DirectX 11 Tessellation User Reference Guide Tessellation Explained, GTX 480 & GTX 470 vs. HD 58
[img]http://amorphous.host.soterial.com/DX11/Intro.png[/img] [img]http://amorphous.host.soterial.com/DX11/Section1.png[/img] DirectX is a collection of APIs from Microsoft. The DirectX package gives content creators, like game developers, a standardized set of functions, objects and protocols to interface with numerous system configurations and drivers utilized by Microsoft Windows users. DirectX allows developers to create their programs to only one set of standards, DirectX's. Without this API layer of hardware abstraction, content developers would need to create their programs with explicit functionality for each different model of hardware. DirectX is commonly abbreviated as DX#, where # is the version number. DirectX is a collection of APIs. The APIs within DirectX include Direct3D, DirectCompute, DirectSound, and plenty of others. The name DirectX is often used when Direct3D would be more accurate. The chief competitors to DirectX's Direct3D and DirectCompute are OpenGL and OpenCL, respectively. The biggest new features in DirectX 11 are tessellation support in Direct3D 11 and DirectCompute. DirectCompute and the competing API, OpenCL, enable content developers to create programs that run on the GPU instead of the CPU. [img]http://amorphous.host.soterial.com/DX11/Section2.png[/img] While games like Crysis have introduced ever increasing amounts of shader complexity and realism to gaming, the level of geometric realism has not scaled as aggressively. Architecture and technology advancements from GeForce FX 5800 to GeForce GTX 200 series GPUs have improved shading power by over 150x, but geometry performance has increased by less than 3x. Game developers have used bump mapping and textures to give the appearance of increased geometric realism, but titles have continued to make considerable concessions for performance. [img]http://amorphous.host.soterial.com/DX11/FC2-Title.jpg[/img] [url="http://amorphous.host.soterial.com/DX11/FC2.jpg"][img]http://amorphous.host.soterial.com/DX11/FC2-Preview.jpg[/img][/url] Geometrically simple, pinched face. Bricks are painted onto the wall with texturing without any 3D detail. [img]http://amorphous.host.soterial.com/DX11/FC2-Clip2.jpg[/img] Hard, angular holster with significant faceting. [img]http://amorphous.host.soterial.com/DX11/FC2-Clip1.jpg[/img] Pocket painted on as part of the texture. [img]http://amorphous.host.soterial.com/DX11/FC2-Clip3.jpg[/img] Round objects aren't quite so round, but made up of a few flat polygons. [img]http://amorphous.host.soterial.com/DX11/RE5-Title.png[/img] [url="http://amorphous.host.soterial.com/DX11/RE5.jpg"][img]http://amorphous.host.soterial.com/DX11/RE5-Preview.jpg[/img][/url] Simplistic, flat walls are typical for games. The brick texture contains the shadows. [img]http://amorphous.host.soterial.com/DX11/RE5-Clip1.jpg[/img] Corrugations are drawn on in the texture file, leading to shadows that do not react to lighting changes. [img]http://amorphous.host.soterial.com/DX11/RE5-Clip2.jpg[/img] Despite a few jutting leaves, the roof is still made out of large flat sections, with leaves drawn into the texture. [img]http://amorphous.host.soterial.com/DX11/RE5-Clip3.jpg[/img] Flat, simple roofs. The overlapping metal sheets are drawn in texture and do not appear realistic. These issues and compromises are typical of all games and indicate a lack of technological solution, not a lack of creativity by the developers that produce them. The continued advancement in faking geometric complexity through texturing and mapping clearly demonstrates a hunger for geometric realism. [img]http://amorphous.host.soterial.com/DX11/Quote1.png[/img] Improving geometric realism is not without its challenges. Game developers have to support a wide-range of systems, from the entry-level to high-end. Building models with more polygons may look great on a high-end system, but will be unplayable on a low-end system. Even a high-end system will be brought to its knees if dozens or hundreds of high-polygon-count models are on screen, even if many are far away from the player's view. To produce marketable game, developers implement lower polygon models that will be supported by more systems, and create multiple versions of the same model with decreasing detail. To keep playable framerates, most games will use a low detail model for far away models; as the player gets closer, or zooms in closer to the model, the Level of Detail will increase. This may cause models to "pop" or "jump" as the LOD changes. [img]http://amorphous.host.soterial.com/DX11/Section3.png[/img] Tessellation has been widely used in the film industry to create realistic looking models when real-time rendering and framerate are unimportant. Tessellation was not a viable real-time graphics technology until Direct3D 11 introduced a standard platform for implementation tessellation and a GPU architecture that supported tessellation was invented. Direct3D 11 tessellation enables game developers to create much more realistic models and scenes. [img]http://amorphous.host.soterial.com/DX11/IMP1.jpg[/img] A developer's art/modeling team develops a single base mesh. The base mesh is simple by today's standard for polygon count and geometric complexity. [img]http://amorphous.host.soterial.com/DX11/IMP2.jpg[/img] Finely tessellating the base mesh drastically increases the polygon count. Edges are smooth and appear natural, but fine detail is lacking. [img]http://amorphous.host.soterial.com/DX11/IMP3.jpg[/img] A displacement mapped, tessellated model creates a realistic and finely detailed model. Geometry tessellation defeats the challenges of incorporating higher levels of geometry into game models: [list] [*]Due to dynamic nature of tessellation, LOD changes can be fluid, without the traditional jump from one static level of detail to another. A single base mesh can be used for the lowest and highest