First comparison article I've seen.

DX11 clearly an improvement in appearance and speed for similar appearance versus DX10 and DX10.1 -- in this article.

DX11 DX10 In Game Comparison

This article says DX11 games coming sooner than they expected.

DX11 Adoption Quicker than DX10

So, I guess I want a DX11 GPU if I buy a DX11 game. Probably, it makes no sense for a serious gamer to not get a DX11 GPU -- unless they know they will not be playing new games much (some sim players are like that ).

More hype to get us to blow money on new hardware when the truth is it may be quite a while till dx11 software/games are widespread/available then itll be dx12?

I'm sure DX11 will not be the same "failure" as DX10 was and have some usefull new features also for sim developers (and others) to utilize but it will take some time before we will see it in our favorite sims I guess thus personally I'm in no hurry...

/KC

Hmmm... I read this as "If you're getting a new card, why not consider a DX11 card?" and not as a "OMG?! You still have a DX10/10.1 card? That stuff is old! Get a new card, and don't tell your neighbors you still have that card plugged in, it might ruin your Geek Cred!"

Agree.

I'm happy with my HD4870. I don't think I would see a difference until I start playing DX11 games -- which will not be until I find one I want (that may be a year away, who knows).

However, if I was in the market for a new card, I would get an HD5xxx card for sure.

after the joke that was dx10, i couldn't care less
mfs x running dx10 still looks kinda ugly

All sounds good and I'm sure it'll look and performe good in the year or two it takes most developers to implement these features

My next upgrade / build Project will have Win7 and DX11 for sure..

DX10 was an absolute failure because it was tied to Vista, which is also an absolute failure with a market share of less than 30%.

DX11 has a slightly better chance of success because although it wont be available for XP, it will atleast work on Vista.

XP currently has a market share of 70%, and if Windows 7 could take 50% of that market share (which would be very suprising as XP users are generally satisfied and unwilling to 'upgrade') we'd be looking at a fairly even split (33%/33%/33%) between XP, Vista and 7. What a mess for MS.

It's hard to imagine any games company would be willing to sacrifice 33% of their audience merely for some extra graphical wizzbangs.

What's more likely is that the majority of vista users will upgrade to 7, and XP users won't, therefore leaving DX11 with a marginal market share increase over DX10 but still no where near DX9's.

Cheers

I imagine the highest end games coming out in the next couple years (that started development in the last couple years) will have DX11 features -- as the latest graphics are a selling point for some games. Nonetheless, they will be usable with anything DX9 and up.

On the other hand, I think the "enthusiast" game developers expect "enthusiasts" to have an up to date OS, CPU, and GPU. So, one will need those things to run their games and see the "enthusiast best" features in operation.

The current consoles will NOT be replaced soon due to the poor economy (they were supposed to be replaced about now). They will be replaced around 2012. ATI has already won the graphics contract for the XBox 360 2012 version. I imagine that will be a DX11 equivalent console. Since DX11 requires ATI and Nvidia to provide all the DX11 features in GPUs, those console games should port nicely to PCs (unless MS and Sony try some proprietary BS).

In the mean time, most consumer market (as opposed to "enthusiast market") games will be "current console first" -- they will be DX9 for practical purposes and run fine on the old stuff we have now.

While DX11 games are already with us, the big influx is probably a couple years off. Personally, I am looking forward to Diablo III and BoB:SOW. Hopefully, they will get the DX11 treatment (though BOB is late in development I suppose).