Noob with questions about DX10 and DX11

td25er

Distinguished
Aug 26, 2009
5
0
18,510
I'm a complete novice to computer gaming. I want to build a system, but have a few questions. If I build a rig using 1-2 DX10 video cards, will I be able to play future games that are compatible with DX11? Or should I wait and build a system when the DX11 cards come out? I'm not too worried about having the best visuals and frame rates, I just want to know if I'll be able to play the games. Thanks. Please keep in mind I'm a complete novice so be nice. ;-)
 
DX 11 card will be officially announced on Sept 10th by ATI I believe. However, they may not be on sale until around Oct 22nd when Win7 is officially launched.

It will take a while for DX 10 to be phased out, my guess is probably 2011 - 2012. There are still games that supports DX 9. I think Oblivion was the first game to officially drop DX 8 support.
 
DX9 will be around for the next few years, simply because XP will be around for the next few years.

DX10 will remain around the next few years simply because everyone has a DX10 card these days.

You won't have to worry about any games only supporting DX11 for quite some time. You might lose some eye-candy, but thats about it.
 


Yes you will be fine playing the games DX11 will be backwards compatable with DX10 as far as compatibility to play the games goes, you may find down the road that the DX11 cards do something you want as well but by then they will probably have better cards out again. If your not that bothered about visuals or frame rates go right ahead and build :)

Mactronix
 

darkvine

Distinguished
Jun 18, 2009
363
0
18,810
Like Mactronix said you will still be able to play the DX11 games you just won't get everything it has to offer you.

You can wait if you really want to but if you you don't care to much then just go ahead and buy now. But also keep in mind prices will drop on DX10 cards once DX11 cards come out.
 
Not all games will have backwards compatibility. I have played games that say they require a certain version of DX. I wouldn't count on every game having backwards compatibility. If you can wait until the DX11 video cards come out I would do that. It is not that far off.
 

daedalus685

Distinguished
Nov 11, 2008
1,558
1
19,810


Dx11 is strictly a superset of Dx10. It will be 100% backwards compatable. Obviously a game coded for only DX11 would require dx11, that is not the same as the API being backwards compatable.
 


GT300 is half a year away... ='(

I guess I'll see what ATI has in store...
 


1: DX11 is a direct superset of 10/10.1, so any DX11 card can run DX10/10.1 out of the box without issue. And like always, previous modes will be fully supported.

2: Every game (except one) has been coded off of DX9 for a reason: Its the highest version XP can use, and around 40% of the market still uses XP. DX10 is just a layer on top of that, and DX11 will either be a second layer on top of that, or replace DX10. Regardless, DX9 will be usable for every game out there for at least the next 2 years (if not longer).

3: I still think DX11 will run into the same exact issue DX10 did. Really, I could care less how well 7 runs; If XP maintains >20% share, DX9 will be the dominant code path. Games will be based off DX9 until that situation changes.

I'm looking at price/performance for now; I'll switch if the card is worth the price, or when DX11 becomes standard. Until then, I'm quite happy with my 4890, as I can run everything (even Crysis) maxed at playable framerates.
 
Funny how those numbers keep changing to lower and lower..40% isnt dominant, 20% isnt even mentionable.
M$ worked with Intel to optimize W7 for its MT usage. Funny thing that. What about AMD? They too have 20% of the market? Do you think devs will be different? Especially when it possible AMD could actually gain more marketshare before the end of W7
 

darkvine

Distinguished
Jun 18, 2009
363
0
18,810



The only two walls DX10 hit was that vista was crap. Now you will see a large jump in the number of people using it, as well as a strong graphics card showing to support it. The other wall DX10 hit was because devs have known for quiet same time that DX11 was coming and windows 7 as well. There was no point coding games for DX10 with that on the horizon.

While it will take a little while to kick in just do to the time it takes DX11 will take off much better and faster then 10/10.1.

20% share will not make DX9 dominant it will slowly kill it off. Out of 20% still using XP very few will be gamers, most will be people who aren't very tech savvy and don't want to switch because they know XP already.
 

daedalus685

Distinguished
Nov 11, 2008
1,558
1
19,810


While I do think that dx11 will catch on faster than gamer thinks, you don't really think that devs delayed their own games in order to release on dx11 do you? There is one example of that, and the game is not out yet. It is utterly foolish to believe that "dx11" coming soon plays into the minds of devs at all. The make the game with the tools they have at the time, to delay a release by a year is rediculous and woudl lose many people thier jobs.. and cost millions of dollars to the studio. Only in the last couple of months would any DX11 coding have even started. Dirt2 will be released with some dx 11 features and was delayed a couple months because of it... but there is no way on earth dx 11 played any more of a roll in the failure of dx 10 at all. Of all of the games released.. as far as I know dirt was the only one delayed becsue of the upcoming api.

Dx10 failed because there was no market share for it, people are sheep when it came to "vista is bad," and all of the current consoles were dx9. If the superficial reasons people hated vists hold up noone will buy seven either. Additionally, dx9 will survive until the last 360 bites the dust.. not for a long time. XP is a small fraction of the dx9 share, the vast majority in the consoles.
 

darkvine

Distinguished
Jun 18, 2009
363
0
18,810


I didn't say they delayed their games that would be stupid. I said they skipped DX10 in most games. There was no point even trying to do DX10, spending time and money on it if there was no shares so they didn't add it.

DX11 will likely be a different story and with Windows 7 so far getting nothing but praise from reviewers, and a very good word of mouth buzz, devs know that them releasing DX11 games is another push for people to change.
 
