What DirectX 11 (and Windows 7) Means for Gamers Discussion

By: Dustin Sklavos

With the pending release of Windows 7 comes DirectX 11, a new iteration of Microsoft's programming interface for 3D games. DirectX 10 debuted with Windows Vista to a stunning "meh," and has since then proven itself to be...meh. Will DirectX 11 redeem the franchise, or just cement the DirectX reputation as mere Microsoft gaming vaporware? We break it down in this preview.

Read the full content of this Article: What DirectX 11 (and Windows 7) Means for Gamers

Related Articles:

• Windows 7 - A Guide to the Editions
• Microsoft Pushing Windows 7 64-bit Compatibility
• Gamers Graphics Tuning Guide
• Atom N270/280 Netbooks May Not Get Windows 7 Upgrade
• Microsoft, Intel to Limit Windows 7 Netbooks to 10.2"
• Microsoft Windows 7 Release Candidate Review
• Windows 7 to have "XP Mode", Special Requirements

 

Excellent Review, i'm glad Tessellation is finally being pushed. Even as far back as NES Donky Kong Country we knew this was a HUGE step forward in graphics, yet it seemed to fall by the way side for some reason.

I'm also glad that Microsoft is unifying the GPGPU concept. Its nice that ATI and nVidia are both working on their own, but it makes cross platform work impossible (ati refused to support the CUDA work and decided to try to make their own) but with an independant version hopefully that will be past tense and the GPGPU will yeild some really amazing results for supported apps.

The only thing i'm worried about for the mobile front is the multicore support, if this goes through well enough (and there is no reason it shouldnt) its going to give game designers an open license to require quad cores, so alot of laptop gamers are going to have to do some major upgrading to even keep up

 

The consoles are DX9 and nobody is making PC exclusive games, high-end anymore. It's possible that we'll get some DX11 goodies on top of the DX9 game, but it will almost certainly be an addition -- the games will not be designed for DX11 from the ground up. Given this, I suspect the impact of DX11 on gaming will be minimal. That said, DirectCompute is nice: it would be great if I could use the GPU for video or other things.

 

Great news there. Thanks!
The GPGPU sounds a very interesting piece of software, and that has TONS of uses.
More than gaming, I wonder how would this all affect the professional world of 3D design...

 

Errr.....I didn't write this....

Contacting the admins about this so the proper freelancer gets credit.

 

LOL:laugh:

Its still a good Review to whoever our masked freelancer is

 

Exactly what I wanted to say. DX11 most probably would'nt make a major impact until the next gen consoles arrive in 2012.

 

It really stinks that consoles dominate the industry so much that PC gamers have to wait for them to slowly catch up before PC gaming can move on for the most part.

For instance, Epic and ID Software won't release their new engines until new consoles are released, no matter how long it takes and no matter how powerful PCs become. Its all about the consoles, PCs are on the backburner.

Your right, I would like to see the difference between the PC and console versions of Dirt 2. I believe your right that until the next consoles come, mostly PC games will have slight DX11 effects sprinkled in, not built from it from the ground up, same went for Crysis I believe. We'll just have to tap our feet and wait for a new console generation hm?

 

You can thank piracy for that.

I saw some real-time demos of the tessellation going on out in SF. It's pretty crazy. In terms of real world functionality, it means that the closer you get to a surface in the game, the more complex it becomes. As you pan out, surfaces become less complex, meaning you can increase the draw and range being displayed without overpowering the graphics card. It's a neat trick. The new AvP looks pretty sick, too.

 

Consoles are turning into PC's.

 

What Direct X 11 means to me:

Get A New Graphics Card.

 

Vista wasn't the only problem. Adoption of vista for gamers hasn't been bad actually mostly because of support for over 4 gigs of ram not dx 10.

However its the fact that both consoles have dx 9 gpus in them is what has really held back gaming on the pc. Not to mention that multi threading sucks in dx 10 and has been improved in dx 11.

If the consoles were made for dx 10 then you'd see all pc games supporting it and having it perform much better than it is.

Thankfully dx 11 easily compiles to expose support in dx 10 and dx 10.1 So depending on what level of hardware you have a dx 11 game will conform better to dx 10 hardware.


