The difference between "Very High" in Crysis on XP and Vista is tiny.

[UnrealAlex]

http://www.gamespot.com/features/6182140/index.html
Gamespot compares Very High on Vista and on XP.
The differences are extremely tiny, barely noticeable. Further proof that DX10 is a huge sham and we don't need to upgrade to Vista.

[PhysX]

only thing i noticed was sunshafts, and if your either zoomed in or right in front "1-3ft" of a palm... the edge aa other than that.. NOTHING. and some slight hdr.

[AngryArtichoke]

http://www.gamespot.com/features/6182140/index.html
Gamespot compares Very High on Vista and on XP.
The differences are extremely tiny, barely noticeable. Further proof that DX10 is a huge sham and we don't need to upgrade to Vista.

Just because the first couple DX10 games have a minimal difference in effects does not in any way mean that its a sham. The majority of customers are still in DX9-land, so focusing efforts on DX10 would give minimal return. Sure, you can justify fighting Vista all you want, but the differences will only widen in the future.

[PhysX]

DX10.1 is THE REAL difference.

[SteveLord]

Just because the first couple DX10 games have a minimal difference in effects does not in any way mean that its a sham. The majority of customers are still in DX9-land, so focusing efforts on DX10 would give minimal return. Sure, you can justify fighting Vista all you want, but the differences will only widen in the future.

Future can be anywhere from 24hrs from now to 24 months......

The minimal difference shown AGAIN here is just further proof of that minimal difference we knew months ago.

[vixro]

You do realize these comparisons are on a single level and hardly a small percentage of what you're bound to encounter in the game. Not to mention a pre-release demo! I am sure future levels will show more improvement.



Also, does anyone else see the hateful and uneducated attempt at bashing vista? How are we supposed to take somebody seriously that thinks the only reason worth upgrading to Vista for is DX10?

[UnrealAlex]

You do realize these comparisons are on a single level and hardly a small percentage of what you're bound to encounter in the game. Not to mention a pre-release demo! I am sure future levels will show more improvement.

It's not like the engine changes as you progress further in the game dude. I highly doubt that this trend stops. This level was picked to showcase the beauty of Crysis; the technological achievement; if anything this level is the cream of the crop of the engine.

Also, does anyone else see the hateful and uneducated attempt at bashing vista? How are we supposed to take somebody seriously that thinks the only reason worth upgrading to Vista for is DX10?
Hateful and uneducated? Right.... the reason I mentioned DX10 is because thats by far the biggest reason people use to support switching to Vista right now... And I'm not bashing Vista itself; I'm bashing the fact that lots of devs and especially Microsoft have been claiming that if we want to enjoy all the goodies we must switch to Vista, because DX10 is for Vista only. Proof of this? The fact that devs have made Very High selectable only with Vista, when it works 99% as well in XP.

I'm not talking about the future either. I'm talking about now. Crysis is now and it was suppose to be the DX10 poster boy; it's not the future when DX10 will be mainstream.

[Wraith]

I'll tell you what. I bought Vista and I dont even want to use XP anymore. Microsoft doesnt want to release a new version of directx for a 6 almost 7 year old product. Where were you when microsoft didnt bring directx 8 or 9 to windows 95 in 2001-2? Where was your rage at the machine that is big bad microsoft?

Anyway, I dont care what the people that got high settings on XP say or do. Grats, you got Crysis to dispay some of the tricks. What happens when the next games after crysis wont work PERIOD on Windows XP?

Sorry for the rant, I'm just sick of people ****ing and moaning about wahhh wahhh Vista and DX 10 wah wahhhhh. Fine, make it work on Windows XP, I'm happy you got high settings on it, but for the love of god stop turning it AGAINST Vista.

[UnrealAlex]

I'll tell you what. I bought Vista and I dont even want to use XP anymore. Microsoft doesnt want to release a new version of directx for a 6 almost 7 year old product. Where were you when microsoft didnt bring directx 8 or 9 to windows 95 in 2001-2? Where was your rage at the machine that is big bad microsoft?

