Originally Posted by Rotcrack I agree totally, Direct X11 will not be as good in a game built on DX 10 then converted to DX 11 as in a game built on DX 11.
The article has been live for TWO minutes. How have you read it in that time!!
Originally Posted by Sifter3000 11 is better than 10, because it's one louder, innit :p
I see where you are going but what happens if you apply that theory to a water cutter slowing cutting its way up to your crotch, when you are strapped to a metal plate. Would you want the more powerful Version 11 or the less powerful version 10?
Originally Posted by Rotcrack I see where you are going but what happens if you apply that theory to a water cutter slowing cutting its way up to your crotch, when you are strapped to a metal plate. Would you want the more powerful Version 11 or the less powerful version 10?
Both versions are equally capable of slicing right through my man places, so the more powerful version may be less messy.
Originally Posted by MaverickWill Yeah, that's a thought - why is there no DX10 support?
Yea it is a bit ****, but it's the Batman argument all over again. Nvidia paid for PhysX code to be inserted so have the right to "tailor" the game slightly in its own favour to protect its investments. The same thing happened in Splinter Cell: Chaos Theory - there was no SM2.0b path, only 3.0 and 1.1 (iirc) paths that benefited Nvidia hardware at the time which supported SM3.0 with HDR in hardware.
Likewise, ATI has put considerable money and probably tessellation code into Dirt 2 for DirectX 11 support from the ground up. The 9.0c path path is likely the console path and still probably very good - UT3 is still 9.0c, as it most game engines to make them console compatible.
I'm not saying it's right for everyone, I'm just pointing out it's a business decision to protect and promote their own interests that all companies do. It's not like the game is incompatible with your hardware so you cannot run it. Just one perceived portion of it is missing, although how many DX10 games have looked considerably better/different over DX9.0c?
Take SSE4 enhancements or "Intel compiled" software for example too.
Originally Posted by Bindibadgi Yea it is a bit ****, but it's the Batman argument all over again. Nvidia paid for PhysX code to be inserted so have the right to "tailor" the game slightly in its own favour to protect its investments. The same thing happened in Splinter Cell: Chaos Theory - there was no SM2.0b path, only 3.0 and 1.1 (iirc) paths that benefited Nvidia hardware at the time which supported SM3.0 with HDR in hardware.
Likewise, ATI has put considerable money and probably tessellation code into Dirt 2 for DirectX 11 support from the ground up. The 9.0c path path is likely the console path and still probably very good - UT3 is still 9.0c, as it most game engines to make them console compatible.
I'm not saying it's right for everyone, I'm just pointing out it's a business decision to protect and promote their own interests that all companies do. It's not like the game is incompatible with your hardware so you cannot run it. Just one perceived portion of it is missing.
Take SSE4 enhancements or "Intel compiled" software for example too.
Just thought - someone who's not clued up on things, looks at their shiny GTX295, and says "Oh, it's a DirectX 10 card! I'll need to upgrade to play this game"... Not realising their card can run DX9 stuff. :-P
There is DX10 support, AFAIK. DX10 is a subset of DX11 and DX10 cards run the DX11 path with features (such as Tessellation) disabled. At least, that is how Microsoft describes it - if Codemasters have forced DX10 hardware to run the DX9 path, that, well, sucks.
So the changes are incremental with a performance hit and there are no games I'm interested in that will support it? As happy as I am that my two 4870 1gb won't be made redundant anytime soon, that's really lame.
Would've liked to have seen a difference between a DX10/11 game? Perhaps the same article for that STALKER benchmark?
Originally Posted by Tim S There is DX10 support, AFAIK. DX10 is a subset of DX11 and DX10 cards run the DX11 path with features (such as Tessellation) disabled.
So is the tessellation unit in my ATI gpu ever utilised?
Originally Posted by Tim S There is DX10 support, AFAIK. DX10 is a subset of DX11 and DX10 cards run the DX11 path with features (such as Tessellation) disabled.
So is the tessellation unit in my ATI gpu ever utilised?
Before RV8xx, there was no API support for the tessellation unit and it's not functionally the same as the DX11 tessellator. It was a marketing checkbox (we said it'd be never widely used until it got proper API support, IIRC) and you're never likely to be able to use it.
With the current lull in PC development, I'm starting to wonder if this DirectX11 über-game will ever arrive. And if it does, will it be more than just a tarted up tech demo (yes, I'm looking at you Shattered Horizon)?
I've been flamed on this forum before for even daring to mention the slump in PC-gaming, but fact of the matter is, with the current console generation being extended almost indefinitely (thanks recession) I don't see developers having the motivation to invest the time, effort and - most importantly - finances needed to usher in DirectX11.
