# DX11 vs DX10 vs DX 9 *PICS*



## getbigtony

i've seen the rooftop pic before!


----------



## TwoCables

Um. Whoa!


----------



## savagebunny

Holy....

Big difference Eh?


----------



## flipmatthew

i use this benchmark, does it lag for u at 2xaa 16xaf all high dx11 tessalation when ur at the dragon??


----------



## The Master Chief

Quote:


Originally Posted by *TwoCables* 
Um. Whoa!

qft


----------



## blasphemy

More Detail in the DX11 pics. i like


----------



## VCheeZ

Here is a wireframe comparison pic I put together:


----------



## Contagion

Quote:


Originally Posted by *flipmatthew* 
i use this benchmark, does it lag for u at 2xaa 16xaf all high dx11 tessalation when ur at the dragon??

Umm, it has a hiccup where the fps dies for a second, but, then it picks back up.
DX11 hasnt even been fully optimised yet by DX 11 cards. Drivers.. They need to hurry.


----------



## Bigshades92

The only difference i see is that things stick out more, such as the Stones, and Roof tiles.

Looks very similar to dx10...


----------



## LemonSlice

So from what I can tell, the textures are actually textured instead of flat things with pictures painted on? I don't know, but that isn't really worth a GPU upgrade to me, considering what I have. If someone was getting a new GPU I would understand though.


----------



## dominique120

If this is DX 11, when DX 12 comes out it will be like looking at a real pic!


----------



## flipmatthew

how many fps are u getting???


----------



## Aaron_Henderson

Well, looks like I can consider my 8800's garbage now.


----------



## Contagion

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Bigshades92* 
The only difference i see is that things stick out more, such as the Stones, and Roof tiles.

Looks very similar to dx10...

Your kidding right?

Quote:


Originally Posted by *flipmatthew* 
how many fps are u getting???

It varies, it goes as high as 40fps and has hit 13fps.


----------



## flipmatthew

im getting 20 with a dip to 15 really fast


----------



## flipmatthew

i mean on walkaround at dragon statue i get 24fps to 15fps


----------



## Contagion

Quote:


Originally Posted by *flipmatthew* 
i mean on walkaround at dragon statue i get 24fps to 15fps

Yeah, its drivers, just give it a month or so, you should be seeing higher fps with better driver updates.


----------



## flipmatthew

thank god, iwas scared. I love you contagion (as a friend) u help me with everything xD!


----------



## Contagion

Quote:


Originally Posted by *flipmatthew* 
thank god, iwas scared. I love you contagion (as a friend) u help me with everything xD!

lol No problem
its what OCN is for


----------



## TwoCables

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Bigshades92* 
The only difference i see is that things stick out more, such as the Stones, and Roof tiles.

Looks very similar to dx10...

Yeah, it's as if DX11 is like a major parallax occlusion mapping upgrade. Not only that, but it seems like there are more differences than just the ones that are very similar to POM. There are more details all _over_ the place!!! I love it!

Quote:


Originally Posted by *LemonSlice* 
So from what I can tell, the textures are actually textured instead of flat things with pictures painted on? I don't know, but that isn't really worth a GPU upgrade to me, considering what I have. If someone was getting a new GPU I would understand though.

For me, even if I had the 4890x2, this difference would mean that I would be saving up for at least the 5870. This is amazing.


----------



## xJumper

It would have been nice to have DX9 pics to so we could view the progress.

Overall it's nice but considering no games use this yet, IMO it's not worth the upgrade.


----------



## Contagion

Quote:


Originally Posted by *TwoCables* 
me, even if I had the 4890x2, this difference would mean that I would be saving up for at least the 5870. This is amazing.

I used to think DX 11 was a joke, then I ran this test and WOW.
Boy, was I wrong. I'm glad I got my 5870.
It just needs to hurry up and catch on.
I also heard, is that with DX 11, it optimizes your performance, so even though your gpu is having to put out 10 times more tessellation, you still keep up with your performance.


----------



## Contagion

Quote:


Originally Posted by *xJumper* 
It would have been nice to have DX9 pics to so we could view the progress.

Overall it's nice but considering no games use this yet, IMO it's not worth the upgrade.

Give me a minute.


----------



## TwoCables

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Contagion* 
Give me a minute.

Not to be demanding, but can you reverse the order so that the DX11 rendering is the last one instead of starting with DX11?


----------



## Contagion

Quote:


Originally Posted by *TwoCables* 
Not to be demanding, but can you reverse the order so that the DX11 rendering is the last one instead of starting with DX11?

Np. Ill do that when I get the DX9 pics up.


----------



## MrPriest

Quote:


Originally Posted by *dominique120* 
If this is DX 11, when DX 12 comes out it will be like looking at a real pic!

That may be in 2011/2012 when RAY TRACING will be implemented in games. That will be so sexy looking. Games will start looking like the movie 'Final Fantasy the Spirits Within'.


----------



## TwoCables

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Contagion* 
Np. Ill do that when I get the DX9 pics up.

Nice. It's gonna be sweet.


----------



## imadude10

So all the extra geometry in the models is caused by the dx11 tessellation? Looks nifty. I'm looking forward to getting a dx11 card now that I see the difference first hand.


----------



## Contagion

Updated with DX 9 pics.

Edit, Im gunna re-do the DX 10 road pic to get it more the same as the others


----------



## TwoCables

Wow. Just _wow_.


----------



## Spritanium

That's it, I'm definitely getting a 5770


----------



## Contagion

Ok, everything has been updated along with the Road DX10 pic.
Go check em out.
Enjoy.

@TwoCables
Yeah, wow is what I said too.


----------



## low strife

I'd recommend saving the pictures then viewing them all in a row (slide--> slide). The differences are MUCH more apparent.


----------



## phantomgrave

Quote:


Originally Posted by *low strife* 
I'd recommend saving the pictures then viewing them all in a row (slide--> slide). The differences are MUCH more apparent.

Haha, that's what I did. DX11 looks amazing.


----------



## TwoCables

Quote:


Originally Posted by *low strife* 
I'd recommend saving the pictures then viewing them all in a row (slide--> slide). The differences are MUCH more apparent.

Or, open each one in it's own tab, then switch between them.


----------



## TFL Replica

The whole point behind this benchmark is to advertise DX11. While the benefits of DX11 can't be denied I firmly believe the other rendering modes are not representative of what can be achieved with them. This is why the differences in the majority of titles which are designed for DX9/DX10 with DX11 "slapped on" are so tiny it would bring a jolly cherub to tears.


----------



## Cyph3r

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Bigshades92* 
*The only difference i see is that things stick out more, such as the Stones, and Roof tiles.*

Looks very similar to dx10...

Yep, and it does this through parralax mapping, which guess what!? it's been available since DX9 dammit.

NOTHING new here at all.


----------



## TwoCables

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Cyph3r* 
Yep, and it does this through parralax mapping, which guess what!? it's been available since DX9 dammit.

NOTHING new here at all.

I agree that it looks like parallax mapping and parallax occlusion mapping, but look at the steps/stairs in the dragon statue pic. In DX9 and DX10, they don't look like stairs or steps, but in DX11, they look like the real thing. In fact, compare *all* of the little differences in the finer details. Like, the length of the grass, and all the differences in the details of the dragon statue.

So, I can't agree that there is nothing new here at all.


----------



## Aaron_Henderson

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Cyph3r* 
Yep, and it does this through parralax mapping, which guess what!? it's been available since DX9 dammit.

NOTHING new here at all.

DX9 and DX10 Parallax mapping can't touch that as far as I've seen. Maybe only because games aren't made to properly use it though for all I know. And TFL has a big point. I am sure the DX9 and DX10 could look nearly the same, but would require higher poly modeling to begin with to achieve the same look.


----------



## mocha989

come on nvidia i want your DX11 cards!!!


----------



## gablain

Quote:



Originally Posted by *Bigshades92*


The only difference i see is that things stick out more, such as the Stones, and Roof tiles.

Looks very similar to dx10...


yeah i think so to, but only that is a big difference... But why can't they make the tiles stick out more in dx10 ? I don't understand


----------



## TwoCables

Not only compare what I said to compare, but just compare the rooftops.


----------



## JKBenchmarks

Compare Dx9 (Consoles) to Dx11 (PC's) and there are many differences.


----------



## almighty15

This benchmark is rubbish, DX9/10 doesn't look as bad as this benchmark makes it seem as they can use Parallax ocullsion mapping









Crysis DX9 with POM + 16xAF :



















Now the above pictures are not as good as tessalation but are better then what this benchmark gives the impression of what DX9/10 can do


----------



## Contagion

Quote:



Originally Posted by *almighty15*


This benchmark is rubbish, DX9/10 doesn't look as bas bad as this benchmark makes it seem as they can use Parallax ocullsion mapping









Crysis DX9 with POM + 16xAF :

Now the above pictures are not as good as tessalation but are better then what this benchmark gives the impression of what DX9/10 can do










Now, Ive seen DX10 do that, but, not DX9.


----------



## almighty15

Quote:



Originally Posted by *Contagion*


Now, Ive seen DX10 do that, but, not DX9.


You can enable POM in DX9 with a .cfg tweak and AF works on any API...


----------



## rico2001

@OP
Nice pics Contagion! Huge difference and you can see how DX10 was never fully given a chance to be developed properly.

rep+


----------



## Darius Silver

While the pics do look awesome, that road looks unrealistic in DX11. Who would want to walk on that? Much less ride a horse and cart over it.









Don't quote me on this, but I remember hearing that even though you could get DX10(I guess 9 too) to look as pretty as DX11 it takes a larger hit on FPS. I guess a 5870 running a game maxed out would have higher FPS in DX11 then DX10/9.

http://www.computerbase.de/artikel/h..._crossfire/11/
Just found this, but until more games come out its hard to say if DX11 will constantly be faster then DX10


----------



## Contagion

Quote:



Originally Posted by *Darius Silver*


While the pics do look awesome, that road looks unrealistic in DX11. Who would want to walk on that? Much less ride a horse and cart over it.









Don't quote me on this, but I remember hearing that even though you could get DX10(I guess 9 too) to look as pretty as DX11 it takes a larger hit on FPS. I guess a 5870 running a game maxed out would have higher FPS in DX11 then DX10/9.

http://www.computerbase.de/artikel/h..._crossfire/11/
Just found this, but until more games come out its hard to say if DX11 will constantly be faster then DX10


This is very true.
I understand that DX10 came be "optimized" to look like DX11, it really hurts your performance because, DX10 was not made to run this high of tessellations and stuff. 
DX11 was made to optimize DX10 "super detailed" and computer performance.


----------



## lordikon

Quote:



Originally Posted by *VCheeZ*


Here is a wireframe comparison pic I put together:










If you look closely, the best part of this picture is at the very bottom left, where DX11's frame time is HALF of the DX10, meaning double the framerate. Yummy.


----------



## Contagion

Quote:



Originally Posted by *lordikon*


If you look closely, the best part of this picture is at the very bottom left, where DX11's frame time is HALF of the DX10, meaning double the framerate. Yummy.


Ah but, the 5870 drivers are just beta to say the least.
Even though they support DX11, the DX11 cards aren't even fully optimized to run DX10 yet.


----------



## i7bigrig

Quote:



Originally Posted by *mocha989*


come on nvidia i want your DX11 cards!!!


Why don't you just go ATI? Your mobo supports it, no reason to support a particular corporation if the competition is better.


----------



## lordikon

Quote:



Originally Posted by *Cyph3r*


Yep, and it does this through parralax mapping, which guess what!? it's been available since DX9 dammit.

NOTHING new here at all.


Automatic tessellation, independent rendering order for transparency, better depth of field, and three new shaders including a compute shader.

Sure parallax occlusion mapping was available on SOME DX9 cards (SM 3.0 and higher), but the things DX11 is showing off are available on ALL DX11 cards.

Quote:



Originally Posted by *Contagion*


Ah but, the 5870 drivers are just beta to say the least.
Even though they support DX11, the DX11 cards aren't even fully optimized to run DX10 yet.


Yes, but I'm saying optimized or not, DX11 is getting twice the framerate at DX10, running on the same hardware, which is awesome.


----------



## TwoCables

almighty15: is that Crysis, or Crysis Warhead? I've been through Crysis about 3 times now, but I don't recognize that scene. I'm asking because I want to see it on my computer. hehe


----------



## whitingnick

Wow, I'm convinced. DirectX11 is awesome. Thanks for the pics.


----------



## lordikon

Looked more closely at the pictures, and I'm going to have agree that while DX11 looks great, and runs better with the same geometry, this engine is purposely lowering the quality of DX9 and DX10 (as others in this thread have already stated).

They flattened the road in DX9 and DX10. Flattened the stairs in DX9 and DX10. They also took off geometry from the dragon statue. Poor form IMO.


----------



## Karlz3r

It's probably made by someone who wants people to buy DX 11 cards. And I'm sure this method is very good.


----------



## SkillzKillz

Beautiful pictures, you can really see the differences with DX11.

But DX11 is taking tessellation to the extreme. Who the hell would walk or drive on that road? Those bumps are huge. It's almost unrealistic.


----------



## jtfire55

Quote:



Originally Posted by *SkillzKillz*


Beautiful pictures, you can really see the differences with DX11.

But DX11 is taking tessellation to the extreme. Who the hell would walk or drive on that road? Those bumps are huge. It's almost unrealistic.


have you ever seen real life stone roads, its pretty much the same.


----------



## Greg121986

That looks cool, but it's so overly exaggerated in dx11. The rock pathway becomes a rock hazard, the roof tiles become roof hills. The dragon makes a positive impact, but I would say everything else has just become overinflated by taking up more vertical space.


----------



## TwoCables

Quote:


Originally Posted by *jtfire55* 
have you ever seen real life stone roads, its pretty much the same.

But a pathway like that is not practical. Still, it's a beautiful rendering.

However, it wouldn't surprise me if some pathways were like this back in those days.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Greg121986* 
That looks cool, but it's so overly exaggerated in dx11. The rock pathway becomes a rock hazard, the roof tiles become roof hills. The dragon makes a positive impact, but I would say everything else has just become overinflated by taking up more vertical space.

I kind of disagree regarding the roof shingles: they look like the real thing. Surely you've seen shingles like these before.


----------



## MintMouse

I get what he's saying. The road looks like a road of boulders instead of a road. But you can see how things will look pretty awesome when they start putting some good FPSs on DX11.


----------



## TFL Replica

Quote:


Originally Posted by *almighty15* 
This benchmark is rubbish, DX9/10 doesn't look as bas bad as this benchmark makes it seem as they can use Parallax ocullsion mapping









Crysis DX9 with POM + 16xAF :



















Now the above pictures are not as good as tessalation but are better then what this benchmark gives the impression of what DX9/10 can do









Basically the benchmark is designed to make DX10/9 look bad.


----------



## Threefeet

While I have to admit it looks great, I agree with what most people say about this not being a fair comparison. Even the basic geometry detail has been lowered in the DX9/10 versions, e.g. the stairs (or should I say ramp?).

I'm looking forward to seeing more accurate comparisons in a few months/years when the drivers are better.

And yes, I said _years_







**prepares to be lynched by the DX11 card owners**


----------



## brooze113

Quote:


Originally Posted by *TwoCables* 
Yeah, it's as if DX11 is like a major parallax occlusion mapping upgrade. Not only that, but it seems like there are more differences than just the ones that are very similar to POM. There are more details all _over_ the place!!! I love it!

For me, even if I had the 4890x2, this difference would mean that I would be saving up for at least the 5870. This is amazing.

THIS^^^

dx 11 is awesome

Quote:


Originally Posted by *almighty15* 
This benchmark is rubbish, DX9/10 doesn't look as bas bad as this benchmark makes it seem as they can use Parallax ocullsion mapping









Crysis DX9 with POM + 16xAF :

Now the above pictures are not as good as tessalation but are better then what this benchmark gives the impression of what DX9/10 can do









teh point is DX 11 DOES IT WITHOUT A HUGE PERFORMANCE HIT !!!!!


----------



## Contagion

Quote:


Originally Posted by *brooze113* 
teh point is DX 11 DOES IT WITHOUT A HUGE PERFORMANCE HIT !!!!!

Thank You.
This is what I have been saying the whole time. I guess people just don't listen.


----------



## kimosabi

Not good enough. I'm waiting for DX20. This crap won't justify the cost.


----------



## Threefeet

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Contagion* 
Thank You.
This is what I have been saying the whole time. I guess people just don't listen.

This benchmark doesn't show that, so people are only commenting on the difference they see.

A fairer benchmark would have DX9 & 10 attempting to immitate the quality of DX11, with the _actual_ results provided.


----------



## Abrajam

i see way more detail on the object on DX11 it seems to have more detail on the outer surfaces making a more real in a way


----------



## Liability

Quote:


Originally Posted by *TFL Replica* 
Basically the benchmark is designed to make DX10/9 look bad.


Quote:


Originally Posted by *Threefeet* 
This benchmark doesn't show that, so people are only commenting on the difference they see.

A fairer benchmark would have DX9 & 10 attempting to immitate the quality of DX11, with the _actual_ results provided.

This x 100000000.


----------



## VCheeZ

Really? DX11 haters? I remember when this same thing happened to DX10 when the 8800 series premiered. Listen, Windows 7 is better. Direct X 11 is better. ATI 5XXX series is better. Give it a few months and all of the underlined words will change. Welcome to enthusiast computing.


