Fps Difference Between Dx11 And Dx9

[Uberplayer]

Why is there such huge FPS difference between these two?

On DX11 I'm getting 63 FPS.  http://oi58.tinypic.com/2e4hvg5.jpg

On DX9 229 FPS. http://oi58.tinypic.com/qzkeq9.jpg

 

I have enabled multithreaded rendering.

On both DX11 and DX9 I can see only one core fully utilized but on DX9, GPU usage is higher also FPS is significantly better.

 

My PC: AMD x6 3.6 GHz, 8 GB ram, AMD R9 290

[[DE]Momaw]

Using Vsync under DX11 mode, but not under DX9?  On my shuttle's bridge I see about 260 FPS on DX9 and 240 FPS on DX11, with Vsync off.  With Vysnc on, both are 58-60.

[Uberplayer]

Using Vsync under DX11 mode, but not under DX9?  On my shuttle's bridge I see about 260 FPS on DX9 and 240 FPS on DX11, with Vsync off.  With Vysnc on, both are 58-60.

 

Vsync is off on both. (I cant stand the added lag with vsync).

All settings are identical. I double checked it even, to be sure.

Something must be hurting FPS on DX11, on my system.

[MillbrookWest]

Vsync is off on both. (I cant stand the added lag with vsync).

All settings are identical. I double checked it even, to be sure.

Something must be hurting FPS on DX11, on my system.

Settings aren't technically "identical".

 

Warframe is a DX9 based game with DX11 features - Think Crysis 2.

 

DX11 has changes to the way the game renders certain aspects. Reflections, and tessellation are two i know warframe uses that incur a bigger performance hit than the DX 9 runtime which would not have them active at all.

 

I could be wrong, but DX11 in Warframe should amount to eye candy more than anything....plus easier render work for the engine and other back-end stuff....i don't know, you'd have to ask a dev :p

 

To continue with the Cyrsis example, DX9 Crysis performed better than DX10 Crysis iirc. The DX version doesn't denote the performance you will get. It denotes the possible features you could get from a game....like runtime tessellation and reflections.

 

That being said, your card shouldn't do that badly. Are your drivers up-to-date? And do you have the any driver overrides in the AMD control centre? AMD usually have very bad drivers for Nvidia supported games.

[xkillo32]

doesn't really matter

60 fps+ doesn't make a difference since our eyes can't see more frames than that

[MillbrookWest]

doesn't really matter

60 fps+ doesn't make a difference since our eyes can't see more frames than that

That is a myth. Human eyes don't see in frames per second, and therefore can't be 'limited'. For anything with fast motion (Football, Athletics, Racing Cars etc.) a higher FPS is preferable in conveying said motion.

 

A monitor can limit your FPS. 230FPS is wasted on a monitor that only refreshes 60 times a second (60Hz), but there is not limit on the way your eye perceives motion.

[Uberplayer]

----

 

That being said, your card shouldn't do that badly. Are your drivers up-to-date? And do you have the any driver overrides in the AMD control centre? AMD usually have very bad drivers for Nvidia supported games.

 

I don't use control center at all, It isn't even running in processes. Drivers are, lets say up to date. For last couple of months amd only releases almost identical beta drivers (I use 14.7 RC1 and latest are 17.7 RC3, but they are almost identical.)

 

I was using DX11 until 14.5 warframe update. After that on DX11 my FPS dips to 30 in some cases and I don't find it acceptable, therefore I play on DX9 which gave me minimum of 150 FPS.

[xkillo32]

That is a myth. Human eyes don't see in frames per second, and therefore can't be 'limited'. For anything with fast motion (Football, Athletics, Racing Cars etc.) a higher FPS is preferable in conveying said motion.

 

A monitor can limit your FPS. 230FPS is wasted on a monitor that only refreshes 60 times a second (60Hz), but there is not limit on the way your eye perceives motion.

im not a smart person so i have no idea what you just said