How much does DX10 help over DX9?
#11
yeah put PCSX2 in startup in Vista Cool

Speed between DX9 and DX10 isn't much different for me. But as mentioned before it seems DX10 has less graphical glitches. Also I like to start in Window mode and change to fullscreen at any time. For some reason this doesn't work in DX9 properly Sad.
Reply

Sponsored links

#12
mmmh as result of my test the differences from dx9 and dx10
is almost nothing .Vista is a very heavy o.s and actually no games apart
maybe crysis absolutley requires dx10

use xp
Reply
#13
Not generally true.
You just happened to test games that work nicely in dx9 mode already.
I know of some that absolutely need dx10 mode to run ok.
The entire Xenosaga series for example crawls at 40fps in dx9, but reaches 160 in dx10 mode Wink
Reply
#14
I shouldn't even get involved in this discussion, but because I'm here already....
Vista doesn't win by much, but it does win.

I'm using an AMD 4000+ Athlon 64 (DC) and an XFX GeForce 8500GT on my XFX 8200 mobo. (3Gb of ram)
If you look this hardware up, it is neither fast nor expensive.
However, in my hands, It is ruthless.
Tech specs.
CPU freq = 3150mhz (DC for a total of 6.3GHZ)
Mem freq = 1108 mhz (DDR2 combined.)
GPU freq = 510 mhz
Shader freq = 1026 mhz
Mem freq = 970 mhz (DDR2 combined.)
More respectable.
This system will run windows vista QUICKLY and with gusto.
Because of this, I can run the emulator at full speed for the main section of most games.
50-60 fps.

I use directx 10 and it is very fast.
I am totally convinced that DirectX 10's and windows vista's performance is COMPLETELY based on your hardware and it's configuration.
If you have good enough hardware (or a good enough setup) windows vista and directx 10 win the speed battle.
It may cost ya a few bucks, but if you're willing to overclock (a lot) windows vista runs pcsx2 perfectly and fast.

Furthermore, the VM version of pcsx2 DOES run on vista.
You just have to figure out how to edit your group policies to allow the program full control of the OS.
It's kinda hard to do, but I did it.

So, in summation:
XP is blinding fast and very good for older hardware, If that's what you have DO NOT UPGRADE to vista.
But, if you have very expensive hardware (or a REALLY good setup) upgrading to vista improves the graphics and speed of PCSX2.

I only speak from my experience, but I have a whole lot of experience to speak from.
8>

Also, I have noticed, DirectX 10 doesn't seem to speed up PC games, in fact, most of them are slower in dx10 mode.
PCSX2 is different, DX10 makes it faster in many cases.
Reply
#15
I saw a quite big difference in Budokai Tenkaichi 3 and Vistax64 ultimate with dx10 (graphic card hd4850) is better than xp with dx 9.
-----------------
1)Intel Q6600 OC to 3.0 GHz
2)Asus P5QL-E
3)HD4850 512MB
4)2GB Ram (800MHz)
5)Sound Blaster X-Fi Pro Gamer Fatality
6)Samsung 2493HM
Reply
#16
i'm always using dx9 because i try to set dx10 options (hardware, software and null) and when i boot a game it just says : -

'error opening gs plugin'

i have the latest directx 10 (checked dxdiag) and i even updated it to be on the safe side. still the same error..... is it a plugin issue??

i'm running vista (naturally)....... is there anything else i can do to get dx10 working on pcsx2??
Reply
#17
gamesbloke:
You also need a dx10 capable card of course.
If you startup the game with dx10 mode selected and gsdx didnt show a message box about updating directx then something's wrong.
Reply
#18
Psycho-Joe, just so you know, a dual core running at 3125MHz does not equal the performance of 6.3GHz in any way, shape, or form.
gamesbloke if you don't have a DX10 card, I suppose dxdiag might show that you're running DX10, but will actually be running DX9 because your card doesn't support it. The first NVIDIA card to support DX10 was the Geforce 8800 series. Not too sure about ATI. Check what card you're using.
Reply
#19
if i am not mistaken hd 2000's series was the first ati to support dx10
C2D E6550 @ 2333 Mhz oc 3010 Mhz vcore 1.2750v | HD2600XT | P5KC | 1 + 1 GB G.Skill 6400HK 860 4.4.3.5
Reply
#20
I think you're a bit confused Psycho-Joe. A dual core processor is not two processors and is not going to be 3.1GHz x 2.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)