Is there really a big difference between the two?
Yes there is - I'll try to post some screenshots of Gears of War running in each in a couple of days - or perhaps you can google some, but I'll try to post the same scene with each when I do.
I don't think there is a huge difference, Direct x 10 just has some more special eye candy filters.
Sorry but you're wrong. There is a great difference between both as the DX10 change completely an image or video. But also DX10 have some things also that game need for DX9. So it is good to have both install or easily you install Dx9 then Dx10 that will be the best.
Well then the review sites that do side-by-side comparisons of certain games do not do dx10 justice, because they always seem to look identical to me.
Ah, everyone his opinion but I can assure you that DX10 have a great difference on the image/video.
Nope, from what I saw there isn't really a huge difference between the two, apart from the HUGE performance impact that it has on games. Don't misunderstand me, there IS a difference, but is it really worth it ?
Here's a good article from gamespot on the comparisons with screenshots of Crysis : http://www.gamespot.com/features/6182140/index.html
Like they said, with a little "hack" you can run Crysis on Very High settings under XP (these settings were originally only available through Vista), and as a result, the difference between Vista Very High settings with Dx10 and XP very high settings with dx9 is barely noticeable. (in fact, I don't see any)
A second article shows the difference : http://gizmodo.com/gadgets/pcs/directx-9-vs-directx-10-worth-upgrading-to-vista-for-243099.php
Like you can all see, the main differences are the quality of the shadows, the water, and the sun rays.
Yes i not wrong but the slight changes sometimes makes some person happy as they have good performance PC so they are not annoyed by the need in performance of DX10...
You can't "install" Dx10. Some of its files already come with the download of directx 9.0c and it is already included in Vista.
You seem to change ideas pretty fast
I don't know about you but if you don't see a huge difference in the first set of screenshots here (and imagine that in motion) then it's probably not worth trying to find better looking graphics for a few years - or until there is a major breakthrough in graphics rendering processes. Shadows and lighting are some of the easiest ways to tell that a scene is rendered vs real. Once we can do that easily and at little cost there will be a huge leap in general real-time rendered image quality - IMO.
IIRC the second set of images (FlightSim) is a fake, but take a look at Crysis with the water set to the highest settings. One of my favorite things to show off to people when they come over is to take the flare sitting on the ground at the beginning of the game and toss it into the water. It's pretty amazing.
I agree with you a little my friend as the difference is good but the problem is not only the difference on the image/video but on the performance as my friend Qucikshot told use. For the DX10 work well like that it needs a lot of of resources and not all people have computer with the system requirements and also money for that. So sometimes DX10 is a little bad due to the performance it require for running.
And also for Quickshot i'm not changing ideas but i'm just asking that the words you written is not wrong and that I agree with you.
Maybe some more pics
Although I agree a true Windows gamer should have DirectX10 (Vista) with lots of money for a really good system
And DX9 used a lot more than DX7. To see progression it requires better hardware.
Yeah it can have a big difference but not enough difference between Dx9 to DX10 even on quality and performance needed. And also Dx10 can only be used on only one one Windows which is Vista. Not talking about the other that other developers did for XP as it is not the same a on Vista.
Nice photos kimsland this shows the big difference between Dx9 and DX10.
Due to the size of these pics I decided against placing them inline on this thread. Instead, if you're truly interested go to http://www.duke.edu/~mepm/images/screenshots/GoW/ and grab some of the images yourself. These are the actual settings I play at on each of these machines - I changed nothing at all. Keep in mind that these images range in size from 2-5 MB - the first screenshot in each folder is simply the settings I use on each machine. I ran fraps to grab the screenshots.
Best DX9 game I've seen, if you haven't had a chance to check it out yet, is Call of Duty 4. It's pretty amazing considering you don't have to make any modifications to the game and it looks the way it does right out of the box. If you ever get a chance to see it on a beefy machine spend a few minutes with it.
They're too big!
I know you said, keep in mind...
But it's difficult to compare
It'll be better to have them side by side, and small
Because it's too difficult to tell, without downloading them all
Even though you did a lot of work
Yeah - I noticed that it was pretty difficult to compare them. I was comparing them by opening them full screen at the actual resolution and cycling through them. After I posted this I tried comparing them on my laptop which only has a res of 1680x1050 - it was much harder to compare at this res because there is some scaling of the image going on. Perhaps... if I get a wild hair over the next few days, I'll set it up again and lower the res before taking my shots. I might even crank the settings all the way up for both when I do that.
a while ago i heard of a group working on a dx10 hack for xp now i have no idea if you can trust it at all but i found the link so it may be worth a shot so dx10 might not only be for vista.
here are the best images i have found comparing the two
hop that helps and i think there is a bit of a difference if you see things like dust in the air and stuff like that
Yes they made an DX10 for Windows XP but the results isn't the same that on Vista as some effects are missing and also it can't take the performance it can get on vista to do the same on XP...
Personally Vista is not the OS for gamers yet IMO.
No you are a little wrong. Some game play better than on Win XP as example Gears of War, Microsoft and a lot of gamers will ask you that it play well on Vista and there is not only Gears of War but all the game who have the logo Games for Windows on the box is better to be played on Vista
Nah... At least from my experience, the games that have the "Games for Windows" logo on them do not play better on Vista than on XP. In fact, "Games for Windows" is part of Microsoft's marketing campaign which "aims to make video gaming on Windows operating systems as easy and accessible as on popular video game consoles." (Source : Wikipedia )
Dx 10 has some kinda thing that allows your gfx card to render more with less of a strain, it also makes it look slightly better. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x7aPvedU7cI
If you look up screenshots of Crysis on DX9 and DX10 you will see no difference.