Lost Planet Performance and DX10 @ [H]

Frosteh said:
See now this is the sort of thing I'm talking about, anyone not savvy enough to know that this is a console port and that on average its performance is going to be a lot worse is going to start making assumptions about future performance.

[H] is not responsible for other peoples assumptions and they're usualy quite clear with what they write, BUT they have to realise that people will make assumptions based on what they do write and it's important that an article is written in the right context to minimise this. In this case they should have been clearer that because it's a port that performance is unlikely to match that of a game developed specifically for the PC.
Click to expand...

People assume too much, even when the text, in such an evaluation, is clear as water.
In this case, I believe you are doing the same. This evaluation's purpose is to show us, what current cards can do in Lost Planet and NOT in DX10 across the board. That can't even be evaluated at this point, with such a small amount of games, that offer DX10 support.
Right now - the present - this is what a DX10 game is. In the future, I'm sure this will change, since we will truly see the advantages of DX10 vs DX9.
And [H] did mention, that the DX10 implementation of Lost Planet was the problem here, in the conclusion's last paragraph.
 
Silus said:
We know that's not true. It's been said a number of times, by Crytek people, that a single 8800 GTX will run Crysis, at max settings, very smoothly. I just don't remember if they mentioned the resolution. So yes, as of now, this is strickly a problem of implementation, not the hadrware.

Also, you don't buy a 8800 GTX for DX10 games, because there are but a few that take advantage of it. You buy it, for the superb performance it offers, in the huge amount of DX9 games out there. Remember that when G80 was out, there was absolutely no DX10 game (not even in patch form) out yet. And that situation didn't change much, 8 months later, since IIRC, only 3 games support DX10 and 2 of them, through a patch.
Click to expand...

How many DX10 cards are outhtere? 8800 series on Nvidia's side, and teh new 2900hd on ATI's. Nvidia was on top of their game and madea superb card quite some time ago. Now that ATi has finally released their version of a DX10 card people start to jump on DX10 bandwagon. 2900 sucks in dx10 by far, and it not up to par with a technology that was out 6-7 months ago. That is currently the reason so many folks are buying 8800 cards now. Simply because waiting for ATI was not worth it, they brought absolute shit. Some of us do not have a ton of cash handy, a new card should last us at least a year, it should run new games at least half way decent for taht period of time. Think about it, Crysis supposed to be out in a month or two, same goes for other good-sounding DX10 titles.

Slowly but surely we are making a move towards DX10, and it seems as if we will be having some good titles in the next 6 or so months. For folks who hve bought their 8800's back when they were released, they are happy, their cards have been performing superb in every game thus far, they are just now showing some problems with DX10, and it may just be the coding. But for others, who just got their 8800's, it is dissapointing..... You throw $500 towards something that gets really shitty FPS in newer DX10 titles, do you honestly think that most of the folks that got their new 8800 cards are happt with performance?

As others have said, it is probably bad coding, but what if it's not? You are trying to buy a card for the future, and a week-month after purchase it is already choking.
 
ivan_gromov said:
You guys are trying to justify buying an 8800gtx for DX10 games. We can see that performance is not up to par, you are trying to sound it like bad coding has been done. There hasn't been a beta out for Crysis yet, we can't tell how good/bad it will perform in dx10.
Click to expand...

We know ports consistantly run badly and so expect bad performance from ported games
We know "patch" like implimentations of DX10 don't provide decent frame rates (CoJ, CoH)
We expect more efficient rendering based on the documentation of DX10
We've seen Crysis running on videos and have been giving the settings and machine specs straight from the devs which suggest far more from DX10 with a decent frame rate.

Do the math here...
 
The things I took away from the article.

1. LP is not implementing DX10 as well as it should/could (i.e. the drop in performance). This should indicate that the shift from DX9 to DX10 is not trivial for game designers...i.e. not free beer.