Battleforge is using the direct compute shaders
http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=3650&p=2

Its a rts so its not the best game to look for image quality enhancements but its there





Its interesting to note that the radeon 5850 which is not amd's high end card is able to almost double the gtx 285's performance with this on. It shows the speed increases in dx 11 over dx 10. Whats more interesting is that normaly the radeon 4870 gets its kicked by the gtx 285. however since its able to use its dx 10.1 verison of these shaders it performs better . It goes from loosing by 7.7 to wining by 3.1 fps. Very interesting. The radeon 5850 is $270 and the gtx 285 is $320 bucks.

The radeon hd 5850 is sometimes even able to beat out the dual gpu gtx 295

 

I still see one major issue with that - as far as I can tell, DirectCompute will be limited to Vista/Win7 (at least, that's what Wikipedia indicates). So if your software uses DirectCompute, you're leaving out 70% of the market (gradually decreasing, but initially, you'll be losing out on a lot of customers, even if their hardware supports it). Use CUDA or ATI's CAL instead, and you'll similarly lose about 70% of the market - cut it down to about 50% if you assume you aren't going to be going after Intel GPU users regardless. But you will have the support of XP users, gaining you users, as well as the support of Linux users, and, if you are using CUDA, Mac users.

So it adds cross-hardware support, but it actually decreases cross-OS support. And this isn't a trivial problem even if people gradually move to Windows 6.x - there will be corporations using XP for years to come, and Linux support is actually probably an even bigger issue in the long term for GPGPU programs. Scientific work already seems to be a big platform for CUDA and GPGPU technology, and a good chunk of that runs on Linux, which DirectCompute probably will never support.

Granted, DirectCompute will still help Windows programmers as adoption of Windows 6 increases, but it's not going to be a magic bullet for cross-platform work.

But it's not like there isn't piracy on consoles, either. Sure, it may require burning a disc, but it's certainly there. A Macrovision study showed it at over 20% - probably not as high as PC, but certainly still there.

Although I'd suspect the lower prices of consoles for game purposes have more to do with their popularity, due to their being more affordable to the masses, than any preference game makers have for piracy being somewhat more difficult. Let's face it, if consoles cost as much as a gaming PC, no one would buy them - they'd just buy a gaming PC instead of a regular PC. And if no one bought consoles for the better hardware value, hardly any developers would develop for them, even if piracy were zero on consoles. The smaller market wouldn't counterbalance lower piracy.

Now that consoles have significant marketshare, piracy may play a role, but it's the hardware prices that drives console marketshare, which in turn drives development. As the PS3 almost found out the hard way with its initial high prices.

As for DX10/11 development, you'd think some studio would see the advantage of being prepared for future consoles by developing for PC today. One of Sony's bigwigs used to talk about how the PS3 would keep getting better because it was difficult to program on and it would take a long time for programmers to learn how to program most effectively. And console game quality does tend to increase over their lifespan, despite identical hardware. Wouldn't you like to be the game studio that had 2-3 years experience up when the next generation of consoles came out? True, it would cost more up front, but it would help a lot later, and boost your marketshare with PC gamers in the process.

Well, I doubt you'll actually see many dropping support for XP and DX9 entirely for a couple years, but you may well see a lot more with DX 10 support. And y'know, there's still some new games coming out for the PS2. Then again, with some titles, I wouldn't care if they did support DX10 even if I did run Vista - some console ports are done so poorly that they shouldn't have been done in the first place (yes, I'm just a tad annoyed by publishers who favor consoles - but the PC-only titles, especially in strategy, are more than enough to keep me from buying a console).

ATI 5xxx is amazing. And indeed, ATi 4xxx may well have been if DX 10.1 had been commonly supported in games. Too bad nVIDIA's marketing dollars took it out of Assassin's Creed - that's the only case I can recall where DX 10/10.1 actually made a major difference, rather than marginally improved graphics or (rarely) slightly better performance.

---------------

Back on topic, if DX11 does come to be widely supported and yielding substantial graphics and/or performance increases, perhaps I'll buy a Win7/DX11 computer in a few years. But after DX10, I think I'll wait and see. I certainly wouldn't have missed the DX10 features of my 8600M GT had I gone with a Go 7900 GS instead. I didn't use them even when I did have Vista/Win7, except once to see if I could notice any difference at all, which I couldn't.

