Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

ATI whitepaper on DX11 Good read

Tags:
  • Graphics Cards
  • Whitepaper
  • ATI
  • Graphics
Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
a b U Graphics card
June 27, 2009 12:52:30 AM

More about : ati whitepaper dx11 good read

a b U Graphics card
June 27, 2009 1:27:04 AM

I really hope AMD are throwing some money at a games studio right about now. What they need to have is a dx11 title on release, with those sort of screenshots they couldn't fail.
a b U Graphics card
June 27, 2009 1:43:39 AM

Whatll be interesting is nVidias response. If they say "it wont be utilized in games right away", then we'll know its TWIMTBP's at work, instead of any nVidia gpus, and also, itll be cutting their own throats as to the gpgpu usage/refinements we see in DX11.
Ill say it here. Theres no excuse for any part of the gaming industry to not embrace DX11 save possibly the consoles.
Therell be 2 OS's already to use it, therell be easily ported (reportedly) http://www.slideshare.net/repii/your-game-needs-direct3... DX10 to DX11 games thatll partially benefit from it, somewhat like we saw with AC, and we all know what happened there.

So, if the rhetoric starts about "how long before itll really benefit" starts, then people need to read up
Related resources
a b U Graphics card
June 27, 2009 1:59:56 AM

Same can be said for physics as well, I forgot to mention that. Tesselation will be the thing that comes later, everything else will/should be available on most DX10/DX10.1 current cards, and of course all of it on a DX11 card
June 27, 2009 7:04:12 AM

But tessellation is something I REALLY want to see.
June 27, 2009 7:32:07 AM

I would suggest not clicking on the "leaked" screenshots. It brought me to a different sight and said I had spyware then appeared to run a false virus scan. Not going to click that again. I'm scanning my HDs with a REAL virus scanner and I'll see what happens.

On topic.

ATI looks to have a winner here. If they can get their product out before Nvidia does then they have a distinct advantage. And I'm not talking about the Assassin's Creed (dis)advantage after Nvidia got its way. My next card will be an ATI and this looks like a winner. Now we just need to see a wide adoption of DX11 and hope that console ports don't ruin everything.
June 27, 2009 9:38:49 AM

if AC2 ran on DX11, then nvidia would be in the ***.
a c 197 U Graphics card
June 27, 2009 10:38:17 AM

@ One-shot: Off topic, but I've come across that several times this week, as long as you kill it by stopping the application in Task Manager you'll be fine.

On topic...Blast another improvement to my gaming experience;)
Hopefully by the time I rebuild next year they'll have stable drivers and the bugs out of Win 7. I'm finally starting to take notice of all the DX11 hype!
Jaydee, is n't tesselation already built into the HD4XXX cards?
a c 176 U Graphics card
June 27, 2009 11:47:20 AM

"AMD" first put a Tess in the Xenos GPU. (Xbox 360 GPU) They have included one in every card since the 2xxx series. I don't remember who, but someone told me they'll have to tweak their Tess engine for it to be DX11 compliant. I say who cares, at least they don't need to build one. (and find out where in the chip it will be.) Considering how large Nvidia's GPUs are now, and how much they have to add, their next GPUs will be HUGE.
a b U Graphics card
June 27, 2009 12:17:47 PM

The tesselation engine currently in ATI cards are lame ducks. They dont work the same way DX11 will, as the shader method is used on a new type of shader. It could be used, and has been for a few older games, but it has to be specifically devved to it.
Its much like nVidia Physx, propriatary, but like 4745454b said, the jump to DX11 wont be as painful in die size for ATI, and also since theres background of having it, ATI should glean some expertise there as well.

Yes, unfortunately, the biggest eye candy from DX11 will be the tesselation abilities, but dont discount all the other improvements that we'll see, as itll just advance everything else DX10 downwords for eyecandy, as itll make all that easier to code for, and allot of it easier to process, on both gpu and cpu. Or, I dont hear allot of people complaining about Crysis type visuals, whichll be much more easily obtainable
a c 197 U Graphics card
June 27, 2009 12:32:56 PM

Thanks for the heads up, guys.
Although I knew about the X-box 360 using it, I did not realise, or most likely forgot, ATI put tesselation into their cards so early.
June 27, 2009 2:28:16 PM

