dx11 ati cards

[ShogoXT]

Cant wait to see what this gens mobile series is like.

 

[bpgt64]

Not many games have made the jump from DX9 to DX10 only...so I am not so sure if DX11 cards will be all that super important for at least another 6 months..

 

[HellasVagabond]

Both companies have released their cards to various vendors...Expect pre-retail sample reviews soon.

 

[r9]

Developers need time to adopt to new standards MS don`t leave them enough space. And DX10 was advertised as more efficient aka same eye candy more FPS and room for more effect in that context. But at the moment almost all the games are maxed with midrange GPU. And MS is still talking about more efficient standard DX 11.Look MS it is time for more eye candy not efficiency.

 

[phanbuey]

Developers need time to adopt to new standards MS don`t leave them enough space. And DX10 was advertised as more efficient aka same eye candy more FPS and room for more effect in that context. But at the moment almost all the games are maxed with midrange GPU. And MS is still talking about more efficient standard DX 11.Look MS it is time for more eye candy not efficiency.

Like you said... more efficiency=more eye candy - mid range GPU's can't max out the newest games - only the ones that are coded well. A good example is fallout 3, its coded so well that you can max it on just about anything.

Crysis on the other hand still runs like dogsh*t as does GTAIV. GTA IV especially looks like crap on top of it. I think more efficiency is still a good idea.

 

[a_ump]

Developers need time to adopt to new standards MS don`t leave them enough space. And DX10 was advertised as more efficient aka same eye candy more FPS and room for more effect in that context. But at the moment almost all the games are maxed with midrange GPU. And MS is still talking about more efficient standard DX 11.Look MS it is time for more eye candy not efficiency.

i beg to differ. the graphics you see in crysis shows what dx10 can offer eyecandy wise. How many other games have that level of detail, physics, and effects besides warhead? and granted i've never played stalker but i've watched reviews and read about it so it's the only other game i'd put up there with crysis. So we don't need an API that will allow more eyecandy, we need developers to use DX10 to it's fullest. Not code game for dx9 then add a few bits and pieces there and call it dx10.

Like you said... more efficiency=more eye candy - mid range GPU's can't max out the newest games - only the ones that are coded well. A good example is fallout 3, its coded so well that you can max it on just about anything.

Crysis on the other hand still runs like dogsh*t as does GTAIV. GTA IV especially looks like crap on top of it. I think more efficiency is still a good idea.

i'm sorry but i've seen fallout 3, and crysis is on a different level. Besides the fact that fallout 3 uses the same graphics engine as oblivion only upgraded. If you compare grass on fallout 3 and just vegetation in general, crysis has it beat by far. I personally do not feel crysis is coded like crap, i mean they came out with warhead which they said they fine tuned the engine and it performs only minisculely better. crysis and stalker are on another level than fallout 3.

 

[DrPepper]

Mid range gpu's shouldn't max out games though. At least new games.

 

[a_ump]

Mid range gpu's shouldn't max out games though. At least new games.

true but that's not an API issue, it's a developer problem. If developers don't use DX10 to its fullest extent or at least as far as stalker and crysis have, then that's not microsoft's fault. Microsoft provides the API(DX10) which can have amazing eyecandy as crysis proved, yet developers(i'm not very programmin savy) don't code? a gme to DX10's potential who's to blame? I personally believe it's because almost every game that is DX10 and even new ones, are coded for DX9, then edited to make them DX10. I'm not sure why developer's don't code for more eyecandy, maybe its because when they code for a game and start it in dx9, it can't have as great of visuals as DX10, and maybe it would take too much time(money) to go back and edit the dx9 coding to have a game look like crysis so they just edit it to the extent that it's out of dx9 ability but just barely utilizes dx10 capability.

 

[ste2425]

Like you said... more efficiency=more eye candy - mid range GPU's can't max out the newest games - only the ones that are coded well. A good example is fallout 3, its coded so well that you can max it on just about anything.

Crysis on the other hand still runs like dogsh*t as does GTAIV. GTA IV especially looks like crap on top of it. I think more efficiency is still a good idea.

i hear you on wat u say bout fallout, my hd 2600xt could maxx it out on ultra and get just under 30 fps, stutter a little on large areas but still ran very well at my res, if only all games dev's spent that much effort

edit:

i'm sorry but i've seen fallout 3, and crysis is on a different level. Besides the fact that fallout 3 uses the same graphics engine as oblivion only upgraded. If you compare grass on fallout 3 and just vegetation in general, crysis has it beat by far. I personally do not feel crysis is coded like crap, i mean they came out with warhead which they said they fine tuned the engine and it performs only minisculely better. crysis and stalker are on another level than fallout 3.

crysis was not badly encoded it just included things that were beyond its time and high end hardware could not cope, i mean its an old game yet it still looks great now

 

[DrPepper]

Well when a dev is making a game they can either make it super good looking or good but lacking so that it's got super high frames. Also they need to consider the vast amount of CPU's and GPU's out there and they can't code to each vendor's advantages, thus increasing FPS. They either pick one or the other or more often whichever pays them more.