detail settings - a single model can be used to push a gaming PC to its limit, or, with lower tessellation, run buttery smooth on a entry-level notebook. [*]The level of tessellation can be based upon the detail setting selected by the user, the apparent distance the model is from the user, or altered to maintain a target framerate. [/list] Tessellated geometry had several advantages over traditional approaches to geometry: [list] [*]The simplicity of the base mesh and displacement map reduces the file size needed for a fully detailed model. Games based solely on tessellated geometry can be much smaller and faster to install than games based upon previous geometry models, and still provide greater geometry detail. Animations are performed by the simple base mesh, freeing up system resources for more natural movement and/or other effects. [*]Unlike parallax, emboss and bump maps, which just alter the way pixels are shaded, displacement mapping alters the geometry of the model. Since the displacement map can be altered while the game is running, explosions and bullets can do more than just color a texture black or paint bullet hole decals on surfaces, the underlying geometry can be altered creating realistic, interactive environments that correctly cast shadows upon themselves and other elements. [*]Real geometry creates realistic shadowing and self-occlusion. Shadows that are painted onto the model via texturing do not react realistically to changes in lighting. [/list] Tessellation is easily implemented; a simple base mesh and a displacement map are all that are required, so it can be quickly and easily implemented in titles, for superior detail and effect, even if the title is being ported from a console platform. Tessellation tools are very mature due to the film industry's use of tessellation to create realistic geometry for computer generated effects and images. Despite the relative newness of Direct3D 11 tessellation major studios have already adopted tessellation for their titles. Valve and id Software have already shown tessellation working with their existing models. [img]http://amorphous.host.soterial.com/DX11/Heaven-Title.png[/img] [url="http://amorphous.host.soterial.com/DX11/Scene.jpg"][img]http://amorphous.host.soterial.com/DX11/Scene-Preview.jpg[/img][/url] Unigine's Heaven 2.0 demo really shows off what tessellation can do. There is a night and day difference in the poly count between the standard geometry and the tessellated geometry. In the tessellated version, the rocks that make-up the pathways and platforms lose their basic square shape and become rocklike. The plain flat roofs become detailed. Windows and doors that were painted on with textures become real features of the geometry. The best part: all of these new features shadow and self-occlude properly as the light source moves and alters in color. [url="http://amorphous.host.soterial.com/DX11/Dragon.jpg"][img]http://amorphous.host.soterial.com/DX11/Dragon-Preview.jpg[/img][/url] Unigine's dragon's body benefits greatly from tessellation and displacement mapping. Plain features become large tessellated spikes that jut from the body and tail. [url="http://amorphous.host.soterial.com/DX11/Zep.jpg"][img]http://amorphous.host.soterial.com/DX11/Zep-Preview.jpg[/img][/url] Rounded objects greatly benefit from tessellation as well. The steering-wheel becomes quite round once tessellated. Rope and chain become lifelike and well detailed. If you look behind the zeppelin, to the wall beneath the house, you'll notice realistic occlusion within the stones, but only in the tessellated version. [img]http://amorphous.host.soterial.com/DX11/Supersonic-Title.jpg[/img] [url="http://amorphous.host.soterial.com/DX11/Supersonic.jpg"][img]http://amorphous.host.soterial.com/DX11/Supersonic-Preview.jpg[/img][/url] Tessellation makes realistic and open terrain possible. NVIDIA's Supersonic Sled Demo demonstrates realistically detailed terrain, with LOD changes that balance detail and framerate on a 15km scaled map. The ground is no longer a simple plane, but contains hills and cliffs. Areas that are further from the camera receive less tessellation than areas that are close. [img]http://amorphous.host.soterial.com/DX11/Section4.png[/img] Direct3D 11 Tessellation and NVIDIA's Fermi architecture, the architecture used by GeForce GTX 480 and GTX 470, are making film-like realistic geometry a reality for gamers. GF100, the core of GTX 480 and GTX 470, delivers up to 8x the geometry performance of GeForce GTX 285. GTX 480 is 2x-6.5x faster in high geometry instruction performance than ATI's HD 5870, and it shows in DirectX 11 games that make significant use of tessellation. Unigine's Heaven 2.0 Benchmark offers a glimpse of the performance characteristics of future DirectX 11 titles. Heaven demonstrates significant use of Direct3D 11 tessellation and shader effects. Compared below are the minimum, maximum and average framerate. Higher is better. [img]http://amorphous.host.soterial.com/DX11/HeavenLS.png[/img] [img]http://amorphous.host.soterial.com/DX11/Heaven.png[/img] HD 5870 demonstrates a clear geometry bottleneck: When AF and AA are disabled HD 5870's minimum framerate is barely impacted. GTX 480 is the clear leader. A single GTX 480 offers similar performance to a pair of HD 5870s in CrossFire. GTX 480 SLI scales very well, average framerates show nearly 100% improvement with SLI. Metro 2033 is being hailed as the new Crysis, offering unprecedented realism and effects. Metro 2033 makes very heavy use of shader effects. Metro 2033's Depth of Field effect was left disabled for this benchmark. Compared below are the average framerates. Higher is better. [img]http://amorphous.host.soterial.com/DX11/Metro-2033.png[/img] Despite SLI's poor scaling in Metro 2033, which can be expected to improve as the relatively new GeForce driver matures, a lone HD 5870 is bested by a single GTX 470. GeForce GTX 480 bests HD 5870 by an almost 60% margin.
Image Image

