Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Graphics Games Technology

DX11 Tested Against DX9 With Dirt 2 Demo 201

Posted by Soulskill
from the shadows-with-shadows dept.
MojoKid writes "The PC demo for Codemasters' upcoming DirectX 11 racing title, Dirt 2, has just hit the web and is available for download. Dirt 2 is a highly-anticipated racing sim that also happens to feature leading-edge graphic effects. In addition to a DirectX 9 code path, Dirt 2 also utilizes a number of DirectX 11 features, like hardware-tessellated dynamic water, an animated crowd and dynamic cloth effects, in addition to DirectCompute 11-accelerated high-definition ambient occlusion (HADO), full floating-point high dynamic range (HDR) lighting, and full-screen resolution post processing. Performance-wise, DX11 didn't take its toll as much as you'd expect this early on in its adoption cycle." Bit-tech also took a look at the graphical differences, arriving at this conclusion: "You'd need a seriously keen eye and brown paper envelope full of cash from one of the creators of Dirt 2 to notice any real difference between textures in the two versions of DirectX."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

DX11 Tested Against DX9 With Dirt 2 Demo

Comments Filter:
  • ehh (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Dyinobal (1427207) on Thursday December 03, 2009 @02:25AM (#30307966)
    I Personally view DX11 as I do sonys push from DVD to blueray. Sure blueray has some nice features but I'm still enjoying my DVDs, and I don't really need uncompressed audio tracks for every language on my disks. Same thing with DX11, I've not even properly gotten set with many DX10 games and now they are pushing DX11 (well pushing as in mostly tech demos) and I've not even got much dust on my latest graphics card. I'll upgrade in a few years, perhaps when I see DX9 vanish, or at least become increasingly uncommon.
  • Re:ehh (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Dyinobal (1427207) on Thursday December 03, 2009 @02:46AM (#30308046)
    obligatory xkcd comic incoming?
  • Re:ehh (Score:4, Insightful)

    by ShooterNeo (555040) on Thursday December 03, 2009 @02:47AM (#30308052)

    Are you blind? It's one thing to compare DirectX 9 versus 11 video games, where either API lets you create highly detailed, high performance graphics.

    It's another to compare the gigantic difference in picture quality between 1080p/720p and craptacular 480p (at most)

    The difference between high def and standard is pretty darn immediate and obvious for new content such as TV shows that were made using the right digital cameras. Film, not so much, because the darn camera and lenses in movies is often set to blur hard edges and details, and of course is a craptacular 24fps.

  • Re:ehh (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Petrushka (815171) on Thursday December 03, 2009 @02:54AM (#30308080)

    Quoth Dyinobal:

    Sure blueray has some nice features ... I don't really need ... I'll upgrade in a few years ...

    Quoth webheaded:

    ... kicking and screaming ... There is no LIMIT to the amount of shit you'll complain about ... the higher version gives you shit fits ... what kind of moron ...

    Compare and contrast: which of these two is complaining and having shit fits?

  • Re:ehh (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 03, 2009 @02:55AM (#30308082)

    Where are they going to go?

    And you should seriously learn some computing history, MS has a long healthy history of pissing off various segments of its developer base. Anyway, you are assuming that the sabotage would be obvious rather than just 'bad documentation' or APIs that return values they aren't supposed to, things that can be easily written off as bugs [which are never fixed] or lazyness.

  • by crazybit (918023) on Thursday December 03, 2009 @03:01AM (#30308102)
    while playing Crysis. I haven't seen DX11, but from what I've seen on DX9 vs DX10, the only way you couldn't tell the difference is if the game graphics are poorly programmed. I am sure anyone that has seen Crysis superhigh on DX10 in 30+ fps could tell the difference.

    Is it worthy? well, it depends on how much the gamer values graphic quality, so it's really very subjective. But don't say there is no visible difference.
  • Dx11 vs 9 (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 03, 2009 @03:14AM (#30308134)
    Just for the record "...notice any real difference between textures in the two versions of DirectX." Direct X has nothing to do with textures. (Textures are created by the artist & are bound by engine limitations) The textures would not change unless the game was specifically changed with higher resolution textures. I.e. 4098 vs 2048 etc... now that that's over... The engine is the limiting factor in the benchmark. Remember how games became dx10 when dx10 came out? Its not really using the framework to its full capacity. Such as COH or Bioshock having an update for DX10, it doesnt actually add that much, but compare dx9 crysis to dx10 crysis you'll see a difference as the engine was coded to use both frameworks fully. (or flight simulator X) anyways check out the video it shows dx11 not constrained by the engine, dx11 can actually tessellate normal maps http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PR40GwRtFyw&feature=player_embedded [youtube.com] (go to like 2:50)
  • Re:ehh (Score:5, Insightful)

    by hairyfeet (841228) <bassbeast1968@@@gmail...com> on Thursday December 03, 2009 @03:56AM (#30308276) Journal

    I think the problem is that DX9 has gotten "good enough" for most folks, at least IMHO. There is only so much pretty you can look at while dodging gunfire and shit blowing up all around you. I haven't played a game in the last 4-5 years where I thought "they really need to add more pretty" because I've been too busy going "Holy Crap! dodge dodge duck blast Shit! The bad guys are packing hefty and I'm packing wimpy! shit!". See for example the first time I whipped around the corner and shot at a splicer and hit Big Daddy in the ass by mistake. When those big red eyes spun on me all I needed was a sound bite of Daffy Duck [stuporduck.com] to make the moment perfect.

