i hate seeing dx9 comparison screenshots look deliberately sabotaged and exaggerated to some bad limits to make the latter look innovative.

leileilol wrote:

i hate seeing dx9 comparison screenshots look deliberately sabotaged and exaggerated to some bad limits to make the latter look innovative.

Are you saying they tampered with the DX9 images in the comparison? If they did, they didn't tamper with them enough to make DX11 look significantly better than DX9.

DX11 is way better in many aspects than 9 , that "comparison review" just sucks , find a true DX11 game and compare it, then draw conclusions 🤣

Agree with Keropi

Only drawback is that DX11 games seem to draw alot of cpu juice
Noticed that after my GTX 280 --> GTX 480 upgrade

really? I guess they somehow need to promote i7 cpu's too 😁 but at least the eye-candy you get is very nice 😀

You got a 480 amigo? must be awesome.... personally I stopped at 260GTX and now I am a 99% x360/ps3 gamer for current-gen titles...

keropi wrote:

really? I guess they somehow need to promote i7 cpu's too 😁 but at least the eye-candy you get is very nice 😀

You got a 480 amigo? must be awesome.... personally I stopped at 260GTX and now I am a 99% x360/ps3 gamer for current-gen titles...

Yep, wanted an Asus card too to take advantage of the power saving functions my Asus mobo provides
But now I'm looking to upgrade to an i7 rig instead or try and overclock my Phenom II X4 setup instead but it's just DDR2 stuff 😜

If it weren't that I can't stand using gamepads for FPS games I'd get a console anyday for my gaming needs

continuing the OT 😜 .... amigo, there are so many other AWESOME genres and console-only titles that FPS will soon feel boring.... 😜

keropi wrote:

continuing the OT 😜 .... amigo, there are so many other AWESOME genres and console-only titles that FPS will soon feel boring.... 😜

*We're ruining the thread, hope none is offended* 😊

I know....those cool games makes me wanna get a console

There are big differences between DX9 and DX11.
Remember Half Life 2 where you could select between DX7,8 and 9? The only visible difference was the water!
Thing is, you could probably do everything that dx9 or even dx11 does in dx6 or 7. But it would take tons more lines and frustration. Newer DXs shorten procedures and make life easier for the programmer.

Oh come on now, Lost Planet was and will be made primarily for consoles. PC version is just a port of the real deal. And hate to burst your bubble fellows but must PC titles are also simple little ports, with a few PC features thrown in for marketing reasons. Even if they are not, operating system compatibility divides the PC gamer market, and publishers don't risk the profitability of their projets by making their games for Vista/7 only. As a matter of fact I can't name a single game that was solely made for DX10, not to mention DX11. So you can bash DX11 all you wan't, but your argument will still be flawed.

As far as I know consoles use OpenGL API which Microsoft ruined.

D3D9 is also insanely slower and more demanding than D3D8. 😀 Half Life 2 on D3D8.1 mode is much faster than D3D9 mode and it is somewhat difficult to spot the differences.

I think what's really going on is that the industry is pushing D3D9 as far as it can go because there is so much D3D9 hardware out there. It doesn't make much sense to really dive deep into Shader Model 4 (etc) when many millions of customers would be left out (consoles and a lot of PC people).

I also think that 3D hardware's capabilities are overrated. D3D11 is very powerful but the hardware isn't capable of pushing really high detail scenes that use D3D11. The manufacturers of course make it sound like every new card is infinitely powerful and can display reality, but it's all bullshit. The performance demands for more advanced graphics don't scale linearly like the review bar graphs of new card performance advances running old games.

We need more speed from PC hardware and we need the consoles to be replaced and bring feature parity there.

eL_PuSHeR wrote:

As far as I know consoles use OpenGL API which Microsoft ruined.

Xbox360 uses a hybrid DX9/DX10 API ... I don't know if PS3 uses an OpenGL-ish approach though

Amigaz wrote:

DX11 games seem to draw alot of cpu juice

So the hardware tesselation is a lie?

F2bnp wrote:

There are big differences between DX9 and DX11.
Remember Half Life 2 where you could select between DX7,8 and 9? The only visible difference was the water!

There's also the stupid lowres-cubemap-on-everything too.

swaaye wrote:

D3D9 is also insanely slower and more demanding than D3D8. :) Half Life 2 on D3D8.1 mode is much faster than D3D9 mode and it is […]
Show full quote

D3D9 is also insanely slower and more demanding than D3D8. 😀 Half Life 2 on D3D8.1 mode is much faster than D3D9 mode and it is somewhat difficult to spot the differences.

I think what's really going on is that the industry is pushing D3D9 as far as it can go because there is so much D3D9 hardware out there. It doesn't make much sense to really dive deep into Shader Model 4 (etc) when many millions of customers would be left out (consoles and a lot of PC people).

I also think that 3D hardware's capabilities are overrated. D3D11 is very powerful but the hardware isn't capable of pushing really high detail scenes that use D3D11. The manufacturers of course make it sound like every new card is infinitely powerful and can display reality, but it's all bullshit. The performance demands for more advanced graphics don't scale linearly like the review bar graphs of new card performance advances running old games.

We need more speed from PC hardware and we need the consoles to be replaced and bring feature parity there.

I can just imagine all the system fans running at max speed continuously in DX11 mode but hardly at all running in DX9. I'm not so demanding about any game that I'm willing to compromise the normal lifespan of my hardware to play it. I'll stick with what looks and plays acceptably without resulting in the premature death of my hardware. It's bad enough it takes me longer than most to be able to afford to upgrade as it is without having to keep replacing fried parts between upgrades.

Sliderider, your conclusions are strange. API advancement isn't the problem.

- Buy cards that have a decent warranty.
- Buy based on performance per price (usually midrange products).
- Don't buy hardware in anticipation of future games. Buy when a game you want to play isn't playable.
- Don't pay attention to PR hype. Pay attention to what you see. Why upgrade when the games aren't there?

Heat isn't even necessarily a cause of reduced lifetime. Voodoo3 runs ~90C. 😀

I'll have to see the difference first hand. I have a GTX 260 and while running STALKER Pripyat on max settings looks beautiful (dx10), I have to back it off a bit to make it more playable.

I figure I'll get a current gen card come Christmas.

I tend to skip a few generations. My desktop hardware is pretty old. I have a 8800GTX, a 3870 and a 4670 around.

I really skirted an upgrade by switching from gaming on my 24" 1920x1200 monitor to my 1360x768 plasma TV. No complaints with that move at all and the 8800 laughs at almost all games at that resolution.

I did buy a new notebook this spring, one with the Mobility 5870. It's too bad that it's really just a desktop 5770 basically. In 3DMark05 it actually lost slightly to the 8800GTX.

The horns in DX11 have more polygons than those in DX9, but I wonder who actually pays attention of such details, especially in the middle of furious gameplay. This ain't FSAA, y'know!