----------



## Contagion

Quote:



Originally Posted by *VCheeZ*


Really? DX11 haters? I remember when this same thing happened to DX10 when the 8800 series premiered. Listen, Windows 7 is better. Direct X 11 is better. ATI 5XXX series is better. Give it a few months and all of the underlined words will change. Welcome to enthusiast computing.


Wow I was thinking the same thing.
New tech never gets people hooked until they experience it first hand. Which usually takes a while given drivers and prices and optimization and stuff.


----------



## Liability

Quote:



Originally Posted by *VCheeZ*


Really? DX11 haters? I remember when this same thing happened to DX10 when the 8800 series premiered. Listen, Windows 7 is better. Direct X 11 is better. ATI 5XXX series is better. Give it a few months and all of the underlined words will change. Welcome to enthusiast computing.


Do I hate DX11? No. I do, however, hate the manner in which they're presenting it. It is deceptive and does not represent reality.

And DX10 was a flop.


----------



## Threefeet

Quote:



Originally Posted by *VCheeZ*


Really? DX11 haters? I remember when this same thing happened to DX10 when the 8800 series premiered. Listen, Windows 7 is better. Direct X 11 is better. ATI 5XXX series is better. Give it a few months and all of the underlined words will change. Welcome to enthusiast computing.


I'm not DX11 hating. I just pointed out this is not a fair representation of the potential of DX10 or DX9 and therefore the comparison is useless.

I look forward to seeing the real deal in the coming months and years as the drivers mature, then it'll be great to see actual game comparisons where the devs have tried their best to make each DX version look as good as it can.


----------



## xxicrimsonixx




----------



## Contagion

Quote:



Originally Posted by *xxicrimsonixx*












Lmao.
Well said.


----------



## I AM TEH LAW GIVAH

dx 10 looks like dx9 lol...


----------



## TwoCables

Contagion: are the settings all identical between the 3 screenshots? I mean, I guess I am becoming quite curious as to why the DX11 example is so drastically different. I mean, it looks like some advanced form of parallax occlusion mapping was enabled for the DX11 example while lower settings were used for the DX9 and DX10 examples.


----------



## aroc91

While I do agree this benchmark is very biased toward DX11 by making DX9 and 10 look like Quake 3, nobody can deny that DX11 is rendering a disgustingly high amount of polygons without a proportional performance hit. Without tessellation, I guarantee the DX11 scene would be a slideshow.


----------



## Contagion

Quote:


Originally Posted by *TwoCables* 
Contagion: are the settings all identical between the 3 screenshots? I mean, I guess I am becoming quite curious as to why the DX11 example is so drastically different. I mean, it looks like some advanced form of parallax occlusion mapping was enabled for the DX11 example while lower settings were used for the DX9 and DX10 examples.

For evey run it was 1920x1080 with 8xAA, 16 samples Anisotropy, full screen, shaders on high.
There is a Tessellation that has the options to enable, or disable. This drop down box is only available in DX11. When its set to DX10 or 9, this box is darkened out and cannot be accessed.
I ran the DX11 with tessellation enabled.


----------



## JKBenchmarks

Quote:


Originally Posted by *almighty15* 
This benchmark is rubbish, DX9/10 doesn't look as bas bad as this benchmark makes it seem as they can use Parallax ocullsion mapping









Crysis DX9 with POM + 16xAF :



















Now the above pictures are not as good as tessalation but are better then what this benchmark gives the impression of what DX9/10 can do









So what FPS do you get with that in Crysis?


----------



## Contagion

Ok, I just ran the test in DX 11 with Tessellation disabled and it pretty much looks the same as DX 10.
So, what I think this bench is showing is the difference between Tessellation and no Tessellation. They need to have an update that lets you enable Tessellation in DX 10


----------



## TwoCables

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Contagion* 

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Contagion* 
For evey run it was 1920x1080 with 8xAA, 16 samples Anisotropy, full screen, shaders on high.
There is a Tessellation that has the options to enable, or disable. This drop down box is only available in DX11. When its set to DX10 or 9, this box is darkened out and cannot be accessed.
I ran the DX11 with tessellation enabled.

Ok, I just ran the test in DX 11 with Tessellation disabled and it pretty much looks the same as DX 10.
So, what I think this bench is showing is the difference between Tessellation and no Tessellation. They have an update that lets you enable Tessellation in DX 10

Ooo, I would like to see the comparisons.


----------



## Contagion

Quote:


Originally Posted by *TwoCables* 
Ooo, I would like to see the comparisons.

Oh sorry, what i meant to say was

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Contagion* 
They *need to have* an update that lets you enable Tessellation in DX 10


----------



## grishkathefool

I don't think you could even walk on the DX11 road.


----------



## TwoCables

Quote:


Originally Posted by *grishkathefool* 
I don't think you could even walk on the DX11 road.

That's not the point, though.


----------



## Contagion

Quote:


Originally Posted by *grishkathefool* 
I don't think you could even walk on the DX11 road.

The point isnt if you can walk on it.
Its to show you the powah of DX11.
Not the power of Nike.

Ninja Edit - Two Cables beat me to it.


----------



## TwoCables

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Contagion* 

Quote:


Originally Posted by *TwoCables* 
Ooo, I would like to see the comparisons.

Oh sorry, what i meant to say was

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Contagion* 
They *need to have* an update that lets you enable Tessellation in DX 10



Oh, hehe. I like the ninja edit you made too. I saw it while building the above quote.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Contagion* 
The point isnt if you can walk on it.
Its to show you the powah of DX11.
Not the power of Nike.

Ninja Edit - Two Cables beat me to it.

lol









I am really enjoying the comments about the practicality of this stone road. But y'know what? It's like I said before, everyone: it wouldn't surprise me to find out that many pathways were like this back in those days.


----------



## Contagion

Quote:


Originally Posted by *TwoCables* 
Oh, hehe. I like the ninja edit you made too. I saw it while building the above quote.

lol









I am really enjoying the comments about the practicality of this stone road. But y'know what? It's like I said before, everyone: it wouldn't surprise me to find out that many pathways were like this back in those days.

HAHA what days?
This benchmark takes place on village in the sky.
We havent got to those days yet. lol


----------



## almighty15

Quote:


Originally Posted by *brooze113* 
teh point is DX 11 DOES IT WITHOUT A HUGE PERFORMANCE HIT !!!!!

POM does'nt zap power either









And if you read the PCGH article the 5870 takes a 20fps hit from running tessellation were as the hit from running that much POM with AF in Crysis is 3-4fps...


----------



## aroc91

Quote:



Originally Posted by *almighty15*


POM does'nt zap power either









And if you read the PCGH article the 5870 takes a 20fps hit from running tessellation were as the hit from running that much POM with AF in Crysis is 3-4fps...


But POM doesn't render additional polygons, it's a texture rendering process. Did you take a look at the wireframe models of the dragon? That's an amazing number of polygons, and like I said before, rendering that amount of detail without tessellation wouldn't be viable at all.


----------



## Bastiaan_NL

Cool pictures, darn you make me upgrade my card, and its only 2 months old....:S

+Rep!


----------



## TwoCables

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Contagion* 
HAHA what days?
This benchmark takes place on village in the sky.
We havent got to those days yet. lol

I'm talking about the old days that it looks like the scene is from. I grant you that I didn't know it was taken from Village in the Sky, however, that doesn't change what I am trying to say. I am trying to say that while the road is unpractical to modern man, it was probably the best they could do a couple hundred years ago or more. Meh. I don't know history, so please forgive me. But please try to understand what I am saying.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *almighty15* 
POM does'nt zap power either









And if you read the PCGH article the 5870 takes a 20fps hit from running tessellation were as the hit from running that much POM with AF in Crysis is 3-4fps...

Hmm. When I enable POM in Crysis with 8x AF, it feels like I'm losing much more than 3-4 FPS. But I am going by feel, and I am not making an educated guess. I'm just saying that I really notice the difference. However, it doesn't reduce the performance to a point where I can't stand it, so I leave POM enabled.

And you are right: what we're seeing in the DX11 example is not POM. It just looks like it.


----------



## almighty15

Quote:


Originally Posted by *aroc91* 
But POM doesn't render additional polygons, it's a texture rendering process. Did you take a look at the wireframe models of the dragon? That's an amazing number of polygons, and like I said before, rendering that amount of detail without tessellation wouldn't be viable at all.

I know it doesn't









Pff I wish people would learn to read









I merely posted these Crysis pictures to show that the benchmark was biased towards DX11 as DX9/10 can do a lot better then the horrible flat textures that are present in the benchmark.

What the benchmark should of done was :

Have a native DX11 path
Have a DX10.1 path with tessellation support
Have a DX10/9 path with parallax oculsion mapping support.

That would of been a better and more of a 'fair' test.


----------



## TFL Replica

In addition to the above opengl has offset mapping and relief mapping. I think most people are reaching the wrong conclusion about this benchmark. If you're using it to compare DX11/10/9/opengl then you're doing it wrong. It's to showcase DX11, end of story.


----------



## TwoCables

Quote:


Originally Posted by *almighty15* 
I know it doesn't









Pff I wish people would learn to read









I merely posted these Crysis pictures to show that the benchmark was biased towards DX11 as DX9/10 can do a lot better then the horrible flat textures that are present in the benchmark.

What the benchmark should of done was :

Have a native DX11 path
Have a DX10.1 path with tessellation support
Have a DX10/9 path with parallax oculsion mapping support.

That would of been a better and more of a 'fair' test.

Where in Crysis were you when you took the screenshots?

Quote:


Originally Posted by *TFL Replica* 
In addition to the above opengl has offset mapping and relief mapping. I think most people are reaching the wrong conclusion about this benchmark. If you're using it to compare DX11/10/9/opengl then you're doing it wrong. It's to showcase DX11, end of story.

Amen.


----------



## almighty15

It would be very very interesting to see how DX11 compares to DX10.1 in terms of tessellation performance and quality.


----------



## almighty15

Quote:


Originally Posted by *TwoCables* 
Where in Crysis were you when you took the screenshots?

It's a custom map


----------



## Contagion

Quote:


Originally Posted by *almighty15* 
It would be very very interesting to see how DX11 compares to DX10.1 in terms of tessellation performance and quality.

Yeah, thats what I'm waiting for.

Post 100 for the thread.
I thinks its my only thread ever to have hit 100 posts.


----------



## TwoCables

Quote:


Originally Posted by *almighty15* 
It's a custom map









Aw man. I was getting all ready to load one of my saved games to run over to that part of the map and go "ooooo". lol

But, I guess if I want to do that, then I can go back to the scene just before discovering the frozen boat.







I'll never forget the difference when going from no POM to having POM enabled. Wow.


----------



## Swiftes

DX11 looks awesome!


----------



## JohnDProb

i dont like how much that stuff sticks out
i prefer how dx 10 looks so i guess i dont need to upgrade


----------



## Contagion

I put on the "DX10 on DX9" mod in crysis and noticed a pretty heavy performance decrease. In areas where I was getting 40fps i was now getting ~25fps.
http://www.moddb.com/games/crysis/ad...er-dx9-minimod
thats the mod i used btw.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *JohnDProb* 
i dont like how much that stuff sticks out
i prefer how dx 10 looks so i guess i dont need to upgrade









Wth.


----------



## almighty15

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Contagion* 
I put on the "DX10 on DX9" mod in crysis and noticed a pretty heavy performance decrease. In areas where I was getting 40fps i was now getting ~25fps.
http://www.moddb.com/games/crysis/ad...er-dx9-minimod
thats the mod i used btw.

Wth.

You're the only person I've *EVER* spoke to who has had a performance drop in Crysis when running in DX9 over DX10.


----------



## Contagion

Quote:


Originally Posted by *almighty15* 
You're the only person I've *EVER* spoke to who has had a performance drop in Crysis when running in DX9 over DX10.

Well, I meant I get the performance drop in DX9 when using the mod.
Before the mod I got ~10 more fps in DX9 than DX10


----------



## TwoCables

Quote:


Originally Posted by *JohnDProb* 
i dont like how much that stuff sticks out
i prefer how dx 10 looks so i guess i dont need to upgrade









Are you serious?

The DX11 examples couldn't *be* more beautiful!! I grant you that the stone pathway is very unpractical, but for the purpose of displaying the rendering capabilities, I can only sit here with my jaw on the floor going "whoa".

Besides, this is not an example of what would happen to your games if you started taking advantage of DX11 with a DX11 card in Windows 7. The differences might be subtle, just like they were in going from DX9 to DX10. However, I think what we're seeing here is the potential superiority of DX11 over DX10 in how much it can render without killing performance.


----------



## G|F.E.A.D|Killa

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Bigshades92* 
The only difference i see is that things stick out more, such as the Stones, and Roof tiles.

Looks very similar to dx10...

yes, and that adds to more detail and shadows.


----------



## pow3rtr1p

It seems to me, just as an initial impression, DX9 and 10 are mroe texture based, and DX11 just has more depth. Maybe they are able to use 3D textures now? Or perhaps the polygon count is just that much higher.


----------



## brooze113

Quote:


Originally Posted by *JKBenchmarks* 
So what FPS do you get with that in Crysis?

atleast 1 frame per day


----------



## Vagrant Storm

not so sure I'd like to drive down that DX11 road...


----------



## Contagion

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Vagrant Storm* 
not so sure I'd like to drive down that DX11 road...

Psh. That would be fun. I would have to drop $2000 on body work afterwards but, thats cool...


----------



## brooze113

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Vagrant Storm* 
not so sure I'd like to drive down that DX11 road...

lol, would be a bumpy ride


----------



## TwoCables

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Vagrant Storm* 
not so sure I'd like to drive down that DX11 road...

True, but whether or not that pathway is practical is really far from the point.


----------



## tipsycoma

Will DX10.1 cards be able to support these features at all?


----------



## Contagion

Quote:



Originally Posted by *tipsycoma*


Will DX10.1 cards be able to support these features at all?


No they cant. You must have a DX 11 card.


----------



## brooze113

Quote:



Originally Posted by *tipsycoma*


Will DX10.1 cards be able to support these features at all?


They can, but they wont be supported


----------



## tipsycoma

I heard that DX10.1 cards would support some features of DX11, just not all.


----------



## brooze113

Quote:



Originally Posted by *tipsycoma*


I heard that DX10.1 cards would support some features of DX11, just not all.


dx 10.1 cards will have a boost over dx 10 cards in dx 11 games though.

As shown here http://www.driverheaven.net/reviews....d=842&pageid=5


----------



## DuDeInThEmOoN42

It's nice to see that there are definitely more lucid and substantial visual details this time around vs when DX10 came out, but I still think I'm going to hold off until next year to go DX11 when more games support it.

Besides, I just love my 4870x2 too much


----------



## Contagion

Quote:


Originally Posted by *brooze113* 
dx 10.1 cards will have a boost over dx 10 cards in dx 11 games though.

As shown here http://www.driverheaven.net/reviews....d=842&pageid=5

But, they wont have all the optimization that DX 11 cards get.


----------



## solidsteel144

So this is pretty much DX10, but with tessellation? Someone needs to take a look at some of AMD's tech demos.







This has been possible since the R600 days (a little bit earlier actually).


----------



## TwoCables

Quote:


Originally Posted by *solidsteel144* 
So this is pretty much DX10, but with tessellation? Someone needs to take a look at some of AMD's tech demos.







This has been possible since the R600 days (a little bit earlier actually).

Yes, but has it been possible with this kind of performance?


----------



## FSF-Foxhound

Quote:


Originally Posted by *VCheeZ* 
Here is a wireframe comparison pic I put together:









sweet jesus


----------



## Swifterzor

I know the DX11 road/path seems more detailed, but that's very unrealistic. Who would build a path with rocks jutting out all over the place? The path rendered with DX9 and DX10 looks more realistic. The other two comparisons are awesome though.


----------



## weebeast

Too be true dx11 looks great but the crysis pics look good too

Still no reason too upgrade because the games that i play dont have dx11 or wont have dx 11 like cod 6 etc


----------



## TwoCables

Quote:



Originally Posted by *Swifterzor*


I know the DX11 road/path seems more detailed, but that's very unrealistic. Who would build a path with rocks jutting out all over the place? The path rendered with DX9 and DX10 looks more realistic. The other two comparisons are awesome though.


Whether or not the pathway is practical or realistic is not the point. The point is how beautifully it's rendered.

*Dear everyone:* for the last time (hopefully): whether or not the pathway is practical is not the point. The point is how beautifully it is rendered. If you're judging it based on whether or not it would be a good pathway to use, then you are totally missing the point!

I apologize, but I am so tired of seeing comments about the pathway being impractical. *It does not matter whether or not the pathway is practical or useful or functional.* All that matters is how beautifully it is rendered.


----------



## halifax1

I thought DirectX 11 was supposed to be "more realistic"? Not just make something "rendered beautifully".

Sorry, but I'd rather have something look real instead of just being rendered "beautifully".


----------



## TwoCables

Quote:



Originally Posted by *halifax1*


I thought DirectX 11 was supposed to be "more realistic"? Not just make something "rendered beautifully".

Sorry, but I'd rather have something look real instead of just being rendered "beautifully".


Well, what if that stone pathway was rendered by DX11 perfectly and exactly the way its creator intended?

