How long will it be until DirectX 11.0 is the MINIMUM spec for ANY new game ( Best guesses)

Ok so as a minimum spec for any game ..

Based on the take-up rate of 9 , 10 and 10.1 ?

I'm thinking it will be around 3 years ...


- Background

I have an Asus with the GTX 260 and i'm debating returning it for an ATI 5730.
I'd like to be able to try and play any new games in 3/4 years time , even at very low framerates.
They don't bother me that much , I've enjoyed RPG's on my current laptop with rates of 10

Whats your best guess ?

 

i'd say the same, keep the 260 for about 2 years, then upgrade to something spectacular.

 

Trading in the GTX 260M, for a 5730, would be a major mistake. The 5730 will be scraping the bottom even a year from now.

DirectX is not what you base the purchase on, not today.

 

I second this opinion. By the time direct x11 will be used widely, your first generation direct x11 card will most likely not deliver the performance you want.
I've given the example with my nvidia 8600m gt before. This card was the first laptop gpu for direct x10, yet i'm forced to play assassins creed with direct x9 because its too weak.

 

I am so amused by this question, because even right now, DX10 is not a minimum specification. How on earth is DX11 going to make it there? By the way time you make it to that three-year-mark, DX12 or something to that effect will be the next big hype and more questions about when 'DX12 will be the only accepted medium' will start to pop around.

Think realistically, and it becomes obvious. DX9 is the present cornerstone due to its abilities to still do plenty of visual good and also because of the console market. The other APIs are only an optional/added factors for exploitation if you have relevant hardware.

Take up rate? Not at all. DX9 is still the central force, and DX10 is niche. DX10.1 is even more niche. Any added DX11 support in many of these newer games is like an 'add-on' feature. These games aren't built from the ground-up with DX11 API in mind. Such an approach is harmful and unrealistic to even the developers.

 

Agreed !

The only game to advertise DX 11 is Dirt 2. And I would wager that if you ran the game in DX9/DX10.1 or DX11, it would be difficult to tell them apart.

The bottom line is this DX9.0c is to DX in general what Windows XP was to Windows Vista.

 

Appreciate all the comments so far.

Based on the
http://forum.notebookreview.com/showthread.php?t=465003
it seems that there are only 2 games that require Direct X 10 card as a minimum now.
and according to wikipedia , D10 was released in 2006 !

So is the consensus, that, by the time D11 is a minimum requirement for a game , it would be unrunnable on an 5730 ?

 

The problem with DX10 was the issue of it tied to requiring Vista. And it wasn't until DX10.1 that people really saw some of the benefits. DX11 represents a fresh start, full of actually useful techniques that will help programmers really up the ante like tessellation. Add to that it's paired up with a new OS that people like: Windows 7 and how it is available for Vista users too, you have a rather large install base that can make use of it immediately.

 

DX10 has geometry shaders and HBAO - DX10.1 only introduced better implementation of MSAA with deferred rendering.

DX11 is taking that same level of 'creating depth in textures' to another level with tessalation - even Crysis could go paralax map occlusion under DX9, which comse close to emulating HBAO. Sure, one can put a nice spin on that, but it is what it is on paper. There was no problem with DX10. It was hyped up before any game even made use of its real features or any game built around that hardware. DX11 is virtually the same story. DIRT 2 is essentially a DX9 game with added option for tessalation if your card can do DX11.

 

I'd say 5-6 years.

 

Dx9 will probably disappear soon, for new games, but i think it'll be a while before DX10 does.

 

I'd say it would become standard in 2-5 years... DirectX 9.0 is still running strong.... also most consoles use DirectX 9.0 , so don't expect it to go soon...

I agree... 5730 is going to be beaten by GTX260M anytime and it isn't powerful enough to play directx 11.0 games on high... ur better off keeping ur old laptop or buying a new one like Asus G73 which comes with 5870 and GDDR5 ... which would be a super upgrade... 5870 is like 35-50% better than GTX260M and should have no problems running directx 11.0 games..

