Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

4890 scores up to 15 percent better with DX10.1

Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
April 8, 2009 9:34:53 AM

http://www.fudzilla.com/index.php?option=com_content&ta...

Quote:
XFX is bundling Tom Clancy's H.A.W.X game with its HD 4890 cards, and this game is one of the big titles that feature support for DirectX 10.1.

Sanjin was kind enough to include this game in many benchmarks he run and he found out that XFX 4890 with DirectX 10.1 enabled scores a lot of frames than without it.

At 2560x1600, without DirectX 10.1 the card scores 45 FPS. With DirectX 10.1 the same card at the same resolution scores 51FPS.

At 1920x1200 without AA and without DirectX 10.1 it scores 62FPS while with DirectX 10.1 enabled the same game scores 70 FPS. The same resolution but with AA and without DirectX 10.1 XFX scores 48 FPS while with DirectX 10.1 enabled it scores whopping 57 FPS. We are talking about 10 to 15 percent difference which is a lot.

With Nvidia cards, none of which have support for DirectX 10.1 there is no option to turn this feature on in the game. It took ATI long enough but at least with this title they made a huge difference with its ability to support DirectX 10.1



well we start to see some DX10.1 benchmarks and nvidia are fcuked
April 8, 2009 10:34:37 AM

Yeah DX10.1 might hurt them a bit in the coming year, many titles are rumored to be DX10.1.
April 8, 2009 10:38:56 AM

I highly doubt nvidia is fu**ed.

By the time 10.1 is utilized by more or most developers the d3d11 cards will be released by both nvidia and ati.
April 8, 2009 10:42:06 AM

well most of the games coming out at the moment are utilising it and 10.1 could give ATI's cards an extra boost so they can beat nvidia's line.
April 8, 2009 11:00:45 AM

^^COULD AND IS
April 8, 2009 11:04:41 AM

Another proof how nVidia is selfish and doesnt care. By not implementing DX10.1, MOST of the game developers doesnt bother to put it in their games because of compatibility issues. No body is bothering if only half or 1/3 of the gamers will have that feature.

If nVidia had included 10.1 then now would have been much more games with DX10.1 support, I can guarantee you. Its just nVidia's greed that prevented them.
a b U Graphics card
April 8, 2009 11:41:24 AM

I think its more laziness on their part. Look at how long they sat on the 8800 series milking it.

And I think its also no different than when ATI decided to do SM 2.0b instead of SM 3.0
for its X800 series.

Sure Nvidia has had "several" new lines since it was introduced, but they were mostly re-brandings with little work done to them. And yes they could have added support for it with G92 and G200, but we go back to laziness or at least an unwillingness to spend the money needed to do it.
a b U Graphics card
April 8, 2009 1:28:12 PM

So im assuming that when dx11 comes out ati previous 3-4 series of cards will have a good advantage over nvidia's because of supporting dx10.1. Next thing you you no the 4870 surpasses the gtx285.
April 8, 2009 5:17:17 PM

and the 3850 will have its way with the 8800gt, harder HARDER HARDER
April 8, 2009 5:33:33 PM

Quote:
After the H.A.W.X. article, we had to dig a bit deeper to find that H.A.W.X is just one of three games that ATI wants to market as a DirectX 10.1 title. All three games should benefit from DirectX 10.1 and two out of three are already a part of Top 20 UK PC games chart.

As we already wrote, you can get up to a 15 percent performance boost with DirectX 10.1 in H.A.W.X. and according to the video at Youtube, you can get up to 30 percent in some titles, for example Stormrise and Battleforge. This video is done by ATI so take that 30 percent claim with a grain of salt, as they claim higher gains in H.A.W.X than those which we got during our testing. In any case, even if the gain is not 30, but rather 15 percent, it's still a great result and a great win for ATI.

Two out of three ATI DirectX 10.1 loving games are already a part of Top 20 UK PC games chart. Tom Clancy's H.A.W.X. is currently fifth while Battleforge has the 20th position and is yet to show its potential.

