DX10 - a look to upcoming dissapointments

[MadBoris]

You know when i got my 8800 GTS several months ago, I was thinking to myself how developers sending out the first DX10 games this year (by patch update or standalone) are going to be able to go all out and really leverage these super fast new cards (8800 gts and gtx), basically leaping ahead years and generations of computer rigs by targeting the 8800 GTS 640MB as the min specs, saddled with a fast CPU. Normally they target three year old hardware, I thought this could be something very different.

Then later came a sore realization and disappointment - value DX10 products arrive. WTF

Now we have DX10 cards that people are buying with 256MB RAM, with abysmal performance equivalent to a 6800 ultra, some of them thinking they will play DX10 games, sadly they may.

Will this make my 8800gts with it's 640MB basically not fully leveraged when DX10 comes about in the coming months or will some devs just scoff and ignore those crap DX10 cards and build the soon upcoming DX10 titles with the new breed of top end cards in mind as the minimum specs?

I guess there are two ways to go for DX10, continued gradual game progression and nothing spectacular in them supporting low end GPU's with low texture mem capability. Or draw a line in the sand with the current top end GPU's as minimum spec and make the game usee all that RAM in textures, as well as push tons of other effects leveraging these two highend beasts.

I'm talking '07, early '08 DX10 games...Thoughts???

 

[TanisHalfElven]

oh hush rich boy.
so your rant is just that you stupidly spent 400+ on a vid card and now ppl can get DX10 hardware for cheaper.

 

[MadBoris]

Originally posted by: tanishalfelven
oh hush rich boy.
so your rant is just that you stupidly spent 400+ on a vid card and now ppl can get DX10 hardware for cheaper.

Nah just spent a few more bucks than you. ;p
Besides, wasn't a rant, thought it is interesting dilemma devs will have to figure out.

 

[Sniper82]

Games will likely be made around the 8800 series and then optimized/tweaked so slower DX10 cards will run them at lower settings. But they will focus alot on the slower cards because they will likely sell more copies to ppl with them. Most ppl go mid-range.

If everyone had a 8800 series card though games would come out twice as fast. Thats the bad thing about PC's. Developers have to spend alot more time tweaking the game for slower systems.

 

[apoppin]

dont worry about it

the latest games will always strain your GPUs ... crysis will probably *kill* your GTX in DX10 'maxed' mode
-we can only hope the HD2900xt will do better

try running your GTX - right now DX9c - on FEAR's expansion with Soft shadows enabled and everything maxed at 16x12
[oh, i see you *only* have a GTS .. try it at 12x10 ]
.... chug ..... a chug .... chug .. chug .. a chug ... chug ...
:roll:

 

[MadBoris]

Yeah I heard in a dev interview that apparently Crysis will not be able to be fully maxed out in settings regardless of any current commercially available hardware. That is promising and kind of scarry all at once.
I only have original FEAR, not the expansion, may check it out.

I guess when those first cards came out I was thinking the new amount of RAM being 640MB was going to be a new standard baseline for large 2048 textures and shadow maps, only to realize they now have 256MB as the common baseline. Just makes it seem like the 768MB or 1GB RAM cards are way overkill with all the 256MB value cards still majority.

 

[Kromis]

Originally posted by: MadBoris
Yeah I heard in a dev interview that apparently Crysis will not be able to be fully maxed out in settings regardless of any current commercially available hardware. That is promising and kind of scarry all at once.
I only have original FEAR, not the expansion, may check it out.

I guess when those first cards came out I was thinking the new amount of RAM being 640MB was going to be a new standard baseline for large 2048 textures and shadow maps, only to realize they now have 256MB as the common baseline. Just makes it seem like the 768MB or 1GB RAM cards are way overkill with all the 256MB value cards still majority.

:shocked:H MY G:shocked...

 

[Nightmare225]

Originally posted by: Kromis

Originally posted by: MadBoris
Yeah I heard in a dev interview that apparently Crysis will not be able to be fully maxed out in settings regardless of any current commercially available hardware. That is promising and kind of scarry all at once.
I only have original FEAR, not the expansion, may check it out.

