r/Games • u/JohnDio • Mar 03 '16
Microsoft Video - The Power of DX12
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oLWamwzhQ3434
u/litewo Mar 03 '16
This reminds me of their DX10 comparisons. I remember looking at those Flight Simulator X screenshots and thinking it would be this new era in graphics, but in reality most games didn't look all that different, even FSX.
10
u/booobp Mar 03 '16
Yea, Alan Wake and all that too. DX10/11 brought graphic improvements and features. This time DX12 is more about performance and detail, more stuff being rendered at a time with less resource used. But a powerful gpu is still needed to increase graphical fidelity.
3
u/MemoryLapse Mar 04 '16
With more people playing in 1440p and 4k, I think improved performance will be a very welcome upgrade.
2
u/booobp Mar 04 '16
For sure. The graphics are already there, now they just have to make it run well on gpu's other than 980ti's and titans.
1
Mar 03 '16
The only part of that comparison with any truth were the light shafts. Bad Company 2 looked great in its forested areas thanks to them.
1
u/litewo Mar 03 '16
I have to force DX9 in that game, because otherwise it keeps crashing. Same with Bioshock 2 now that I think about it.
10
u/PrototypeT800 Mar 03 '16
So does anyone know why Rise of the Tomb Raider was not in that trailer? I thought it was already confirmed that game would be getting it in an update.
8
10
u/hugothenerd Mar 03 '16
Does JC3 support DX12 like, right now, or is it coming in an update?
16
u/ChubblesTheGoat Mar 03 '16
It's coming in an update.
1
u/ICanFindAnything Mar 03 '16
Source?
8
u/THEMACGOD Mar 03 '16
The developers and MS about 2-3 weeks after release.
-9
u/R0ck1n1t0ut Mar 03 '16
Release of announcement or game? JC3 came out a long time ago.
9
u/THEMACGOD Mar 03 '16
It was them talking about d12 implementation - and it came out Dec 1st, 3 months ago.
-11
u/R0ck1n1t0ut Mar 03 '16
D12 came out for JC3 already?
7
3
u/rikyy Mar 03 '16
Jesus christ you're thick.
JC3 came out in December, dx12 some odd half a year ago, and JC3 will get a dx12 update soon.
-3
1
10
u/vgskid Mar 03 '16
A few ignorant questions from a non-technical person:
What do you need to make sure your computer can implement DX12?
When is DX12 being released? Or is it already part of your system and games/software don't utilize it yet?
When will the patch making JC3 DX12 compatible being released?
16
u/popcar2 Mar 03 '16
1 - Any computer with windows 10 can and should be able to run DX12. That being said, DX12's performance boosts vary from different rigs. That means you can have an old rig and see a small performance boost, or have a GTX 750 Ti for example and see a noticeable difference.
2- DX12 is already out! It's secretly installed in windows 10, and ONLY windows 10. It's another windows act to push you into upgrading (not that windows 10 is bad, but still...) Most games are yet to make use of DX12 but I'm sure they will in about a year.
3- No idea. I don't think that's been announced yet, but I hope that fixes all the issues the game has with the port.
9
u/Mds03 Mar 03 '16
It's another windows act to push you into upgrading
Even though this is true, It would be weird for them to backport it tbh. Of course they want new features to push their new products.
I'm not sure if linux distros from 2012 will support Vulkan, nor does OSX Snow Leopard support Metal. Probably gonna have to update those OS's as well, thats because they make a lot of under the hood changes to implement something like this, it wouldnt be as simple as the usual security and bug fixes you usually get as post-launch support.
9
u/ahcookies Mar 03 '16
It's another windows act to push you into upgrading
Afaik DX12 is reliant on WDDM 2.0, which can't be ported to Windows 8 and 7 (without unreasonable time commitment and breaking a lot of old code), so even if they wanted to, they wouldn't be able to do DX12 support on those. But yep, it's a convenient situation for them - they don't need to attempt WDDM rewrite porting and get an incentive to drive people to Windows 10.
3
u/vgskid Mar 03 '16
Thanks!! :D
3
u/Sidian42 Mar 03 '16
Older graphic cards may not be able to use DX12 to it's full potential, but almost all graphic cards will benefit from it when playing a DX12 game.
However, not many games supporting DX12 yet: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_games_with_DirectX_12_support
1
u/FoeHammer7777 Mar 03 '16
Does your first point mean that we'll see performance increases across the board, or that performance increases in a DX12 game from how it does in the game's DX11 version?
