DX11 Games

[copenhagen69]

I was just curious what all was out there. The only decent list I could find was this one ...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_games_with_DirectX_11_support

does anyone know of another one with a better listing? Or is there really only like 13 game with dx11?

 

[[H]@RD5TUFF]

I was just curious what all was out there. The only decent list I could find was this one ...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_games_with_DirectX_11_support

does anyone know of another one with a better listing? Or is there really only like 13 game with dx11?

Nope there really is like only 13 games that make use of DX 11, and that is because many people are being retarted and still using XP, also the vast majority of games are console ports, so they are DX 9 titles.

 

[copenhagen69]

pretty ridiculous ... dx11 looks so nice haha

 

[[H]@RD5TUFF]

pretty ridiculous ... dx11 looks so nice haha

It does make games look nice, but even after like 9 years devs are still using DX 9, because they can port it to everything but the Wii.

 

[Robert-The-Rambler]

Dx11

Runs awful on the majority of current hardware if at all. It will be some time yet for a mainstream cost to be able to play at 1080p at 60 fps or greater with all the eye candy in Directx11.

 

[[H]@RD5TUFF]

Runs awful on the majority of current hardware if at all. It will be some time yet for a mainstream cost to be able to play at 1080p at 60 fps or greater with all the eye candy in Directx11.

I play Dirt 2 at max setting on DX 11 , with 1 GTX 470, and that's a mainstream card, I get a steady 42 FPS

 

[Easy Rhino]

Runs awful on the majority of current hardware if at all. It will be some time yet for a mainstream cost to be able to play at 1080p at 60 fps or greater with all the eye candy in Directx11.

what's mainstream cost? $200

 

[copenhagen69]

There are plenty of GPUs that can run DX11 without getting beat down these days.

I guess it is the dx9 port to console holding them back.

 

[alexsubri]

Bulletstorm is suppose to be utilizing DX 11. Keyword SUPPOSE. Another one is Bioshock Infinite. I know there are several more I just can't remember.

 

[Frizz]

BFBC2 and Dirt2 have been pretty kind in terms of performance in DX11 although metro2033 has been horrible, I am on the 5xxx series still and dreading the possibility of Crysis 2 DX11 running like crap on my card.

 

[alexsubri]

BFBC2 and Dirt2 have been pretty kind in terms of performance in DX11 although metro2033 has been horrible, I am on the 5xxx series still and dreading the possibility of Crysis 2 DX11 running like crap on my card.

Crysis 2 will be better optimized and coded. Crysis was beyond it's time back in 2007

 

[Mussels]

Runs awful on the majority of current hardware if at all. It will be some time yet for a mainstream cost to be able to play at 1080p at 60 fps or greater with all the eye candy in Directx11.

with the exception of retarded tesselation settings, i find most games run better in DX11 than in DX10.

 

[Lionheart]

DX10 had serious aids jks but seriously DX10 too me wasn't that great, thanks to Vista or gaysoft I should say, but DX11 is much more promising & a solid upgrade from DX10

 

[Mussels]

DX10 had a lot of problems. poor AA implementation (if it even worked at all), refresh rate issues on many monitors, etc.

it had some improvements too (lowered memory usage, etc) but whatever came out after DX9 was going to suck, because all the 'experts' in DX9 sucked at coding games for it. now at least people are more flexible and learned from their DX10 screwups, so the DX11 list will get bigger, fast - and they're gunna get better too.

 

[Lionheart]

DX10 had a lot of problems. poor AA implementation (if it even worked at all), refresh rate issues on many monitors, etc.

it had some improvements too (lowered memory usage, etc) but whatever came out after DX9 was going to suck, because all the 'experts' in DX9 sucked at coding games for it. now at least people are more flexible and learned from their DX10 screwups, so the DX11 list will get bigger, fast - and they're gunna get better too.

+50,000 too dat.........You read my mind

 

[newtekie1]

I play Dirt 2 at max setting on DX 11 , with 1 GTX 470, and that's a mainstream card, I get a steady 42 FPS

That is because Dirt2 barely uses DX11 features.

There are a few DX11 games, but almost none of them really use DX11 enough to make a noticeable IQ difference, unless you take a screen shot and zoom way in. Metro2033 really uses DX11, and hence bogs down cards. If DX11 was really used in a lot of the current "DX11" games, they would run like shit.

 

[Mussels]

That is because Dirt2 barely uses DX11 features.

There are a few DX11 games, but almost none of them really use DX11 enough to make a noticeable IQ difference, unless you take a screen shot and zoom way in. Metro2033 really uses DX11, and hence bogs down cards. If DX11 was really used in a lot of the current "DX11" games, they would run like shit.

thats the logic that made DX10 games suck.

"well, theres new features... we better use em a ton"


DX11 adds multi threading into the mix, lowered memory usage of DX10, the improved graphics of DX10, with the performance and reliability of DX9


we dont NEED games to look better - we need them to run faster at the same level of graphics.

