PDA

View Full Version : [H]ardOCP Reviews DX10 Gears of war, 25fps drop for no IQ increase.


Pages : [1] 2 3

[EOCF] Tim
11-05-07, 11:21 AM
Gears of War is being released on the PC this week and we’ve got an exclusive look at performance and image quality in this game under Windows Vista in DX10. We test the GeForce 8800 GTX, GTS, and GT along with the Radeon HD 2900 XT. We cover DX9 vs. DX10 and best gameplay experience.

DX10 On = No Advantage

We are not sure exactly what turning on DX10 does, but we do know it causes a large performance drop on every video card. In our testing we found absolutely no image quality differences by turning this to “On.” The only benefit was being able to use “On/Antialiasing” for 4X AA, but you need a very fast video card to use that setting. If you have a GeForce 8800 GTX/Ultra level video card you can enjoy that setting. But on the GeForce 8800 GT/GTS and Radeon HD 2900 XT you will have to sacrifice other in-game options or resolutions in order to use 4X AA. It is rather a shame because we noticed that 4X AA does improve the visual quality of this game in a noticeable way.

Source : [H]ardOCP (http://enthusiast.hardocp.com/article.html?art=MTQxNiwxLCxoZW50aHVzaWFzdA==)

Damn, that sucks. *sigh

Gaco
11-05-07, 11:29 AM
This DX10 business is turning out to worse and yet worse.

No doubt that DX10 will allow for some crazy **** at some point, but we have all gradually come to the realisation that it sure as hell isn't a beneficial change of API just yet..

Zelda_fan
11-05-07, 11:30 AM
This was an xbox 360 port. I don't see why anyone was expecting any better.

roverXE
11-05-07, 11:30 AM
never loved XP more!

LordJuanlo
11-05-07, 11:37 AM
No 2xAA option?. 0xAA or 4xAA, that sucks for 1920x1200, I can't use more than 2xAA in modern games for getting above 40fps. I hope they have a really good reason for it.

Mr. Hunt
11-05-07, 11:38 AM
This was an xbox 360 port. I don't see why anyone was expecting any better.

Agreed.

[EOCF] Tim
11-05-07, 11:39 AM
This was an xbox 360 port. I don't see why anyone was expecting any better.

Yes, perhaps, but the Unreal 3 engine has been build from the ground up for PC, long before there was anything like the Xbox360.

HiCZoK4
11-05-07, 11:40 AM
renaming exe to bioshock should help with aa under xp :)

ASUSEN7900GTX
11-05-07, 11:50 AM
i talked to my local retailer he said people stay out of Vista nad rather use Xp or goes LInux well DX10 seems to be a flop or might bite MS in the ass and they have to do it all over again damn it canīt they do anything right

hirantha
11-05-07, 11:56 AM
i talked to my local retailer he said people stay out of Vista nad rather use Xp or goes LInux well DX10 seems to be a flop or might bite MS in the ass and they have to do it all over again damn it canīt they do anything right

they don't have to do it all over again they simply put out DX10.1.. thats MS for all of us

[EOCF] Tim
11-05-07, 12:03 PM
i talked to my local retailer he said people stay out of Vista nad rather use Xp or goes LInux well DX10 seems to be a flop or might bite MS in the ass and they have to do it all over again damn it canīt they do anything right

lol yea right, that's NEVER going to happen, that's MS for you there. Vista and DX10 is the future, deal with it. Perhaps we will see better things in future with DX10

stncttr908
11-05-07, 12:13 PM
The inner IQ ***** in me will buckle and run it under Vista.

SeriTonin
11-05-07, 12:50 PM
This was an xbox 360 port. I don't see why anyone was expecting any better.

I agree.

six_storm
11-05-07, 12:56 PM
I agree.

+1

HiCZoK4
11-05-07, 01:02 PM
if this is ported as good as lost planet or bioshock then I am happy.
and yeah those games are GOOD pclized.