It certainly looks awesome to me. I don't care whether or not that stone path is functional. After looking at the other two screenshots, I care even less because the other two are about as realistic as it gets right now. So for me to see the other two and then to see that stone path, I will say this: I think that the stone path is about as realistic as it gets right now too. After all, why else would it have rendered it that way? It's not like DX11 is being creative.


----------



## filipin0yboi

uhm to be honest guys, i dont see a diff between dx9 and dx10


----------



## Karlz3r

That's because it's faked worse.


----------



## FSF-Foxhound

I think it looks fantastic. I agree twocables


----------



## NuclearCrap

It would be a much better showcase if they made it so that both DX9 and DX10 are showing the same POM level. It's obviously possible (as seen in Oblivion and Crysis mods) and it would actually better show how such high POM level affect performance in different DX versions.


----------



## TwoCables

Quote:


Originally Posted by *NuclearCrap* 
It would be a much better showcase if they made it so that both DX9 and DX10 are showing the same POM level. It's obviously possible (as seen in Oblivion and Crysis mods) and it would actually better show how such high POM level affect performance in different DX versions.

But this isn't POM. It's tessellations (but I don't know what tessellations is/are).

Contagion found that the DX9 and DX10 benchmarks don't have the Tessellation option while the DX11 one does, so he disabled it and the the DX11 reportedly ended up looking very much like the DX9 and DX10 shots.


----------



## NuclearCrap

Quote:


Originally Posted by *TwoCables* 
But this isn't POM. It's tessellations (but I don't know what tessellations is/are).

Contagion found that the DX9 and DX10 benchmarks don't have the Tessellation option while the DX11 one does, so he disabled it and the the DX11 reportedly ended up looking very much like the DX9 and DX10 shots.

And POM can simulate the effects of tessellation. If they're truly digging into this new method, they should show actual performance difference on similar high-end graphics or showcase graphics to the level where DX9 and DX10 can't reach/simulate.

We sure need developers like Crytek to get the best outta these things as they did with DX9.


----------



## vicious_fishes

lol @ people saying the road isn't realistic whilst looking at a flippin' DRAGON

tbh i dont care about the IQ. now the performance on the other hand...


----------



## Rab1t_K1ll3r^

You all may call me insane, but I honestly do not see the difference between DX11 and DX10. The pictures look nearly identical except for some fine detail. Could anyone fill me in on the differences? Thanks.


----------



## vicious_fishes

Quote:



Originally Posted by *Rab1t_K1ll3r^*


You all may call me insane, but I honestly do not see the difference between DX11 and DX10. The pictures look nearly identical except for some fine detail. Could anyone fill me in on the differences? Thanks.


you mean 9 & 10 ?

11 and 10 is all the stuff sticking out..


----------



## Contagion

Quote:



Originally Posted by *Rab1t_K1ll3r^*


You all may call me insane, but I honestly do not see the difference between DX11 and DX10. The pictures look nearly identical except for some fine detail. Could anyone fill me in on the differences? Thanks.


Uhhh, I know this good eye doctor if you want to see him.


----------



## subliminally incorrect

just goes to show that dx 9 and dx 10 had very little difference in image quality


----------



## vicious_fishes

yes, dx10 was a joke. GG nvidia.

there's a pretty significant difference in performance from 9-10.1 though.


----------



## SniperXX

Tessellation looks really cool in those pics. That seems to be the only noticeable difference for me.


----------



## brooze113

Quote:


Originally Posted by *NuclearCrap* 
It would be a much better showcase if they made it so that both DX9 and DX10 are showing the same POM level. It's obviously possible (as seen in Oblivion and Crysis mods) and it would actually better show how such high POM level affect performance in different DX versions.

then the dx 9 and 10 scenes would run at 1 frame per hour

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Rab1t_K1ll3r^* 
You all may call me insane, but I honestly do not see the difference between DX11 and DX10. The pictures look nearly identical except for some fine detail. Could anyone fill me in on the differences? Thanks.

trying to justify something?


----------



## SkillzKillz

Quote:


Originally Posted by *vicious_fishes* 
lol @ people saying the road isn't realistic whilst looking at a flippin' DRAGON

Roads aren't fantasized creatures.


----------



## Threefeet

Quote:


Originally Posted by *SkillzKillz* 
Roads aren't fantasy creatures.

This is a valid point.

However what we are assuming is that whatever lives in this village in the sky has feet and/or uses carts with wheels.

They could be a levitating jellyfish race who farm dragons, for all we know


----------



## Contagion

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Threefeet* 
They could be a levitating jellyfish race who farm dragons, for all we know









Well said.


----------



## MasterKromm

Check out some the of SSs in this Crytek forum thread for RELI2 by Hawkeye|Puppy,

http://www.crymod.com/thread.php?thr...tuser=0&page=1

I dunno, call me crazy, but those pics look just as good as what I have seen(*thus far*) from dx11/unigine.


----------



## Cropythy

Those pictures show a lot of the value of tesselation, that being said though the difference in appearance while striking is still not enough to motivate me to save up the money necessary for a GPU upgrade, mostly because I am in college and inherently broke...

Also I gotta say that road sure is impractical, I mean i have now seen the light and know what is wrong with the world today. Flat roads simply make no sense, not only do they not bring excitement to our daily lives but also allow car manufacturers to get away with making cars that could not handle several violent bumps per second.


----------



## Contagion

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Cropythy* 
Those pictures show a lot of the value of tesselation, that being said though the difference in appearance while striking is still not enough to motivate me to save up the money necessary for a GPU upgrade, mostly because I am in college and inherently broke...

Also I gotta say that road sure is impractical, I mean i have now seen the light and know what is wrong with the world today. Flat roads simply make no sense, not only do they not bring excitement to our daily lives but also allow car manufacturers to get away with making cars that could not handle several violent bumps per second.

Once again someone criticizes to practicality of the roads. Wow. You guys just don't get it. If the people who made this benchmark wanted the roads to be flat, don't you think they would of made the roads flat?
The point is to show tessellation and what it can do.
Go nit pick somewhere else.


----------



## OmegaNemesis28

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Rab1t_K1ll3r^* 
You all may call me insane, but I honestly do not see the difference between DX11 and DX10. The pictures look nearly identical except for some fine detail. Could anyone fill me in on the differences? Thanks.

lolwut
do you not see the rocks and crap?

My suggestion to everyone is
1) right click on each image
2) click "copy image location".
3) Open a new tab
4) Ctrl + V in the url bar.
5) Repeat for each set of comparison pics.
6) Switch between each tab to compare the pictures one by one.

Cheap, easy method to the 'roll over' effect websites use. You'll see ALOT more differences then 'quick memory peaks.'

For those criticizing the roads actually being pertinent - how about I say the same for the environment the roads detail.
Talk about being hypocritical. You want the roads to be flat? How about we make the entire environment flat but have the models extra pretty? Oh wait, you don't want that? Then why the hell are you down talking the roads and the environment textures then?! Hypocrites.

One of my biggest gripes about environments are the roads and rocks. This 'tickled my fancy' if you will. Thanks for the share.


----------



## dzalias

If you say you can't see a difference, you're an idiot.
If you say you can't see much of a difference, you're an idiot.
If you say you can see a difference, but it doesn't matter, you're an idiot.

I'm buying DX11 cards naow.

Except not. I'm going to wait for them to mature and lower in price.


----------



## vicious_fishes

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Contagion* 
Once again someone criticizes to practicality of the roads. Wow. You guys just don't get it. If the people who made this benchmark wanted the roads to be flat, don't you think they would of made the roads flat?
The point is to show tessellation and what it can do.
Go nit pick somewhere else.

exactly. the point was to highlight that "dx11 can go THIS mental with tessellation, dx10 can't."

which of course it can, but with about 9fps.


----------



## filipin0yboi

so really though, what is the difference between dx9 and dx10?


----------



## TwoCables

Quote:



Originally Posted by *filipin0yboi*


so really though, what is the difference between dx9 and dx10?


This benchmark is a little borked because inside the software, only DX11 has the Tessellations option while DX9 and DX10 do not. When Contagion ran the benchmark _without_ the Tessellations option, all 3 looked pretty much the same (well, at least concerning these obvious differences).

So, these screenshots can't be used to compare DX9 to DX10. But what we later found out after several replies was this: DX11 can do what we see in the screenshot with noticeably smoother performance than DX9 and DX10. I mean, apparently, DX9 and DX10 are absolutely capable of doing this Tessellations thing, but not with the same amount of FPS.


----------



## Contagion

Quote:



Originally Posted by *TwoCables*


This benchmark is a little borked because inside the software, only DX11 has the Tessellations option while DX9 and DX10 do not. When Contagion ran the benchmark _without_ the Tessellations option, all 3 looked pretty much the same (well, at least concerning these obvious differences).

So, these screenshots can't be used to compare DX9 to DX10. But what we later found out after several replies was this: DX11 can do what we see in the screenshot with noticeably smoother performance than DX9 and DX10. I mean, apparently, DX9 and DX10 are absolutely capable of doing this Tessellations thing, but not with the same amount of FPS.


The test wont let me run DX10 or 9 with the Tessellation option on. I wish it did though.


----------



## SpammisT

Nvidia. I'm waiting for your GT300. That's all I'm going to do this week. Sit down on my desk and just keep watching the clock tick, and tock.


----------



## Cropythy

Quote:



Originally Posted by *Contagion*


Once again someone criticizes to practicality of the roads. Wow. You guys just don't get it. If the people who made this benchmark wanted the roads to be flat, don't you think they would of made the roads flat?
The point is to show tessellation and what it can do.
Go nit pick somewhere else.


Did you really not read the first part of what I wrote in which i stated that the tessellation was impressive, I mean i can understand missing the sarcasm in the second part if you just skimmed it but are you seriously just going around looking for posts with the word road in it and skipping the rest of the post?


----------



## TFL Replica

How collision detection will work in conjunction with tessellation is what I'd like to know. Will the vanilla wireframe (before tessellation) model be used instead for performance reasons? (Collision detection can quickly become computationally intensive)


----------



## epitek

LOL that road looks like ^&%* I wouldn't drive a hummer down that thing, Anyone want to trade a dx11 card for my EVGA GTX 260 ?!!!


----------



## TwoCables

Quote:



Originally Posted by *epitek*


LOL that road looks like ^&%* I wouldn't drive a hummer down that thing, Anyone want to trade a dx11 card for my EVGA GTX 260 ?!!!


Why are you concerned about the practicality/usability of the road? It's not real life! Not only that, but if you're considering the practicality/usability of the road, then you are totally missing the point. But I said this already.


----------



## vicious_fishes

give up twocables... correcting wrongs is like subtracting one from infinity.


----------



## TwoCables

Quote:



Originally Posted by *vicious_fishes*


give up twocables... correcting wrongs is like subtracting one from infinity.


hehehe


----------



## Exostenza

Super stoked for nVidia GT300 now! YEAH!

I will probably upgrade in about a year as the prices will be high and the amount of DX11 games will be low for a while I am sure.


----------



## Rab1t_K1ll3r^

Quote:



Originally Posted by *Contagion*


Uhhh, I know this good eye doctor if you want to see him.


It's just my opinion, overall image quality has not changed greatly to my eyes (20/20 vision btw). But please tone down the hostility. OCN is supposed to be a friendly place.


----------



## snow cakes

seems like dx11 has way more 3d texturing and more realistic shadowing...

BTW Vcheese, nice wireframe it helps you see more of how they worked with dx11


----------



## almighty15

Crysis with my MOD which enables parallax occulsion mapping with 16xAF filtering ( Stock game does not allow POM + AF to work at the same time )




























That's also running in DX9 code path


----------



## JKBenchmarks

Quote:



Originally Posted by *almighty15*


Crysis with my MOD which enables parallax occulsion mapping with 16xAF filtering ( Stock game does not allow POM + AF to work at the same time )




























That's also running in DX9 code path










So what FPS do you get this that mod and 4xAA?


----------



## almighty15

Quote:



Originally Posted by *JKBenchmarks*


So what FPS do you get this that mod and 4xAA?


I've locked the framerate to 30fps with the built in 'lock fps' command but it's never dropped below 30fps.

It is indoors though, the game in general goes between 25-30fps


----------



## Contagion

I put on that DX9 mod for crysis. Wow performance drop much?
Before, DX9 HIGH 1920x1080 8xAA ~45fps higher when running around in the open and stuff.
Now, DX9 (modded) HIGH 1920x1080 8xAA ~30fps.


----------



## Threefeet

Quote:



Originally Posted by *epitek*


LOL that road looks like ^&%* I wouldn't drive a hummer down that thing, Anyone want to trade a dx11 card for my EVGA GTX 260 ?!!!


Who said levitating jellyfish drive?

If I were blessed with the powers of levitation, I wouldn't waste my money on a Hummer. I'd still need a tractor & trailer for the dragons though.


----------



## FSF-Foxhound

Quote:



Originally Posted by *vicious_fishes*


give up twocables... correcting wrongs is like subtracting one from infinity.


welcome to the world of twocables. Not one. But twocables.


----------



## Riou

Whoever makes roads using DX11 tesselation needs to reduce it a bit. Even though it looks impressive, it can make thing bulge out too much. Like if you wanted to make a rocky beach, it would be good. But if you want to make a medieval-style paved rock walkway, it look likes the engineers and contractors got lazy.

DX11 = next step towards realistic (or unrealistic) bulging body parts.


----------



## kyleax1

DX9 and DX10 are very similar DX11 looks amazing though.


----------



## Conley

Sigh. Time to sink more money into a DX11 graphics card.


----------



## TwoCables

Quote:



Originally Posted by *lelouche*


Whoever makes roads using DX11 tesselation needs to reduce it a bit. Even though it looks impressive, it can make thing bulge out too much. Like if you wanted to make a rocky beach, it would be good. But if you want to make a medieval-style paved rock walkway, it look likes the engineers and contractors got lazy.

DX11 = next step towards realistic (or unrealistic) bulging body parts.


But this isn't indicative of the way it's actually going to be.


----------



## Ecchi-BANZAII!!!

So all it does is enable the bump map settings?

I call this shenanigans/Farcry+AMD64 bullocks.


----------



## Contagion

Quote:



Originally Posted by *Ecchi-BANZAII!!!*


So all it does is enable the bump map settings?

I call this shenanigans/Farcry+AMD64 bullocks.


Well, all the tessellation you see (the bumps and stuff) DX10 can do and mods can do for DX9, but, they don't support how deep that DX11 can go with them, also, DX11 was made for optimization.
For instance, DX10 with the amount of tessellation you see (just picking a random number) would give you 10fps.
While with DX11 (same picture and everything) might give you 30+fps.
Check out the wireframe done here by the VCheeZ.


----------



## TwoCables

Quote:



Originally Posted by *Ecchi-BANZAII!!!*


So all it does is enable the bump map settings?

I call this shenanigans/Farcry+AMD64 bullocks.


Nope. This is Tessellations (or however the term is supposed to be used). This benchmark does not have a Tessellations option for the DX9 and DX10 benchmarks, just the DX11. When the Tessellations option is unchecked/disabled, it doesn't look that much different from DX9 and 10. According to Contagion, they look nearly identical except for certain improvements that should be expected.

But the point is this: DX9 and DX10 can do this too, but DX11 does it with satisfying performance whereas both DX9 and 10 suck at it.


----------



## Ecchi-BANZAII!!!

Quote:



Originally Posted by *TwoCables*


Nope. This is Tessellations (or however the term is supposed to be used). This benchmark does not have a Tessellations option for the DX9 and DX10 benchmarks, just the DX11. When the Tessellations option is unchecked/disabled, it doesn't look that much different from DX9 and 10. According to Contagion, they look nearly identical except for certain improvements that should be expected.

But the point is this: DX9 and DX10 can do this too, but DX11 does it with satisfying performance whereas both DX9 and 10 suck at it.


That's good news then since DX10 was a flop compared to DX9 when it came to visuals/performance.

Still waiting for GTX300 then







as I don't see fit to buy a graphic card that is as good as a 4870x2 that is years old (reffering to the *current* 5800 series).
Though by the time NV has FINALLY released their GTX300, ATi will have bacon and cheese served with another good bang for buck card


----------



## myresolution_72

Quote:



Originally Posted by *Ecchi-BANZAII!!!*


That's good news then since DX10 was a flop compared to DX9 when it came to visuals/performance.

Still waiting for GTX300 then







as I don't see fit to buy a graphic card that is as good as a 4870x2 that is years old (reffering to the *current* 5800 series).
Though by the time NV has FINALLY released their GTX300, ATi will have bacon and cheese served with another good bang for buck card










Lol no bull. I am hesitating to buy a 5770 because I don't want nVidia to have a card better and around the same price as soon as I buy a 5770.


----------



## Contagion

Quote:



Originally Posted by *Ecchi-BANZAII!!!*


That's good news then since DX10 was a flop compared to DX9 when it came to visuals/performance.

Still waiting for GTX300 then







as I don't see fit to buy a graphic card that is as good as a 4870x2 that is years old (reffering to the *current* 5800 series).
Though by the time NV has FINALLY released their GTX300, ATi will have bacon and cheese served with another good bang for buck card










Haha I used to have my mind set.
I had a 4890, which is/was an amazing card don't get me wrong, and I was gunna wait for the GT300's to come out in hopes of a nice $50+ price drop on the 5870's, but, then I started seeing the benches, and just how sexy it was.
I just gave in to the demands.

