DirectX 10.1 Question

OK. DirectX 10.1 what it is?
It is official? I heard it is for ATi only. Strange thing. LOL.

I went to the Microsoft website and I can't find DirectX 10.1.
Instead, I found DirectX 9.0c(10???)

I know installing latest DirectX can improve gameplay.

 

It isn't for only for ATI as it is merely an API; all graphics card manufacturers can design hardware to use DX10.1, it's just a matter of Nvidia getting a move on, as I haven't heard of any DX10.1 GPU from them. I could be wrong on this last point, though.

The only game that I have heard that runs DX10.1 is Assassin's Creed (unpatched). The 1.0 version delivers better performance on ATI cards while the 1.2 patch actually disables the API due to marketing reasons; Ubisoft chose Nvidia as a sponsor, and Nvidia wasn't too pleased when the game devs made the game run better on ATI chips.

 

That was lame. LOL.
So, how do I upgrade DirectX 10.1 to a XP machine with ATi GPU?

 

XP is not capable of running DirectX 10, only DX9c. You need Vista for DX10/11 or, even better, Windows 7 which also supports DX10/11 but is essentially a fixed version of Vista.

Note that DirectX 11 is different from DX10 in that it does not require DX11 hardware. In other words, DX11 can run on DX10 hardware. This is why Vista can run DirectX 11.

In case I've confused you with my writing: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DirectX#DirectX_10

 

WAOOOO!
Interesting!
So, Vista can run DirectX 11?!
I want it too.
Q1:Any benefits running DirectX 11? If it is good, send me the link for download. Thanks.
Q2: I search the Microsoft website for latest directx 10 but it gives me directx 9.0c. Strange? I mean this(which is directx 9.0c), http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/...38-DB71-4C1B-BC6A-9B6652CD92A3&displaylang=en

 

It's not available for DL yet.

source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DirectX#DirectX_11

DX11 brings the following:
- shader model 5.0
- better multiple core support on CPU so that multithreaded applications (games, namely) can take better advantage of the hardware
- tessellation support, which in all honesty I do not understand or really care about after looking it up
- GPGPU support; DX11 allows Windows to make use of the GPU for non-graphical tasks traditionally completed by the CPU

DX11 isn't a major revision of Direct3D; it's a pretty logical evolution of the API apart from the GPGPU support, which brings interesting possibilities to the table.

Why would they have it on their website, if the only operating systems that can run DX10 (Vista, 7) already come with it installed?

 

Not really. The vista or 7 or any Windows OSes are actually come with DirectX. For example:
Vista come with DirectX at least 9.0c or 10.
However, the files(directx) inside is not up-to-date. It is like Windows update, directx needs update too.
I have noticed performance boost after installing the End-User Runtime DirectX installer. I checked the files in the System32 before and after the DirectX update, it adds a lot of new dxd3dx9_XX.dll and d3dx10_XX.dll files. Currently, the latest should be d3dx9_41.dll and d3dx10_41.dll. They stop the directx 10(9.0c) production after March of 2009.

 

Aside from the fact that my post contained no error that you are trying to correct, there is no evidence that what you say is true. Adding files to the System32 directory doesn't mean that there is a performance increase, nor does your post explain why Direct3D updates are not included in Windows Update.

I'm not saying that you're wrong. I'm saying that a) I have not posted incorrect information and that b) you have no concrete reason to believe that installing the most recent version of DirectX 9.0c from MS's website results in performance increases.

 

games normally have the for-them-required version of dx in their setup. dx is normally updated once per month.

but on vista and win7, you never have to bother at all. gpu drivers get updated trough winupdate, os gets updated by itself, and games bring their part with them.

just don't bother. in winxp, distributing dx was sometimes hard. now, it's fixed with the os, and never gets into the way anymore.

 

I do have concrete reason on it. I used my EYES to see the FPS of the games. Forgot to mention, it is not SYSTEM performance. It is only some Application performances such as games, 3D rendering and so on.
Well, you can try uninstall your directx and get some old directx install to your computer. Then, run some games. Later, install the latest directx and run some games. You will notice the different. Done this with a few laptops and all turn out brilliantly.