I am not going to hold my breath on DX 11 as being the next greatest thing. DX 10 was supposed to revolutionize gaming, but as far as I can tell it hasn't. I will be slightly optimistic, but not overly excited about DX 11
a b U Graphics card
June 27, 2009 2:42:51 PM

This is what I wonder about all the supposed claims of DX10. Where are they? and, much more importantly, what were they? Most people cant explain either. For the most part, a good portion of DX10 isnt being used today, because DX10.1 carries alot of the perf improvements, which was alot of DX10 to begin with, and nVidia doesnt do DX10.1.
Having said that, what it has done is to simply pave the way for DX11. Remember, this is like going from DX8 to DX9, unlike where DX10, we saw a whole new set of rules that completely changed the direction of gpu HW, where, in ATI's case, its been implemented on 3 gens of HW, and only 2 on nVidia, with nVidia still not in DX10.1 compliant.

I think people err when they think of DX10 and its capabilities, when most of those capabilities is only used by 1 manufacturer. With Intel coming in the mix of things, nVidia had better straighten up its act, or itll be so propriatary, theyll propriatize themselves out of the market.

Whats that mean for us? nVidia should be compelled now more than ever to be in full compliance with todays standards, and thus, we will then see it also in our games as well

Heres a nice example of DX10 being used properly in a game
http://translate.google.com/translate?prev=hp&hl=de&js=...

And itll be better in DX11 with W7 also
a c 176 U Graphics card
June 27, 2009 4:53:36 PM

One of the claims I heard people make before the benchies came out was DX10 was going to run code faster. I kept asking people how/why? Just because its a newer version of DX doesn't mean its going to change the world. A great example of this is the FX series from Nvidia. They could run DX8 code just fine, but choked horribly as soon as you asked it to do DX9. Its more intensive, it will require more power to run.

I think the biggest problem with DX10 is/was the massive shift. DX9 was similar to DX8. DX10 was a whole new thing, new OS, and new drivers. Its going to take time for everyone to catch up. We are now reaching the point where drivers have matured enough to not cause a performance hit running DX10 code. DX11 will continue with this.
a b U Graphics card
June 29, 2009 7:41:33 AM

4745454b said:
One of the claims I heard people make before the benchies came out was DX10 was going to run code faster. I kept asking people how/why?


It does, but then people add effects, they don't just do the same thing and give everyone 20 object at a 90% speed boost, they decide to render 100 objects at the same speed (or slower on some cards). The technology promissed speed increases like those we also saw in AC and ANNO but the devs tended to instead think it would be cool to render each Frickin pebble instead of doing a pebble strewn ground texture, which is not impressive except to another dev, and neither improve IQ much, nor improves performance. Also with the half-implementation alot was left on the cutting room floor especilally since the G80's geometry performance was terrible, and thus the geometry shader instancing was rarely imlemented for more than simply basic effects.

Quote:
Just because its a newer version of DX doesn't mean its going to change the world. A great example of this is the FX series from Nvidia. They could run DX8 code just fine, but choked horribly as soon as you asked it to do DX9. Its more intensive, it will require more power to run.


That's a terrible example, the FX series was designed primarily as a DX8.1 card, not a DX9 card, and it ran DX8 & DX9 FP24&32 very slowly. It was an inefficient design that asked coders to go away from the standard and to code a wide path 2x2 instead of longer as asked for in DX9. They changed outside of spec, not inside of it, and it wasn't DX9's fault for the slow-down it was the FX's design's fault, which made sense if they were the only game in town or to market first and able to dictate development.

Quote:
I think the biggest problem with DX10 is/was the massive shift. DX9 was similar to DX8. DX10 was a whole new thing, new OS, and new drivers. Its going to take time for everyone to catch up. We are now reaching the point where drivers have matured enough to not cause a performance hit running DX10 code. DX11 will continue with this.


Except in this case the hard part is done, the shift to Vista / 7 is well under way with it on most new PCs; and the DX10+ hardware is already out there, When the DX11 hardware hits, there's no waiting for SP1 like last time, WDDM drivers are mature, and really the focus of the IHVs more than legacy, there's also less of a split this time too, going from 10->11.

It'll be a while before games fully utilize the resources they have, but that's been the same for every DX and OGL launch, rarely using 1/3 of the available new features for at least a year or more.