DirectX is a collection of APIs from Microsoft. The DirectX package gives content creators, like game developers, a standardized set of functions, objects and protocols to interface with numerous system configurations and drivers utilized by Microsoft Windows users. DirectX allows developers to create their programs to only one set of standards, DirectX's. Without this API layer of hardware abstraction, content developers would need to create their programs with explicit functionality for each different model of hardware. DirectX is commonly abbreviated as DX#, where # is the version number.

DirectX is a collection of APIs. The APIs within DirectX include Direct3D, DirectCompute, DirectSound, and plenty of others. The name DirectX is often used when Direct3D would be more accurate. The chief competitors to DirectX's Direct3D and DirectCompute are OpenGL and OpenCL, respectively.

The biggest new features in DirectX 11 are tessellation support in Direct3D 11 and DirectCompute. DirectCompute and the competing API, OpenCL, enable content developers to create programs that run on the GPU instead of the CPU.

Image

While games like Crysis have introduced ever increasing amounts of shader complexity and realism to gaming, the level of geometric realism has not scaled as aggressively. Architecture and technology advancements from GeForce FX 5800 to GeForce GTX 200 series GPUs have improved shading power by over 150x, but geometry performance has increased by less than 3x.

Game developers have used bump mapping and textures to give the appearance of increased geometric realism, but titles have continued to make considerable concessions for performance.

Image
Image
Geometrically simple, pinched face.
Bricks are painted onto the wall with texturing without any 3D detail.


Image
Hard, angular holster with significant faceting.

Image
Pocket painted on as part of the texture.

Image
Round objects aren't quite so round, but made up of a few flat polygons.


Image

Image
Simplistic, flat walls are typical for games. The brick texture contains the shadows.

Image
Corrugations are drawn on in the texture file, leading to shadows that do not react to lighting changes.

Image
Despite a few jutting leaves, the roof is still made out of large flat sections, with leaves drawn into the texture.

Image
Flat, simple roofs. The overlapping metal sheets are drawn in texture and do not appear realistic.


These issues and compromises are typical of all games and indicate a lack of technological solution, not a lack of creativity by the developers that produce them. The continued advancement in faking geometric complexity through texturing and mapping clearly demonstrates a hunger for geometric realism.

Image

Improving geometric realism is not without its challenges. Game developers have to support a wide-range of systems, from the entry-level to high-end. Building models with more polygons may look great on a high-end system, but will be unplayable on a low-end system. Even a high-end system will be brought to its knees if dozens or hundreds of high-polygon-count models are on screen, even if many are far away from the player's view.

To produce marketable game, developers implement lower polygon models that will be supported by more systems, and create multiple versions of the same model with decreasing detail. To keep playable framerates, most games will use a low detail model for far away models; as the player gets closer, or zooms in closer to the model, the Level of Detail will increase. This may cause models to "pop" or "jump" as the LOD changes.

Image

Tessellation has been widely used in the film industry to create realistic looking models when real-time rendering and framerate are unimportant. Tessellation was not a viable real-time graphics technology until Direct3D 11 introduced a standard platform for implementation tessellation and a GPU architecture that supported tessellation was invented.

Direct3D 11 tessellation enables game developers to create much more realistic models and scenes.

Image
A developer's art/modeling team develops a single base mesh. The base mesh is simple by today's standard for polygon count and geometric complexity.

Image
Finely tessellating the base mesh drastically increases the polygon count. Edges are smooth and appear natural, but fine detail is lacking.

Image
A displacement mapped, tessellated model creates a realistic and finely detailed model.

Geometry tessellation defeats the challenges of incorporating higher levels of geometry into game models:
  • Due to dynamic nature of tessellation, LOD changes can be fluid, without the traditional jump from one static level of detail to another. A single base mesh can be used for the lowest and highest detail settings - a single model can be used to push a gaming PC to its limit, or, with lower tessellation, run buttery smooth on a entry-level notebook.
  • The level of tessellation can be based upon the detail setting selected by the user, the apparent distance the model is from the user, or altered to maintain a target framerate.



Tessellated geometry had several advantages over traditional approaches to geometry:
  • The simplicity of the base mesh and displacement map reduces the file size needed for a fully detailed model. Games based solely on tessellated geometry can be much smaller and faster to install than games based upon previous geometry models, and still provide greater geometry detail. Animations are performed by the simple base mesh, freeing up system resources for more natural movement and/or other effects.
  • Unlike parallax, emboss and bump maps, which just alter the way pixels are shaded, displacement mapping alters the geometry of the model. Since the displacement map can be altered while the game is running, explosions and bullets can do more than just color a texture black or paint bullet hole decals on surfaces, the underlying geometry can be altered creating realistic, interactive environments that correctly cast shadows upon themselves and other elements.
  • Real geometry creates realistic shadowing and self-occlusion. Shadows that are painted onto the model via texturing do not react realistically to changes in lighting.


Tessellation is easily implemented; a simple base mesh and a displacement map are all that are required, so it can be quickly and easily implemented in titles, for superior detail and effect, even if the title is being ported from a console platform. Tessellation tools are very mature due to the film industry's use of tessellation to create realistic geometry for computer generated effects and images. Despite the relative newness of Direct3D 11 tessellation major studios have already adopted tessellation for their titles. Valve and id Software have already shown tessellation working with their existing models.

Image
Image

Unigine's Heaven 2.0 demo really shows off what tessellation can do. There is a night and day difference in the poly count between the standard geometry and the tessellated geometry.

