News 3DMark 11 High Temple Trailer Released

Nah PC gamers/geeks aren't screwed, there will ALWAY'S be PC games around, it doesn't matter how small GAME stores make the PC games section!! (TWATS....) lol, because the only reason consoles sell more games is because they don't have such strict requirements regarding activation and all that other sh*t PC games have (which ALL get hacked eventually anyway!) but they won't stop making games for PC's they'd be stupid to even try.

Lol,

Just download some p*rn, real boobs* to see in those (so I'm told)


*Sometimes they're fake

 

Well it's not finished yet and it looked more like a camera just being moved around, so there may be some hope for some motion and physics being included in the final version.

 

I didn't see anything in that that DX10 couldn't do.

The static foliage made the whole thing look boring anyway.

 

the fractal lighting and bump mapping with the ground tessellation is what DX10 couldnt do.

 

Great, one more benchmark to reduce my entire computer to a slideshow generator. I Can't wait.

 

Is the fractal lighting the beams that shine over the statues? Because they had a similar effect in Crysis... but with moving foliage. And I can't see the difference between bump mapping with and without tessellation.

My point is, I know the buzz words that DX11 uses, but the differences visually are even less apparent to me than the difference between DX9 and 10. Looking through the screenshots of the DX10 and DX11 modes in Dirt 2, I wouldn't be able to tell you which is which. I've been waiting for the poster child of DX11 to impress me, and this 3DMark demo isn't it. Guess I'll just wait for the DX12 cards.

 

Well for what it's worth it was just a video people were watching and it's obvious to anyone that when 3DMark 11 is actually released it will look a damn sight better than the video we watched and will be a true indication of what DirectX 11 can do, or it should be.

It's easy to say this 3DMark demo isn't the thing to impress you but like I've already said it was only a video and even I thought it didn't look fantastic, but I also thought when it is out and run through your own hardware then it will look much better, then and only then can you get a true representation of how good (or bad) it really is, right now it's all just speculation on whether it's going to look good or bad, my money is on it will look good but you're obviously a console fanboy Mentai

 

You will never see graphics like that if you refuse to leave XP or spend more than a paltry 250$ on a graphics card

 

DX11 benchmarks should work on DX10 hardware most games i have seen do, (for the most part its missing tessellation in DX10)

problem with the last 3Dmarks is they are Not GPU only tests the Total score can be Swayed just by an high overclock or Physx (think 3dmark 2003 or lower is the only True benchmark that does not factor into the totals, it still performs the tests but does not mess with the final results)

 

I think you'll find for $250 you can get a pretty decent card actually.

 

Is it me or does everything look fuzzy or just a little out of focus ? Is this the "new" look of things to come. Notice the trend in most games of late. They all look like crap. I think the new things made available are being used too hard and they're not making games truly look better to a certain extent. Whatever happened to making things look crisp and clean. ( edges and whatnot ). I also noticed that the lighting in some games are not very good. ( FPS ) They're too dark or too bright, think it's the "bloom" thing. Just doesn't look right. MOH-BBC2 are 2 examples that come to mind quick. MOH is really terrible. What do you guys think ?

 

it is work in progress as it says

 

Exactly, that's why I disable "bloom" or HDR effects whenever possible. It feels like adding 10 diopters to my sight, and my sight is already bad...

 

It's pretty and very shiney.. but ultimately worthless. 3dmark doesn't represent what games actually are or what they put GPU's through. It's a pointless stress test that's several years ahead of what a GPU will ever need to achieve. And by the time they do need to achieve that standard you will have a much newer and better GPU.

I know the benchmarkers will QQ at me but it is basically pointless. I care about what fps I get in games now. Not in fictional benchmarks that don't represent anything other than willy waving about how many 3d marks you got.

/End rant

 

Isn't DX11 about efficiency rather than new stand out features?

 

why are games not pushing the limits of graphics? race driver grid looks better than f1 2010 and it's 3 years older. pathetic.

 

DX9 crysis wannabe...

The first 3 seconds are like wow. the part when it fades in and lowers down to the ground. But then its.. how do i say this... liveless?

 

...and you can get tesselation on XP with OpenGL 4.0 (as the Unigine Heaven benchmark demonstrates) for what it's worth. In fact, tesselation was available in DirectX 8 (though an ATI-only option, known as TruForm or NPatch).

Given that OpenGL now offers greater compatibility across Windows versions (plus cross-platform compatibility with Linux/Mac) it would make good sense to use it rather than DirectX. Maybe Bit-Tech could ask games developers their views on this?

 

blame the consoles.

 

it's consolification i tell ya!

death to consolification!