The main thing is what's worth the time and effort, both to devs and players. The DX10 stuff in Company of Heroes got alot of hype, but it was a pretty crap example / implementation of the benefits of DX10, simply increasing the load and then doing that a little faster resulting in an overall performance drop with little difference in IQ.
With DX11 it could be ground-breakingly good (a step beyond AC, etc) or simply replacing code and making it 10% more efficient or just more 'busy' resulting in a 'who cares ?!?' result again.

Tesselation and Compute Shaders offer the most IMO, but they also don't offer as wide an install base if fully implemented; like you can still do Tesselation ala HD2K-4K with the DX11 hardware, just by omitting the Hull and Domain shader requirements, but you don't get the full speed potential or same level of geometry amplification, also you can run computer shaders with a few less requirements (like single precission so that the HD2K and GF8&9 series can participate [HD3&4K and GTX can do DP], or Fetch4/Gather4 which is already implemented on all ATi HD cards, etc). So do you implement full blown Tesselation in the first year or 70% of it? Compute shaders compatible with the ATi HD cards and nV GTXs or limit it to SM5.0 compute shaders? Finding that balance will be important, because both are easy, just decisions that need to be made, and might affect the wow factor. It's still useful, but maybe not as impressive. But the ease of implementation at least makes it more feasible to get it up and running than before.

The main thing isn't just that it's using all DX11 has to offer right away, it's getting it out there ASAP so that the clock to usability starts now instead of later, and until it becomes anywhere near a killer-must-have-app, in the meantime, just like before, they're going to be some of the fastest DX10 & DX9 pieces of hardware out there, which always makes waiting easier, instead of having to chose to give up performance to get features.
Even as bad as the FX and HD2900 series were for their respective generations, they were still faster than their predecessors at the the previous DX generation games in the vast majority of situations with rare exception.
a b U Graphics card
June 29, 2009 11:37:15 AM

Having said all that TGGA, whats your thoughts, or bets, as to what the devs actually do? I mean, sure the new cards will be killer as you said, but to me at least, it seems were already somewhat saturated with power/perf/ability , esp at the highend, regarding almost any current game today. Does, or wont that help compel the devs to actually eye candy it up, and not dress for each other? IOW, like all those worthless pebbles, but something more worthy at the user end?
a b U Graphics card
June 29, 2009 12:35:15 PM

Look at it this way: Much like every other new hardware, there will be time it takes to be supported. For one, anything already in development won't be using DX11. And the few exceptions will only use a few features (A la DX10 Crysis) instead of the whole package.

Secondly, devs code to the midrange; the idea being that medium settings (1280x1024, medium settings for everything, 0x AA) will run on most mid-range, and even low-range setups. Usuaully, beyond those settings is where the performance loss is seen. In short: Even if the cards double performance, that does not equate to double the goddies in game; there will be lag time before games are coded assuming that level of power.

You also have the XP factor; XP, Vista, and 7 can run DX9, but only Vista (assumed) and 7 can run DX10+. Which platform leads to more in sales? I'll say it again: Until XP falls below 20% market share, DX9 will be the industry standard, and everything else will just be icing on the cake.
a b U Graphics card
June 29, 2009 2:35:51 PM

Any current DX10 game can be easily ported to DX11. If certains devs/companies want to just lie back and enjoy their DX9ness, they may be soon looking for more work, as DX11 will provide all that DX10 was supposed to, and much much more. Eyecandy,MT, better use of cpu/gpu blend in a game, with it all being easier to do, thus product out the door faster, with more visual effects, and higher fps at same demands. To me, its a no brainer, but Id like more opinions

Guess what? Under DX11, the midrange just got lots better. Go from that perspective first
a b U Graphics card
June 29, 2009 6:07:25 PM

JAYDEEJOHN said:
Any current DX10 game can be easily ported to DX11. If certains devs/companies want to just lie back and enjoy their DX9ness, they may be soon looking for more work, as DX11 will provide all that DX10 was supposed to, and much much more. Eyecandy,MT, better use of cpu/gpu blend in a game, with it all being easier to do, thus product out the door faster, with more visual effects, and higher fps at same demands. To me, its a no brainer, but Id like more opinions

Guess what? Under DX11, the midrange just got lots better. Go from that perspective first


Again, making some assumptions. One, you ignore any performance loss of using the advanced shader effects and tesselation. Secondly, the fact that lots of people still use XP (DX9), where these features mean nothing.