In the tessellated version, the rocks that make-up the pathways and platforms lose their basic square shape and become rocklike. The plain flat roofs become detailed. Windows and doors that were painted on with textures become real features of the geometry. The best part: all of these new features shadow and self-occlude properly as the light source moves and alters in color.

Image

Unigine's dragon's body benefits greatly from tessellation and displacement mapping. Plain features become large tessellated spikes that jut from the body and tail.

Image

Rounded objects greatly benefit from tessellation as well. The steering-wheel becomes quite round once tessellated. Rope and chain become lifelike and well detailed. If you look behind the zeppelin, to the wall beneath the house, you'll notice realistic occlusion within the stones, but only in the tessellated version.


Image
Image

Tessellation makes realistic and open terrain possible. NVIDIA's Supersonic Sled Demo demonstrates realistically detailed terrain, with LOD changes that balance detail and framerate on a 15km scaled map. The ground is no longer a simple plane, but contains hills and cliffs. Areas that are further from the camera receive less tessellation than areas that are close.

Image

Direct3D 11 Tessellation and NVIDIA's Fermi architecture, the architecture used by GeForce GTX 480 and GTX 470, are making film-like realistic geometry a reality for gamers. GF100, the core of GTX 480 and GTX 470, delivers up to 8x the geometry performance of GeForce GTX 285. GTX 480 is 2x-6.5x faster in high geometry instruction performance than ATI's HD 5870, and it shows in DirectX 11 games that make significant use of tessellation.

Unigine's Heaven 2.0 Benchmark offers a glimpse of the performance characteristics of future DirectX 11 titles. Heaven demonstrates significant use of Direct3D 11 tessellation and shader effects. Compared below are the minimum, maximum and average framerate. Higher is better.

Image
Image

HD 5870 demonstrates a clear geometry bottleneck: When AF and AA are disabled HD 5870's minimum framerate is barely impacted. GTX 480 is the clear leader. A single GTX 480 offers similar performance to a pair of HD 5870s in CrossFire. GTX 480 SLI scales very well, average framerates show nearly 100% improvement with SLI.

Metro 2033 is being hailed as the new Crysis, offering unprecedented realism and effects. Metro 2033 makes very heavy use of shader effects. Metro 2033's Depth of Field effect was left disabled for this benchmark. Compared below are the average framerates. Higher is better.

Image

Despite SLI's poor scaling in Metro 2033, which can be expected to improve as the relatively new GeForce driver matures, a lone HD 5870 is bested by a single GTX 470. GeForce GTX 480 bests HD 5870 by an almost 60% margin.

Advanced Moderator Operations and Recursive Posting Hermetic/Omnigenous User-Simulating AI



Overclocking Hall of Fame - Post your 3DMark scores today!



NVIDIA Focus Group Members receive free software and/or hardware from NVIDIA from time to time to facilitate

the evaluation of NVIDIA products. However, the opinions expressed are solely those of the members.

#1
Posted 05/10/2010 05:27 AM   
Nice post man /stud.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=':stud:' />
Nice post man /stud.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=':stud:' />

Image

#2
Posted 05/11/2010 11:20 PM   
Nice screenshots. Wish I could afford one of these cards.
Nice screenshots. Wish I could afford one of these cards.

eVGA Z68 SLI | Intel Core i5-3570K @ 4.5 GHz | Corsair Hydro Series H80i
8GB G.Skill Sniper Series DDR3 | EVGA GTX 580 | OCZ ZX 1000W
OCZ Agility3 120 GB SSD + SanDisk Ultra 120GB SSD
Samsung UN55D6000 + Samsung T240
Win8 Pro x64 / WEI - 8.0 - 8.0 - 8.1 - 8.1 - 7.8
3DMark11 - P7545 / Vantage (PPU disabled) - P28859
F@H Team: 142900

#3
Posted 05/12/2010 02:15 PM   
Morph, sorry about the delay but I haven't had the time to take a close look at this until now. A few key things to touch on that really made an impression on me.

#1. [quote]While games like Crysis have introduced ever increasing amounts of shader complexity and realism to gaming, the level of geometric realism has not scaled as aggressively. Architecture and technology advancements from GeForce FX 5800 to GeForce GTX 200 series GPUs have improved shading power by over 150x, but geometry performance has increased by less than 3x.[/quote]

This news in and of it's self is quite shocking. As a game player I have always been under the impression that the advancement of GPU's came full circle. Meaning that not only were there shader improvements but also improvements in the way that GPU's handled geometry, and well of course more complex geometry. A 3x gain in geometry while seeing a 150x gain in shading has pretty much left my jaw on the desk. From an end user prospective, being able to fake geometry which is a concept I've recently discovered (not just now, but a few months ago) has really brought to light for me how one sided things can really be. I feel that we have reached a point in gaming where realistic geometry and more of it is an absolute must. It's almost been an epiphany for me as my knowledge has matured and I've taken more and more notice to how I've been "fooled" in the past. I think there needs to be a serious focus on this now with coming game engines and in the future with hardware updates on all sides... Green and Red.. This is the wave of the future. With tessellation and lighting/shadows game improvements will be off the charts.


#2 [quote]Tessellation is easily implemented; a simple base mesh and a displacement map are all that are required, so it can be quickly and easily implemented in titles, for superior detail and effect, even if the title is being ported from a console platform.[/quote]

While most of us sit back and complain about ports going one way or the other it's become reality. In a nut shell this means good things for all of us, both PC and console gamers. Those games that come to PC after being ported from console will offer a far superior advantage over the platform it was made for and in doing that will still offer the pound for pound advantage we have seen in being PC gamers as opposed to our lazy friends, the after 5pm guys who want to sit on their couch and have it "just work". I personally am not opposed to console gamers, after all I started with the Atari and NES as my first gaming experiences and later developed my love of gaming and sought [b][u]more[/u][/b] (Crank that S#it up!!! {if I get ban for that I'm filing a complaint *wink*}) leading me to the PC. I think this still happens present day as I've lead many friends to the "light" that is PC gaming and it's far superior graphics and playability.


