Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Dx10 vs dx11

Last response: in Video Games
Share
February 18, 2010 1:42:12 PM

is there going to be a HUGE difference between dx10 and dx11?

I noticed that it seems alien vs predator is one of the latest titles using dx11..

yet other titles like assisins creed is rumored to only be using dx9?

just wondering if the new dx version justifies a new video card..

More about : dx10 dx11

February 18, 2010 2:26:16 PM

depends how anal you are about having the best graphical experience possible.

Most games will run fine on say a 9800GT or a Radeon 4850 with no AntiAliasing under directx9.

But I notice a big difference from using Anti Aliasing, especially in games like Fallout 3 (which is a DX9 game), it makes the graphics look a lot smoother, and gets rid of "jaggies" with things like far off tree branches.

The new DirectX 11 cards are good cards. The Radeon 5850 is a great value for money card, giving performance higher than a GTX285 for less of the cost, and that is without taking DX11 even into account.

Tesselation and Ambient Occlusion are also nice little effects which more and more games will come to use, and which are not supported by the XBox 360 in the same way (i.e. these DX11 games have surpassed the technology of the current console generations).

But I dont think that you NEED a DX11 card to enjoy any of the current games on the market, some just might look slightly better if you have one!
m
0
l
February 18, 2010 2:28:05 PM

Heh - i just looked at your config, WOW!! What size monitor are you rockin'?

Are you gonna sell your 2 x 4870X2's and get 1 x 5970? I think I would :) 
m
0
l
Related resources
Can't find your answer ? Ask !
February 18, 2010 2:34:59 PM

Thanks Ricky. I love my system. Plays anything. Problem isnt the performance, its just that some games Im not into, like bioshock...
love call of duty..crysis..and others..

What size do you suggest I use?
I was told initially that its not the actual size that makes the difference but the res..
2048x1152..is my default and max res..
not enough??

do you think I should sell my cards on ebay and once I get the cash to get ATI's flagship.. what is that, the 5970?

people advise me to get a larger monitor, some say more ram, and some say leave it alone..

my concern (not a concern really) is that I want to be able to play any game in all its glory with good fps...

I also noticed that there arent that many dx11 games just yet, maybe a handful if that..

do you think I should sell my 4870x2's?

what do you think?

im getting different answers , which is fine, just not sure which direction to go, if any :) 

m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
February 18, 2010 3:32:08 PM

Why? Frankly, the only major new feature in DX11 is Tesselation, and every GPU ATI has out takes a big hit in that category (The 5770 had its FPS in Dirt2 cut by 50%, and was almost unplayable). SM5 may have potential, but devs have barly even touched SM4 yet.

There is no reason whatsoever to upgrade your setup at this point in time.
m
0
l
February 18, 2010 5:00:15 PM

ATI 6XXX series next year. go go go Tesselation

DX11 itself is a decent upgrade, but 1st gen cards aren't a "must have".
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
February 19, 2010 11:05:21 AM

^^ I'd argue that the current crop of cards aren't even good; the 5000 series isn't significantly faster then the 4000 series, and so far, their DX11 performance has been lacking. A far cry from the +50% performacne increases some people were expecting...
m
0
l
February 20, 2010 3:11:02 PM

gamerk316 said:
^^ I'd argue that the current crop of cards aren't even good; the 5000 series isn't significantly faster then the 4000 series, and so far, their DX11 performance has been lacking. A far cry from the +50% performacne increases some people were expecting...


Dude, so off base. Do you look at benchmarks? The 5870 has just about equal performance as two 4870s or an x2. The difference comes mainly from extra GB of ram with the two 4870 seup. Regardless, that is an amazing jump in the GPU world. The 5870 had double the ROPs and texture units. That is just about as good as it gets with a new generation of GPUs. What kind of performance gains are significant for you?

Lacking in DX11 performance? What are you basing that on? I would actually flip your argument and not focus on the GPUs lacking, I would highlight the first DX11 titles that are lacking DX11 features. The devs need time to fully utilize DX11 rather than cherry pick a few select features. Read this from Anand's site.

