How important is DX10.1?

[RussianSensation]

I was struggling with a decision to upgrade to GTX 275 or 4890 but eventually went with 4890 due to DX10.1. I realize that may be a moot point since DX11 is around the corner.

In this ATI promoted video (*bias alert*?) 4870 scores 21% faster in H.A.W.X. with DX10.1 vs. DX10. Guru3D got 17% boost in 1920x1200 in this game on 4890. However, NV still smoked ATI in H.A.W.X. despite DX10.1 improvements.

I also found this:

Stormrise DX10.1 1920x1200 4AA/16AF
GTX 295 = 45.9
4890 = 40.4
GTX 275 = 27.7

However, in Battleforge, Far Cry 2, Stalker: Clear Sky, DX10.1 didn't give ATI a win. So I am not sure what to think.

I remember GF3 and GF4 users had issues with BF2 since those cards only supported DX8.0 at the time, lacking PS1.4 capability (was this resolved?). I doubt the same situation will occur with DX10.1 though.

Anyways, do you guys think DX10.1 is a wash? Or are there any more benchmarks for recent games which show a significant boost from DX10.1?

 

[Pantlegz]

I think dx10 as a whole has been a wash, it took forever to get any titles out for it. While the list is longer today I don't think it's been used all that much or to it's potential with the exception of a few games, dx10.1 even less since nVidia has pretty much ignored it. I hope that dx11 will catch on faster and be used a lot more.

 

[EnzoLT]

think of directx 10 as an unfinished dx11. when dx11 comes out, you'll be able to enable some of the dx11 features since you have a dx10.1 card.

 

[kylebisme]

Yeah, in the future DX10.1 could come in handy more, but at the moment even standard DX10 is hardly useful.

 

[BFG10K]

Compared to DX9, uptake on supporting DX10 has been poor. This is largely in part due to the negative stigma attached to Vista. Windows 7/DX11 may turn things around for Microsoft.

 

[Mem]

Originally posted by: kylebisme
Yeah, in the future DX10.1 could come in handy more, but at the moment even standard DX10 is hardly useful.

I think its the game software companies that have been lazy to adopt DX10 etc..Vista has been out for over 2 years now not to meantion Win7 Retail around the corner,video hardware companies have done their part with plenty of DX10 cards around not to meantion DX11 cards around the corner ,so we can only hope they'll finally wake up and start making more DX10/11 games...end of the day they have the tools right now at least for DX10 so there's really no excuse.

 

[dguy6789]

It's not really important right now. It might never be. Although, back in the old days, direct X 8.0 vs 8.1 was debated similarly. Nobody would have thought that a game would come out that would not run at all on DX 8 cards but did only on DX 8.1 and above.(Battlefield 2) So people with Geforce 4 Ti or older cards could not run the game at all(even though they were fast enough to), even though people with slower Radeon 8500s and 9000s could.

 

[Fox5]

Originally posted by: dguy6789
It's not really important right now. It might never be. Although, back in the old days, direct X 8.0 vs 8.1 was debated similarly. Nobody would have thought that a game would come out that would not run at all on DX 8 cards but did only on DX 8.1 and above.(Battlefield 2) So people with Geforce 4 Ti or older cards could not run the game at all(even though they were fast enough to), even though people with slower Radeon 8500s and 9000s could.

Same thing happened with DirectX9.0a,b,c. I don't think any b exclusive games came out, but games came out that required c.

BTW, DirectX10.1 is sometimes used for quality improvements, like in Stalker or Burnout Paradise. (it might actually give both performance and quality in burnout)

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: RussianSensation
I was struggling with a decision to upgrade to GTX 275 or 4890 but eventually went with 4890 due to DX10.1.

that was a mistake to upgrade based on DX10.1
- i believe we told you so

i wonder how many people feel upgrading for PhyX thinks it was also a wash
. . . not as many is my guess

With the nextGen around the corner and IF you upgrade to them - then, looking back, neither are important ... but now i wonder what ATi has to offer now that they do not support PhysX
(as ATi cannot offer DX10.1 as anything at all anymore with DX11 cards)

 

[aka1nas]

Originally posted by: BFG10K
Compared to DX9, uptake on supporting DX10 has been poor. This is largely in part due to the negative stigma attached to Vista. Windows 7/DX11 may turn things around for Microsoft.

The Xbox 360 only being Dx9 is a large factor as well.

 

[DaveSimmons]

I have my gaming PC set up with both XP and Vista (I get MSDN for work, so Vista was "free" for $2,600/year).

So far I haven't bothered to install any games in the Vista boot, there haven't been any I've played that have better graphics in DX10.

Your mileage will vary depending on the games you play. There have been some where the DX9 path was gimped to make DX10 seem better than it is.