And again, I argue the whole CPU thing is way overblown, as the CPU is not structured in such a way as to be a profecient Renderer, and thats before you take into account everything else the CPU does in the background.
a b U Graphics card
June 29, 2009 6:23:48 PM

No more assumptions than you. For every positive I just said, you have a negative. Im not ignoring anything. Currently, porting a game over will more than likely just mean MORE fps, as we already see in DX10.1 vs DX10.
As I said, if you just want to "sit it out" as a dev, with LRB waiting in the wings, and ATI ready, 2 operating systems, more and more people on DX10 capable each day, hell, even IGPs are DX10 capable, I dont really see where you think DX9 will be holding it back, and as for tesselation, and higher advanced shading, and its costs, I havnt seen ATI's, nVidias or Intels HW, so neither of us know how capable the HW is, let alone all the benefits and costs in the SW, be it DX11 or the game itself.
And, again, as i said, porting the current games over are easy, and most new games are DX10 or better, and there wont be any DX9's that I know of, that are worth note. And, since porting wont take advantage of resselation, and a few other things, it will DX10.1 improvements, as well as others, and with DX 10.1 alone, were seeing over 20% already, now, just add that to the other things being brought by DX11, whether thru porting, or full on
a b U Graphics card
June 29, 2009 8:26:48 PM

^^ Irrelevent. XP has share, meaning its more profitable to code to XP. As long as XP has market share, DX9 will be the standard, and anything else will be just added on. Halo2 aside (M$'s attempt to drive Vista sales), there is no game Vista only (DX10+ only), and thats becaue no developer will knowingly eliminate upwards of 40% of the market for a feature.

As for the 10.1 argument, that main difference is how AA is calculated, so when people crank up the AA levels, you get a bigger speed increase. Theres nothing in the DX11 feature set that does anything simmilar, and I continue to have serious questions about the power needed to perform tesselation. I want to know where you got 20% gains from though...

Developers code to the lowest commonly supported standard. Previously, theres been substantal phase out time for the old OS to lose share. 95 supported DX 8.0a, 98 supported up to 9.0c. See the phase out time that existed? That doesn't exist with Vista, and the split API does nothing but add costs to an industry that does nothing but complain about profits.
a b U Graphics card
June 29, 2009 10:04:24 PM

I'm going to ignore Gamer's comments, because they are of the same misguided view he had in previous threads.
Which has nothing to do with the actual discussion, if he actually stuck to the questions at hand and not made up his own, and also didn't make up stories about implementation under Vista which has been proven wrong many times.

JAYDEEJOHN said:
Having said all that TGGA, whats your thoughts, or bets, as to what the devs actually do? I mean, sure the new cards will be killer as you said, but to me at least, it seems were already somewhat saturated with power/perf/ability , esp at the highend, regarding almost any current game today. Does, or wont that help compel the devs to actually eye candy it up, and not dress for each other? IOW, like all those worthless pebbles, but something more worthy at the user end?


The implementation will definitely come in stages, because it won't just be a question of optimizing similar code (which offers some benefit but not the largest changes) but also a question of re-thinknig how you do things.
Implementing Tesselation involves re-thinking how you're going to make the object, not just saying take this and make is bumpier, same thing with implementing compute shaders.

Now things like memory optimizations like Fetch/Gather4, changes in read/write access & thread handeling will be benefits that can offer nearer term gain, but it will be small increases like 10% boost, and something less likely to show major 'look at me' benefits.

Compute shaders can give them more flexibility, but not in the way we would like, and would make more sense to be used to replace other models (like physics, mapping, AI) which are already separate processes that run in separate threads making them easy to assign to a GPU.

The implementation while fairly easy for some features, isn't the only step, for maximum benefit you have to rethink how you build the game, and replace heavy workloads with lighter ones be they render or compute.
Now adding some features onto existing models is also another method, but then once again you're still going to want to start from a lighter base otherwise you're adding a very gigantic workload which may be done 'efficiently' but would chug, and this would be similar to the tack-on job for early DX10.