 

Arent the 4000HD series are DX11 capable?

 

There are far more reasons than the attachment to Vista that Directx 10 failed. There was unnecessary overhead in certain processes that wasn't present in DX9.

It was just a bad generation of DX. All of the other things didn't help, but they definitely weren't the real problems.

I don't think MS will mess up a second time. DX11 should be a lot better, but as a few have said, we might not see much of it due to the popularity of consoles as "less pirated" (LOL).

Something else people aren't exactly paying attention to is that games now cost a boatload to make. GTA4 was 100 million dollar investment. Average games go for over 10 million though. It takes a ton of money to push the bounds. What you could do with a 2-3 people back in the day can't be done with less than 1000 people now.

 

The 3000 and 4000 series are DX10.1, as the 40nms Nvidia (GT S 2xx)

 

Right JCMS, but what should be noted is something I was hoping for and somewhat expecting, that since DX10.1 has some aspects of DX11, and DX11 can use those pieces, DX10.1 hardware will start to separate from DX10 when using features in DX11 capable games. The battleforge numbers above showed the 4870 outpacing a GTX 285 with Tessellation turned on.

 

That isn't Tessellation. There is no tessellation support in battleforge. Those are the compute shaders. So far the only dx 11 thing in battleforge. One of the devs for the game said they had tessellation running in the studio but its not released for the public and he had no performance numbers to give us

 

Can or cannot a 4670HD support Tessellation and ATI Stream?

 

Hehe, Serg is itching for the SXPS16 but keeps getting caught up by the lure of future technology.

 

In the most technical sense, the 4670 can support tessellation. But in practice, it cannot. It has a hardware tessellator but not a DX11-class one, which means it will likely never be exposed.

It does support ATI Stream.

 

How long until tesselation becomes common in games?

 

I know Dirt 2 and AvP uses it . Dunno anything else. BTW there are more games for 2010 just not announced yet.

 

Wait Dustin, what do you mean?
ATI Stream is supported, but Tessellation could be but it is not?

LOL! You made me laugh Texas. In fact, already pushed the button. I bought the 1645 with an i7 720QM and 4670HD, full HD but no RGB (too expensive, and I didnt have the money)

 

Thats fine, I've seen the 1366x768 WLED and its still above average (super bright).

 

No , the tessellation in the ati chips is older , ati tried to get it into dx 10 but nvidia and intel were't having it (would increase die size of their chips) but a dev could code to the older tessellation methods in the older radeons if they wanted to but they most likely wouldn't

 

I think it's a bunch of crap that Nvidia and Intel weren't having it, but I'm glad ATI finally managed to get Microsoft to include it in DX11. Tessellation represents what is in my opinion a pretty major breakthrough in gaming graphics that's been a very long time coming.

If the tessellators in the older Radeons aren't too different from the DX11 implementation - and given that ATI had a hand in authoring it in DX11, it's reasonable to assume they're not - developers may indeed decide 2000-4000 series Radeons should enjoy a slightly stripped down version. Of course, not bloody likely unless ATI actually starts working with developers the way Nvidia does, but we can dream.

 

Oh, I hope a driver update includes that, since I just got a laptop with a 4670HD 1GB GDDR3 in it...and this looks quite nice.

Can Tessellation work with any game, or does the game have to support it?

 

Tessellation really is Ati's baby. It all started with true form.

You also have to understand , intel is the biggest igp seller and they make horrible chips as we all know. There is no way they would get dx 10 cert if they didn't have a tessellator.

As for the 2000-4000 series , that unit is very similar to the one ati put in the 360. So as tessellation starts to take hold on the pc side it may get a bigger following on the 360 making porting the information for the older ati chips easier.

 

This seems to have been overlooked in this discussion and the fact that most modern games are NOT (relatively) CPU intensive and in the cases of most mid-to-high end computers, the graphics hardware itself (or the fact that the game is coded for a single core) is the bottleneck. Being as most modern computers, to include notebooks (prior to the netbook explosion) have at least a dual core, this is fantastic as most software is not even using the stock CPUs to their fullest potential, especially with quad core and i7/i5 procs and accompanying architecture.

However, the console focus really has not given devs any incentive to rectify this issue and I doubt that DX11 will either, though users of intense professional softwares such as CAD or Maya and the like will probably benefit greatly from this as new releases are more likely to take advantage of this.