 

[RussianSensation]

Originally posted by: apoppin

that was a mistake to upgrade based on DX10.1
- i believe we told you so

i wonder how many people feel upgrading for PhyX thinks it was also a wash
. . . not as many is my guess

I will try to find more benches of DX10 vs. DX10.1 to investigate.

What about Assassin's Creed DX10.1 boost for ATI cards that was mysteriously removed? And why did NV introduce DX10.1 to their mobile parts if it is 'useless'?

================

There were other reasons why I chose 4890 over 275.

- The 4890 card cost $175 which was cheaper than GTX 275s I could find online;
- I wanted to try out ATI since I haven't touched them since Radeon 8500 days (had 6600 and 8800GTS 320 since then). Also, I have to admit that because of ATI this gen, NV had to lower prices. If the two were providing similar performance, I was biased towards an ATI card to help maintain competition (NV really pissed me off pricing their cards so high last time);
- Since I play occasional games at 1920x1080, the performance advantage of GTX series above 1920x1200 was less material to me;
- Considering Intel's dominance in the CPU market segment, I believe it will be a lot easier for me to sell the 4890 when the time comes as my guess is a lot more users can crossfire vs. those who can SLI;
- The ability to pass 7.1 sound over HDMI may be imporant selling point down the line for a specific buyer.


Why didn't I wait for DX 11 cards?
- Since I had a buyer for my NV card, I couldn't really wait for DX11 cards (which of course would have been preferable). I sold my 8800GTS for $65, so my net cost was $110, which I think is reasonable. I realize that 58xx at $199 (in 1-2 months?) will prob destroy this card. Still, getting near GTX 280 performance for $110 vs. $650 (the price it was released at last summer) is pretty good
- I think from now on I will upgrade at the end of a generation so I could upgrade on the cheap instead of dropping $300 on a card to see it drop to $100 in 12 months (I remember you always used to be a bargain hunter some time ago!! :laugh

EDIT: Found an article dated July 22 that hypothesizes ATI to release DX11 on September 10th <-- not sure how true this is

In regard to your point on PhysX:
- Imo for PhysX to be a selling point, physx should substantially improve the gaming experience to offset the loss of performance, which I haven't seen yet.

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: RussianSensation

Originally posted by: apoppin

that was a mistake to upgrade based on DX10.1
- i believe we told you so

i wonder how many people feel upgrading for PhyX thinks it was also a wash
. . . not as many is my guess

I will try to find more benches of DX10 vs. DX10.1 to investigate.

What about Assassin's Creed DX10.1 boost for ATI cards that was mysteriously removed? And why did NV introduce DX10.1 to their mobile parts if it is 'useless'?

================

There were other reasons why I chose 4890 over 275.

- The 4890 card cost $175 which was cheaper than GTX 275s I could find online;
- I wanted to try out ATI since I haven't touched them since Radeon 8500 days (had 6600 and 8800GTS 320 since then). Also, I have to admit that because of ATI this gen, NV had to lower prices. If the two were providing similar performance, I was biased towards an ATI card to help maintain competition (NV really pissed me off pricing their cards so high last time);
- Since I play occasional games at 1920x1080, the performance advantage of GTX series above 1920x1200 was less material to me;
- Considering Intel's dominance in the CPU market segment, I believe it will be a lot easier for me to sell the 4890 when the time comes as my guess is a lot more users can crossfire vs. those who can SLI;
- The ability to pass 7.1 sound over HDMI may be imporant selling point down the line for a specific buyer.


Why didn't I wait for DX 11 cards?
- Since I had a buyer for my NV card, I couldn't really wait for DX11 cards (which of course would have been preferable). I sold my 8800GTS for $65, so my net cost was $110, which I think is reasonable. I realize that 58xx at $199 (in 1-2 months?) will prob destroy this card. Still, getting near GTX 280 performance for $110 vs. $650 (the price it was released at last summer) is pretty good
- I think from now on I will upgrade at the end of a generation so I could upgrade on the cheap instead of dropping $300 on a card to see it drop to $100 in 12 months (I remember you always used to be a bargain hunter some time ago!! :laugh

EDIT: Found an article dated July 22 that hypothesizes ATI to release DX11 on September 10th <-- not sure how true this is

In regard to your point on PhysX:
- Imo for PhysX to be a selling point, physx should substantially improve the gaming experience to offset the loss of performance, which I haven't seen yet.

Well, starting with PhysX, you actually have to *try* it on a game or demo like Cryostasis
- it is kinda hard with 4890 series

secondly, i am *still* a bargain hunter; click my sig to see how much of one i still am with my AMD "value" PC :gift:

No idea about Ubi and removing DX10.1; it is a twiinmtbp game, right?