"Being the first DX11 title, Battleforge makes very limited use of DX11’s features given that the hardware and the software are still brand-new. The only thing Battleforge uses DX11 for is for Compute Shader 5.0, which replaces the use of pixel shaders for calculating ambient occlusion. Notably, this is not a use that improves the image quality of the game; pixel shaders already do this effect in Battleforge and other games. EA is using the compute shader as a faster way to calculate the ambient occlusion as compared to using a pixel shader."
m
0
l
February 20, 2010 5:03:59 PM

^+1,

To Gamerk
"I'd argue that the 5000 series isn't significantly faster than the 4000 series."

Think about this. a 4870x2, or the old flagship model, is 2 4870s in CF, and the 5970 is 2 5870s in CF, and according to these charts:

http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/graphics/2009/09/23/ai...

one 5870 is faster than a 4870x2, thus 2 5870s, or a 5970, is at least twice as fast as a 4870x2. thats a 100% improvement, which is more than the 50% improvement you said didn't happen from the 4000 series to the 5000 series. and I am fairly sure that your probably some Nvidea fanboy who is just upset that ATI is kicking the crap out of Nvidea.

PS- ATI's DX11 is better than Nvidea's DX11, which doesn't exist yet.
m
0
l
February 20, 2010 6:36:35 PM

so does it make sense to sell two 4870x2's and get a single 5970 now and then get another later down the line?
m
0
l
February 20, 2010 6:43:48 PM

so guys, im a little confused..

I would like to be able to play any dx10 and dx11 game on the market in all its glory. I do have two 4870x2's which I think are still more than enough power for anything on the market..
might not be the fastest, but are certainly up there...

do I sell the 4870x2 and get a single 5970 or get a bigger lcd monitor..currently running a 23 inch capable of (default res 2048x1152)?

I am actually a fan of ATI. I do think both companies offer good hardware but I have been with ATI for years and have not had any issues with them. I've had issues with Nividia cards..

m
0
l
February 20, 2010 6:45:26 PM

ive heard arguments comparing the 4870x2 in quadfire is almost as fast in many cases as the 5970..a single card..
ive heard it the other way around too..

ive also heard that having a 5000 series card today is way overkill for anything on the market because many software titles (with a few exceptions) are not designed to use that much power or optimized for it yet..

so you tell me..
m
0
l
February 20, 2010 6:47:16 PM

actually 2 4870x2 should be roughly equal to a 5970, but if you have the money, it would make sence to, so that you caould free up a PCIE slot and have another one for another 5970, like you said. I would wait for Fermi though, even if you have no intention of buying one of those cards, becuse maybe one of the fermi cards will be good, and the release will likely push down prices. 2 4870x2 in CF are still a beast though, but if you really want performance and DX11 capability, a 5970 is good for you.
m
0
l
February 20, 2010 6:51:37 PM

even if many titles are not optimized to use that much power yet, it will be a great future proof purchase, plus you get an extra PCIE expassion slot for upgradding in the future, and DX11 capability.

m
0
l
February 20, 2010 6:54:26 PM

but does it make sense to go for a video card upgrade vs a lcd upgrade?
m
0
l
February 20, 2010 7:00:39 PM

what would your monitor upgrade budget be?
m
0
l
February 20, 2010 7:41:48 PM

not sre 500-700
m
0
l
February 20, 2010 7:42:51 PM

i was looking at a 29 inch hanns g monitor that had a nice res ssize and had a good review for gaming on amazon.com for like 400
m
0
l
February 20, 2010 10:56:50 PM

dude, keep you dual 4870x2's for now. there are no games using dx11 yet where it makes a big difference.

i have a 5970 and love it, but i went from an 8800gt 512mb. much smoother and i max everything. my card came with dirt2 (dx11) and it looks great, but almost impossible to notice difference between dx9 & dx11 while playing.

keep your cards and wait for more dx11 games where you can see a difference.
m
0
l
February 21, 2010 1:12:20 AM

yeah get a new monitor, one with a 16;10 aspect ratio, and a res. of at least 1920x1200 and a low response time
m
0
l
February 21, 2010 1:17:42 AM

Yeah it is hard to say with upgrades like this. Performance-wise, you should be set with your current rig. My view is that you should never let a DX version pressure you into a new VGA because for the most part, games that are quick to jump on the new DX train are usually just using the version as a gimmick. Battleforge is a great example. They are utilizing one small feature of DX11 so that they can call it a DX11 title to move more units.