We couldn't see any graphics improvement on that video, but the performance gain is measured with FRAPS so we guess that ATI HD 3000 and 4000 series are really faster in those titles. Maybe we will see the start of The Way Its Meant To Be Gained thing from AMD now.


http://www.fudzilla.com/index.php?option=com_content&ta...
a b U Graphics card
April 8, 2009 5:46:16 PM

Problem is, its been over 2 years, and nVidias done nothing. The real original DX10 had DX10.1 included, but nVidia HW at the time didnt do it. The jumped the gun and "created" their DX10 cards with the G80, which was obviously incapable of doing the full DX10. That was Nov 06, Vista launched, what, 1 07? We could all have better gaming experience, or higher fps if nVidia had decided to change their HW. At any time this could have happened over the 2+ years, but nVidia declined.
To me it isnt your favorite color or brand of gfx card we should cling to, but more a desire for the best gaming experience we can have, but nVidia has denied us alot of that. It was their concious decision to do what they did, now its starting to bite em where its meant to be played
a b U Graphics card
April 8, 2009 5:47:30 PM

Anyone wanna buy my 2 gtx 260?!
=D
April 8, 2009 6:32:31 PM

Lol *the way its ment to be gained * im personally looking forward to this gains maybe i dont have to upgrade my 4830 any time soon.
a b U Graphics card
April 8, 2009 6:43:41 PM

Heres the problem nVidia faces. Most new games made from here on will do DX10.1 or DX11. All the current nVidia cards will suffer from this 15% loss in all those games. Itll vary from game to game, but Ive seen more than 15% and a lil less, but its a good average, and may get higher as time goes by. Now, try telling your customers you need to buy a new card to get these fps increases, or, keep pushing physx, nVidia has put their customers up against it once again, tho if youre currently happy, who cares, until these changes take shape
a b U Graphics card
April 8, 2009 7:46:27 PM

Heres my reasoning. DX10 took forever because we saw a new OS needed for it. That OS (Vista) suffered from driver support, just as every (as in, not concurrent but every other, skipping in between) other M$ OS has, because of changes requiring new drivers. Those drivers are done, or the SW has caught up with the OS, and with the intro of W7, whichll be totally complint with Vista drivers, its all set to go. Remember, the biggest driver problem for Vista was nVidias driver problems.
So, we have a new OS, but no new need for new drivers. The current W7 beta drivers from ATI are doing better on W7 than on Vista in some games already.
Now, transcend that to the devs. DX11 is a superset of DX10, so again, same things happening. XP is losing traction in the OS wars big time, and W7 will hasten it, or as SS said, snowball effect all the way down the line
a b U Graphics card
April 8, 2009 7:49:10 PM

People who refused to move to Vista and stayed on XP systems (DX9) should be paying attention to this... Windows 7 is on it's way, and it's looking more and more like the time to finally upgrade from XP is coming.

My question is, will the current generation of cards be DX11 capable/compatible, slightly future-proof even? If not, what's the point in buying any of them at present, especially the expensive ones, if we'll need to replace them in about a year or so?
a b U Graphics card
April 8, 2009 7:54:31 PM

Thats really what this threads about. Having DX10.1 gives some of the performance effects we will see on DX11 also, which current ATI cards can and will ,using DX11 have/do. nVidia, by not supporting DX10.1 wont see these fps improvements with their cards, since theyre not DX10.1 compliant, and also wont be seen on DX11 as well
April 8, 2009 8:09:24 PM

Why won't they be seen in the DX 11?

If I read right, DX 11, will include all features, and have extras. Backwards compatibility or w.e.

DX 10.1 is just a slight bump above DX 10, which can be beneficial in some cases, but Hawx is the first game we're seeing that, has some very large number differences. Though I would've liked to see what the 285 GTX could do with its higher Vram.

And I think there is a way of emulating DX 10.1 as shown in FC2.
a b U Graphics card
April 8, 2009 8:13:23 PM

DX11 compliant cards will. I think you misread my intentions. Current nVidia cards wont. It was a response to this
"My question is, will the current generation of cards be DX11 capable/compatible, slightly future-proof even? If not, what's the point in buying any of them at present, especially the expensive ones, if we'll need to replace them in about a year or so? "
The FC2 emulation isnt the better fps part, more the functional part, which is another part of DX10.1, which is also in ATI cards, but nVidias dont include the free 4AA , and isnt fully DX10.1 compliant.
As for the 285, itll never match the 4890 with DX10.1 enabled, its too slow without it
a b U Graphics card
April 8, 2009 8:27:33 PM

jaydee, based on what you've said about the problem with Vista DX10 drivers in the past from nVIDIA and what you're saying now about problems with them performing in DX11, isn't nVIDIA essentially recycling the same old bag of tricks? With nVIDIA having the greater GPU market share, why would developers move to DX11 if the majority of cards out there can't even use it?