As to your personal choice, you said:

I was struggling with a decision to upgrade to GTX 275 or 4890 but eventually went with 4890 due to DX10.1

. . . that is what i was replying to

 

[Mem]

Originally posted by: aka1nas

Originally posted by: BFG10K
Compared to DX9, uptake on supporting DX10 has been poor. This is largely in part due to the negative stigma attached to Vista. Windows 7/DX11 may turn things around for Microsoft.

The Xbox 360 only being Dx9 is a large factor as well.

I can see that more of an issue then Vista(everybody blames Vista even for WW3 ) last couple of years we had so many console ports with no real imagination for the PC side,end of the day game software companies are to blame they have no excuse.

 

[Elfear]

Originally posted by: apoppin

With the nextGen around the corner and IF you upgrade to them - then, looking back, neither are important ... but now i wonder what ATi has to offer now that they do not support PhysX
(as ATi cannot offer DX10.1 as anything at all anymore with DX11 cards)

Uhh, bang for the buck??

 

[TurtleCrusher]

DX10.1 doesn't really do anything. Its just some feature Ati touts that is useless for over 99% of users. Just like nVidia with CUDA and Physx. Doesn't really mean anything and wont mean anything a few years from now.

 

[akugami]

The 4890 is not a bad card but buying it for DX 10.1 is not really smart. Granted in your case it was just another item in a checklist of why you went with the 4890.

I don't know if I'd get a DX11 card right away though. Remember that you still need games that support DX11 to come out before it becomes useful. I'd probably stick with the 4890 until the refreshes for the upcoming GPU's come out next year.

You get to sit back and evaluate the pros and cons of Radeon 5xx0 and nVidia GT300 series. Generally refreshes are tweaked but don't perform vastly different so you'll then get to choose which is better.

 

[biostud]

Originally posted by: BFG10K
Compared to DX9, uptake on supporting DX10 has been poor. This is largely in part due to the negative stigma attached to Vista. Windows 7/DX11 may turn things around for Microsoft.

maybe not the negative stigma as much as the actual numbers of PC's still running XP.

 

[nemesismk2]

You don't need DX10 let alone DX10.1, DX9 is all you need lol

I will probably not upgrade my 4870 to anything DX11 until I see some serious game support.

 

[Dribble]

DX10.1 is never going to amount to anything - there just aren't enough cards that support it to make it worth producing special versions for.

Devs want as few versions of the renderer as possible, hence you will have at most:
DX9c - for the xbox.
OGL - for the PS3.
DX10 - because that's what most of the PC market has.
DX11 - if you want to be cutting edge and use the DX11 tessilator.

They aren't going support all of them, let alone DX10.1 too.
tbh all we are getting right now is DX9c and OGL renderers as consoles > pc's - they hardly even bother with DX10 yet. What they tend to add for the PC is:
a) 3d vision support - it's obviously really easy to add and looks really cool so worth it despite the limited number of buyers with PC's that support it.
b) limited physx if they were using the software physx library anyway - it is supported on the consoles so that is quite likely. Hence it's not too hard to add a few extra hardware physx particle effects for the PC.

e.g. the new batman game supports both.

 

[RussianSensation]

Originally posted by: Dribble

DX10.1 is never going to amount to anything - there just aren't enough cards that support it to make it worth producing special versions for.

they hardly even bother with DX10 yet.

At this time, here is a brief breakdown of currently utilized gaming engines:

1) Fallout 3 - DX9 - Gamebryo (Oblivion)
2) Far Cry 2 - DX10 - Dunia Engine
3) F.E.A.R. 2 - DX10 - LithTech Jupiter Extended (EX)
4) Left 4 Dead - DX9 -Source Engine (Half-Life 2)
5) The Last Remnant - DX10 - Unreal 3
6) Tom Clancy's EndWar - DX10 - Unreal 3.1
7) Tom Clancy's H.A.W.X - DX10 - Ubisoft (Blazing Angels)
8) Crysis - DX10 - Crytek
9) Crysis Warhead - DX10 - Crytek2

So of these 9 currently utilized engines, 7 are all DX10. Engines such as 2 and 7 can also use DX10.1 for example. In the next year or 2, it is likely that based on these 9 engines that games will be based on (and others not on the list). Also adding DX10.1 isn't the same as recoding the game completely in DX11.

If you think too "few" cards have DX10.1, you are discounting all 2900 series, 3xxx series and 4xxx series ATI cards. Considering there are 0 DX11 cards available on the market, it will take a while before DX11 cards amount to much of anything. Also the sweetspot for people buying graphics cards is $100 and below which means they'll likely purchase this gen's DX10 cards, of which 4850/4870 are most competitive in pricing.

According to the figures JPR Market Watch, Q2'2009 saw GPU market expanding to 98.30 million chips, a massive 31.3% improvement over the recession-stricken first quarter of 2009. 12 months ago, the market was 94.42 million units, meaning that GPU market overtook the 2008 results.