    For me pretty much everything after Far cry 1 has been past the "good enough" level as far as graphics and bling goes. Now if they would do better on stories and AI I would be a happy camper, but sadly we haven't gotten much better on that front since Far Cry 1. IMHO it isn't so much the graphics that separate the okay from the good from the great, but decent story and AI. Bioshock, FEAR, L4D I was too busy playing the game to actually spend much time looking at the pretty. But the atmosphere, the AI (or lack of it in too many games), the story, these things I notice.

    So I have to agree that while I am running Windows 7 HP I just don't see the need to toss my ATI 4650 1Gb. The games I play already look prettier than I can actually pay attention to while not getting the living shit blasted outta me, I haven't seen anything in DX11 that will make bad game companies come out with better AI (I'm looking at you, EA!) or better stories. So I will stick with DX9 until there are enough compelling games out that use DX11 to make it worth using.

    And doesn't the X360 use DX9? Considering how many PC games are nothing but shitty X360 ports anymore DX11 will probably be waiting until the x720 before getting adopted. Oh well, that is what MSFT gets for killing MechWarrior and turning every game company they touch into an X360 company.

  • huh? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by FranTaylor (164577) on Thursday December 03, 2009 @04:15AM (#30308332)

    "Hardware tesselation is going to be the next big thing (it's been around for a while but this is the first time there's really been a universal standard for it). "

    Boy you are really living in some sort of Microsoft fantasy world.

    You can't tell the difference between "Microsoft" and "universal".

  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 03, 2009 @04:27AM (#30308368)

    Ignorance is bliss isn't it? The real difference between dx9 and dx10 in Crysis is barely noticeable. [extremetech.com]

    How does it feel to be duped?

  • Bad summary (Score:5, Insightful)

    by julesh (229690) on Thursday December 03, 2009 @04:40AM (#30308416)

    Summary picks out one point where the article states that graphics haven't improved, but article goes on to discuss improvements in other areas. The pictures speak for themselves; the shadows are much more realistic and the water effects are much more realistic. The textures were fine to start with -- who cares if they improved?

  • Re:ehh (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Aceticon (140883) on Thursday December 03, 2009 @05:30AM (#30308600)

    I reckon that being specialists in one technical area or other, many of us are actually knowledgeable enough about technology and technology companies to know that newer is not the same as better.

    As such, the old-hands amongst us we feel bound by duty and ethics to inform the bright-eyed, young and inexperienced amongst us of that.

    Not that it makes any difference most of the time ...

  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 03, 2009 @05:51AM (#30308672)

    More power with less juice would be nice, even on a desktop.

    Insulting him will not make his argument invalid.

  • Re:ehh (Score:1, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 03, 2009 @07:52AM (#30309086)

    The decision of which API to use is not being made by devs but the bean counters in marketing or the publishers.

  • Re:ehh (Score:2, Insightful)

    by n3tcat (664243) on Thursday December 03, 2009 @08:26AM (#30309204) Homepage

    Are you blind? It's one thing to compare DirectX 9 versus 11 video games, where either API lets you create highly detailed, high performance graphics.

    It's another to compare the gigantic difference in picture quality between 1080p/720p and craptacular 480p (at most)

    The difference between high def and standard is pretty darn immediate and obvious for new content such as TV shows that were made using the right digital cameras. Film, not so much, because the darn camera and lenses in movies is often set to blur hard edges and details, and of course is a craptacular 24fps.

    You must work for sony, have stock in sony, or have spent thousands of dollars on the equipment you're talking about.

  • Re:ehh (Score:4, Insightful)

    by thisnamestoolong (1584383) on Thursday December 03, 2009 @09:24AM (#30309412)
    Yes. You need high quality equipment for the difference between DVD and Blu Ray to be worthwhile. What's your point? There are some of us who care about quality and have thousands of dollars of home theater equipment. There are some who don't. I feel that it makes the experience of watching a film far more engrossing and worth the cost. You have chosen to spend your money differently, so it's not worth upgrading to Blu Ray. On my set-up, however, the difference is immediate, obvious, and clearly worth the money for those who care about such things.

"I got everybody to pay up front...then I blew up their planet." "Now why didn't I think of that?" -- Post Bros. Comics

Working...