Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Noob with questions about DX10 and DX11

Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
August 26, 2009 6:45:29 PM

I'm a complete novice to computer gaming. I want to build a system, but have a few questions. If I build a rig using 1-2 DX10 video cards, will I be able to play future games that are compatible with DX11? Or should I wait and build a system when the DX11 cards come out? I'm not too worried about having the best visuals and frame rates, I just want to know if I'll be able to play the games. Thanks. Please keep in mind I'm a complete novice so be nice. ;-)
a c 355 U Graphics card
August 26, 2009 6:53:03 PM

DX 11 card will be officially announced on Sept 10th by ATI I believe. However, they may not be on sale until around Oct 22nd when Win7 is officially launched.

It will take a while for DX 10 to be phased out, my guess is probably 2011 - 2012. There are still games that supports DX 9. I think Oblivion was the first game to officially drop DX 8 support.
a b U Graphics card
August 26, 2009 7:40:39 PM

DX9 will be around for the next few years, simply because XP will be around for the next few years.

DX10 will remain around the next few years simply because everyone has a DX10 card these days.

You won't have to worry about any games only supporting DX11 for quite some time. You might lose some eye-candy, but thats about it.
Related resources
Can't find your answer ? Ask !
a c 130 U Graphics card
August 26, 2009 7:44:33 PM

td25er said:
I'm a complete novice to computer gaming. I want to build a system, but have a few questions. If I build a rig using 1-2 DX10 video cards, will I be able to play future games that are compatible with DX11? Or should I wait and build a system when the DX11 cards come out? I'm not too worried about having the best visuals and frame rates, I just want to know if I'll be able to play the games. Thanks. Please keep in mind I'm a complete novice so be nice. ;-)


Yes you will be fine playing the games DX11 will be backwards compatable with DX10 as far as compatibility to play the games goes, you may find down the road that the DX11 cards do something you want as well but by then they will probably have better cards out again. If your not that bothered about visuals or frame rates go right ahead and build :) 

Mactronix
August 26, 2009 8:20:54 PM

Thanks for the replies!!
a b U Graphics card
August 26, 2009 8:25:17 PM

Like Mactronix said you will still be able to play the DX11 games you just won't get everything it has to offer you.

You can wait if you really want to but if you you don't care to much then just go ahead and buy now. But also keep in mind prices will drop on DX10 cards once DX11 cards come out.
a b U Graphics card
August 26, 2009 8:28:33 PM

Not all games will have backwards compatibility. I have played games that say they require a certain version of DX. I wouldn't count on every game having backwards compatibility. If you can wait until the DX11 video cards come out I would do that. It is not that far off.
a b U Graphics card
August 26, 2009 8:38:26 PM

ahnilated said:
Not all games will have backwards compatibility. I have played games that say they require a certain version of DX. I wouldn't count on every game having backwards compatibility. If you can wait until the DX11 video cards come out I would do that. It is not that far off.


Dx11 is strictly a superset of Dx10. It will be 100% backwards compatable. Obviously a game coded for only DX11 would require dx11, that is not the same as the API being backwards compatable.
a b U Graphics card
August 26, 2009 9:08:49 PM

Not the tesselation, as it is a fixed function, requiring its own certain uhit, everything else, yes, but in lessor abilities for some
a b U Graphics card
August 26, 2009 9:21:56 PM

ahnilated said:
Not all games will have backwards compatibility. I have played games that say they require a certain version of DX. I wouldn't count on every game having backwards compatibility. If you can wait until the DX11 video cards come out I would do that. It is not that far off.


GT300 is half a year away... ='(

I guess I'll see what ATI has in store...
a b U Graphics card
August 27, 2009 11:54:49 AM

ahnilated said:
Not all games will have backwards compatibility. I have played games that say they require a certain version of DX. I wouldn't count on every game having backwards compatibility. If you can wait until the DX11 video cards come out I would do that. It is not that far off.


1: DX11 is a direct superset of 10/10.1, so any DX11 card can run DX10/10.1 out of the box without issue. And like always, previous modes will be fully supported.

2: Every game (except one) has been coded off of DX9 for a reason: Its the highest version XP can use, and around 40% of the market still uses XP. DX10 is just a layer on top of that, and DX11 will either be a second layer on top of that, or replace DX10. Regardless, DX9 will be usable for every game out there for at least the next 2 years (if not longer).

3: I still think DX11 will run into the same exact issue DX10 did. Really, I could care less how well 7 runs; If XP maintains >20% share, DX9 will be the dominant code path. Games will be based off DX9 until that situation changes.

I'm looking at price/performance for now; I'll switch if the card is worth the price, or when DX11 becomes standard. Until then, I'm quite happy with my 4890, as I can run everything (even Crysis) maxed at playable framerates.
a b U Graphics card
August 27, 2009 6:21:51 PM

Funny how those numbers keep changing to lower and lower..40% isnt dominant, 20% isnt even mentionable.
M$ worked with Intel to optimize W7 for its MT usage. Funny thing that. What about AMD? They too have 20% of the market? Do you think devs will be different? Especially when it possible AMD could actually gain more marketshare before the end of W7
a b U Graphics card
August 27, 2009 7:59:51 PM

gamerk316 said:
1: DX11 is a direct superset of 10/10.1, so any DX11 card can run
3: I still think DX11 will run into the same exact issue DX10 did. Really, I could care less how well 7 runs; If XP maintains >20% share, DX9 will be the dominant code path. Games will be based off DX9 until that situation changes.



The only two walls DX10 hit was that vista was crap. Now you will see a large jump in the number of people using it, as well as a strong graphics card showing to support it. The other wall DX10 hit was because devs have known for quiet same time that DX11 was coming and windows 7 as well. There was no point coding games for DX10 with that on the horizon.

While it will take a little while to kick in just do to the time it takes DX11 will take off much better and faster then 10/10.1.

20% share will not make DX9 dominant it will slowly kill it off. Out of 20% still using XP very few will be gamers, most will be people who aren't very tech savvy and don't want to switch because they know XP already.
a b U Graphics card
August 27, 2009 8:08:09 PM

darkvine said:
The only two walls DX10 hit was that vista was crap. Now you will see a large jump in the number of people using it, as well as a strong graphics card showing to support it. The other wall DX10 hit was because devs have known for quiet same time that DX11 was coming and windows 7 as well. There was no point coding games for DX10 with that on the horizon.

While it will take a little while to kick in just do to the time it takes DX11 will take off much better and faster then 10/10.1.

20% share will not make DX9 dominant it will slowly kill it off. Out of 20% still using XP very few will be gamers, most will be people who aren't very tech savvy and don't want to switch because they know XP already.


While I do think that dx11 will catch on faster than gamer thinks, you don't really think that devs delayed their own games in order to release on dx11 do you? There is one example of that, and the game is not out yet. It is utterly foolish to believe that "dx11" coming soon plays into the minds of devs at all. The make the game with the tools they have at the time, to delay a release by a year is rediculous and woudl lose many people thier jobs.. and cost millions of dollars to the studio. Only in the last couple of months would any DX11 coding have even started. Dirt2 will be released with some dx 11 features and was delayed a couple months because of it... but there is no way on earth dx 11 played any more of a roll in the failure of dx 10 at all. Of all of the games released.. as far as I know dirt was the only one delayed becsue of the upcoming api.

Dx10 failed because there was no market share for it, people are sheep when it came to "vista is bad," and all of the current consoles were dx9. If the superficial reasons people hated vists hold up noone will buy seven either. Additionally, dx9 will survive until the last 360 bites the dust.. not for a long time. XP is a small fraction of the dx9 share, the vast majority in the consoles.
a b U Graphics card
August 27, 2009 8:21:42 PM

daedalus685 said:
While I do think that dx11 will catch on faster than gamer thinks, you don't really think that devs delayed their own games in order to release on dx11 do you? There is one example of that, and the game is not out yet. It is utterly foolish to believe that "dx11" coming soon plays into the minds of devs at all. The make the game with the tools they have at the time, to delay a release by a year is rediculous and woudl lose many people thier jobs.. and cost millions of dollars to the studio. Only in the last couple of months would any DX11 coding have even started. Dirt2 will be released with some dx 11 features and was delayed a couple months because of it... but there is no way on earth dx 11 played any more of a roll in the failure of dx 10 at all. Of all of the games released.. as far as I know dirt was the only one delayed becsue of the upcoming api.

Dx10 failed because there was no market share for it, people are sheep when it came to "vista is bad," and all of the current consoles were dx9. If the superficial reasons people hated vists hold up noone will buy seven either. Additionally, dx9 will survive until the last 360 bites the dust.. not for a long time. XP is a small fraction of the dx9 share, the vast majority in the consoles.


I didn't say they delayed their games that would be stupid. I said they skipped DX10 in most games. There was no point even trying to do DX10, spending time and money on it if there was no shares so they didn't add it.

DX11 will likely be a different story and with Windows 7 so far getting nothing but praise from reviewers, and a very good word of mouth buzz, devs know that them releasing DX11 games is another push for people to change.
a c 130 U Graphics card
August 27, 2009 8:30:39 PM

Its funny how people see the whole vista is bad as a sheep thing, most everyone follows reviews and benchmarks when deciding if the latest thing is for them, As an OS Vista did its job but when it comes to gaming it was always on a hiding to nothing. The facts are that a vast majority of PC owners want to play games of some sort or another on it. When Vista was released it needed additional resources to run the games properly. it wasn't a conspiracy theory or anything, the reviewers reported what they found and they found a slower gaming experience than XP. In fact most systems around at the time would have needed the OS itself, more Ram and a DX10 GPU to get the most out of the OS. The fact that even then the games played slower than they did on XP and the lack of a killer DX10 exclusive game or two were what put a nail in Vista's coffin.
That's why its totally different this time around. W7 playes games better/faster/smoother than XP and DX11 will only increase the percentage.

Mactronix
a b U Graphics card
August 27, 2009 8:43:09 PM

mactronix said:
Its funny how people see the whole vista is bad as a sheep thing, most everyone follows reviews and benchmarks when deciding if the latest thing is for them, As an OS Vista did its job but when it comes to gaming it was always on a hiding to nothing. The facts are that a vast majority of PC owners want to play games of some sort or another on it. When Vista was released it needed additional resources to run the games properly. it wasn't a conspiracy theory or anything, the reviewers reported what they found and they found a slower gaming experience than XP. In fact most systems around at the time would have needed the OS itself, more Ram and a DX10 GPU to get the most out of the OS. The fact that even then the games played slower than they did on XP and the lack of a killer DX10 exclusive game or two were what put a nail in Vista's coffin.
That's why its totally different this time around. W7 playes games better/faster/smoother than XP and DX11 will only increase the percentage.

Mactronix


I don't mean to imply that using a review is a bad idea.. But iirc most people had issue with vista compatability and the look. The compatability of seven will be no better than vista is now, and it looks almost the same, yet even the superficial review sites seem to be raving about it. I suppose some of the issues was the required ram boost, but the wholse situation seem so blown out of proportion to me. Most of the "this OS is too slow" screams came from owners of store bought systems that packaged vista on a system with 512mb of ram. When it came out vendors didn't seem to care how it worked on low end boxes, and flooded the market with cheep laptops that had no business not runnign xp. The release would have been far smoother if the average joe understood minimum requirements, and if microsoft was willign to phase xp out at the time, isntead of trying to obliterate it and replace it.

I still come across a good number of people that hate vista, most cannot tell me why. Those are the "sheep" i was refering to, the ones that still keep vista share rather small.. not so much those who for whatever reason may have not switched during release.

I still am firm in my stance that it was not the fault of the OS that it requires a bit more RAM than XP. Though I do agree that the general public should have understood the requirements better before vista was shoved down their throats, albeit in disgrace.
a b U Graphics card
August 27, 2009 8:52:18 PM

darkvine said:
I didn't say they delayed their games that would be stupid. I said they skipped DX10 in most games. There was no point even trying to do DX10, spending time and money on it if there was no shares so they didn't add it.

DX11 will likely be a different story and with Windows 7 so far getting nothing but praise from reviewers, and a very good word of mouth buzz, devs know that them releasing DX11 games is another push for people to change.

Its easy for an XP user to say 7 is a good OS. Its an entirly different for that same user to shell out ~$200 to upgrade to the full version of that OS.

Devs could care less what OS people run; they just want the maximum amount of profit they can make off a product. Like every DX release, a few devs are trying to be first in order to get the "new DX Sales Boost", and then you get the lul of new titles.

Even DX9 took well over a year to become standard, and OS's as far back as 98 had 100% support! Thats the crux of my argument: It doesn't make economic sense to code for DX11, and will not until the hardware and software base catch up. Devs will wait for the people to switch, not the other way around.

Also BTW, the PS3 uses OpenGL, not directX, so please, enough of the "consoles use DX9" argument.

Finally, I don't see any improvment from Vista->7, just a simmilar look and a few backend changes. I for one have no itention to was $200 to upgrade to an OS that offers me nothing new.
a c 130 U Graphics card
August 27, 2009 9:04:16 PM

daedalus685 said:
I don't mean to imply that using a review is a bad idea.. But iirc most people had issue with vista compatability and the look. The compatability of seven will be no better than vista is now, and it looks almost the same, yet even the superficial review sites seem to be raving about it. I suppose some of the issues was the required ram boost, but the wholse situation seem so blown out of proportion to me. Most of the "this OS is too slow" screams came from owners of store bought systems that packaged vista on a system with 512mb of ram. When it came out vendors didn't seem to care how it worked on low end boxes, and flooded the market with cheep laptops that had no business not runnign xp. The release would have been far smoother if the average joe understood minimum requirements, and if microsoft was willign to phase xp out at the time, isntead of trying to obliterate it and replace it.

I still come across a good number of people that hate vista, most cannot tell me why. Those are the "sheep" i was refering to, the ones that still keep vista share rather small.. not so much those who for whatever reason may have not switched during release.

I still am firm in my stance that it was not the fault of the OS that it requires a bit more RAM than XP. Though I do agree that the general public should have understood the requirements better before vista was shoved down their throats, albeit in disgrace.



Totally agree not Vistas fault but some very sloppy implementation from lets face it people who should have known better.

Mactronix
a b U Graphics card
August 27, 2009 9:24:34 PM

Lots of claims being made, regardless of the numbers, regardless of the acceptence, regardless of progress.
Things are turning around economically, and thats the only thing slowing the Vista uptake, and having W7 so close, it really doesnt count at this point, as W7 will finally offer something new, something tried and true, and for anyone stuck on xp, nothing but blue heheh.
Progress is going to happen,even if the current belief is the world is flat.
a b U Graphics card
August 27, 2009 9:33:30 PM

gamerk316 said:
Its easy for an XP user to say 7 is a good OS. Its an entirly different for that same user to shell out ~$200 to upgrade to the full version of that OS.

Devs could care less what OS people run; they just want the maximum amount of profit they can make off a product. Like every DX release, a few devs are trying to be first in order to get the "new DX Sales Boost", and then you get the lul of new titles.

Even DX9 took well over a year to become standard, and OS's as far back as 98 had 100% support! Thats the crux of my argument: It doesn't make economic sense to code for DX11, and will not until the hardware and software base catch up. Devs will wait for the people to switch, not the other way around.

Also BTW, the PS3 uses OpenGL, not directX, so please, enough of the "consoles use DX9" argument.

Finally, I don't see any improvment from Vista->7, just a simmilar look and a few backend changes. I for one have no itention to was $200 to upgrade to an OS that offers me nothing new.



Devs care very much what OS people are using because they have to aim their sights at that OS for maxim profits. If everyone is using XP why make DX11 games? If everyone is using Windows 7 why not take advantage of it's features so that people are like "wow this is top of the line" to say a dev doesn't care what people want or are using is plain idiotic, that is a good way to lose money because your making games/apps that other people are making with features people want or down right demand.

As for this whole "Vista and 7 wil have the same comparability issues" people keep going off about I would like to point out that Windows 7 has a virtual PC that boots any program that isn't Vista/7 ready in XP. However as far as I know you can't use this with windows 7 home premium or whatever the lowest one is called but you can with all the others. Which is seriously stupid.

On top of that comparability issues are slowly going away over time as it becomes clear that 64 bit is where things are going weather we like it or not (personally I couldn't care less as long as the damn OS work.)
Anonymous
a b U Graphics card
August 27, 2009 10:13:11 PM

Where did the 20% using XP figure come from? The numbers I googled from July 2009 say its over 66% and vista is less than 15%. It will take 3-5 years to replace the bulk of those XP machines.

W7 has the same problem as Vista - it cant be installed as an upgrade on 75% of those XP machines because of hardware requirements. If there are not enough machines to make programming for it profitable, the bookkeepers wont let the developers develop for it. It just cant grow like we want it to because teh infrastructure isnt in place. Its going to take a slow 5 year buildup as XP machines are replaced with W7 PCs.
Anonymous
a b U Graphics card
August 28, 2009 5:59:04 AM

Just an FYI - this is the best documented OS breakdown I have found: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OS_market_share

That 20% before abandonment sounds about right. At that point the remaining XP machines will almost all be small business machines that dont do games. I still have a couple clients using DOS and windows 95 machines with 486 based Novell servers. Dang things wont die so they dont replace them.

I'll stand by my prediction of two years before game developers release more than a trickle of DX11 enhancements. Totally changing polygonal mapping means massive redevelopment for existing products which is not going to happen until there is a substantial W7 userbase badgering them. I dont see the economy allowing the necessary userbase to develop any faster than that. There are alot of profitable games never retrofitted for DX10 making. I doubt many developers will even risk retooling a game currently under development until its clear there will be a large DX11 audience waiting for them.
a b U Graphics card
August 28, 2009 6:27:37 AM

Link to steam, thats the best link as being it is about gaming, not overall usage, which has nothing to do in the influence of a dev needing to know its customer base
a b U Graphics card
August 28, 2009 6:33:39 AM

I would say 2 years sounds about right but once they come they will come in a flood. There are many things in DX11 that will actually make their lives a little bit easier.
a b U Graphics card
August 28, 2009 11:51:48 AM

JAYDEEJOHN said:
Lots of claims being made, regardless of the numbers, regardless of the acceptence, regardless of progress.
Things are turning around economically, and thats the only thing slowing the Vista uptake, and having W7 so close, it really doesnt count at this point, as W7 will finally offer something new, something tried and true, and for anyone stuck on xp, nothing but blue heheh.
Progress is going to happen,even if the current belief is the world is flat.


Tell me one thing in 7 that the general consumer would find "worth it" to spend ~$200 to upgrade? Thats the crux of the problem; for every previous version of Windows, there was reason to upgrade (Security or stability). But XP is considered good enough for most people. People liking 7 != people buying 7.

It takes a year (at least) for major software development, mainly because of the low initial hardware support. Even if XP could use DX11, there would still be a 1 year wait until DX11 becomes standard. Of course, since XP can't run 11, I'm projecting 18 months to 2 years instead. Thats all.
a c 130 U Graphics card
August 28, 2009 12:04:40 PM

gamerk316 said:
Tell me one thing in 7 that the general consumer would find "worth it" to spend ~$200 to upgrade? Thats the crux of the problem; for every previous version of Windows, there was reason to upgrade (Security or stability). But XP is considered good enough for most people. People liking 7 != people buying 7.

It takes a year (at least) for major software development, mainly because of the low initial hardware support. Even if XP could use DX11, there would still be a 1 year wait until DX11 becomes standard. Of course, since XP can't run 11, I'm projecting 18 months to 2 years instead. Thats all.