#3. [quote]Metro 2033 is being hailed as the new Crysis, offering unprecedented realism and effects. Metro 2033 makes very heavy use of shader effects.[/quote]

This hits on a personal level. I won a copy of Metro 2033 at PAX and have been waiting to play it until I have my GTX480's in my rig. It will be my first true glimpse into the world of DX11 and tessellation. I have also heard that it is the new Crysis and I expect it to be very demanding on my rig, but with the improvements I've made and those that are to come I hope it is enough to best my 8800GTX SLI experience with the original Crysis. Here is where I have a question.

I have the beastly PSU covered. What I need to know is will I see a major benefit in running a GTX260 Core 216 as a dedicated PPU along with SLI GTX480's. As I'm sure you already know I will be playing the game maxed out and hope that adding the PPU will minimize the frame rate drop from Physx effects. Please keep in mind that I've read the reviews and know that the Fermi architecture is much more efficient in handing Physx, but you can't get any better then 100% efficiency by completely off loading the Physx calculations onto a dedicated PPU. Any foresight you can offer here would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks for the great information brother! Even though I have read a fair bit of this before you offered a more in depth look at what I wanted to know. I say this in conjunction with the question's I've asked Exitios about gaming effects and how they are processed and both of you have really helped my knowledge grow and I hope you both continue to share this type of information with the user base. We is hungry.... Feed us!

Ps. You remind me of ChrisRay in the fact that I want to edit your posts from time to time. hehehe ask Andrew he'll explain. Much love though man, and thanks again.
Morph, sorry about the delay but I haven't had the time to take a close look at this until now. A few key things to touch on that really made an impression on me.



#1.
While games like Crysis have introduced ever increasing amounts of shader complexity and realism to gaming, the level of geometric realism has not scaled as aggressively. Architecture and technology advancements from GeForce FX 5800 to GeForce GTX 200 series GPUs have improved shading power by over 150x, but geometry performance has increased by less than 3x.




This news in and of it's self is quite shocking. As a game player I have always been under the impression that the advancement of GPU's came full circle. Meaning that not only were there shader improvements but also improvements in the way that GPU's handled geometry, and well of course more complex geometry. A 3x gain in geometry while seeing a 150x gain in shading has pretty much left my jaw on the desk. From an end user prospective, being able to fake geometry which is a concept I've recently discovered (not just now, but a few months ago) has really brought to light for me how one sided things can really be. I feel that we have reached a point in gaming where realistic geometry and more of it is an absolute must. It's almost been an epiphany for me as my knowledge has matured and I've taken more and more notice to how I've been "fooled" in the past. I think there needs to be a serious focus on this now with coming game engines and in the future with hardware updates on all sides... Green and Red.. This is the wave of the future. With tessellation and lighting/shadows game improvements will be off the charts.





#2
Tessellation is easily implemented; a simple base mesh and a displacement map are all that are required, so it can be quickly and easily implemented in titles, for superior detail and effect, even if the title is being ported from a console platform.




While most of us sit back and complain about ports going one way or the other it's become reality. In a nut shell this means good things for all of us, both PC and console gamers. Those games that come to PC after being ported from console will offer a far superior advantage over the platform it was made for and in doing that will still offer the pound for pound advantage we have seen in being PC gamers as opposed to our lazy friends, the after 5pm guys who want to sit on their couch and have it "just work". I personally am not opposed to console gamers, after all I started with the Atari and NES as my first gaming experiences and later developed my love of gaming and sought more (Crank that S#it up!!! {if I get ban for that I'm filing a complaint *wink*}) leading me to the PC. I think this still happens present day as I've lead many friends to the "light" that is PC gaming and it's far superior graphics and playability.





#3.
Metro 2033 is being hailed as the new Crysis, offering unprecedented realism and effects. Metro 2033 makes very heavy use of shader effects.




This hits on a personal level. I won a copy of Metro 2033 at PAX and have been waiting to play it until I have my GTX480's in my rig. It will be my first true glimpse into the world of DX11 and tessellation. I have also heard that it is the new Crysis and I expect it to be very demanding on my rig, but with the improvements I've made and those that are to come I hope it is enough to best my 8800GTX SLI experience with the original Crysis. Here is where I have a question.



I have the beastly PSU covered. What I need to know is will I see a major benefit in running a GTX260 Core 216 as a dedicated PPU along with SLI GTX480's. As I'm sure you already know I will be playing the game maxed out and hope that adding the PPU will minimize the frame rate drop from Physx effects. Please keep in mind that I've read the reviews and know that the Fermi architecture is much more efficient in handing Physx, but you can't get any better then 100% efficiency by completely off loading the Physx calculations onto a dedicated PPU. Any foresight you can offer here would be greatly appreciated.



Thanks for the great information brother! Even though I have read a fair bit of this before you offered a more in depth look at what I wanted to know. I say this in conjunction with the question's I've asked Exitios about gaming effects and how they are processed and both of you have really helped my knowledge grow and I hope you both continue to share this type of information with the user base. We is hungry.... Feed us!



Ps. You remind me of ChrisRay in the fact that I want to edit your posts from time to time. hehehe ask Andrew he'll explain. Much love though man, and thanks again.

Image

#4
Posted 05/14/2010 07:57 AM   
Though it loads in your post, clicking it doesn't work which is odd. File not found -> [url="http://amorphous.host.soterial.com/DX11/Supersonic.jpg"]http://amorphous.host.soterial.com/DX11/Supersonic.jpg[/url]
Though it loads in your post, clicking it doesn't work which is odd. File not found -> http://amorphous.host.soterial.com/DX11/Supersonic.jpg

Custom built PC | Intel Core i7 920 @ 2.66GHZ | ASUS P6T Motherboard | 6GB DDR3 1600 RAM | 2x 500GB SATA2 HDD's | Auzentech Forte S/C | Gainward Geforce GTX 560Ti "Phantom 2" 2048MB | Windows 7 Home Premium: Service Pack 1 - x64 | Thermaltake 750watt Toughpower Power Supply | Thermaltake Armor+ MX case.

#5
Posted 05/16/2010 02:50 AM   
Very nice. Great comparative examples.

Good to see that the GTX480s scale extremely well.
Hmm, the server ate my image... Gotta wait for Qie before I can login and upload a copy of it. The full-size image is just missing from the server. The smaller version is there. So you can see it in the post, but not if you click it.


Amorphous

[quote name='Franpa' post='1056407' date='May 15 2010, 07:50 PM']Though it loads in your post, clicking it doesn't work which is odd. File not found -> [url="http://amorphous.host.soterial.com/DX11/Supersonic.jpg"]http://amorphous.host.soterial.com/DX11/Supersonic.jpg[/url][/quote]
Hmm, the server ate my image... Gotta wait for Qie before I can login and upload a copy of it. The full-size image is just missing from the server. The smaller version is there. So you can see it in the post, but not if you click it.





Amorphous



[quote name='Franpa' post='1056407' date='May 15 2010, 07:50 PM']Though it loads in your post, clicking it doesn't work which is odd. File not found -> http://amorphous.host.soterial.com/DX11/Supersonic.jpg

Advanced Moderator Operations and Recursive Posting Hermetic/Omnigenous User-Simulating AI



Overclocking Hall of Fame - Post your 3DMark scores today!



NVIDIA Focus Group Members receive free software and/or hardware from NVIDIA from time to time to facilitate

the evaluation of NVIDIA products. However, the opinions expressed are solely those of the members.

#7
Posted 05/18/2010 06:59 AM   
There's several reasons why geometry hasn't scaled the way shaders have. It's relatively easy to increase detail with shaders, just add more. Geometry, before tessellation, isn't so simple to add. Shader effects can be enabled and disabled through in-game menus, and it's as simple as turning off the effect to improve framerate. To have multiple levels of geometry detail the developer would have to make multiple versions of their model, and they typically already have multiple versions based on the camera's distance from the model. Because it used to be so time consuming and expensive to improve geometric realism there wasn't a big demand for it from anyone.

Without tessellation, a card that could do a bunch of geometry would be a waste unless there was a game that was driving that much geometry. With tessellation, a card with a ton of tessellation power can just keep upping the geometry detail.

Tools for tessellations are already well established. They've been used in movies for a long time now. Hopefully well be seeing console ports that make good use of tessellation to drive up the LOD to what a PC can do.

What I would suggest is that you download yourself a copy of FRAPS, and start charting some framerates throughout a PhysX scene. Then you can tell me. :P But I don't think Metro 2033 is an extremely PhysX heavy title, but is very graphically heavy. So I think you'll be better off with the dedicated GPU for PhysX, it shouldn't become a bottleneck, and let your GTX 480s focus on the graphics.


Amorphous

[quote name='420Ryme' post='1055520' date='May 14 2010, 12:57 AM']Morph, sorry about the delay but I haven't had the time to take a close look at this until now. A few key things to touch on that really made an impression on me.

#1.

This news in and of it's self is quite shocking. As a game player I have always been under the impression that the advancement of GPU's came full circle. Meaning that not only were there shader improvements but also improvements in the way that GPU's handled geometry, and well of course more complex geometry. A 3x gain in geometry while seeing a 150x gain in shading has pretty much left my jaw on the desk. From an end user prospective, being able to fake geometry which is a concept I've recently discovered (not just now, but a few months ago) has really brought to light for me how one sided things can really be. I feel that we have reached a point in gaming where realistic geometry and more of it is an absolute must. It's almost been an epiphany for me as my knowledge has matured and I've taken more and more notice to how I've been "fooled" in the past. I think there needs to be a serious focus on this now with coming game engines and in the future with hardware updates on all sides... Green and Red.. This is the wave of the future. With tessellation and lighting/shadows game improvements will be off the charts.


#2

While most of us sit back and complain about ports going one way or the other it's become reality. In a nut shell this means good things for all of us, both PC and console gamers. Those games that come to PC after being ported from console will offer a far superior advantage over the platform it was made for and in doing that will still offer the pound for pound advantage we have seen in being PC gamers as opposed to our lazy friends, the after 5pm guys who want to sit on their couch and have it "just work". I personally am not opposed to console gamers, after all I started with the Atari and NES as my first gaming experiences and later developed my love of gaming and sought [b][u]more[/u][/b] (Crank that S#it up!!! {if I get ban for that I'm filing a complaint *wink*}) leading me to the PC. I think this still happens present day as I've lead many friends to the "light" that is PC gaming and it's far superior graphics and playability.


