Results 1 to 5 of 5

Thread: DX10 = slow disappointment

  1. #1

    Default DX10 = slow disappointment

    Hi everyone. Recently we received CoH patch allowing us to play using new DX10 system. Apparently the tests runs by the guys from extremetech.com and polish version of PC World are not optimistic for gamers. It looks like you have to need absolutely sky end computer with the fastest graphic card to run the games under DX10

    DX10 Performance

    We love the performance test built into Company of Heroes, and we use it all the time in our graphics reviews. It's not exactly what we're looking for in an RTS benchmark, though. The CoH performance test runs through a few in-engine cut scenes that stress the graphics quite a bit but don't mesh with the overhead view and CPU-hungry pathfinding and AI that you experience during normal gameplay. Still, it's intensive and repeatable, so we'll use it to measure performance today. That, and because FRAPS doesn't work in DX10 yet. We performed all tests on the following system.
    ComponentMake/Model
    Processor Intel Core 2 Quad QX6700 @ 2.66GHz
    Motherboard chipset Intel D975 XBX (Intel 975X)
    Memory2 x 1GB DDR2 800 (5-5-5-12)
    Hard drive Seagate 7200.9 160GB SATA Drive
    Optical drive ATAPI DVD-ROM Drive
    Audio Sound Blaster Audigy 2
    Operating system Windows Vista Ultimate
    The new 1.7 patch offers two bits of advice. The first is that vsync is now enabled by default, and you must add the command line option –novsync to disable it, which we do. The second is to use Nvidia's latest beta drivers, version 158.45, available on the nZone site. Some earlier driver revisions will work, but with a few visual artifacts here and there. For the Radeon 2900 XT, we're using the just-released Catalyst 7.5 drivers.

    As a refresher, the game runs like greased lightning on both Nvidia and ATI's high-end graphics cards using the DX9 renderer. The Radeon HD 2900 XT turns in an especially impressive performance, even outpacing the more-expensive GeForce 8800 GTX until you enable antialiasing.
    Turn on the DirectX 10 renderer, and performance falls through the floor. These average frame rates are still quite playable for a strategy game, but remember that these are just averages. All these cards dip down into the single digits at points. ATI's impressive performance drops quite a bit, and the HD 2900 XT now runs slower than the 8800

    The DX10 mode makes a new "Ultra" terrain detail mode available, which looks to cost about 2-3 frames per second in the benchmark run. There's no reason not to enable it.

    More DX10 Disappointment?

    Clearly, the developers have chosen to use DirectX 10 in Company of Heroes to improve visual fidelity somewhat at the expense of performance. Frame rates in the performance test drop to around a third of the DX9 mode, which is huge. These high-end cards still deliver enough performance to make the game quite playable in DX10 mode at resolutions up to 1920x1200, but we definitely noticed some vehicle movement and scripted events looking choppy at times, while the entire game is smooth as glass in DX9. Unfortunately, with FRAPS not supporting DX10 yet, it's hard to get a real measure of performance during gameplay. Our impression is that the game is smooth enough to be playable, but does get noticeably choppy at times, particularly compared with the DX9 renderer. We wouldn't expect midrange or budget DX10 cards to be able to play the game in DX10 mode, except at very low resolutions.
    digg_url = 'http://digg.com/pc_games/The_First_DirectX_10_Game_Company_of_Heroes_Patch';This big trade-off of performance for a little extra visual fidelity is intentional and perhaps unavoidable. CoH was developed using DirectX 9, and shoehorning in DX10 after the fact is simply not going to be as efficient as if the developers had access to DX10 hardware for a good year before release. Still, we can't help but feel a little underwhelmed. The visual improvement you get by taking the leap from DX10 ranges from "I can hardly tell" to "I guess it's a sort of better," depending on the level you're playing and what's happening on screen at that exact moment. Perhaps it's all we can expect from a game that doesn't use substantially different art assets for DX10 and wasn't developed all along with DX10 in mind, but it's still a bit of a letdown. The modest-but-noticeable improvement in image quality certainly doesn't seem worth the huge drop in performance.
    Company of Heroes is in better shape with DX10 than the Lost Planet demo was. At least it works properly on both ATI/AMD and Nvidia's new graphics cards and does something with DX10 you can actually see. We can't help but hold out hope that there are major performance improvements to be had through driver revisions or maybe another minor update to the game itself, because right now the DX10 message delivered by the game is, "enjoy a modest improvement in visuals by sacrificing only two thirds of your performance!" That's hardly the DX10 experience we were all hoping for.

