Directx 11 2009!!!!!

RamonGTP said:
While I'm all for new technology, I do agree that it is way to early for another DX revision. Out of the small handful of DX10 games, only a select few can be maxed out on anything but the highest end video cards.
Click to expand...

The time frame is about right. DirectX10 has actually been available for two years already since Vista was launched in late 2006. It feels like it only came out recently because it took a long time before any significant number of gamers upgraded to Vista and for any games to take advantage of the DX10 features... but DX10 will have been available for 2.5 years by the time DX11 is launched by mid-2009.

While DX9.0/SM 2.0 has been available since late 2002, SM 3.0 capability was only added with DX 9.0C in mid-2004, meaning it was also out for about 2.5 years before being superseded by SM 4.0/DX10.
 
I agree that people should just upgrade for whatever game(s) they want to play and leave it at that, don't worry about if DX is moving too fast or too slow for you. Personally, SC2 is looking to be the last game on PC that I'm anticipating for a while. I'm spending more and more time with console titles + it's cheaper and I've got more bills these days, etc lol.

I'm getting to that transition period between being a sole PC gamer to being a PC user all about encoding & Photoshop etc.
 
I can't wait to see what DX11 brings to the table

I have no idea why everyone is negative twords moving on, but I like the fact they are moving forward.

Also don't forget the insanely slow transition to DX9, this is nothing new and alot of people here seem either new or forget what happend in the past as a reason to complain.
 
JimmiG said:
The time frame is about right. DirectX10 has actually been available for two years already since Vista was launched in late 2006. It feels like it only came out recently because it took a long time before any significant number of gamers upgraded to Vista and for any games to take advantage of the DX10 features... but DX10 will have been available for 2.5 years by the time DX11 is launched by mid-2009.

While DX9.0/SM 2.0 has been available since late 2002, SM 3.0 capability was only added with DX 9.0C in mid-2004, meaning it was also out for about 2.5 years before being superseded by SM 4.0/DX10.
Click to expand...

While elapsed time may be about right, how far the hardware has advanced has slowed considerably. Much of this is probably due to lack of competition from ATI prior to the HD4850/4870 cards. Unless we see a very huge performance gain from the next family of GPU's, DX11 will likely go largly unused.
 
JimmiG said:
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.
Click to expand...


Again, this is complete bullshit.

STALKER and Crysis are just poorly coded, that's why they run like shit. Assasins Creed is DX10 and runs great on all kinds of hardware.
 
vick1000 said:
Again, this is complete bullshit.

STALKER and Crysis are just poorly coded, that's why they run like shit. Assasins Creed is DX10 and runs great on all kinds of hardware.
Click to expand...

What ancient PC are you running? Both games run so smoothly on my PC with everything on high @ 1680. Stalker even ran great before I got the 4870 with just a 8800GT.
 
Ugh.

Can we all please use our heads here, DX revisions are NEVER implimented straight away they take years to enter the development cycle and for reasonably priced hardware to appear.

If you're already putting off a modern card to wait for something DX11 compatible you need to re-think.
 
Mega666 said:
That is a marketing move by M$ to force people who want dx10 to buy Vista. Sorry, not worth it for me.
Click to expand...

I cant believe this style of thinking still exists, DX10 requires a huge overhaul of the OS including the driver structure being completely different, Im not sure what makes you think that it's fair that MS just update XP until the end of time with all the new features they're working on, totally for free.
 
Frostex said:
I cant believe this style of thinking still exists, DX10 requires a huge overhaul of the OS including the driver structure being completely different, Im not sure what makes you think that it's fair that MS just update XP until the end of time with all the new features they're working on, totally for free.
Click to expand...

Almost the entire Framework 3.0 is supported in xp. WDDM 1.0 requires once one program is using the GPU, other programs are shut down until the process completes. Utter garbage.

It would have been a lot less costly for M$ to update xp than to engineer an OS that brings almost nothing new (save dx10) to the table. What's new?

Again, no compelling reason. Why do you think M$ is now rushing out Windows 7?
 
Mega666 said:
It would have been a lot less costly for M$ to update xp than to engineer an OS that brings almost nothing new (save dx10) to the table. What's new?
Click to expand...

That may be true if Vista was free, but it isn't. An update to XP would have been free.
 
RamonGTP said:
That may be true if Vista was free, but it isn't. An update to XP would have been free.
Click to expand...