If you just have money to burn I would say spend it on stuff to enhance your current system where it will make a difference. Headsets, gaming mouse/keyboard, bigger monitor.....ect...ect... But hey, if it makes your day brighter to have the newest technology then go for it.
m
0
l
February 21, 2010 4:08:39 PM

spinach eater and mayday, that makes sense...having both 4870x2's is I think more than enough power to handle anything today and for some time to come..
most games still dont even require the 4000 series ati as their recommened system requirements.. at all..

I think a new lcd would probably be a better idea..

m
0
l
February 21, 2010 4:59:17 PM

so does anyone know where my cards performance stands today? having both cards running 4 gpu's as one..according to an ati senior rep..
Ive read its faster than a 5570, and slightly slower than a single 5970 and about faster than a 5770.. so in a sense..with what Ive got, if i understand the reviews correctly for having two cards, im about in the middle of the mix of the 5k series..performing better than some and not quite a good as the 5970..and thats primarily because I have two cards running..if I had a single 4870 or single 4870x2 it would be a differ story

as far as lcd, is what I have good enough to use the cards i have? i have a acer b233hu which is 23 inch with a 2048x1152 default/max res..
m
0
l
February 22, 2010 1:14:55 AM

you should be roughly on par with my 5970, perhaps a bit lower as you mention. again, no reason to upgrade.

as far as lcd, i have the acer 27" with same resolution. honestly, you are fine unless you want to go higher: 30" or 3 lcd's (eye-finity). the 3 lcd's would require you to upgrade to a 5 series ati card, but again, why? your pc kicks butt, so relax for another year and see where trends go. with consoles dictating game development now, there is no need to upgrade until the games demand it. otherwise, you're just spending cash on a hard-to-notice frame increase or shiny object.
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
February 22, 2010 11:07:32 AM

Anonymous486 said:
^+1,

To Gamerk
"I'd argue that the 5000 series isn't significantly faster than the 4000 series."

Think about this. a 4870x2, or the old flagship model, is 2 4870s in CF, and the 5970 is 2 5870s in CF, and according to these charts:

http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/graphics/2009/09/23/ai...

one 5870 is faster than a 4870x2, thus 2 5870s, or a 5970, is at least twice as fast as a 4870x2. thats a 100% improvement, which is more than the 50% improvement you said didn't happen from the 4000 series to the 5000 series. and I am fairly sure that your probably some Nvidea fanboy who is just upset that ATI is kicking the crap out of Nvidea.

PS- ATI's DX11 is better than Nvidea's DX11, which doesn't exist yet.


First off, you'd compare a 5870 against a 4890 if anything. Secondly, once you move away from Crysis, you get a much narrower margin. Even a 5870 v 4890 comparision, you only get at best ~30% performance. Certainly not worth an extra $300, thats for sure.
m
0
l
February 22, 2010 8:14:23 PM

I think it does make sense to use what ive got. any game today will run rather well on high detail with my hardware..

the only game that even uses dx11 and i dont know how much it uses it is alien vs predator..

there was this guy on ebay that wanted me to sell him my 4870x2..but he wanted two cards for 400..
m
0
l
February 22, 2010 8:16:12 PM

does it even make sense to get a larger lcd though?
m
0
l
February 22, 2010 8:16:18 PM

300 on a monitor!? are you mad man!? do you know what you could do with your computer with 300 bux?
m
0
l
February 22, 2010 8:17:41 PM

its good!!
m
0
l
February 22, 2010 10:08:53 PM

whats that? im looking to maximise my video performance
m
0
l
February 23, 2010 2:39:50 AM

First off, you'd compare a 5870 against a 4890 if anything.