2. Even with DX9 performance, you need a top of the line card in order to get 16x12 with 4xaa/16xAF and some nice eye candy for LP

Which causes me to conclude either

a) Game designers are under heavy time constraints and do not have the time to "get in bed" with the new DX10 abilities.

b) we are looking at 2 years before a truely optimized DX10 game comes out that will allow mid/low end cards to play with "decent" settings.

No different than DX8 to DX9
 
For those complaining about this specific game. Is there anything out there show a significantly different result? World In Conflict was recently examined by at least two different sites. Conclusion was essentially the same as for this game.

DX10 is currently in the completely irrelevant state. Nothing anywhere shows justification for the switch.

One other thing I would have been curious about. XP vs Vista?

DX9 XP, vs DX9 Vista. Would you net even more FPS by staying with XP? I assume all the DX9 tests were in Vista. On games this slow every FPS counts.
 
ivan_gromov said:
You guys are trying to justify buying an 8800gtx for DX10 games. We can see that performance is not up to par, you are trying to sound it like bad coding has been done. There hasn't been a beta out for Crysis yet, we can't tell how good/bad it will perform in dx10.

Have you ever stopped and concidered the fact that the problem might be with the fact that the hardware is not up to par as of yet? Sure, we will not know up until we see "true" DX10 games, but every other game in DX10 by far was pretty shitty performance wise. Do you honestly think that everybody has been screwing up on the code this bad lately? Maybe so. but i do not think so.
Click to expand...

i'm not trying to justify anything. i'm just saying that lost planet isn't exactly a full on DX10 game. with that said, it IS disappointing to see these results and i'm hoping by the time crysis comes out and [H] does another test, we'll see something better.
 
markt435 said:
i'm not trying to justify anything. i'm just saying that lost planet isn't exactly a full on DX10 game. with that said, it IS disappointing to see these results and i'm hoping by the time crysis comes out and [H] does another test, we'll see something better.
Click to expand...

I understand that it is jsut a port and that performance should be better. But, besides very few titeles it seems as if DX10 mdoe will be just a port in the upcoming games in the next year, sad :(
 
Good review.

I think the fact tat this is a DX9 game ported to DX10 actually makes it a perfect candidate for DX9 vs DX10 performance. Basically, the graphics workload can be set identically between running in DX9 mode and the performance directly compared to the same settings on the same game on the same graphics card on the same drivers on the same OS vs DX10. I think the majority of the games we play are DX9 for now, but wondering if DX10 support in the game would somehow improve performance is being addressed.

Do you really find it co-incidental that Microsoft is releasing DX10 performance upgrade patches? Give it (DX10) a year and yes, it may very well be faster, or fast enough. But when all things are set equal, the performance difference should be negligible, not massive. Blaming that on a "shitty port" is premature. (If LP was an ubisoft port I'd give that argument more weight) If anything, being a "shitty port" would likely yield shitty performance on both DX9 and DX10.

And as they said in the review, this IS only the first step in comparing both performance and visual quality. Crysis is what just over a month from release? It won't be long till we know if this performance gap trend continues, whether it's just a poorly performing port.

It's been mentioned that other "patches" adding DX10 support to games, also showed this performance trend. You blame it on "patching it in", but did you stop and consider that this is a real trend? City of Heroes was not a console port. If anything those results simply add weight to whats been observed here.
 
markt435 said:
i'm not trying to justify anything. i'm just saying that lost planet isn't exactly a full on DX10 game. with that said, it IS disappointing to see these results and i'm hoping by the time crysis comes out and [H] does another test, we'll see something better.
Click to expand...

Yep, that is some of what I took away from it. And whether you like it or not, it is what it is, a DX10 marketed game. I think a lot of the comparisons we saw months ago were irresponsible, but this is a RETAIL GAME we bought at Fry's. This is real world performance on one of the first "DX10" games. Now we know as well as you that it is not a true DX10 title, but undoubtedly work has been done for at least a single DX10 feature and it is a failure. Not like we don't have working soft shadows in games that are playable on DX9 hardware years old...

