Direct X and FPS question 10 replies

  • 1
  • 2

Please wait...

Guest

I didn't make it!

0 XP

 
#1 7 years ago

I have been slightly confused on the effectiveness on a newer DirectX version compared to an old one. It seems like I heard some where by running a game in a older direct x version (9 compared to 11) a game will perform better by increasing fps because of lower graphic requirments, is that true? This question was brought to my attention because I played a game where I got 80 - 99 fps and I did a reset on my computer and now I get 40-50 max. I updated all my drivers, got the newest version of Direct X and set all my options in my radeon hd 4xxx series to top performance, as well as set the game to the lowest possible settings, and yet I have a huge reduction in fps, so could directX version play a role in this?




Guest

I didn't make it!

0 XP

 
#2 7 years ago

Bump, can someone please give me an awnser to this?




>Omen<

Modern Warfare

50 XP

1st January 2005

0 Uploads

7,395 Posts

0 Threads

#3 7 years ago

Yes to all of that, for the most part.

Most games that can be played at more than one DX version will play at higher FPS with the lower, less sophisticated DX version. Nvidia GPUs are a bit more efficient FPS wise at playing DX11 games, but they can play at lower FPS when DX11 is enabled too.

Part of the problem is there needs to be more developers using the full potential of multi threading to really get the most out of DX11's features. Nvidia's PhysX adds multi threading on the GPU as well, but few games make significant use of PhysX.

That said, it helps to have both a robust GPU AND CPU to make the most out of DX11, as well as balancing those components to avoid bottlenecks. Clearly not many games take advantage of DX11 yet though, and those that do typically don't take full advantage of it's abilities.




Sheepeep VIP Member

weirdal = new ptaq()

31,600 XP

2nd September 2003

0 Uploads

2,948 Posts

0 Threads

#4 7 years ago
sharpii;5564883I have been slightly confused on the effectiveness on a newer DirectX version compared to an old one. It seems like I heard some where by running a game in a older direct x version (9 compared to 11) a game will perform better by increasing fps because of lower graphic requirments, is that true? This question was brought to my attention because I played a game where I got 80 - 99 fps and I did a reset on my computer and now I get 40-50 max. I updated all my drivers, got the newest version of Direct X and set all my options in my radeon hd 4xxx series to top performance, as well as set the game to the lowest possible settings, and yet I have a huge reduction in fps, so could directX version play a role in this?

The short answer is "It depends". The long answer is far more useful, however.

It's worth remembering that nothing that comes in a later DirectX version is utterly impossible in a previous one, it just means that there is explicit support within DirectX for that particular feature (Tessellation, bump mapping, etc).

In turn, this has several implications. It means that DirectX11-compatible hardware has dedicated support for the operation being performed, so it's much faster to do than on a DirectX9 card, but only if the DirectX11 API is being used to do it. Therefore, even if you're doing something on a DirectX11 card, you may not see the benefit if you're still emulating the feature in, say, DirectX10.

As a practical example, if my game supports tessellation in DirectX9 mode because I've written an algorithm to do it, then it'll be slow in DirectX9 mode if tessellation is enabled, in comparison to DirectX11 using native tessellation with hardware designed to support the operation. If I use my DirectX9 trick on a DirectX11 card, I still won't gain (most) of the hardware advantage, because the hardware may not be aware that it's doing tessellation, only that it sure seems to be duplicating something a lot in very similar ways.

However, the usual approach is to disable tessellation outright on non-DirectX11 modes. Therefore, FPS is increased at the expense of graphical quality.

It's also worth bearing in mind that your HD 4000 series card is a DirectX10.1 card, not a DirectX11 card, which does not support DirectX11 natively on the hardware, even if it does through the drivers. Tessellation, being a DirectX11 feature, will be much slower on these cards, though certainly faster than someone implementing it on their own in any version of DirectX.

So to summarise, it's not that DirectX11 is slower, but that it allows for better visuals that are likely enabled by default in your game(s) of choice. Your DirectX10.1 card certainly doesn't help things, but I'd wait a few months for the new cards to roll out if you choose to upgrade, as the current crop of DX11 cards will drop significantly in price, and they aren't far away now.




Guest

I didn't make it!

0 XP

 
#5 7 years ago

Great replys thank you guys for all the help! For some reason my computer came with direct X 11 pre installed so I guess I need to downgrade to 10.1, although I hard the 10 series was only vista exclusive, and im running windows 7 32bit... though I probley heard wrong. I would rather sacrifice the good looks instead of performance so should I just some how install an older version somehow or just do the right click shortcut trick like (sorry im going to use league of legends I know, I know. "C:\Riot Games\League of Legends\lol.launcher.exe" -dx10.1 or does this still use your same dx version and not actually improve performance? Im not even actually sure If I can uninstall my current dx version and reinstall an older one that is better suited for my hd42xx series..




kow_ciller

Gettin' hardware chilly

50 XP

16th June 2004

0 Uploads

5,787 Posts

0 Threads

#6 7 years ago

even if you run a newer dx version in windows, your hardware will only render for the older direct X version, no need to worry about that.