Seems like nVIDIA's been asleep at the wheel, but do to their size and market share, developers are more keen to sleep beside them in order to sell their titles than they are to leave them behind and look for new bedfellows in AMD/ATI and DX10.1 and DX11.
April 8, 2009 8:28:33 PM

mayb I miss read you, but the line was looking at was:

"nVidia, by not supporting DX10.1 wont see these fps improvements with their cards, since theyre not DX10.1 compliant, and also wont be seen on DX11 as well"

Lets hope we see these coming, this is the first game, that actually got a benefit. So I want to see more.

I think p/p wise ATI won again, offerin ga longer lasting card.

I still think DX 11 will be alot better than 10 and 10.1 ever were, if the articles I read are true:D 
a b U Graphics card
April 8, 2009 8:40:02 PM

RazberyBandit said:
jaydee, based on what you've said about the problem with Vista DX10 drivers in the past from nVIDIA and what you're saying now about problems with them performing in DX11, isn't nVIDIA essentially recycling the same old bag of tricks? With nVIDIA having the greater GPU market share, why would developers move to DX11 if the majority of cards out there can't even use it?

Seems like nVIDIA's been asleep at the wheel, but do to their size and market share, developers are more keen to sleep beside them in order to sell their titles than they are to leave them behind and look for new bedfellows in AMD/ATI and DX10.1 and DX11.

That cards already been played. Its been almost a year with DX10.1 games out, or since the first sp1 for Vista. With a brand new OS on the horizon, one which wont have those driver probs etc is just another nugde forwards.
Besides, whats not been mentioned here is Intels entry into the gpu market. And yes, theyll do DX10.1 when they make their first Larrabee, so nVidia wont have the clout they had, ever again,period
a b U Graphics card
April 8, 2009 8:44:52 PM

I wouldnt be surprised if TWIMTBP team will go the way of the dinosaur, as with Intels entry, the combining of the way DX10 (supposedly) and DX11 is trying to push for a more uniformed delivery, those "special" TWIMTBP type scenarios will be fewer in number, and its another reason why I think nVidia is pushing its Physx so hard, to maintain that lead, or, exclusivity, but as for that, theres other options as well, which both ATI and Intel appear will be using
April 8, 2009 10:57:41 PM

ATI honestly has been pressing forward ever since there 3xxx series and Nvidia has been milking the 8xxx series for a while. ATI has an advantage for DX 11. not to mention they have HAVOK which Blizzard is suporting in there new games which will be huge win for ati.
April 8, 2009 11:09:01 PM

havok isn't demanding, its not a win or a lose. It just proves that PhysX is an overhyped peice of garbage.

And how is ATi having an advantage of DX 11 exactly?

Havok all together is alot more implemented than PhysX almost every wii, ps3 and 360 game uses havok, and same with PC.

PhsyX would be as rare as you see a Ferrari on street.
a b U Graphics card
April 8, 2009 11:28:16 PM

With their current cards, they will. Its possible we may see some DX11 chactaristics in DX10 cards, but only the top tier cards, tho thats only if it works, and if ATI/nVidia decide to implement the compute shaders on their high end products out now. Otherwise, Im thinking hes refering to DX10.1 in HW as seen in ATI cards
April 8, 2009 11:34:20 PM

It has an advantage for DX 10.1, It would be like saying Nvidia has an advantage with DX 10.1 since it has DX 10.

No, the new Gen cards, we'll see DX 11, I gaurantee it. Its been what almost 4 years by Q4 since Nvidia changed DXs. I doubt they will stay with 11.

Actually I can vouch for them that they will switch, especially with Windows 7 launch. Same goes with ATI.

If either company chooses to avoid DX 11, whether it adds something or not, is just idiotic.

