DX10 was the exception to the rule. Previous DX releases did not cause such a large drop in performance. Hopefully Microsoft has learned their lesson with DX10 and focuses more on performance in DX11.
![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
Directx 11 2009!!!!!
- Thread starter coolazn
- Start date
DX10 was the exception to the rule. Previous DX releases did not cause such a large drop in performance. Hopefully Microsoft has learned their lesson with DX10 and focuses more on performance in DX11.
you will always be waiting my friend. technology is always upgrading, does that mean we should always be waiting, that in-turn means that we will never buy what we desire.
We can only hope.
You missed when I said "even if".
Do you know how long its going to take for DX11 to be released, on top of that, DX11 Games to be released, and on top of that, DX11 games that you want to play, to be released?
Looking back on releases of directX it seems that by the time DX11 is here, people will be upgrading to the 5870X2.
baddog121390
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- Jun 18, 2006
- Messages
- 277
o rly?
http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=2281&p=3
Ignoring the geforceFX card, going from DX8->DX9 caused around a 20% performance drop in HL2 for a minimal quality boost, which happens to be about the same percentage of performance you lose going from DX9->DX10 in crysis
What do you mean the greater majority of games are on XP? Just about any game that runs in XP will also run in Vista. So Vista has just as much games as XP in addition to any exclusive titles. Don't kid yourself, XP will never get anything past DX9.
Games not Gamers.
Anything DirectX with a .1 after it is a joke, I called that from the release of the 3000 series. Remember the Radeon 8500's DirectX 8.1 that was supported in maybe 2 games?
As pointed out above, most people are indeed still using XP for various reasons. This doesn't mean Vista is worse for gaming than XP, but you can't deny the fact that most people still hang on to the old OS, especially outside of the enthusiast community where people don't upgrade either software or hardware as often. But you're right in that XP will never get DX10 or DX11. Microsoft will no longer backport new features to this 7 years old OS.
I remember when 3dfx introduced "Hardware T&L" support via software for their Voodoo5 series, increasing 3DMark 2000 scores noticeably
But new DX versions (or the Direct3D part of them anyway) are mostly about adding support for new hardware features, and has been for a while:DX7: Hardware T&L (and I think maybe Dot3 and EMBM?)
DX8: Programmable shaders (1.x)
DX9: Shader model 2.0, 3.0
DX10: Shader model 4.x
All those changes required new hardware - if you had a Geforce 2 Ultra, you'd get no 1.x shaders, and a Radeon 8500 is unable to use 2.x shaders.
I guess I can't have new features withought new hardware now...
I just don't like thinking about if my GPU can run DirectX 10, 10.1, or 11. Mabey after we let the hardware boys run wild for a while, we could mabey download a new version that our current GPU's could run.
I know, that just crazy!!
I just don't like thinking about if my GPU can run DirectX 10, 10.1, or 11. Mabey after we let the hardware boys run wild for a while, we could mabey download a new version that our current GPU's could run.
I know, that just crazy!!
Scheibler1
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Jul 8, 2005
- Messages
- 1,441
I'll stick with XP until I have to upgrade...which will probly be a long time. I don't mind upgrading at all, but Vista doesn't have anything I need over XP and DX10 is a joke.
Now they are already talking about Windows 7 and DX11...umm games haven't even taken advantage of DX10...except for Juarez. Well crysis does, but mods make it available in DX9 And whenever you run DX10 and vista you take a huge performance hit even on the current high end hardware. Sure DX10 has better lighting and a little better textures, but sometimes it doesn't look as good as DX9 b/c you get the realistic look, but is it really worth the price of Vista and loss in performance. Not to me....I don't want to spend over $100 to play a game that I can already play in DX9 looking 99% the same and running faster
I for one will not waste my money until games that I actually WANT use DX11 or even DX10 properly. Anyone not upgrading b/c they are waiting for this is stupid IMO...
Now they are already talking about Windows 7 and DX11...umm games haven't even taken advantage of DX10...except for Juarez. Well crysis does, but mods make it available in DX9
And whenever you run DX10 and vista you take a huge performance hit even on the current high end hardware. Sure DX10 has better lighting and a little better textures, but sometimes it doesn't look as good as DX9 b/c you get the realistic look, but is it really worth the price of Vista and loss in performance. Not to me....I don't want to spend over $100 to play a game that I can already play in DX9 looking 99% the same and running fasterI for one will not waste my money until games that I actually WANT use DX11 or even DX10 properly. Anyone not upgrading b/c they are waiting for this is stupid IMO...
Gorankar
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Jul 19, 2000
- Messages
- 11,111
Actually DX9 does run on Win98/ME, other than that you are correct.