I think some people are here again making up stuff in between the lines rather than reading between the lines. ;)

I think Trepidati0n and Snowdog above took away from the article what I did when I edited it. Beyond that Lost Planet is a marketing failure to push forward DX10.

On the hardware side, I was surprised that after all the "AMD drivers rock for Vista / NVIDIA sucks for Vista" mantra that I have seen thrown around that NVIDIA scaled much better in Vista than ATI did. The game was developed to run on ATI hardware, be it console or not. I thought the huge impact that memory had on the game was interesting as well. I want to see if this remains a trend.

Also it is disturbing that every single card comparison for DX9 to DX10 is slower. It has been explained to me for literally years now that DX10 is simply gong to be faster than DX9 for doing the same functions, but it is obvious that it has to be specifically coded for. No magic performance bullet in DX10 the way it was spelled out to be by some. Considering the trend is that DX9 games on XP are even faster, this really puts the whole Vista/DX10 thing in a bad light. There is no way this can be looked at as any kind of success for DX10. Lost Planet is a DX10 failure and should have likely never been shown to even support it IMO.

And sometimes I do have to wonder if people actually read the articles they are commenting on....this article is very specific in scope and that theme was repeated throughout, but there is nothing here that shows DX10 in a good light.

For all we know Crysis or other DX10 games will behave differently. We can’t formulate a trend yet, but by evaluating this game right here, right now, we can start on that path. Everyone is waiting on Crysis among others such as UT3, Bioshock, GTA4, and so are we. We will be paying attention to these new games and their performance scaling in both DX9 and DX10, and of course passing that information along to you.
Click to expand...

We are waiting for true DX10 games the same as you are, but that does not erase the fact that DX10 is being sold to the general public and Lost Planet has "support' for it. I think it was certainly worth taking the time to look at it. YMMV as always. Quite frankly, we know we have readers that only read so they can come in here and complain, but that is OK too. It certainly makes it exciting.
 
GoodBoy said:
I think the fact tat this is a DX9 game ported to DX10 actually makes it a perfect candidate for DX9 vs DX10 performance. Basically, the graphics workload can be set identically between running in DX9 mode and the performance directly compared to the same settings on the same game on the same graphics card on the same drivers on the same OS vs DX10. I think the majority of the games we play are DX9 for now, but wondering if DX10 support in the game would somehow improve performance is being addressed.
Click to expand...


Bingo! You sir are seeing the forest instead of the trees. What has been sold to us and what is being delivered so are two very different things.
 
Perfect candidate? I'd say the exact opposite actually.

We need something that is written well and designed specifically to use the features of DX10 which speed up rendering of the scene, that means designing shaders and altering game code to make use of these new possible optimisations.

Comparing DX9 game patched to DX10 gives us a bad idea of what DX10 is capable of if used correctly because it's not designed for DX10, they're simply rushing a patch out the door for the sake of adding some extra effects. Look at the SupCom developers, they promised a DX10 patch and failed to deliver because of the amount of work involved in going back and modifying the game to make best use of DX10.

They could have simply used DX10 for a few extra effects like CoH did and do a quick fix but it's hardly worth it, the game runs badly enough as it is, moving to DX10 for it's speed increases requires a lot more work.
 
ivan_gromov said:
How many DX10 cards are outhtere? 8800 series on Nvidia's side, and teh new 2900hd on ATI's. Nvidia was on top of their game and madea superb card quite some time ago. Now that ATi has finally released their version of a DX10 card people start to jump on DX10 bandwagon. 2900 sucks in dx10 by far, and it not up to par with a technology that was out 6-7 months ago. That is currently the reason so many folks are buying 8800 cards now. Simply because waiting for ATI was not worth it, they brought absolute shit. Some of us do not have a ton of cash handy, a new card should last us at least a year, it should run new games at least half way decent for taht period of time. Think about it, Crysis supposed to be out in a month or two, same goes for other good-sounding DX10 titles.