I really don't understand where you are coming from with this. Im in the UK and have ordered W7 for £50. So either you guys are getting royally screwed or you are talking about the top package which i don't see the average Joe needing.
Now from my price point that's half the price at least of a GPU or CPU upgrade. As i have said before i get similar (about 75%) of the increase in performance in games as i would expect to see from upgrading either when running W7. Now if thats not a "Worth it" reason to change from XP to W7 i dont know what is.
Yes Vista users really dont have a reason to change but as the basis of your argument is about getting shot of XP then Vista is not relevant . Also dont get caught up on the games needing to be here, DX11 as is will give boosts as well. If you are buying soon then there is no negative side to buying either W7 or a DX11 card. IMHO :) 

Mactronix
a b U Graphics card
August 28, 2009 12:30:02 PM

Itll take 2 years for most games, or all games. All this means is, the new dev of real DX10 engines. Theres a few already, and more to come. Each time 1 is done, the old DX9 engine go away.
You of course can and the devs most likely will still code in DX9, but theyll be using the newer engines, with DX11 coded in as well. Sure itll be expensive, but all this about OS this, and wait for that cause this is too expensive... you know whats really becoming expensive for devs, but theres lil mention of it? And most likely to just become more costly? The artwork. Devs have been outsourcing for awhile, but like all outsourced work, even it matures, and becomes more costly, and theres really no virgin territory if you will, to find cheap art work for games.
Some say OS, some say"we wont use any fixed HW solutions", some say "we wont use a physx solution", some say consoles, and no ones talking about the serious costs of artwork.
Id say this, it wont become cost effective soon going DX9, as those titles will be effected by these costs, and still show no future UNLESS its a patched from DX10 engine DOWN to DX9, and again, once the DX10 engines are done, its all over for real DX9
Theres many things that effect gaming costs, and the gaming market, and each segment, but to simply put it on xp or any OS just isnt even the primary reason for devs moving one way or the other.
If we all did nothing, and just kept our current cards and OS', then itd never get here

Someone needs to get more creative, find ways to block or stop pirating, and find a second market for older games, this would put an end to this crap.
Weve reached a point where older games have value, and resale, or even reprints could help sustain the devs thru licensing, where they wouldnt be so skittish about consoles, LRB, SW approach vs fixed function etc etc
This "we have to make all out money the first 60 days of release " crap has to end
My 2c
a b U Graphics card
August 28, 2009 6:04:35 PM

But again, it comes down to what percentage of the market has compatable HW/SW. Within the first 6 months, that number will be 10% (if that...), where the market for DX10 will be around 55% (assuming 10% of XP users flip AND have compatable hardware), and the market for DX9 will be >95%. Hence, the slow adoption rate, which is standard.

Also, where are people getting 75% increases in gaming performance under 7? I got MAYBE 2-3 FPS, if that (well within my margins, i typically ignore <5 FPS changes). Its about as fast as XP; why is that incentive for XP users to switch? Heck, even Vista is a good OS now; why should I switch from that?

I plan to switch next time I have to format my PC, not before. I figure that means 2-3 years. I have no interest in new software that offers 0% benifit. Its that simple for me.
a b U Graphics card
August 28, 2009 6:13:33 PM

It comes down to game engines, and devs wanting to use them.
Itd be suicide to wait any longer, as everything will be DX10 on up in 2 years
http://forum.beyond3d.com/showpost.php?p=1323210&postco...
"Porting from 10 to 11 is an easy job but with a simple port you only enable your game to use DX11 features. To get some benefits you need to use these features.

Porting from 9 to 11 is the same pain as 9 to 10. If you do it the naïve (fast) way you will end with the same bad performances we already know from bad 9 to 10 ports."
And more here

"DX 10 was designed in a way to reduce the CPU overhead per draw call. But this doesn’t help if the engine GPU abstraction layer was build for a DX9 like API. This way you end mapping a DX9 like interface to DX 10 and waste all the CPU power that you can win by using DX10.

You can even make bigger mistakes that would make DX10 slower then 9."
http://forum.beyond3d.com/showpost.php?p=1326798&postco...

Say what you will, its too late, xp is dying, and every DX10 engine made means its just that much closer, and using DX10/11 means familiarity and higher/better usage, and if they dont start now, its too late, and many already have
a c 271 U Graphics card
August 28, 2009 6:25:00 PM

XP may have a Rasputin like survival ability, but I have seen the future and it doesn't include XP, soon another stake shall pierce it's still beating heart.
!