We're talking about next gen, not these revisions:) 
April 8, 2009 11:49:51 PM

I meant DX 10.1; oops
a b U Graphics card
April 9, 2009 12:03:57 AM

@kelfen, yea I gotcha.
The new DX11 cards are projected Q4, early or late qtr, I dont know. Lotsa transitions here. New DX, which includes the tesselation unit, and possibly more important, new process, tho theres also speculation about that as well
a b U Graphics card
April 9, 2009 12:04:53 AM

ATI will almost certainly keep their DirectX advantage over to dx11. They work more closely with moneysoft on DirectX, something to do with M$ and Nvidia falling out a few years ago I think.

It should be remembered that Dx11 is coming around a lot faster than anyone thought. If Vista wasn't such a failure then we'd have had dx10 much longer probably.
April 9, 2009 12:08:32 AM

DX 10 was a failiure, only reason it might pick up is because of DX 10.1...but it might be too late for DX 10 by now.

Thank god DX 11 is backwords compatible with DX 10.1

Hopefully we'll see Free QSAA 16X atleast:D 
a b U Graphics card
April 9, 2009 12:10:58 AM

Dx10 is really nice, it just didn't get used by the games devs.

I play lotro on dx10 and my framerate drops by half, but it looks amazing - so much better than dx9 does. It would be great if codemasters did a dx10.1 patch for it.
April 9, 2009 12:18:03 AM

honestly I couldn't see a difference until like Hawx almost...god rays and over all shine

Nothing worth the 50% dip.

April 9, 2009 12:19:01 AM

DX10 is 95% worthless and 5% hype. It fails in every way possible. Not only are the visual differences not even noticable most of the time, but the performance hit sure as hell dosent make it worth the time. It pretty much did the exact opposite of everything MS said DX10 was going to do. It was a marketing tool, a ploy at best. Move some shadows from here to there, bump up spectacular lighting effects, and call it something special.
April 9, 2009 12:22:44 AM

You know what is kind of funny? I still can not figure out how to change Crysis to DX9 on Vista, though I haven't tried much because the game gets old after a little while. I do agree with you guys except for Far Cry 2, DX10 makes the day-night transitions a lot more fluid and realistic, but that is fairly minor.
a b U Graphics card
April 9, 2009 12:46:44 AM

Dx10 shows up mostly with water or heavily shadowed areas. It is a waste of time for the majority of people, but if you are already maxing out fps then it's really quite nice. The water reflections are great but you need a good gpu for it to be worthwhile.
a b U Graphics card
April 9, 2009 12:49:57 AM

The real question should be, what wouldve happened if there was the original DX10, and thats all we got?. Both nVidia nad ATI would be on DX10.1 by now, and wed be seeing those higher fps done in all supposed "DX10" games out now. Add 15% better fps on those hits we take by using DX10 on every game, and it then becomes a worth it scenario, just a thought
April 9, 2009 12:53:00 AM

nope, DX 10 is getting milked.

Not worth any of the frames lost...devil may cry 4...Crysis...Far Cry...lost planet...

Honestly when your playing through the game, and not stopping to admire the detail (which defies the point of the game)...I doubt you'll notice:) 

Only game you will is Hawx, or games with god rays:D 

Other than that...don't kid urself.

DX 10 = fail

Dx 10.1 (when actually used well) = actually useful... I don't use anything mroe than 4XAA anyways....so its good thing that its free.

DX 9 FTW.

a b U Graphics card
April 9, 2009 12:59:19 AM

My point is, the original DX10 was DX10.1. Then having the commpliant card and game we would see better fps, and there wouldnt be these supposedly DX10 games wwe have now. By omitting the DX10.1, and creating a whole new DX10 without the DX10.1 improvements, it braought on the , not worth the cost of DX10 thing. It wasnt the only reason as HW makers also didnt have their drivers ready for Vista, and its uptake was slow to say the least, which brought on non fully compliant DX10 (original) games that demanded more from our HW, on a OS no one had drivers for, and kept the dev in games towards DX10 way down
a b U Graphics card
April 9, 2009 1:02:54 AM

Not sure you quite get it liquid.

I play lotro a lot, which is almost a 3 year old game. I get 170fps on highest settings in most areas with dx9. Losing 100 fps is nothing and it actually looks better. It's one of those things that you have to see it for yourself and decide if it's worth it or not.

It's a little bonus for people with good graphics cards, a bit like PhysX is a bonus for people with Nvidias. Had I not had the option for dx10 I'd still think lotro looked and played great.
April 9, 2009 1:03:37 AM

The only problem with DX 10.1 is, maybe developers might choose not to go the extra meter to add it...I mean a very small share of the market uses DX 10.1 and it might not be worth it for them.

Honestly on my laptop, I almost never enable DX 10....except in games that don't demand it too much, lost planet, gears, Devil may Cry 4...etc (sometimes hawx).

@jenny, I'm not denying that, I'm just saying its implementation is 1% noticeable in most cases, pointless even if its playable or not. Something that isn't noticeable:p 

Like I said its always a bonus....but thats just it...a bonus.

And as much as I hate to admit it, PhysX itself is alot more noticeable than DX 10 in almost EVERY case.

Still doubt it will replace havok, but it makes a good toy.
a b U Graphics card
April 9, 2009 1:14:37 AM

I'm not sure about PhysX being more noticable tbh. PhysX can be made more noticable yes, if you create games around it like Mirrors edge. It's never a good idea to create a game around a gimmick, and yes dx10 and physx are gimmicks.

I wouldn't say either one was better than the other. Nvidia advertise physx a lot more but that doesn't really stop it being a gimmick. On the other hand, every games developer will have to move forward to dx10 eventually and that probably won't happen with physx.
April 9, 2009 1:21:39 AM

The difference is DX 10 is a feature implimented into every card...obviously it will move forward more.

we're not arguing that, we're arguing which 1 has more games with noticeable gameplay wise implementation.

Yes they are both gimmicks, but I'm arguing which can Actually be seen when playing and not stopping to admire it and look closely.

As for your game around a gimmick, trust me alot of games do it with both DX 10 and PhysX.

Mirror's edge for example doesn't need PhysX to be played. So I dunno where that comes from. I play with it off. Cryostasis as well. Both play very well and live up to their score even with it off:) 
a b U Graphics card
April 9, 2009 1:26:41 AM

dx10 can be seen, otherwise I wouldn't 'lose' 100fps just for some better shadows and nice reflections on water.

Does some nice cloth movement and shattering windows really count as something different?

Both are gimmicks in their own way but I don't know how physx is better. I certainly never noticed physx at all when i had my 9800gt.
April 9, 2009 1:27:12 AM

dx10.1 is supposed to be dx10 but nvidia had Microsoft change it, they must have gave nvidia plenty of time to make a dx10.1 card so why on earth come out with a card that wasn't to microsoft's original dx spec, i think maybe it has something to do with there different core/shader speeds, that maybe they couldn't make a card to the original dx spec and have different core/shader speeds, or why hasn't ATI done it, but its all in my head, obviously only nvidia knows
April 9, 2009 1:31:37 AM

Jenny your the only 1 notcing it man:) 

Only game I saw some MAJOR ground breaking thing is hawx. They did a damn good jobb with it.


And I'm sorry, cloth and Shattering glass is ALOT more in your face than darker shadows, and water effects that can't really be seen I'm sorry.

I'm not pushing either gimmick.

But your right about 1 thing, I can notice 1 thing, the 100 fps loss:) 

Thats actually the most noticeable thing about Both DX 10 and PhysX, but PHysX can be countered with a dedicate NV card or a NV card period.

DX 10, needs raw power.
April 9, 2009 1:34:01 AM

I agree with jenny, I notice DX10 every once and a while but it is never that large. What is twice as many cloth fibers on a shirt when you are blowing someone away with an RPG.
April 9, 2009 1:38:37 AM

Well its IMO.

Frankly I can do without both.
a b U Graphics card
April 9, 2009 1:44:28 AM

Having the dumbed down version of DX10 , we lose the fps gains we should see using it, as we see in DX10.1. Its not always 15%, or even limited to it, depends on the game. But saying its only costly because its been dumbed down because of nVida is ironic isnt it, while saying having physx on nVidia is great?
!