What do you think win 2000 to xp was? Look at the version numbers - windows 5.0 vs. 5.1. XP is nothing more than an enhanced windows 2000. XP is not a free upgrade from win2000 is it?

xp in sytem information - version
Version 5.1.2600 Service Pack 3 Build 2600
 
Mega666 said:
What do you think win 2000 to xp was? Look at the version numbers - windows 5.0 vs. 5.1. XP is nothing more than an enhanced windows 2000.

xp in sytem information - version
Version 5.1.2600 Service Pack 3 Build 2600
Click to expand...

What's your point and what does that have to do with anything I'm (or even you) were saying?

You said it would have been less costly to update XP than to come out with Vista. That isn't true. The costs associated with Vista will be more than offset by sales. The costs associated with updating XP won't be offset becuase everyone already had XP.
 
RamonGTP said:
What's your point and what does that have to do with anything I'm (or even you) were saying?

You said it would have been less costly to update XP than to come out with Vista. That isn't true. The costs associated with Vista will be more than offset by sales. The costs associated with updating XP won't be offset becuase everyone already had XP.
Click to expand...

I'm saying they did it before and can do it again. You missed it Ramone. I thought it was pretty obvious.
 
Mega666 said:
I'm saying they did it before and can do it again. You missed it Ramone. I thought it was pretty obvious.
Click to expand...

You missed it, beucase I'm not discussing whether or not they can or cannot do it. I'm telling you that you are wrong in terms of which would cost MS less. Two completely different topics. If you look at the part of your post that I quoted, I was specifically refferring to cost, nothing more.
 
Raise you're hand if you're happy with DX 9.

I for one, would be ecstatic to see Cryengine 2 on full @ 1920 x 1200 with 8x AA at say, a solid 60fps.
 
lowteckh said:
I'll take a more fun game than one overloaded with eye candy that runs like crap anytime, but some people like looking at foliage more than blasting enemies =P
Click to expand...

Lol. Personally I'm a whore for both but that's just me. When I build my new ci7 rig I plan to replay crysis for the third time but dx10 this time as well as wsrhead for the second time in dx10 glory. :)
 
DX9 is far from dying and DX10 is not an overwhelming success (thanks to Vista).

I would like to see games that were designed from the ground up for DX10.
Then and only then we will be able to judge the added value over DX9.
 
Savoy said:
Lol. Personally I'm a whore for both but that's just me. When I build my new ci7 rig I plan to replay crysis for the third time but dx10 this time as well as wsrhead for the second time in dx10 glory. :)
Click to expand...

You are misinformed if you think i7 will boost gameplay and fps. Discussed many times already - it won't which is probably the reason you'll find a lot of people saying they'll hold out until something more substantial (in terms of gameplay) comes out.

And I wouldn't mind both too, but in situations like Crysis.. I can deal w/ dx9 High vs. dx10 uber unplayable high
 
lowteckh said:
You are misinformed if you think i7 will boost gameplay and fps. Discussed many times already - it won't which is probably the reason you'll find a lot of people saying they'll hold out until something more substantial (in terms of gameplay) comes out.

And I wouldn't mind both too, but in situations like Crysis.. I can deal w/ dx9 High vs. dx10 uber unplayable high
Click to expand...

All I know is that a pre-production lcoked 2.6 GHz i7 on a preproduction alpha board was able to macth a 3.2 GHz Penryn...and no body has looked at min. FPS during gameplay on a production CPU on a production motherboard with a production grade BIOS.

Far to many people look at bad tests, makes a brainfart...and draw bad conclusions.
 
DaNotoriousDOM said:
What ancient PC are you running? Both games run so smoothly on my PC with everything on high @ 1680. Stalker even ran great before I got the 4870 with just a 8800GT.
Click to expand...


I was refering to Clear Sky in DX10 mode, and I am not the one complaining about the performance, only in comparison to DX9 modes. It was in response to the comment made about needing a 4870x2 to enjoy Clear Sky in DX10.
 
doesnt mean anything if the games dont support it and more than half the people cant use it (dx10 only on vista ordeal)

wasnt dx10 supposed to be more effecient than dx9 and yet the performance hit was not really worth the extra eye candy?
 
OOOO! Just came up with the worst theory ever!

Until mainstream games (games that most people play)adopt support for the current directx version, the adoptive rate will remain ground low.
E.g. World of Warcraft.. name games with the most players/users. HL2 powered games? Sims..?
There is probably not enough justification for developers to move on to new software if the majority of the consumer base is still stuck in the "past". Similarly, hardware vendors need to make availability of their hardware more accessible (through pricing? I'm sure many/most people do not upgrade their hardware regularly) because w/o it, software can't move on.

WEeee, can I get my BA now :D:D?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top