Jonelo
11-05-07, 01:07 PM
This was an xbox 360 port. I don't see why anyone was expecting any better.

Well, maybe we are expecting 120 fps at 1600 x 1200 . Or 200 fps

http://enthusiast.hardocp.com/images/articles/1193997119cPiHdMtE6i_3_8_l.gif

limited at 60 fps and the average is 57 - 58 fps . And in DX 10, the average is 40- 45 fps , but with drops at 30 and 25 fps . Bad port with the double resolution of the 360 , better textures, AF and more AA .

SeriTonin
11-05-07, 01:15 PM
Well lucky me, seems this game chokes on anything above medium textures on my card.

I find it hard to believe it's limited to my 320MB since it also happened in their test with a 2900 512MB as well.

Hopefully it's a driver issue or something that just needs to be patched.

I'm officially waiting until some other 320MB users report their performance before I go out and get this. Not when I can grab COD4 instead and Area 51 in 7 days. ;)

jeffmd
11-05-07, 01:19 PM
Looks like some people are also forgetting, the unreal3 engine is DX9. It looks like the only reason they put in the DX10 was for AA support. However the xbox360 is dx9 as far as all the functions go, and afaik MS requires all games to use AA, so why couldnt dx9 mode use aa?

The performance hit in DX10on mode does bring up some questions though, hopefully the ever talkable Epic will reveal why we are seeing said performance hits. As much as I don't consider this a dx10 game in anyway, I do wonder why its dx10 mode is slower. On the other hand it may be another driver issue, and maybe nvidia will pull up another beta that will smooth out performance, maybe even doing something to force the game into the dx9 path (when the game is set to dx10) yet allowing AA still.

Its interesting to note the GTX provided much better performance with AA on, is this due to the bigger data bus?

3DBrad
11-05-07, 01:22 PM
The motion blur in Gears of War is excellent, so 30-40fps is very playable. :) There seems to be almost an artificial ceiling in the performance of GoW@[H] because it usually hits around 65 but never higher.

Brent
11-05-07, 01:51 PM
The motion blur in Gears of War is excellent, so 30-40fps is very playable. :) There seems to be almost an artificial ceiling in the performance of GoW@[H] because it usually hits around 65 but never higher.

A rendering cap of 62 FPS according to the INI file, UT3 has the same.

DMA
11-05-07, 01:55 PM
A rendering cap of 62 FPS according to the INI file, UT3 has the same.

I'm sure you can turn that crap off, just as you can in UT3. But I guess a game like GoW doesn't need 100 FPS. The UT series does though. Can't frag if the game's not fluid. ;)

Nkd
11-05-07, 02:19 PM
I dont consider it a bad port, its just dx10 that is doing the damage, when the game is not optimized for dx10 that is what happens. I have heard enough people hating console ports, lost planet is faster under dx10 and bioshock is also pretty close in performance whether its dx10 or dx9.

and if I am playing at 1920x1200 and I can turn everything to max, I really dont care about AA, dont need it at more than 1080p.

DRen72
11-05-07, 02:54 PM
I guess the biggest let down of DX10 were the joke statements from just before the release of the 8800 cards that DX10 would allow for improved visual effects and increased frame rates. Umm...not.

Looks like the 8800 series is a DX10 "starter" card and the real performance will come in its replacement.

SeriTonin
11-05-07, 03:01 PM
I guess the biggest let down of DX10 were the joke statements from just before the release of the 8800 cards that DX10 would allow for improved visual effects and increased frame rates. Umm...not.

Looks like the 8800 series is a DX10 "starter" card and the real performance will come in its replacement.

I said this back when the 8800 hit and everyone laughed at me.

dx9 was too strong for 9700/9800 pro's, took the next-gen to get decent frames on a game like far cry with aa/af.

8800 is overkill for dx9 and too weak for dx10.

I just want to know what happened when epic said they would only use dx10 for speedy shader purposes, I see nothing in dx10 showing any speed.

hirantha
11-05-07, 03:12 PM
i think this all will change with the intro of G92