Xp is going to slowly die away over the next few years. DX10 will not be implemented into Xp, nor will DX11. 1-2 years from now Xp will not be the OS running on most systems capable of running the latest games.
Scheibler1
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Jul 8, 2005
- Messages
- 1,441
thats why you don't need to wait to upgrade if you can't play the latest games maxed at the resolution you desire. No sense in waiting 1-2 years before dx11, heck even dx10, will be optimized and then upgrading. Upgrade for the games you want to play and don't wait for dx11 when you don't even know what games will be out then and if it will run shitty like dx10
I find it pretty funny peoples reaction to the news, I mean some people are gloating because their to cheap to upgrade and talk like they "know" DX10 is shit. It's not, I've had moments in crysis and stalker that literally made my jaw drop for the first time in years.
I just spent a shit ton of money on my new rig, and I wish windows 7 and DX11 would come out tomorrow, it's not like I can't play DX10 anymore and new tech is NEVER a bad thing.
Rant terminated
-dave
I just spent a shit ton of money on my new rig, and I wish windows 7 and DX11 would come out tomorrow, it's not like I can't play DX10 anymore and new tech is NEVER a bad thing.
Rant terminated
-dave
From the benchmarks I've seen, Stalker Clear Sky basically requires at least a 4870X2 to run at full detail settings in DX10 mode. This makes DX10 pretty useless for mid-range and low-end DX0 cards, which will have to fall back to DX9 mode anyway to produce decent framerates.
Maybe tomorrow's mid-range DX11 cards will finally be able to run DX10 games at reasonable framerates?
And what's the problem in that? Why should how good a high end card can make things look be limited by a budget or a low end card?
Gorankar
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Jul 19, 2000
- Messages
- 11,111
Like XP, DX9 was around much longer than the norm. People forgot how fast we went from DX5 to 6 to 7 to 8 to 9. Xp and DX9 were the aberration, not the norm, when it comes to length of time before a successor was released. MS is going back to business as usual.
Just because DX11 comes out, does not automatically mean your current gpu is useless. Devs will continue to code multiple DX paths into their games. Most games released right now have DX9 and 10 paths, many still have DX7 and 8 paths. Not worth crying about.
Just because DX11 comes out, does not automatically mean your current gpu is useless. Devs will continue to code multiple DX paths into their games. Most games released right now have DX9 and 10 paths, many still have DX7 and 8 paths. Not worth crying about.
vick1000
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Sep 15, 2007
- Messages
- 2,443
No it does not. I run maxed DX10 no AA on a single GTX260 at 1680*1050 and get very playable performance.
Clear Sky does require a large amount of Frame Buffer and System RAM though.
LoL, as I recall, the first level of fear didn't even have anything to shoot at... maybe you should stay away from project origin then
.i don't play horror games but I can't find a clear definition of what Stalker is - some sites say survival, some just say FPS, reading/looking some details + screens = scary-ish. Had to try fear cuz it was the Crysis of its day y'know. Now they say Stalker has some helluva impressive visuals too so I'm intrigued.
vick1000
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Sep 15, 2007
- Messages
- 2,443
STALKER: Clear Sky is not as "scary" as Shadow of Chernobyl was, but there are still some survival/ horror elements. The A-life is what will get you though, it's unscripted spawns and behaviour in general, make for an intense experience.
FEAR was a joke to me, I can think of only two parts that made me jump, the rest were too predictable and the environment was not even creepy at all.
ShuttleLuv
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Apr 12, 2003
- Messages
- 7,295
Maybe im jus tbetter at noticing this shit but Crysis looks much better and realistic DX10 than DX9. DX9 the foliage and ground appear much more flat and cartoony, while DX10 it appears much more alive, rich, and realistic. Trust me there is a difference.
The problem is that DX10 is not usable on the vast majority of "DirectX10 cards". Only the $500+, dual-GPU 4870X2 is a true DX10 card that can run DX10 games at reasonable framerates. Even the GTX280 struggles in Crysis and Stalker at the highest settings in DX10 mode
The 4850, 4870, GTX260 and other "budget or low end cards", as you call them, well Nvidia and ATI might as well have made them into DX9 cards instead.. That would have made the GPU dies smaller and cheaper so you could get GTX260-class DX9 performance for maybe $150 instead of paying a premium for DX10 features that you'll never be able to use at decent framerates. As DX10 cards they are useless anyway because they're too slow to push decent framerates with all DX10 features enabled.
I disagree, It's never too early for another dx version. Let's get physics acceleration in dx already. The new dx api has to get out before games can even begin to be developed on it.
dx9 to 10 is not a big deal, let alone 10.1. dx10 needs vista, which is having market acceptance issues.