DirectX 11 performance first look: Dirt 2

[acroig]

"We were expecting the lovely rippling effects in the flags to vanish without tessellation to smooth out their supple curves. However, all of the flags in the demo rippled just as convincingly in DirectX 9 mode as they did in DirectX 11 mode. Likewise, all of the textures looked the same too. 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.

Some minor differences can be spotted in the lighting effects, though. Both DirectX 9 and DirectX 11 mode do an admiral job of mapping the sunlight onto the surfaces of the cars. However, we felt that Direct X 11 rendered the beams from our local star in a slightly more accurate and cleaner fashion, making the light sourcing look more believable. Most noticeable is the cleanness of the shadow, particular when it's cast by the rear spoiler onto the bodywork - in DirectX 9 mode, the shadow has a chunky edge, whereas in DirectX 11, its edges blend away smoothly. Still, the differences are marginal, not easy to spot and not worth a 30fps cut to your frame rate."

http://www.bit-tech.net/gaming/pc/20...-look-dirt-2/3

, DX10 redux?

[Kowan]

Let's hope not.

[icecold1983]

from the screens the difference is extremely minor and def not worth a 30% hit to fps.

[acroig]

Originally Posted by icecold1983

from the screens the difference is extremely minor and def not worth a 30% hit to fps.

Agreed. I hope a game like AvP looks and plays better (meaning DX11 goodies without a 30%+ FPS hit).

[caveman-jim]

It's not a tech demo, it's a game, and without acknowledging Compute Shader you miss the point of Dx11 almost entirely. There's no mention in the article about how gameplay differs in Dx11 vs. Dx9; the water has a different effect in Dx11; the handling is better, the shadows and lighting are better - it's a better game because of it.

[Jokerzwild]

At least this time you don't need to buy a whole new OS to join the party .

[Skynet]

I've only played the demo in DX11 mode, but the visuals don't impress me at all. Nice, but nothing close to a wow factor.

My early impression, a waste of cash for AMD to sponsor this title, will wait to see the full game to really decide. Also, the demo is too short to really get a feel for the gameplay but the game is fun.

[Hapatingjaky]

Deja Vu?

Remember a little game called Crysis? Tooting how well the game runs on the current hardware of that time. Demo comes out runs and looks like crap, final game comes out still looks the same and still runs like crap.

This is exactly whats happening with Dirt 2. Everyone's saying its just a demo and not indicative of the final game. Honestly this demo probably is final code and this is what will be released.

If I recall Dirt 2 was fist designed for DX9/DX10, The game was put on hold to add DX11 features. Key word is "FEATURES". This is not potraying what DX11 will probably due, we need to wait for titles that are actually desgined for DX11 like AvP and future titles. Patching in support for new API's has always been a bad idea. Remember those games that did that?

Everyone still waiting on the DX10 patch for Unreal Tournament 3 LOL?

[icecold1983]

Originally Posted by caveman-jim

It's not a tech demo, it's a game, and without acknowledging Compute Shader you miss the point of Dx11 almost entirely. There's no mention in the article about how gameplay differs in Dx11 vs. Dx9; the water has a different effect in Dx11; the handling is better, the shadows and lighting are better - it's a better game because of it.

im only referring to the implementation in dirt 2, im not calling dx11 itself a waste. i cant comment on the gameplay but visually the difference is minuscule from the screens ive seen and id never trade 30% of my performance for it

[AMD_G@y]

Originally Posted by icecold1983

from the screens the difference is extremely minor and def not worth a 30% hit to fps.

same could be said about FSAA, PhyX, Stereo3D etc.. what the hell were people expecting ? Add elements that increase visuals, overall game experience/immersion AND still be faster than previous API (DirectX) ?? yeah I want some of what those people are smoking. IIRC this has always happened with initial DX releases.. DX6 (EMBM)-> DX7 (T&L) -> DX8 added (again off top of my head) PS/VS, Volumetric Textures and iirc EMBM (was run on PS vs dedicated hw) all at the cost of performance , from DX 8 (incl 8.1 etc) -> DX9 again we saw the inclusion of new features/enhancements again at the cost of performance.

