Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Closed

DX9c vs DX10 vs DX10.1 vs DX11!!!!!

Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
a b U Graphics card
October 28, 2010 10:38:59 PM

Which one has what features which is better? (obviously DX11 but still a caparison is what I seek!)

More about : dx9c dx10 dx10 dx11

October 28, 2010 10:51:17 PM

DX9 is still the best per performance and per age of API per the effects used in the game.
Score
0
a b U Graphics card
October 29, 2010 2:47:05 AM

try google or wikipedia.

Each version of the API is built on the last. so each is better than the last. if you want an in depth analysis of what is added, there are plenty of pages on the web that hold that info.
Score
0
Related resources
Can't find your answer ? Ask !
a c 363 U Graphics card
October 29, 2010 4:38:06 AM

I am still satisfied with how DX9 looks. I'm still using Win XP.
Score
0
a c 217 U Graphics card
October 29, 2010 6:22:51 AM

HansVonOhain said:
DX9 is still the best per performance and per age of API per the effects used in the game.


You may be over simplifying or are just plan wrong.

DX10 is better performing than DX9 when performing the same actions. However, DX10 offers new visual improvement features, but the enhanced visuals come at a performance price.

The same goes for DX11. It has improved performance over DX10 and DX9, but also has new visual enhancements availible, that when used, has a performance hit.

You might consider DX9 to be the best visual to performance ratio, but that may only be due to having older hardware. If you had a 5970 or 480, you'd get the same 60FPS with a DX9 title or with a newer, better visually pleasing DX11 game. Unless you have monitor beyond 60hz, you see 60 FPS at most regardless of how high FRAPS measures.

For 20 years, the industry has improved the gaming engines visuals at the cost of performance. If we didn't, we'd be wasting a lot of power that the GPU can offer. Who needs 3000 FPS, when your monitor can only display 60 and would you really find 300 FPS to be more enjoyable than 60 FPS with better visual quality?
Score
0

Best solution

a c 376 U Graphics card
October 29, 2010 6:25:44 AM
Share
October 29, 2010 6:57:16 AM

DX9 is still the most used and is still looking good! Dont see many games with DX10 now tho.

I just see DX9 games with added DX11 features, such as F1 2010.
Score
0
a b U Graphics card
October 29, 2010 7:34:29 AM

Quote:
I just see DX9 games with added DX11 features


We have consoles to thank for that.
Score
0
a b U Graphics card
October 29, 2010 8:36:55 AM

welshmousepk said:
Quote:
I just see DX9 games with added DX11 features


We have consoles to thank for that.


Of all the things that may hold back graphical enhancements in PC gaming, consoles are the biggest.
Score
0
a c 147 U Graphics card
October 29, 2010 9:19:12 AM

welshmousepk said:
Quote:
I just see DX9 games with added DX11 features


We have consoles to thank for that.


nicely said :) 

for most recent games even midrange GPU like 5770 or GTX460 able to max out the detail without having much performance impact even at 1980x1080/1200. honestly i don't like the idea dev skipping dx10 when releasing games for pc. i know it might easier for the dev just to focus on few things but i think it was not fare for those folks with powerful or multiple dx10 card in their system :p 
Score
0
a b U Graphics card
October 29, 2010 9:29:45 AM

I've just sold my main gaming rig, as i was never using it anymore.

My 'HTPC' with is athlon II 635 and 5770, maxes out all my games at 1920x1080.

and i blame the consoles. and the general ignorance of the consumer that it takes thousands of dollars every few months to keep a gaming PC up to standard.
Score
0
October 29, 2010 11:28:42 AM

welshmousepk said:
Quote:
I just see DX9 games with added DX11 features


We have consoles to thank for that.




The only reason i've held on to my PS3 for so long is because of Force Unleashed 2, and since Force Unleashed 2 was such a big disappointment I think I may be selling my PS3 and just stick to the good old mouse and keyboard!!!!
Score
0
a b U Graphics card
October 29, 2010 11:55:42 AM

Quote:
We have consoles to thank for that.


Please, just stop it. Other then the fact DX isn't even used on consoles, most console titles are actually developed on the PC. Nevermind that the majority of the time, the PC varients are designed in parallel.

Graphically, nothing significant was added to the DX10 API; most of the enhancements went toward re-working parts of the API to exist with the new display driver model. DX11 added Tesselation and yet another new shader model, but due to Tesselations performance hit, you don't see it on a large scale.

Again, Rasterization is maxed out; we aren't getting new graphical effects out of it anymore. At this point, it makes more sense to move to Ray Tracing if we want real performance improvements.
Score
0
a c 376 U Graphics card
October 29, 2010 9:31:08 PM

gamerk316 said:
Quote:
We have consoles to thank for that.