That's where you have some developers (especially the smaller ones) taking their split, some who don't push the envelop on visuals have little to gain from implementing the newer features, and will code for the older generation; however others will abandon the older hardware and code for their more blistering edge crowd because that's where their benefit lies. So you will see both, the people supporting the older hardware and extending their market that way, and those supporting the new features and hardware extending their market in that direction. The large development houses will be able to easily straddle the line and not have to make that decision if they don't want to. But it's not like anyone is forced to do either by anything but their own desire to pick and choose their market segments, just like online game devs aren't going to stop making games simply because a new browser comes out. They may or may not change their features depending on if they see any benefit in it for them and their players.

Initially (fall/winter 09/10 releases IMO) you'll see DX11 implemented more as a test of features than as a fundemental part of the game which will come with later launches (Summer-Fall 2010 more likely).

The toughest part will be to explain near-term what's DX10 / 10.1 and DX11, with likely the biggest difference being between DX10 and 10.1 than between 10.1 and 11 initially, with likely alot of time shared between DX10.1 & 11 and DX10 being the base feature set for the group which looks to play to the GF8/9GTX/HD2900 crowd, and then DX10.1+ playing to the more capable hardware. Later you'll see the gulf switch to things like major differences in tesselation, etc. Somewhat similar to DX8.1 and DX9.0C's slow implementation where some early apps like Morrowind (reflective surfaces) and FartCry (heat and water lighting effects [instancing was supported on both hardware which were beyond VS2.0 spec]) showed some basic potential, but the big noticeable split between new and old didn't occur until later games with smoke and then lighting effects.

The most improtant thing will be for both the IHVs and M$ to edjucate the public and developers, and to do more than they did last time to push forward and not waste resources second guessing and treading-water. There's no benefit to either M$ or the IHVs to do that, and no benefit to the hardcore gamers that move the industry forward either.
a b U Graphics card
June 29, 2009 10:05:37 PM

I think battleforge supports dx 9
a b U Graphics card
June 29, 2009 10:23:28 PM

Quote:

I ain't sure if they are dx10 only or just support it but pretty sure one of them at least is dx10 only.


StormRise is both VISTA and DX10+ only, and that they are not triple A titles, means that it doesn't take the funds of a triple-A house to implement either (Creative Assembly is midsized with the Ttal War series being their biggest title), and speaks against the 'everyone codes to the largest possible market' baffonery of Gk (yeah every game supports software rendering and DOS/Win 3.0-up).

Also Source does support some DX10 features (some lighting features), but far from all which is just not doable with their current models (remembr not only did they decide against DX10 they decided against many SM3.0 features too. There's supposed to be an update to the engine coming, but it's unlikely it will arrive before next Summer.

However Valve has never been at the leading edge of DX10+ , they've been anti-DX10 since the Vista split; which is different than people like Epic and Crytek who prefered the split to draw a line in the sand. There will always be that split between bleeding edge and legacy; which is similar to the console/PC split, which has just as many challenges and hurdles.
a c 176 U Graphics card
June 30, 2009 12:49:10 AM

While I freely admit to not playing any DX10 games, I do believe Valve is onto something. I've played lost coast, and LOVE TF2. LC looks great, one of the best levels I've played on any game. (to short to call it a game.) Seeing as (currently) DX9 can look great, is there any reason to switch to DX10 only? DX9 install base is huge, while DX10 is much smaller. I can fully understand staying with DX9 for another year or two while waiting for DX10+ to catch up.

That said I'm sure DX10 looks great as well.
a b U Graphics card
June 30, 2009 3:47:23 AM

Thanks for that.
1 more question. Dont you think that with Intel in the mix, this will stop the "who needs DX10.1?" crap? Not just that, but anything else in the future, as Im sure Intel wants to be as feature rich as possible, and all these predictions of "because this manu doesnt, so itll never happen" will end, and maybe actually speed a few current available changes, and most future changes to market sooner?
a b U Graphics card
June 30, 2009 7:38:28 AM

4745454b said:
While I freely admit to not playing any DX10 games, I do believe Valve is onto something. I've played lost coast, and LOVE TF2. LC looks great, one of the best levels I've played on any game. (to short to call it a game.) Seeing as (currently) DX9 can look great, is there any reason to switch to DX10 only? DX9 install base is huge, while DX10 is much smaller. I can fully understand staying with DX9 for another year or two while waiting for DX10+ to catch up.


Interesting that Valve didn't feel that way about their DX9 implementation for HL2 when there was few DX9 cards out there and the nVidia ones had great difficulty playing their titles which were coded to run on a smaller install base than DX10 has. It's less of a realistic decision to not support DX10 than a default position they have no choice about sine their old engine can't be adapted to fully support DX10.