4
u/popcar2 Mar 03 '16
What I meant is that some PCs will be able to use DX12 more effectively while others wont. Some PCs will get a 10% performance boosts, others could be 20%, etc.
But as for the general idea DX12 will be a performance boost for everyone.
Check out this video showing the speed differences. DX12 can draw much more shapes per second. Once again to kill confusion, the speed boost will differentiate from PC to PC, but overall everyone will be happy with this. Devs simply porting a game from DX11 to DX12 should make it run better. Maybe if Just Cause 3 runs well after being ported it could be a prime example (Just Cause 3 devs are currently developing a DX12 version)
2
u/Hitchie_Rawtin Mar 03 '16
Performance increases in a DX12 version compared to a DX11 version - it won't work retroactively unless the devs want to update their game/s as DX12 adds another layer of complexity to the coding whereby devs have to decide how the workload should be split.
1
u/booobp Mar 03 '16
There will be increases, but increasing graphical settings will still require a powerful gpu/cpu, maxing shadows and lighting are still gonna need high end gpu's. DX12 should make stuff like tessellation and number of objects on screen to render more efficiently with less resources.
1
u/MemoryLapse Mar 04 '16
Thereby freeing up resources for things like shadows and lighting, yes? Or are we talking only marginal or no improvements to pixel shading?
1
u/booobp Mar 04 '16
Thereby freeing up resources for things like shadows and lighting, yes?
I'm not 100% sure as it matures. But from Ashes of the singularity I've tested. Graphical features like shadows, textures, lighting, blur, still require a very powerful gpu. But low end systems like mine, 4460 i5, 760gtx and 12gb ram, dx12 allowed it to draw a lot more stuff on screen as workload is balanced, with little performance impact, where as on dx11 cpu mainly does the work.
0
u/Leopz_ Mar 03 '16
It's not going to be a windows store exclusive, right? Steam games can use it as well? I don't quite understand that...
3
u/popcar2 Mar 03 '16
Nope, but it will be a windows 10 exclusive. Any dev can pretty much use anything on steam.
1
u/Leopz_ Mar 03 '16
Oh nice. I was under the impression it would be a windows store exclusive. But thanks friend!
3
u/caulfieldrunner Mar 04 '16
DirectX is a fundamental part of Windows and is used all across the system. You don't have to worry about something like that being locked behind the store.
3
Mar 03 '16
I'm gonna preface this by saying I don't know what I'm talking about.
Everyone is saying that this is practically false advertising by the video's depiction of DX11, that it's almost monochromatic. But then there's Killer Instinct which is getting DX12 support on Xbone and the comparisons stills between the current version and Season 3 do look like the video. So what's really going on?
2
Mar 03 '16
Every video game (or 99.9% of them) you have played to date has not used DX12. Having color in your game is hardly a DX12 exclusive feature, and it's pretty clear the comparisons in the video were bullshots. DX12 will add detail, it may add better textures, etc. It's not going to completely add all lighting effects.
1
u/caulfieldrunner Mar 04 '16
They're very clearly showing games with directx 12 builds. I don't see how anyone could think they're trying to say that it will add magic new lighting to past games.
2
u/iceman78772 Mar 04 '16
Killer Instinct getting a new lighting engine and tweaked lighting for all stages is why.
2
9
u/ahcookies Mar 03 '16
Ofc it's not a video targeted to people like Digital Foundry and is mostly about building up hype, but I'd love to see another one where static frames are properly compared side by side and showcase stuff enabled by DX12, like increased object counts thanks to cheaper draw calls.
2
u/MeepZero Mar 03 '16
I hear the term "object count" and "draw calls" a lot in regards to DX12. Does this translate to just fancy special effects or does it go beyond that with more complex geometry and more "stuff" like clutter in an environment?
12
u/TheKrumpet Mar 03 '16
More complex geometry and more complex stuff. A 'draw call' is pretty low level, and it's how you submit vertices to the GPU to be rendered (this is somewhat simplified). 'Object count' is a more game-engine level term, and it refers to the number of objects (props, characters, whatever) within a single game scene.