This is from wikipedia,

This is from techmixer,

The improvement they mentioned means the performances improved/increased for certain application, basically 3D games.

@davepermen,
Thanks for clearing the mystery. You're my prove of DX is important for gaming performance. LOL. Thanks.

 

And these two sources are contrary to what I wrote? Where?

Assuming they are DX10-capable games, and assuming that they take advantage of the aforementioned features, which most do not. That is why DX10 games are not yet mainstream.

You were not arguing that Direct3D is important for gaming performance. You were arguing that updating DirectX 9 from the version on Microsoft's website delivers performance improvements based on your personal impression.

I'm assuming I've answered all your questions, so I'll just leave it at that.

 

Just google it directx 10 around and wikipedia for directx 10.
You will see it definitely(I lazy to link you there).
It is not I doesn't believe you. You can try it yourself(uninstall new DX and install old DX) and then play some games(prototype, left 4 dead, grid, DMC 4).
My friends were very happy with the directx update I gave them because it boost gaming performance. I don't mind you don't believe it. ^^!

About davepermen reply, he doesn't mention DX is used to improve gaming but he does mention DX is essential for gaming.
So, I came out with this hypothesis,
Windows update is used to increase the stability of Windows and improving windows features.
Same to DX, the update is used to increase the gaming performance too.

Conclusion,
Believe it or not. LOL. You like. I don't force people as long as I got something good for myself and my friends/relatives.

 

The games you mentioned (as almost all the games out there nowadays) come with a directx folder inside the cd which automatically checks the version of your windows during the game installation and asks you to update it if necessary. Doing it on your own isnt really that necessary.

 

Yes! Of course.
Some of them come with End-Runtime-User DirectX updater. However, it requires internet to do that and can be canceled.
Some of them come with standalone directx installer. This standalone version doesn't requires internet and can be/can't be canceled. However, standalone version can be not up-to-date.

@Bog,
Don't angry or sad with my language. You're really nice explaining a lot of thing to me.
You need to roll down the Wikipedia page(directx) to check how directx works. I wasn't able to understand it completely.
But it does mention the stuffs I posted previously. Thanks.

Lastly, thanks everyone here for answering this question.:smile:

 

All of the games come with standalone installers and not the web ones (major games atleast) And usually they are not that old (except if the game itself is old of course).

 

You're right.
Some low-end machines can definitely feel the present of performance boost after directx updating. For example: My laptops and desktops. My cousins' laptops and my friends' laptop.

 

performance differences should not exist. an app eighter has the files required to run, or not, and won't run, then. thats why the games come with the dx files with them: they can't run without them (except if you have installed them before).

each dx-file (each one for each month) stays the same for EVER. so even overwriting them does NOT change anything.

if you uninstall the wrong dx-components, the games just won't run anymore. they run, or not. they never affect performance.


there is just the case that a newer version of a game (trough updates) might use a never dx version, but has fallbacks for the old dx versions (i'm always talking minor versions. there isn't such a thing with dx10 or dx11 anyways).

but all in all, just update your gpu drivers, they are where the performance differences are. dx is static, and so there aren't performance differences over time.

 

Directx alone shouldnt have that much impact on game performance since its mostly bug fixes (of dx and not the games that is) and not into fixing the game performance it self. We have nvidia and ati drivers for that.

 

All I can tell is my personal experiences on it.
As mentioned before, you can believe or don't believe it.
Like I said before, try uninstall your latest directx and install some old directx. Some games can still run with the old directx but the performance got dumbed. High-end machines have almost no feeling on this but low-end machines does.

I also tried benchmarking with it before.
You see I got about 47XX on 3Dmark06 and higher FPS(1-5FPS gain) in REAL games right now(latest dx) with the OC on 9500M GS.
I got only 46XX on 3Dmark06 and lower FPS in REAL games with the OC on 9500M GS last time(older directx).