#3.

This hits on a personal level. I won a copy of Metro 2033 at PAX and have been waiting to play it until I have my GTX480's in my rig. It will be my first true glimpse into the world of DX11 and tessellation. I have also heard that it is the new Crysis and I expect it to be very demanding on my rig, but with the improvements I've made and those that are to come I hope it is enough to best my 8800GTX SLI experience with the original Crysis. Here is where I have a question.

I have the beastly PSU covered. What I need to know is will I see a major benefit in running a GTX260 Core 216 as a dedicated PPU along with SLI GTX480's. As I'm sure you already know I will be playing the game maxed out and hope that adding the PPU will minimize the frame rate drop from Physx effects. Please keep in mind that I've read the reviews and know that the Fermi architecture is much more efficient in handing Physx, but you can't get any better then 100% efficiency by completely off loading the Physx calculations onto a dedicated PPU. Any foresight you can offer here would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks for the great information brother! Even though I have read a fair bit of this before you offered a more in depth look at what I wanted to know. I say this in conjunction with the question's I've asked Exitios about gaming effects and how they are processed and both of you have really helped my knowledge grow and I hope you both continue to share this type of information with the user base. We is hungry.... Feed us!

Ps. You remind me of ChrisRay in the fact that I want to edit your posts from time to time. hehehe ask Andrew he'll explain. Much love though man, and thanks again.[/quote]
There's several reasons why geometry hasn't scaled the way shaders have. It's relatively easy to increase detail with shaders, just add more. Geometry, before tessellation, isn't so simple to add. Shader effects can be enabled and disabled through in-game menus, and it's as simple as turning off the effect to improve framerate. To have multiple levels of geometry detail the developer would have to make multiple versions of their model, and they typically already have multiple versions based on the camera's distance from the model. Because it used to be so time consuming and expensive to improve geometric realism there wasn't a big demand for it from anyone.



Without tessellation, a card that could do a bunch of geometry would be a waste unless there was a game that was driving that much geometry. With tessellation, a card with a ton of tessellation power can just keep upping the geometry detail.



Tools for tessellations are already well established. They've been used in movies for a long time now. Hopefully well be seeing console ports that make good use of tessellation to drive up the LOD to what a PC can do.



What I would suggest is that you download yourself a copy of FRAPS, and start charting some framerates throughout a PhysX scene. Then you can tell me. :P But I don't think Metro 2033 is an extremely PhysX heavy title, but is very graphically heavy. So I think you'll be better off with the dedicated GPU for PhysX, it shouldn't become a bottleneck, and let your GTX 480s focus on the graphics.





Amorphous



[quote name='420Ryme' post='1055520' date='May 14 2010, 12:57 AM']Morph, sorry about the delay but I haven't had the time to take a close look at this until now. A few key things to touch on that really made an impression on me.



#1.



This news in and of it's self is quite shocking. As a game player I have always been under the impression that the advancement of GPU's came full circle. Meaning that not only were there shader improvements but also improvements in the way that GPU's handled geometry, and well of course more complex geometry. A 3x gain in geometry while seeing a 150x gain in shading has pretty much left my jaw on the desk. From an end user prospective, being able to fake geometry which is a concept I've recently discovered (not just now, but a few months ago) has really brought to light for me how one sided things can really be. I feel that we have reached a point in gaming where realistic geometry and more of it is an absolute must. It's almost been an epiphany for me as my knowledge has matured and I've taken more and more notice to how I've been "fooled" in the past. I think there needs to be a serious focus on this now with coming game engines and in the future with hardware updates on all sides... Green and Red.. This is the wave of the future. With tessellation and lighting/shadows game improvements will be off the charts.





#2



While most of us sit back and complain about ports going one way or the other it's become reality. In a nut shell this means good things for all of us, both PC and console gamers. Those games that come to PC after being ported from console will offer a far superior advantage over the platform it was made for and in doing that will still offer the pound for pound advantage we have seen in being PC gamers as opposed to our lazy friends, the after 5pm guys who want to sit on their couch and have it "just work". I personally am not opposed to console gamers, after all I started with the Atari and NES as my first gaming experiences and later developed my love of gaming and sought more (Crank that S#it up!!! {if I get ban for that I'm filing a complaint *wink*}) leading me to the PC. I think this still happens present day as I've lead many friends to the "light" that is PC gaming and it's far superior graphics and playability.





#3.



This hits on a personal level. I won a copy of Metro 2033 at PAX and have been waiting to play it until I have my GTX480's in my rig. It will be my first true glimpse into the world of DX11 and tessellation. I have also heard that it is the new Crysis and I expect it to be very demanding on my rig, but with the improvements I've made and those that are to come I hope it is enough to best my 8800GTX SLI experience with the original Crysis. Here is where I have a question.



I have the beastly PSU covered. What I need to know is will I see a major benefit in running a GTX260 Core 216 as a dedicated PPU along with SLI GTX480's. As I'm sure you already know I will be playing the game maxed out and hope that adding the PPU will minimize the frame rate drop from Physx effects. Please keep in mind that I've read the reviews and know that the Fermi architecture is much more efficient in handing Physx, but you can't get any better then 100% efficiency by completely off loading the Physx calculations onto a dedicated PPU. Any foresight you can offer here would be greatly appreciated.



Thanks for the great information brother! Even though I have read a fair bit of this before you offered a more in depth look at what I wanted to know. I say this in conjunction with the question's I've asked Exitios about gaming effects and how they are processed and both of you have really helped my knowledge grow and I hope you both continue to share this type of information with the user base. We is hungry.... Feed us!