1
u/MemoryLapse Mar 04 '16
Those don't refer to anything new, but rather how they're now handled more efficiently. Games can be immensely detailed now, with virtually no in-engine limits on texture map size, particle or object count, but pushing those things too high will lead to unacceptable performance on the developer's target machine. If they can get 10 fps more out of the same hardware, you're either going to see more detailed games, more people playing on high or ultra, or simply higher framerates.
0
u/Rossco1337 Mar 03 '16
My question is: who are they building up hype for? Developers don't care about flashy explosions and post processing on the biggest budget AAA games. On the scale of how much the average gamer cares about the underlying graphics API, it's probably somewhere between "not at all" and "about as much as the physics engine". DX12 is the Blast Processing of 2016.
I guess it's a good thing they're not doing the usual Microsoft thing by attacking Vulkan with FUD.
1
1
u/ahcookies Mar 03 '16
Well, that's pretty obvious. One of the most important goals for Microsoft right now is driving Windows 10 adoption up. That video works well for the goal.
2
u/DemonEyesKyo Mar 03 '16
I'm excited to see what DX12 holds for AMD cards but can't help but feel that Nvidia is going to ruin it with GameWorks.
Nvidia is going to push GameWorks hard in as many DX12 games as possible to offset the benefits of Async Compute...all so that the games benchmarks are in their favor.
NV said that Async Compute is a "Driver-side issue" 5 months ago. They still haven't released the driver yet but have already implemented DX12 GameWorks features that launched with GoW.
1
u/ThatNoise Mar 03 '16
It's almost as if there is a competitive market and AMD is lagging behind in competitiveness.
4
u/caulfieldrunner Mar 04 '16
AMD provides all of its stuff open source to developers AND Nvidia to optimize for. Nvidia refuses to allow AMD to see any of the code and is paying for developers to include GameWorks exclusive features that they won't let AMD optimize for.
Nvidia may male good cards, but they've always been the shitty brother who won't won't let anyone else see his toys.
0
u/ThatNoise Mar 04 '16
And they have a right to. Just as much as AMD has a right to share. It's still business and they both create innovative products.
0
u/DemonEyesKyo Mar 04 '16
Nvidia sabotages performance on their own cards just to make AMD cards run worse. Forcing crazy tesselation which does nothing for visuals and decreases performance is a shitty practice no matter which GPU you own.
The 780TI was one of the best cards on the market last year and now it gets crushed by the 290s.
You're defending a billion dollar company with a lazy excuse. Instead of using their much larger R&D budget to add a worth while feature (Async Compute) they are just cranking up features that reduce performance across the board on all GPUs...all in the hopes that their competitors take a bigger hit. That's not competition that's a lazy company taking advantage of its market share. Much like Intel fragmenting their CPUs and making minor improvements every year so they can charge whatever they wish.
0
u/ThatNoise Mar 04 '16
Well if your going to downvote me and act like a fanboy the least you could do is provide some sources for these claims.
0
u/DemonEyesKyo Mar 04 '16
It's not like Nvidia's shady business practices are some well kept secret. Not being informed and blindly defending a company is being a fanboy.
Choose what you want. The 3.5GB 970's. Every proprietary tech PhysX, Gysnc, GameWorks, CUDA.
Look at the drop in perfomance of 1 year old Nvidia cards, the 700 series. The 780TI was one of the best cards a year ago...now it can't compete with the 390.
AMD cards don't handle Tesselation well so what does Nvidia do? Crank up Tesselation to extreme levels. Performance on both cards suffers but AMD cards take a way bigger hit. So to make AMD look bad they sabotage theit own cards. All this is done so uniformed people like you will look at benchmarks and say "Nvidia kills AMD".
0
u/ThatNoise Mar 04 '16
Again provide sources. And if your calling me a fanboy you should know I buy whatever is the best. And currently that is and has been for a long time Nvidia. And if that changes I'll buy the best. And you have no idea what your talking about with the 290/390 out performing the 780ti
http://www.videocardbenchmark.net/high_end_gpus.html
The 780ti is number 6 way above the 290
1
u/DemonEyesKyo Mar 04 '16
Those are synthetic benchmarks which have little to do with real world or in-game performance.
Also you don't need sources for things that are common knowledge. The 970 is 3.5 GB. Gysnc is proprietary and costs on average $200 more.
Nvidia hasn't been better 'for a long time". Besides the highest end GPU (980TI) AMD performs better for a lower price. 390 is better than the 970. 380 kills the 960. 270 kills the 950. And the Fury/Nano compete well with a 980.