Anyway, I dont care what the people that got high settings on XP say or do. Grats, you got Crysis to dispay some of the tricks. What happens when the next games after crysis wont work PERIOD on Windows XP?

Sorry for the rant, I'm just sick of people ****ing and moaning about wahhh wahhh Vista and DX 10 wah wahhhhh. Fine, make it work on Windows XP, I'm happy you got high settings on it, but for the love of god stop turning it AGAINST Vista.
I'm not saying Vista won't become mainstream someday; There will probably will be a day when games dont work on XP but it's not about then..it's a dissection of right now; not when XP was like Vista, or a place in time when Vista is worth switching to, but right NOW, when the difference in Crysis is miniscule.
You're sick of people moaning and groaning but I'm sick of people defending Vista without any support. The article clearly showed that there was a tiny difference between Very high on XP and very high on Vista and YET there was a noticeable drop in framerate when running in Vista!

Again, nobody has a vendetta against Microsoft or Vista or DX10 or "rage against the machine"...it's about weighing things with pros and cons and seeing what is best for right now...and when someone does that and reaches the conclusion that it's best to stick with XP, the people who think otherwise always think it's Vista bashing...

[Wraith]

You're sick of people moaning and groaning but I'm sick of people defending Vista without any support. The article clearly showed that there was a tiny difference between Very high on XP and very high on Vista and YET there was a noticeable drop in framerate when running in Vista!


What about The extra effects you are admitting to seeing? What about any driver issues for Vista vs. Xp at this point?

Saying DX10 is a huge sham will make you sound like a presumptuous ass to a good number of people. Why not, instead of saying DX10 is a sham, say DX10 isnt showing an increase in graphics AND performance on one level in a game that hasn't even been released?

[Vio1]

those pictures were tiny. how can you accurately determine a difference using pics like that? Im playing the game at 1920x1200... how about show some comparisons at that size of screenshots and see if there is any difference.

[PhysX]

there we no differences.. other than the sunshafts vista vh - xp tweaked high / xp plain high.

then rock texture in vista vh / xp th/ h

and then finally some lod/hdr in vista vh /xp high.

[Immortal_Hero]

How are we supposed to take somebody seriously that thinks the only reason worth upgrading to Vista for is DX10?

IMO that is all it does that XP doesn't.

[nightelph]

So Crysis doesn't tickle your DXX fancy? Forget not that the third FarCry pacth brought S.M. 3.0! There may be slight differences now in a.. demo (its a freakin demo! It even says in the opening of the game its promo/unfinished/just a taste of the full game!), but wait for the full release, then wait for a patch or two. Effects will become refined, framerate in Vista will go up. Demos don't mean S***, they're just that; demos.

[SteveLord]

We wouldn't bash Vista, if Microsoft wasnt trying to ram it down our throats. And then the poeple here ram the DirectX 10 down our throats.

Its all in good fun. I mean, EVENTUALLY us XPers will lose out and upgrading will seem more feasible. But a pretty desktop to show your friends and play HALO2 on doesn't yet justify its price tag + issues that still remain.

I rode out Win98SE until XP SP1 came out. And I intend to do the same with Vista. :beer:

[[SC]Ceasar]

colours are slightly different, the vista screens have better colour quality IMO.

[NsOmNiA91130]

I've played with equal quality on both DX9 and DX10 (on Vista x64), and I can say I get about 5-10 FPS more on DX10. However I'm on a mixture of Medium and High settings, not Very High. Also, there seems to be a bit of color correction in DX10 (brighter colors, greens and blues mostly), and better looking (not higher-res) textures.

[thideras]

We wouldn't bash Vista, if Microsoft wasnt trying to ram it down our throats. And then the poeple here ram the DirectX 10 down our throats.

