DX11 makes PC Dirt 2 'best-looking racing game ever'

St0 - 133 days 19 hours ago

But is it really worth a £500,000 graphics card upgrade just to play it, probably not

Agree(1) | Disagree(4) | Report

Pandamobile - 133 days 18 hours ago

A new DirectX level doesn't mean you need the best card out there to use it. I mean, hell, a $60 DX10 graphics card will be twice as powerful as the PS3 or 360 GPU.

And DX11 makes it easier and more efficient to program for, making stuff run easier on it. It requires less raw horse power to do the same job as an older card.

Incredibly ignorant comment.

Agree(5) | Disagree(3) | Report

Enate - 133 days 18 hours ago

Yea ok Pandamobile you keep telling yourself that I swear man some PC gamers an their over exaggerated lies. I mean seriously stop bsing an be at least a little more realistic about what it takes to run PC games on par. An please don't say but you can turn down the settings. No one custom builds a gaming rig to play on medium to low settings.

An just for reference my current rig:

Xcilo windtunnel WW full tower
Amd 955 BE 3.2 ghz
EVGA 275GTX superclocked
M4A78T-E Asus Motherboard
4gb of AMD gold ram at 1600mhz
1tb barracuda 7200rpm HD

Agree(3) | Disagree(4) | Report

raztad - 133 days 18 hours ago

Well dunno about x360, but PS3 have The Cell helping its GPU really closely. The trick for reaching UC2/GoW3 visuals is a smart use of the insane raw calculation power of The Cell's SPUs. However, its quite expected after 3 years of the HD console gen, PC surpasses consoles not matter how powerful they are.

@Panda

Can you turn PhysX on using just a $60 gpu?

BTW, this guys are just hyping their game. Nothing unexpected.

Agree(4) | Disagree(2) | Report

shocky16 - 133 days 17 hours ago

PC Graphics passed consoles before they were even released.

Agree(8) | Disagree(7) | Report

evrfighter - 133 days 17 hours ago

No offense Enate but your pc was obsolete when you decided to stick that Amd 955 BE 3.2 ghz in it.

Any knowledgeable pc gamer would have went the Core2duo route or waited for Deneb (phenom II) to launch.

If anything it goes to show why you spend so much on PC parts...

Agree(4) | Disagree(1) | Report

Enate - 133 days 17 hours ago

The performance coming from it would state otherwise but that's your opinion. An there is no waiting this rig unlike most of the people on here was built from scratch an I wasn't about a build a temporary rig to wait to use my new PC. There is always a next best thing around the corner in the PC world. You have to buy sometime an I did it well, An I never said I spent a lot of money either. I also know what I like an what I need an my PC does the job beyond expectations with plenty of room for expandability. If I was sitting around with a direct X 10 rig waiting for new parts sure why upgrade but I wasn't. Now though I put myself in a position to be there in the future if I so choose.

I'm not new to this I know the performance my PC gives.

Agree(1) | Disagree(3) | Report

slinkey123 - 133 days 16 hours ago

evrfighter the 955 is the phenom II and its equal to or better than a core2duo. Deneb came out some time ago now..

Enate to run games at the same level as consoles it wouldn't cost much at all. As most console games look like medium setting and only run at 720p. Still good choice of parts for that PC.

Agree(0) | Disagree(0) | Report

evrfighter - 133 days 13 hours ago

I stand corrected. I was thinking 9950 when I saw the specs.

Agree(0) | Disagree(0) | Report

phosphor112 - 133 days 8 hours ago

But I can't seem to find any DX 11 compatible cards on any site. Or is it that a DX 10 card can work with it? If so, I'm in HUGE luck.

Agree(0) | Disagree(0) | Report

STONEY4 - 133 days 3 hours ago

Thats because the cards aren't out yet. I don't remember what ATI's card is but I'm thinking it will be a new 55xx series, and for Nvidia it'll be the GTX 300 series.

Agree(0) | Disagree(0) | Report

dirthurts - 133 days 18 hours ago

This isn't even the same kind of racing game as GT or Forza.
A lot more fun in my opinion though. : )

Agree(1) | Disagree(2) | Report

Myze - 133 days 12 hours ago

People are gonna disagree with you (and probably me), but I agree, until there is more shown on the game, I will say GT5 and FM3 will be better.

People tend to forget that a higher resolution and better physics doesn't automatically take the place of quality design, better artists, higher funfactor (debatable, as they are different types of games), more attention to detail, amount of game content, unique content, etc. (I know some aren't graphics related). If just throwing on DX11 automatically makes a game the best looking, then I suppose something like the original Ridge Racer running at 3600p would be the best looking game ever made.

Agree(1) | Disagree(0) | Report

narked - 133 days 16 hours ago

afaik a new directx allows for more polys... more realistic looking shinyness.. (hint crysis in dx10 uses less butter on the graphics)

i'll wait till december no problem :) getting a dx11 card when it comes out.

i know GT5 is the king of racing and i respect it, but codemasters have produced 2 flawless racing games lately, Grid and Dirt are both awesome in terms of gameplay. so if they make it the best looking, whats the problem?

