DirectX10

[westy87]

Just curious. Will we see an improvement in quality of directX9 games if we are running directX10?

[Victor]

i don't think there's any improvement

[sushrukh]

You'll only see the performance diff in the DX10 games specially in the Shader Model 4.0 enabled games like Crysis & Alanwake.

[werty316]

Just curious. Will we see an improvement in quality of directX9 games if we are running directX10?
Unless a game is rendered in DX10, then as the others said, no.

[westy87]

Unless a game is rendered in DX10, then as the others said, no.

Thanks thats all i wanted to know

[PP Mguire]

Just a question, why would DirectX10 spruce up DirectX9? *scratches head*

[westy87]

Well they just said it wont lol. I was just curious if there was some new architecture that would help the directX9 games as well

[PP Mguire]

The new architecture will help out DX10 games ;) lol, was just yankin your chain man.

[Scott]

But an 8800 card is dang fast and will blow away and DX9 card. Heck even most DX cards in SLI or Crossfire even.

[PP Mguire]

I believe he was talking about the software and not the hardware. The faster card allows it to blow away DX9 cards.

['Amp!']

I can't recall where I read this (perhaps the community can back me up here) but I recall Microsoft saying something about DX9 being implemented through a type of emulation from within DX10.

The only I reason I even remember it is because I was so upset about it and the implication it would have on DX9 games potentially running slower.

[PP Mguire]

Exactly, becasue your DX9 games will be software emulated. Which is why most of us like XP. Also why DX9 sees a drop in performance in Vista.

[Kougar]

This doesn't make any sense to me at all, IMHO I'd say it is FUD, sorry.

If the hardware does not support DX10 then it's simply going to default to DX9L, which any DX9c hardware based card can run just fine. Infact this is what GPU's are running right now under Vista.

You can't emulate Shader Model 4 support and can't emulate GPU based GUI rendering for the OS either, which is what DX10 is partly about. This is why I am equally critical of the rumors of one guy porting over DX10 to DX9 OS's. It wouldn't change that DX10 requires DX10 graphics cards.

[PP Mguire]

If the hardware does not support DX10 then it's simply going to default to DX9L, which any DX9c hardware based card can run just fine. Infact this is what GPU's are running right now under Vista.Which DX9 is still software emulated under Vista becasue of DX10. Thats why the performance decrease.
You can't emulate Shader Model 4 support and can't emulate GPU based GUI rendering for the OS either, which is what DX10 is partly about. This is why I am equally critical of the rumors of one guy porting over DX10 to DX9 OS's. It wouldn't change that DX10 requires DX10 graphics cards.Not trying to emulate SM4.0. Hes putting the DX10 on XP which is possible. Why? Becasue its just like 9 8 or 7 or 1 or w/e. They are just trying to make it Vista only so you HAVE to buy the new OS. Put DX10 on XP and have a DX10 GPU then it should work just like if it was on Vista. Its very possible and makes sense.
Idk where you got SM4.0 umlation from and we know that DX9 cards can run DX9. Its a case of DX9 is emulated under Vista.

[westy87]

Is this what your talking about? :grin:

http://alkyproject.blogspot.com/2007/04/finally-making-use-of-this-blog-i.html

[Kougar]

Vista runs DX9L natively, it is not emulated. If it was then I'd like to know why some games are performing better than under XP now, now that there are some somewhat refined Vista drivers out there.

The only thing being emulated is DX10 under XP. The Alky Project is an emulation layer (http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20070424-project-aims-to-bring-dx10-gaming-to-xp-linux-os-x.html) that intercepts the DX10 game calls, then converts it over into DX9 code as best as possible. That alone is going to hurt performance.

Now consider this: Say your Alky Project converts Halo 3 into DX9 code, and that for whatever reason there is not even much of a performance loss doing this. Halo 3, or whatever future DX10 game you please, is going to make a DX10 call for Shader Model 4 commands... these do not exist under DX9 and never will, they will either be dropped or retroconverted into SM3 commands. This is why I said you can't emulate SM4.

If I misunderstood the article, then going by his own words Alky "...by compiling Geometry Shaders down to native machine code for execution where hardware isn't capable of running it." For this to work without a huge performance hit he'd have to re-invent the wheel but make it better, as far as my understanding of programming goes.

Even if this project works, any games played on it are going to be losing all the DX10 features they are trying to use in the first place.

[PP Mguire]

From what i could tell is they are trying to put the actual DX10 on XP and trying to make DX10 games work with it and XP. So there for, no DX10 emulation. And for the
"...by compiling Geometry Shaders down to native machine code for execution where hardware isn't capable of running it." I think what he means there is they are trying to make it so not only can you use DX10 features, and play the games with a DX10 card on XP, but also play DX10 games with a DX9 card.

Sorta like Halo1 on a DX8.1 card yet the game is DX9. They just take the features out. Thats what i was trying to say. I believe DX10 is compeltely backwards compatible but yet Microsoft is just trying to make it seem like you REQUIRE Vista for DX10 and DX10 games REQUIRE Vista and DX10 to run. Unlike the olden times. My $0.02

[Kougar]

Well, the blog isn't of much help, but I already linked to one article that states it is a emulation layer. Converting code down into the native machine code is just another form of emulation anyway though.

I don't believe DX10 can be simply ported over to XP, you need to understand the difference between how Direct3d works under Vista, and XP. In a nutshell XP is using software written from Windows 3.1 days to control the entire screen, and Vista changes that. http://arstechnica.com/reviews/os/pretty-vista.ars (http://arstechnica.com/reviews/os/pretty-vista.ars)

[PP Mguire]

But that is the desktop. Im pretty sure games are not renderd with software from 3.1. Unless im mistaken and D3D and OpenGL are not hardware renderd anymore?
EDIT: Actualy if im correct they didnt even have DirectX till Windows 95. Soo where does software from 3.1 come into play with DX?

[Kougar]

Read my links for a change and you will find out. :) Here's another, it gives the definition of D3D on the first page. Link (http://www.tomshardware.com/2006/11/08/what_direct3d_10_is_all_about/) The XP OS is simply not designed the way it needs to be for DX10 to operate and interface with the elements such as the D3D API that comprise the OS. The amount of work involved in turning XP into something ackin to Vista would require a massive service pack style upgrade, which of course would then break just about everything that previously worked under XP. That's why so many programs and games had issues under Vista, the basic building blocks that comprise the OS since Windows 3.1 were either removed, or changed. (Win32 API, created on Windows NT 3.1 in 1993, based directly off of the Win16 API from Windows 3.1). I'd be the first to admit I'm poorly explaining it, but I gave you the link to the article that explains it clearly, the Ars Technica link on my previous post. :)

And saying DX9 to DX10 is like DX7 to DX8 is pretty far off. DirectX hasn't been completely overhauled and partially rewritten to this extent before, let alone all the new features added to it. Not quite relevant, but still interesting: Link (http://www.legitreviews.com/article/487/1/)

[PP Mguire]

I did read your links and from a moderate programer/coder point of view its not impossible. Just like my friend was trying to say it was impossible to completely take out IE, OE, Recycle bin (straight deleting), and misc things on XP when i made him a disk that installed XP with all that crap off of it, including extra stuff. Im just trying to say that its not impossible to do which is what Microsoft (and idk about you, seems like it) are trying to say it is.

[westy87]

You guys lost me a few years back here :) but its interesting nonetheless

[Pat123]

I dont know much on this topic but from what ive read and heard i must say i agree with kougar, DX10 is pretty much New.

[PP Mguire]

Its not all that new, they are just trying to make it seem like it.