• Competitor rules

    Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.

dirt 2 benchmarks dx9 vs dx 11

If I'm honest what's to be expected, DX11 is 2 generations after DX9 better graphics will mean weaker performance and the need for better cards

It looks like I could get a steady 40fps, running the same res, although would have to turn the MSAA to 2 + the hemlock driver next month too

Edit: It's also the first proper DX11 game, give it some time, I expect we will see DX11 put to some good use from the buys at DICE in BC2
 
Last edited:
Rroff said:
250GTS is a die shrunk card with more SPs than an 8800GT :P and the proper 200 series has far more SPs and other enhancements.
Click to expand...

point is it took them that long to introduce a new card, before say the gtx260 all nvidias new to market releases were iterations of there previous generation, you cant argue the 9 series were a card of its own right so for someone to accuse ati of such an act in a way that sets nvidia aside form such lazy and greedy practice is laughable, wich is the point i was trying to make!
 
G92 was a decent rejig of the G80 core, the 9 series was a refresh of the 8 series and not a new card line - kinda like 4870 to 4890 - then a die shrink to increase core clockability and reduce power/heat. The 250 didn't come out til after proper 200 series was released - while I'm not a fan of the renaming thing it was originally supposed to immediatly supercede the rest of the highend 8 and 9 series which should have gone EOL with the 250 being the new 200 series mainstream... still a bit of a con tho. But not such a greedy and lazy practise as some make out...
 
Last edited:
asoxedri said:
I still don't know the big difference between dx9 to 10.
Click to expand...

The major difference is in the shader support - you can do more complex graphical effects, more stuff in less passes, higher precision and so on. Theres a number of lighting, etc. features that are mutally exclusive in DX9 due to hardware constraints that you can enable at the same time in DX10.
 
svs22 said:
Ati just plastered DX11 in an old generation of graphics cards just to beat nvidia and now we can see t he results of that. They managed to beat nvidia on release date but they have no stock and games perform terribly with just a few dx11 effects. Lets wait for nvidia to save the day once more.
Click to expand...

You have absolutely no idea about computers do you!!

Quick! PC World have a deal on Norton Anti Virus, if you hurry up it will only cost you £30, jog on.......
 
Looks like DX11 gives a sharper image, with less of that blurring that you get in DX9, without loosing detail and probably gaining some detail. That's gonna look great on my projector. :D
 
D D Danneh said:
DX9 is faster than DX11 shocker!

DX9 has also been around much longer, and DX11 introduces new effects which are going to need optimizing.
Click to expand...

This is the problem, its not really DX9 is faster in this game, doing a lot less work than DX11.

The image going under a bridge in the slightly zoomed in shots, you can see sharper clearer edges to shadows over the entire image, but the biggest difference is the two cards on the left hand side of the road, in dx9 they are really pretty blurry and low def, in DX11 they seem to be massively sharper and also appear to be much higher detail. Higher detail = more power, this is where comparisons become hard, would dx9 be significantly slower than it is now if it looked similar in detail? Can DX9 achieve that level of detail over the whole image or is it the very fact its in DX11 that gives it the spare overhead to use more effects which subsequently makes it slower. Infact frankly the DX9 shot looks like a very low res shot and the DX11 shot looks like a 3/4 settings higher resolution screenshot, thats how different they look in quality, any other game I'd take 1920x1200 at 60fps, over 1280x1024 at 80fps.



I don't like the argument of, 1st gen dx hardware is always to slow to use it. Well, firstly in a new game without drivers optimised for it the 5870 is giving more than playable framerates in dx11.

So the 5770 can't, it might say DX11 on it, but its still a midrange card. Did people expect a midrange 4670/4770 to play Crysis on max detail just because it was a 3rd gen dx10 card? Or was it still a midrange card.

If this was the latest and greatest looking Crysis 2, still on DX9, with all the new cards being DX9, would you expect the new midrange to run it in absolute maximum detail, no, so why because a card is called DX11 do you expect it to have uber framerates just because a game has DX11, a 5770 is still a midrange card and the top end card gives decent framerate in a new game at high settings.
 
drunkenmaster said:
top end card gives decent framerate in a new game at high settings.
Click to expand...

