bit-gamer.net

Company of Heroes DX10 comparison

Comments 1 to 25 of 47

Reply
DougEdey 20th June 2007, 13:10 Quote
withdrawn.
Tim S 20th June 2007, 13:11 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by DougEdey
The main point is that it's a DX9 game which has been adapted to DX10 so the improvements aren't going to be that noticeable, especially in such a juvenile driver and DX10 knowledge stage.
Yep, that was the point that has been made on the final page :)
kenco_uk 20th June 2007, 13:14 Quote
I've only had a quick glimpse at the review, but I have a couple of questions.

When comparing DX9 to DX10, was it not possible to use the exact same rig to test DX9 and DX10 image quality? Or does COH automagically set it? I only ask, as I see a couple of options greyed out on my v1.7 of CoH.

And why use two 8800GTS 640MB cards to pit against a 2900XT? Why couldn't you have used an 8800GTS 320MB or an 8800GTX?

Just small criticisms/something to take onboard.
DougEdey 20th June 2007, 13:19 Quote
withdrawn
Tim S 20th June 2007, 13:21 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by kenco_uk
When comparing DX9 to DX10, was it not possible to use the exact same rig to test DX9 and DX10 image quality? Or does COH automagically set it? I only ask, as I see a couple of options greyed out on my v1.7 of CoH.
It was simply a matter of desk space and getting the benchmarks run in time to complete this. The image quality differences between the two cards is minimal - see here.

The rig spent the last day and a half benchmarking and then another few hours on screenshot duties. Unfortunately due to some unforeseen circumstances (hardware issues with another article), this article had to be sped up by a day (with two of us working on it instead of one) so that there was content on the site today.
Quote:
And why use two 8800GTS 640MB cards to pit against a 2900XT? Why couldn't you have used an 8800GTS 320MB or an 8800GTX?

"The reason why we've chosen two different versions of the GeForce 8800 GTS 640MB is that the Radeon HD 2900 XT splits the two when it comes to price, since you can pick up a standard clocked Leadtek PX8800 GTS 640MB for £227.81 (inc. VAT), while the cheapest Radeon HD 2900 XT we have found is Sapphire's at £244.43 (inc. VAT). Finally, BFGTech's 8800 GTS 640MB OC can be purchased for around £254.06 (inc. VAT)."
Tim S 20th June 2007, 13:22 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by DougEdey
Oopsie, my bad, you didn't mention drivers ;)
"DirectX 10 drivers are in their infancy and it's important to achieve stability before delivering more performance. We're sure that, over the next few months, we'll see some performance improvements under DirectX 10."

First paragraph under the first lot of images on the final page
kenco_uk 20th June 2007, 13:41 Quote
Spelling mistakes:

Page 1, para 6 - "players lead a their men" - remove 'a'.

Page 3, para 2 - "Draw Instanced API ao that the" - change to 'so'.

Page 3, para 6 - "was much better though with crisper details" - no need for 'though'.

Page 3, para 7 - "The same was true of the smoke effects and physics, both of which it seems like there is more of but which it takes a while to appreciate as the game forces players to focus more on their selected squads than the amount of boulders and dead bodies flipping through the air and the plumes of smoke can be more of an impediment than eye candy." - take out first two highlighted words and add 'the'.
zr_ox 20th June 2007, 13:44 Quote
I saw this on Extreme tech 2 weeks ago, I'm happy to see that they did not screw up the benchmarking since the results are identical.

One word comes to mind when think DX10 and that's Immature

My major concern is the impact that this will have on Crysis? Thats the one and only reason I have a CD2 & 8800GTX. I game at 1600x1200 and I very much doubt that my rig is going to run it adequately. Unless Microsoft can start refining DX10 well enough then I imagine Crysis will be delayed for a few more months.....doh!
kenco_uk 20th June 2007, 13:46 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tim S
"The reason why we've chosen two different versions of the GeForce 8800 GTS 640MB is that the Radeon HD 2900 XT splits the two when it comes to price, since you can pick up a standard clocked Leadtek PX8800 GTS 640MB for £227.81 (inc. VAT), while the cheapest Radeon HD 2900 XT we have found is Sapphire's at £244.43 (inc. VAT). Finally, BFGTech's 8800 GTS 640MB OC can be purchased for around £254.06 (inc. VAT)."

Hmm, I can understand the decision, but wouldn't it be better having a somewhat broader range of graphics cards? Perhaps SLi 8800GTX's would have enabled silly frame rates with everything on at eye-bleeding resolutions.

I know you're sat there twiddling your thumbs waiting for someone to give you something to do :D
Nature 20th June 2007, 14:49 Quote
1st generation DX10 GPU's, first generation DX10 games. Bless all your "hard work" Bit-Tech.

Does anyone think Fallout 3 will have DX10 support given it's engine?
CardJoe 20th June 2007, 14:55 Quote
It goddamn better.