Its all in good fun. I mean, EVENTUALLY us XPers will lose out and upgrading will seem more feasible. But a pretty desktop to show your friends and play HALO2 on doesn't yet justify its price tag + issues that still remain.

I rode out Win98SE until XP SP1 came out. And I intend to do the same with Vista. :beer:You do realize that Windows is owned by Microsoft and they can do what they want with it. If people have an issue, they will find means around it (wait for them to fix it, move to another OS). ;)

[Oc1Kenube]

My biggest gripe with dx10 is the hardware required to run it at 1280x1024 or above.
8800gtx still struggles, waht hope is there for the more casual/skint gamer like myself

[dfonda]

How are we supposed to take somebody seriously that thinks the only reason worth upgrading to Vista for is DX10?Thats the only reason I want it.

So what Vista version should I get? 64bit...but which one? I want to put it on my 150GB Raptor dual boot it with XP and have a fresh install for Crysis.

[SteveLord]

You do realize that Windows is owned by Microsoft and they can do what they want with it. If people have an issue, they will find means around it (wait for them to fix it, move to another OS). ;)

True, but that doesnt mean that it doesnt suck. hehe

[WheaT]

Well frankly if you have not tried vista and your bashing it then I agree with calling you an ass. If you have and it is not worth it to you then thats fine. Your obligated to your opinion. Frankly i was terribly skeptical about vista as well. Especially after an unfavorable experience with windows xp x64. I purchased a home premium 32 bit OEM disk (yes i realize my hardware changes are limited, i dont plan on changing them for awhile), a measely $100 bucks (compared to what many of us spend on hardware...)to see for myself. I was amazed with how much smoother vista ran to xp on my computer. The load times for applications. The reduction in number of programs not responding, etc. There is more to vista that makes it appealing other than DX10. People just need to experience it for them selves instead of listening to all of the naysayers on the net that are more ****ed off with Microsofts practices than they are with the actual operating system. (I dont like their practices either...) Yes it eats up memory, but frankly its actually using my memory to help everything run smoother. Yes it eats up HD space, lighten it up with Vlite and slim your disk of over 2 gigs of useless stuff, as well as set the UAC features to the background. /rant

Also this was not directed at one person, but rather the population :)

[Tweak486Dx2]

You really need to have everything set to Veryhigh to see a difference. Just setting 2 things or maybe 3 and expecing it to be a new game is stupid.


The game has graphics that are designed for the future of PC hardware.

If your not playing on a quad and at least SLI Ultras then dont say very high doesnt make a difference.

[UnrealAlex]

Well frankly if you have not tried vista and your bashing it then I agree with calling you an ass. If you have and it is not worth it to you then thats fine. Your obligated to your opinion. Frankly i was terribly skeptical about vista as well. Especially after an unfavorable experience with windows xp x64. I purchased a home premium 32 bit OEM disk (yes i realize my hardware changes are limited, i dont plan on changing them for awhile), a measely $100 bucks (compared to what many of us spend on hardware...)to see for myself. I was amazed with how much smoother vista ran to xp on my computer. The load times for applications. The reduction in number of programs not responding, etc. There is more to vista that makes it appealing other than DX10. People just need to experience it for them selves instead of listening to all of the naysayers on the net that are more ****ed off with Microsofts practices than they are with the actual operating system. (I dont like their practices either...) Yes it eats up memory, but frankly its actually using my memory to help everything run smoother. Yes it eats up HD space, lighten it up with Vlite and slim your disk of over 2 gigs of useless stuff, as well as set the UAC features to the background. /rant

Also this was not directed at one person, but rather the population :)
Ok but I would still get less FPS...why exactly should I switch right now if I would get less FPS and the graphical improvement would be extremely subtle? For a "measly" 100+ bucks? That's 100 bucks down the toilet in my opinion. And so what if I havent tried it? That's like saying that one is bashing a car he hasn't driven before because he's read the technical sheet and compared it to the previous model and deemed it not worth the price...

you really need to have everything set to Veryhigh to see a difference. Just setting 2 things or maybe 3 and expecing it to be a new game is stupid.
The game has graphics that are designed for the future of PC hardware.
If your not playing on a quad and at least SLI Ultras then dont say very high doesnt make a difference.
I doubt the game looks any different on Very High with two ultras than one GTS...it may have more fps but it won't look better, not sure what you're talking about. And who says Very High doesn't make a difference? We're talking about very high in XP vs very high in Vista...there IS a noticeable difference between Very High and High itself.