    And some news from polish test . First the system which was used for test:
    processor Intel Core 2 Duo X6800,
    mobo ASUS P5W DH Deluxe,
    2 GB RAM DDR 667,
    HD Samsung SP2004C,
    DVD Samsung SH-S183,
    Sound Blaster X-Fi Extreme Audio
    Windows Vista Ultimate PL

    They used 3 different graphic cards:
    GeForce 8800 Ultra (786MB GDDR3)
    ATI Radeon HD 2900 XT (512MB GDDR3)
    Galaxy GF 8600 GTS PCI-E (256MB GDDR3)

    and used them to test Company of Heroes and Call of Juarez. The results were as follow:

    Company of Heroes all settings max
    1280x1024x32 DX9 NVidia 60 fps ATI 46 fps GALAXY 32 fps
    1280x1024x32 DX10 36.7 fps 12.3fps 4.4fps
    1600x1200x32 DX9 59.4fps 41.6fps 24.5fps
    1600x1200x32 DX10 29.6fps 12.3fps 3.3fps[/B]

    Call of Juarez all settings max
    1280x1024x32 no AA Nvidia 30.6fps ATI 32.9fps GALAXY 4.5fps

    1280x1024x32 4 AA 25.8fps 25.9fps 2.7fps


    1600x1200x32 no AA 25.5fps 26.4fps 3.8fps

    1600x1200x32 4 AA 20.6fps 19.0fps 2fps




    They also were trying to play Lost Planet demo (Snow Test) GF 8800 Ultra was able to generate only 22 fps and GF 8600 was generate only 2fps. The conclusion is that only the most expensive cards are able to handle the games which will be required DX10, the weaker like Galaxy are nothing more than piece of junk which should be thrown away as soon as possible.


    I'm asking people who alredy got DX10 card are these tests true? Do I really need sky high comp with 2 SLI 8800 Ultra onboard to play games? Did anyone of you play any demos of these games? What are your feelings about performance?
    Last edited by sander454; June 15, 2007 at 06:43 PM.

  2. #2

    Default Re: DX10 = slow disappointment

    This is why i held out on purchasing a DX10 card, im hoping this is just due to bad drivers and bad optimisation. Dx10 is still new, probably take months to iron out the problems with it.

  3. #3
    Spiff's Avatar That's Ffips backwards
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Scotland
    Posts
    6,436

    Default Re: DX10 = slow disappointment

    Its early days though, and CoH has had DX10 implemented by a patch, it obviously wont be optimised as well as it could be - that people are complaining about a free patch that was added more as an afterthought than anything is quite strange.

    Wait until Crysis and the like are out, its about then that people should be thinking about whether DX10 is worth the hassle, not at the moment.
    Under the patronage of Tacticalwithdrawal | Patron of Agraes

  4. #4
    mrmouth's Avatar flaxen haired argonaut
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Chicago
    Posts
    10,741

    Default Re: DX10 = slow disappointment

    Quote Originally Posted by Spiff View Post
    Its early days though, and CoH has had DX10 implemented by a patch
    exactly, to be honest I really don't even know if that can be considered a true DX10 game.

    Personally I stopped playing COH altogether, by far the worst patching debacle ever for a game. It makes the issues people were having patching MTW2 look like a minor inconvenience. Aside from that its coming to light that the game just doesn't work well at all with some nforce boards, which is what I'm running, and Ive had nothing but problems running and patching the game. Infact I cannot patch the game at all.

    There is even some word of a lawsuit over not disclosing that to the consumer. I mean if a certain game doesn't marry well with a certain board, they have to state that. I would certainly like my money back.

    As far as DX10, Im going to wait till the end of the year at earliest to upgrade.
    Last edited by mrmouth; June 15, 2007 at 08:06 PM.

  5. #5
    Erik's Avatar Dux Limitis
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Amsterdam
    Posts
    15,653

    Default Re: DX10 = slow disappointment

    DX10 should be a lot more efficient than DX9.

    There are several new features in DX10 that reduce the number of computations needed to render certain images.
    And DX10 requires far less overhead from the CPU, leaving the CPU free to do something else like AI or physics.

    But DX10 is a Microsoft product, so you can expect it to take several years before it's sufficiently optimized and bug-free to become useful.

    I bought a DX10 card (8800GTS) because it was a good DX9 card for the money.
    But I'm going to wait at least six more months before switching to Vista, so I won't be playing DX10 games anytime soon.



Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •