Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Closed

DX11 vs DX9 in Dirt2

Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
a b U Graphics card
December 24, 2009 3:32:51 AM

Decided to put this here, as I'm more focusing on DX11 performance, and not the game itself.

http://www.hardocp.com/article/2009/12/23/dirt_2_gamepl...





Also interesing was that a 285 beat a 5870...But yeah, a best case of a ~40% loss in FPS is totally unacceptable. Either Dirt2's DX11 path was really poorly coded (which, considering it was added on after the fact, is a distinct posibility...), or DX11 is absurdly slower then DX9, and it should be noted that Dirt2 doesn't even use that much tesselation...

I'm getting REALLY interested to see other DX11 game benchmarks...

More about : dx11 dx9 dirt2

a c 169 U Graphics card
December 24, 2009 6:03:53 AM

Nice article,yes a noticeable performance hit from DX9 to DX11,but its the first DX11 game which is officially out,i hope new drivers/patches make things better
a c 216 U Graphics card
December 24, 2009 6:08:56 AM

My thoughts are why isn't this tested at 1080p or 1900x1200? Most people don't play at those extreme resolutions. If played at a normal resolution, you'd be getting at least 50+ fps, after which I'd take eye candy over more FPS any day.
Related resources
a c 169 U Graphics card
December 24, 2009 6:19:03 AM

Yes i would have liked other resolutions like 1920x1200 or lower too but HardOCP seems to love extreme resolutions for testing :D 
a b U Graphics card
December 24, 2009 6:51:03 AM

http://www.hardocp.com/article/2009/12/23/dirt_2_gamepl...
Interesting here, as the 5870 beats the 295 at 26x16 using DX11 while the 295 of course is DX9
By a good 10% as well, then the 5970 doesnt do any better, so theres obviously a scaling issue , drivers

Wait, I see now they were using edge detect on the 5970, thus the even fps
a b U Graphics card
December 24, 2009 7:03:33 AM

dx11 implementation brought the 5970 performance in half and in some tests made the 5870 unplayable.

The screenshots were blown up areas of the screen and the difference is not even measurable IMO
You have this game your going to play in dx9
a b U Graphics card
December 24, 2009 8:13:14 AM

did it look any better, from dx9 to dx11 without the use of magnifying glass? imo, we're seeing the same trend from dx9 to dx10.

i believe dx9 will survive another 2 years if we keep on seeing numbers like this.
a b U Graphics card
December 24, 2009 8:22:17 AM

This reminds me of Call of Juarez, one of the early DX10 tack-on games. Performance was utterly appalling.
a c 171 U Graphics card
December 24, 2009 9:22:41 AM

Didn't care of CoJ, was bond in blood any better?
a b U Graphics card
December 24, 2009 10:48:12 AM

^ it is. in a history channel kind of way.
a b U Graphics card
December 24, 2009 11:27:43 AM

Early stages tend to fall short of expectations. Give it another six months. But I will admit that there is barely, if any, noticeable difference between the two versions. Stick to DX9 for this game, definitely.
a c 216 U Graphics card
December 24, 2009 2:19:11 PM

I was reading a Battleforge comparison lastnight, which I can't find today, which compared DX9, DX10 and DX11. Battleforge did little to nothing to the visuals between the three titles.

DX10 beat DX9 by a fair margin with performance and DX11 beat DX10 by a fair margin.

Sadly I couldn't find the other comparison with all 3 directX comparisons, but I did find this, comparing just DX10 with DX11 on the game: http://www.driverheaven.net/articles.php?articleid=140&...
December 24, 2009 2:31:47 PM

Let's be honest... Dirt 2 ain't that great of a game. Hell, I'm having a hard time calling it a PC game when it won't let me use my mouse FOR ANYTHING! What the F?!? Considering its roots as a console game, I'm not surprised by the poor performance. At 1680 X 1050 my FPS drops below 60 fps routinely with all the eye candy turned up on my i5-750. Vsync seems to do weird stuff when you have it enabled and can't maintain that magic 60... at least that's been my observation.

I'm just glad it was free with my video card... there's no way I'd have bought this pile of rubbish. It is pretty though!
a c 147 U Graphics card
December 24, 2009 2:36:50 PM

Dirt2 in DX11 looks really pretty. The visuals are really nice I think. I wouldn't have bought the game, but it was FREE. It is a pain to play with a keyboard, so I bought a PS/PS2 controller to USB adapter, currently waiting for it to be delivered. We will see how that goes. Unless you have a gamepad or steering wheel this game is kind of frustrating to play.

