About DirectX 11

[CanuckSoldier]

If you want a comparison of Dx9 to DX10 just look here for a visual indication.

http://www.winmatrix.com/forums/index.php?/topic/9550-directx-9-0-vs-directx-10/

Yes for sure your DX10 video card will make the game look better than a DX9 card, how much will really depend on how Firaxis programs the graphics engine to scale with the DX version and video hardware. Remmber that all cards are not equal either even when they are in the same general classification.

CS

 

[Willem]

If you want a comparison of Dx9 to DX10 just look here for a visual indication.

http://www.winmatrix.com/forums/index.php?/topic/9550-directx-9-0-vs-directx-10/

Those were exactly the screenshots I was thinking of in one of my previous posts. That one with the mountain and lake is pretty damn close to photo realistic. And those head shots are pretty impressive too. I would love to be able to see that kind of quality in my next Civ game.

 

[chongli]

Tessellation allows for an increased polygon count in objects that are closer to the viewer, but don't add new effects the way things like dynamic lighting and transparency does.

So DX11 may allow for an overall improvement in image quality and/or frame rate, but you could produce the same the same result with brute force and huge polygon counts.

For people running an average 1280x1024 / 60hz LCd, there shouldn't be much to visually distinguish a higher end DX9 or DX10 card from a DX11 card in a Civ type game. If CivV can make use of the GPGPU and multicore benefits of DX11 then the biggest benefit of DX11 is going to be game play (less lag at the end of turns), and not visual.

Except that using huge polygon counts creates all kinds of problems including bottlenecks and massive vertex cache requirements. It also doesn't handle distance-based LOD scaling very well. When you don't have infinitely powerful hardware, tessellation will always give you a better result.

If you want a comparison of Dx9 to DX10 just look here for a visual indication.

http://www.winmatrix.com/forums/index.php?/topic/9550-directx-9-0-vs-directx-10/

Yes for sure your DX10 video card will make the game look better than a DX9 card, how much will really depend on how Firaxis programs the graphics engine to scale with the DX version and video hardware. Remmber that all cards are not equal either even when they are in the same general classification.

CS

These are totally misleading propaganda screenshots. Don't get sucked in by them.

 

[CanuckSoldier]

Except that using huge polygon counts creates all kinds of problems including bottlenecks and massive vertex cache requirements. It also doesn't handle distance-based LOD scaling very well. When you don't have infinitely powerful hardware, tessellation will always give you a better result.



These are totally misleading propaganda screenshots. Don't get sucked in by them.

Well if you are of the opinion that those are propaganda, then maybe have a look at this article, I doubt very much that Maximum PC is ever engaged in propaganda.

http://www.maximumpc.com/article/lost_planet_dx9_vs_dx10

And here is actually some comparision between dx9,10,11

http://www.overclock.net/ati/597046-dx11-vs-dx10-vs-dx-9-a.html

CS

 

[chongli]

Well if you are of the opinion that those are propaganda, then maybe have a look at this article, I doubt very much that Maximum PC is ever engaged in propaganda.

http://www.maximumpc.com/article/lost_planet_dx9_vs_dx10

And here is actually some comparision between dx9,10,11

http://www.overclock.net/ati/597046-dx11-vs-dx10-vs-dx-9-a.html

CS

And here you can see the differences are much more subtle (with the exception of the tessellation one, which is a scene deliberately designed to exaggerate the differences).

If you'll notice in the overclock.net example, there is virtually no difference at all between dx9 and dx10.

 

[CanuckSoldier]

Well now you are engaged in opinion and not simply facts, I think the grass in the one shot is much better rendered in DX10 than DX9. Yes it might not make a huge difference depending on the scene, but to say there is "virtually no difference" is a over generalization IMHO.

CS

 

[Willem]

If you'll notice in the overclock.net example, there is virtually no difference at all between dx9 and dx10.

I see quite a bit of difference. Not only in the grass as mentioned, but in the cobblestones in the road. Everything looks alot more natural.

 

[chongli]

Well now you are engaged in opinion and not simply facts, I think the grass in the one shot is much better rendered in DX10 than DX9. Yes it might not make a huge difference depending on the scene, but to say there is "virtually no difference" is a over generalization IMHO.