Epic was due for a new engine in UE3 for UT3 having their large gap since UT2K3/4, Crytek their new engine since FartCry, Valve on the other hand had no new engine coming since their HL2 effort, so what else would they say?

Remember that there is more of a span within DX9 because you have SM2.0, 2.0a, 2.0b and SM3.0 therein. And technically you could make DX8.1 look very similar to DX9+, it just takes more passes and doesn't quite achieve the same effect, but comes close enough as you can see in Valve's HDR implementation that allows for integer blends to achieve a similar effect. Heck and while you're at it, you could replicate any DX11 effect on CPU alone, but is that where you want ot focus your workload and attention? Does it provide enough performance to achieve those similar effects?

The decision to fallback is easier for games that benefit more from long term wider install bases (games with a major online component), but it's not guaranteed for all games, just like SM2.0 support didn't come for some titles during the X800 generation, while SM2.0 and lower was still the overwhelmingly vast majority of GPUs (NV20, R200, R300, 400, FX series).

As already shown DX11 isn't a barrier, and no one is talking about DX11 only, it's quite easy to implement DX10 & 11 under the same development platform, however the XP v Vista split is actually quite large, and it no longer becomes a question of DX10 support which is a given for any triple A title from here on out, but a question of do you bother supporting XP with just DX9, when you can support DX9, 10, 10.1 & DX11 all under Vista within the same development platform.
a b U Graphics card
June 30, 2009 7:48:44 AM

JAYDEEJOHN said:

1 more question. Dont you think that with Intel in the mix, this will stop the "who needs DX10.1?" crap? Not just that, but anything else in the future, as Im sure Intel wants to be as feature rich as possible, and all these predictions of "because this manu doesnt, so itll never happen" will end, and maybe actually speed a few current available changes, and most future changes to market sooner?


I think you'll simply replace one feature support issue with another as we move towards ray-tracing and how it should be implemented.

You would hope for a single standard that everyone follows, but that hasn't been the history of this segment anymore than the competing MMX, 3DNow standards that tried to give the CPU guys edges over each other.

The DX10.1 debate is over, and the DX11 one appears to be one of some agreement, but I suspect that too will be short-lived.

An I wouldn't count on intel until we actually see their hardware in the wild & working without concessions like we saw for the Extremes.

This could be the calm before a whole new storm surrounding the hardware that comes after this next round.

One thing's for sure, it'll be fun to watch. :sol: 
a b U Graphics card
June 30, 2009 12:07:14 PM

TheGreatGrapeApe said:
StormRise is both VISTA and DX10+ only, and that they are not triple A titles, means that it doesn't take the funds of a triple-A house to implement either (Creative Assembly is midsized with the Ttal War series being their biggest title), and speaks against the 'everyone codes to the largest possible market' baffonery of Gk (yeah every game supports software rendering and DOS/Win 3.0-up).

Also Source does support some DX10 features (some lighting features), but far from all which is just not doable with their current models (remembr not only did they decide against DX10 they decided against many SM3.0 features too. There's supposed to be an update to the engine coming, but it's unlikely it will arrive before next Summer.

However Valve has never been at the leading edge of DX10+ , they've been anti-DX10 since the Vista split; which is different than people like Epic and Crytek who prefered the split to draw a line in the sand. There will always be that split between bleeding edge and legacy; which is similar to the console/PC split, which has just as many challenges and hurdles.


Right, about Stormrise:

Quote:

Development of the second patch was cancelled on April 28th, 2009 [11] one month after release. The Creative Assembly indicated that the cancellation was due to the financial costs involved, stating The second patch that has been worked on by The Creative Assembly Australia will not make it into the hands of the Stormrise players, due to costs and risks associated with testing and certifying the new changes and features.

The critical response and low sales have been cited [12] as being factors in the financial decision.

Following the cancellation of the patch, Ken Turner, the Creative Director behind Stormrise was released from the studio.


In short: The game didn't sell. While its impossible to tell weather it was the game or the fact 40% of the market couldn't play it, it does go to show that releasing to a depressed market does carry significant financial risks.