I swear it's like some of you guys just don't read what was said before you reply...

[OC Noob]

I'll tell you what. I bought Vista and I dont even want to use XP anymore. Microsoft doesnt want to release a new version of directx for a 6 almost 7 year old product. Where were you when microsoft didnt bring directx 8 or 9 to windows 95 in 2001-2? Where was your rage at the machine that is big bad microsoft?



Are you telling me that W95 doesn't support DX10?!?!?!

SOB, looks like I'm going to have to upgrade my 200mb hard drive with W95 and Microsoft BOB dual boot.

[Wraith]

And so what if I havent tried it? That's like saying that one is bashing a car he hasn't driven before because he's read the technical sheet and compared it to the previous model and deemed it not worth the price...

You are right. It is exactly like that. That would make you incredibly presumptuous, as I said in a previous post.

Ok, you saw it on paper. If everyone based their opinions on what the 'paper' said instead of the form and function of an item, everyone would miss out on some great inventions.

Example-
"Well, I looked on paper at this new ride at the theme park, its only a few feet taller, a little faster, and a new color.....doesn't looks like it's worth building. Lets stick with the old one."

Well then guess what, the next theme park did build it, and it happens to be the biggest tallest fastest roller coaster on the planet, putting the others to shame. Looks like you missed out, doesn't it?

Unreal Alex, I look forward to you're posts in the next few months. When they start to patch Crysis to the latest and greatest features for DX10 and begin to release DX10 only games, you're commentary will make for a good laugh.

[UnrealAlex]

I have no problem admitting that I'm wrong if there's evidence to support that...
If Crysis comes out and they release a patch that makes it look incredibly better in Vista, then I won't be saying the same thing I am now obviously. However, you're speculating. Where does it say that they will "patch Crysis to the latest and greatest features for DX10"? They may, they may not. It may continue to look the same in Vista and XP or it may grow in difference.
But I've repeated numerous times that I'm talking about right now; not the future or the past and yet you guys continue to push these "next few months" arguments, and further prove my point that you're not reading what I said before...

[uzibear]

I'll tell you what. I bought Vista and I dont even want to use XP anymore. Microsoft doesnt want to release a new version of directx for a 6 almost 7 year old product. Where were you when microsoft didnt bring directx 8 or 9 to windows 95 in 2001-2? Where was your rage at the machine that is big bad microsoft?

Anyway, I dont care what the people that got high settings on XP say or do. Grats, you got Crysis to dispay some of the tricks. What happens when the next games after crysis wont work PERIOD on Windows XP?

Sorry for the rant, I'm just sick of people ****ing and moaning about wahhh wahhh Vista and DX 10 wah wahhhhh. Fine, make it work on Windows XP, I'm happy you got high settings on it, but for the love of god stop turning it AGAINST Vista.

interpretation: i'm desperately trying to justify my silly purchase of vista

[vixro]

Its worth it uzibear.

[Colton H]

I see what your talking about right now. You really don't care what things will look like later because it will improve because they have had time to improve on all that stuff.

Everyone has been saying that DX10 will look awesome and it looks almost the same to you. I Know what your talking about! lol sorry.

But yea, you guys he doesn't care whats going to happen in a next few months. Hes been hearing all this hype about DX10 being uber leet and its not showing any improvement. Not saying it hasn't but to his perspective it hasn't. Anyway I don't really care I just wanted to say this. Later...