I can't remember a time where a new DirectX (DD or D3D) improved performance right off the bat while adding to the visual. Look at the improvements that each DX made as it proliferated and was subsequently built upon. Anyone thinking such features were going to be FREE needs to have their head checked.

[Nunz]

The handling is better in DX11?

[icecold1983]

Originally Posted by Hapatingjaky

Deja Vu?

Remember a little game called Crysis? Tooting how well the game runs on the current hardware of that time. Demo comes out runs and looks like crap, final game comes out still looks the same and still runs like crap.

This is exactly whats happening with Dirt 2. Everyone's saying its just a demo and not indicative of the final game. Honestly this demo probably is final code and this is what will be released.

If I recall Dirt 2 was fist designed for DX9/DX10, The game was put on hold to add DX11 features. Key word is "FEATURES". This is not potraying what DX11 will probably due, we need to wait for titles that are actually desgined for DX11 like AvP and future titles. Patching in support for new API's has always been a bad idea. Remember those games that did that?

Everyone still waiting on the DX10 patch for Unreal Tournament 3 LOL?

you think crysis looks like crap?

oh and avp will also be a dx9 game with dx11 features added late in development

[icecold1983]

Originally Posted by AMD_G@y

same could be said about FSAA, PhyX, Stereo3D etc.. what the hell were people expecting ? Add elements that increase visuals, overall game experience/immersion AND still be faster than previous API (DirectX) ?? yeah I want some of what those people are smoking. IIRC this has always happened with initial DX releases.. DX6 (EMBM)-> DX7 (T&L) -> DX8 added (again off top of my head) PS/VS, Volumetric Textures and iirc EMBM (was run on PS vs dedicated hw) all at the cost of performance , from DX 8 (incl 8.1 etc) -> DX9 again we saw the inclusion of new features/enhancements again at the cost of performance.

I can't remember a time where a new DirectX (DD or D3D) improved performance right off the bat while adding to the visual. Look at the improvements that each DX made as it proliferated and was subsequently built upon. Anyone thinking such features were going to be FREE needs to have their head checked.

its just deciding whether or not the improvements you get are worth the perfomance hit. in terms of aa it absolutely is, in terms of dirt 2 it isnt imo.

edit - i also think the difference between no aa and aa is monumentally larger than the differences with dirt in dx11.

[Skynet]

Originally Posted by Nunz

The handling is better in DX11?

Troll. As usual, at least your consistent in your stupidity.

Don't know what the complaints are with performance, seems to be locked at 60fps on my rig, I think? Don't get me wrong the visuals are very clean, just not a leap. Probably was wrong to expect such from an early DX11 title though.

[AMD_G@y]

Originally Posted by icecold1983

its just deciding whether or not the improvements you get are worth the perfomance hit. in terms of aa it absolutely is, in terms of dirt 2 it isnt imo.

edit - i also think the difference between no aa and aa is monumentally larger than the differences with dirt in dx11.

I still dont see wtf people are complaining about .. its running in DX11 with Tess, HDAO, HDR etc all while running at a solid 60fps (Vsync anyone, I'm willing to bet if someone actually sat down and played the game in DX9 then DX11, the added visuals would far far outweigh any percieved FPS loss).

[Hapatingjaky]

Originally Posted by icecold1983

you think crysis looks like crap?

oh and avp will also be a dx9 game with dx11 features added late in development

Do I think Crysis looks like crap? Yes and no, Crysis is a stunning game yes but is it at the level of the canned videos and screenshots that Crytek released? Hell no.

Running on my Tri-SLI with CPU clocked a 3.8GHz I can easily bring the game to its knee's just by simply enabling any form of AA with enthusiates settings enabled at 1920x1200. Setting it up on 52" 120Hz Sharp Aquos at 1920x1080 with a vibrant color scale it still looks great but the performance and look is nowhere's near the canned video's and screenshots that Crytek released, compare it to Unreal Tournament everyone knew Epic touched up screenshots and videos to make it look better.

I see Dirt 2 in same light, all the hype about it holding back release so that it can institue DX11, we get some amazing screenshots some awesome videos, Demo is released feels ligth weight performance takes a hit, still min 50 average 60 is dam good, but people were expecting more since the developer was promising this and that. Hype it with a 5xxx series and this is what we get?