Slowly but surely we are making a move towards DX10, and it seems as if we will be having some good titles in the next 6 or so months. For folks who hve bought their 8800's back when they were released, they are happy, their cards have been performing superb in every game thus far, they are just now showing some problems with DX10, and it may just be the coding. But for others, who just got their 8800's, it is dissapointing..... You throw $500 towards something that gets really shitty FPS in newer DX10 titles, do you honestly think that most of the folks that got their new 8800 cards are happt with performance?

As others have said, it is probably bad coding, but what if it's not? You are trying to buy a card for the future, and a week-month after purchase it is already choking.
Click to expand...

But that's why I said what I said, in the post, you quoted me from. We know it's not the hardware's fault right now, because an upcoming title such as Crysis, which is the most anticipated game I've seen in quite a while, that has unprecedented graphics, runs on a single 8800 GTX, at max settings. This means Crytek has done an excellent job, in optimizing their engine, even though it creates the most realistic environments ever seen on a PC game and it uses DX10 too. Lost Planet is the exact opposite of that. Its DX10 implementation is far from optimized and that's why we get such poor performance and not much difference, in terms of visuals, when compared with the DX9 version. However, this is the present of DX10 games, which is exactly what was evaluated.
 
I think the review was a good review. Not to focus on the quality of the review (which H does a good job of), but I think it was taken out of context by some people. Mainly, people assume that H did something wrong by the title and the conclusions thereafter. Yes, I think they could've seperated LP's DX10 implementation vs what likely will be decent implementations down the road better, but they do state it (through the edit IIRC, which was needed imo). Otherwise, it's LP DX10 and who didn't know that it was a horrible port to begin with?

As pointed out many times in this thread, it's a bad port with patched on DX10. The performance difference with a minimal change in shadow quality proves the point alone. Sure, this is the only RETAIL view of DX10-patched games we have. Even the E3 demos (and other videos) of Crysis and the HW specs, prove that DX10 can be really be done well on current hardware. That pretty much sums it all up, LP isn't that great in DX9 or 10 and better DX10 software is on its way very soon, fully playable on current hardware (until they release/unlock higher options in the future). :eek:
 
I have something to say about this statement in your Conclusion paragraph:

Article said:
The one major advantage this game does have is the “High” shadow option in DX10, but no video card currently is able to render it fast enough unless you sacrifice other image quality options.
Click to expand...

What about using SLi? It may be true that no single video card can render the game with High
shadows, but will using two 8800's in SLi give you the performance boost you need? This may be
something you can look into at a later date.
 
Frosteh said:
It's a ported console game which had DX10 support added as an afterthought, it's just about the worst kind of example you can use for DX9 vs DX10 performance. I would rather the review clearly state that this is a ported game and was not built from the ground up to support DX10 and as such is not a good measuring stick to gauge future DX10 performance.
Click to expand...


First paragraph man, 4th and 5th sentences. Everything but "ports suck". *shrugs*


As far as I'm concerned this game, just as a game, is a waste. The story is vapid, the gameplay monotonous, the grapics aren't that great considering what it takes to run smooth. All 3 peeps, yup 3 whole peeps, I know that bought it regretted shelling out for it. I mean, over 50 bucks for a half baked port that essentially boasts a low performance graphics mode is just sad.

Ok, now that the rant is over...

I see why they reviewed it, it's the only retail game to support DX10 out of the box, but it just doesn't do it well. Not only does it run slower but it doesn't even look any better. The minimal differences you see in the screens (and even then only outside) all but disappear when the game is in motion.

So is it fun? No. (atleast not to me)

Does it make any real use of DX10? No. (this is the basic point of this article as far as I can tell)

Is it relevant? Hell yea. Some poor schmoe is out there right now buying a midrange gaming system so he can play his new DX10 game.... and it's gonna suck.
 