Quote:



Originally Posted by *myresolution_72*


Lol no bull. I am hesitating to buy a 5770 because I don't want nVidia to have a card better and around the same price as soon as I buy a 5770.



Are you kidding? NV wouldn't release a new card for $160 if their business was failing.


----------



## Ecchi-BANZAII!!!

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Contagion* 
Haha I used to have my mind set.
I had a 4890, which is/was an amazing card don't get me wrong, and I was gunna wait for the GT300's to come out in hopes of a nice $50+ price drop on the 5870's, but, then I started seeing the benches, and just how sexy it was.
I just gave in to the demands.

Dude, I'm pretty sure your move was not in vain as these 5800 cards sure packs some power for being a single card and also have DX11.
But I can still wait for the GTX300 (the reason I say GTX to them is because we know they will release hundreds of different versions, including GTX300, GTS300, GT300).


----------



## kingwilliam

Funny how there is little or no difference between 9 and 10....

I cant wait to see games really start utilizing this


----------



## Contagion

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Ecchi-BANZAII!!!* 
Dude, I'm pretty sure your move was not in vain as these 5800 cards sure packs some power for being a single card and also have DX11.
But I can still wait for the GTX300 (the reason I say GTX to them is because we know they will release hundreds of different versions, including GTX300, GTS300, GT300).

I dont think anyone knows anything about the 300's coming up.
Its weird, we don't have an official relase date/estimate (other than rumors), no estimated prices, no "leaked" specs, hell, we don't even know what the damn cards are gunna be called.


----------



## KusH

there is leaked specs conagion, they're more like guildlines to what the card will have though.


----------



## Contagion

Quote:


Originally Posted by *KusH* 
there is leaked specs conagion, they're more like guildlines to what the card will have though.

Just found them, its strange, when the 5800 specs were leaded, most of the time they weren't correct.
Anyways, paper specs mean next to nothing. I wan't these cards to come out. Though I highly doubt they will have anything that won't cost as much as my system that will make me wanna give up my 5870. I love this thing so much.

And, you spelled my name wrong....
:|


----------



## Jrice00

These pics look like the benchmark was made as an attempt to sell dx11 to people. I may be acting as skeptic here, but I hope that the games released have detail like this benchmark.


----------



## TwoCables

Quote:


Originally Posted by *kingwilliam* 
Funny how there is little or no difference between 9 and 10....

I cant wait to see games really start utilizing this

The reason that there is little to no difference between 9 and 10 is because this the DX11 is using Tessellations. But unfortunately, this benchmarking software does not have a Tessellations option for either DX9 or 10, so when Tessellations is unchecked/disabled for DX11, it looks almost no different/better than both 9 and 10.

However, DX9, 10 and 11 are all capable of Tessellations. But DX11 can do Tessellations with far better performance then both DX9 and 10.

*Jrice00:* this is for you too.


----------



## Contagion

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Jrice00* 
These pics look like the benchmark was made as an attempt to sell dx11 to people. I may be acting as skeptic here, but I hope that the games released have detail like this benchmark.

Oh they will, and this is just the beginning.
Keep in mind that even though the card I used is a DX11 card, the drivers are so behind it that it isn't even fully optimized to run DX11 yet. Which means future driver updates will yield more performance, and maybe, better quality tessellation (which plays more on the role of the developers.)


----------



## Ecchi-BANZAII!!!

I got 60FPS (V.sync at 60Hz) when in FPS mode and 35-38FPS during bench on my relic 8800GTX muscle car(_d_).


----------



## Contagion

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Ecchi-BANZAII!!!* 
I got 60FPS (V.sync at 60Hz) when in FPS mode and 35-38FPS during bench on my relic 8800GTX muscle car(_d_).

At what settings?


----------



## Jrice00

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Ecchi-BANZAII!!!* 
I got 60FPS (V.sync at 60Hz) when in FPS mode and 35-38FPS during bench on my relic 8800GTX muscle car(_d_).

Mid 30s is a pretty good score for that card. I don't feel quite the need to buy dx11 now


----------



## Ecchi-BANZAII!!!

Quote:



Originally Posted by *Contagion*


At what settings?


By now people should know I maximize almost all settings in NVCP.
2xAA in Heaven Demo With everything else maxed except DX11 and only running at 1280x720 because I want to run it in Window mode while doing more important stuff.
Wouldn't surprise me if I got max 20FPS at 1920x1200.










Added a printscreen from the 1280x720 run









*OMG!!!*
I still maintained good framrates from this old card.
Note that nothing is overclocked on it or the CPU ATM.









For some reason AA didn't work now but it's still high FPS consider the 8800GTX isn't a shader card compared to the newer cards 2GHz Shader clock cards...

(PNG files at 1920x1200 really should be available on OCN...)
(Or images in overall should be...)


----------



## TwoCables

Quote:



Originally Posted by *Ecchi-BANZAII!!!*


By now people should know I maximize almost all settings in NVCP.


But you're not the only one on Overclock.net. It's basically impossible for people to remember these things because there is a large amount of active members here.


----------



## Ecchi-BANZAII!!!

Quote:



Originally Posted by *TwoCables*


But you're not the only one on Overclock.net. It's basically impossible for people to remember these things because there are a large amount of active members here.


But those who have had a discussion with me should know that I hate when people don't know how to optimize their NVCP/CCC settings.


----------



## Contagion

Quote:



Originally Posted by *Ecchi-BANZAII!!!*


But those who have had a discussion with me should know that I hate when people don't know how to optimize their NVCP/CCC settings.


But, Im sure that 90% of the people that view this havent had a discussion with you. 
Just sayin.


----------



## Ecchi-BANZAII!!!

Quote:



Originally Posted by *Contagion*


But, Im sure that 90% of the people that view this havent had a discussion with you. 
Just sayin.


That's too bad.
Since there are so many people that doesn't even know that there even is settings for graphics outside the games they play, like AF for instance.
Just look at all the review pages that we see on games where they bench games without AF. Though there are about 40% of those reviews that actually use AF but they chicken out at only AFx4 or x8...


----------



## Contagion

Quote:



Originally Posted by *Ecchi-BANZAII!!!*


That's too bad.
Since there are so many people that doesn't even know that there even is settings for graphics outside the games they play, like AF for instance.
Just look at all the review pages that we see on games where they bench games without AF. Though there are about 40% of those reviews that actually use AF but they chicken out at only AFx4 or x8...


I know what you mean.
And, half the time, the settings that you use outside of the game, are better optimized so you could get better performance.
So many nubs out there.


----------



## Contagion

Guys tomorrow I'll post up some DX11 pics of foliage. Should be pretty good.


----------



## saulin

Quote:



Originally Posted by *Ecchi-BANZAII!!!*


By now people should know I maximize almost all settings in NVCP.
2xAA in Heaven Demo With everything else maxed except DX11 and only running at 1280x720 because I want to run it in Window mode while doing more important stuff.
Wouldn't surprise me if I got max 20FPS at 1920x1200.










Added a printscreen from the 1280x720 run









*OMG!!!*
I still maintained good framrates from this old card.
Note that nothing is overclocked on it or the CPU ATM.









For some reason AA didn't work now but it's still high FPS consider the 8800GTX isn't a shader card compared to the newer cards 2GHz Shader clock cards...

(PNG files at 1920x1200 really should be available on OCN...)
(Or images in overall should be...)


Those are the settings I use as well. I like to play with the real max settings. Not just max in game settings. Sometimes I do force AA in the control panel though. Depends on the game. I also use vsync and triple buffering.


----------



## EnToxication

I want to see what happens with 3D vision. 3D vision is making me really interested


----------



## NFF

Quote:


Originally Posted by *almighty15* 
This benchmark is rubbish, DX9/10 doesn't look as bad as this benchmark makes it seem as they can use Parallax ocullsion mapping









Crysis DX9 with POM + 16xAF :



















Now the above pictures are not as good as tessalation but are better then what this benchmark gives the impression of what DX9/10 can do









can we see these with wire frame on?


----------



## TwoCables

Quote:



Originally Posted by *Ecchi-BANZAII!!!*


But those who have had a discussion with me should know that I hate when people don't know how to optimize their NVCP/CCC settings.


I don't get it. Why should they know that?

There are a few people on here who have gotten to know me really well, but they still forget many "obvious" things about me (or even my system). But they forget because their lives don't revolve around mine.


----------



## Unknownm

Quote:



Originally Posted by *TwoCables*


I agree that it looks like parallax mapping and parallax occlusion mapping, but look at the steps/stairs in the dragon statue pic. In DX9 and DX10, they don't look like stairs or steps, but in DX11, they look like the real thing. In fact, compare *all* of the little differences in the finer details. Like, the length of the grass, and all the differences in the details of the dragon statue.

So, I can't agree that there is nothing new here at all.


/offtopic

Why 2 cables.


----------



## TwoCables

Quote:



Originally Posted by *Unknownm*


/offtopic

Why 2 cables.


Because.


----------



## Unknownm

Quote:



Originally Posted by *TwoCables*


Because.


Why not 1 cable.. like HDMI


----------



## TwoCables

Quote:



Originally Posted by *Unknownm*


Why not 1 cable.. like HDMI


Because.

j/k.

That's a good question.







Hmm. I dunno.









Or, I could make a new account to replace this one and become TwoDongles.


----------



## Unknownm

Quote:



Originally Posted by *TwoCables*


Because.

j/k.

That's a good question.







Hmm. I dunno.









Or, I could make a new account to replace this one and become TwoDongles.


or go wireless LMAO


----------



## TwoCables

Quote:



Originally Posted by *Unknownm*


or go wireless LMAO


TwoSignals!


----------



## Evil-Jester

Quote:



Originally Posted by *TwoCables*


Because.

j/k.

That's a good question.







Hmm. I dunno.









Or, I could make a new account to replace this one and become TwoDongles.


mmmmmm TwoDongles ... Kinky


----------



## almighty15

Quote:



Originally Posted by *NFF*


can we see these with wire frame on?


No but that's not the point I was trying to make, I know there's very very few polygons in those 'rocks'


----------



## TwoCables

Quote:



Originally Posted by *Evil-Jester*


mmmmmm TwoDongles ... Kinky










hehehe I can't help myself. I like the word "dongle".


----------



## Contagion

Quote:


Originally Posted by *TwoCables* 
hehehe I can't help myself. I like the word "dongle".

We should make a thread on the word "Dongle".


----------



## Threefeet

Quote:



Originally Posted by *Contagion*


We should make a thread on the word "Dongle".


Suggestions:

"My GF broke my dongle!"
"Wanted: dongle."
"So I stuck my dongle into windows..."

This could go on for a while.


----------



## TwoCables

lol nice.


----------



## Contagion

"My dongle broke"


----------



## ipar26

Quote:



Originally Posted by *Contagion*


Yeah, its drivers, just give it a month or so, you should be seeing higher fps with better driver updates.


you may think so,know one knows how the 58xx series will perform in a DX 11 games.driver updates might not give you the perform boost you are hoping for.
I for one hope they do perform ok in DX 11.as the 58xx series might be my next card.


----------



## Contagion

Quote:


Originally Posted by *ipar26* 
you may think so,know one knows how the 58xx series will perform in a DX 11 games.driver updates might not give you the perform boost you are hoping for.
I for one hope they do perform ok in DX 11.as the 58xx series might be my next card.

I know for certain that driver updates will help the card tremendously.
Same thing happened with the 48XX and the 38XX cards. And pretty much every ATI card to ever come out. (though, I wasnt around for the 38XX's)


----------



## dieanotherday

they should make crysis with unigine


----------



## Contagion

Quote:


Originally Posted by *dieanotherday* 
they should make crysis with unigine

Oh god... 10fps much?


----------



## PanicProne

All I know is that DX9 still looks pretty damn good after all these years.


----------



## KusH

Could be the opposite, maybe we haven't advanced enough after all these years...
Provocative


----------



## Contagion

Quote:



Originally Posted by *KusH*


Could be the opposite, maybe we haven't advanced enough after all these years...
Provocative










Or maybe we've advanced so much, that major changes in the past don't have the same impact as they should.. hmmm...


----------



## KusH

Touche


----------



## Contagion

Lets let more people see this.
DX11 FTW


----------



## whocarez

Am I the only one who thinks DX9 looked better then DX10 in some Screen shots? lol


----------



## xpfighter

HI guys, I don't want to hurt anybody or anything. And i am not blind, BUT
I don't see any improvements at all. I just see a little different programming. Like the stones stick out more, or dragon is a bit more Needely(sharper). But Grass looks just the same(does not look real). Bad example.

Here is a better example : http://www.digitalbattle.com/2009/06...irectx-11-gpu/


----------



## Contagion

Quote:



Originally Posted by *xpfighter*


HI guys, I don't want to hurt anybody or anything. And i am not blind, BUT
I don't see any improvements at all. I just see a little different programming. Like the stones stick out more, or dragon is a bit more Needely(sharper). But Grass looks just the same(does not look real). Bad example.

Here is a better example : http://www.digitalbattle.com/2009/06...irectx-11-gpu/


well, you cant really compare two different pics for differences. you cant compare and contrast them.


----------



## TwoCables

Quote:


Originally Posted by *whocarez* 
Am I the only one who thinks DX9 looked better then DX10 in some Screen shots? lol

I think you are the only one.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *xpfighter* 
HI guys, I don't want to hurt anybody or anything. And i am not blind, BUT
I don't see any improvements at all. I just see a little different programming. Like the stones stick out more, or dragon is a bit more Needely(sharper). But Grass looks just the same(does not look real). Bad example.

Here is a better example : http://www.digitalbattle.com/2009/06...irectx-11-gpu/

The grass in the DX10 shot is longer and more realistic than the DX9 shot. There are other differences, but I need to get to a more important point: what we are seeing here with the DX11 shot is Tessellations. This benchmarking program does not have a Tessellations option for DX9 and 10, so when Contagion discovered this, he decided to try the DX11 run again without Tessellations, and then there was almost no difference between the 3 shots (according to his opinion). Like, the similarity between DX9 and 10 continued on with DX11 when he ran DX11 again without Tessellations. For example, the stone pathway was just as flat as DX9 and 10. The rooftop was flat too.

But I assume that there were still improvements over DX9 and 10 since these shots show that DX10 is a little better looking than DX9.


----------



## dejanh

That bench is deceiving...

We should do DX9 vs. DX10 using Parallax Occlusion Mapping vs. DX11 Tessellation...

I have not seen textures that flat in years.


----------



## Loogash

OK just to clarify things for some people on what DirectX 11 and Tessellation does/is.

First here's an example of it. It's the best one I could find, but I know there's a better one out there.


YouTube - AMD demonstrates tessellation on the worlds first DirectX 11 graphics processor





.

Anyways, basically what tessellation does is take the composition of a set of triangles like that rock in the Ungine Engine? benchmark that are similar and just repeats those polygons over like Instancing on a GPU or tiling of a bathroom floor.

The Compute Shader allows the GPU to perform some tasks that a CPU would normally do, such as physics calculations that's why you see the GPU's physics update is 3 times higher than DX10. Then there are other features of DX11 that benchmark doesn't show and/or can't show.

One last thing, tessellation isn't a free resource but it allows the developers other means of achieving the same results as POM.

Sorry it took me a week to reply, so i doubt anyone will see this, but there it is.


----------



## Bozebo

notice the ones that look worse in dx11 are that way because the scenes were not designed to have that delivery of parralax mapping.

In general when the textures and environments are made specifically for dx11 the improvements will stand out (then again, those scenes would not be applicable for comparison in dx 9 or 10 because of the different steps taken in designing them)


----------



## TwoCables

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Bozebo* 
notice the ones that look worse in dx11 are that way because the scenes were not designed to have that delivery of parralax mapping.

In general when the textures and environments are made specifically for dx11 the improvements will stand out (then again, those scenes would not be applicable for comparison in dx 9 or 10 because of the different steps taken in designing them)

But this is Tessellations, not POM.


----------



## Bozebo

Quote:



Originally Posted by *TwoCables*


But this is Tessellations, not POM.


truestory

I didn't really pay attention there









edit:
still though.
Environments developed with the method in mind gain more from it - rather than it being added to a previous dx10-era work.


----------



## mmparkskier

Wow, I'm glad I stumbled across this thread. I might actually consider DX11 when most games support it.

The DX11 graphics seem too exaggerated. This is only one example of software though.

One question for Contagion. How did you run DX11 tests? What card are you using?


----------



## Bozebo

Quote:



Originally Posted by *mmparkskier*


The DX11 graphics seem too exaggerated. This is only one example of software though.


I agree. They are slapped into particular areas rather than being thought of from the ground up. I want to see a nice piece of work exploiting dx11's benefits to their fullest.


----------



## Contagion

Quote:



Originally Posted by *mmparkskier*


Wow, I'm glad I stumbled across this thread. I might actually consider DX11 when most games support it.

The DX11 graphics seem too exaggerated. This is only one example of software though.

One question for Contagion. How did you run DX11 tests? What card are you using?


My HIS 5870.
Before I sold it..
I think im gunna get the Vapor-X 5870 as soon as i can find one.


----------



## mmparkskier

Quote:



Originally Posted by *Contagion*


My HIS 5870.
Before I sold it..
I think im gunna get the Vapor-X 5870 as soon as i can find one.