Spelling mistakes fixed btw.
Bluephoenix 20th June 2007, 16:24 Quote
I've been running the updated version on mine, and the differences are a little more noticeable with all the settings maxed out.

there is a performance hit, but nothing on the level of what I was expecting, which means the drivers aren't doing too bad.

the things I notice most are the fire and smoke effects, how they overlay their source better, and smoke looks much more realistic; however most of the other textures seem better defined, and when you really crank up the AA you begin to see major improvements right away.
trig 20th June 2007, 18:08 Quote
kinda seems like the whole "dx10 hardware before any games are out" was to give us these cards that are so awesome on dx9 games, but when dx10 games really start to hit they wont really be that awesome on higher res'...nice strategy...then they can release the 8900 series and charge us even more for that...w00t
Wolfwood 20th June 2007, 18:54 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by trig
kinda seems like the whole "dx10 hardware before any games are out" was to give us these cards that are so awesome on dx9 games, but when dx10 games really start to hit they wont really be that awesome on higher res'...nice strategy...then they can release the 8900 series and charge us even more for that...w00t

You're stupid for thinking the 8800GTX could handle any DX10 game adequately.
Amon 20th June 2007, 19:18 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wolfwood
You're stupid for thinking the 8800GTX could handle any DX10 game adequately.
I think we're all stupid to assume we are prepared for D3D10.
-EVRE- 20th June 2007, 19:40 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wolfwood
You're stupid for thinking the 8800GTX could handle any DX10 game adequately.

Gee.. thanks for brining the attitude to the boards..

Personally I'm going to wait till next January before I upgrade, the GF9 series and whatever from AMD will be out and those cards will be adequately prepared to play the games out at that time.

The new socket and CPU will be out and ready from AMD, hopefully ddr3 will be reasonable.



....long live my 7800's.... hang in there guys, we only have 7 more months to go!
simosaurus 20th June 2007, 19:51 Quote
i was rading the fixlist for the latest COH patch and it lists :
DX10 Features
- Edges of particles are softened where intersecting 3D objects.
- Thousands of additional 'litter' objects in the world.
- Improved user control over anti aliasing settings.
- Alpha to coverage anti aliasing to improve quality of alpha test objects such as shrubs.
- Lighting quality has improved by moving all calculations per pixel.
- More precise point light calculations.
- Point lights can now cast shadows.
- 3D short grass on the terrain.
- Vertical refresh synchronization is enabled by default to improve visual quality by preventing tearing of the display image, use '-novsync' to disable.
- Hardware PCF for improved shadow quality.

all very hard to spot things imo, not really much difference :)
trig 20th June 2007, 21:00 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by -EVRE-
Gee.. thanks for brining the attitude to the boards..

no kidding...but what he didnt see apparently was that the gtx wasnt tested, and based on the gts performance, the gtx would probably perform fine on the higher res and max settings, but anyway....
Tim S 20th June 2007, 21:07 Quote
come on guys... don't feed the trolls.
Nature 20th June 2007, 21:12 Quote
Isn't Fall Out 3 on the Oblivion engine (DX9 only)? The screen shots presented didn't look up to par. Not that graphics will be the main concern for Fall Out 3.
trig 20th June 2007, 21:42 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tim S
come on guys... don't feed the trolls.

tru...fixed...
Spaceraver 20th June 2007, 22:01 Quote
Meh, I still won't install Vista unless i really haveto do so.

Atm, my rig cant handle that anyways. So im going half Linux (Beryl is such a nice WM) and hope someone will crack DX10 to XP.
Tim S 20th June 2007, 22:02 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by kenco_uk
Hmm, I can understand the decision, but wouldn't it be better having a somewhat broader range of graphics cards? Perhaps SLi 8800GTX's would have enabled silly frame rates with everything on at eye-bleeding resolutions.

I know you're sat there twiddling your thumbs waiting for someone to give you something to do :D
This isn't the last time we're going to look at Company of Heroes... we wanted to cover what we felt most people are pondering buying and if either of these cards aren't fast enough for you, there are faster cards out there that run this game faster. ;)
completemadness 21st June 2007, 00:45 Quote
so basically the differences are very small, hardly worth it at all IMO

plus your frame rates are cut in 3 at least, definitely not worth it

and as a final nail in the coffin, you have to use vista, no thanks Microsoft, your gonna have to do a lot better to get me using that pos operating system
leexgx 21st June 2007, 08:00 Quote
i still think the game is limited CPU wise

i am dual booting XP and vista on my pc but as COH lets you run the game in DX9 and DX10 i was getting same FPS on same settings (wish thay fix the bug in changeing the video settings alot can make an Crash when running the test or playing the game but the Crash box is behind the game but that problem has allways been there)

been nice to be done on playable settings for DX9 and 10 (quite sure there are more Ultra settings there when i set it to dx10) as alot of the tests that have been done are unplayable or be jumpy and Wide screen monitors settings (max my monitor can do is 1600x1200 i think) i do some tests of my own but i did max the game out on my card looks good
Log in

You are not logged in, please login with your forum account below. If you don't already have an account please register to start contributing.



Discuss in the forums