Sheepeep VIP Member

weirdal = new ptaq()

31,600 XP

2nd September 2003

0 Uploads

2,948 Posts

0 Threads

#7 7 years ago
sharpii;5565908Great replys thank you guys for all the help! For some reason my computer came with direct X 11 pre installed so I guess I need to downgrade to 10.1, although I hard the 10 series was only vista exclusive, and im running windows 7 32bit... though I probley heard wrong. I would rather sacrifice the good looks instead of performance so should I just some how install an older version somehow or just do the right click shortcut trick like (sorry im going to use league of legends I know, I know. "C:\Riot Games\League of Legends\lol.launcher.exe" -dx10.1 or does this still use your same dx version and not actually improve performance? Im not even actually sure If I can uninstall my current dx version and reinstall an older one that is better suited

You're better off having the latest version of DirectX installed, and forcing the game to use the DirectX10 mode. That way, you'll still benefit from any performance benefit that the more recent version can bring to DirectX mode, which may or may not apply specifically to DX11 and DX10.1.

for my hd42xx series..

That, right there, is the problem. If I'm not mistaken, the 4200 series are integrated chipsets (on the motherboard), rather than discrete GPUs. Unlike recent Intel "Sandy Bridge" chipsets, which compete with the lower-end discrete AMD/NVidia GPUs, the HD 4200 series are far below the performance of any "real" GPU. Additionally, they use system memory rather than their own on-card RAM, further hampering system performance. If you have a discrete GPU in the system, it's almost certainly not the 4200 series.

After my HD4870 failed, I was forced to rely on a HD4250 for a couple of months before finally biting the bullet and plugging in a spare HD4850, so I have a reasonable understanding of 4200s. The performance is bearable, but only just. Using F1 2010 as the benchmark, the HD4250 achieved 30FPS at low settings and 800x600. The 4850 achieved 80FPS at 1024x768.

I'd honestly recommend spending a small amount to buy a cheap discrete card, or more (Though cost-performance decreases with the more you spend). The cheapest I can see with a quick glance at Newegg is ~$30 for a low-end 5000 series, and even that will give a substantial performance boost over an integrated card.

Switching the rendering mode of League of Legends depends entirely on whether any DX11 features are emulated, in addition to how well the game handles DX10.1. Each emulated feature will slow performance, though I would assume that no such emulation is actually done. I've never installed it, let alone played it, so I can't give you any facts regarding that.




D3matt

I take what n0e says way too seriously

98 XP

20th November 2007

0 Uploads

2,554 Posts

1 Threads

#8 7 years ago

Funny, all the reviews I read said that the H4250 was equal or superior in almost all aspects to Intel HD graphics.




Guest

I didn't make it!

0 XP

 
#9 7 years ago
Sheepeep;5566068 I'd honestly recommend spending a small amount to buy a cheap discrete card, or more (Though cost-performance decreases with the more you spend). The cheapest I can see with a quick glance at Newegg is ~$30 for a low-end 5000 series, and even that will give a substantial performance boost over an integrated card.

I am actually even able to replace the card in a laptop?




Sheepeep VIP Member

weirdal = new ptaq()

31,600 XP

2nd September 2003

0 Uploads

2,948 Posts

0 Threads

#10 7 years ago

sharpii;5566711I am actually even able to replace the card in a laptop?[/QUOTE]

Touché. I don't think you actually mentioned that it was a laptop, or I missed it completely.

Whilst that can be done, it's probably not possible on all laptop models, and it's certainly not something I've ever had to look into. If we're talking about laptops, then you can safely disregard the upgrade suggestion. It was my assumption that you were talking about rebuilding a desktop machine.

That said, the "Mobility" HD 4250 is (naturally) even worse than its desktop counterpart. How you were getting such high FPS to begin with is quite a mystery to me, and probably says as much about the graphical demands of League of Legends as anything else. ;)

It's worth bearing in mind that a game rarely exposes every graphics configuration option through the menu, instead opting for a configuration file. I'm not going to suggest messing with it, as sometimes the settings are left away from prying eyes for a good reason, but if you find the game FPS unbearable then it's something to consider.

Other possible reasons would include a regression in the drivers you're using now, compared to the ones you were using before, which cause lower FPS in one/some/many games. If you rebuilt with a different operating system, then it's possible that the change in DirectX version is causing it to do extra graphical work, as stated before, or it could be as simple as a background process consuming CPU that wasn't being used before.

[quote=D3matt]Funny, all the reviews I read said that the H4250 was equal or superior in almost all aspects to Intel HD graphics.

Intel graphics used to be notoriously bad. The onboard soluton was to be avoided at all costs in favour of anything, even if it meant replacing the motherboard itself. As of Sandy Bridge, though, Intel has gotten its game together. Reviews have shown it to be more or less comparable to low-end discrete GPUs available at its release, such as the Radeon 5450, which is more than a minor step up from the integrated HD4250. Ivy Bridge, due out in a few months time, should increase that further.




  • 1
  • 2