DX11

[Lonyo]

Originally posted by: Qbah
It's all about the fine details now imo. Graphics "in general" are great now (obviously still not life-like... well, except for pimped up Crysis ), it's just the small things that you notice that spoil it. Tessellation will help solve some of that

Tessellation will also potentially free up computational resources to spend elsewhere.
If you need to render x polygons normally, using most of the GPU power, imagine needing to render only 0.8*x polygons for the same visual quality, therefore freeing up maybe 20% of GPU resources to do other things.
No loss in quality (if you are on the side of graphics are "good enough"), but gives you more GPU power to play with to either result in higher frame rates, or the opportunity to offload more computation to the GPU using OpenCL/DirectCompute.

 

[dguy6789]

Originally posted by: ja1484
snip

I'm sorry if you're unable to comprehend the visual impact that being able to have many many times the current polygon count in games without any performance hit at all will be. I didn't think I'd have to explain the significance of that to people.

 

[AbAbber2k]

I can't believe how dumb people are. This is a no-performance-hit IQ improvement. This means more objects with more detail on screen for less cost than with DX10. Just because you need to put glasses on to tell the difference between an octagon and a circle doesn't mean the rest of us can't immediately tell the difference. I've played Crysis maxed out and at low detail and the difference is staggering. Sure a big part of it is effects, but the difference simple from object and world detail is huge.

Yes, lets all scoff at progress because [insert anything] is good enough already! :roll:

Still, the most retarded comment on DX11 I've heard (elsewhere) was that it doesn't matter because consoles are stuck in DX9/10 so no one will code for 11 until the next gen systems. :roll: Ya, cause PC tech progress never pushed console tech did it?

 

[ja1484]

Originally posted by: dguy6789

I'm sorry if you're unable to comprehend the visual impact that being able to have many many times the current polygon count in games without any performance hit at all will be. I didn't think I'd have to explain the significance of that to people.

It'd be more accurate to say you didn't think you'd have to make up some significance to explain.

The bottom line is it isn't that different from current tech - at least, all the implementations so far.

Call me when someone does a better job.

 

[TheVrolok]

Originally posted by: ja1484
The bottom line is it isn't that different from current tech - at least, all the implementations so far.

Has it not already been spelled out? With DX11 we will have MANY more polygons for no additional performance hit. There is a positive identifiable numerical increase in image quality, with 0 increased performance hit. How is that not an improvement?

 

[Raduque]

Maybe now we can have guns with round barrels!

 

[zebrax2]

Originally posted by: ja1484

Originally posted by: dguy6789

I'm sorry if you're unable to comprehend the visual impact that being able to have many many times the current polygon count in games without any performance hit at all will be. I didn't think I'd have to explain the significance of that to people.

It'd be more accurate to say you didn't think you'd have to make up some significance to explain.

The bottom line is it isn't that different from current tech - at least, all the implementations so far.

Call me when someone does a better job.

Not all games are fast paced and in those games I'm pretty sure you'll be glad that there is tessellation.

 

[Scooby Doo]

Originally posted by: Raduque
Maybe now we can have guns with round barrels!

And round swords and crates too!

 

[Koudelka]

Originally posted by: ja1484

Originally posted by: Koudelka
Funny how DX10 is not even mainstream yet and still buggy as hell and theyre already talking about DX11.

How about they fix DX10 first?

Microsoft's new business model = if current gen sucks, just move on to next gen? They appeared to do the same thing with Vista/7.

Exactly. Vista/7 was the first thing to come to mind once i heard about it. Its mainly just surprising to see them skip DX10 like that. Remember how long DX8 and 9 were around for? DX10 barely saw the light of the day before DX11 is in the works now.

If DX11 is what DX10 should have been then by all means, thank goodness.

Originally posted by: AbAbber2k
I've played Crysis maxed out and at low detail and the difference is staggering.

Congratulations Captain Obvious.

 

[aka1nas]

Originally posted by: Koudelka

Originally posted by: ja1484

Originally posted by: Koudelka
Funny how DX10 is not even mainstream yet and still buggy as hell and theyre already talking about DX11.

How about they fix DX10 first?

Microsoft's new business model = if current gen sucks, just move on to next gen? They appeared to do the same thing with Vista/7.

Exactly. Vista/7 was the first thing to come to mind once i heard about it. Its mainly just surprising to see them skip DX10 like that. Remember how long DX8 and 9 were around for? DX10 barely saw the light of the day before DX11 is in the works now.

If DX11 is what DX10 should have been then by all means, thank goodness.

Originally posted by: AbAbber2k
I've played Crysis maxed out and at low detail and the difference is staggering.

Congratulations Captain Obvious.

They also made several revisions to Dx9 without changing the version number. Calling it Dx11 instead of Dx10.2 is as much marketing as anything else. Especially given that it's actually a superset.

It's also worth pointing out that we can get great detailed models in current Dx9 games, but the framerate craps out as soon as you have more than a handful on screen at a time. That was the main thing Dx10 and Dx11 are intended to fix.

 

[BenSkywalker]

I'm sorry if you're unable to comprehend the visual impact that being able to have many many times the current polygon count in games without any performance hit at all will be.

I don't know who started spreading this lie, but it is without a doubt just that, a lie.

Rendering polygons is not free. What tesselation allows is for the image to be rendered to a level of quality that takes into account the power of the graphics card. It is possible that this could be masked if say the board was fill limited, but in any situation where the shader cores are at their limit, increasing the amount of vertice data that needs to be handled it will reduce performance the more polys the image uses.

The thing DX11 will also bring is a standard that developers can use to run physics and ai through the direct compute shader, instead of having to use nvidia's cuda, and leave out support for ati-users.

This may be true for PC exclusives, but both PhysX and Havok already run on far more gaming systems then DirectX. It isn't likely devs are going to port over a game already running one of the other APIs to DirectX when they port it over from the console space.

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: Koudelka

Originally posted by: OVerLoRDI

Originally posted by: Koudelka
Funny how DX10 is not even mainstream yet and still buggy as hell and theyre already talking about DX11.

How about they fix DX10 first?

DX10 wasn't buggy, the reason it wasn't widely used is because a lot of people, myself included, tried Vista, found there was no reason to run it and switched back to XP thus keeping DX9 alive.

IMO I think one of the stupidest things Microsoft did in regards to PC gaming was to lock out XP users from DX10. If DX10 was allowed onto XP we would have seen a lot more games fully utilizing DX10, not just making a DX9 game and then for Vista people maybe throw in a few extra nothings. Windows 7 is basically going to be what Vista should have been and will finally cut the divide in the PC gaming world. XP is so old now and after 7 has been out for a while support for DX9 will start to disappear to be replaced with DX10/DX11 support only.

I think it will be a LONG time before DX9 is replaced.

As far as being buggy. Ok, maybe not buggy. But DX10 is absolute garbage.
When i switch in a game from DX9 to DX10, and there are no noticeable graphics improvements whatsoever and FPS suddenly takes a nosedive including massive mouse lag, etc.. there's something wrong.

And this happens in 75% of the few games that use DX10.

As stated above, the reason for DX10 not being the shiznit was the widespread avoidance of Vista. Why go all out to program for a DX iteration which only 25% of pc gamers (according to steam's latest survey) are even capable of using when DX9 is there for nearly the entire market? And remember, vista has been around for years now and still only 25% have Vista + dx10 card. Devs were correct in not allocating resources to flesh out DX10 in their code, it would have been a waste of time.

With W7 you will see widespread dx10 (and eventually 11) adoption.