I guess when those first cards came out I was thinking the new amount of RAM being 640MB was going to be a new standard baseline for large 2048 textures and shadow maps, only to realize they now have 256MB as the common baseline. Just makes it seem like the 768MB or 1GB RAM cards are way overkill with all the 256MB value cards still majority.

:shocked:H MY G:shocked...

Yup, I remember a quote in a magazine where they said they had a mode which would make Quad-core dual GTX systems work with FPS in the low teens...

 

[m21s]

I can't find the article I read, but it stated that it could bring any current hardware to it's knees, and they can unlock "more" features of the game to bring "future" hardware to it's knees also.
They said they would do this as current hardware evolves and people upgrade.

 

[hans007]

its not like dx10 is a huge performance benefit or even that much different than dx9.

the thing is your 8800gts still runs DX9 games much faster than every other card, so you'd gotten plenty out of it. stop whining.

 

[m21s]

Originally posted by: hans007
its not like dx10 is a huge performance benefit or even that much different than dx9.

Someone please enlighten this one.

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: hans007
its not like dx10 is a huge performance benefit or even that much different than dx9.

the thing is your 8800gts still runs DX9 games much faster than every other card, so you'd gotten plenty out of it. stop whining.

it will be

and SOON

http://www.gameinformer.com/News/Story/200701/N07.0126.1423.58507.htm?Page=2

Rein: We always aim Unreal for systems that people don?t have yet. (laughs) Whether its UT or any Unreal game, so I think the sweet spot has yet to show up. Again, it?s 64-bit and a ton of RAM, like an NVIDIA dual 8800s and Core 2 Extreme Quad processor?you could certainly build a super rig, but UT3 with everything turned up all the way is still going to struggle on that kind of thing. A year from now, it?ll still be a game that is a showcase game for whatever hardware you happen to be getting then. That?s normal. That?s exactly the way we?ve done it every time from the original.

 

[idiotekniQues]

all i heard was:


waaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhh


waaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhh

 

[CaiNaM]

Originally posted by: apoppin

Originally posted by: hans007
its not like dx10 is a huge performance benefit or even that much different than dx9.

the thing is your 8800gts still runs DX9 games much faster than every other card, so you'd gotten plenty out of it. stop whining.

it will be

and SOON

http://www.gameinformer.com/News/Story/200701/N07.0126.1423.58507.htm?Page=2

Rein: We always aim Unreal for systems that people don?t have yet. (laughs) Whether its UT or any Unreal game, so I think the sweet spot has yet to show up. Again, it?s 64-bit and a ton of RAM, like an NVIDIA dual 8800s and Core 2 Extreme Quad processor?you could certainly build a super rig, but UT3 with everything turned up all the way is still going to struggle on that kind of thing. A year from now, it?ll still be a game that is a showcase game for whatever hardware you happen to be getting then. That?s normal. That?s exactly the way we?ve done it every time from the original.

is that why ut2k4 ran on my system @ 75fps to up over 100fps (depending on the map) w/ all the details turned up when it first came out?

i don't think unreal had too much stress on my system either (tho i think i had dual voodoo 2's back then) but it's been so long ago i can't quite remember...

OP: any game with multiple realtime lightsources can bring g80 to its knees.. just run one of STALKER's underground levels using high settings with full dynamic lighting....

 

[Nightmare225]

Originally posted by: CaiNaM

Originally posted by: apoppin

Originally posted by: hans007
its not like dx10 is a huge performance benefit or even that much different than dx9.

the thing is your 8800gts still runs DX9 games much faster than every other card, so you'd gotten plenty out of it. stop whining.

it will be

and SOON

http://www.gameinformer.com/News/Story/200701/N07.0126.1423.58507.htm?Page=2

Rein: We always aim Unreal for systems that people don?t have yet. (laughs) Whether its UT or any Unreal game, so I think the sweet spot has yet to show up. Again, it?s 64-bit and a ton of RAM, like an NVIDIA dual 8800s and Core 2 Extreme Quad processor?you could certainly build a super rig, but UT3 with everything turned up all the way is still going to struggle on that kind of thing. A year from now, it?ll still be a game that is a showcase game for whatever hardware you happen to be getting then. That?s normal. That?s exactly the way we?ve done it every time from the original.

is that why ut2k4 ran on my system @ 75fps to up over 100fps (depending on the map) w/ all the details turned up when it first came out?

i don't think unreal had too much stress on my system either (tho i think i had dual voodoo 2's back then) but it's been so long ago i can't quite remember...