Agree(0) | Disagree(1) | Report

evrfighter - 133 days 17 hours ago

Don't expect much that Crysis is a consolized title.

Agree(0) | Disagree(0) | Report

dirthurts - 133 days 18 hours ago

Someone out there thinks you should buy it for pc, even though you game on PS3...
Odd world huh?

Agree(2) | Disagree(1) | Report

Pandamobile - 133 days 18 hours ago

Yeah, GRID was easily the best looking racing game I've seen. GT5 is realistic looking, but GRID looked way more impressive.

Agree(1) | Disagree(4) | Report

acdata - 133 days 16 hours ago

xbox360 can do tesselation too because it has some DIRECT X 11 feature such as dedicated hardware tessellation unit while outdated ps3 GPU can not do tesselation

Agree(0) | Disagree(4) | Report

Mantiz - 133 days 16 hours ago

Someone has never heard of software tessellation and is also not familiar with the CELLBE architectures abundant calculatory headroom

Agree(1) | Disagree(1) | Report

Pandamobile - 133 days 18 hours ago

DX9 won't retire any time soon.

Most games still support DX8.

And consoles never 'leap' any where. They use the mid to high end PC hardware of the year they were developed and by the time they're released, the PC already has new, better hardware.

When the 360 launched, there were already the 7900, 7950 and 7950 GX2 cards that raped anything the 360 could do. And when the PS3 launched, the 8 series was released. And the 8 series completely decimated the consoles in terms of performance.

Agree(0) | Disagree(3) | Report

FantasyStar - 133 days 18 hours ago

I was actually going to make the point that Consoles often use currently existing tech (with the special exception of the PS3's Cell Processor), but then this IS N4G. It's not a very nice place to insinuate that PCs > Consoles.

Look, you already got a disagree.

Agree(1) | Disagree(2) | Report

Enate - 133 days 17 hours ago

FantasyStar It doesn't matter if this is n4g an graphics alone only go but so far last time I checked we actually played games. An if someone likes the exclusives on either console its not like having a console over a pc means your gonna be playing Atari 2600 graphics to Pixar movie graphics. One of the biggest things with pc is that its not the same on every system there is no standard. So as to how a game looks is fully hardware dependent on the individuals system capabilities. That's an awesome thing when your pushing the latest an greatest but when your not you just have to settle for less or upgrade.

Developing for console is completely different then PC development which is why certain games run on console no problem. An you turn around an check the PC specs an their sky high. In the end it might look a bit better but on top of that being a one platform owner these days has got to suck. I love both my PC an my PS3 an they both deliver completely different experiences. Consoles hardware may be stagnant but the advancements out of optimization especially in PS3 exclusives come leaps an newly undiscovered things all the time. Talking about consoles the way you guys are talking is as if console launch titles look like God of War III or Uncharted 2 or even Killzone 2. An that just isn't true in the slightest an you know it.

Agree(1) | Disagree(0) | Report

Enate - 133 days 16 hours ago

You guys were stating it as if you were talking about going DX11 out the gate that's why I stated the question that way. Like anything of course the price gets better over time that's not just the PC world but anything.

Agree(1) | Disagree(0) | Report

FantasyStar - 133 days 16 hours ago

I totally agree with you. Each platform offers its own strengths, but that won't stop people from comparing an apple to an orange. Because then they'll find loopholes like saying the surface of an apple is more smooth than an orange and therefore better. Stupid stuff like that.

Most people know this, but don't likely understand it that PC devs work differently from console devs. PC devs have many setups they have to code their engine for. Console devs only have one setup. That statement doesn't mean one is better than the other, that's just what you got to work with.

I'd add some of my own info, but you got my thoughts in a nutshell. The only thing I can think of is that PC games in terms of graphics will always be the ones to push the graphical envelope because of the inherent nature of PC. However that doesn't mean consoles are inert by any means. If anything else, PCs create the technology and the foundation, and the consoles refine it and tune it up nicely to perfection. I didn't think DX9 still had life in it until I saw CoD4. The old PC vs. Console debate never ends well on N4G so I never try to start one. PCs and Consoles are different, the way I see it. There can be two winners in my book.

Agree(0) | Disagree(1) | Report

Pandamobile - 133 days 18 hours ago

Wait til November, buy a $600 PC with a DX11 graphics card, and you're all set. It doesn't take a $2000 PC to play Dirt 2 on its highest settings. Not by a long shot.

Agree(1) | Disagree(3) | Report

FantasyStar - 133 days 18 hours ago

The average PC gamer always upgrades over time because new hardware is always being released. You can build a mid-range rig that can play everything on max at around $400. And even then, the power needed to run PC games depend entirely on what resolution you want it at. Don't buy a $600 GFX card if you're going to run a game at 12x10 for example. The FPS talk can be garbage at times. I personally think that anything 30FPS average is good enough. And depending on which game, you might not need a Core i7 to run it. Most PC games are GPU intensive. Heck, a E4400 (a $100 CPU) can run Crysis w/ 9600GT SLI without any bottlenecks. The cost for a rig all depends on what you wanna run and how well. (IQ vs. FPS)

Going out and overspending is what creates the stupid "PCs are 2 expensive: $2000 PC Oh NOEZ!" myth to begin with. The average PC gamer knows how to spend wisely and get the best bang for the buck for whatever they need it for.

