# DirectX 10 vs 9.0c which is better?



## User Name (Nov 27, 2008)

As i am XP user i played games only with directX 9.0c.
I want to know is directX 10 is better than  directX 9.0c?
Is there any graphics changes. 
Is the performance of game increased?(more FPS)


----------



## arijit_2404 (Nov 27, 2008)

DirectX10 is of course better if you are comparing in graphical context. 
Performance wise I can't comment elaborately because I've played only three games under Vista before removing Vista from my PC. But I didn't find noticably performance improvement in DX10


----------



## amitava82 (Nov 27, 2008)

I get more fps in dx9 than 10. Also you need to have cards that support DX10


----------



## Faun (Nov 27, 2008)

DX9 is for XP (penultimate gaming OS) and DX9 + DX10 = VISTA (ultimate gaming OS)


----------



## Psychosocial (Nov 27, 2008)

Graphics --> DX10 is better
Performance --> DX9 is better


----------



## User Name (Nov 27, 2008)

Does DX 10 manages Graphics memory better?
i mean is it manages overall Graphics and performance in better manner than DX 9.0c?
Is it a must thing for new games?


----------



## deathvirus_me (Nov 28, 2008)

Well, keeping the IQ same, dx10 should perform better than dx9.0c anyday ... the prime example would be Far Cry 2, which basically looks the same under both modes, but performs noticeably better under dx10 mode (and has a slightly higher shadow draw distance) ...

For most games, dx10 = more visual quality = less performance than dx9.0c ... but for those very same situations, under dx10 if u'd reduce the quality down to dx9.0c standards then it'll perform better ...

Its more dependent on the developers how they utilize the codepath, and stop blaming MS or ATi/NVidia  ...


----------



## User Name (Nov 28, 2008)

Is there any option available in vista to reduce DX 10 to Dx 9.0c?


----------



## Psychosocial (Nov 28, 2008)

^^Its backward compatible


----------



## User Name (Nov 28, 2008)

I mean we hav reduce quality in game setting or vista has some own options?


----------



## Psychosocial (Nov 28, 2008)

umm... depends on the games. In some games, DX10 only kicks in on the highest settings while other games offer you two launchers (or .exe's from where you start the game from your desktop or anywhere else on ur PC.). Some games have options in the settings menu where you can enable DX10 lights or turn them off. The games which dont have the DX10 factor at all, run natively on DX9.


----------



## User Name (Nov 28, 2008)

Thanx for info.


----------



## satyamy (Nov 28, 2008)

Simple if you have new generation Graphics Card Dirext X 10 is best 
if you have onboard graphics (few months or a year old) you can get best results from DX9

I Use DX 10


----------



## comp@ddict (Nov 29, 2008)

User Name said:


> As i am XP user i played games only with directX 9.0c.
> I want to know is directX 10 is better than  directX 9.0c?
> Is there any graphics changes.
> Is the performance of game increased?(more FPS)




If u wanna try it out, u can get DX10 on XP using a tweak. Just use google to find out.


----------



## Faun (Nov 29, 2008)

or better get vista instead of buggy DX 10 on xp


----------



## ionicsachin (Nov 30, 2008)

Donno why everybody on earth is behind Vista....i ve been using Vista Home Premium for past 8 Months and not even once i had a stuck-up or restart or BSOD....there are some problems with attaching old devices, but the same thing happened wen XP was launched initially...At the time of XP the OS was not much relied on Graphic Card, but Vista relies on it, so it causes many bugs, that is obvious coz any game we play now a days comes buggy out of the box.......
Vista needs right and sufficient hardware, i have only 80GB hdd, initially i kept both XP and Vista...i thot i ll just try Vista and use XP like always, but slowly i began liking Vista and finally i totally removed XP 6 months ago, i never faced any problems with vista....


----------



## arijit_2404 (Nov 30, 2008)

you're right ... almost, but I would like to point few things:

1) past 8 months .... that means from march-2008, right? It's more than 1 years after vista release, so how would you know about the problems which affected many people just after release. All these problems are fixed in due time. So many of them already gone when you started using vista.

2) Vista is more stable right now than it was. But it has many unresolved problems till today.

3) "Right and Sufficient Hardware" - that's the problem with many people, those who bought new PC just an year or 2 before vista release they needed to change many hard wares. Now in India, people use pirated OS so those saved money can go to buy new hardwares. But in western countries, people use original softwares. Thus they had to pay a hefty price for vista as well as for new hardwares. Which kept many away from vista. 

4) Half of the improvements of Vista didn't do good. UAC anyone? Either people are using that crappy security check helplessly or they just turned it off. Bitlocker encryption ? available to high-price ultimate only. Windows Defender? Is that so good? I bet 99% users switched to different security softwares.

You can find many reason (other than BSOD, hard ware problems) why people keep nagging about vista. Problems like, BSOD, Hang/Crash, old hardware issues are the one side of the coin. Don't forget the other side of the coin.


----------



## Psychosocial (Nov 30, 2008)

I love Vista more than XP coz Vista runs faster, better and looks cool compared to XP on my PC. Its more stable too!


----------



## comp@ddict (Nov 30, 2008)

T159 said:


> or better get vista instead of buggy DX 10 on xp




Oh yeah? It works, with better frames than Vista


----------



## arupch (Dec 16, 2008)

Psychosocial said:


> I love Vista more than XP coz Vista runs faster, better and looks cool compared to XP on my PC. Its more stable too!



How can Vista run faster than XP?


----------



## Psychosocial (Dec 16, 2008)

arupch said:


> How can Vista run faster than XP?



With its legs...

Ok silly jokes apart, it is proved that if you have buffed up PC, Vista will be faster than XP and its the same case with me. Windows 7, though in BETA stage, runs faster than Vista. Vista runs faster than XP. And it goes on like this....


----------



## ionicsachin (Dec 16, 2008)

on a 32 MB RAM PC, Win95 will run faster then WinXP or Win98....doesnt mean WinXP and Win98 sucks.....


----------



## arupch (Dec 16, 2008)

I had compared XP and Vista in AMD 4000X2, 2 GB RAM and 780G Motherboard. Has run Vista for 2 months - then reverted back to XP.


----------



## ionicsachin (Dec 16, 2008)

Worst thing that strips the impression of Vista beginner is the UAC, though one gets used to it later, and it proves to be a good security measure too. If I turn of UAC i miss it lol...

^
Which Video Card did u have???
What was the Rating Index Value it showed in Vista


----------



## arupch (Dec 16, 2008)

UAC was turned off from beginning.


----------



## ionicsachin (Dec 16, 2008)

^That was a general comment


----------



## comp@ddict (Dec 17, 2008)

The only way I was able to run Vista well was a stripped off 350MB version I made using vLite. It needed 240MB RAM to function perfect on Virtual PC.


----------

