Author Topic: Just installed DirectX 9; and am baffled by its behaviour (Read 6773 times)

Goku7 · « **on:** 2003-01-03 02:19:15 »

First, let's set the scene here. After coming up with enough willpower to actually use my computer instead of playing Metroid Prime, I decide to download and install DirectX 9. Why? I dunno. Considering I'm already screwed in driver support because D3D8.1 totally fails on my 3Dfx Voodoo3 2k PCI card, I figured I'd at least benefit from any enhancements or optimizations that are in D3D7 and in the DirectSound and DirectMusic areas.

After letting it install, I fire up the good ol' "dxdiag" program, to see what new stuff it sports. As Aaron has mentioned to me in another thread, the most noticible difference they've done is ask you whether or not you want Dxdiag to see if your Audio and Video drivers are WHQL signed. Just for the heck of it, I clicked "Yes", and it does its check and starts up like normal.

But ya'll already know that stuff.

So I'll cut to the chase:

I'm getting some interesting behaviour in the "Display" and "DirectMusic" tabs of DxDiag. First off, when I ran the D3D7-interface test, I think I broke some speed records for my card, as I just saw it render at like 4000 FPS. On a Voodoo3 PCI.

Of course, there's not much to render in that test, since it only consists of a textured, spinning cube, but its funny as heck to watch it cause screen tearing as it goes so fast.

Next up, is the D3D8/8.1-interface test. Naturally, it fails.

Then, it throws me a curve ball. It passes the D3D9-interface test, and is giving me similar speeds in rendering compared to the D3D7 test. Yes, reality seems to be having an "off day".

I've yet to test any of the newer DirectX games yet; I'm gonna try out Star Trek: Armada 2, as it takes the role of being "Acid Test for Hardware D3D8-compatibility".

As if that wasn't enough of a shock, when I go to test the DirectMusic interface on the Microsoft Synth, after I click the test button, the program locks up. After "End Task"-ing it, Win98SE gives me the first BSOD I've seen in 3-5 months. -_-

At any rate, things now look a bit more promising in my V3 2k PCI's future.

KojiroTakenashi · « **Reply #1 on:** 2003-01-03 02:39:07 »

...Perhaps the Voodoo architecture is used in the GeFX, and since it's one of the technologies that goes with DX9, you naturally have some form of advantage.
...Just a guess *shrug*

...PLAY SOME DX7 GAMES AND TELL US WHAT YOU GET

:D:D

Goku7 · « **Reply #2 on:** 2003-01-03 02:44:31 »

Quote from: KojiroTakenashi

...Perhaps the Voodoo architecture is used in the GeFX, and since it's one of the technologies that goes with DX9, you naturally have some form of advantage.
...Just a guess *shrug*

Doubtful. Why? DX9 initialization would still include the same 8.1 stuff that causes it to fail on 8.1 in the first place, which is a major part of why I'm confused about its passing the test. All Win9x driver sets for 3Dfx cards are DX7-compatible AT BEST, yet its working on DX9.....

Quote

...PLAY SOME DX7 GAMES AND TELL US WHAT YOU GET :D:D

LOL.....one problem with that. All the DX7 games I have, don't have a feature to display the current FPS its doing. Nevertheless, it should still be interesting....

KojiroTakenashi · « **Reply #3 on:** 2003-01-03 03:03:00 »

Well, you should be able to tell by eye. Just turn up all the pretties and see how much/little your screen tearing gets. I get that with alot of DX7 stuff on my Geforce2 Pro...I can run at any resolution with Max FSAA minimum LOD bias maximum anisotropy forced and still get like 100 FPS. Of course that's just a visual guess.

Aaron · « **Reply #4 on:** 2003-01-03 04:09:08 »

3DMark2000 is a 3D benchmark program that runs a series of DirectX 7 tests. It shows the FPS and after the tests are complete, you can get a rather detailed report.

I guess you can't compare it to before though, because there's no way to uninstall DirectX in Windows 98. However, it should give you a good idea of how your card performs under DirectX 7. It also has special DirectX 7 feature tests (bump mapping is actually the only one, DX8 has more, like pixel shading, vertex shading, ...)

3DMark2001 is pretty much the same thing, but focuses on DirectX 8/8.1 tests. You probably can't run this one, unless you can find some way to make the card think that it supports DirectX 8.1.

[Edit] Oh yeah, DX9 seems to have massively increased the performance I get in Neverwinter Nights. The game used to get a bit choppy in areas where there was lots of detail in the environment, or when there were lots of characters on screen, but since DX9 and the Detonator 40 drivers, it seems to be a constant 60 fps... woohoo.