The PC in my N4G Bio cost me about $700 to build back in 07. Over 2 years I probably put in about $150 more. That sounds pretty good to me. All I gotta do is get a DX11 card and I'm set for the next gen. I don't need to dump all my PC parts.

Agree(1) | Disagree(0) | Report

Shbzshar - 133 days 18 hours ago

prob is i have an okay rig... its got 2 gb ram... 3 ghz intel dual core (2 cpus) ... about 280 gb of space but i got screwed in my gfx card ... it a dedicated internal 384 mb intel card ....

my other comp has the old 128 mb ati 9200 but overall its got 784 mb ram... 2.4ghz speed and 40 gb hard drive space.... basically its a pretty weak rig without the card

i tried bringing the gfx card onto the duo core comp but the slots are completely different... then i tried bringing the ram of the new comp onto the older comp... again slots are different ... man i got screwed over on that one....

well ati hd 4650 and gforce 9600 gt look good... very cheap and good reviews as well

Agree(0) | Disagree(0) | Report

LazyDevs - 133 days 17 hours ago

My PS3 plays GT5 at 1920x1080 @ 60fps. So can i spend 400 dollars on a PC and get the same results? You understand that is a rhetorical question.

Agree(4) | Disagree(2) | Report

Enate - 133 days 17 hours ago

How much do you honestly think DX11 cards are gonna cost out the gate because the way you an Panda keep talking. You guys must know something I don't because new cards always not sometimes always cost a grip. An that supposed 400 for a PC that runs anything on Max please show me. An I'm talking from scratch meaning cd drive everything an I'm not talking some rig your gonna find yourself having to upgrade in a year to a year and a half.

I'll give you this though after looking at your Bio I see you know the value of alternate gaming outlets. I myself don't need a 360 because I only wanted to play Mass Effect but nice Collection.

Agree(0) | Disagree(0) | Report

evrfighter - 133 days 17 hours ago

http://www.n4g.com/ps3/News...

GT5 prologue demo is 1280x1080p upscaled...

True 1080p would probably mean no AA and around 30fps...An $800 pc would probably be true 1080p 4xAA getting AT LEAST 60fps. (take a look at the HD4890's and Phenom II quads and start from there) =)

have a nice day

Agree(2) | Disagree(1) | Report

Enate - 133 days 17 hours ago

Don't feel bad I've got a summer job an no bills its the only way getting that kind of rig was gonna happen. I played on a laptop for school for about 2 years an it was worse before that.

Agree(0) | Disagree(0) | Report

FantasyStar - 133 days 16 hours ago

Long story short: The cards that come out of the gate are usually only the high-end ones. They usually cost around $300-$600 and are designed to power resolutions up to 2048x1536. The key factor is waiting until the mainstream cards come out that provide bang for the buck performance. It usually takes 6-12 months after initial release, but they evetually come. Patience is the word here.

The 8800GT, HD3870, 9800GTX+, HD4850 are perfect examples of bang for the buck performance. A general rule of thumb I like to do is set a budget on how much you want to spend on a GFX card and begin comparing cards from there. Personally, I never spend more than $200 on a video card. Period.

P.S. - I go where the good games are at. =D And I'm willing to spend the money to get there. I wisely spend it of course cause we all don't have deep pockets to throw away without just cause.

Agree(0) | Disagree(0) | Report

Enate - 133 days 16 hours ago

Yea that's like anything else not just for graphics cards. I stated the question that way because you both were talking as if you were getting the cards asap that's why I was wondering. An I can't argue with that P.S. you wrote play what cha like no matter what. An btw in your bios you took apart your PS3 to put AC5 in it? that's brave that's the one thing I don't take apart lol.

Agree(0) | Disagree(0) | Report

Pandamobile - 133 days 16 hours ago

Enate, I'm talking about a midrange card. Not at launch, but what ever the GT300 or RV800's equivelent to an 8600 GT

Agree(0) | Disagree(0) | Report

FantasyStar - 133 days 16 hours ago

You'd be surprised how sloppy both Microsoft and Sony are when using effective thermal compound/paste to cool their CPU/GPU (which is the hottest part of a console). If it prevents a bricked PS3, $10 and a bit of risk is very much worth the effort of saving $150-$200 in repairs. Also, having very good PC hardware experience, and an expertise in soldering, electronics, and a major in Physics goes a long way in this technical age.

Dusting a PS3's internals and replacing the thermal paste a year is a good habit to keep up. The true debate in that is "how do I apply the thermal paste" - a never ending debate awaits there!

+bubbles. I'm glad this didn't turn into a "my daddy can beat up your daddy" argument.

Agree(1) | Disagree(1) | Report