@bagellord: Although DX11 for programmers is a good and moderate thing, for everyone else the best way to think of DirectX is look at earlier versions where big differences were had. DirectX 6-7 were comparable to say N64 and Dreamcast, better but it's a close analogy, and DirectX 9-10 is comparable to Ps2/Wii/Xbox360/PS3.
DirectX 9 wasn't impressive at the start and everyone scoffed at it but eventually it became what gaming is today. So, if DirectX 11+ gets a good boost from Win 7 and the next phase of Console hardware, you'll have a decent leap there as well.
It's all about effects now. Polygons won't get fancier by much until 2-3 generations from now as they do a good enough job at fleshing out things and it's mainly textures and effects that bring everything to life. #directx11
Just because one game, or even several games don't look much different in their dx11 and dx10 modes, it doesn't mean that the potential isn't there and that games won't take advantage of it. dx11 isn't magic and it doesn't just enchant games into better graphics #directx11
I don't normally like to criticize articles on Gizmodo, but honestly this is a really shallow look at the technology.
DX11 (in the same way as DX10) is not just about improved visual quality. It is about providing more efficient coding and interpretation so that the improved visual quality can run at a decent rate.
For example the increased polygon count can be done in any earlier version of DX, but DX11 provides a new polygonal-interpolation algorithm which lets you increase polygon counts with very little hit on performance.
Games in DX9 and DX10 can look vastly better than the best games today, but they would run very inefficiently compared to how the same game made in DX11 would look.
However there ARE some new techniques in DX11 that allow for visual effects that are impossible to do dynamically in DX9 or DX10.
Screenshots don't tell you anything about how easy/difficult it is to code for, how well the compatibility requirements are set up and enforced, frame rate, artifacts etc.
One word: Staged.
The model you see with DirectX11 can be perfectly built with DirectX 10.1 with the same level of detail for a game, lighting included.
But I do realize they have to come up with SOMETHING as advantage.
As for me, I'm still on DirectX 9 (after using Vista for a while) and I really don't bother with the differences... even after playing Crysis in both setups.
It's starting to sound just like the ridiculous Sound Blaster ads. The differences are so imperceptible they have to start fabricating things or making surreal ads to fill the gaps (like the ATI ones).
You realize that OGL was completely superior to DX for a number of years, right? You realize that if MS hadn't pushed/forced devs to develop primarily for that, OGL would be an amazing thing, right? You realize that if devs worked with it again with as much
GUSTO
as they do with DX, it'd be likened to a ray of light from heaven?
heck yeah I can tell the difference! DirectX 11 greatly increases the amount of polygon faces to make for much smoother looking objects. Believe me, it's much easier rolling on a wheel instead of a block...
These screenshots only show off two technologies from DX11, tessellation and hardened shadows (shadows are more defined closer to the object casting the shadow and softer the further away it is being cast). So you're not going to see much in the way of difference between the screenshots really.
thought i would drop the toms link for their HD5870 review; there is some excellent information detailing more of the technical differences.
Additionally the wiki page has a snippet of info. The reality is dx11 will work on dx10 cards with the exclusions, obviously, of shader 5 and tesselation.
If you are in teh market for a video card, i would recommend waiting for nvidia's gtx300 series; they will bring 3d, physx, and prices to compete with ati offerings.
If you are already rocking a 9800gtx+ or better, save you money for q2.
@jackbling: I don't know about the price point comparison. Usually comparable ATI cards are 2$20-50 cheaper than the nVidia. Both make great cards though. It all comes down to what games you play. Some are optimized for ATI and CrossFire/X-Fire and others for SLI/hybrid SLI
The skybox looks drastically better in the DX11 version of the first image. In the second one, the difference seems relatively negligible, at least from the cursory look I just gave it.
With every DirectX upgrade there is always an initial period where the difference is minimal. Once developers start using all the new features and tuning their games to 11 the difference will be quite noticeable. Just load up some games built for DX9 and compare them to today.
10/29/09
10/29/09
10/29/09
DirectX 9 wasn't impressive at the start and everyone scoffed at it but eventually it became what gaming is today. So, if DirectX 11+ gets a good boost from Win 7 and the next phase of Console hardware, you'll have a decent leap there as well.
It's all about effects now. Polygons won't get fancier by much until 2-3 generations from now as they do a good enough job at fleshing out things and it's mainly textures and effects that bring everything to life. #directx11
10/29/09
10/29/09
10/29/09
09/27/09
DX11 (in the same way as DX10) is not just about improved visual quality. It is about providing more efficient coding and interpretation so that the improved visual quality can run at a decent rate.
For example the increased polygon count can be done in any earlier version of DX, but DX11 provides a new polygonal-interpolation algorithm which lets you increase polygon counts with very little hit on performance.
Games in DX9 and DX10 can look vastly better than the best games today, but they would run very inefficiently compared to how the same game made in DX11 would look.
However there ARE some new techniques in DX11 that allow for visual effects that are impossible to do dynamically in DX9 or DX10.
09/26/09
09/25/09
The model you see with DirectX11 can be perfectly built with DirectX 10.1 with the same level of detail for a game, lighting included.
But I do realize they have to come up with SOMETHING as advantage.
As for me, I'm still on DirectX 9 (after using Vista for a while) and I really don't bother with the differences... even after playing Crysis in both setups.
It's starting to sound just like the ridiculous Sound Blaster ads. The differences are so imperceptible they have to start fabricating things or making surreal ads to fill the gaps (like the ATI ones).
09/25/09
GUSTO
as they do with DX, it'd be likened to a ray of light from heaven?
09/25/09
09/25/09
OpenGl was always a few steps inferior to DirectX technology-wise for obvious reasons: funding.
But it really is far easier to code for OpenGl... it's far more organized and intuitive.
DirectX is just a mess of illegible variables.
09/25/09
09/25/09
09/25/09
09/25/09
He looks more less bulky, and the sky is more photorealistic.
09/25/09
There... Are... Four... Lights!
09/25/09
09/25/09
09/25/09
09/25/09
Additionally the wiki page has a snippet of info. The reality is dx11 will work on dx10 cards with the exclusions, obviously, of shader 5 and tesselation.
If you are in teh market for a video card, i would recommend waiting for nvidia's gtx300 series; they will bring 3d, physx, and prices to compete with ati offerings.
If you are already rocking a 9800gtx+ or better, save you money for q2.
[en.wikipedia.org]
[www.tomshardware.com]
09/25/09
09/25/09
09/25/09
09/25/09
09/25/09
09/25/09
really? dude?
...really?
09/25/09