World In Conflict Performance Preview - PAGE 3

No sense beating around the bush about it: the differences between the DX9 and DX10 version of World In Conflict are not only unimpressive, but they're actually even hard to spot. This is disappointing, because if you switch from DX9 to DX10 rendering, you can expect your framerates to nosedive faster that a A-10 Warthog on a strafing run. 

In an effort to spot the differences between versions, we took these screenshots at a 1600x1200 resolution. Details were set to the maximum setting -- the 'Very High' setting. A BFG 8800 GTS OC provided the horsepower.

Open these comparison shots up in new windows, and judge for yourself. Keep in mind that big, noticeable stuff -- such as the different-looking explosions, pieces of flying tanks, and other large details -- are only dissimilar because these screenshots were taken at slightly out of sync. The screenshots were taken manually with the help of FRAPS. While we timed ourselves to snap the pics as precisely as we could, it is almost impossible (for a human at least) to take 2 identical screenshots manually at exactly the same moment in time.  

Comparison shot 1:

Comparison shot 2:

Comparison shot 3:

We took these shots in World In Conflict's own benchmarking program. With DX10 rendering in Vista, our average FPS at 'Very High' settings, was 18. In XP, the average FPS was 30. The trend continued on the lower quality settings: on 'High', DX10 gave us 25 FPS; and in XP, this went up to 35. On 'Medium' settings, we recorded a average FPS of 50 in Vista, and 58 in XP.   

Unfortunately, World In Conflict seems to be another game were the improvements promised out of DX10 don't really live up to expectations. Similar to the Company of Heroes DX10 patch, the Lost Planet DX9/DX10 benchmark, and the DX10 version of Call of Juarez, the quality differences are present between renderers, but they are very minor. If you became enthusiastic about DX10 after watching NVIDIA's recent World Of Conflict DX10 Features video, then you might have been setup for a disappointment. After comparing these screenshots against each other, it hard to say that the DX10 improvements are "indeed substantial", or "even more stunning", as they are claimed to be on Sierra's website.    

It'll will be a long time before a pure, programmed-from-the-ground-up, 'real' DX10 game comes around. Until then, it doesn't look these tacked-on 'enhancements' of DX10 are worth the performance hit at all. In an effort to promote a new generation of video cards, marketers are trying to convince us of the advantages of DirectX 10. But as of yet, these advantages are more hype than anything else. We will see if Age of Conan, Crysis, Bioshock, or Hellgate: London change things -- but these titles also come in DX 9 flavors, so I'm not holding my breathe. 

Until drivers are further optimized, or adoption of Windows Vista really picks up, most gamers will probably stick to gaming in DX 9 mode. The performance hit of DX10 just isn't worth it. On the flip-side of the coin, there is absolutely nothing at all wrong with the way this game looks in DirectX 9.

But before we look at DX9 performance, let's blow dust off of digital magnifying glasses and see if we can find any differences between the DX9 and DX10 shots...