Out of these almost five million extra GPUs, the majority went to AMD, who market that they had 41.1% growth in shipped units from the first to second quarter of 2009. Although NV still has a dominant market share position of 28.74%, it actually had 31.1% in the last quarter of 2009.

 

[bigsnyder]

I read somewhere (can't remember where to save my life) that DX10.1 hardware support is very close to DX11 requirements. If that is the case, then the DX10.1 cards might have some limited DX11 compatibility. Obviously no way to know for sure until DX11 titles become available.

 

[Genx87]

None of the new DX stuff is worth much at all. It takes years for a library to be built around this API. By the time 10.1 and 11 becoime meaningful the next gen DX11 stuff willbe bargin bin material. Buy a card for the games you play today is my motto.

 

[Dribble]

Originally posted by: RussianSensation

Originally posted by: Dribble

DX10.1 is never going to amount to anything - there just aren't enough cards that support it to make it worth producing special versions for.

they hardly even bother with DX10 yet.

At this time, here is a brief breakdown of currently utilized gaming engines:

1) Fallout 3 - DX9 - Gamebryo (Oblivion)
2) Far Cry 2 - DX10 - Dunia Engine
3) F.E.A.R. 2 - DX10 - LithTech Jupiter Extended (EX)
4) Left 4 Dead - DX9 -Source Engine (Half-Life 2)
5) The Last Remnant - DX10 - Unreal 3
6) Tom Clancy's EndWar - DX10 - Unreal 3.1
7) Tom Clancy's H.A.W.X - DX10 - Ubisoft (Blazing Angels)
8) Crysis - DX10 - Crytek
9) Crysis Warhead - DX10 - Crytek2

So of these 9 currently utilized engines, 7 are all DX10. Engines such as 2 and 7 can also use DX10.1 for example. In the next year or 2, it is likely that based on these 9 engines that games will be based on (and others not on the list). Also adding DX10.1 isn't the same as recoding the game completely in DX11.

If you think too "few" cards have DX10.1, you are discounting all 2900 series, 3xxx series and 4xxx series ATI cards. Considering there are 0 DX11 cards available on the market, it will take a while before DX11 cards amount to much of anything. Also the sweetspot for people buying graphics cards is $100 and below which means they'll likely purchase this gen's DX10 cards, of which 4850/4870 are most competitive in pricing.

According to the figures JPR Market Watch, Q2'2009 saw GPU market expanding to 98.30 million chips, a massive 31.3% improvement over the recession-stricken first quarter of 2009. 12 months ago, the market was 94.42 million units, meaning that GPU market overtook the 2008 results.

Out of these almost five million extra GPUs, the majority went to AMD, who market that they had 41.1% growth in shipped units from the first to second quarter of 2009. Although NV still has a dominant market share position of 28.74%, it actually had 31.1% in the last quarter of 2009.

Look at a valve survey:
http://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey/
There aren't that many DX10.1 cards out there, not enough to be worth the effort. Ati did exactly the same thing a few years ago with DX9b, in fact back in the day there was probably a greater % of DX9b cards out there then DX10.1 has managed. DX9b got ignored too - the game makers went straight from DX9a to DX9c.

On a side note most of those games above which you have marked DX10 are really DX9c with one or two DX10 effects. Even crysis - the poster child of DX10 - basically looks and runs identically using DX9c (using the ultra high config tweak on XP). Not one of those games is really using the power of DX10.

 

[evolucion8]

Originally posted by: Dribble
Look at a valve survey:
http://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey/
There aren't that many DX10.1 cards out there, not enough to be worth the effort. Ati did exactly the same thing a few years ago with DX9b, in fact back in the day there was probably a greater % of DX9b cards out there then DX10.1 has managed. DX9b got ignored too - the game makers went straight from DX9a to DX9c.

On a side note most of those games above which you have marked DX10 are really DX9c with one or two DX10 effects. Even crysis - the poster child of DX10 - basically looks and runs identically using DX9c (using the ultra high config tweak on XP). Not one of those games is really using the power of DX10.

Using the survey and summing the most popular midrange cards from the newer generation like the HD 4600 series or 9600 series to the highest end cards (HD 4870X2, GTX 295) and the total of DX10 GPU's in such category is about 35.87%, and from that equation, 12.84% are DX10.1 capable, and that's not including the DX10.1 capable HD 3x00 series, so I don't know how is possible that the 9.0b cards outsold the DX10.1 cards, specially that the HD 4800 series outsold the GTX by a considerable margin.

GTX series including GTX 260, 275, 280, 285, 295 = 7.79%
HD series including HD 4830, 4850, 4870, 4870X2, 4890 = 11.33%

Of course that's speculative data from Steam survey which isn't 100% accurate, but its the closest to reality.

In the end, DX10.1 is what DX10 was supposed to be, less of a fraud.