Honest I've looked around:

Devil May Cry 4

Crysis Warhead

Lost Planet

None of them actually have a difference thats noticeable, especially during gameplay. (maybe the shadows and the Sun rays in World in C)

Any1 have any shots or opinions that I might've missed out?

Same here. The only thing I was able to notice was the fur on people's coats in Lost Planet. It looks more... furry.

Definitely not worth it.

Im sure the industry notices this as well, hince the lack of DX10 support. Also Funcom has yet to patch the DX10 client for Age of Conan, despite promising it at launch and then pushing it to August.

k because Devil may cry runs @ 60 on my Laptop and in DX 9 its @ 100 LMAO .....:|

hahaha

I have my 4850 in WinXP, and i'm not eager to go into the "Vista experience"... I've seen screenshot noting the differences, but they don't look THAT appealing to me to do the switch.

I'm happy with my games in DX9c: smooth and pretty. Crysis runs very nicely in WinXP, so does GRID, CoD4 and a lot of other titles that can't run well on Vista's DX9c (not well => lower FPS).

A friend of mine has Vista and we don't really see major differences among games (Crysis? lol).

Anyway, just my point of view.

Esop!

crysis can look different on very high in the shadows, water and the like.

I find these posts very odd as what you are really asking is is the developers implementation of certain aspects of dx10 worth it.

That is a different matter and i believe most people can quite happily run some games at lower than max settings and be more than satisfied but other might not.

Vista runs dx9c just fine. Are you sure it's not the rest of your system holding back the 4850?

Personally I find DX10 more visually appealing. Is it needed, no. More a selling point for Vista........ and it was all a lie from the beginning. But having said that, when I purchase games they go on a DX10 machine and rarely on DX9 anymore. There is a difference and I can see it. If you compare the dx9 vs dx10 photos while on an xp machine, you're missing it because you can't really tell the difference. Also, an lcd looks much better than a crt...... dx9 vs dx10..... something else to think about.

How do you see dx10 on XP machine? If it's "photos," by which you probably meant screenshots, shouldn't they be the same even if the jpg is displayed on a Mac?

Actually, nope... There's a thingy about the way Vista do things that makes DX9 perform poorly compared to XP. They changed the API when doing DX10, and to provide backwards support, they... Well... have to "emulate" sounds features and other thingys from DX9c from XP. I don't have more info than that, but there has to be some benchies that prove my word XD

Sorry dear dagger for being a lazy boy XD

Oh, man... That is sooooo relative to tastes... I mean... I've been playing FPS since i was 12 (Wolfenstein 3D was the sh!t X'D) on CRT's of all kinds. I won't argue that newer LCDs are so much better than 1st (20ns), 2nd (8ns) and even 3rd (5ns) gen LCDs regarding gaming, but I still prefer my good old refresh rate @85Hz when possible for gaming. The picture is very different indeed, it's crispier on CRTs than LCDs IMO. Hell, i even gamed on a Sony Trinitron 22" 1900x1200 at my university just for the fun of it and man, i DO tell you there is NO way an LCD wan kick a CRT's ass, at least not for the time being XD

Now, like i said, newer LCDs (2ns) actually show close to none difference in refresh to my eyes, but those are quite expensive atm

Esop!

slight difference between dx9/dx10.
i dont mind the extra eye candy though.
=]

At the fps cost?

well my 2 gtx260 pull over 100fps in every game but that one made by crytek.
=]

You don't have to get 500 fps when you play a game, and the newer titles will never come near the older games..... Quake, Medal, etc. It's the minimum fps we need to start worrying about.

And I disagree with the posters opinion that crt's look better than lcd's. I'll never go back.

ACTUALLY I meant to quote Dagger, sorry.