Since directx functions are to correctly render texture, model and so on.
If it got bugs, it maybe slowed down or bugged the game performance.
If it is fixed, then, it can render stuffs correctly. So, the game doesn't render wrongly and cause some lagness.
In a correct term,
DirectX(latest or newer) fixed a lot of bugs or errors of vertex, vsync, pixel, shader, texture or modeling for certain applications. This fixed the glitches/lagness/error(minor) in the applications. With correct rendering instead of buggy rendering, it increased/improved performance slightly.

 

WIndows 7 already has DX 11 installed so you can go with Win 7.

 

Direct X is actually 3 component.
The first is the system library that can be used on any Windows. Yes you can technically install DirectX10 library under Windows XP... These are just libraries, simply put, a file containing pre-made functions. For example (not actual API code) "DrawCube(x, y, size);"

The second component is on the GPU. To put simply, That one is set of instructions embedded in to the GPU that allows the GPU to execute all programmable graphic instructions from DirectX and also be able to understand and follow received instruction from the developer using DirectX (to have all the affects and texture bumping and all that just perfect following the vision of the graphics of the creator(s)).

The third component is at the kernel (core of Windows), which allows direct communication between the libraries and the GPU to increase efficiency and communication speed, which means increase response time and overall speed.
This level got changed in Vista BIG time, and that is the reason why XP doesn't support DirectX10.

Nvidia doesn't support Direct 10.1, because all of what DirectX 10.1 has to offer is ALREADY supported by the GPU, instead of following Microsoft DirectX10.1 method, it uses it's own method which is shown to be faster. So in reality, Nvidia DirectX 10 video card are 10.1 compatible, it just uses it's own system.

 

+ REP!
Good one really.
This should show DX have something to do/related with performance.
Many people don't really read on the DirectX explanation on wikipedia(almost bottom area). It also explain about something like performance related to DX.
They keep said it is non-performance related. Anyway, it doesn't really matter. Just a piece of knowledge. Lastly, thanks.

 

You missed the whole point We are not talking about dx vs no dx.

Of course dx will make a difference if theres no dx to begin with. We are talking about the benefits of the newer versions and that a few months newer release shouldnt impact your gaming performance that much.

 

Of course, it is not like changing a 3rd class GPU to a 1st class GPU.
However, the FPS and benchmark gaining is noticable.
As mentioned many times, DX = affect Performance(clearly now)
Old DX = weaker performance
new DX = Higher performance
Just like 20years old computer vs newly release computer.

If new DX or updating DX didn't improve anything, why the hell they created it for?

 

Got some benchmarks with the same drivers but different dx 9 versions you can post ? Tried checking google but couldnt find any comparisons. That along with your DxDiag.txt for each benchmark.

 

LOL. It seems I can't do that. Check this link, http://ask-leo.com/how_can_i_uninstall_directx_9.html

It can only be uninstall if you reformat your system. =.=!
Which mean when you install your Windows(it will have certain directx installed hopefully is the old 1). It would be confirmed old directx if you have Windows Vista Disc which is older than 18months or 1 year.
So, using the newly format/install Windows Computer. Test the benchmark.
Then, update the directx to the latest and test the benchmark.
This task is WAY TOO time consuming and hard.
Maybe when I plan to format my laptop, then, I can test this out.

Right now, please don't believe me as you always do. But I will believe myself ^^! Told before many laptops(basically haven't update recent directx) already tested it and it works well.

 

Its not that i dont believe you, but i would prefer some facts too and not only words. And since i cant find any benchmarks at all for this situation its a bit hard for me to just say ok and start recommending people to update dx to the latest version because it boosts fps.