 

Right. There's many DirectX 10 capable cards out there, but don't perform worth a darn running DirectX 10 but can shine running DirectX 9. I hate the fact that they make these cards "compatible" with a standard even though they realistically can't run anything reasonably well using that standard.

 

It would be a while, since game publishers are making games for multiple platforms. And I don't think they'll stop supporting dx9 until the new generation of xbox at least. Personally, I think games optimised for opengl run better than ones for dx9, but are harder to program.

 

From my digging around, the only console that uses a [derivative] of DirectX9 is the Xbox. The Nintendo Wii and Sony PS3 use derivatives of OpenGL. However the windows and xbox platforms do represent much of the game sales and I think they are the reason why games still support directx9.

 

I don't think DX9 is going anywhere for all the console ports since the games are originally meant to run on inferior hardware. The problem is with all the games that aren't such ports.

 

When Microsoft discontinues support for Vista?

 

Yeah, anyone saying that DX9 is going to be gone soon is either intentionally ignoring the console-market, which is currently influencing the PC market. Or, they have some very radical insights into the future, which is impossible.

And with the whole 'what API the consoles use'. Don't just get into what a console officially supports. Xbox's GPU could potentially do tessalation. Fact is that PS3 hardware, mainly the GPU that will always be its path to displaying the visuals, will be limited to an architecture that cannot handle tessalation. Simple. Cell is amazing at handling very fast post-processing effects, but all of that can be accomplished using DX9.

Also, PS3's use of OpenGL isn't always the case, and it is an older version of OpenGL compared to present-day hardware standards.

 

When all XP and Vista machines have support discontinued by Microsoft.

 

Most people today is still running on XP. DX 9 is not going to disappear soon. I would guess DX 9 is totally gone in 2-4 years.

 

Actually, I think it will be very soon. Like one year.

just one game though, it will be from futuremark. They made one of the first two dx10 only games. The other one from sega was a huge flop.

futuremark will probably make a dx11 only "game" (more like a benchmark, really, but it's a game) relatively soon. Other than that, it will be many years.

 

Dx9 is also an old version of DX compared to present-day hardware standards.

What does the PS3 use when it isn't using OpenGL?

 

LibGCM, but I think that is only an api over opengl and opengl is also natively supported.

 

An ancient, used up, out dated, dusty, dinosaur?

Given the way XP and DX9 systems are dropping on Steam, I would say it would be about 2 years maybe a little more, there are still quite a few XP clingers that can't let go of their security blanket quite yet.

 

I have no friggin' idea, but there's general talk that it isn't just OpenGL since CELL is relied upon to get certain things done using unorthodox techniques. Then again, maybe it is all hot-air being blown by Sony-loyalists that wish to believe the console is more than just OpenlGL.

And yes, DX9 is an old version. . . was your point to reinforce my post? Because I was commenting on certain observations that not all consoles use DX 9. So the others that do employ Open GL, do not employ the latest version either.

And to get back on topic a bit, even Vista and DX10 users will have to overcome their bondage with Vista and DX10 in order to embrace DX11-only medium. I still find it funny how an API is a system requirement when I could go and buy the crappiest DX11 card and still not run anything even relevant to that API's niche features.

 

actually- vista users will just need new hardware. vista supports dx11.

 

Right. That is correct--still doesn't change my views on the situation. Just saying.

 

when we have new consoles

i dont think we will see any major changes in gaming graphics till new consoles come out. sure the technology will be there but will game designers support them.
even now all we see are ports from consoles often enough. even crysis is moving to the consoles.
the fact is the gaming industry is dictated by consoles.
im thinking maybe we could see new consoles by 2012 and maybe only then will we see dx11 or dx12 put to good use.

 

I like the days when games gave you the choice of running it in OpenGL or DirectX

 

Right on. . . OpenGL's good stuff.

 

Just cause 2 will only use dx10

 

When everyone abandons win xp

 

But u do have to agree that nowadays , GPU's are more optimised for DirectX than OpenGL.... so its not very attractive to use OpenGL..