If I go for a DX11 card, I'll wait to see what Nvidia brings to the table. Then, after each card is pitted against it's rival, I will decide what I want. For the first time, I'm hoping ATI trumps Nvidia (I bought a CrossfireX supported board without considering my current card







). Also, I've heard the new series scales well.

Quote:



Originally Posted by *Bozebo*


I agree. They are slapped into particular areas rather than being thought of from the ground up. I want to see a nice piece of work exploiting dx11's benefits to their fullest.


My thoughts _exactly_.


----------



## TwoCables

Quote:



Originally Posted by *mmparkskier*


Wow, I'm glad I stumbled across this thread. I might actually consider DX11 when most games support it.

The DX11 graphics seem too exaggerated. This is only one example of software though.

One question for Contagion. How did you run DX11 tests? What card are you using?


According to Contagion, there's an option for Tessellations that's only available for the DX11 benchmark, and it was selected. That's why the DX11 screenshot looks so much different. But without Tessellations selected, the DX11 runs look pretty much the same as DX9 and 10.

So, the reason it looks exaggerated is because of Tessellations.


----------



## Contagion

Quote:



Originally Posted by *TwoCables*


According to Contagion, there's an option for Tessellations that's only available for the DX11 benchmark, and it was selected. That's why the DX11 screenshot looks so much different. But without Tessellations selected, the DX11 runs look pretty much the same as DX9 and 10.

So, the reason it looks exaggerated is because of Tessellations.


^this


----------



## mmparkskier

Quote:



Originally Posted by *TwoCables*


According to Contagion, there's an option for Tessellations that's only available for the DX11 benchmark, and it was selected. That's why the DX11 screenshot looks so much different. But without Tessellations selected, the DX11 runs look pretty much the same as DX9 and 10.

So, the reason it looks exaggerated is because of Tessellations.



Quote:



Originally Posted by *Contagion*


^this


Yeah, I read that in someone's post earlier in the thread (I only read up until about the 5th page). I want to see a benchmark/game that uses Tessellations... better (for lack of a better word), more efficiently. I don't want to see much of a FPS drop (this is asking for too much), and I want it too look realistic, not exaggerated. The benchmark doesn't seem to use DX11 as well as it could.

Pertaining to FPS... When running the DX11 benchmark without Tessellations selected, did the FPS match those of DX9/10?


----------



## Contagion

Quote:



Originally Posted by *mmparkskier*


Yeah, I read that in someone's post earlier in the thread (I only read up until about the 5th page). I want to see a benchmark/game that uses Tessellations... better (for lack of a better word), more efficiently. I don't want to see much of a FPS drop (this is asking for too much), and I want it too look realistic, not exaggerated. The benchmark doesn't seem to use DX11 as well as it could.

Pertaining to FPS... When running the DX11 benchmark without Tessellations selected, did the FPS match those of DX9/10?


there was a nice chunk of an fps drop.
DX9 would give avg 60ish fps
DX10 would give avg 50fps
DX11 gave about 28fps
future driver updates should help that though.


----------



## mmparkskier

Quote:



Originally Posted by *Contagion*


there was a nice chunk of an fps drop.
DX9 would give avg 60ish fps
DX10 would give avg 50fps
DX11 gave about 28fps
future driver updates should help that though.



More drivers optimized for optimal optimization!

It's unfortunate the DX11 still lowered frame rate without Tessellation on. Are there any distinguishable differences other than the ones you already mentioned?


----------



## Raiden911

WHOA!









Very cool.


----------



## Contagion

Quote:



Originally Posted by *mmparkskier*


More drivers optimized for optimal optimization!

It's unfortunate the DX11 still lowered frame rate without Tessellation on. Are there any distinguishable differences other than the ones you already mentioned?


Uh DX11 without tesselation didnt lower the frames at all.
the stats i gave were with DX11 tesselation.


----------



## Loogash

Here's a benchmark from some random website.
http://www.hardocp.com/article/2009/...1_tessellation


----------



## TwoCables

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Loogash* 
Here's a benchmark from some random website.
http://www.hardocp.com/article/2009/...1_tessellation

Nice. I would like to use this article the next time somebody says something negative, or says they don't get it or says that the stone pathway is impractical. This article explains it really well: we are merely looking at the potential for what Tessellations can do on consumer hardware.


----------



## tylerand

That is absolutely amazing... This gives me even more of a reason to get dual 5870's. Hopefully they will last long enough (still remain decent) until christmas, so i can buy myself one now and get another at christmas. This really is amazing, i can't get over the difference. If you ask me though, DX9 vs. DX10 isn't very impressive.

It's sort of sad, but i'm going to be skipping two generations of DirectX with this new build of mine... I never expected that to happen.


----------



## Contagion

Quote:



Originally Posted by *tylerand*


That is absolutely amazing... This gives me even more of a reason to get dual 5870's. Hopefully they will last long enough (still remain decent) until christmas, so i can buy myself one now and get another at christmas. This really is amazing, i can't get over the difference. If you ask me though, DX9 vs. DX10 isn't very impressive.

It's sort of sad, but i'm going to be skipping two generations of DirectX with this new build of mine... I never expected that to happen.


Dont be sad. Your not missing out on much.

Guys, I'm a hypocrite... I made this thread in the hype of DX11 and then I sold my DX11 card.
lol


----------



## mmparkskier

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Loogash* 
Here's a benchmark from some random website.
http://www.hardocp.com/article/2009/...1_tessellation

Thanks for the link. I'm liking the idea of DX11 so far.


----------



## Bozebo

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Contagion* 
I made this thread in the hype of DX11 and then I sold my DX11 card.
lol

lol win.

we just can't resist the raw power can we?

thats why im waiting for fermi. I've always wanted the top chip and I have a chance to have one







Because it's being bought for me.

True though that the tesselation in dx11 will be win, but to use it for excellent effect we need better cards than simply the 5870. Right now the same detail can be added if needed (though the vertices ofc need to be stored even when not rendered rather than DX11's way where they are only generated whilst in view). The priorities will balance eventually.


----------



## Contagion

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Bozebo* 
lol win.

we just can't resist the raw power can we?

thats why im waiting for fermi. I've always wanted the top chip and I have a chance to have one







Because it's being bought for me.

True though that the tesselation in dx11 will be win, but to use it for excellent effect we need better cards than simply the 5870. Right now the same detail can be added if needed (though the vertices ofc need to be stored even when not rendered rather than DX11's way where they are only generated whilst in view). The priorities will balance eventually.

No we cant.
I change my GFX card very often. Theres just something about them, I like to get new ones. lol. Try out different ones.


----------



## Microsis

BF:BC2 in DX11...

Need I say more?


----------



## Enigma8750

Well I see that when DX 12 comes out, you won't know the difference between Computer generated and a Picture. The Advancements are great. I only have DX 10 and I will not be upgrading to DX 11 soon because I spent so much on my current Graphics card. (Sapphire 4870x2).

BTW. To forum master. Please concider this as a sticky as it is very helpful in determining the difference between the different versions. Thanks Kindly.
Enigma.


----------



## smash_mouth01

Quote:



Originally Posted by *Bozebo*


lol win.

we just can't resist the raw power can we?

thats why im waiting for fermi. I've always wanted the top chip and I have a chance to have one







Because it's being bought for me.

True though that the tesselation in dx11 will be win, but to use it for excellent effect we need better cards than simply the 5870. Right now the same detail can be added if needed (though the vertices ofc need to be stored even when not rendered rather than DX11's way where they are only generated whilst in view). The priorities will balance eventually.



So what happens if Nvidia are full of fail ?.


----------



## Contagion

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Enigma8750* 
BTW. To forum master. Please concider this as a sticky as it is very helpful in determining the difference between the different versions. Thanks Kindly.
Enigma.

That would be cool.
Thnx for all the support guys.
I actually made a thread that didn't die


----------



## Contagion

I hope we start seeing more DX11 stuff soon.


----------



## mmparkskier

Quote:



Originally Posted by *Contagion*


That would be cool.
Thnx for all the support guys.
I actually made a thread that didn't die










That's for sure, this thing exploded. I came back to check for other interesting posts, but now there are too many!

I hope this gets to be a sticky, I think everyone wants some easy visual representation of DX9 v. 10 v. 11.


----------



## Contagion

Quote:



Originally Posted by *mmparkskier*


That's for sure, this thing exploded. I came back to check for other interesting posts, but now there are too many!

I hope this gets to be a sticky, I think everyone wants some easy visual representation of DX9 v. 10 v. 11.


Haha.
It did that to me too a few weeks ago.
I was out of town and then I came back and BAM.


----------



## Loogash

Assuming anyone even has the money to consider this, here is the new 5970 Crossfired with some benchmarks.

http://www.tweaktown.com/articles/30...rex/index.html


----------



## Contagion

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Loogash* 
Assuming anyone even has the money to consider this, here is the new 5970 Crossfired with some benchmarks.

http://www.tweaktown.com/articles/30...rex/index.html

Wow those actually dont scale that awfully.
And with future drivers it should only get better.
I want the 5970 bad.


----------



## Contagion

Bump for views


----------



## Styves27

Sorry for the bump, but I had to point this out.

DX9 and DX10 cannot use tessellation, hence why the option is not available. Why? Because the DX11 cards have an on-board tessellation unit designed specifically for tessellating (The Xbox360 also has a tessellation unit as well, but is usually never used. Again made by ATI







). DX9 and DX10 cards do not have this unit (I think the Radeon 3xxx and 4xxx series have one, but it's inactive), therefor the engine would either have to run tessellation on the main processor of the GPU, reducing your FPS to like... -30, or run it on the CPU, again being really slow, if not slower than being run on the GPU. To see how slow the process can be, run tessellation in 3ds Max. You'll see how slow it can get.

In the case of this demo, they use tessellation to create hundreds (if not thousands) of extra polygons on the surfaces and then use a heightmap (I'm assuming it's a heightmap) to raise/lower vertices to create the depth effect of the textures (this is speculation. I don't know the actual procedure used). This is similar to POM, except that POM is a surface effect, nothing more than an illusion. It does not provide proper silhouettes on edges and definitely cannot add the detail seen on the dragon model. Most of the tessellation effects in this demo cannot be achieved with POM. For example, the sides of the houses sticking out, or the steps going from a ramp to actual detailed steps. That's the magic of tessellation.

That's not saying that DX9 or DX10 can't use tessellation. It can, but it's extremely, and I mean *extremely*, limited. Crysis has some sort of tessellation system for it's ocean rendering (see wireframe in Sandbox2 if you have it installed), but whether or not it's the same thing I'm not sure. Either way, it's nowhere near as detailed as this.

Hope that shed some light. Again, sorry for the bump.


----------



## Jablinkst

dx11 is a big gimmick. Why?
1. Performance. Are you sure that 15-20 Fps is enough for games? No.
2. You get 20fps in such a small world. Bigger world would drop fps even more.
3. Too much depth..
4. 
Quote:



Originally Posted by *kitsune0video*

Why a rock need 3k polys if with just 300 can look nice?


And some proof: Better flags, water and shadows of rocks = 33% less fps? Hahaha

Differences : http://www.pcgameshardware.com/aid,6...sons/Practice/

Performance: http://www.pcgameshardware.com/aid,7...ults/Practice/

Quote:



Originally Posted by *almighty15*


This benchmark is rubbish, DX9/10 doesn't look as bad as this benchmark makes it seem as they can use Parallax ocullsion mapping









Crysis DX9 with POM + 16xAF :



















Now the above pictures are not as good as tessalation but are better then what this benchmark gives the impression of what DX9/10 can do


----------



## TwoCables

Quote:



Originally Posted by *Jablinkst*


dx11 is a big gimmick. Why?
1. Performance. Are you sure that 15-20 Fps is enough for games? No.
2. You get 20fps in such a small world. Bigger world would drop fps even more.
3. Too much depth..
4.

And some proof: Better flags, water and shadows of rocks = 33% less fps? Hahaha

Differences : http://www.pcgameshardware.com/aid,6...sons/Practice/

Performance: http://www.pcgameshardware.com/aid,7...ults/Practice/


It's not fair to make such judgments this early. I mean, of _course_ we're not going to have much more than 20 FPS with Tessellation. But this is a GREAT start. Think of the future!

And again: too much depth? As I said about 5-10 times already in this thread: this benchmark is not indicative of the way it's actually going to be! That stone pathway isn't a way to say "this is how it's going to be, folks! Isn't it awesome?" It is showing the *potential*. We can't get this kind of Tessellation at the same level of performance. If Tessellation were forced on 4000 series or GTX 200 series cards, then it would be a slide show!

It's time to be less cynical and more intelligent: think of the future. Don't judge it for the way it is NOW. After all, the usage will improve.


----------



## Cryptedvick

I'm getting fed up with this crap about tesselation and comparing DX10 to DX11 like that. 
the only difference in those pics is that DX11 has more polygons which can also be made in DX10 and 9 but they disabled it








Give me some REAL DX11 effects not more polygons.


----------



## TwoCables

Quote:



Originally Posted by *Cryptedvick*


I'm getting fed up with this crap about tesselation and comparing DX10 to DX11 like that. 
the only difference in those pics is that DX11 has more polygons which can also be made in DX10 and 9 but they disabled it








Give me some REAL DX11 effects not more polygons.


The performance achieved with Tessellations in DX11 is significantly superior to the performance you would achieve if you forced Tessellations in DX9 or 10. That's the point.


----------



## Cryptedvick

Quote:



Originally Posted by *TwoCables*


The performance achieved with Tessellations in DX11 is significantly superior to the performance you would achieve if you forced Tessellations in DX9 or 10. That's the point.


Im not talking about forcing tessellation.
simply adding more polygons ... like the guy a few posts up with crysis.

edit: I mean look at the obvious difference between the DX10 dragon statue and DX11 dragon statue... surely the could have added more polygons to make those stairs look like stairs and not ramps for disabled people.


----------



## TwoCables

Quote:



Originally Posted by *Cryptedvick*


Im not talking about forcing tessellation.
simply adding more polygons ... like the guy a few posts up with crysis.


That's very different. It's an illusion, more or less.


----------



## solidsteel144

ATi cards have had tessellation support since... What? The HD 2xxx series. DX 11 just has their own little version. AMD has a demo running in DX 10.1 with tessellation and it runs and looks great.


----------



## Pibbz

I remember when DX10 was first hyped... man, what a joke that turned out to be.


----------



## PCWIZMTL

i kinda understand why dx 10 wasn't really necessary... dx11 stomps... simply beautiful


----------



## Melcar

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Cryptedvick* 
Im not talking about forcing tessellation.
simply adding more polygons ... like the guy a few posts up with crysis.

edit: I mean look at the obvious difference between the DX10 dragon statue and DX11 dragon statue... surely the could have added more polygons to make those stairs look like stairs and not ramps for disabled people.


That's what I'm thinking. So far, everything DX11 can do DX10.1 can do as well, just that it would be more costly in terms of resources. It's a shame that no one bothered with DX10, but what can you do with how the gaming market is nowadays.


----------



## Contagion

Quote:



Originally Posted by *Melcar*


That's what I'm thinking. So far, everything DX11 can do DX10.1 can do as well, just that it would be more costly in terms of resources. It's a shame that no one bothered with DX10, but what can you do with how the gaming market is nowadays.


I've said this before in this thread.
Yes, DX10.1 can do what DX11 does, but, DX11 was desgined to optimize this. 
For example, in the screeny, I get 19fps at the dragon statue with DX11. If, you were to force that kind of tesselation on DX10, yes it would look the same, but, you might not even get 10fps.


----------



## Styves27

It should be noted that tessellation probably won't be used to such an extent in a real-world game.

Look at the dragon statue. It has far too many polygons than required. This is just to show potential, as TwoCables keeps having to mention. Real-world games will most likely use it for mild wall bumps rather than POM and perhaps characters. Tessellating to the point that they did in this video is more than overkill for games today.

I'd also like to point out the developer advantages to tessellation.

Traditionally, devs have to start with high polygon models, and then lower the detail so that they can work in-game. Then they create LOD models, even lower detailed models to swap with the regular model at distances, to lower polygon counts.

There are several problems with this:

1. It takes a lot of time. Creating the high polygon model takes a substantial development time. Then creating the real model based off the high polygon one as well as the LODs. This increases the development time (creating LODs isn't a simple click-done operation. In several cases, you end up with holes or oddities such as arms being flat and whatnot - I know from experience).

2. The swapping of each LOD is usually extremely noticeable. Of course, this depends on the view distance, but most of the time you can see the transition occur if you look for it. Some games (Killzone2) dissolve the current LOD into the next one, making the transition a little smoother, but it's still easily seen.

3. Memory. Each new LOD takes up memory. Normally, each LOD is embedded into the character model file itself. This means that the file ends up larger. Whether or not the system loads the entire set of models into memory or only the one currently in use, I'm not sure of, but I'm leaning towards the earlier. That would mean more memory being used for every model. Not good.

And here's where tessellation can help.

1. Devs can start straight off with a low-poly model, and simply tessellate the details onto it, as seen with the dragon or stairs in this video - that was the purpose of not making stairs, but a ramp instead. To show how effective tessellation can be to create detail. This decreases the development time significantly, because modeling a high-detail model will take more time then setting up some textures for tessellation. The same way modeling bricks would take more time than simply using POM.