Not really. The 4890 wasn't a new architecture per say. It was a rearrangement to the layout that lead to voltage stabilization which in turn, allows higher clocks and puts out lower temps. You aren't too far off because it is technically a different chip but the outcome is equivalent to an overclocked 4870 since there were no changes made to the transistor count, rops...ect...ect...

Even a 5870 v 4890 comparision, you only get at best ~30% performance. Certainly not worth an extra $300, thats for sure.

Lets leave money out of the picture for right now because that wasn't what you were talking about. You said the 5000 series isn't good and is not significantly faster than 4000 series but now you are admitting that there is a 30% performance gain. Ok...even comparing the 4890 to the 5870, that is still a significant gain IMO. 60FPS vs 42 FPS is noticeable. Looking at the 4870 and the 5870 you see in some cases double the performance. That is a clear sign that the 5000 series is good and is significantly faster than the 4000 series and as an added bonus, you get a DX11 ready card.

Pricing is a different beast because some people don't care and have the money to burn and others don't so it really matters to them. I agree with you though. If I got a 4890 when they came out, I wouldn't upgrade to a 5870 just based on the performance gain per cost and the fact that DX11 isn't really in full bloom atm.
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
February 23, 2010 3:29:34 AM

gamer, please let up on your DX11 is no good rants. Read this
http://www.beyond3d.com/content/reviews/54/4
"When allowed to leverage its DX11 advantage, Cypress actually manages to reach the vaunted performance doubling goal that was supposedly established for it during the development cycle...at least when AA is disabled. This is encouraging in the perspective of future DX11 titles, and how they'll treat owners of DX11 hardware. "
What youre saying is just untrue, as you can see, DX11 actually brings more perf, not less
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
February 23, 2010 11:15:43 AM

Quote:
First off, you'd compare a 5870 against a 4890 if anything.

Not really. The 4890 wasn't a new architecture per say. It was a rearrangement to the layout that lead to voltage stabilization which in turn, allows higher clocks and puts out lower temps. You aren't too far off because it is technically a different chip but the outcome is equivalent to an overclocked 4870 since there were no changes made to the transistor count, rops...ect...ect...


I compare based on price [Note: I only compare X2 against X2; doing otherwise is silly]; for the end user, Price/Performance is the only factor. That means 4890 v 5870 and 5850 [5850 is a bit of a tweener...], and 4870 against 5770, and 4850 against 5670. Comparing a 4870 to a 5870 because of something as silly as its model number is just plain silly.

Quote:

Even a 5870 v 4890 comparision, you only get at best ~30% performance. Certainly not worth an extra $300, thats for sure.

Lets leave money out of the picture for right now because that wasn't what you were talking about. You said the 5000 series isn't good and is not significantly faster than 4000 series but now you are admitting that there is a 30% performance gain. Ok...even comparing the 4890 to the 5870, that is still a significant gain IMO. 60FPS vs 42 FPS is noticeable. Looking at the 4870 and the 5870 you see in some cases double the performance. That is a clear sign that the 5000 series is good and is significantly faster than the 4000 series and as an added bonus, you get a DX11 ready card.


You apparently missed the AT BEST part; AT BEST, a 295 is 10% faster then a 5890, but everyone knows thats a BS statistic. In the vast majority of cases, you get a narrower 20% gain, and since many games show significant CPU limiting [all Unreal games, MW2, etc], even less then that is common.

Also, in the two games that make use of any form of Tesselation [AvP and Dirt2], all 5000 series cards takes a significant [upwads of 50% in the case of a 5770 and 5670] hit in performance. And thats the first implementations, not exactly games making major use of the API as a whole. DX11 ready doesn't mean DX11 will be usable. The jury is still out on that one, but based on the first wave of benchmarks, I simply don't see the 5000 series actually having a long lifetime as usable DX11 cards.