 

Look at the bright side. If a game is only released on PC and it isn't an MMO, chances are it's probably not that good anyway since nobody wanted to port it to a console or vice versa

Seriously, though, just because things have plateaued because DX9 has become the standard for technology doesn't mean it will remain that way. A positive of DX9 being so ubiquitous is that we've had some games that have come out that not only look beautiful, they also have great gameplay.

 

What does it mean for integrated hardware?
I have an Intel GMA X3100 on the Intel GMA965 Chipset.

Will it gain anything from this?
I'm running Win7 signature edition right now, and I plan on installing Steam again.

 

It means nothing when the IGP does not support DX11.

 

You think?
Something is pointless when it cannot use it.

My question was, WILL my IGP support it.
I'm not seeing much, I'm sure it's right in front of my face.

Intel's website can be a to navigate.

 

no igps support dx 11. The first igp that supports it will likely come qtr 1 2010 from ati/amd

It doesn't matter because igps wont be able to run dx 11 games for a few years yet anyway. dx 10 igp's can barely run dx 9 games

 

Awesome :x
I appreciate the response Pasta.

Oh well, I'll just have to wait till I'm out of debt and can buy a 17'' MBP.
Maybe then they'll have Light Peak.

 

Apple will never have Direct x support. That is a ms deal. You might want to look at dx 10 igps and their open cl support. Though I doubt intel supports it , igps from nvidia and ati do.

 

I know.
I'm not going to go run out the door and drop $1,500 on a Laptop to play games with DX11.

I was just curious if my current machine would get any benefit from it, which you clarified for me.

I've been wanted of a MBP for ages now, and a lot of games that would use the hardware fully are Mac compatible.

This of course is all wishful thinking!

 

MBP for gaming?
Pay less, get better hardware/support/flexibility for your money and get a PC.

 

/Sigh
I record music and am fond of Logic Pro.
I don't like Pro Tools, or Cakewalk, or Cubase, or any of those other softwares.

That is why I want a MBP, also it CAN do gaming, so that is plus.
I want the 17'' screen for maximum surface retail for when running programs, plugins, or...the occasional game. Plus a high end graphics card will ensure smooth and crispy imagery on my 32'' HDTV.

This is a basic rundown.

 

Wait, a Mac has a high end graphics card? Maybe a year or two ago... the 9600m GT is getting dated.

The 17 inchers start at $2500... but if you need that one program badly enough, I guess its worth going for the Mac instead of a vastly better performing PC...

 

$2500 for a 9600M GT machine? Mac or no Mac, that's "over,priced".

You can run OSX on a windows machine, google it.

You could simply get three 17" windows machines with WUXGA & ~9600M GT for less.

You could get two core i7 machines with Nvidia 260M.

You could get 1 extreme quad core machine and SLI graphics for less.

Ultra portable (X300, Ul30a)/17" workstation/gaming combo (Gateway P-fx, Asus, Clevo) etc...

If none of these options appeal to you, then I guess the Mac is the way to go...

 

Listen, I'm the first person to tell someone who wants a Mac that they can get an equally well off PC for less, and something MUCH more powerful in terms of same price.

But unlike the kid who wants dads money to pay just to have a glowing fruit logo, I am using my money and am much more concious of the reasons I have.


I assure you, I do not drink the koolaid.

Now with that said, graphics are NOT the sole reason, I also come from a 128MB AGP card in my desktop, I really don't need to BEST on the market.

Also, the MBP line will be updated (again) before I purchase, since I am no where near that point, the idea is there though.

As far as OSX on windows, that's great, I know.
I don't feel like Jerry-rigging an OS to work, most likely crippling some features in the process, and overall setting myself up for hardware / software failure should something conflict.

That's just what I want, be recording and lose all my progress, or potentially all my music stored on the HDD.

I get it, you guys are trying to prove a point of Windows fanboyism, cool.
It doesn't change my decision since the very foundation of my choice is based upon platform software.

The software is $500 and I really don't want to risk dropping all that cash and have something NOT work because someone suggests I use some kids tutorial on getting OSX to run.

As said in other threads, a program running is COMPLETELY different than opperating.

 

have at it hoss.