OP: any game with multiple realtime lightsources can bring g80 to its knees.. just run one of STALKER's underground levels using high settings with full dynamic lighting....

STALKER wasn't exactly a good example...

 

[gneGne]

Game developers wouldn't even have enough money, ESPECIALLY for high-end grahics if only the enthusiasts get to enjoy it.

 

[MadBoris]

Originally posted by: idiotekniQues
all i heard was:


waaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhh


waaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhh

Is that what you heard...you aren't reading it right. But yeah the topic mentioned disappointment, maybe you were suprised the tone was going to sound like...similar to... dissapointment.

 

[MadBoris]

Originally posted by: gneGne
Game developers wouldn't even have enough money, ESPECIALLY for high-end grahics if only the enthusiasts get to enjoy it.

DX10 is pretty much enthusiast only right now. The focus being DX10, I would say there is more high end DX10 parts than low end in circulation right now. I guess that makes DX10 enthusiast but it won't be that way far long. But yeah devs will be targeting DX9 for several years and usually 3 year old rigs, I hoped DX10 could be a nice leap, but alas not too likely.

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: Nightmare225

Originally posted by: CaiNaM

Originally posted by: apoppin

Originally posted by: hans007
its not like dx10 is a huge performance benefit or even that much different than dx9.

the thing is your 8800gts still runs DX9 games much faster than every other card, so you'd gotten plenty out of it. stop whining.

it will be

and SOON

http://www.gameinformer.com/News/Story/200701/N07.0126.1423.58507.htm?Page=2

Rein: We always aim Unreal for systems that people don?t have yet. (laughs) Whether its UT or any Unreal game, so I think the sweet spot has yet to show up. Again, it?s 64-bit and a ton of RAM, like an NVIDIA dual 8800s and Core 2 Extreme Quad processor?you could certainly build a super rig, but UT3 with everything turned up all the way is still going to struggle on that kind of thing. A year from now, it?ll still be a game that is a showcase game for whatever hardware you happen to be getting then. That?s normal. That?s exactly the way we?ve done it every time from the original.

is that why ut2k4 ran on my system @ 75fps to up over 100fps (depending on the map) w/ all the details turned up when it first came out?

i don't think unreal had too much stress on my system either (tho i think i had dual voodoo 2's back then) but it's been so long ago i can't quite remember...

OP: any game with multiple realtime lightsources can bring g80 to its knees.. just run one of STALKER's ....

STALKER wasn't exactly a good example...

STALKER runs *awesome* on MY x1950p system for underground [and outside] levels using high settings with full dynamic lighting !
--at 14x9

don't know about UTK4 but Unreal2's "new dx9" DE:IW challenged the best systems of the time ... even a much better coded Thief - DS could choke the best rigs
.... then

 

[the Chase]

Originally posted by: CaiNaM

Originally posted by: apoppin

Originally posted by: hans007
its not like dx10 is a huge performance benefit or even that much different than dx9.

the thing is your 8800gts still runs DX9 games much faster than every other card, so you'd gotten plenty out of it. stop whining.

it will be

and SOON

http://www.gameinformer.com/News/Story/200701/N07.0126.1423.58507.htm?Page=2

Rein: We always aim Unreal for systems that people don?t have yet. (laughs) Whether its UT or any Unreal game, so I think the sweet spot has yet to show up. Again, it?s 64-bit and a ton of RAM, like an NVIDIA dual 8800s and Core 2 Extreme Quad processor?you could certainly build a super rig, but UT3 with everything turned up all the way is still going to struggle on that kind of thing. A year from now, it?ll still be a game that is a showcase game for whatever hardware you happen to be getting then. That?s normal. That?s exactly the way we?ve done it every time from the original.

is that why ut2k4 ran on my system @ 75fps to up over 100fps (depending on the map) w/ all the details turned up when it first came out?

i don't think unreal had too much stress on my system either (tho i think i had dual voodoo 2's back then) but it's been so long ago i can't quite remember...