Silus said:
But that's why I said what I said, in the post, you quoted me from. We know it's not the hardware's fault right now, because an upcoming title such as Crysis, which is the most anticipated game I've seen in quite a while, that has unprecedented graphics, runs on a single 8800 GTX, at max settings. This means Crytek has done an excellent job, in optimizing their engine, even though it creates the most realistic environments ever seen on a PC game and it uses DX10 too. Lost Planet is the exact opposite of that. Its DX10 implementation is far from optimized and that's why we get such poor performance and not much difference, in terms of visuals, when compared with the DX9 version. However, this is the present of DX10 games, which is exactly what was evaluated.
Click to expand...

Exactly, well said. Apparantly the crysis developers have had almost daily contact with support from Microsoft aiding them in making sure the Crytek2 engine makes the most of DX10, every interview I can find online that talks about performance they say DX10 will see a frame rate increase, I'm inclined to believe them. We've also been given specs on the machines they used for demos which is in line with what they've already said we'd need for running the game in high settings.

Unless they're telling some very big porkies I think we'll see at least some of a frame rate boost in DX10 when the settings are set the same as DX9, it might be minimal at first as no doubt drivers will need to evolve a little bit.
 
Frosteh said:
We need something that is written well and designed specifically to use the features of DX10 which speed up rendering of the scene, that means designing shaders and altering game code to make use of these new possible optimisations.
Click to expand...

I fully agree with you. We never said otherwise. Our article is a very narrow look at what is going on TODAY. This is a retail product that boasts DX10 support and comes up short. While you seem to want to argue about this, I would suggest we are all in perfect agreement and you are drawing inferences from the article that were never even hinted at. Looking at the state of "DX10 gaming" today, it blows. But we are not going to simply give it a pass because it is not done correctly yet.

Also, you seem to be cherry picking the parts of the story that are allowing you to seemingly formulate an argument for a fight you seem to want to pick. Did you miss this?

Our Focus


Since this game allows us to easily run it in DX9 mode or DX10 mode it is fairly simple to make performance and image quality changes and comparisons of those changes. The goals of this article are to see how GPUs scale in performance in this game both in DX9 and DX10 mode, and we are also going to examine image quality between DX9 and DX10 modes with the quality settings and other eye candy at its highest settings. Quite simply, we want to see what DX10 delivers in this early native DX10 title. Also, a lot of readers have been curious to know if the likes of the 320 MB GeForce 8800 GTS and Radeon HD 2900 XT will be powerful enough for DX10 and we will find out.
Click to expand...
 
Miscommunication said:
Yes, I think they could've seperated LP's DX10 implementation vs what likely will be decent implementations down the road better, but they do state it (through the edit IIRC, which was needed imo).
Click to expand...

Nothing has been edited except grammar. The article stands as published.
 
mentok1982 said:
I have something to say about this statement in your Conclusion paragraph:



What about using SLi? It may be true that no single video card can render the game with High
shadows, but will using two 8800's in SLi give you the performance boost you need? This may be
something you can look into at a later date.
Click to expand...


On the final page.

Both GeForce 8800 GTS based video cards simply cannot enable soft shadowing feature without drastically impacting image quality in other areas. This setting just simply is not a viable option with these video cards, sadly. It seems you will need two in SLI to really benefit from all the DX10 glory this game can provide at high resolutions.
Click to expand...
 
Dreknaught said:
Is it relevant? Hell yea. Some poor schmoe is out there right now buying a midrange gaming system so he can play his new DX10 game.... and it's gonna suck.
Click to expand...

I feel the same way. Microsoft should not have made damn sure their first DX10 out was a triple A title that really showcased the technology. As mentioned early, this is a marketing screw-up more than anything else. It is was it is, and I feel sorry for any unsuspecting "schmoe" that picked up a copy expecting something great in a new technology sense.
 
Is it just me, or does anyone else prefer the lower quality modes?

Some of the higher quality modes, like DX10, high shadows, AA, etc.. make everything "blurry" to me. I prefer the nice sharp crisp lines, (higher contrast), it makes it easier to spot / identify a target sometimes, especially at a higher distance.

At least for multiplier games where you need every possible advantage, including higher framerates! Now if I was just playing a singler player game or Flight Simulator, I might want max. high quality, and wouldn't mind the "softness" or lower framerates.
 