If this is what I have to look forward to with DX11, bring it on.
a b U Graphics card
December 24, 2009 2:38:18 PM

If you like driving games, its actually pretty good. I use a xbox controller. Keeping the frame rates HIGH like over 70 gives much better feedback. As if your adjusting the steering multiple times in 1 second. Slower frame rates you have to adjust to what feels like oversteer, over compensation. dx9 with most settings down one notch from high at 1650 resolution. 2xaf or none.
To me it feels better or at least as good as NFS Shift. As far as arcade driving games go.
Driving view, view from front bumper / gives a few more fps and is fun. But I race same track different views to watch myself sometimes , rubbing, jumping , sliding. lol
a c 125 U Graphics card
December 24, 2009 3:08:24 PM

I think the game is great fun, but can be fustrating at times >.< To me it looks amazing even in DX9

Bystander's Link to the DX10 vs DX11 comparision is interesting as the performance increased in DX11 mode, but to be honest I can't see much difference visually between the two DX modes.
a b U Graphics card
December 24, 2009 4:01:58 PM

Thats because theres lil to no visual improvements, its mainly just the DX11 HW doing things easier in a DX11 enviro, or doing the same things, just easier
a c 147 U Graphics card
December 24, 2009 4:13:26 PM

^either way, it's still pretty.
a c 125 U Graphics card
December 24, 2009 4:57:01 PM

JAYDEEJOHN said:
Thats because theres lil to no visual improvements, its mainly just the DX11 HW doing things easier in a DX11 enviro, or doing the same things, just easier


If thats true, how is it that DX11 performance in Dirt 2 is terrible in comparision to DX9? Very confusing how 1 game see's a performance improvement and another game see's a performance decrease in DX11 mode.

Is Dirt 2 an example of performance to exspect from future DX11 games? I hope not.
a c 216 U Graphics card
December 24, 2009 4:57:04 PM

Rustyy117 said:

Bystander's Link to the DX10 vs DX11 comparision is interesting as the performance increased in DX11 mode, but to be honest I can't see much difference visually between the two DX modes.


There wasn't supposed to be visual improvements. They just took advantage of the improved performance of DX11, rather than add in new visuals.
a b U Graphics card
December 24, 2009 5:34:02 PM

I have a feeling its a learning curve somewhat.
The more we move away from fixed function HW, the better your SW has to be optimized.
So, yes, I see better perf coming in DX11, but we need to learn when to apply what, and by how much etc, considering your resouces etc
a c 228 U Graphics card
December 24, 2009 5:50:01 PM

To be incorporated fully into a game design, the earlier in the process the devs get to work with the technology, the more the features of that tech can be efficiently integrated. I don't think we can expect to be all that impressed by DX11 until devs have had the opportunity to start using it very early in the development process, and with a development time of two years at least for a really impressive game, I don't expect to be wow'ed until late summer 2011
a b U Graphics card
December 24, 2009 6:08:25 PM

Exactly, as it mleaves less to work with, even if you have more resources, and forcing a few good things can become costly as a later addition, as opposed from the ground up and thought out that way
a b U Graphics card
December 24, 2009 6:10:37 PM

Its like running wires in a house where the walls are sealed, and the plumbing and finish work is done completely
a b U Graphics card
December 24, 2009 6:18:17 PM

Dx11 introduces new ways to do things already done in dx9-10, while being prettier. The thing is just like with dx10 "grass" in a certain game, they used these dx11 elements on fringe aspects of the game, scenery. This way the core market of potential gamers who have dx9 cards isn't going to miss much. That article showed the water splashes processing was handled more by the gpu under dx11 than the cpu with dx9. Maybe someday that technique will be more efficient. It wasn't in this game.
a b U Graphics card
December 24, 2009 6:37:14 PM

Id just say, drivers make up for some of this, and in some cases, it can be alot, like 20% at times, not saying this will happen here, but its possible
a b U Graphics card
December 24, 2009 9:17:50 PM



What I see there is a game almost completely maxed out running almost perfectly.

Overclock that 5970 a little and it's running perfectly. 60fps minimum at max settings dx11 is much better than 100 fps max settings dx9.
a b U Graphics card
December 24, 2009 9:48:30 PM

Not sure what you mean? The 5970 clearly annihilates every other card in Crysis.
December 25, 2009 12:19:34 AM

We are talking about a... NATIVE DX9.0 title developed for the Xbox 360 and ported to the PC...

Go see Crysis videos of DX9 and DX10, the difference is huge... so will DX11 when a TRUE DX11 game show up.

You cannot expect miracles when devs are sticking to DX9 development because they are making xbox games. This farce will end up when the new consoles will be DX11 compatible.

Right now the only real DX10 game is Crysis and Crysis Warhead... Stalker too and maybe Cryostasis...
a b U Graphics card
December 25, 2009 12:31:15 AM

Wait for games based on CryENGINE 3?
I'm waiting for Crysis 2 to slaughter the current cards.
a b U Graphics card
December 25, 2009 3:11:59 AM

we can only hope that codemasters do a better job in their up and coming formula 1 game.

i wanna see a tessellated michael schumacher chin.
January 24, 2010 5:41:22 PM

bystander said:
My thoughts are why isn't this tested at 1080p or 1900x1200? Most people don't play at those extreme resolutions. If played at a normal resolution, you'd be getting at least 50+ fps, after which I'd take eye candy over more FPS any day.