When i looked i also thought these fps was more than acceptible in a racing game. people are looking to bash DX11 like they bashed DX10, they argue that 1st gen dx cards of any generation are less than viable solutions yet even the 320mb 8800GTS was a monster card at the time for the money and if im not mistaken was 1st gen dx10.
yes they wernt as good as 3rd gen but they shouldnt be otherwise what would be the point?

isnt it the games that are less than commendable when a new dx is thrown to the market, they dont utilize the features properly or arnt coded optimized fully, all gets ironed out with time through, patch's and driver updates but OMG 5850'S play pre release dirt 2 @ 49fps they must be a waist of time :O
 
Not surprised to see that so many people still just don't "get it" when it comes to graphics benchmarks on new technology.
As many in this thread have already pointed out, this really is early days yet as there isn't even a fully stable driver release for the 5970 yet. Plus most should know by now, that when a new game comes out, ATI often have to optimize their drivers to get the benefits in Crossfire.

As for DX11, yes it will be slower and yes there are more features. But those that are stating a wiping statement that they will stick with DX9 because it is faster, are completely missing the point.
The GPU revolution focuses on improving the quality of the graphics, while maintaining a decent/acceptable frame rate. A 5970 will play most DX9 games at well over 80fps.

The question really becomes (depending on your hardware of course) - would you rather play a DX9 game at 150fps, or play at 80fps with extra effects, quality etc?

Clearly, if the frame rate of a particular game drops to less than 30fps under DX11, then DX9 is going to be the better option in that case.
 
my 5870 will still run it on my 24" 1920x1200 at 50 fps in DX 11 which is perfectly fine for games playing. If my eyes cant see more then whats the point for more frames :P
 
darkblade said:
The question really becomes (depending on your hardware of course) - would you rather play a DX9 game at 150fps, or play at 80fps with extra effects, quality etc?
Click to expand...

But looking at the benchmarks in the original post it's more like 70-80fps DX9 vs 40-50fps DX11 (and that's only at 1280*1024).

Now compare these screenshots:

DX9 vs DX11

Pretty much identical from what I can see aside from slightly sharper textures, it's the same with most of the other comparisons.
 
mmj_uk said:
But looking at the benchmarks in the original post it's more like 70-80fps DX9 vs 40-50fps DX11 (and that's only at 1280*1024).

Now compare these screenshots:

DX9 vs DX11

Pretty much identical from what I can see aside from slightly sharper textures, it's the same with most of the other comparisons.
Click to expand...

It does not help that the screen shots are so small but the DX9 shot is much more blurry looking like Wide or Narrow tent AA filter is being used across the whole screen in comparison & its best to focus beyond the nearest car.
 
Last edited:
=VTA=MANFACE said:
DX11 games will run fantastic with DX9/10 cards, but the extra bits for DX11 cards will slow them down quite a lot.
Click to expand...

thats the thing, they shouldnt run any slower with tesselation turned on for the ati cards, since the new 5 series cards are supposed to have a dedicated tesselation engine onboard. that means when a games doesnt use tesselation the tesselator unit on the gpu is inactive, and its active in games that use tesselation.

but it looks to me like ati are doing tesselation on thier gpu shaders thats why its taking a hit in performace. if it really was a dedicated engine on the gpu for tesselation then there would be no performance hit UNLESS the hardware implemented tesselation is so weak that it rest of the gpu ends slowing down in throughput due to the bottleneck caused by the tesselator.

either way wel will soon find out how things will pan out. but from the looks of it in those dirt 2 and uniengine tests these 5 series cards are useless for tesselation due to the massive performance impact they take. who knows it could be driver related but i guess only time will tell.
 
I'm a little disappointed that DX11 performance is so much less than DX9. I was hoping that the game would simply take advantage of the extra functionality without lowering framerates. I mean, other games the performance is actually meant to increase. Still, the drivers are still pretty rough around the edges by all accounts - hopefully they'll be able to get a bit more out of them. The game looks stunning though. I can't wait to play it, as GRID was amazing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom