DX11 to show up soon? - page 2

76 answers Last reply
  1. SS, I understand, and I agree to a large part, for me this is more of an easy, fun and visual way for ATi to show this power which wouldn't mean much on it's own to even 50+% of the tech media at those events.

    To me the GPU is essentially a bunch of co-processors in that scenario, but you still have to make sure that everything else runs smoothly alongside. The main thing would be to improve FPS, but too often people reach too far with new toys. Same thing currently plagues game physics more worried about humungous explosions and rag doll physics than more subtle things (like bullet drop).

    I'll reserve judgement until I see what they do with it, but I agree that I hope it's not wasted. I used to used to deal with soe customers using GPU-accerlation for geo apps, and it is great what you can do with them, but of course a product doesn't sell unless it shows benefit, it doesn't matter if it's cool under the hood if it doesn't produce results.
  2. Andraxxus said:
    What if Nvidia has got something up its sleeve that's going to make us fall flat (flat broke that is)?
    ...


    nV couldn't buy AMD in it's heyday, not even close, so there rest of that theoretical piece while titillating doesn't get much credence.

    The rumours are great, just as good as the original Intel buying ATi rumour that started it all and got AMD thinking.

    It's also a little late for nV to buy, AMD stock is up Q over Q and nVidia's cash is down 300Million QoQ, so if they do buy now they basically cost themselves 1.5+ billion more at a time when nV's losing money and have been recently. To just acquire and X86 license, they would be just as likely to be given a go-ahead by intel by acquiring VIA, because that license doesn't transfer with purchase by another company and hoping you can leverage X-86 into a concession is wishful thinking for a $4-5 billion gamble.

    Anywhoo, not really the place for this discussion, go to CPU section if you want to talk about that pipe-dream.
  3. gamerk316 said:
    What bothers me, is that Tesseleation should be immediatly obvious if used. And their tesselation demo ran at 14FPS...

    I think DX11 might be another incremental update to DX9...



    How is that possible when DX10 was a huge break? I might be convinced to buy a "incremental update to DX10.x" story, but on the face of it, your statement strikes me as being quite off base. Can you provide justification/backup from 3rd parties?


    Here's a recent blog from AMD regarding the benefits:
    http://blogs.amd.com/play/2009/06/02/why-we-should-get-excited-about-directx-11/
  4. http://www.tweaktown.com/news/13065/battlefield_s_frostbite_engine_ported_to_dx11/index.html

    Battlefield’s Frostbite Engine ported to DX11

    Quote:
    The current version supports up to DX10 and can be run on the XboX 360, PC, and PS3. The new version will have support for DX10.1 and DX11.

    The main feature they are interested in is the highly parallel workings of the engine. It is capable of running two to eight threads. This is perfect for the i7 and represents a real multi-core advancement over past games.

    The actual port of the game was not that difficult as it reportedly only took three hours to complete. You can now add Battlefield to the list of coming DX11 games. This shows a much faster adoption than DX10 did when it was at the same place.


    So much for "wait until 2012 and then you might see DirectX 11".
  5. ^^ I never said that, I said there wouldn't be widespread adopton. Even in the best of times, it takes one year for new DX versions to take off, and when you consider the glut of DX10 hardware, Windows XP, I see around an 18 month period before DX11 becomes standard.

    Again, not to say nothing will use DX11, I just don't see it taking off.
  6. ^^ Sure; I believe most of what you said makes perfect sense. I wasn't targeting a specific somebody with those comments. It's just that the general feeling on these forums is one of "developers just care about consoles, no new GPU or DirectX version will have any real impact before next gen consoles, DirectX 11 will be DirectX 10 all over again".

    There are some really good things coming to us with this release - and I believe that, this time, they will be implemented and successful.
  7. DX10 isnt even standard in the gaming industry yet. Are there any "native DX10" games? As far as I know every game running AND currently in development is written in DX9 for the extremely large Windows XP OS market and DX10 frills are added on for the much smaller vista/win7 market.