2560x1600 is not extreme resolution :non: 

3840x2160 ultra high end
2560x1600 high end
1920x1200 mainstream
1680x1050 low end
1400x900 ultra low end
1280x720 mega ultra low end
January 24, 2010 9:01:06 PM

*shakes head* That 40% loss in FPS is ridiculous. If I ever play Dirt 2, I will make sure to turn off AA.
a b U Graphics card
January 24, 2010 9:25:32 PM

successful_troll said:
2560x1600 is not extreme resolution :non: 

3840x2160 ultra high end
2560x1600 high end
1920x1200 mainstream
1680x1050 low end
1400x900 ultra low end
1280x720 mega ultra low end


Maybe, based on a gamer's standpoint. Even so, no one ever thinks about going past 2560x1600 or all the online reviews will include them in benchmark testing. 1920x1200 is not mainstream. 22" monitors are clearly the mainstream product for monitors and the native resolution is 1680x1050. In no way is that low end. The next resolution that might become mainstream isn't even 1920x1200, it's 1920x1080.
a c 216 U Graphics card
January 24, 2010 9:39:08 PM

successful_troll said:
2560x1600 is not extreme resolution :non: 

3840x2160 ultra high end
2560x1600 high end
1920x1200 mainstream
1680x1050 low end
1400x900 ultra low end
1280x720 mega ultra low end


Interesting. How many people on this forum, which I'd put into the high end catagory of gamers, do you think use 2560x1600. How many do you think use 1920x1200? I bet the most popular res I see on here is 1680x1050 or 1920x1080.

I've seen maybe 3 people talk about using a 2560x1600 or higher on these forums.
January 24, 2010 11:25:03 PM

I never thought of 1600x900 as the low end, but there I am.
a b U Graphics card
January 25, 2010 12:56:43 PM

successful_troll said:
2560x1600 is not extreme resolution :non: 

3840x2160 ultra high end
2560x1600 high end
1920x1200 mainstream
1680x1050 low end
1400x900 ultra low end
1280x720 mega ultra low end


to him extreme resolution is 11520x4800 (6x4 of 1920x1200), this was done on a linux machine with 4 x 6 display port 5870
January 25, 2010 1:04:04 PM

The only difference that I saw between Dx9 & 11 was the mud splatter on the windscreen and a slight drop in performance when you drove through a puddle.
a b U Graphics card
January 25, 2010 3:52:38 PM

bystander said:
My thoughts are why isn't this tested at 1080p or 1900x1200? Most people don't play at those extreme resolutions. If played at a normal resolution, you'd be getting at least 50+ fps, after which I'd take eye candy over more FPS any day.


I agree, I play at 16x10 with everything maxed out including x16AA and still manage to get between 60-80FPS using a single 260 .......


a b U Graphics card
January 25, 2010 5:28:56 PM

i would have to say that 1680x1050 is the most common resolution (i don't have links, its just my opinion)

though don't be surprised when 16:9 resolutions are more common since the panels are cheaper to produce
a b U Graphics card
January 25, 2010 8:55:12 PM

Just a quick question, how do I switch to dx9? I'm running it in dx11 on a 5750 but I want more fps.
a b U Graphics card
January 25, 2010 9:02:20 PM

If you want DX9c you need will need to run XP/XP Pro.....
a b U Graphics card
January 25, 2010 9:05:04 PM

C:\Users\*** YOU ****\Documents\My Games\DiRT2\hardwaresettings\hardware_settings_config

EDIT
forcedx9="false"
change to true

Don't know for sure, I read this works, I dont' have dx11 card .
a b U Graphics card
January 25, 2010 9:44:42 PM

notty22 said:
C:\Users\*** YOU ****\Documents\My Games\DiRT2\hardwaresettings\hardware_settings_config

EDIT
forcedx9="false"
change to true

Don't know for sure, I read this works, I dont' have dx11 card .


So that works while running Win 7?
a b U Graphics card
January 25, 2010 11:40:19 PM

mindless728 said:
i would have to say that 1680x1050 is the most common resolution (i don't have links, its just my opinion)

though don't be surprised when 16:9 resolutions are more common since the panels are cheaper to produce

According to the steam hardware survey, 1280x1024 edges out 1680x1050 by about 1%, with both having around 20% of the resolution "market," far more than all the other resolutions. 16:9 panels are becoming (unfortunately) more common in the low-end TN panel market, but the high-end LCD market is still mainly 16:10.
January 26, 2010 8:33:08 AM

i didnt even know there was a 3840x2160 :) 
a b U Graphics card
January 26, 2010 10:00:45 AM

There's higher than that.
January 26, 2010 10:36:56 AM

according to benchmarks lets just wait for aliens vs predators to see if dirt2 or dx11 is full of sh*t.right?
!