Quote:

Pricing is a different beast because some people don't care and have the money to burn and others don't so it really matters to them. I agree with you though. If I got a 4890 when they came out, I wouldn't upgrade to a 5870 just based on the performance gain per cost and the fact that DX11 isn't really in full bloom atm.


Heres my baseline: If you have a 9600GT and need to upgrade: What card to recommend. Right now, that card is the 4890, based on Price/Performance. Now, if you have almost $300 extra to waste on a average 20% gain in performance [or a 300% increase in cost for at best 30% performance], then by all means, go ahead. But at their current prices, I find it impossible to recommend the 5000 series over the 4000 series.

Quote:
What youre saying is just untrue, as you can see, DX11 actually brings more perf, not less


Funny, on Toms Frontpage just yesterday, I saw a statistic that benched DX11 as an average 40% slower then DX9 head to head [also 10% faster then DX10, and 17% faster then 10.1]. The API might be CAPABLE of going faster, but so far, thats simply not the case. Real world usage ahead of benchmarks, surly you know that JD, or are you going to start quoting 3dMark scores to prove your point?
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
February 23, 2010 11:20:00 AM

I also find it funny JD, that you constantly say Fermi = fail [before it even comes out], because of its high price and not a big enough performance increase, then you yell back at me for saying the 5000 series does the same exact thing.

The 5000 series is too expensive for its promised performance increases; I can recommend a 5850 if people are willing to spend, but nothing else in series right now. As for DX11 performance, you need to start asking why ATI cards are struggling with Tesselation enabled. Sure, the rest of the API may be faster, but if Tessleation offsets that, and continues to induce 30%+ FPS hits when used, then there are serious long-term viablity questions about the 5000 series.
m
0
l
February 23, 2010 3:56:48 PM

gamerk316 said:
The 5000 series is too expensive for its promised performance increases; I can recommend a 5850 if people are willing to spend, but nothing else in series right now. As for DX11 performance, you need to start asking why ATI cards are struggling with Tesselation enabled. Sure, the rest of the API may be faster, but if Tessleation offsets that, and continues to induce 30%+ FPS hits when used, then there are serious long-term viablity questions about the 5000 series.


Again, you are shifting over to pricing and negating your first comment that implied the 5000 series had no performance gain over the 4000 series. That comment is just not true and it seems to be very anti-ATI rather than factual information that can help someone weigh their options for an upgrade. Please don't make bogus claims like that because it is just spreading false information.

The value of a $/performance factor is different for every person and changes based on what is in the markets so it is always a flimsy subject. For you it may not make sense but for others, money doesn't play a limiting factor. Lets be honest here. Does it ever make sense on a $/performance basis alone to jump from one generation of VGAs to the next? IMO, no. If I had a 4890, I would get a couple of years use out of it and not even consider the 5000 series. Others may feel it is worth it because the RV870 brings a few extras to the table like DX11 support and eyefinity.



m
0
l
a c 272 U Graphics card
February 23, 2010 4:23:40 PM

SpinachEater said:
Please don't make bogus claims like that because it is just spreading false information.


Considering the misinformation that's been spewing out of the ATi camp recently, that's just funny.

SpinachEater said:
The value of a $/performance factor is different for every person and changes based on what is in the markets so it is always a flimsy subject. For you it may not make sense but for others, money doesn't play a limiting factor. Lets be honest here. Does it ever make sense on a $/performance basis alone to jump from one generation of VGAs to the next? IMO, no. If I had a 4890, I would get a couple of years use out of it and not even consider the 5000 series. Others may feel it is worth it because the RV870 brings a few extras to the table like DX11 support and eyefinity.

Is price/performance not what the ATi crowd are always banging in about?
m
0
l
February 23, 2010 7:03:39 PM

Mousemonkey said:
Considering the misinformation that's been spewing out of the ATi camp recently, that's just funny.


Rumors coming from the companies are a totally different ball game than ignoring actual data from benchmarks. They have investors to buy.



Mousemonkey said:
Is price/performance not what the ATi crowd are always banging in about?