Please, just stop it. Other then the fact DX isn't even used on consoles, most console titles are actually developed on the PC. Nevermind that the majority of the time, the PC varients are designed in parallel.

The consoles are built on graphic processors that aren't able to use DX10/11 features so it amounts to the same thing. Also the target platform is what matters, not the development platform. I suspect you knew both of these things already so I'm not sure why you would purposely ignore them to make such a misleading statement.
It goes beyond DX version anyway. The games are built with the processing power of the consoles in mind which is a much more limiting factor and the reason why the best looking game is a pc exclusive that is about to hit its third birthday.
Score
0
a b U Graphics card
October 29, 2010 9:37:46 PM

i thought the xbox uses directx thats why its easier to develop on. according to wikipedia it was originally named the directx box.
Score
0
a b U Graphics card
October 29, 2010 9:48:40 PM

The consoles are built on graphic processors that aren't able to use DX10/11 features so it amounts to the same thing. [b said:
Also the target platform is what matters, not the development platform.]The consoles are built on graphic processors that aren't able to use DX10/11 features so it amounts to the same thing. Also the target platform is what matters, not the development platform.
[/b]

correct, so how can consoles have a say, if game A's target platform is the PC which majority, anno 2009 onwards, can run dx10 minimum?

consoles weren't holding the pc back in anyway, it was windows xp the past 3 years.
Score
0
a c 376 U Graphics card
October 29, 2010 9:54:32 PM

wh3resmycar said:
consoles weren't holding the pc back in anyway

They obviously weren't holding back pc exclusive games in any way. That is a very different statement than the one you made above which is simply wrong and ignores the second paragraph of my post entirely.
Score
0
a b U Graphics card
October 29, 2010 10:07:04 PM

jyjjy said:
The consoles are built on graphic processors that aren't able to use DX10/11 features so it amounts to the same thing. Also the target platform is what matters, not the development platform. I suspect you knew both of these things already so I'm not sure why you would purposely ignore them to make such a misleading statement.
It goes beyond DX version anyway. The games are built with the processing power of the consoles in mind which is a much more limiting factor and the reason why the best looking game is a pc exclusive that is about to hit its third birthday.

TY
Score
0
a c 272 U Graphics card
October 29, 2010 10:25:18 PM

Why is this bloke from AMD saying that the Xbox uses a DX10 capable GPU then? :heink: 
Quote:
Vijay Sharma: Even before Vista we had WQHL-certification. So our driver is in great shape. And the other point is we are actually on our second generation of DX10.

PCGH: You're talking about Xbox360-GPU...

Vijay Sharma: Yes, Xbox360 was our first generation and we're on our second generation and you can see our lead in the drivers. This isn't the first time we're doing this. We have a lead, we have established technology, so we're very confident.


Source.
Score
0
a b U Graphics card
October 29, 2010 10:28:54 PM

jyjjy said:
They obviously weren't holding back pc exclusive games in any way. That is a very different statement than the one you made above which is simply wrong and ignores the second paragraph of my post entirely.


you mean this?

It goes beyond DX version anyway. The games are built with the processing power of the consoles in mind which is a much more limiting factor and the reason why the best looking game is a pc exclusive that is about to hit its third birthday. said:
It goes beyond DX version anyway. The games are built with the processing power of the consoles in mind which is a much more limiting factor and the reason why the best looking game is a pc exclusive that is about to hit its third birthday.



i'm trying to look at it on a programming point of view,

since console code is vastly different from pc code as well as the hardware that it'll run on, any limitation on the processing power of consoles is out of the picture if you're programming on the pc.

the same way my work-flow would be vastly different if i'm programming a payroll system using ms-access as oppose to sql-express.
Score
0
a b U Graphics card
October 29, 2010 11:45:38 PM

No, all it means is the window or scope of abilities
You cant expect 300 HP from a KIA, so you start and design from within less than that framework
I ask you this, what impact is igps going to have on consoles?
If every new igp/cpu/apu has greater ability than the xbox, do you think the console makers will just sit around?
Score
0
a b U Graphics card
October 29, 2010 11:48:16 PM

IMO, the igps have been the achilles heel for PC gaming, allowing consoles to have this lower ability, and is why we havnt seen a better model
The APU will change this, as, it isnt that for some magical reason therell be more gamers all the sudden, but all the sudden, all PCs will be able to game
Score
0
a c 376 U Graphics card
October 30, 2010 12:27:54 AM

wh3resmycar said:
i'm trying to look at it on a programming point of view,

since console code is vastly different from pc code as well as the hardware that it'll run on, any limitation on the processing power of consoles is out of the picture if you're programming on the pc.

the same way my work-flow would be vastly different if i'm programming a payroll system using ms-access as oppose to sql-express.