Hypernova said:
Is it me or does the snow around the leg in this shot look absolutely horrible?

http://enthusiast.hardocp.com/image.html?image=MTE4NTc1NjU2NVl6TWtIU2lIZExfNV8xMV9sLnBuZw==
Click to expand...

Yeah that snow looks like crap, it should only be above ground if he kicks it up when moving, and he should sink in when standing there.

Frosteh said:
It's a ported console game which had DX10 support added as an afterthought, it's just about the worst kind of example you can use for DX9 vs DX10 performance. I would rather the review clearly state that this is a ported game and was not built from the ground up to support DX10 and as such is not a good measuring stick to gauge future DX10 performance.
Click to expand...

You did read the FIRST paragraph of the review right?

Lost Planet’s roots are planted in the Xbox 360 but it has been ported over for PC gamers. There have been many upgrades made to the PC version of the game, namely DX10 functionality and at least one DX10-only feature. When you launch the game you can chose to enable DirectX 9 mode or DirectX 10 mode. The graphic upgrades from Xbox to PC include resolution support to 2560x1600, improved shadow quality, parallax occlusion normal mapping, image-based ambient occlusion, higher detail textures, the use of vertex texture fetch for the animation system and depth buffer reads improved for soft particles.
Click to expand...
 
GoodBoy said:
It's been mentioned that other "patches" adding DX10 support to games, also showed this performance trend. You blame it on "patching it in", but did you stop and consider that this is a real trend? City of Heroes was not a console port. If anything those results simply add weight to whats been observed here.
Click to expand...

I'm guessing you mean Company of Heroes, since City of Heroes is still all DX9 ;). I hate how both games are "CoH", since I play City of Heroes and lots of people play Company.
 
jmackay said:
Yeah that snow looks like crap, it should only be above ground if he kicks it up when moving, and he should sink in when standing there.



You did read the FIRST paragraph of the review right?
Click to expand...

Yep, that "snow" looks like ass.

And it is obvious that he did not read a LOT of the article. :D
 
jmackay said:
I'm guessing you mean Company of Heroes, since City of Heroes is still all DX9 ;). I hate how both games are "CoH", since I play City of Heroes and lots of people play Company.
Click to expand...

That "CoH" thing has confused the hell out of me for a while now too. Never know what people are talking about. Many times I have asked Brent why were we not looking at Company of Heroes DX10. :rolleyes: We ditched City of Heroes a while back with the whole PhysX thing.....which contributed nothing to the game that we could ever see. Anyway, you are not the only one that gets confused on that one.
 
I always did find it funny that WoW held the MMO slot. I mean it is ridiculously popular, but you can run it on almost anything. Whereas City of Heroes isn't nearly as popular but will even bring my 640mb GTS to it's knees when you crank IQ settings. (ignoring the Aegia PhysX settings ocourse)

And yall think yall get confused with the CoH thing?

I play both, lol.

P.S.
Oh, and Company of Heroes DX10 is actually kind of nice. Atleast you get extra eye candy you can actually see while playing, and not just in screens. Not worth upgrading to Vista IMHO, but still better then LP (no real difference) or CoJ (just flat unplayable) as far as DX10 experiences go.
 
Dreknaught said:
I always did find it funny that WoW held the MMO slot. I mean it is ridiculously popular, but you can run it on almost anything. Whereas City of Heroes isn't nearly as popular but will even bring my 640mb GTS to it's knees when you crank IQ settings. (ignoring the Aegia PhysX settings ocourse)

And yall think yall get confused with the CoH thing?

I play both, lol.
Click to expand...


WoW is a bit of an anomoly with us. It is simply so popular that it cannot be ignored no matter how demanding or not damanding the game actually is. That said we have moved to the expansion pack which is more graphically intense.

On another note, neither Brent nor I was aware there was a DX10 patch for the actual CoJ game, we thought it wa just a DX10 enabled benchmark. AMD never mentioned that to us and it simply did not register on our radar, but it is there now and we will give it a look soon.
 