OP: any game with multiple realtime lightsources can bring g80 to its knees.. just run one of STALKER's underground levels using high settings with full dynamic lighting....

He didn't quote the full paragraph. Hit the link and read the full paragraph. It explains the difference somewhat. But yeah I'm sure you can scale it down to run on most semi-modern systems.

 

[Acanthus]

There is no need to worry, DX10 games will be developed from the top down, not the bottom up (in DX10 card terms).

While many devs to develop to the lowest common denominator, that doesnt seem to be the case with the current run of DX10 titles on the way.

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: Acanthus
There is no need to worry, DX10 games will be developed from the top down, not the bottom up (in DX10 card terms).

While many devs to develop to the lowest common denominator, that doesnt seem to be the case with the current run of DX10 titles on the way.

the *reason* is that within 18 months, most PCs are expected to be QuadCore
:Q

Powerful 'mainstream' HW is getting cheaper

my 'entry-leve'l C2D is certainly more powerful than the 'top' $1,000 proc of 3 years ago

 

[yacoub]

Originally posted by: Nightmare225

Originally posted by: Kromis

Originally posted by: MadBoris
Yeah I heard in a dev interview that apparently Crysis will not be able to be fully maxed out in settings regardless of any current commercially available hardware. That is promising and kind of scarry all at once.
I only have original FEAR, not the expansion, may check it out.

I guess when those first cards came out I was thinking the new amount of RAM being 640MB was going to be a new standard baseline for large 2048 textures and shadow maps, only to realize they now have 256MB as the common baseline. Just makes it seem like the 768MB or 1GB RAM cards are way overkill with all the 256MB value cards still majority.

:shocked:H MY G:shocked...

Yup, I remember a quote in a magazine where they said they had a mode which would make Quad-core dual GTX systems work with FPS in the low teens...

It's funny how programming ineffeciencies are now bragging rights.

 

[idiotekniQues]

Originally posted by: MadBoris

Originally posted by: idiotekniQues
all i heard was:


waaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhh


waaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhh

Is that what you heard...you aren't reading it right. But yeah the topic mentioned disappointment, maybe you were suprised the tone was going to sound like...similar to... dissapointment.

its the kind of disappointment you were talking about.

that now games were going to be written for a lower common denominator like people who cant afford to spend $300 plus on a vid card didnt deserve to get the latest game effects or what not. in fact, you said taht 'sadly [these people who cant afford the latest] may' be able to afford to.

you actually said that it would disappoint you and be sad that not as rich pc owners somehow will be able and deserve to play dx10 games. wtf?

the whole point was just juvenile and ridiculous.

and it would be an absolutely stupid business decision on any game developers part to make a game where the minimum requiremement was the latest hardware. thank god developers arent boneheads in that sense.

of course, people with the best hardware can play the games at the highest settings. so no worries, people with the latest will still get the best eye-candy and resolutions, so why is it so important to now keep games from the hoi polloi for you?

 

[MadBoris]

Originally posted by: idiotekniQues
the whole point was just juvenile and ridiculous.

and it would be an absolutely stupid business decision on any game developers part to make a game where the minimum requiremement was the latest hardware. thank god developers arent boneheads in that sense.

Well, I think your still not seeing the picture. My focus is '06 games, as i mentioned, which ALL absolutely will be made to run DX9 and on 3 year old hardware. So I am not saying devs should somehow forget about 3 year old hardware for these games, any idiot knows that isn't happening. My point is the DX10 patches (focus with me), since DX10 begins with the 8800 series of cards (7 months old is the oldest now), it's not too damn far fetched to say there is a big difference between 3 year old video cards and systems with 8800 GTS in them (DX10 platforms). Nor would it be far fetched, or "juvenile or ridiculous" as you put it, for devs to actually target the minimum of actual DX10 hardware for their DX10 code. I'm willing to accept that most devs won't waste time on large differences in their DX10 code from DX9 (not cost effective), except for those that will be taking this time in converting their engines over for the future, from them we will likely see better DX10 differences and implementations with more bang.

Are you saying they should be targeting 3 year old hardware for the DX10 rendering paths, sounds that way to me, and that would be ridiculous.