2. Tessellation can be decreased in power over distance, as seen by the wireframe in the video. This means no swapping, only a smooth transition from full detail to low detail. You'd be hard pressed to see it occur (aside from a few things like the spikes on the dragon, which can be seen shrinking as you get further).

3. The only added memory is the memory created by the tessellation. There are no LOD models for every object, therefor a large portion of memory can be saved. Character models and objects can take up less HDD space and therefor devs can fit more onto a disk than they used to.

Performance shouldn't be an issue if they carefully select a proper level of tessellation. For example, tessellation in this video is over done for the purpose of effect and showing off the potential.

The last thing I'd like to note is the performance loss in Dirt 2 may be related to DX9 having a 1/4 screen-size HDR, SSAO and post-processing techniques (being already somewhat performance-lowering) while the DX11 one has full-screen HDR (much more accurate), SSAO and post-processing (blur, depth-of-field, that stuff).

Using a full-screen buffer for the shader effects in DX9 would undoubtedly lower performance beyond acceptable results. With DX11, it manages to stay above a playable FPS, so the difference is pretty large.

Just to show you what I mean, I created a Crysis map that has heavy lightbeam usage. Normally, these lightbeams are rendered on the HDR buffer, which is something like 1/4 or 1/8 the screen size. Using the console command "r_beams 1" the beams are moved from the HDR buffer to the normal buffer, resulting in a full-screen render. The beams end up much nicer and much more detailed, but performance is dropped by nearly 60%.

Couple that with full-screen SSAO and post-processing, like motion blur and depth of field (which are also rendered at around 1/4 the screen size) and you won't have a game anymore, just a screenshot.










*Try to read it for goodness sake.*


----------



## Contagion

Quote:



Originally Posted by *Styves27*


It should be noted that tessellation probably won't be used to such an extent in a real-world game.

Look at the dragon statue. It has far too many polygons than required. This is just to show potential, as TwoCables keeps having to mention. Real-world games will most likely use it for mild wall bumps rather than POM and perhaps characters. Tessellating to the point that they did in this video is more than overkill for games today.

I'd also like to point out the developer advantages to tessellation.

Traditionally, devs have to start with high polygon models, and then lower the detail so that they can work in-game. Then they create LOD models, even lower detailed models to swap with the regular model at distances, to lower polygon counts.

There are several problems with this:

1. It takes a lot of time. Creating the high polygon model takes a substantial development time. Then creating the real model based off the high polygon one as well as the LODs. This increases the development time (creating LODs isn't a simple click-done operation. In several cases, you end up with holes or oddities such as arms being flat and whatnot - I know from experience).

2. The swapping of each LOD is usually extremely noticeable. Of course, this depends on the view distance, but most of the time you can see the transition occur if you look for it. Some games (Killzone2) dissolve the current LOD into the next one, making the transition a little smoother, but it's still easily seen.

3. Memory. Each new LOD takes up memory. Normally, each LOD is embedded into the character model file itself. This means that the file ends up larger. Whether or not the system loads the entire set of models into memory or only the one currently in use, I'm not sure of, but I'm leaning towards the earlier. That would mean more memory being used for every model. Not good.

And here's where tessellation can help.

1. Devs can start straight off with a low-poly model, and simply tessellate the details onto it, as seen with the dragon or stairs in this video - that was the purpose of not making stairs, but a ramp instead. To show how effective tessellation can be to create detail. This decreases the development time significantly, because modeling a high-detail model will take more time then setting up some textures for tessellation. The same way modeling bricks would take more time than simply using POM.

2. Tessellation can be decreased in power over distance, as seen by the wireframe in the video. This means no swapping, only a smooth transition from full detail to low detail. You'd be hard pressed to see it occur (aside from a few things like the spikes on the dragon, which can be seen shrinking as you get further).

3. The only added memory is the memory created by the tessellation. There are no LOD models for every object, therefor a large portion of memory can be saved. Character models and objects can take up less HDD space and therefor devs can fit more onto a disk than they used to.

Performance shouldn't be an issue if they carefully select a proper level of tessellation. For example, tessellation in this video is over done for the purpose of effect and showing off the potential.

The last thing I'd like to note is the performance loss in Dirt 2 may be related to DX9 having a 1/4 screen-size HDR, SSAO and post-processing techniques (being already somewhat performance-lowering) while the DX11 one has full-screen HDR (much more accurate), SSAO and post-processing (blur, depth-of-field, that stuff).

Using a full-screen buffer for the shader effects in DX9 would undoubtedly lower performance beyond acceptable results. With DX11, it manages to stay above a playable FPS, so the difference is pretty large.

Just to show you what I mean, I created a Crysis map that has heavy lightbeam usage. Normally, these lightbeams are rendered on the HDR buffer, which is something like 1/4 or 1/8 the screen size. Using the console command "r_beams 1" the beams are moved from the HDR buffer to the normal buffer, resulting in a full-screen render. The beams end up much nicer and much more detailed, but performance is dropped by nearly 60%.

Couple that with full-screen SSAO and post-processing, like motion blur and depth of field (which are also rendered at around 1/4 the screen size) and you won't have a game anymore, just a screenshot.










*Try to read it for goodness sake.*


You did a lot of typing.
Wasn't this your first post on OCN too? Epic.
But, yeah, you are right.


----------



## TwoCables

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Styves27* 
It should be noted that tessellation probably won't be used to such an extent in a real-world game.

Look at the dragon statue. It has far too many polygons than required. This is just to show potential, as TwoCables keeps having to mention. Real-world games will most likely use it for mild wall bumps rather than POM and perhaps characters. Tessellating to the point that they did in this video is more than overkill for games today.

I'd also like to point out the developer advantages to tessellation.

Traditionally, devs have to start with high polygon models, and then lower the detail so that they can work in-game. Then they create LOD models, even lower detailed models to swap with the regular model at distances, to lower polygon counts.

There are several problems with this:

1. It takes a lot of time. Creating the high polygon model takes a substantial development time. Then creating the real model based off the high polygon one as well as the LODs. This increases the development time (creating LODs isn't a simple click-done operation. In several cases, you end up with holes or oddities such as arms being flat and whatnot - I know from experience).

2. The swapping of each LOD is usually extremely noticeable. Of course, this depends on the view distance, but most of the time you can see the transition occur if you look for it. Some games (Killzone2) dissolve the current LOD into the next one, making the transition a little smoother, but it's still easily seen.

3. Memory. Each new LOD takes up memory. Normally, each LOD is embedded into the character model file itself. This means that the file ends up larger. Whether or not the system loads the entire set of models into memory or only the one currently in use, I'm not sure of, but I'm leaning towards the earlier. That would mean more memory being used for every model. Not good.

And here's where tessellation can help.

1. Devs can start straight off with a low-poly model, and simply tessellate the details onto it, as seen with the dragon or stairs in this video - that was the purpose of not making stairs, but a ramp instead. To show how effective tessellation can be to create detail. This decreases the development time significantly, because modeling a high-detail model will take more time then setting up some textures for tessellation. The same way modeling bricks would take more time than simply using POM.

2. Tessellation can be decreased in power over distance, as seen by the wireframe in the video. This means no swapping, only a smooth transition from full detail to low detail. You'd be hard pressed to see it occur (aside from a few things like the spikes on the dragon, which can be seen shrinking as you get further).

3. The only added memory is the memory created by the tessellation. There are no LOD models for every object, therefor a large portion of memory can be saved. Character models and objects can take up less HDD space and therefor devs can fit more onto a disk than they used to.

Performance shouldn't be an issue if they carefully select a proper level of tessellation. For example, tessellation in this video is over done for the purpose of effect and showing off the potential.

The last thing I'd like to note is the performance loss in Dirt 2 may be related to DX9 having a 1/4 screen-size HDR, SSAO and post-processing techniques (being already somewhat performance-lowering) while the DX11 one has full-screen HDR (much more accurate), SSAO and post-processing (blur, depth-of-field, that stuff).

Using a full-screen buffer for the shader effects in DX9 would undoubtedly lower performance beyond acceptable results. With DX11, it manages to stay above a playable FPS, so the difference is pretty large.

Just to show you what I mean, I created a Crysis map that has heavy lightbeam usage. Normally, these lightbeams are rendered on the HDR buffer, which is something like 1/4 or 1/8 the screen size. Using the console command "r_beams 1" the beams are moved from the HDR buffer to the normal buffer, resulting in a full-screen render. The beams end up much nicer and much more detailed, but performance is dropped by nearly 60%.

Couple that with full-screen SSAO and post-processing, like motion blur and depth of field (which are also rendered at around 1/4 the screen size) and you won't have a game anymore, just a screenshot.










*Try to read it for goodness sake.*

You guys know I don't use this very often, so you know I'm serious about it:

*/thread.*

From this point forward, everyone who hasn't read Styves27's reply will stick out like a Tessellated sore thumb.


----------



## Contagion

Quote:



Originally Posted by *TwoCables*


You guys know I don't use this very often, so you know I'm serious about it:

* /thread.*

From this point forward, everyone who hasn't read Styves27's reply will stick out like a Tessellated sore thumb.


They should Sticky what he said.


----------



## finoyvoy

Quote:



Originally Posted by *Contagion*


They should Sticky what he said.


What he said made me sticky.


----------



## Contagion

Quote:


Originally Posted by *finoyvoy* 
What he said made me sticky.

Haha
Yay thread revival!


----------



## finalturismo

A have a large problem with these dx 9, 10, 11 pictures.
Crysis for example, dx 10 vs dx 9 when all you had to do was change the .ini file and get dx 10 effects in dx9 rendering........

Sorry but i have to disagree


----------



## TwoCables

Quote:



Originally Posted by *finalturismo*


A have a large problem with these dx 9, 10, 11 pictures.
Crysis for example, dx 10 vs dx 9 when all you had to do was change the .ini file and get dx 10 effects in dx9 rendering........

Sorry but i have to disagree


But that's not the point of this thread.


----------



## WeirdSexy

Eh I don't like the way tessellation makes the rock road look. Can you imagine how painful it would be to walk on a road like that? Pulling a cart or something would be impossible. It looks stupid; Incredibly detailed, but stupid.


----------



## TwoCables

Quote:



Originally Posted by *WeirdSexy*


Eh I don't like the way tessellation makes the rock road look. Can you imagine how painful it would be to walk on a road like that? Pulling a cart or something would be impossible. It looks stupid; Incredibly detailed, but stupid.


That is not the point.

Sigh. This has been said more than a dozen times in this thread now.


----------



## Nawtheph

Quote:



Originally Posted by *TwoCables*


That is not the point.

Sigh. This has been said more than a dozen times in this thread now.


Some people are just too lazy to read.

For me the jump to dx11 is as impressive to me as dropping XP 32 bit for 7 64 bit. A lot of the little details just really make a product shine.


----------



## finalturismo

Sure it is, you have multiple pictures showing the difference of of DX 9, 10, and 11.
What these pictures tell me is that what you see in DX 11 cant be done Dx 9 and 10.

Your just falling under a marketing strategy, more detailed and flush graphics can be rendered in a Dx9 and 10. That roof top CAN be rendered in direct x 9 and 10.


----------



## TwoCables

Quote:



Originally Posted by *finalturismo*


Sure it is, you have multiple pictures showing the difference of of DX 9, 10, and 11.
What these pictures tell me is that what you see in DX 11 cant be done Dx 9 and 10.

Your just falling under a marketing strategy, more detailed and flush graphics can be rendered in a Dx9 and 10. That roof top CAN be rendered in direct x 9 and 10.


But read through the thread.

This thread as a whole shows that DX11 is better with Tessellation than both DX9 and DX10. DX11 is able to provide superior performance while using Tessellation.

Besides, with over 280 replies, do you really think you're the first person to say this?


----------



## Shrimpykins

So then these aren't pics using the different DX engines with the exact same sequences/texture maps/polygon counts. That's why there is a huge difference. I wanna see some of the exact same renders run in the different DX's.


----------



## TwoCables

I forgot to mention that Tessellation was not available in this benchmark for DX9 and 10. When Contagion disabled Tessellation in DX11, the DX11 didn't look much different from 9 and 10.


----------



## Skoro

i suppose the road does look a bit unrealistic, in the way the things stick out. but if that kind of effect was put in a different, more suitable section of a game, it would look amazing. kinda shows what can be done, instead of what will be done.

is the new crysis going to be DX11? suppose they will put alot of effort into it again, since the only reason it sold was because of the graphics.
did anyone pay attention to the story in that game... that was bad =/


----------



## TwoCables

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Skoro* 
i suppose the road does look a bit unrealistic, in the way the things stick out. but if that kind of effect was put in a different, more suitable section of a game, it would look amazing. kinda shows what can be done, instead of what will be done.

is the new crysis going to be DX11? suppose they will put alot of effort into it again, since the only reason it sold was because of the graphics.
did anyone pay attention to the story in that game... that was bad =/

Everyone has their own opinion on Crysis.


----------



## finalturismo

Quote: 
   Originally Posted by *TwoCables*   But read through the thread.

This thread as a whole shows that DX11 is better with Tessellation than both DX9 and DX10. DX11 is able to provide superior performance while using Tessellation.

Besides, with over 280 replies, do you really think you're the first person to say this?  
Ya your right i was watching some videos yesterday
and i wont lie direct x 11 is AMAZING but though pictures are miss leading

because they are not showing the user the true difference between direct x 9,10,11

The main difference with direct x 11 is the Tessellation ability as two cable's has stated.

That is the ability to render all textures using smaller polygons (so you see less of a blocky effects around the graphics.

BUT AS I STATED THE PICTURES ARE MISS LEADING BECAUSE DIRECT X 9 CAN RENDER THOSE SAME ROOF TOP IMAGES AS POSTED.

Direct x 10 was crap
Direct x 11 actually has an amazing ability and thats Tessellation.

Thats just my 2 cents
google Tessellation and thats going to be your actual difference when comparing direct x 11 to previous versions.

Here is a good demonstration video from amd
  
 YouTube- AMD demonstrating DX11 hardware at QuakeCon 2009


----------



## TwoCables

Quote:



Originally Posted by *finalturismo*


Ya your right i was watching some videos yesterday
and i wont lie direct x 11 is AMAZING but though pictures are miss leading

because they are not showing the user the true difference between direct x 9,10,11

The main difference with direct x 11 is the Tessellation ability as two cable's has stated.

That is the ability to render all textures using smaller polygons (so you see less of a blocky effects around the graphics.

BUT AS I STATED THE PICTURES ARE MISS LEADING BECAUSE DIRECT X 9 CAN RENDER THOSE SAME ROOF TOP IMAGES AS POSTED.

Direct x 10 was crap
Direct x 11 actually has an amazing ability and thats Tessellation.

Thats just my 2 cents
google Tessellation and thats going to be your actual difference when comparing direct x 11 to previous versions.


And again: with over 280 replies in this thread, do you think that you're the first person to say this?


----------



## finalturismo

No i dont but what was just my 2 cents, i will move on to another topic now thanks.
Just staying active in the forum, but thanks for you concern.


----------



## Contagion

This thread has turned into a big flame war between people that have a clue, like TwoCables, and people that keep stating that the road is unrealistic.
Because, I am almost sure, if the developers of the benchmark wanted the road to be flat, they might have made it flat.

And yes, DX10 and 9 _can_ do most of what DX11 does however, it takes a HUGE performance hit when they do.
DX11 is all about optimization.
/Thread

This is annoying to say over and over again.

Haha I made this thread when I had like 45 rep.


----------



## Styves27

Looks like somebody didn't read my post..


----------



## TwoCables

Quote:



Originally Posted by *Styves27*


Looks like somebody didn't read my post..










hehehe


----------



## Contagion

Quote:



Originally Posted by *TwoCables*


hehehe


hohoho


----------



## LIU_ZOMG

good to know what my card was best trained to do ;D


----------



## Contagion

Quote:


Originally Posted by *LIU_ZOMG* 
good to know what my card was best trained to do ;D

More like what it is _being_ trained to do. Them drivers are the training and they are... yeah..


----------



## T3h_Ch33z_Muncha

i think the road is quite overdone... i can't imagine a road that bumpy







still, it really does show the difference.


----------



## TwoCables

Quote:


Originally Posted by *T3h_Ch33z_Muncha* 
i think the road is quite overdone... i can't imagine a road that bumpy







still, it really does show the difference.

Oh shut up. I know you're trolling.


----------



## Contagion

Quote:


Originally Posted by *TwoCables* 
Oh shut up. I know you're trolling.









I bump this thread for the lulz..


----------



## TwoCables

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Contagion* 
I bump this thread for the lulz..









hehehe


----------



## T3h_Ch33z_Muncha

Quote:


Originally Posted by *TwoCables* 
Oh shut up. I know you're trolling.

















i wasn't really..


----------



## TwoCables

Quote:


Originally Posted by *T3h_Ch33z_Muncha* 







i wasn't really..

Damn. Well that sucks. I was hoping you were clowning because we have over 2 dozen comments about that road. And for each comment, we have people like me saying that it's not about the practicality of the road. It's about showing the potential of DX11.


----------



## Contagion

Quote:


Originally Posted by *TwoCables* 
Damn. Well that sucks. I was hoping you were clowning because we have over 2 dozen comments about that road. And for each comment, we have people like me saying that it's not about the practicality of the road. It's about showing the potential of DX11.