Its funny how people see the whole vista is bad as a sheep thing, most everyone follows reviews and benchmarks when deciding if the latest thing is for them, As an OS Vista did its job but when it comes to gaming it was always on a hiding to nothing. The facts are that a vast majority of PC owners want to play games of some sort or another on it. When Vista was released it needed additional resources to run the games properly. it wasn't a conspiracy theory or anything, the reviewers reported what they found and they found a slower gaming experience than XP. In fact most systems around at the time would have needed the OS itself, more Ram and a DX10 GPU to get the most out of the OS. The fact that even then the games played slower than they did on XP and the lack of a killer DX10 exclusive game or two were what put a nail in Vista's coffin.
That's why its totally different this time around. W7 playes games better/faster/smoother than XP and DX11 will only increase the percentage.

Mactronix
 

daedalus685

Distinguished
Nov 11, 2008
1,558
1
19,810


I don't mean to imply that using a review is a bad idea.. But iirc most people had issue with vista compatability and the look. The compatability of seven will be no better than vista is now, and it looks almost the same, yet even the superficial review sites seem to be raving about it. I suppose some of the issues was the required ram boost, but the wholse situation seem so blown out of proportion to me. Most of the "this OS is too slow" screams came from owners of store bought systems that packaged vista on a system with 512mb of ram. When it came out vendors didn't seem to care how it worked on low end boxes, and flooded the market with cheep laptops that had no business not runnign xp. The release would have been far smoother if the average joe understood minimum requirements, and if microsoft was willign to phase xp out at the time, isntead of trying to obliterate it and replace it.

I still come across a good number of people that hate vista, most cannot tell me why. Those are the "sheep" i was refering to, the ones that still keep vista share rather small.. not so much those who for whatever reason may have not switched during release.

I still am firm in my stance that it was not the fault of the OS that it requires a bit more RAM than XP. Though I do agree that the general public should have understood the requirements better before vista was shoved down their throats, albeit in disgrace.
 

Its easy for an XP user to say 7 is a good OS. Its an entirly different for that same user to shell out ~$200 to upgrade to the full version of that OS.

Devs could care less what OS people run; they just want the maximum amount of profit they can make off a product. Like every DX release, a few devs are trying to be first in order to get the "new DX Sales Boost", and then you get the lul of new titles.

Even DX9 took well over a year to become standard, and OS's as far back as 98 had 100% support! Thats the crux of my argument: It doesn't make economic sense to code for DX11, and will not until the hardware and software base catch up. Devs will wait for the people to switch, not the other way around.

Also BTW, the PS3 uses OpenGL, not directX, so please, enough of the "consoles use DX9" argument.

Finally, I don't see any improvment from Vista->7, just a simmilar look and a few backend changes. I for one have no itention to was $200 to upgrade to an OS that offers me nothing new.
 



Totally agree not Vistas fault but some very sloppy implementation from lets face it people who should have known better.

Mactronix
 
Lots of claims being made, regardless of the numbers, regardless of the acceptence, regardless of progress.
Things are turning around economically, and thats the only thing slowing the Vista uptake, and having W7 so close, it really doesnt count at this point, as W7 will finally offer something new, something tried and true, and for anyone stuck on xp, nothing but blue heheh.
Progress is going to happen,even if the current belief is the world is flat.
 

darkvine

Distinguished
Jun 18, 2009
363
0
18,810



Devs care very much what OS people are using because they have to aim their sights at that OS for maxim profits. If everyone is using XP why make DX11 games? If everyone is using Windows 7 why not take advantage of it's features so that people are like "wow this is top of the line" to say a dev doesn't care what people want or are using is plain idiotic, that is a good way to lose money because your making games/apps that other people are making with features people want or down right demand.

As for this whole "Vista and 7 wil have the same comparability issues" people keep going off about I would like to point out that Windows 7 has a virtual PC that boots any program that isn't Vista/7 ready in XP. However as far as I know you can't use this with windows 7 home premium or whatever the lowest one is called but you can with all the others. Which is seriously stupid.

On top of that comparability issues are slowly going away over time as it becomes clear that 64 bit is where things are going weather we like it or not (personally I couldn't care less as long as the damn OS work.)
 
G

Guest

Guest
Where did the 20% using XP figure come from? The numbers I googled from July 2009 say its over 66% and vista is less than 15%. It will take 3-5 years to replace the bulk of those XP machines.

W7 has the same problem as Vista - it cant be installed as an upgrade on 75% of those XP machines because of hardware requirements. If there are not enough machines to make programming for it profitable, the bookkeepers wont let the developers develop for it. It just cant grow like we want it to because teh infrastructure isnt in place. Its going to take a slow 5 year buildup as XP machines are replaced with W7 PCs.
 
G

Guest

Guest
Just an FYI - this is the best documented OS breakdown I have found: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OS_market_share

That 20% before abandonment sounds about right. At that point the remaining XP machines will almost all be small business machines that dont do games. I still have a couple clients using DOS and windows 95 machines with 486 based Novell servers. Dang things wont die so they dont replace them.

I'll stand by my prediction of two years before game developers release more than a trickle of DX11 enhancements. Totally changing polygonal mapping means massive redevelopment for existing products which is not going to happen until there is a substantial W7 userbase badgering them. I dont see the economy allowing the necessary userbase to develop any faster than that. There are alot of profitable games never retrofitted for DX10 making. I doubt many developers will even risk retooling a game currently under development until its clear there will be a large DX11 audience waiting for them.
 

darkvine

Distinguished
Jun 18, 2009
363
0
18,810
I would say 2 years sounds about right but once they come they will come in a flood. There are many things in DX11 that will actually make their lives a little bit easier.