 

Get Resident Evil 5 Benchmark Tool.
DirectX10 runs faster than DirectX9 mode.
Download link: http://www.nzone.com/object/nzone_re5_downloads.html

 

that's a different thing.

dx10 is a different dx than dx9 and made to run faster.

but what he talks about is updating it's dx9 to the most actual version (which would be august2009 if that exists).

and that does not change a thing, as it only adds new libs to the system, that will not be used by old applications.

it can change a thing, when the applications get updated as well, and start to use the new lib versions.


but we don't talk about changing a major version (9 -> 10, 10 -> 11). that, obviously, always means a performance gain or quality gain or both.

 

LOL! I don't know. I thought you all said version from version =.=!
Major changes = Major effect of course.
Minor changes = minor effect obviously
Ok stop these craps. It still known as DX update. So, it can said as updating DX can have better performance.
9 -> 10 is a update
10 -> 11 is a update
10(mar2008) -> 10(mar2009) is a update too
But removing DX legally and completely from an OS is impossible, this is a fact.

@Goodbytes,
Do you have some examples like comparing the latest DX 10 to the oldest DX 10?

 

more important: apps have to support each of those major or minor versions to have ANY effect. dx10 runs better than dx9 because re5 supports BOTH.

august2009 version of the libs work better with RandomGameTitle than may2008 version because RandomGameTitle supports BOTH.

so, you can't just update the files and think anything happens, as it will only add new files, never change or replace the old ones. only games that will adapt to the newer files, too, will show gains, if at all.

that was my major point. updating dx by itself doesn't help, unlike updating f.e. a gpu driver, which brings enhancements while nothing in the game, or the libs changes.

 

Sorry I miss understood.

Usually updated DirectX (minor versions), offers mostly bug fixes, with rarely speed improvements.
Updated DirectX large minor version, such as 10.0 to 10.1, offers more visible speed improvement and/or new features.

 

I agreed with you on the new files adaption stuffs.
Still, they are from update right? If you don't not download and install the directx(latest), you can't have them also.
My point is not about replacement of the FILES.
Again.
Update not only like Windows XP to Windows Vista.
It can be Windows XP SP 1 to Windows XP SP 2.
It also can be Window 7 Build 7100 to Windows 7 Build 7101.
These also know as update. Windows keeps updating(even from super minor "build to build" patches). This is to ensure stability and effectiveness of the OS. Thus, the newer OS is more powerful and better than ever, for example: Windows 7 RTM is better than Windows 7 beta.
Similarly,
DX 9 to DX 10 is an update.
DX 10 to DX 11 is an update.
DX 10(mar2008) to DX10(mar2009) is an update too.
DX keeps updating(even from the same version, from "build to build"). This is to ensure stability and effectiveness of the DX.
OK? What DX for? For fun? No. According to Wikipedia(read on the bottom area please), http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Directx DX is used to improve rendering capabilities and flexibility, including Shader Model 4.
Thus, the newer DX is more powerful and better than ever, for example:
DX 10 is better than DX 9.
Newest DX 10 is better than Oldest DX 10.

@Goodbytes,
Agreed with you.

Lastly, anyone have some tricks for vista to move into/install DirectX 11?
XD!

 

that does NOT touch DX9

that does NOT touch DX10

that does NOT touch DX 10(mar2009)


THIS is my point.


what does this mean? any bug in any older version of dx stays, to guarantee that any old game programmed for it will still work as excepted.

this is very important, any tiny bugfix on an older file can break some random game that has no support on it's own anymore.



edit: no dx11 for vista, sorry. as no dx10 for xp, too. won't happen.

 

Sure you can have bug fixes.
The update has a different library name. This is how they go around the problem.

Microsoft said that Vista will have DirectX11. DirectX10 was not possible under XP, because it required the kernel to be modified to well Vista's, so the answer is logically no.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DirectX#DirectX_11

Win7 is based on Vista and the kernel is nearly the same (optimized), DirectX11 does work under Vista.