Goku7 · « **Reply #5 on:** 2003-01-03 04:13:01 »

I'll look into 3Dmark2000, since I've kinda got nothing to do right now (my parents are tired of me playing Metroid Prime nearly all day for the past week.

)

Bump mapping.....which type, specifically? The v3 is capable of doing only the "Emboss" type.

Aaron · « **Reply #6 on:** 2003-01-03 04:16:19 »

Actually it checks four types: 3-pass emboss, 2-pass emboss, 1-pass emboss, and environment. 3DMark2001 does DOT3 and environment bump mapping.

I just got my FF8 CDs back, and I'm gonna go check and see if DX9/Det40 drivers fixed my motion-blur effect problem. Results soon

P.S. If anyone knows the solution to the motion-blur effect problem, I'd love to hear from you !

[Edit] Nope, the problem is still there: The motion-blur seems to occur but it is not transparent, meaning the existing image just gets blurred more and more as time goes on, until the effect turns off! Dang its annoying. Maybe there's some way to use RivaTuner to fix it... too bad I can't figure that program out. I can't even figure out how to fix FF7 with it... where's the option to turn off the stupid 8-bit palleted textures?

Goku7 · « **Reply #7 on:** 2003-01-04 01:10:15 »

Did you know, that practically EVERY download location/mirror/server thing that was in the list in that link you gave me about 3DMark2000, was either giving me a 3.0kb/sec transfer rate, or was full to where they couldn't give me the download?

So, I still don't have it. Grr....

But, as I said, I'm not complaining about the newfound compatibility. Can't wait for the first good DX9 games to come out, to see if the compatibility is really there!

Aaron · « **Reply #8 on:** 2003-01-04 05:04:20 »

Ya know, you can download 3DMark2000 from my web site. However, it comes with 3DMark2001 and PCMark2002 in the same zip file, making it like 68 meg.

But if you've got a fast enough connection for that, here's the link.

Goku7 · « **Reply #9 on:** 2003-01-04 05:35:53 »

Quote from: Aaron

But if you've got a fast enough connection for that, here's the link.

Heh.....IF I've got a fast enough connection....:roll

What, wireless DSL connections ain't fast enough?!

But seriously, I tested the connection speed on the download, and it clocks in at roughtly 70-80kb/sec. Unfortunately, I can't spare the 15 min. it will take to download it at the moment, because I should be going to bed right now, and If I don't shut it off in a few minutes, then my dad is gonna give me another one of his 500 decibel (sp?) lectures.

So, it'll have to wait until tomarrow. But until then, I'll be busy counting my blessings.

Now, watch, M$ and nVidia will catch wind of this "glitch", and release DX9.1, and include the auto-fail-on-init-code that was in 8.1......

....well, why else would it pass 9 and fail on 8.1?

Aaron · « **Reply #10 on:** 2003-01-04 15:36:59 »

Quote

What, wireless DSL connections ain't fast enough?!

Heh, I remember that you have that now that you mention it, but when I posted, I forgot what kind of connection you had. Some people don't wanna have to download a 68 MB file

especially if they aren't gonna use most of it.

Goku7 · « **Reply #11 on:** 2003-01-04 19:30:03 »

Well, there's a little less traffic going thru the router compared to yesterday, so it appears to be going at around 80-100kb/sec. Of course, that means it'll still take 10-15 minutes.

Waiting on a DSL connection?! Oh, the humanity!!

Goku7 · « **Reply #12 on:** 2003-01-04 22:48:54 »

Ok, I've FINALLY had enough time to install and run 3Dmark2000 v1.1.

And so, after running the default benchmark (1024x768x16bit, triple buffered, and a 16bit Z-Buffer, with Vsync off), I have a score of 2644 3D marks.

While obviously not groundbreaking, its not terrible either, considering its only a V3, and doing its thing at 1024x768.

I tried to run 3Dmark2k1SE, but it said that DX8.1 wasn't installed. I suppose DX9 is too advanced for it, and therefore went over its head.

Aaron · « **Reply #13 on:** 2003-01-05 05:38:38 »

Oh yeah, there's a patch for that DirectX 8 is not installed business, and I haven't uploaded a replacement installer to my site.

I dunno if it'll run anyway, cause your card supposedly doesn't support 8/8.1.

2644 isn't really all that bad for that card and running at 1024x768. When I had my TNT2, I think I might get 3400-ish running in 640x480 (on a 950 MHz computer). That card took a huge hit running at higher resolutions though. How fast is your CPU?

Goku7 · « **Reply #14 on:** 2003-01-05 14:44:10 »

1.5Ghz P4. Why?

Aaron · « **Reply #15 on:** 2003-01-05 15:10:14 »

Was just wondering.