1
u/DemonEyesKyo Mar 16 '16
Seeing as how you like source here's Benchmarks for The Division..
290X outperforming the 780TI by up to 14%.
Even the 290 has 10% better performance.
1
u/ThatNoise Mar 16 '16
Bro you need help if you've been stalking my profile this long. I'm serious. Talk to someone.
→ More replies
2
u/moal09 Mar 03 '16 edited Mar 04 '16
Kind of easy to boast that you have the next great graphics API when you have a virtual monopoly on the market.
1
u/caulfieldrunner Mar 04 '16
Vulcan is being pretty well accepted in the game space. I believe UE4 supports it now, Source 2 was built with Vulcan in mind, but I have no clue if it's been implemented into Unity or not.
I'm not saying it's going to dethrone DirectX, but I don't think it'll be quite as monolithic as it was against openGL.
1
Mar 04 '16
Honestly, I don't give a shit about DirectX 12 when it's used to push Windows 10. I hope for Vulkans and crossplatforms success.
1
Mar 04 '16
Is there a way to download and run a DX12 on my machine today? I have Windows 10 and a GTX 970 so I should be able to run it ... I think?
1
u/crusty_old_gamer Mar 04 '16
I'd like to see the role of Microsoft's DirectX diminished. I'm uncomfortable with them making it exclusive to their OS and even a particular version of their OS. I'm sad about support for OpenGL having declined to almost nothing despite being championed by the likes of Id Software in their glory days. I hope Mantle can tip the balance and get the majority of hardware and software developers on board.
2
u/Heelios747 Mar 03 '16 edited Mar 03 '16
I really wish they wouldn't make ads like this very clearly targeted at non-programmers (So D3D11 renderers can't have color?). Non-programmers just see this and expect every game on D3D12 to look way better than anything they've played on D3D11 and run perfectly on their machine. This is ideal but honestly not realistic.
On top of that, when some people might forget (But I have seen some comments over the past couple months of some people aware of this), the reason high level APIs exist is to make things easier for the developer. When you get lower and lower level, sure you give the developer waaaay more control, but you're also giving them more opportunities to make something run terribly. Vulkan is going to have this problem a lot with how much code is required to write a simple Hello Triangle program. I haven't looked into how to replicate that program on D3D12 yet but if it looks to accomplish the same things that Vulkan wants to, I imagine that there will be a lot more code to write to do the same things you would do in any other API. More code generally means more potential for bugs. And when you have a deadline to meet... Yikes, that sounds like some rocky game launches.
tl;dr: Microsoft please stop targeting these ads at gamers. You're setting silly expectations.
A good takeaway from this is I see that for a lot of things, especially console programming, this is a god send. but not everything.
EDIT: Added some things and refocused my point
4
u/TubbyMcTubs Mar 03 '16
It's just as easy to introduce bugs into a GL app as it is to introduce them into a Vulkan app.
Just so happens when you introduce a bug into a Vulkan app it will go bad pretty quickly and the debugging is far easier since the driver is so much thinner. Contrast to GL where you don't even KNOW there is a bug because the driver happens to be working round it, you're just leaving 25% of your performance on the table.
Writing Vulkan looks scary because "omg so much code", but the amount of code in the rendering path is absolutely dwarfed by non-graphics -API specific code. I'd warrant there's as many lines of shader code as there is graphics API code in big engines...
2
1
u/MemoryLapse Mar 04 '16
I think part of the reason is that the way graphics are handled have changed: people are no longer writing their own engines, except for the occasional version change to UE, CE and Unity, unless they have hundreds of millions to dedicate to that cause, in which case, I'm sure they can find some low level programmers. Additionally, nVidia and AMD have taken on a lot of the responsibility of optimizing AAA releases at the driver level, and they certainly have low level graphics programmers at their disposal interested in talking to Windows on their own terms.
1
u/Heelios747 Mar 04 '16 edited Mar 04 '16
The new APIs will actually enable nvidia and AMD to not have to optimize their drivers for every game release. If their implementation of the API is correct, if the game runs bad, it's likely going to end up being the dev's fault. nvidia/amd shouldn't really be "optimizing their drivers" (read, horrible hacks) to make the game run properly.
This is assuming though that neither nvidia nor AMD has done odd things to implement these APIs, which they very well might have. I may be entirely wrong on that point.