If you were designing payroll systems to run on an Amiga 500 it might be somewhat comparable but beyond that I don't see the relevance of this point of view to the design limitations faced by programmers of current multi-platform games.
Score
0
a b U Graphics card
October 30, 2010 9:47:09 AM

did any1 end up creating a dx10 hack for windows xp?
Score
0
a c 363 U Graphics card
October 30, 2010 10:04:32 AM

infernox_01 said:
did any1 end up creating a dx10 hack for windows xp?



Nope.
Score
0
a b U Graphics card
October 30, 2010 1:30:54 PM

If you were designing payroll systems to run on an Amiga 500 it might be somewhat comparable but beyond that I don't see the relevance of this point of view to the design limitations faced by programmers of current multi-platform games. said:
If you were designing payroll systems to run on an Amiga 500 it might be somewhat comparable but beyond that I don't see the relevance of this point of view to the design limitations faced by programmers of current multi-platform games.


although you havent mentioned it, i have a feeling you're talking about u3-engine based cross platform games.

console limitations has nothing to do with developing on the PC. practical applications support my pov while refuting yours. e.g. lp/lp2, dunia, ac, 4a's metro2033, etc.

and aren't you suprise that you can count dx10+ exclusive games on 1 hand (2 fingers if i'm not mistaken)?

it's the dx install base that's holding pcgamedev back wherein contemporary game engines still has to factor in dx9.

and for the dude that said something about ray-tracing, it takes a fermi card 5 hours to render a static ray-traced scene, we're like 10-20 years away from that kind of technology

Score
0
a b U Graphics card
October 30, 2010 1:37:47 PM

IMO, the igps have been the achilles heel for PC gaming, allowing consoles to have this lower ability, and is why we havnt seen a better model
The APU will change this, as, it isnt that for some magical reason therell be more gamers all the sudden, but all the sudden, [b said:
all PCs will be able to game]IMO, the igps have been the achilles heel for PC gaming, allowing consoles to have this lower ability, and is why we havnt seen a better model
The APU will change this, as, it isnt that for some magical reason therell be more gamers all the sudden, but all the sudden, all PCs will be able to game
[/b]

so that every dude inside his office cubicle can play crysis? i'd like to see his face once he get's maximum-terminated if he do so.

you see, majority of the igp's end up in the office space, whether or not it can game is irrelevant.
Score
0
a b U Graphics card
October 30, 2010 1:47:02 PM

No, all PCs will be able to game
The majority of PCs are Intel , which hasnt had this ability
Not any more

You claim none of this will effect anything, as if igps doing what consoles can do means nothing
You also say, games done for PC as a totally differing matter, but again, the user base has just been increased by orders of magnitude, and home users, mobile users etc, not business, tho they too will have this capacity

So, if the consoles are content to sit back, and watch this huge potential user base sweep over them, without any response, Id think any dev will recognize this, and know a larger user base is available to them, especially with Intel in the game, or will they ignore Intel as well?

PS People with the "its mostly business PCs" attitudes never thought Intel would make such an igp either, and so far, theres been no explanation, without effecting the gaming issue in a positve way, which is a negative towards consoles
Score
0
a b U Graphics card
October 30, 2010 2:10:25 PM

To this answer of consoles directing the gaming dev, I can go bacj to my posts 2 years ago where wed see whats about to happen soon
There were naysayers, people claiming it isnt needed, as most PCs are in businesses etc, and Intel simply had no incentive to venture in this direction
Also, at the time, igps were basically crap, tho ATI/AMD had different thoughts, and so did Intel as well, as we again see today
Again, if the console makers choose to sit this out, with no greater response, theyll certainly lose marketshare, and since margins arent driven exclusixely on the sales of consoles themselves, but games and other approaches, this will effect the dev/console relationship, as the PC has these new capabilities, and in numbers devs cant ignore
Now, saying whether its for PC or console may become a mute point, and what I mean is ability, not strict coding
Parts for 1 car dont usually fit in anothers brand, no brainer there
But perf is where they all truly compete, and the devs follow the money
The PC user will increase in great numbers, so dont be surprised if either the console makers move sooner rather than later to a better product, and or, devs start making ports to consoles from PC games in greater numbers, which again will cost console makers more monies, as theyll simply have a larger , equally if not moreso performing competitor against them
It could become a, who needs a console world, if the consoles dont pick it up, or, they start promoting something greater than these igps cant do, like DX11, better gfx etc, which in the end, plays into the hands of discrete cards as well
Score
0
a b U Graphics card
October 30, 2010 5:33:39 PM

i was surprised when i found out the computers in my university use the i5-6xx processor in their computers, so i could see it happening.
Score
0
a b U Graphics card
November 12, 2010 3:55:42 PM

Best answer selected by whooleo.
Score
0
a c 169 U Graphics card
November 12, 2010 4:09:50 PM

This topic has been closed by Maziar
Score
0
!