    The need to replace hundreds of millions of XP computers is a show stopper for DX11 being standard (same as it has been for DX10). DX11 is not an earth-shattering technology that will rapidly change anything unless it actually runs on the PCs that currently exist. Since that means it has to run on Windows XP, it cant possibly become a standard quickly. My money is on the "DX10 all over again" being accurate.
  8. Quote:
    DX10 isnt even standard in the gaming industry yet. Are there any "native DX10" games? As far as I know every game running AND currently in development is written in DX9 for the extremely large Windows XP OS market and DX10 frills are added on for the much smaller vista/win7 market.

    The need to replace hundreds of millions of XP computers is a show stopper for DX11 being standard (same as it has been for DX10). DX11 is not an earth-shattering technology that will rapidly change anything unless it actually runs on the PCs that currently exist. Since that means it has to run on Windows XP, it cant possibly become a standard quickly. My money is on the "DX10 all over again" being accurate.


    Actually DX11 will bring some great new features and should increase performance over DX9/10 in a few ways. Also with Windows 7 coming out there isn't even the irrational fears of Vista to keep people with XP, if you can buy a DX11 card you should have Windows 7 because it simply is better than XP. DX11 will be a slow adaptation, but the benefits will be felt almost immediately so it shouldn't be as difficult a standard as DX10.
  9. I totally agree with Raven on this, people need to stop living in the past with this negative attitude towards the advances offered by W7 and DX11.
    It dosent matter a fig what the main coding standard is. W7 has run every game i tried both in DX10 and in DX9 smoother and faster than XP does. So if you want a new PC there is totally no reason not to get W7 as there is no performance loss compared to XP as there was with Vista when launched.
    We don't know yet but if things are as the rumours are saying then the new cards DX11 or not will be the best cards available and so the uptake should be faster than DX10 by some way judging by the pre sales figures of W7.
    Even if you dont want a new PC the performance increase i have seen in W7 is worth a GPU upgrade on its own. Add in the improvements that will be seen by the majority of cards out now when DX11 is added and its a no brainer.

    Mactronix
  10. Quote:
    DX10 isnt even standard in the gaming industry yet. Are there any "native DX10" games? As far as I know every game running AND currently in development is written in DX9 for the extremely large Windows XP OS market and DX10 frills are added on for the much smaller vista/win7 market.

    The need to replace hundreds of millions of XP computers is a show stopper for DX11 being standard (same as it has been for DX10). DX11 is not an earth-shattering technology that will rapidly change anything unless it actually runs on the PCs that currently exist. Since that means it has to run on Windows XP, it cant possibly become a standard quickly. My money is on the "DX10 all over again" being accurate.


    Stormrise, from Sega, is a DX10-only title. Pretty decent game. There are some others too, although the number is fairly small as of now.

    Also, just because something is backwards compatible with DX9 it doesn't mean it won't see any advantages/optimizations with DX10/11. There are many games that currently run better in DX10/10.1 mode, but I don't have the time to look out for the reviews right now.

    The DX11 situation is completely different from that of DX10, though. DX10 was a Vista-only feature - and we all know the public reception of that OS. To add insult to injury, it came with a whole new driver model that, although arguably superior and needed, provided much trouble with regards to drivers and so on. Vista was bad-mouthed by most of the major companies even on its launch.

    Windows 7 is for sure the most hyped - and decent - release to come out from Redmond in many years. The public generally loved the Beta and RC - including many XP fans - and are willing to switch. This even includes the business guys.

    Most features from DX11 can have a pretty decent impact - performance-wise - even on current DX10/10.1 cards - although not on DX9 ones -, since DX11 is a DX10 superset. What is the percentage of "mid-range" gamers who don't have something equal or superior than a 8800GT? Most gamers will see and feel the benefits.

    Also, don't forget the influence that Nvidia have on game developers. They are heavily talking DX11 and Compute Shader - and their latest Beta driver already supports the feature on current DX10 cards, to some extent. ATI/AMD are also ready for their Radeon 5-series' launch, with great expectation from everyone.
  11. After rereading this entire thread, I find it interesting whats transpired. Rumors on perf havnt changed. Release dates were pretty accurate. At the time, the lack of knowledge about DX11, and how and what would be using it and its actual uses were not hugely understood, and some people are still crapping about moving forwards heheh.
    Im really looking forwards to DX11, W7 and the new cards, now, if only someone could help me with making my ATI card work with my nVidia card to play physx in Batman Id be totally happy heheh
  12. Got to say JD i really am not impressed with the effects in the Batman demo. Even if i could run full speed with it on i dont think i would bother.