[Wraith]

interpretation: i'm desperately trying to justify my silly purchase of vista


Interpretation- I dont like working with windows XP at work anymore, and I've installed Vista on both of my computers at home since I was so impressed with the stability and speed of it.

Enjoy living in the past, I'll see you in a few years when you upgrade to Voodoo 3 to play Unreal Tournament '99.

[WheaT]

Ok but I would still get less FPS...why exactly should I switch right now if I would get less FPS and the graphical improvement would be extremely subtle? For a "measly" 100+ bucks? That's 100 bucks down the toilet in my opinion. And so what if I havent tried it? That's like saying that one is bashing a car he hasn't driven before because he's read the technical sheet and compared it to the previous model and deemed it not worth the price...

Thats exactly my point. You have not tried it. Instead you have been reading too much microsoft hate mail on the web regarding the topic. My point is there is more to vista than DX10, which you obviously missed. If you don't feel its worth the money, that is also fine. The gap is only going to get bigger and bigger however..

[xbiker321]

I played the DX9 and DX10 copy of Lost Planet...Hands down the DX10 looks better so in my opinion there is a difference.

[xilix]

Further proof that DX10 is a huge sham and we don't need to upgrade to Vista.

All of you who're saying this are going to be hurling in your own mouth when DX10 actually starts to mature. There is always a consumer pushback when a new OS and new graphics hardware/software overhall is in motion. Again, this same crap was happening when XP came out, heck, it was happening when games went from DOS to Windows. If people don't buy Vista or put any money into DX10 then developers aren't going to be enthusiastic about maturing the solution quickly. The more people who buy into DX10 the faster it will mature.

Vista ROCKS. Run it for 2 weeks and then go back to XP, and then you'll know what I'm talking about. I can't stand working with XP now.

[SteveLord]

Why would you go back? Thats money you'd be throwing away and no one would want to admit their hard earned cash was a waste.

[ChinStrap]

I played the DX9 and DX10 copy of Lost Planet...Hands down the DX10 looks better so in my opinion there is a difference.

crysis. ;)

[xilix]

Why would you go back? Thats money you'd be throwing away and no one would want to admit their hard earned cash was a waste.

I'm dual booting for several reasons due to the fact that software developers refuse to learn how to program properly for Vista. Every time I boot into XP I almost puke in my mouth a little.

[SteveLord]

I'm dual booting for several reasons due to the fact that software developers refuse to learn how to program properly for Vista. Every time I boot into XP I almost puke in my mouth a little.

Well, the fact that you have to dual-boot is a flaw in itself. :santa:

[xilix]

Well, the fact that you have to dual-boot is a flaw in itself. :santa:

A flaw not of Vista, but of the developers writing programs for it. I have to have rock solid editing and Sony seems to not be interested in patching Vegas in order to be more stable in Vista. Not to mention other programs I need to use. Some of my 3D apps have rendering features that cannot work properly under Vista because they've yet to update the software to work.

The issues I'm having are with Vegas stability, World in Conflict locking up, and 3DSmax's rendering features and some other minor problems. Once these developers get their crap together I'm never using XP again. Considering Vista is very new. I think that this is a jaw-droppingly low number of problems compared to the hurricane of issues XP had when it first came out. Vista is awesome. I love it and I'm betting all of you nay-sayers will also love it once you finally migrate over. Remember, lots of people hated XP too. But now we all love it compared to 98. Could you IMAGINE trying to run 98 now?

[Hambone0750]

It's kind of funny, those who critique and hold out on vista on the cost issue are really spending more money in the long run than those who are experiencing it from it's on set. I mean if you think about using a $100 product for 6 years comes out to a cheaper annual cost than if you use it for only 4.

[vixro]

It's kind of funny, those who critique and hold out on vista on the cost issue are really spending more money in the long run than those who are experiencing it from it's on set. I mean if you think about using a $100 product for 6 years comes out to a cheaper annual cost than if you use it for only 4.

