Crysis Warhead DX9 VS DX10 comparison

[savio]

Hi,

I wanted to start a topic where people discuss the comparison between Crysis Warhead DX9 VS DX10 API's. First, I see no such visual difference. Second, performance in dx10, I have a GTX260 SLI OECD and my average is 30 fps at 1400x900 4x AA. While in dx9 I average 50 fps at 1400x900 with 16x AA! Anyone else experiencing this? If there is no noticeable difference ... Should I use dx10?

[Icarusul]

In the lower resolutions there is a small advantage for NVIDIA, the performance becomes very close. But granted, a victory for Nvidia in DX9. Let's look at DX10. I did a little more, enabling DX10. Although I really wanted to push 4x AA here, I noted that the current day graphics cards once again run out of memory, and you will notice hard disk activity to rise much AA. That could dramatically affect the frame rate of disallowing an objective measurement of our demo time. So 2x AA in combination with the mode of quality players is what we need to test. Surprisingly, I see very similar performance compared to DX9. The main difference is like 5% DX10 in DX9 DNA means. I could see Nvidia have an advantage here. Although these numbers are close, yet parties of 7 to 10% yield of up to 1920x1200.

[Hoobastank]

I think there no differences between DX9 and DX10 apart from the ambient light and shadow minute differences. Axles Sun, shaders, POM, physics, volumetric effects, and post-processing effects are identical in both API's. DX10 runs slower due to lack of optimization on a stranger codepath. So you can select as per your system.

[Stephanatic]

There is a noticeable visual difference between DX9 and DX10 mode, rather than the original Crysis in my opinion. It is most noticeable when in reality the game, DX10 shader effects are more subtle and more enjoyable. But unfortunately, the impact on operating performance in DX10 mode is also quite pronounced, and in general most people do not find worth the FPS drop. DX9 mode should satisfy most people, and indeed, as I have shown, with some refinements wise, you can have a version "Enthusiast cheap" DX9 works in a more acceptable frame rate, so it certainly can Crysis help balance look good and perform well.

[X-Ray]

Enthusiast in DX9 mode now allows many of the highest features of DirectX 10 only from the original Crysis, so it's a little more intense. I think your choice is mainly between the brilliant way you prefer. Crysis Warhead is a very graphically intensive game, and like Crysis before it, requires good quality and / or machine well optimized for FPS playably mild to highest setting. You can judge the performance and impact of visual quality the game by yourself.

[Valerian]

The motion blur works well in DX9, I have the game installed on an XP machine and Vista, and the only difference is in very high resolution because the monitors are different. DX10 does not have new features, it is simply a new API that is supposed to make it easier for developers, and is slower. Not a single DX10 game out there that can not be achieved under DX9.

[RMJ]

I HAVE TESTED BOTH, I have tested the Original Crysis more then Warhead! the only difference I see is you can see LIGHT RAY,s coming through the trees in dx10 they do not show in dx9

I use HOTSWAP hd,s I have xpsp2 on one HD and "7" on another I run 1920x1200 on a 26" asus monitor from an ATI 4890 everything maxed!

the MORNING shot when you come up on the first base when you start the game you can see the light rays from the trees in dx10 they are not there in dx 9