It was until they made the fasted GPU available ATM. Touting price/performance is what ATI did back when they were second place to NV in performance. Now that they have the fastest GPU on the market and the only one with DX11 support, they don't have to play that game for right now. I like ATI but I am not blind to their price inflation either. I am pretty disappointed with them for their current pricing but when NV finally comes around, we will see everything go back to normal.
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
February 24, 2010 12:17:15 AM

This is the kettle calling the pot here. Whats the price of nVidias single fastest card? Nuff said, its more than that 5850 too high priced better running cooler running more featured less power needed. So whos pricing is high?
Read my link, youll see that in DX11 games, the 5xxx series does get double perf over the 4xxx series, and the 5870 gets double over the 4890, so, whats wrong with this?
You want to talk prices against ATI pricing vs ATI instead of nVidia vs ATI, where youll see nVidia charging waaaaay too much monies. You ignore the perf in DX11 games and my link, yet you say DX11 costs too much perf.
Look into my link, read it and understand what youre saying is not right. Look up pricing on a 285, youll see nVidia charging more for it than a better performing 5850.
I dont need to defend facts, I love em
m
0
l
March 1, 2010 3:59:23 PM

5870 runs about the same speed as 4870x2, but the 5870 uses dramatically less power and the DX11 features make it look better for the same performance, assuming you got a decent game.
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
March 1, 2010 4:39:41 PM

JAYDEEJOHN said:
This is the kettle calling the pot here. Whats the price of nVidias single fastest card? Nuff said, its more than that 5850 too high priced better running cooler running more featured less power needed. So whos pricing is high?
Read my link, youll see that in DX11 games, the 5xxx series does get double perf over the 4xxx series, and the 5870 gets double over the 4890, so, whats wrong with this?
You want to talk prices against ATI pricing vs ATI instead of nVidia vs ATI, where youll see nVidia charging waaaaay too much monies. You ignore the perf in DX11 games and my link, yet you say DX11 costs too much perf.
Look into my link, read it and understand what youre saying is not right. Look up pricing on a 285, youll see nVidia charging more for it than a better performing 5850.
I dont need to defend facts, I love em


I would hope a DX11 card does better then a DX10 card in DX11 games...[speaking of which, wheres the promised speed upgrade the DX11 API was supposed to give DX10 level cards? Oh right, that never happened...as predicted...].

And again, you're taking a handful of games, instead of an aggregate. On average, a 5850 offers about a +20% [at best] performance to a 4890, at a $200 price increase. Heck, for the same price as a single 5850, you can CF two 4890's and get better performance overall while saving $50 in the process. Basically, I'm using the same argument ATI used against NVIDIA against the 5000 series. :D 

And again, I worry a lot about the hits these cards are taking in DX11 mode, in both AvP and Dirt2. If the cards are too weak for DX11, their only advantage gets thrown out the window.
m
0
l
March 1, 2010 8:23:17 PM

That $50 you save is paid off in under 1 year(260days at $0.10/KW) of that dual 4890 sitting idle because of the huge power draw of the 4XXX vs 5XXX series.

That $50 is paid off MUCH faster when you play games because now you're pulling about 2xs the energy which puts you closer to 1/2 year to pay off that $50 difference.

Now tack on AC. For every 1watt of heat your GPU puts out, you now need to use another 2watts(this is a modest assumption) to remove it. Unless you feel like playing in a sauna mid summer, that ~150watt difference now turned into a 450watt difference. Pay that card off in under a year easily.

DX11 may not run "faster" but that's because they add more special effects and make it look better. If they game doesn't look much better, that's because it's a crappy game(engine wise).
m
0
l
March 2, 2010 3:22:47 PM

Quote:
IMO DX 10 is a big fail


DX10 may have had a better chance if it wasn't coupled with the sinking ship that no one wanted to get on....what was it called....oh yeah...the SS Vista.
m
0
l
a c 272 U Graphics card
March 2, 2010 7:26:45 PM

SpinachEater said:
DX10 may have had a better chance if it wasn't coupled with the sinking ship that no one wanted to get on....what was it called....oh yeah...the SS Vista.

Amen to to that.
m
0
l
!