Nooo.... We have over 4 dozen comments about the road. Duh...


----------



## TwoCables

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Contagion* 
Nooo.... We have over 4 dozen comments about the road. Duh...









Oh hey yeah, you're right!


----------



## T3h_Ch33z_Muncha

meh, you don't expect me to read through 300 comments before posting mine do you <.<


----------



## Contagion

Quote:


Originally Posted by *T3h_Ch33z_Muncha* 
meh, you don't expect me to read through 300 comments before posting mine do you <.<

Umm... yeah.


----------



## TwoCables

Quote:



Originally Posted by *T3h_Ch33z_Muncha*


meh, you don't expect me to read through 300 comments before posting mine do you <.<


Yes I do! I'm so dissapoint.

Actually, how about Ctrl+F?


----------



## T3h_Ch33z_Muncha

through four pages on my aussie interwebs... mmkno


----------



## TwoCables

Quote:



Originally Posted by *T3h_Ch33z_Muncha*


through four pages on my aussie interwebs... mmkno


Aw come on! You have nothing else to do, right?


----------



## T3h_Ch33z_Muncha

Quote:



Originally Posted by *TwoCables*


Aw come on! You have nothing else to do, right?










there are other things on the interwebs


----------



## TwoCables

Quote:



Originally Posted by *T3h_Ch33z_Muncha*


there are other things on the interwebs










What?! Since when?

So wait... Overclock.net isn't the only website on here?


----------



## battlenut

In DX 11 the road does not look like a road. It looks more like a river bottom. If walked on that you would twist your ankle.


----------



## TwoCables

Quote:



Originally Posted by *battlenut*


In DX 11 the road does not look like a road. It looks more like a river bottom. If walked on that you would twist your ankle.


But this has nothing to do with the practicality of the road. It is displaying the potential of DX11.


----------



## T3h_Ch33z_Muncha

Quote:



Originally Posted by *TwoCables*


What?! Since when?

So wait... Overclock.net isn't the only website on here?


i think you need to get out more


----------



## getllamasfast

Quote:



Originally Posted by *battlenut*


In DX 11 the road does not look like a road. It looks more like a river bottom. If walked on that you would twist your ankle.


----------



## TwoCables

Quote:



Originally Posted by *T3h_Ch33z_Muncha*


i think you need to get out more










Get out more? Where? Are you saying that it's possible to go outside? Wait! There's an outside?!


----------



## decimator

Quote:



Originally Posted by *TwoCables*


Get out more? Where? Are you saying that it's possible to go outside? Wait! There's an outside?!


He's a liar, don't listen to him







. I tried going outside and I woke up without a kidney.


----------



## T3h_Ch33z_Muncha

Quote:



Originally Posted by *TwoCables*


Get out more? Where? Are you saying that it's possible to go outside? Wait! There's an outside?!


no no i mean on one of the other 9000+ interwebs


----------



## Shadowrunner340

Quote:



Originally Posted by *TwoCables*


Get out more? Where? Are you saying that it's possible to go outside? Wait! There's an outside?!


Yeah, I've been there before! In the main room, you can't even see the ceiling!


----------



## TwoCables

Quote:



Originally Posted by *decimate*


He's a liar, don't listen to him







. I tried going outside and I woke up without a kidney.


Whoa! It's dangerous out there!

Quote:



Originally Posted by *T3h_Ch33z_Muncha*


no no i mean on one of the other 9000+ interwebs










Oh, on the internet! I see now.

Quote:



Originally Posted by *Shadowrunner340*


Yeah, I've been there before! In the main room, you can't even see the ceiling!
























hehehe "the main room" Nice.


----------



## TheSandman

Quote:



Originally Posted by *VCheeZ*


Here is a wireframe comparison pic I put together:










the DX10 isnt even optimized as a perosn that does 3d modeling the flat roof is using to many triangles i can understand the tessilation wirferame but take the room on the right building it the face we see could be done with two triangles not the 10 i count its already not optmized properly


----------



## Contagion

Quote:



Originally Posted by *decimate*


He's a liar, don't listen to him







. I tried going outside and I woke up without a kidney.


I just sig'ed that.


----------



## FieryCoD

I'm going to say it again

That road looks bumpy


----------



## OmegaNemesis28

Quote:



Originally Posted by *TwoCables*


Whoa! It's dangerous out there!


yeah, you might stub your toe or even worse - catch a cold!


----------



## Contagion

Quote:



Originally Posted by *FieryCoD*


I'm going to say it again

That road looks bumpy


I wish OCN had a shun button. Like, right under the REP+ symbol.


----------



## TwoCables

Quote:



Originally Posted by *FieryCoD*


I'm going to say it again

That road looks bumpy


It has absolutely nothing to do with the practicality of the road. It is just displaying the potential of DX11.


----------



## slickwilly

I think that DX11 will get used by the game devs just because it will make their jobs easier and development will go faster, this will improve their profit margin


----------



## Bunneh

I know this is going to be controversial but...

http://blog.wolfire.com/2010/01/Why-...nd-not-DirectX

Is worth reading, No reason none of the DX11 features aren't already possible without needing DX11...

I'm also pretty sure ATI has had hardware accelerated Tesellation support for years and with OpenGL supporting it(software) no reason why we haven't been able to do it.

sidenote//It may be better in the long run to have more games to use OpenGL( making it easier to have PC ports alongside console) Especially with the growing console market and piracy affecting pc sales making pc look less worth-while investing resources to code in DirectX11.


----------



## GuardianOdin

have to look at this at home. I hate wireless connections.


----------



## Mercfh

dang niceee


----------



## TwoCables

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Bunneh* 
I know this is going to be controversial but...

http://blog.wolfire.com/2010/01/Why-...nd-not-DirectX

Is worth reading, No reason none of the DX11 features aren't already possible without needing DX11...

I'm also pretty sure ATI has had hardware accelerated Tesellation support for years and with OpenGL supporting it(software) no reason why we haven't been able to do it.

sidenote//It may be better in the long run to have more games to use OpenGL( making it easier to have PC ports alongside console) Especially with the growing console market and piracy affecting pc sales making pc look less worth-while investing resources to code in DirectX11.

But Tessellation is easier to do with DX11 because of the higher performance it yields.


----------



## Melcar

OpenGL can do hardware tessellation. And you don't need W7 to run the latest OpenGL. DX is just a gimmick to get your moneys







.


----------



## Contagion

Quote:



Originally Posted by *Melcar*


OpenGL can do hardware tessellation. And you don't need W7 to run the latest OpenGL. DX is just a gimmick to get your moneys







.


OpenGL ftw


----------



## TheOcelot

That is amazing







Can't wait to play some DX11 games.


----------



## sillymansam

I'm sorry if I had to chose which path to walk on I would pick the DX11 it looks like that will hurt. I though DX11 was going to increase dynamic range and clarity not uber sharpness


----------



## Brian_

i like now time to find a dx11 nvidia card


----------



## TwoCables

Quote:



Originally Posted by *sillymansam*


I'm sorry if I had to chose which path to walk on I would pick the DX11 it looks like that will hurt. I though DX11 was going to increase dynamic range and clarity not uber sharpness


This has absolutely nothing to do with the practicality and of the stone pathway. It's simply a demonstration of the capability of DX11.


----------



## Contagion

Quote:



Originally Posted by *TwoCables*


This has absolutely nothing to do with the practicality and of the stone pathway. It's simply a demonstration of the capability of DX11.


Dejavu.


----------



## TwoCables

Quote:



Originally Posted by *Contagion*


Dejavu.


Meh. I have accepted the fact that I'll have to keep repeating it as though it's the first time anyone has ever said anything about it - each and every single time.


----------



## Kevlo

Ya know even though DX11 looks f-ing amazing really it isnt practical considering the DX11 cards out still have a hard time using dx11 with good frames (expection fo the 5970 that will kill anygame) plus most of it can still be achieved in regular dx10 and even 9 probably, like the more model detailed dragon, that could be done in dx10 just as easily as in 11 and probably have no visual difference but still dont listen to me im no expert and as long as the game has semi good graphics i will enjoy it (games dont need to look godlike, sure its cool when they do but most epoepl cant play them when they are that grraphicly intense)


----------



## Contagion

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Kevlo* 
Ya know even though DX11 looks f-ing amazing really it isnt practical considering the DX11 cards out still have a hard time using dx11 with good frames (expection fo the 5970 that will kill anygame) plus most of it can still be achieved in regular dx10 and even 9 probably, like the more model detailed dragon, that could be done in dx10 just as easily as in 11 and probably have no visual difference but still dont listen to me im no expert and as long as the game has semi good graphics i will enjoy it (games dont need to look godlike, sure its cool when they do but most epoepl cant play them when they are that grraphicly intense)

That will mostly improve with driver updates.


----------



## PaulWog

I don't quite understand: There's an entirely different wireframe being rendered here.

It doesn't seem to be such a fair comparison? I dunno...


----------



## SilverPotato

I really wish there where more than 10 games coming out this year that support DX11...

DX11 is kind of like PhysX, One company supports it, the other thinks its worthless and neither is getting much support


----------



## USFORCES

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Bunneh* 
I know this is going to be controversial but...

http://blog.wolfire.com/2010/01/Why-...nd-not-DirectX

Is worth reading, No reason none of the DX11 features aren't already possible without needing DX11...

I'm also pretty sure ATI has had hardware accelerated Tesellation support for years and with OpenGL supporting it(software) no reason why we haven't been able to do it.

sidenote//It may be better in the long run to have more games to use OpenGL( making it easier to have PC ports alongside console) Especially with the growing console market and piracy affecting pc sales making pc look less worth-while investing resources to code in DirectX11.


Sure it's possible without DX11 but the cards just can't handle much without lagging really bad.

If you have ever used 3DS MAX you would know why, just one complex model can lag both my GTX280's there is no way they could handle a game full of them....


----------



## T3h_Ch33z_Muncha

epic bumpsauce.

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 29 (15 members and 14 guests)


----------



## LIU_ZOMG

10.1 drivers asdasdasdasdasd


----------



## TwoCables

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Kevlo* 
Ya know even though DX11 looks f-ing amazing really it isnt practical considering the DX11 cards out still have a hard time using dx11 with good frames (expection fo the 5970 that will kill anygame) plus most of it can still be achieved in regular dx10 and even 9 probably, like the more model detailed dragon, that could be done in dx10 just as easily as in 11 and probably have no visual difference but still dont listen to me im no expert and as long as the game has semi good graphics i will enjoy it (games dont need to look godlike, sure its cool when they do but most epoepl cant play them when they are that grraphicly intense)

But DX11 can do it with better/faster performance.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *PaulWog* 
I don't quite understand: There's an entirely different wireframe being rendered here.

It doesn't seem to be such a fair comparison? I dunno...

Unfortunately, Tessellation was not available for DX9 and DX10 with this benchmark. When Contagion ran this a second time without Tessellation, all 3 looked basically the same.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *USFORCES* 
Sure it's possible without DX11 but the cards just can't handle much without lagging really bad.

If you have ever used 3DS MAX you would know why, just one complex model can lag both my GTX280's there is no way they could handle a game full of them....

Exactly: this is all about the fact that DX11 can do this without as massive of a performance loss.


----------



## IntelConvert

+rep for the awesome Pics, ive seen some of these. the roof pic is awesome!

new drivers will only help the 5xxx performance, cant wait for my 5770 to get here! and the new drivers!

@ everyone hating on DX11... dont buy it.


----------



## Contagion

Quote:



Originally Posted by *IntelConvert*


@ everyone hating on DX11... dont buy it.


Yeah.. what you think bout day?? Huh!


----------



## IntelConvert

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Contagion* 
Yeah.. what you think bout day?? Huh!









not sure what you were saying there?

i got W7 x64 and a 5770, so i am capable of DX11. i can also run older DX versions, so im happy. eventually when more DX11 games will come out and i cant wait for that! ive been running DX 9 for ever cause i never went for vista. i just stuck with XP till W7 came out and i got it really cheap from school.


----------



## D3TH.GRUNT

this makes me want to run to either a MC (lol 500 miles) or just save up cash and buy a 5870 right now! The only thing i hate is there are hardly any games that are DX11, lame


----------



## IntelConvert

but they will come! and until then, a 5870 can run DX10 like a mad man!


----------



## USFORCES

I can't wait until full DX11 games start comming out!!


----------



## xquisit

I'm glad to have two cards that support DX11


----------



## USFORCES

Quote:



Originally Posted by *xquisit*


I'm glad to have two cards that support DX11


I doubt any cards out now will be able to handle a full DX11 game, I hope I'm wrong though.


----------



## Mygaffer

You aren't really showing off the differences between DX9/DX10/DX11 as much as you are showing what tessellation does.


----------



## goobergump

Obviously someone needs to update to DX10... didn't know DX9 was so insignificant


----------



## TwoCables

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Mygaffer* 
You aren't really showing off the differences between DX9/DX10/DX11 as much as you are showing what tessellation does.

Yeah, but we discussed this a few times already (after all, there are over 350 replies to this thread).


----------



## Delta_32-1

Make that 350 replies and me, but now on topic I really cant wait to see what DX11 can do. Along with everyone else in this world.


----------



## .:hybrid:.

Sigh, the DX9 looks prettiest in my eyes, why does DX10/11 spawn instant long grass, its looks better as undergrowth imo.


----------



## goobergump

Soon enough graphics are going to be better than IRL.


----------



## USFORCES

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Mygaffer* 
You aren't really showing off the differences between DX9/DX10/DX11 as much as you are showing what tessellation does.

What?
If you can't figure out that the top is either DX9/DX10 bottom DX11 I don't know what to tell you, LOL


----------



## TwoCables

Quote:


Originally Posted by *USFORCES* 
What?
If you can't figure out that the top is either DX9/DX10 bottom DX11 I don't know what to tell you, LOL

Well, I don't think that's what he is saying. I think he's just saying the same thing that has been said nearly 200 times in this thread: this isn't a fair comparison. DX9 and 10 basically look the same.

What I think he doesn't know is that there was no option to choose Tessellation for DX9 and 10. But more than that, he doesn't know that Contagion tried all 3 again without Tessellation for DX11, and it turned out that DX11 didn't look that much different at all than DX9 and 10.

So it's not that he doesn't know which is which. It's that he's just saying the same thing that has already been said a couple hundred times before. Except, he is putting a different spin on it.


----------



## USFORCES

Roger


----------



## Horsemama1956

Quote:


Originally Posted by *.:hybrid:.* 
Sigh, the DX9 looks prettiest in my eyes, why does DX10/11 spawn instant long grass, its looks better as undergrowth imo.

Umm it doesn't just "spawn" stuff. It adds whatever the developer wants.

It's not magic.


----------



## Bozebo

Quote:


Originally Posted by *USFORCES* 
I doubt any cards out now will be able to handle a full DX11 game, I hope I'm wrong though.

The DX features would of course only be applied where needed in a game. The environment modellers along with the 3d model artists would selectively use tessellation when it provides more detail for less load than the alternatives.

Tessellation will often be used instead of parralax mapping. Also, it's worth noting that dx11 does a lot more things more efficiently than older versions, tessellation put aside.

What I am curious of though is: once tessellation has been applied, does collision detection take the new polygons into account? I saw some areas on the cliffs there where it would certainly make a difference in gameplay. Also, on the ground (noting that the cobbles would be less exaggerated of course): in a game like oblivion for example, small objects like arrows would really kill the illusion as they wouldn't fall into the grooves. Now if that can be achieved, what about multiplayer applications? Does the server have to tesselates the environment to do collision detection? I think developers will employ a method that tessellates the environment then saves the outcome and loads that into the engine at server-side... but that would be multiple times the original geometry file size.


----------



## USFORCES

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Bozebo* 
The DX features would of course only be applied where needed in a game. The environment modellers along with the 3d model artists would selectively use tessellation when it provides more detail for less load than the alternatives.

Tessellation will often be used instead of parralax mapping. Also, it's worth noting that dx11 does a lot more things more efficiently than older versions, tessellation put aside.

What I am curious of though is: once tessellation has been applied, does collision detection take the new polygons into account? I saw some areas on the cliffs there where it would certainly make a difference in gameplay. Also, on the ground (noting that the cobbles would be less exaggerated of course): in a game like oblivion for example, small objects like arrows would really kill the illusion as they wouldn't fall into the grooves. Now if that can be achieved, what about multiplayer applications? Does the server have to tesselates the environment to do collision detection? I think developers will employ a method that tessellates the environment then saves the outcome and loads that into the engine at server-side... but that would be multiple times the original geometry file size.

Know one knows yet, I'm sure the first will be done in DX9 and just props added but what if the whole game is done in DX11 ground, trees, buildings everything...


----------



## T3h_Ch33z_Muncha

Quote:


Originally Posted by *USFORCES* 
I can't wait until full DX11 games start comming out!!



















1: that comes from a company that is trying to sell you something
2: i've seen far better DX 9 water than that
3:








4: Profit?


----------



## USFORCES

Quote:



Originally Posted by *T3h_Ch33z_Muncha*


1: that comes from a company that is trying to sell you something
2: i've seen far better DX 9 water than that
3:








4: Profit?


So have I but I hope there is more to it than that


----------



## Styves27

Wow this thread went on forever after I left. lol

Bump.









