1/12/06
Posts: 533

2gigs ram

8800gts 640mb

AMD4400 dual core

Vista32
 

Slower than the DX9 version in XP, but was still quite playable in DX10

 

 
eldanloco  10/26/07 9:04:07 PM

Rank: 50/100 Rank: 50/100 Rank: 50/100 Rank: 50/100 Rank: 50/100

Advanced Member

Joined: 2/24/07
Posts: 147

4gigs of ram
8800gts w/ 320mb
Vista 64bit

I ran DX10 with everything maxed at like 10-15fps but for some reason it still felt playable.  On DX9 I get a constant 60fps+

 
Jetrpg  10/27/07 12:57:49 AM

Rank: 32/100 Rank: 32/100 Rank: 32/100 Rank: 32/100 Rank: 32/100

Apprentice Member

Joined: 4/22/06
Posts: 965

Everyone knows that DX10 is broken, it kills fps and looks NO BETTER.

Im not a MS hater, but until we see a few more versions on DX10 there is no reason to use it.

"Society in every state is a blessing, but government even in its best state is but a necessary evil; in its worst state an intolerable one ..." - Thomas Paine

Kordesh  10/27/07 1:17:04 AM

Rank: 25/100 Rank: 25/100 Rank: 25/100 Rank: 25/100 Rank: 25/100

Apprentice Member

Joined: 1/12/06
Posts: 533

 

 

Originally posted by Jetrpg

Everyone knows that DX10 is broken, it kills fps and looks NO BETTER.

Im not a MS hater, but until we see a few more versions on DX10 there is no reason to use it.

Err DX10 isn't broken, it's simply more intensive and there was some issues with the implementation. They have said they are working on a solution. Read the Flagship statement.

Also, there is significant difference between the DX9 Hellgate and the DX10, though saying that they are better would be a matter of opinion. I personally felt it looked much better.

In addition, I should point out I ran Bioshock on DX10 with no ill effect, and enjoyed the enhanced visual features.

 

 

 
eldanloco  10/27/07 2:34:32 AM

Rank: 50/100 Rank: 50/100 Rank: 50/100 Rank: 50/100 Rank: 50/100

Advanced Member

Joined: 2/24/07
Posts: 147

Originally posted by Jetrpg

Everyone knows that DX10 is broken, it kills fps and looks NO BETTER.

Im not a MS hater, but until we see a few more versions on DX10 there is no reason to use it.

It looks no better??  lolololol  it looks SOOO much better u mean.  Seriously..  Motion blur!  I bust a nut when I saw it!

 
Distaste  10/27/07 3:02:55 AM

Rank: 100/100 Rank: 100/100 Rank: 100/100 Rank: 100/100 Rank: 100/100

Elite Member

Joined: 10/03/06
Posts: 377

DX10 at this point is rather a choice for the OMG PRETTY COLORS crowd. As an avid gamer the ONLY reason to run full settings is to get that wow this looks cool feeling. After about 15 minutes it is pointless and taxes your system. The only time you should run max settings is if your computer can handle it 2x over and it isn't really an intensive game. DX10 will be cool when that is the hardware standard. At this point it is still at the high end of hardware so it is really for the pretty colors crowd. DX9 works and you don't really lose anything by playing on it so who really cares?

I will give an example. Take WoW having it at full settings is all well and good but if you hit a 40 man and the part you were in had 100+ mobs then it will run slow as hell, broodlords room ftw? Or take even the 20 man ZG spider part. Having max settings was a disadvantage because of the drunk effect. lower the settings enough and you don't get the blurry screen anymore. Or take 2142. I don't need all the pretty glows of shields or grenade explosions casting shadows. I turn down all settings that aren't important and max those that are.  If I remember correctly there is a setting in 2142 that makes seeing people in shadowed areas rediculously easy, almost to the point of being cheating. Sometimes having high settings is a huge liability.

 
reggie  10/27/07 3:10:09 PM

Rank: 48/100 Rank: 48/100 Rank: 48/100 Rank: 48/100 Rank: 48/100

Advanced Member

Joined: 11/10/03
Posts: 66

I didnt notice any graphical difference between dx9 and dx10 lol but i never notice much when it comes to grames craphics.

The blurs btw is just a dx10 feature which comes into action if your fps drops to low so though it might look cool at first it just means you have bad performance and shouldnt be anything to get exited about hehe.

 
Kordesh  10/27/07 3:22:30 PM