 

[newtekie1]

thats the logic that made DX10 games suck.

"well, theres new features... we better use em a ton"


DX11 adds multi threading into the mix, lowered memory usage of DX10, the improved graphics of DX10, with the performance and reliability of DX9


we dont NEED games to look better - we need them to run faster at the same level of graphics.

No, if we didn't need them to look better we would still be using the old reliable DX9 with no need to update to something better, and not need to move beyond X1900XTs.

There has to be a balance between good performance and better looks, and a good game will allow that balance to be adjusted by the user. Metro2033 is a bad example of DX11 implementation because turing DX11 on makes the game run like shit because the effects are overdone. However Dirt2/BC2 are bad examples of DX11 implementation also, because they use the DX11 effects so little you can't tell the difference, but there is no performance hit either. A good game will give the user the ability to adjust the amount of tessellation and other DX11 effects to suite their hardware's ability.

Of course, even if that happens, we get the situation that we got with Crysis and DX10. Where the option to max out the graphics was there and the option to make the game still look great but perform creat also, but everyone still bitched when their mid-range hardware couldn't max it out despite it still looking awesome and performing great with slightly lower setting.

 

[ctrain]

Runs awful on the majority of current hardware if at all. It will be some time yet for a mainstream cost to be able to play at 1080p at 60 fps or greater with all the eye candy in Directx11.

it's not a rule that developers have to push a shitty renderer out the door for marketing purposes. DX11 is more than capable of being faster than DX9. they don't NEED to cram in all kinds of stupid shit but hey, DX11, why not, and so performance suffers.

with the exception of retarded tesselation settings, i find most games run better in DX11 than in DX10.

isn't surprising considering DX11 contains optimizations DX10 doesn't, i guess you could take advantage of some them on DX10 hardware now too, since the API has support for older hardware.

DX10 had a lot of problems. poor AA implementation (if it even worked at all), refresh rate issues on many monitors, etc.

it had some improvements too (lowered memory usage, etc) but whatever came out after DX9 was going to suck, because all the 'experts' in DX9 sucked at coding games for it. now at least people are more flexible and learned from their DX10 screwups, so the DX11 list will get bigger, fast - and they're gunna get better too.

what poor AA implementation? the only AA it exposes is hardware AA, which is up to nvidia or amd. anything else like shader AA is in the hands of the developers. memory usage went down because DX9 used to keep a copy of resources in system ram.

 

[ktr]

pretty ridiculous ... dx11 looks so nice haha

id Tech 5 says hi!

 

[Mussels]

it's not a rule that developers have to push a shitty renderer out the door for marketing purposes. DX11 is more than capable of being faster than DX9. they don't NEED to cram in all kinds of stupid shit but hey, DX11, why not, and so performance suffers.



isn't surprising considering DX11 contains optimizations DX10 doesn't, i guess you could take advantage of some them on DX10 hardware now too, since the API has support for older hardware.



what poor AA implementation? the only AA it exposes is hardware AA, which is up to nvidia or amd. anything else like shader AA is in the hands of the developers. memory usage went down because DX9 used to keep a copy of resources in system ram.

AA was broken in DX10, it only worked in 10.1
Brute force AA was needed to make it work, at a heavy cost of performance.

you can thank nvidia for that.

 

[ctrain]

AA was broken in DX10, it only worked in 10.1
Brute force AA was needed to make it work, at a heavy cost of performance.

you can thank nvidia for that.

if it wasn't functional than it was the developers fault, 10.1 simplified the mess slightly and saved performance. hardware AA is a problem in deferred renderers in general since bandwidth costs can quickly become enormous which is why performance can sink.

hardware AA was impossible in DX9 for a deferred renderer unless implemented with vendor specific driver hacks.

 

[Robert-The-Rambler]

Mainstream is closer to $99.99

what's mainstream cost? $200

A GTX 460 aint mainstream. Mainstream is a GTS 450 or Radeon 5750 and even at around $120 - $150 they suck at AVP in DirectX 11 @ 1080p. Dirt 2 doesn't count. The mid end cards still suck at Directx11 too. Even if you spent $300 today Directx 11 performance would be terrible in real Directx 11 games of the future. Its the simple truth.

 

[Easy Rhino]

A GTX 460 aint mainstream. Mainstream is a GTS 450 or Radeon 5750 and even at around $120 - $150 they suck at AVP in DirectX 11 @ 1080p. Dirt 2 doesn't count. The mid end cards still suck at Directx11 too. Even if you spent $300 today Directx 11 performance would be terrible in real Directx 11 games of the future. Its the simple truth.

wtf are you talking about?

 

[Over_Lord]

No, if we didn't need them to look better we would still be using the old reliable DX9 with no need to update to something better, and not need to move beyond X1900XTs.

i dont think nvidia and amd would be happy with that