    Mactronix
  13. Problem is, because its a limited base, much moreso than say, xp to DX10+ is, physx wont ever truly take off, and become a game changer.
    Im not saying they cant do more with it, but the devs simply wont do more, til theres a wider user base, and these actions prevent that from ever happening
  14. mactronix said:
    I totally agree with Raven on this, people need to stop living in the past with this negative attitude towards the advances offered by W7 and DX11.
    The problem isnt the technology. Win7 and DX11 could be the greatest advance in computers since the silicon transistor and it wouldnt matter. They still have the same insurmountable logistical problem as Vista/DX10. There is not enough already existing hardware for the kind of rapid infiltration as we saw with Windows XP.

    When windows XP was released, about 75% of the already existing PCs could install it without hardware upgrades. For Vista and now Win7 that number is closer to 25%. With the current bad economy there wont be any rush to upgrade or replace the working XP boxes, even for an obvious technology improvement. The current computing environment and economy just don't support a rosy picture for explosive growth of W7/DX11.

    I think its much more likely W7 gets a slow start like vista (though without the negative publicity) and we wont see many mainstream games offering even DX11 tweeks for a couple years.
  15. Wasn't W7 supposed to be way lighter than vista, like around XP?
  16. OK, back when the economy was much better, Vista failed to sell. Compare that with the numbers weve seen for W7s preorders. Totally stomping Vista, even in the poor economy. Those are just the facts.
    Im not basing anything unpon personal opinion, Im just going by whats known. My gut feeling is, alot of people are finding xp as being old, and want something new. In 3 months time, xps demographics will have totally changed, then come here and say it isnt so. W7s impact is already being felt, and it isnt for sale yet. 3,omths from now, we will know how its going to go, and thats about when the first DX11 games arrive
  17. Well personally i cant understand how anyone who has used XP and W7 back to back to play games wouldn't be chomping at the bit to get W7

    @ DNDHATCHER

    I think you have this back to front personally, "There is not enough already existing hardware for the kind of rapid infiltration as we saw with Windows XP." That was the issue with vista and its the reason W7 will be better. I am interested to know where you got your numbers from.

    Mactronix
  18. I should always bookmark links for this sort of thing. :( back to google again... :sarcastic:

    current percentages: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OS_market_share
    yeah its a wiki, but other articles support it being fairly accurate and its well documented where they got ther numbers from.

    here is one article about most PCs unready to upgrade to vista. its only talking about workplace being 80%, the more general number in another article was about 75%. http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/07/04/03/nearly_80_of_business_pcs_ill_equipped_for_vista_upgrade.html

    There are plenty of articles you can google, but there are so many vista technical problems posted its hard to sift through (like those horrible commercials).

    I have not seen W7s requirements. Are they less than Vista? Ive never seen a newer OS have lower reqs than its predecessor (at least since CP/M) so I assumedwithout looking that W7 needs the same or more RAM/HDD/CPU as Vista. Doesnt help that the minimum reqs for vista are complete BS. You need a dual core CPU and 2 GB Ram to do anything more than boot Vista and use notepad.

    The situation for W7 is both better and worse. There is a higher percent of computers ready to install W7 (the 15% that are currently running vista and most of the gaming XP boxes can probably switch) but there is also alot less discretionary money in consumers and business hands to spend on unnecessary upgrades.
  19. Quote:
    I should always bookmark links for this sort of thing. :( back to google again... :sarcastic:

    current percentages: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OS_market_share
    yeah its a wiki, but other articles support it being fairly accurate and its well documented where they got ther numbers from.

    here is one article about most PCs unready to upgrade to vista. its only talking about workplace being 80%, the more general number in another article was about 75%. http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/07/04/03/nearly_80_of_business_pcs_ill_equipped_for_vista_upgrade.html

    There are plenty of articles you can google, but there are so many vista technical problems posted its hard to sift through (like those horrible commercials).