CS

That one DX9 shot has a bugged texture. You can see a grid pattern overlaid the grass texture. No other textures in the scene exhibit this difference and many other games do not have this problem.

I see quite a bit of difference. Not only in the grass as mentioned, but in the cobblestones in the road. Everything looks alot more natural.

The cobblestones in the DX9 and DX10 shot are totally identical. The DX11 cobblestones are different because they're using tessellation.

Again, this highlights the problems with comparisons specifically designed to show off the new versions. Real games as a rule do not do this (Crysis being the exception). Instead, developers focus their efforts on attempting to make each version look as best as it can.

Try comparing this shot (DX9) with this shot (DX10). Please, do tell me what difference you can find because I cannot see any.

 

[Willem]

The cobblestones in the DX9 and DX10 shot are totally identical. The DX11 cobblestones are different because they're using tessellation.

Well if that's a DirectX 10 feature, that's a difference. In a game, I'd much rather have the DirectX 10 version.

Please, do tell me what difference you can find because I cannot see any.

I agree, there's not much difference between those two modes, if any. I do see a difference with 11 though, the dragon's breast area has more detail.

 

[chongli]

Well if that's a DirectX 10 feature, that's a difference. In a game, I'd much rather have the DirectX 10 version.

Tessellation is a DX11 feature.

 

[fromeast2west]

Except that using huge polygon counts creates all kinds of problems including bottlenecks and massive vertex cache requirements. It also doesn't handle distance-based LOD scaling very well. When you don't have infinitely powerful hardware, tessellation will always give you a better result.

I think we're coming at the same conclusion from different directions. Tessellation will allow for better graphics on the same hardware because it's more efficient than a brute force approach.

My point was that DX11, and DX10 for that matter, don't really add any new effects the way some past version did.

Check out the screens here for examples: http://developer.valvesoftware.com/wiki/DirectX_Versions

One of the biggest jumps (IMHO) was the DX7 to DX8 changes in dynamic lighting and shadows. There are shadows in the DX8 version that simply aren't there in the earlier versions. It's not a matter of better or realistic shadows.. they simply aren't there in the earlier versions.

There isn't anything like that in the DX9 to DX10/DX11. There should be an overall increase in image quality, but you'd expect that even if it was just the hardware that was getting better over time pushing higher resolutions and frame rates.

The OPs question was also about DX11 and Civ, and given the relatively low level of the graphics in the game and the current average monitor as an output, I just don't see DX11 making a difference to the OP in terms of graphics.

The potential of GPGPU utilization and multi-core support are the more significant aspects of DX11 on CivV gameplay.

 

[CTH]

From what I have understand about DX10 is that it was mostly a improvement for the graphical designers way to work, not so much that you couldnt do the same graphic in dx9 but you could do alot of things easier and faster in dx10. DX11 on the other hand got some new features that makes games looks better. Tessellation for example. But I agree wiht fromeast2west, DirectX dont add so much "exciting" these days as they used to. The screenshots from maximumpc is propaganda (the ms flight sim especially) the screens is prob from MS that wanted people to upgrade to vista to get dx10. And if I remember correctly it was one of the earliest images of dx10.

 

[andersw]

Here's an intressenting comparison of an actual game with DX9/DX11.
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/aliens-vs-predator-directx-11-benchmark,2606.html
Someone in the thread below claims "dx11 adds proper multi threading in the drivers and allows the rendering engines to be multi threaded now", I haven't read the details of DX11 myself though....

 

[chongli]

Here's an interesting quote from that article:

Indeed, Rebellion's claim of increased performance is verified here, and suddenly CrossFire seems to be working. But on closer inspection, things are a little more complex than that. It looks like the cards with the highest compute performance, such as the Radeon HD 5830 and above, get a performance boost from DirectX 11, while the Radeon HD 5770 holds its ground and the slower cards actually lose some traction.

Sounds like a mixed bag. Improves performance for the fastest cards and slows down the lower end cards. Definitely not something you want to do if you want your game to run on the widest array of systems.