[Bob7145]

Windows7 & DirectX11 = 7-11

http://www.fudzilla.com/index.php?op...11362&Itemid=1

 

[257Tony]

Dang, and I thought they were going to get some games running good on DX10 first.

 

[HTPC101]

Nice so DX10 for what 1 year and now DX11...

 

[Tinker]

another round of vid cards...

 

[Trebuken]

DX10 is two years old, isn't it? It likely will launch with Windows 7 though it supposedly will be fine for Vista as well, so we'rte looking at a three year life expectancy for DX10, which is actually quite long...10.1 was a hiccup.


Games do run fine and look better with DX10. DX10 is not about frame-rate though which confuses some people.


Also developers are already discussing what features they look forward to in DX12...so I expect DX11 won't live as long as DX10...


Either way if you were thinking of upgrading your graphics card you may consider waiting for those DX11 cards (Nov. '09?). If you have a card that will make Crysis playable now you don't have a need to upgrade until some more intense PC games are released. FEAR 2 is the next big game and I suspect it will not dethrone Crysis from its power hungry throne...

 

[Quidam67]

Just my opinion, but I think DX10 was a complete and utter waste of time. The difference in quality between a well written DX9 game and DX10 is negligible, but the performance delta is significant, and is not justifiable, except for people who want bragging rights (eg. must run in Ultra High DX10 or I'm missing out on something)


I'm not surprised DX11 has been announced -I'm betting it is mostly about optimising the functionality already available in DX10, so that is usable by something less than a uber-fast enthusiast gaming rig.

 

[Trebuken]



Quote:
Originally Posted by Quidam67 /forum/post/15536044


Just my opinion, but I think DX10 was a complete and utter waste of time. The difference in quality between a well written DX9 game and DX10 is negligible, but the performance delta is significant, and is not justifiable, except for people who want bragging rights (eg. must run in Ultra High DX10 or I'm missing out on something)


I'm not surprised DX11 has been announced -I'm betting it is mostly about optimising the functionality already available in DX10, so that is usable by something less than a uber-fast enthusiast gaming rig.

There are plenty of new features, but I don't really understand what it all means. I think your likely correct about the optimizing, since Windows 7 is essentially doing the same for Vista.

 

[HorrorScope]

DX10 was the devil for all the reasons everyone has and more. What I am still fairly bitter about is how HDR/Shaders have taken away from Clean-Crisp nearly free (fps hit) 4xAA. Many games no longer support it and if you do use it you are taking a severe penalty now. High-Texture and 4xAA was a staple setting for me for years and now, nothing.


Sort of sucks when many year old games look better in my eyes because the game looks tighter without saw blades and sparklies, yes sparklies another thing usually not dicussed but if you ever saw a before/after it's a huge difference in terms of a nice solid 3d words when moving, all the textures and lines look natural and not a strobing mess of colors/lines while moving looking at the surrounding world.


DX10 and Windows live biggest losers recently imo.

 

[rr6966]



Quote:
Originally Posted by Quidam67 /forum/post/15536044


Just my opinion, but I think DX10 was a complete and utter waste of time. The difference in quality between a well written DX9 game and DX10 is negligible, but the performance delta is significant, and is not justifiable, except for people who want bragging rights (eg. must run in Ultra High DX10 or I'm missing out on something)


I'm not surprised DX11 has been announced -I'm betting it is mostly about optimising the functionality already available in DX10, so that is usable by something less than a uber-fast enthusiast gaming rig.

I agree. DX10 seems slightly better but the games take a serious hit in frame rates.