    I have not seen W7s requirements. Are they less than Vista? Ive never seen a newer OS have lower reqs than its predecessor (at least since CP/M) so I assumedwithout looking that W7 needs the same or more RAM/HDD/CPU as Vista. Doesnt help that the minimum reqs for vista are complete BS. You need a dual core CPU and 2 GB Ram to do anything more than boot Vista and use notepad.

    The situation for W7 is both better and worse. There is a higher percent of computers ready to install W7 (the 15% that are currently running vista and most of the gaming XP boxes can probably switch) but there is also alot less discretionary money in consumers and business hands to spend on unnecessary upgrades.


    I'd be more impressed with your wiki link (and the underlying links) if they gave the average HW capabilities of all of those PC's, and I won't take any information from appleinsider without enough salt to kill a horse...

    It would be interesting to see, from a reputable site, what the latest guestimate on the average HW really is. Personally, I think that the reason for the large base of XP in that wiki blog is more the reluctance of people to change than the lack of hardware to allow it to happen. Businesses, I can understand. Re-writing code needs to be costed, and right now many businesses are reluctant to spend OPEX to do so. However, of it can be included as part of a large CAPEX program, I am seeing more businesses that are willing to do so.
  20. Which again flies in the face of the facts. Facts are, the uptake of W7 is huge compared to Vista. Find those links, as to your other links, which I read when they came out, that was then, before the prepurchase numbers, and has little to do with gaming, and steam has everything to do with gaming, and is a much more accurate scenario for gaming, gamers and devs alike.
    But, with 1 huge difference, its not polls to the future, its current usage
    http://forums.support.roxio.com/lofiversion/index.php/t53808.html
    http://www.sitepoint.com/blogs/2009/07/17/windows-7-sold-out/
    http://www.tek-tips.com/viewthread.cfm?qid=1561549&page=1
    http://club.cdfreaks.com/f58/windows-7-pre-order-offer-278073/index3.html
    http://www.227volts.com/?p=930
    http://windows7forums.com/windows-7-discussion/9086-who-has-purchased-pre-order-copy-windows-7-a.html
    I could obtain more links as to the selling out of the W7 pre orders, but I think everyone gets the point
  21. TheGreatGrapeApe said:
    No not really. Think of Tesselation taking a standard 70,000 plygon model running at 2-3 FPS, and instead turning that into a 5,000 plygon tesselated model that looks the same which runs @ 14fps, it's a massive improvement, but you wouldn't SEE a difference in a screenshot, and wouldn't know 14fps is 'good'.

    If tesselation works properly you shouldn't be able to tell the difference between a hi-poly model and a low poly tesselated model, so a still wouldn't tell you much, and fps alone wouldn't either, unless, like I said you had another card running DX9/10/10.1 beside it to compare.

    One thing is for sure, it's far from an incremental update from DX9, it's long since been a complete split as to how things are done, both from a threading, memory and feature perspective.

    But also like I said, you can make DX8.1 look just like something rendered in DX11 in a still shot (same with software/CPU render can look like a DX11 output), the tough thing is to make them similar in full motion video.



    Thank god someone finally said it. People on every forum I have been on that have seen sceenshots are going off about it not looking any better and that tessellations is a joke. The whole point of it is is to look the same while running better, smoother, and faster on the same hardware.

    Like ape said, it is like you go from 2 to 14 without losing any details by freeing up more horse power.
  22. JAYDEEJOHN said:
    Facts are, the uptake of W7 is huge compared to Vista.

    I certainly hope you are right but I wont get my hopes up until the first quarter sales are released. If the pre-release uptake of is just the vista market desparate to get to better OS and sales fade off afterward, that wont be enough. I believe the massive debt and credit problems of the economy are going to preclude W7s growth matching the initial hype. It always comes down to money.

    DX11 software development should lag behind but follow W7 sales. Even if half the world buys windows 7 the first week, it will take at least 6 months to a year before developers can release game clients that take advantage of it.