This is why I wait for Demo's to be released, I no longer trust these trailers, video's and screenshots. Once I can try a Demo and see if its piss poor or delivers on the developers promise then I will decide to purchase the final game.

I will not be purchasing Dirt 2.

[icecold1983]

Originally Posted by AMD_G@y

I still dont see wtf people are complaining about .. its running in DX11 with Tess, HDAO, HDR etc all while running at a solid 60fps (Vsync anyone, I'm willing to bet if someone actually sat down and played the game in DX9 then DX11, the added visuals would far far outweigh any percieved FPS loss).

im aware of the technical differences between dx9 and dx11 in dirt, we are questioning whether or not the end visual output justifies the large performance drop. also its certainly not a solid 60 fps at 1920x1200

[AMD_G@y]

Originally Posted by icecold1983

im aware of the technical differences between dx9 and dx11 in dirt, we are questioning whether or not the end visual output justifies the large performance drop. also its certainly not a solid 60 fps at 1920x1200

maybe you should be comparing DX10 vs DX11 instead of DX9... I'd say wait until the game is released instead of a demo.. after all we saw what a diff a demo to retail release can make before (Batman).

[Hapatingjaky]

Originally Posted by icecold1983

im aware of the technical differences between dx9 and dx11 in dirt, we are questioning whether or not the end visual output justifies the large performance drop. also its certainly not a solid 60 fps at 1920x1200

Drops to 48FPS are good and I agree, if it were dropping to like 15FPS then yes there would definately be a large uproar, its definately keeping performance up but who's to say that its DX11 and not just the horse power of the card? And looking at visual differences which it is obvious there's really not that much of a visual increase if any.

I would like to know what it would hit if the cap was removed?

[caveman-jim]

Originally Posted by Nunz

The handling is better in DX11?

You don't think DirectCompute physics makes a difference? It's not anywhere like physX but changing surfaces affects the characteristics of the car subtly and perceptably in DX11 mode, esp. in water.

You didn't find that to be true when you tried the demo? I mean... you're not commenting on something you have zero first hand experience in, right?

[acroig]

Originally Posted by icecold1983

you think crysis looks like crap?

oh and avp will also be a dx9 game with dx11 features added late in development

I sure don't think so!

AvP seems to have more DX11 features (tessellation) that will make it a better DX11 showcase (from what I've seen so far).

[acroig]

Originally Posted by caveman-jim

You didn't find that to be true when you tried the demo? I mean... you're not commenting on something you have zero first hand experience in, right?

OK, you got me there.

[SirBaron]

I want DX11, but with Nvidia being so hush hush on Fermi it's gunna be a while before I can see it for my self, I wish they'd hurry up though, my GTX280 is barely surviving as it is.

[Jokerzwild]

Originally Posted by caveman-jim

You don't think DirectCompute physics makes a difference? It's not anywhere like physX but changing surfaces affects the characteristics of the car subtly and perceptably in DX11 mode, esp. in water.

You didn't find that to be true when you tried the demo? I mean... you're not commenting on something you have zero first hand experience in, right?

Seriously? Dirt 2 is using directcompute physics on HD 5*** hardware?? That's awesome, I think that's the first I've heard that, but I tend to not pay attention well . Hmmm... I gotta finds me some videos of that in motion .

I will say that the physics of the cars in general are a giant leap from the first DiRT game (which I've been playing a lot of the past couple days getting ready for 2 to release) even without DX11. After playing the DiRT 2 demo the first game is downright archaic.

[KickAssCop]

So basically this means that I blew $50 on Windows 7, $140 on upgrading to a 5850 and another $20 on gas to go the extra mile to get the 5850 (since only one was available)...

FOR NOTHING... OMG!!!1

[clerick]

So there's dx9 and 11 and no dx10?

[Treeckcold57]

Originally Posted by clerick

So there's dx9 and 11 and no dx10?

I'm pretty sure there is DX10. I'm wonder why that article doesn't included DX10.

[Skynet]

No I don't think there is a DX10 mode, DX9 or 11.

[Kombatant]

Originally Posted by Skynet

Troll. As usual, at least your consistent in your stupidity.

Tone it down. Refer to the forum guidelines for more.

[Ancient76]

Long live the hype