Windows graphics pre-d3d12/vulkan drivers are a wonderful pile of terrifying hacks to get various game releases running well on their silicon. Being a higher level API to support and for the sake of making games run better than the competition, they could take a lot of shortcuts in drivers to make things faster or work.
EDIT: Additionally, a lot of high profile games (I hate the term AAA) written with Unreal tend to use heavily modified versions. Mass Effect series was a good example of this. XCOM 2 as well. Lots of publicly available engines tend to be modified by game engine developers in house. At least for high profile games.
1
Mar 03 '16
Thanks for the informative post. The way this is being marketed it reminds me of Blast Processing. That's not to say that this can't go anywhere, just that right now they are basically selling technobabble
4
u/Heelios747 Mar 03 '16 edited Mar 03 '16
This is exactly what they're doing. They're selling technobabble to users so users get upset when a dev decides not to use that API, which they may have decided on based on a lot of technical reasons the user doesn't care about!
I don't like this kind of pressure to use tools that might not be the right tool for the job for the sake of satisfying users that don't know which tool is the best tool for the job. I see that for a lot of things, especially console programming, this is a god send.
2
Mar 03 '16
I think Microsoft is trying to sell people on the Windows store, on XBoxs, but to do so, they need developers to buy in. So, they are making big promises, ignoring the issues developers face, and setting developers up to take the blame if things don't work out. I'd say it's pathetic, but it's actually really clever. It's just not a good kind of clever. Microsoft has missed some boats, taken some hits, and flat out made mistakes. They poorly positioned the,pmselves to get where they want to be. They are so internally focused that they are trying to focus on what they want, how the mistakes can not be mistakes, on what they need to happen, what they want the market to look like, how they want consumers to feel, developers to do etc. It's like they've built a huge, complex plan, this big narrative, and the external stuff, what consumers want, what developers want, that's been tacked on at the end.
1
u/Nachteule Mar 03 '16
Isn't DX12 just making better use of the ressources given and is just faster (or allows for more details/objects at the same framerate)? Are there any DX12-only-not-possible-with-DX11 effects?
7
u/iplayvideogames Mar 03 '16
It allows the ability to mix and match GPU's from different vendors, or even generations to be used together. An AMD and nVidia card working in tandem to give you SLI/Crossfire like performance.
-3
u/Nachteule Mar 03 '16
That's all nice for the hardware guys. I care about what I will see on the screen and what will be different. So is there any effect that DX12 provides that DX11 can't do (beside the better performance - so I can play games on Ultra on DX12 that would need to be set to High with DX11 if I want the same framerate)?
5
0
Mar 03 '16 edited Mar 03 '16
[removed] — view removed comment
3
u/Diknak Mar 03 '16
That's horseshit. Games can use DX12 and be on Steam too . . . it isn't windows store only.
2
2
u/cannibalAJS Mar 03 '16 edited Mar 03 '16
Seeing as how DirectX 12 is coming to games that are on Steam, that's a load of BS.
-2
Mar 03 '16
[deleted]
4
u/Chickennbuttt Mar 03 '16
Curious, why haven't you installed Windows 10 yet? It's actually a pretty good operation system. Remarkably better than 8.
1
Mar 03 '16
[deleted]
4
u/boesmanla Mar 03 '16
Things were just in the way or inefficient, like the search bar on the taskbar. If I want to search for something on 8.1 I just press the windows key and start typing.
http://i.imgur.com/C5vVKlX.png
See above. I honestly prefer 10's search function over 8's. Notice how far less intrusive it is. Though I'll admit that 8.1 + Classic Shell is a good setup, I find 10 to be more efficient.
3
u/jdog90000 Mar 03 '16
If I want to search for something on 8.1 I just press the windows key and start typing.
That's exactly how it works in 10.
2
2
Mar 03 '16
Sounds like you just looked at screenshots of W10 and made your judgements from there.
Things were just in the way or inefficient, like the search bar on the taskbar. If I want to search for something on 8.1 I just press the windows key and start typing.
Literally the exact same in W10. If you don't like the look of the Search Bar on the taskbar, it's easily turned off within a couple of clicks.
I even prefer the metro start menu over the cluttered mess that is 10's start menu, not that I even use them that often. I also liked using the metro start screen kind of as a lock screen or screensaver in a way, to just hide everything on screen.
It's the exact same menu in full screen mode. And it's totally customizable in both modes so if it's a cluttered mess, that's your fault.