If dev's really went and used as much eye candy as possible then we'd all complain that we couldn't run it.

 

[a_ump]

Well when a dev is making a game they can either make it super good looking or good but lacking so that it's got super high frames. Also they need to consider the vast amount of CPU's and GPU's out there and they can't code to each vendor's advantages, thus increasing FPS. They either pick one or the other or more often whichever pays them more.

If dev's really went and used as much eye candy as possible then we'd all complain that we couldn't run it.

i couldn't agree more with you. Hence why if microsoft came out with an API that was more eye candy oriented than efficiency oriented, there'd be no point as DX10's potential hasn't even been used except for maybe crysis and stalker. Even then both of those games were still coded in dx9 first then ported to dx10. Personally i think DX11 will be much better than DX10, as the current DX10 isn't even what microsoft wanted, dx10.1 specifications were what was supposed to be the plain dx10 from the beginning but nvidia didn't or couldn't cope with the requirements. Since microsoft isn't bending to the will of nvidia and has actually been working with Nvidia and ATI alot this time with the API, i think we'll see an API that has a little more eye candy potential than DX10, but mainly an API that can render these visuals for efficiently than DX10 could. I hope devs code games in DX11 when they start releasing them instead of dx9 then porting them to dx11(if that's even possible).

 

[ste2425]

i couldn't agree more with you. Hence why if microsoft came out with an API that was more eye candy oriented than efficiency oriented, there'd be no point as DX10's potential hasn't even been used except for maybe crysis and stalker. Even then both of those games were still coded in dx9 first then ported to dx10. Personally i think DX11 will be much better than DX10, as the current DX10 isn't even what microsoft wanted, dx10.1 specifications were what was supposed to be the plain dx10 from the beginning but nvidia didn't or couldn't cope with the requirements. Since microsoft isn't bending to the will of nvidia and has actually been working with Nvidia and ATI alot this time with the API, i think we'll see an API that has more eye candy potential than DX10 but a little, but mainly an API that can render these visuals for efficiently than DX10 could. I hope devs code games in DX11 when they start releasing them instead of dx9 then porting them to dx11(if that's even possible).

but if they code in dx11 then it wont run on dx9 hardware right? which most pc users will have. I mean you dont have to be a hardcore gamer to still c a game and think hey i like that ill play it

 

[a_ump]

but if they code in dx11 then it wont run on dx9 hardware right? which most pc users will have. I mean you dont have to be a hardcore gamer to still c a game and think hey i like that ill play it

I would think most hardware by 2010 would be dx10 compatible; even onboard graphics are dx10 now. and though it will slow performance, dx10 cards are still supposed to be able to run dx11 by the CPU emulating some of the dx11 features that the dx10 cards can't handle through hardware. Hence why ATI's cards that are dx10.1 should run future dx11 games better than Nvidia's current cards as Dx10.1 is more compatible with Dx11 than DX10, so less features that have to be emulated with ATI cards than Nvidia.

 

[phanbuey]

i'm sorry but i've seen fallout 3, and crysis is on a different level. Besides the fact that fallout 3 uses the same graphics engine as oblivion only upgraded. If you compare grass on fallout 3 and just vegetation in general, crysis has it beat by far. I personally do not feel crysis is coded like crap, i mean they came out with warhead which they said they fine tuned the engine and it performs only minisculely better. crysis and stalker are on another level than fallout 3.

Yeah, I mean, I personally don't find the graphics in crysis to be anything special - I can easily max the game - they're nice... don't get me wrong... but they're not so nice that it needs such insane hardware to run it. That is why I think it is poorly coded. Even if you tone the gfx down, you still won't get the same performance - i can make crysis look like soup and FO3 still runs better maxed.

I remember GLIDE back in the day, and how it offered better GFX on crappier hardware than DX or OGL... that I think is what MS is shooting for. I would love to see a mid-range card with 128 DX11 shaders give me the same visual quality as my SLI setup...

 

[a_ump]

Yeah, I mean, I personally don't find the graphics in crysis to be anything special - I can easily max the game - they're nice... don't get me wrong... but they're not so nice that it needs such insane hardware to run it. That is why I think it is poorly coded. Even if you tone the gfx down, you still won't get the same performance - i can make crysis look like soup and FO3 still runs better maxed.

well if your being honest about that then i change my tone , i've never owned fallout 3, just sat behind my bro a couple times watching him play then getting on myself to see if i liked it(didn't). Though if there is one thing i noticed about crysis is for running 15-22fps on my now dead 8800GT, it felt surprisingly smooth compared to other games.example: if i drop to 40FPS in counter-strike source i can tell and it annoys the piss outa me. I never understood why crysis at 23FPS felt like 50fps in CSS, or ~30FPS in most other games.