 

Perhaps you are right, but still, if not by the OS I do not suggest anybody a Mac. The OS is the sole reason to get a MacBook, if you have the necessity to use it, otherwise, paying for a "glowing fruit" is not worth it.

I am pro hardware, and since Microsoft offers better value-for-money with the hardware included, and availability of software, such as flexibility and how MC is the only OS that supports my softwares, I have to go Microsoft, not fanboy-ism.

So, if the software you use is Mac-exclusive, by all means, go for a Mac. For several reasons, Mac on a PC is illegal, no discussion on that matter (it goes against Forum Rules and Federal Laws, so the topic is to be left alone. No Mac on PC, period.). Crippling the OS to illegally run on a PC is not worth the headache. If you already have the Mac-exclusive-software, Mac OS is the way to go.

Now, what I meant is that paying for a MacBook for its looks and for the "hardware" included to run MC is not worth it. Nor for gaming since the 9600M GT is quite capable, but not for high-end gaming. So you pay the rig-premium for a mainstream-laptop.

 

Its strictly for software, otherwise I would have never considered the MBP to begin with. The fact that it can legally run Windows is also a plus!

As far as fanboyism, I speak of others - those who completely disregard anything Apple has to offer, seriously, they're like mini-Hitlers.

Also, I never identify "PC's" with Windows - That is, so many different MFG makes "Windows" based computers it's hard to get a consistent evaluation on how the OS was intended to perform.

With Apple, they designate what hardware goes with what software...to ensure a fluid, and (most of the time) pleasant experience.

I really blame HP for making Vista seem as bad as it does, they released SO many underpowered machines - "Vista Capable" pieces of that would have difficulty running XP.

Being the largest manufacturer of PCs in 2007...a lot of doom was sent Microsofts way.

Yes, Vista DID have it's issues, and they DID get fixed; but the circumstances which followed its release only exacerbated Microsofts situation and forever was Vista given its widely seen stigma.

I wish Microsoft took it under them to build a quality device, give some control to it. If anything, the closest manufacturer I could see to best represent Microsofts vision is IBM.

Lenovo is OK now, but IBM computers I rarely hear anything bad about the older devices.

 

Different things for different people. Thanks.
I completely understand your point on why a Mac.

And yes, Vista was a disaster when it came (so was XP) but it got stabilized, and that stain is still there as in Vista=crash

Mac OS has had the luck that it is simpler than what MC is. Not fanboyism, but remember MC is more widely used (on general basis/consumers) so it has to be more flexible and capable of allowing more platform and support more things, so it is kinda more complex, Mac OS is simpler since some software is not supported, so you simplify things in order to get a more stable OS, at the expense of that capability MC has to support more softwares...

 

I see your arguments from later on in the thread, but just for the record: there are no notebooks made by Apple that have "a high end graphics card". The highest they currently offer is the 9600M GT which was a mid-range card of Nvidia's labeling confusion series (it's nowhere close to the desktop 9600 GT). It wasn't particularly great even when it was released and now it's just plain obsolete (Apple tends to sell parts long past their prime).

I don't disagree with your assessment of Apple's OS: if instead of dual-booting Linux and Windows I could dual-boot OS X and Windows instead, I would quite likely do it. However, keep in mind that because people buy Apple's machines for the OS or simply for the brand, the hardware therein is either mediocre or severely overpriced or, the overwhelming majority of the time, both. I think most people on these forums would prefer to get great hardware at a reasonable price with an imperfect OS which can be customized to one's liking to a great OS that comes with mediocre hardware at an overinflated price.

Besides, if you want to game on a Mac, you'll be installing Windows in any case (at least of the kinds of games that use DirectX).

 

Sorry, to dissapoint you but I have a Macbook Pro 2.8GHZ wz 9600M GT 4gig DDR3 1066 mhz with OC/Core2Duo 3.2GHZ and this machine runs Call of duty Modern Warfare2 wz no hiccups in Windows 7 Ultimate 64 BootCamp. Mac's still gives you best bang for your buck for having two OS in one good looking machine.

 

you might have some evidence to back it up otherwise i'll conclude you're running on VGA resolution
to buy a mac and run windows is ridiculous....theres no point of it...

agrees with serg...
people should only buy a mac to run mac-exclusive software or they wanted to convert..nothing else..