 

well, and that was what i said: the original file, the original library, does NOT get the bug fix. instead, you get a new file, a new library, with the bugfix. but applications then have to get updated as well, to USE the bugfix.


and that means, an application by itself does not, ever, get a performance gain from installing a newer directx, except if the application by itself actually GOT UPDATED TO USE THAT, TOO.



nice to know about dx11 and vista. i mixed it up with directtext, and direct2d. are those backported to vista, too? if so, i will possibly by today drop win7

 

So, davepermen, you will drop Windows 7 if Vista have DX 11?
Actually, I am waiting for DX 11 for Vista since I know Vista and 7 can use DX 11(about 1month ago). But, I can't find an official DX 11 for Vista and some website claims that DX 11 for Vista is not available and shown warning/example that some website provides Virus contained fake DX 11.

 

too much problems with the new ui and taskbar. it's a usability nightmare (and visual inconsistencies are spread all over the place).

so yes, big chance i just get back to vista.

 

Agreed. The taskbar(windows 7) was really sucks! Too much useless functions caused much troubles.
I roll-back to Windows Vista because of that. I just change the theme of Windows Vista to Windows 7, then, I will have the "look of Windows 7" with Vista system.
I love Windows 7 have higher benchmark and FPS for games. >.<
DX 11 come to Windows Vista, then, I think the benchmark and FPS will be increased too in Vista.

 

Its not that hard to tweak the taskbar to feel like Vistas one. Unpin everything, make the taskbar smaller and make a quick launch toolbar and your set

 

Enter offtopic...

interestingly, it still fails in usability compared to vistas. lack of contrast of the labels for example (all buttons try to get bright when hovering, are brighter than the background, and the labels are in WHITE. on a white background, depending on the lighting, not readable at all). and more reasons (buttons don't "click down" visually, so doesn't the startbutton). cleartype not consistent on the taskbar, even when i say the os should use it. the previews are very small, mostly unusable (my ones on vista are 640x480..). i could go on and on

so, it's a huge backstep.

Exit offtopic...

 

Ow, didnt notice they still had so many "obvious" things to fix. As im running my copy in a virtual machine ive got no aero features so couldnt spot those. But they should patched them really fast after the release (hopefully at least).

 

Still offtopic

hasn't changed at all since the first beta, so my hopes are low. and as most user still "oh, win7, it's sooo great, new taskbar, just soo great" without even looking at it really, there's no need to fix..

btw: cleartype: Cleartype inconsistency and the low contrast on the taskbar buttons (with a win7 default wallpaper). Old Taskbar Contrast

and don't get me wrong, i like a lot of the improvements of win7. but the taskbar is the main interface you use from an os, making it fail is not really nice..

Still offtopic

 

Your the only 2 people that don't like the new taskbar. It got so much praise, that I think it will stay for ever.
You know you should stop touching something and then just gave up 5seconds later because you killed your brain by watching TV all day.
If you actually used it, you would know that you can have close to the same behavior as the old one, all by enjoying the new features (taskbar option).

Windows 7 is far by the most consistent Operating system that Microsoft ever made since Windows 95.

On my computer the Cleartype is perfect at all those locations that you point in the link (pixel by pixel perfect). As for the second one, I don't know how you got the items to stretch so long, but I see no problem with the same background on my side. The problem comes when you set transparency level to 100%, but then that is you not Windows, and even then it could be your crappy display because if I do the same test as you on my CRT the difference in color is preatty big, I can even read both items from far. In any case, what you are doing is like complaining about how every web browser sucks balls because when you put white text on a white background you can read the text, it's kinda your fault. If you enjoy bright background, then decrease the transparency, and use little bit of a darker tones.

The thumbnail size preview is the same as in Vista. Sorry mate, you need to see an optimistic.