 

Also true. I just prefer some of the OpenGL stuff. I like what they're pulling off with the Playstation 3, although quite a bit of it can be atributed to the strange hardware.

So Just Cause 2 will only use DX10, eh? Yeah, it's moving along slowly. However, I am interested in the potential behind the game.

 

Afaik, most consoles use opengl due to licensing again, I think that only the xbox has directx

 

When consoles go DX11. ... oh and who cares?

 

Well I cared enough to ask the question ..
and you cared enough to answer it ...
so you tell me

 

I don't agree with this at all. As of today, the overhead of DirectX and OpenGL are pretty minimal compared to the cost of the operations they perform.

And I don't know if that was the case before, either.

Source?

 

Well the features of the HD5870 are about supporting DX11.

But... it is also compatible with OpenGL 3.0.

 

open GL 4.0 was just released to provide feature parity with dx 11 for dx 11-class hardware.

also, open GL 3.3 was just released (at the same time) to backport dx 11 features to dx 10 hardware.

just read a wikipedia article confirming that performance using the different APIs is essentially the same.

the primary differences between DirectX and OpenGL are:

1. DirectX is proprietary windows software, whereas openGL is a free open standard and is portable.

2. DirectX and OpenGL have different design outlooks. DirectX is a 3d hardware-access API primarily, with rendering capabilities, whereas OpenGL is a rendering API, with hardware-access capabilities. So they work a bit differently.

Other than that, they can accomplish the same end goals and have similar performance and similar feature support.

 

DirectX 11 Games are generally more heavy. This is because DirectX 11 is heavy on both CPU and GPU. The tessellation(polygons and textures) are crazy.

It's not worth to get DirectX 11 GPU(Mobile) to play DirectX 11 Games. Generally, you can't max it out(with Mid-End DirectX 11 GPU). It's pointless if you didn't MAX OUT the Graphics for DirectX 11 Games. It will be look the same as DirectX 10 and 9 without Max everything.

 

Though my information may be old, I recall that OpenGL is written in a way that forces developers to optimize their code, while DirectX doesn't. This, I think, is the primary reason why games run better in OpenGL mode than their DirectX counterpart. Since DirectX is also simpler and easier to code due to this difference, this is also the reason why developers have chosen it over OpenGL in the recent times.

 

The stock clocks are quite a bit lower and it doesn't have all the overclocking headroom of the desktop card either.

 

That's not the point. HD5870 mobile can play DX11 games. Dirt 2 and Aliens vs Predator.

I don't see why we won't be able to play Metro either.

The HD5870 Desktop is as powerful as it is because it was designed for eyefinity, 3 displays. For single display, the HD5770 or the mobile HD5870 should be competent. And it's proven to be true, this machine plays with all DX11 features on so far.

Even then I don't think DX11 future proofing is all that important. The big name games are cross-platform and they haven't been changing the engine used from console to PC. I think DX9/DX10 games are going to remain predominant for the next few years until consoles are upgraded.

PC Gaming profits are low enough as it is, publishers want to target the largest population of PC gamers as possible, not just the few who are able to upgrade to the FERMI or HD5870.

And for games like Metro it's going to always be holding breath, did the developers optimize extensively for Nvidia as their marketing and promotional material suggests?

 

DarkSilver said Mid end. Not high. Something like the mobile 5650

 

5870 is cheap, and one hell of an efficient monster. I know it is being billed by some as entry, but for all practical intents and purposes, it should be treated as high-end.

 

Well come on it's in the high bloody 5000's, it SHOULD be high end, how is it entry level? That's like saying the 8800 GTX is entry level, it just isn't. The 5470 is entry level..

 

An overwhelming majority of games are still DX9. DX10 is just starting to be rolled out in the last couple of years. So 8 years after the introduction of DX9 it is finally seeing a new DX10 era.

So when DX10 is done (maybe in about 5-8 years) then DX11 will be the "minimum" so add another 5-8 years.

So it will be anywhere from 10 to 16 years before DX11 is the "minimum" you will need.

Of course all this is pure speculation.