What made consoles feel 'old' was when games like Crysis would come along and embarrass the current generation into submission. But seeing as Crytek themselves have become somewhat of a cautionary tale within the industry, and with no obvious successor, I don't see this happening for a long while.
Some smart dude on the bit-tech podcast (sorry, I can't put names to voices yet) mentioned how it's very possible NVIDIA's GeForce deparment could soon be overshadowed by partnership deals involving Tesla and Tegra, effectively pushing their interest further and further away from the desktop GPU market. Couple that with the paradigm shift from PC gaming dragging along consoles to consoles being the driving sales force and things start to look grim.
I'm not trying to say that PC games won't always look better, but to what degree and how soon is definitely up for debate.
Seems I still rather take the better frame rates with DX9, I had to look real hard to notice any difference on screenshots, and for that I'd be giving up 30 fps min frame rate?
I think not.
Ok, shadows seem somewhat smoother, but would one really even notice them while gaming?
hmmmm moving crowd, nice water ripples and more realistic flag movements........cant physx do that? Very disappointed. Was hoping that the efficency of DX11 would be a major thing. It looks the bloody same as DX9 plus a 40% chunk of fps missing to boot. Until developers stop pissing about whats the point? All features that both physx and in this case of DX11 its all gimmiks that add nothing to game play. In the case of DX11, it becomes more efficient than DX9 and 10 or adds visual splendor its wasted. Why can't real time collisions, damage be done using physx? who really gives a **** if random bits of paper flutter about. Pretty yes....useful no.
Comments 1 to 25 of 88
ReplyThe article has been live for TWO minutes. How have you read it in that time!!
shame theres no 10
Both versions are equally capable of slicing right through my man places, so the more powerful version may be less messy.
Yea it is a bit ****, but it's the Batman argument all over again. Nvidia paid for PhysX code to be inserted so have the right to "tailor" the game slightly in its own favour to protect its investments. The same thing happened in Splinter Cell: Chaos Theory - there was no SM2.0b path, only 3.0 and 1.1 (iirc) paths that benefited Nvidia hardware at the time which supported SM3.0 with HDR in hardware.
Likewise, ATI has put considerable money and probably tessellation code into Dirt 2 for DirectX 11 support from the ground up. The 9.0c path path is likely the console path and still probably very good - UT3 is still 9.0c, as it most game engines to make them console compatible.
I'm not saying it's right for everyone, I'm just pointing out it's a business decision to protect and promote their own interests that all companies do. It's not like the game is incompatible with your hardware so you cannot run it. Just one perceived portion of it is missing, although how many DX10 games have looked considerably better/different over DX9.0c?
Take SSE4 enhancements or "Intel compiled" software for example too.
Just thought - someone who's not clued up on things, looks at their shiny GTX295, and says "Oh, it's a DirectX 10 card! I'll need to upgrade to play this game"... Not realising their card can run DX9 stuff. :-P
Would've liked to have seen a difference between a DX10/11 game? Perhaps the same article for that STALKER benchmark?
So is the tessellation unit in my ATI gpu ever utilised?
Before RV8xx, there was no API support for the tessellation unit and it's not functionally the same as the DX11 tessellator. It was a marketing checkbox (we said it'd be never widely used until it got proper API support, IIRC) and you're never likely to be able to use it.
I've been flamed on this forum before for even daring to mention the slump in PC-gaming, but fact of the matter is, with the current console generation being extended almost indefinitely (thanks recession) I don't see developers having the motivation to invest the time, effort and - most importantly - finances needed to usher in DirectX11.
What made consoles feel 'old' was when games like Crysis would come along and embarrass the current generation into submission. But seeing as Crytek themselves have become somewhat of a cautionary tale within the industry, and with no obvious successor, I don't see this happening for a long while.
Some smart dude on the bit-tech podcast (sorry, I can't put names to voices yet) mentioned how it's very possible NVIDIA's GeForce deparment could soon be overshadowed by partnership deals involving Tesla and Tegra, effectively pushing their interest further and further away from the desktop GPU market. Couple that with the paradigm shift from PC gaming dragging along consoles to consoles being the driving sales force and things start to look grim.
I'm not trying to say that PC games won't always look better, but to what degree and how soon is definitely up for debate.
I think not.
Ok, shadows seem somewhat smoother, but would one really even notice them while gaming?
I am having a hard time telling the difference. The water does look better though.
Sorry for the rant. Whens the next DX11 game out?
-
« Previous
-
1
-
2
-
3
-
4
-
Next »
Discuss in the forums