I had XP from release and everyone told me I was stupid and that it was buggy.

Now everyone claims its the best OS from microsoft. haha.


I've had vista from conception and it's only gotten better with time. I would never go back to XP.

[johnny*]

To hell with XP/Vista, I'm going back to ME :bday:

[SolidxSnake]

To hell with XP/Vista, I'm going back to ME :bday:

I feel the need to shoot you :D

vixro: I've heard 2k being the best OS from MS... I like XP SP2 Pro though.

I've used Vista, not gamed on it, but generally it is better IMO. Still buggy in a few things, mainly third-party software, but it doesn't run slow at all on my dad's brand new Dell rig (3800+ X2, 1GB Ram, integrated GFX). It runs smoothly, looks better, and is in general a better OS IMO.

It's useless to bash Vista in the present, Alex. Absolutely useless, seeing as how very few developers have actually taken the time to completely write optimized code for DX10. Of course there are bound to be differences now, they simply have not had the time to work with DX10 and Vista to learn how to utilize all the differences. Same thing with every game console. People were giving the PS3 and Sony so much crap for not having as impressive looking games as GoW or other X360 cames, but now it's maturing and there are better looking games on the PS3 than the X360. It's no different with any new tech.

I agree with you in that there is very little difference (I notice next to no difference in those screens). But knowing CryTek, they will release patches to include more DX10 features as they are worked out. They did the same with FarCry, no? I think they realize that they'll be under fire if they don't. It's essentially bad timing.

Hell, even the PCIe release. Remember how much crap people like me (the poor people :D) were giving PCIe solely because they couldn't upgrade and that AGP's limit wasn't even reached yet? I don't see any 8800s out on AGP now, and there's a huge difference running Crysis on a 8800 rather than a 7900, right?

Just wait until it develops. You'll take back your words.

That being said, I'm not upgrading to Vista until DDR3 becomes mainstream and possibly the second gen in DX10 cards have been out a while. By that time, Vista should either be in SP1, or at least have most software bugs worked out.

[rocco]

My biggest problem not the tiny ****ing difference in visual quality but the fact that my ****ing core2duo,8800GTX runs this piece of **** 5fps
Whole gaming industry is a scam upgrading every 6 months which i won't do anymore!

[OcX]

upgrading every 6 months which i won't do anymore!

And your on OCForums because....lol?

Couple of subjects this thread touched base on:

1. Is Vista worth the Price for gaming?

No, not before the first Service Pack. Beta Testing is for Beta Testers. Not Consumers.


2. Does Dx10 look better then Dx9 (Very High) on Crysis?

Subjective question. Does Jessica look better then Veronica? Both are fine. One performs a little better then the other in certain areas, with the other looking real good in certain areas.

Good thing I gottem both... :santa:

[UnrealAlex]

It's kind of funny, those who critique and hold out on vista on the cost issue are really spending more money in the long run than those who are experiencing it from it's on set. I mean if you think about using a $100 product for 6 years comes out to a cheaper annual cost than if you use it for only 4.
That's the most backwards logic ever man. If anything those who hold out are getting more for their money because A)You get it when it's more functional B) You get it when it's cheaper (assuming Vista price goes down over time)

Anyways, to conclude... I'm sure as time goes on Vista will improve and be better for gaming than XP but as of right now the switch to Vista for gaming needs is just not worth the effort or price.

[Neural Net]

It isn't wise to base the visuals of an entire game by playing the demo of it. Demos are limited in filesize, the texture resolution and features are cut down so that it is an acceptable size for people to download.

This comparison (http://www.gametrailers.com/player/19967.html) may be a little exaggerated but you will notice there are effects in this trailer that are not present in the demo. Therefore it is too early to draw conclusions. If you don't see a difference, then you need to promptly see your local optician. :D