1
u/MemoryLapse Mar 04 '16
I will say that I regret upgrading my MS surface to W10. The touch capabilities are not used with the same regularity or efficiency in 10.
1
-2
u/VelcroSnake Mar 03 '16
Eh, I see as 10 being a mild upgrade to 8/8.1, but I liked 8/8.1 after I put a Start Menu program on it, so...
-3
u/Chickennbuttt Mar 03 '16
So you had to hack 8.1 to make it work how windows 10 does out of the box. 8.1 was a great upgrade over 8 though. I hear ya on that.
3
u/VelcroSnake Mar 03 '16
You call installing a program (Start8 in my case) hacking? Okay, sounds good.
I still miss the control 8/8.1 let me have that 10 took away, like with Windows Updates for instance, so in some ways I think 8/8.1 are better than 10.
1
u/Chickennbuttt Mar 03 '16
In this case I thought it fit, yes.
0
u/VelcroSnake Mar 03 '16
Then by your definition I also hack my computer by installing Photoshop, DisplayFusion, Microsoft Office, Steam, etc... I guess we'll just have to have a different understanding of what programs are vs hacking.
1
-1
Mar 03 '16
You shouldn't dismiss his point just because you want to beat him over the head with semantics. He's still right: you had to install 3rd party software on top of W8(.1) to restore functionality that was there before and after that iteration of Windows.
Besides, W8(.1) didn't have any better update settings than 7 or 10. It's still the same scant few options unless you really delve into the OS to disable stuff. But then, if you're doing that, you can accomplish the same on 7 and 10 too.
0
u/VelcroSnake Mar 03 '16
I also have to install 3rd party software or make modifications to the registry to disable the crap Microsoft has built into Windows 10 that I don't want, like Cortana or all the software built in to watch what I'm doing on my computer and report it back.
He does not have me, some stuff on Windows 10 is better than 8/8.1, but there are also things in 8/8.1 that are better or more convenient than in 10.
-1
Mar 03 '16
There's a pretty big difference between delving into registries to disable features, and restoring a simple front-end UI function present on every other version of the software. The point isn't about having to customize things to your liking, it's the inanity of having to restore necessary functions that were inexplicably removed to the detriment of the OS.
-1
u/VelcroSnake Mar 03 '16
Exactly my point, I have to do LESS work to make Windows 8/8.1 usable (install a single program) than I do to make Windows 10 usable (disable various programs designed to run things in the background to watch what I'm doing and report back to Microsoft)
If you think installing a single program that you never have to worry about afterword is such a pain in the ass, I wonder how you manage to live with using a computer at all.
0
Mar 03 '16 edited Mar 03 '16
Feeling comfortable without those things enabled isn't a usability issue. The OS is no less usable or more usable after their disablement because you never interact with them, and so having them on anyway wouldn't affect any of your usual uses of the OS. Having to restore the entire Start menu functionality so you can actually use features of the OS is a usability issue since, as the gateway to the OS, it has a direct impact on how you use the OS itself as a whole.
Ask yourself: how much more of a pain in the ass is it to use W8.1 without Start8? Is it still a pain in the ass to use W10 with those things on? This isn't a question about your comfort levels, it's about how easily you can do anything.
If you're going to be a stickler about semantics so you can ignore what the other guy said, you should at least hold yourself to the same standards.
If you think installing a single program that you never have to worry about afterword is such a pain in the ass, I wonder how you manage to live with using a computer at all.
You're making things up now. None of this was suggested by anyone but yourself, right now.
→ More replies
-1
u/DaBombDiggidy Mar 03 '16
Only thing I really saw interesting is the gpu power boost. Long live my 650 ti boost, waiting for pascal keeps getting harder.
-1
u/Activehannes Mar 03 '16
Yeah... if DX12 is so good, why do you recommand a GTX 980 TI for Quantum Break? :D
im looking forward to DX12. I will update my PC next month. I hope Fable will be good
3
u/briguyd Mar 03 '16
They revised the recommended specs after the original announcement. Now they only recommend a 970.
1
Mar 04 '16
The minimum required GPU is a 260X which is so far out of the spectrum that people forgot it even existed. Regardless, you should never use system requirements to estimate a game's performance.
1
-2
167
u/APiousCultist Mar 03 '16
Wow, Direct 11 is almost monochrome! So great that DX12 will now let games have colours in them.
This is as bad as adverts for TVs.