    Thats why my prediction is that it will take all of 2010 to gain market share and 2011 is when we will see the first DX11 game clients and 2012 before its common to have a DX11 client option. Its going to be hell for developers maintaining DX9, 10 and 11 clients at the same time. I also predict in 2012 that point there will be new GPUs that are 4 times as fast at the same price point (faster if Nvidia is correct http://www.tomshardware.com/news/Nvidia-GPU-Huang-570x,8544.html) and people will be asking if they should run out and buy the first DX12 card when it releases.
  23. I believe its a mix, that as xp fades, and DX10/11 cards are previlent , and devs close in on the window of the new consoles, theyll be taking shows at DX11.
    Its good for trends, as well as future dev.
    What I mean is, just how good will that new DX10/11 engine be? Just like the 4770, its good to get at least the toes wet before you jump in, and currently, weve only seen a few daring to, but under this idea, therell be many more to follow, and sooner than people think
  24. Also, I dont cater to the idea of JENSON, period. Hes more whack than fact, more PR than real, and his company uses too much viral PR for my liking.
    This could all be some higher call to wait for G300 as well, and thats just stupid.
    Im aware there are stall tactics being put in place, and wont go further on this subject, unless its warranted
  25. darkvine said:
    Thank god someone finally said it. People on every forum I have been on that have seen sceenshots are going off about it not looking any better and that tessellations is a joke. The whole point of it is is to look the same while running better, smoother, and faster on the same hardware.

    Like ape said, it is like you go from 2 to 14 without losing any details by freeing up more horse power.

    It depends, as it can be used in some instances as pure eye candy, but yes, he is TGGA after all heheh
    One thing I find interesting, is the amount of people genuinely disheartened by Vista/DX10.
    I think in some instances, therwes more to it than that. Since when has future proofing been a bad idea? If these new cards kill any game out there, then why not get one? And yet, we see people misrepresenting tessellation, the OS' and their uptake as it refers to gaming alone, not other numbers, which isnt where , say, a devs customer base is.
    I say, let them all have our old junk, as we buy our new stuff heheh j/k
  26. 'Anonymous' arguments to me sound like the same ting that was said about XP and DX9 with the loss of Win98SE and DX7 & DX8, did that stop the purchase of Radeon 9700/9500/9600 cards? :heink:

    And to me anyone who doesn't understand how OS adoption #s mean LESS THAN ZERO regarding this topic needs to simply leave the discussion because they're wasting our time focusing on an over-inflated # that includes millions of business desktops and laptops whose only exposure to games is minesweeper, solitaire and hearts. :pfff:

    If anything the link provided as some indication of the lack of a focus on Vista should carry more weight in that it'sabout 5 times the adoption rate as Mac OSX and the game companies make big title games for that 'minority', and it's a FAR harder thing to do than the minor tweaks to add either XP, or DX11 support. Just plain stupid to even start down that road even if we were to go on adoption rates alone, and not think that the VISTA #s are likely a higher percentage of gamers with modern cards that run BOTH OSes because they don't care about other people's opinions or worries, they just want to play their games at the best possible settings.

    And of those not ready to upgrade to VISTA, who cares, they're not gaming rigs, it would be like having a discussion about the lack of any need to updated CS4 because 90 of computers couldn't effectively use all its features either. We're not focusing on the lowest common denominator, and the fact remains, coding for Vista + Win7 + Dx9/10/10.1/11 is still less wasted effort than coding a new cutting edge game for only XP and DX9.

    You can argue all you want about adoption rates, but that would be like telling me game developers shouldn't bother using large textures and anything graphical intensive because the majority of PCs out there use intel GMA chipsets so therefore you're cutting off the majority of the public. Just as specious and pointless a statement. [:thegreatgrapeape:5]

    Anywhoo, perhaps the name comes up differently to you guys, but 'anonymous' seems to be using alot of the same old tired arguments as GK316..... hmmmmm...... :whistle:
  27. I tried to explain one of the points you made here (in a different thread) TGGA but couldn't quite manage it.

    People who own xp might make up 50% of the market still, but tbh they barely count in terms of gaming. Most of them are using XP on 5 year old pc's, of course they don't need dx11 etc. They also don't count.
Ask a new question

Read More

Graphics Cards Graphics Product