Dissecting DX10, Part 2

Last week we looked at the Lost Planet: Extreme Condition PC demo on Windows Vista with DirectX10. The performance test results while running the demo on a high-powered Dell XPS with SLI-enabled GPUs were good but not exactly great, either. And while there was a noticeable upgrade in some key graphics areas, there wasn't a huge difference between the console and PC versions of the game (more on the differences between the DX9 and DX10 versions later in this series).

Part of the results for Lost Planet may have to do with how Capcom's game was originally designed for the Xbox 360 and then ported to the PC for both Windows XP and Vista. Therefore, it's likely the game isn't even coming close to using DX10 at its full potential. It will be some time before a game arrives that was designed in native DX10 and built to realize the full advantage of the new technology. Still, there are games built specifically for the PC - rather than console ports - that are utilizing DX10 on Vista. One such title is Ubisoft's new Western title Call of Juarez. The demo version of the game and performance benchmark program were released recently, and we put them to the test once again on the Dell XPS 720 with an Intel Core 2 Extreme quad-core platform (2.93 GHz) with two SLI-enabled Nvidia GeForce 8800 Ultra cards.

View Call of Juarez Slide Show (24 images)

Let's start with the performance benchmark (we actually installed and played the demo first before installing and running the benchmark program - more on that crucial detail later). Unlike Lost Planet, Ubisoft's test program was released as a separate application instead of being embedded with the official demo. Once installed, the program was fairly simply to use, though it didn't allow for a lot of customization or adjustable settings. There were only a few options such as screen resolution, shadows, map size, anti-aliasing and audio.

With SLI enabled, we ran the benchmark test, which is essentially a movie reel of the game's maps and outdoor environments, with a few horses and NPCs sprinkled in between. In other words, the benchmark test doesn't feature actual gameplay action the way that the Lost Planet performance test did. The first crop of results was disappointing: with a screen resolution of 1280x720 and shadows on normal, the average frame rate was 30.2; the maximum frame rate achieved was 53.5 while the minimum FPS was 17.6. Needless to say, these results are not what one would expect from a higher-powered gaming rig with SLI.

We then ran the benchmark test with a slightly higher screen resolution of 1280x1024 and cranked the shadows setting to high. The results weren't much better, as the average frame rate dropped to 26.9 and the maximum FPS came in at 46.6 while the minimum FPS was 14.6. After tinkering around the system's Nvidia control panel, we discovered that SLI was having no affect whatsoever. Either the game doesn't support SLI, which is odd since Call of Juarez is part of Nvidia's "The Way It's Meant to Be Played" campaign, or there's a driver issue. Whatever the case, we couldn't get SLI working on the first round of benchmark tests.

I later learned that there's been a mini-controversy concerning Nvidia and Call of Juarez. Apparently, Nvidia was upset with how its graphics cards performed in the Call of Juarez benchmark program and not-so-subtly accused the game's developer Techland of technologically stacking the deck in favour of ATI by added code in the benchmark program that lowers the performance of GeForce 8 hardware. Techland responded to the accusation last week, offering details on its benchmark program while blasting Nvidia for trashing the developer and accusing Techland of playing favourites. The Inquirer had a summary of the controversy along with Techland's official response to Nvidia's claims.

Join our discussion on this topic