To answer questions and to again make things clear:

1. The wireframe in the DX11 shot is generated in REAL TIME. The roofs (albeit as someone said, unoptimized - though this is for the sake of the simplifying tessellation) are no longer flat, the stairs are actually stairs, the dragon has horns, stuff like that, it's all generated in real-time by adding vertices and edges to the existing ones and extruding them outward/inward for effect (displacement mapping). You can't do this on any other hardware than DX11 because they have hardware specifically designed for it. There was tessellation before (CPU, ATIs old cards), but not of this kind (programmable by the developer using shaders). It was harder to get at and harder to use.

A note on that: It's all the same map, same detail, but the DX11 one is generating polygons on the fly to increase the detail by extreme amounts. Get this through your head. I can't believe someone would comment on the fact that the wireframes are different and how it's "weird". *That's what tessellation is, dear god!*









2. Collision detection is calculated beforehand. What this means is that you don't need collision proxies anymore (you could still use them as they're still simpler than a low-poly character), you can simply use a low-res model and tessellate it after. All animations, physics and the like are all done before the tessellation is (it's a render thing). This is very good because you can technically slap it over any game engine and it'll just work. Simply put, the game does all the calculations (physics, animation, whatever), then the info is sent to GPU, it does tessellation and then sends it to the screen.









3. Said it before, will say it again. Memory footprint. A low-poly model that's tessellated will be better off than a pre-made high-resolution model, as it'll be lower in file size. This means bigger games/better graphics, and they still fit on DVDs. This leaves more room for sound and all that jazz. Who wouldn't be happy with that? This also applies to pretty much anything in the game world from terrain to buildings to anything else you can think of that's made of geometry.

4. Another one I said before. LODs. You can slowly reduce tessellation amount based on distance for better LODs, instead of awkwardly switching between models. This means less disc space (for each lod) and a better transition. No more pop-in as objects can simply turn into ultra-low-poly models without us noticing. It's a win-win.

Some of you just don't seem to get it. DX11 is all about optimization, with a few extra tricks (real-time programmable tessellation). You can tell the tessellation to do whatever you want through shader code, unlike any other API. Sure, ATI might have had tessellation units on their cards for a while and have been pushing Microsoft to make it a DX standard (which has finally happened), but none of the APIs had the ability to let developers code for it to the extent that we can in DX11... mostly because Microsoft didn't make it a standard for all the graphic card companies (a.k.a NVIDIA) to use. Now they have to support it if they go DX11, meaning devs can finally start using it more.

Don't forget about compute shaders and multi-threading. Once we start taking advantages of these you can bet we'll start seeing huge improvements in graphics, or at least performance.


----------



## Tennobanzai

That is amazing. Wondering what the fps differences are.


----------



## Bozebo

Still worried about it ruining some games though (bad devs).
Such as a corner wall made out of a bumpy rock, the collision detection is going to use either basic cuboid geometry, or a model that partly represents the tessellated version. Pretty much any fps will suffer from this, especially if it's a shoddy console port which they slap dx11 onto. IE, you shoot past the corner but very close to the wall, but it hits thin air...

I think people will try to program a way to predict the tessellation effect in the collision detection system but it will probably take a lot more processing power to do than basic methods. Devs just need to be careful where they apply tessellation and how much they apply.


----------



## olli3

Surly normal mapping is the current alternative to tessellation, which is used in almost every current game, yet they haven't used it in the DX9 and DX10 versions of this demo? This is nothing more than marketing...I'm not saying DX11 isn't better but it isn't as amazing as everyone thinks. (Not for hard surfaces anyway, for water and things its got its advantages, although that didn't stop crysis lol)


----------



## Styves27

Normal mapping vs tessellation? You've got to be kidding me.









Normal mapping doesn't even make the geometry look like it has any depth, it just makes it self-shade. I suppose you mean Parallax mapping, because the heaven demo has normal mapping.

Regardless, yes they could have added some parallax mapping to the environment just to even things out a bit, but then people would have a harder time comparing the two. It's not about DX10 vs DX11, it's about tessellation and no tessellation and what it can do to environments. If you throw in parallax mapping, then you'll only be confusing people even more because they won't know what they're looking for.

And *yes*, it is amazing. Why? Because we can now add all the detail that previously couldn't be added, like real bricks, real silhouettes, real anything as well as smooth anything. That funky edge you see on the top of a characters head won't be there anymore. A perfect edge can now be roughened up and made realistic, terrain can be more realistic. Everything will look more realistic when it's being used properly. Heck in time we'll probably be tessellating things enough to make them look like authentic CGI. It's a marvelous thing









I mean, I've tried adding half the detail seen in this demo by using normal techniques and I lost more than half of the performance. The amount of detail in this demo is astonishing, there's no way this level of detail can be achieved using regular methods, especially regarding LODs, as tessellated models gradually lower polycounts, while normal models either swap or don't have LODs at all.

The best part is that developers likely won't go to the extent the demo did for tessellation, as that much detail may very well be useless to them. We already have amazing looking games (Unigine not being one of them really), I can only imagine what kind of games we'd have if they combined all their current tricks with even a mild tessellation.


----------



## __Pat__

After reading your post Styves, I think that they should have made those maps in DX9/10 look exactly the same as DX11. People would then notice the real difference when they have an intolerable FPS, instead of saying "well DX9/10 can do that







"


----------



## olli3

Styves, I'm not saying normal mapping is as good as tessellation, it obviously isn't, I was just saying that they are comparing non-current technology to future technology, why not compare what we are using now to it? You say normal mapping doesn't make it look like it has depth, but it does. Sure if you view the edge of the mesh it will still appear angular but this hardly is a problem for floors and walls which is what people seem to be raving over with this demo. As for the demo actually having normal mapping, I haven't looked into it, but it really doesn't look like it does to me, and if there is its not done properly! You can look at Crysis for example and the floors have detail of individual pebbles etc on the floors, that's done without tessellation. (It does however have the downside of no collision but that's generally not an issue.)

Anyway, I haven't done any research into tessellation to know more about it, you seem to know your stuff more than me. I would have imagined it would have a large performance hit with all the extra tri's it adds, but it seems not as bad as I had thought. I will leave it at that anyway and go learn some more about tessellation









edit- Forgot to mention what you said about LOD - yes that is defiantly something useful about tessellation, I hadn't even thought about that!


----------



## T3h_Ch33z_Muncha

yay for real car tires instead of a texture?


----------



## Threefeet

This thread would be funny if it wasn't so mundane.


----------



## Styves27

Quote:



Originally Posted by *olli3*


Styves, I'm not saying normal mapping is as good as tessellation, it obviously isn't, I was just saying that they are comparing non-current technology to future technology, why not compare what we are using now to it? You say normal mapping doesn't make it look like it has depth, but it does. Sure if you view the edge of the mesh it will still appear angular but this hardly is a problem for floors and walls which is what people seem to be raving over with this demo. As for the demo actually having normal mapping, I haven't looked into it, but it really doesn't look like it does to me, and if there is its not done properly! You can look at Crysis for example and the floors have detail of individual pebbles etc on the floors, that's done without tessellation. (It does however have the downside of no collision but that's generally not an issue.)

Anyway, I haven't done any research into tessellation to know more about it, you seem to know your stuff more than me. I would have imagined it would have a large performance hit with all the extra tri's it adds, but it seems not as bad as I had thought. I will leave it at that anyway and go learn some more about tessellation









edit- Forgot to mention what you said about LOD - yes that is defiantly something useful about tessellation, I hadn't even thought about that!


Yeah.

What you're talking about is Parallax Occlusion Mapping, not normal mapping. The demo indeed has normal mapping.









The developers wanted to accentuate the difference between tessellation and no-tessellation, which is why they didn't go all out with the demo. But it's a demo.

Besides, even if the entire demo was covered in Parallax Mapping, it still wouldn't hold a candle to the tessellation. The dragon would look identical to the way it does now in DX9/10, as parallax mapping on a curved surface is usually something you want to avoid. The walls would have some depth, but the edges, where most of the detail is visible, would all be flat edges. Tessellation on the other hand, can be used anywhere.









If they can make an environment that looks like it was from 2004 look so incredible, imagine what devs can do. Maybe we can go back to old games and update them for DX11 and throw some tessellation in, crank up the graphics 10-fold without re-modeling everything. We can go back to old development practices (blocky characters, all that old good stuff from the n64 days







) and just tessellate the hell out of them. So long as they update the shader effects and textuers, the game could look entirely different. It makes developer life just that much easier. Hopefully developers will grasp this idea and try it out for themselves in the next few years... probably when the next console line-up comes out (which is the main reason it's not being used yet).

Performance isn't slow because it's all being done in real-time on the tessellation unit, not pre-loaded and calculated into everything like it would be in DX9/10 (pre-made hi-poly models). There is a performance hit, but eventually this won't be noticeable. Though keep in mind that this demo goes a bit overboard (Dragon didn't need to be that high poly), so performance hit in a real game probably wouldn't be quite as large. In fact, using parallax mapping on everything to provide surface detail to equal the DX11 demo would actually perform worse. Tessellation in DX11 is actually quicker


----------



## TwoCables

Quote:



Originally Posted by *Styves27*


Yeah.

What you're talking about is Parallax Occlusion Mapping, not normal mapping. The demo indeed has normal mapping.









The developers wanted to accentuate the difference between tessellation and no-tessellation, which is why they didn't go all out with the demo. But it's a demo.

Besides, even if the entire demo was covered in Parallax Mapping, it still wouldn't hold a candle to the tessellation. The dragon would look identical to the way it does now in DX9/10, as parallax mapping on a curved surface is usually something you want to avoid. The walls would have some depth, but the edges, where most of the detail is visible, would all be flat edges. Tessellation on the other hand, can be used anywhere.









If they can make an environment that looks like it was from 2004 look so incredible, imagine what devs can do. Maybe we can go back to old games and update them for DX11 and throw some tessellation in, crank up the graphics 10-fold without re-modeling everything. We can go back to old development practices (blocky characters, all that old good stuff from the n64 days







) and just tessellate the hell out of them. So long as they update the shader effects and textuers, the game could look entirely different. It makes developer life just that much easier. Hopefully developers will grasp this idea and try it out for themselves in the next few years... probably when the next console line-up comes out (which is the main reason it's not being used yet).

Performance isn't slow because it's all being done in real-time on the tessellation unit, not pre-loaded and calculated into everything like it would be in DX9/10 (pre-made hi-poly models). There is a performance hit, but eventually this won't be noticeable. Though keep in mind that this demo goes a bit overboard (Dragon didn't need to be that high poly), so performance hit in a real game probably wouldn't be quite as large. In fact, using parallax mapping on everything to provide surface detail to equal the DX11 demo would actually perform worse. Tessellation in DX11 is actually quicker










Plus, we could have collision. If there's one thing I hate about POM in Crysis is that if I crouch, I can see that it's still perfectly flat. Err, it just looks weird, like everything is hovering.


----------



## T1nk3rb311

That road is completely impracticable. I mean, why is it so bumpy?

DX11 is useless...

>.>


----------



## TwoCables

Quote:


Originally Posted by *T1nk3rb311* 
That road is completely impracticable. I mean, why is it so bumpy?

DX11 is useless...

>.>










Oh, I see what you did there.

But if you're serious, then I'll give you a bumpy head to match the bumpy road.


----------



## T1nk3rb311

Quote:


Originally Posted by *TwoCables* 
Oh, I see what you did there.

But if you're serious, then I'll give you a bumpy head to match the bumpy road.

As long as you don't tessilied my head...









I wonder what the first game to truly use Tessellation will be... a FPS? Racing? RTS?


----------



## TwoCables

Quote:



Originally Posted by *T1nk3rb311*


As long as you don't tessilied my head...









I wonder what the first game to truly use Tessellation will be... a FPS? Racing? RTS?










I personally hope that it's a FPS that does. It will be really neat to walk around in the first-person view shooting extra-realistic things without that massive performance hit. I mean, I'm looking forward to both the visual quality and the Collision it will bring.


----------



## Imglidinhere

So would it be fair to say that UT3 uses DX10.1 persay?


----------



## TwoCables

Quote:



Originally Posted by *Imglidinhere*


So would it be fair to say that UT3 uses DX10.1 persay?


If you mean "per se", then yeah. However, it sounds like it's possible to take existing games that enhanced them for DX11's Tessellation.


----------



## Imglidinhere

But seeing what that road, roof, and the statue look like in DX10, then UT3 has to be DX11 because everything is far sharper and the details are crisp enough so that it looks like you're playing a movie. Or could that be the x24 AA I have activated in CCC?


----------



## TwoCables

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Imglidinhere* 
But seeing what that road, roof, and the statue look like in DX10, then UT3 has to be DX11 because everything is far sharper and the details are crisp enough so that it looks like you're playing a movie. Or could that be the x24 AA I have activated in CCC?









It's something completely different. This thread is demonstrating Tessellations. But what you're seeing is more of an illusion.

In other words, this isn't a comparison in the way it might seem.


----------



## Carlitos714

wow what a huge difference!!!


----------



## staryoshi

That is one nasty road.... so many broken carriage wheels.... But also, awesome!


----------



## Mastiffman

Quote:


Originally Posted by *staryoshi* 
That is one nasty road.... so many broken carriage wheels.... But also, awesome!

believe it or not, although a bit exagorated, Roads made of large stone were a big improvement coming from dirt.









Anyway, I w2anted to know if ANYONE knew how to Enable (or Get it to work with comfirmation) Tessellation in Windows7 RC version? Why wouldn't it work?

Thanks!


----------



## T3h_Ch33z_Muncha

Quote:


Originally Posted by *T1nk3rb311* 
As long as you don't tessilied my head...









I wonder what the first game to truly use Tessellation will be... a FPS? Racing? RTS?









$10 says an FPS or an RPG, most likely an FPS. Who knows, Crysis 2 maybe?


----------



## Contagion

This thread is still alive? Man...


----------



## mocha989

damn DX11 is a difference.


----------



## Mastiffman

SO no takers on why Tessellation is disabled in Win7RC? No?


----------



## TwoCables

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Mastiffman* 
SO no takers on why Tessellation is disabled in Win7RC? No?

If you made your own thread about it, then you will significantly increase your chances of receiving replies.


----------



## Contagion

Quote:


Originally Posted by *TwoCables* 
If you made your own thread about it, then you will significantly increase your chances of receiving replies.









Yeah nobody views my threads. They are all garbage.


----------



## TwoCables

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Contagion* 
Yeah nobody views my threads. They are all garbage.

Well, it's just that when asking your own question in somebody else's thread (in other words, when hi-jacking a thread), the chances of you getting answers are pretty small. But if you make your own thread, then you greatly increase the chances of receiving replies since your question isn't hidden in somebody else's thread.

It never has anything to do with the thread you post in.


----------



## Contagion

Quote:


Originally Posted by *TwoCables* 
Well, it's just that when asking your own question in somebody else's thread (in other words, when hi-jacking a thread), the chances of you getting answers are pretty small. But if you make your own thread, then you greatly increase the chances of receiving replies since your question isn't hidden in somebody else's thread.

It never has anything to do with the thread you post in.

Oh I understand that. I was just being rude to myself calling my threads garbage.


----------



## TwoCables

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Contagion* 
Oh I understand that. I was just being rude to myself calling my threads garbage.









Yeah, I know. But I felt like repeating it for Mastiffman.


----------



## not available

dx11 is obviously supperiour. much better model mapping. and especially with what seems existing models, i.e. the dragons chest.


----------



## Contagion

This thread needs to be stickied for a few minutes. Just so I can say I have had a thread of mine get stickied. Then my life will my fulfilled.


----------



## not available

ok, now im confused. i just ran a dx11 demo and mine looked nothing like that. the roads, roofs and the dragons chest are all flat. what could be the problem? i have 10.1 and hit fix installed. 4850x2

aahhh dx11, my card wont do 11. DOH


----------



## Win64

NO.!! they have done that to show considerable different between DirectX10 ,DirectX9 and 11 actually you can get that realistic details on roads and rooftop with even DirecX9
but it just lags your rendering if you have a low end card,

the good example is Two Worlds 2,which is currently supported to DirectX 9 and you can get much more realistic states of Rooftops and roads by enabling

Engine.paralaxonterrain 1

to increase at runtime the number of visible polygons from a low detail polygonal model so that's what DirectX 11 does that doesn't mean you can NOT get realistic details on DirectX9
the only thing DirectX 11 does is increase the performance gain without loosing the quality,
you can see more details ,realistic graphics on DirectX 11 games with higher frame rate compare with other lower APIs. but today most of games are still cartoonish so there is no point to move on to DirectX 11 actually cause that does only improve the quality slide. maybe after a new Xbox console was released.
then I am pretty sure Microsoft will boost the DirectX tech more upward.

when it's Engine.paralaxonterrain 1










Engine.paralaxonterrain 0


----------



## TwoCables

Win64: you are actually referring to something very different. What this thread is discussing is DX11 vs. both 10 and 9 for Tessellation. The point is to show that even though 9 and 10 support it, 11 provides better performance which makes it much more possible to have superior Tessellations without taking as big of a performance hit.

What you're talking about is either just Parallax Mapping, or Parallax Occlusion Mapping. Either way, it's not the same thing even though the visual results are similar.


----------