I wish you would just have the average FPS for each card and each graphics setting, instead of those dam graphs.
 
techer said:
I wish you would just have the average FPS for each card and each graphics setting, instead of those dam graphs.
Click to expand...

I like the graphs, they make it more interesting and it looks better.
 
techer said:
I wish you would just have the average FPS for each card and each graphics setting, instead of those dam graphs.
Click to expand...

Graphs are valuable to look at the consistancy of the frames throughout the game btw. You can still read it, it's just a graph...
 
techer said:
I wish you would just have the average FPS for each card and each graphics setting, instead of those dam graphs.
Click to expand...


We happen to think that there is a lot more to the story than just average framerate, hence the line graphs that track actual gameplay framerate over time. We find that many times is shows a different result than averages.
 
Trepidati0n said:
100% Absolutely Correct!

Average of (5 + 10 + 5 + 5 + 100) = 25

Average of (25 + 25 + 25 + 25 + 25) = 25

Which game would you rather look at? I know the example is rather extreme...but it does reflect what is fairly important to a lot of gamers which is minimal slow down or jerkyness.
Click to expand...

Brent might argue that we see "extremes" like that more than you think. A lot of times as well he finds game lags that do not even show up on FRAPs. One of those things that you have to FEEL in gameplay to identify. But don't get me started on the worthness of canned benchmarks! :p
 
such beasts running these gpu's and the 320meg'r dips to 5fps!?!?! that's f'ing horrible. its no wonder why the huge push on those 320 meggers awhile back. I'd be very dissappointed if I jumped on that bandwagon. release dates on games is meaning f all now is what I see here. I wanna play games seeing their capability and not upgrading to a dx10 gpu and vista still I'm being forced to wait waaaay longer untill things are either optimized and/or current elite hardware prices fall. gone are the days of buying a new game when it hits the shelf??!?? looks like it! shame!

TF2 better play flawlessly on current setups or this is a pathetic turn with things

.02
 
I was hoping benchmark run could be made except use those vista performance and reliability patches. I'm sure they will improve the dx10 situation :)rolleyes:) and improve frame rates by +20 (more likely -10).

But in all seriousness I am curious. Do you have any plans on testing after the patches are officially released?
 
I think it would be a neat idea if the H did some moderate-minimal testing on those 2 patches (more complete testing if they show real merrit). Then again, who knows. The only thing I've been looking forward to on the H in reviews is the Crysis demo and/or game. Perhaps an OC benchmark on the new 45nm C2D and the new stepping (dual and quad) would be nice as well. Other sites already have quite a few of these up, plus some nice results on our forums here. Although, the results aren't earth shattering and can be aqcuired on the "old" stepping. Looks to be that 1333Mhz bus does nothing, heck I'm pushin 1720mhz : /.

I just don't feel the need to upgrade to quad at the moment for what I've got, that's an extra kilowatt a day on my light bill :(. -- My new monitor helped offset (some :p) my power hungry system as it is >.<
 
Frosteh said:
Because ported games have a long history of running like complete crap on PC's and this is no exception. The majorety of future titles on the PC will not be ports but will be built from the ground up for the PC and so this is not a good example of what is to come.
Click to expand...

Hmm..funny. [H] seemed to review the game running at 1600x1200 4Xaa 16XAF. Sounds...pretty good to me. I really don't know what you're bitching about with Lost Planet. Seems most people are happy. Then there are those who think they know how to program and report it "bad coding" like you did with CoJ too. You have an 8800GTX. Why are you complaining?

Welcome to next gen.
 
Tbh - so far DX10 has done nothing but lower performance expectations. A little bit smoke here ain't worth all the pitching Mircrosoft and Nvidia has put forth. DX10 = marketing BS.
 
Yep, it is a shame that Lost Planet had to be the first DX10 poster child. There are going to be some great gaming experiences realized with DX10, it just aint happening this month. :(
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top