Ps. You remind me of ChrisRay in the fact that I want to edit your posts from time to time. hehehe ask Andrew he'll explain. Much love though man, and thanks again.

Advanced Moderator Operations and Recursive Posting Hermetic/Omnigenous User-Simulating AI



Overclocking Hall of Fame - Post your 3DMark scores today!



NVIDIA Focus Group Members receive free software and/or hardware from NVIDIA from time to time to facilitate

the evaluation of NVIDIA products. However, the opinions expressed are solely those of the members.

#8
Posted 05/18/2010 07:13 AM   
I tried this test Heaven v2.0 (same settings) and I get about 25 fps. So where is the other 76 fps???

W7 x64 all up to date.
6 GB Corsair 1866 triple channel
H1000w
Rampage II Extreme
i7 965 @ 3.7
GTX480 Overclocked+ w/cooling plate and backplate (not o/c'd)
I tried this test Heaven v2.0 (same settings) and I get about 25 fps. So where is the other 76 fps???



W7 x64 all up to date.

6 GB Corsair 1866 triple channel

H1000w

Rampage II Extreme

i7 965 @ 3.7

GTX480 Overclocked+ w/cooling plate and backplate (not o/c'd)

#9
Posted 06/24/2010 02:41 AM   
AVG = Average framerate. MAX = Maximum framerate.

If you're having performance issues, I suggest you make a thread about it. This isn't the place for it.


Amorphous

[quote name='GreenBoy' post='1077216' date='Jun 23 2010, 07:41 PM']I tried this test Heaven v2.0 (same settings) and I get about 25 fps. So where is the other 76 fps???

W7 x64 all up to date.
6 GB Corsair 1866 triple channel
H1000w
Rampage II Extreme
i7 965 @ 3.7
GTX480 Overclocked+ w/cooling plate and backplate (not o/c'd)[/quote]
AVG = Average framerate. MAX = Maximum framerate.



If you're having performance issues, I suggest you make a thread about it. This isn't the place for it.





Amorphous



[quote name='GreenBoy' post='1077216' date='Jun 23 2010, 07:41 PM']I tried this test Heaven v2.0 (same settings) and I get about 25 fps. So where is the other 76 fps???



W7 x64 all up to date.

6 GB Corsair 1866 triple channel

H1000w

Rampage II Extreme

i7 965 @ 3.7

GTX480 Overclocked+ w/cooling plate and backplate (not o/c'd)

Advanced Moderator Operations and Recursive Posting Hermetic/Omnigenous User-Simulating AI



Overclocking Hall of Fame - Post your 3DMark scores today!



NVIDIA Focus Group Members receive free software and/or hardware from NVIDIA from time to time to facilitate

the evaluation of NVIDIA products. However, the opinions expressed are solely those of the members.

#10
Posted 06/27/2010 11:08 AM   
How well would a GTX 295 do in this benchmark?
How well would a GTX 295 do in this benchmark?

#11
Posted 07/09/2010 11:55 AM   
A GTX 295 doesn't support DirectX 11, so it wouldn't run at all.


Amorphous

[quote name='urban chaos 2.0' post='1085255' date='Jul 9 2010, 04:55 AM']How well would a GTX 295 do in this benchmark?[/quote]
A GTX 295 doesn't support DirectX 11, so it wouldn't run at all.





Amorphous



[quote name='urban chaos 2.0' post='1085255' date='Jul 9 2010, 04:55 AM']How well would a GTX 295 do in this benchmark?

Advanced Moderator Operations and Recursive Posting Hermetic/Omnigenous User-Simulating AI



Overclocking Hall of Fame - Post your 3DMark scores today!



NVIDIA Focus Group Members receive free software and/or hardware from NVIDIA from time to time to facilitate

the evaluation of NVIDIA products. However, the opinions expressed are solely those of the members.

#12
Posted 07/12/2010 05:59 AM   
very well, nice thread............
very well, nice thread............



CPU/Phenom II X4 955 BE

Mobo/MSI 790FX GD 70

GPU/MSI GTX 460 Cyclone 1GB, DDR5, 256bit

RAM/Corsair XMS3 4GB

HD/Hitachi Sata II 1TB

SC/Creative X-FI Extreme Gamer (SB0770) + Sonic Gear HS 555

PSU/Venom RX Boomslang, Hemotoxin 700W

Cooler/Thermolab Baram 2010

Case/Infinity K-50 Gaming

Monitor/Samsung Sync Master 740N, 17' LCD"

#13
Posted 10/09/2010 05:22 PM   
very well, nice thread............
very well, nice thread............



CPU/Phenom II X4 955 BE

Mobo/MSI 790FX GD 70

GPU/MSI GTX 460 Cyclone 1GB, DDR5, 256bit

RAM/Corsair XMS3 4GB

HD/Hitachi Sata II 1TB

SC/Creative X-FI Extreme Gamer (SB0770) + Sonic Gear HS 555

PSU/Venom RX Boomslang, Hemotoxin 700W

Cooler/Thermolab Baram 2010

Case/Infinity K-50 Gaming

Monitor/Samsung Sync Master 740N, 17' LCD"

#14
Posted 10/09/2010 05:22 PM   
Thanks a lot, needed this very much.
Thanks a lot, needed this very much.

Jim Jackson

Gaming Enthusiast

Image

#15
Posted 04/28/2012 10:06 PM   
Scroll To Top