 

Offtopic

well, close to the same behaviour, but still inferior. i use it since long.

cleartype works on "All Programs" for you. interesting, as mine is a clean installed RTM windows 7, that got deployed that way to companies.

and about the taskbar, i find it bad to read even with a black wallpaper. the the brightness is quite annoying.

and yes, the new taskbar will stay, and yes, i know that. that's why i try to get used to it. but so far, i see no gain in having two clicks instead of one to select a window (and no one yet can say me what the gain of this is). this, along to much other issues.

i don't just touch it for 5 minutes and judge it then. i care quite much about user interface design, and about trying to get such interfaces working well for the targeted users. that's why i love office 2007. awesome, risky redesign, and every change had a good reason to be done.

in win7, they failed completely to follow those own guidelines.

i'm not just taking stuff out of my *** just because i like to bash. i do it, because for the first time, i'm quite dissapointed by the choices microsoft made. and the reasons for their choices.

on vista, everyone bashed, and everyone was fine with it. they bashed for nothing. now everyone praises, and everyone is fine with it. they praise for nothing.

but i know that i always will be a lone raider.


i try to find a real screenshot of the win7 startmenu with 1:1 pixelmapping for checking out the cleartype. it would be the second bug in the german variant that doesn't exist in the english variant

and my taskbar buttons are that wide because i like them that wide. that way, they are more easy to click, and space is wasted on the taskbar for a non-button-covered area, which is, after all, just empty useless space. helps for fitts' law for clicking corner/edge components.

edit: no, cleartype doesn't behave on that random, english screenshot here: win7 startmenu by cogadget.com. and is inconsistent on the ride side of the startmenu, too.

Offtopic

 

It's virtually the same theme.

[/quote]
I love Windows 7 have higher benchmark and FPS for games. >.<
DX 11 come to Windows Vista, then, I think the benchmark and FPS will be increased too in Vista.[/QUOTE]
Sorry mate, it's not because of DirectX11. Windows 7 is back with optimizations and improvement at every level including the kernel, memory management and device communication. There are no way to pass that to Vista, unless converting Vista into Win7.

 

RTM doesn't not = final October 22 release version, minor bug fixes like this one could be made without changing the build number, as it's so minor. I have build RC1. This should be corrected by then, or it could be a driver related issue.

How can this be hard to read (see attachment).

You don't have to group items to together. Check the taskbar properties, there is a option to never combine. Also you don't need to click, you can hover and hold 500ms (this can be changes from a registry tweak), and your will see every item linked to the program.

Ah ok, very good. Oh btw you this is worth of mentioning, Office 2010 will have the ability to edit or create your own tabs.

 

actually, WDDM 1.1 doesn't have much performance gain game changers in it. so there shouldn't be any problems. the performance gains are because of dx11, which allows for more multicore optimized games. and they will come to vista, too.

WDDM 1.1, which won't come to vista, has one main feature: allowance for different gpu's in the same pc.

and, as it looks, Direct2D and DirectWrite don't come to vista. so i might stay on win7, as i like them.

 

I don't fully understand what you said, so I will clarify just to be sure.

What I am saying is that it's more then DirectX11 that explain increase in performance in game. installing DX11 in Vista will have, like you said, minor effect. The big (should I say: larger) jump is due to core level optimization that cannot be transferred to Vista.

 

RTM is the shipping version. it activates with the shipping version and is actually sold to customers as that, just as it got sold to the company from which i got the disk. and they set up their deployment image with exactly that disk.
i don't have a key, so it only lasts 30 days till rearm. enough to explore the version.
and as the bug was the same in RC1, i don't think they change it.

it's impossible to read depending on the screen <-> surrounding light ratio. hence i made the screenshot.
and this was never an issue, ever before. as well, not in vista. and i have good eyes, don't want to know how people who need good contrast will react to it.

yes, and it's still the default forced for all ordinary moms and dads and sisters. and for them, it's a doubling of the amount of work to switch to a window. not really userfriendly.

so does office 2007 if you know how (i don't particularly like xml, but as a developer, i know it enough to deploy own ribbons).
well, office 2010 does one thing wrong: it changed the top-left button to not be topleft anymore, for quick mouse-dropping access (again, fitts law). they made it that way in 2007 because of the ease of access, and now dropped it again. not only does the topleft edge now look quite chaotic with the system button, the file button below, the quick shortcut buttons, compared to before, no, the system menu is useless to most customers, so why do you put it back again?.. stupid.