As for my previous point on the lowest common demoninator, I've always put that number at 20% or so; I doubt 20% of the population still runs DOS/3.1, so its considered not economically viable to build toward that market. However, upwards of 40% still run XP (and thats not even considering hardware support for DX10), so to ignore that market is financial suicide. These studios are still run by CEO's, and being able to convince them to ignore 40%+ of their market for the few hardcore gamers out there would be a really hard sell to make.

To me, its all about money. Everything is built around DX9 and XP, with DX10+ and Vista features added on after the fact. And again, this is different from past upgrades of the DX API, as this is the first time that major parts of the API are not supported by a current OS. (95 supported up to 8.0a, giving developers years to push the bleeding edge without worring about OS support).

My stance has always been that the split in the API along OS lines would result in games being DX9.0c with added DX10 features. With two exceptions (Halo2, made my M$ to push Vista, and Stormrise, which lost tons of money), I've been proven right. I see no reason why this split will go away with the release of DX11, as the holdup is the lack of support by XP, not the API. Now, if M$ would surprise us and take the time to port DX10+ over to XP (It can be done, if M$ is willing to pour some money into it (like that will ever happen...)), then this issue goes away, and the previous OS barrier vanishes.

Other then that, I agree to most everything TGGA has posted his last few posts.
a b U Graphics card
June 30, 2009 12:45:04 PM

The problem is, as we pass further and further in time, that line in the sand draws nearer and nearer.
The performance issues weve seen with decent drivers on Vista is pretty much over, and Id point out, this has always been the case with the few major OS changes thats occurred.
Enter in a 2nd gen, refined DX10+ capable OS, the coming death of XP, and time is short. Tommorrow itll be even shorter. At some point, you have to make a decision, and that point is close, by all accounts. If your project is just beginning, or early on, it makes no sense to not be in compliance with DX10+hand, if youre closer to wrapup, I agree with you. And, as Ape pointed out, the smaller game devs may still go after that low hanging fruit, regardless.
Itd be a crime if LRB comes in fully compliant ahead of nVidia, as they too are dragging their feet towards the inevitable, but it could happen, as weve all seen the rumors of the G300, and its slow to market problems in print.
Point is, with nVidia already releasing mobile DX10.1, ATI being there for 2+ gens, 2 OS ready and finally running decent, with W7 actually being looked forwards to, unlike the woefully driver deficient Vista, more people having bought DX10 gpus, and having the market so easily adopted due to pricing, everything points to a much easier flow towards DX10+. What was said 6 months ago may have been more true about early adoption to DX11, no longer holds, as all these things have taken place in that time, and the next 6 months shall only mean, its here, ready, and bigger than ever
June 30, 2009 12:47:15 PM

Halo 2 was a DX9 game that required DX10 to play. It was not really a true DX10 title. Sorta like Cryostatsis, disabled to only play on DX10 hardware. I am sure it could be played on DX9 hardware.
a b U Graphics card
June 30, 2009 5:15:04 PM

Jaydee, you make the assumption that casual gamers and general computer users will flock off XP and buy a $199 OS that has no real new features that they need. General consumers are idiots, but those are the same people who drive sales. I don't see that happening, as it generally takes two years (usually around the time of SP2) to phase out an old OS. Maybe in 2011-2012 we'll see the DX10+ code path take dominance, but DX9 will be around and be the standard for quite some time.
a b U Graphics card
June 30, 2009 6:34:04 PM

Theres new gamers born everyday. They finally get old enough for their own PC, or, someone decides to buy one for the first time. Happens all the time. Every secong almost, dont know the exact numbers.
And, guess what? All those new PCs wont have XP on them.
Just look at time intervals. How long was it before DX9 came in, and it was the standard?
All Im saying is, were within a 6 month time frame of that same scenario, between intro and standard, or the beginnings of it, as seen in numbers only. Its been 2 years now, time for a full gen of games to be devved on DX9. It makes sense, DX9 had alot to bring, and to this day, even more to give, but the timing and the market are almost ripe, and its getting closer each day. In 6 months, I promise you, the idea of DX9 wont be very compelling
a b U Graphics card
June 30, 2009 6:47:00 PM

+1 with the pc's not having XP when bought. Also while general consumers are idiots (deal with them a lot), they like shinny, glowing, and in general, cool looking things. Overall, Vista and Win7 simply look better, that attracts customers as well. And one other thing, pretty much all gaming pc's ship with vista now. Not every intense pc gamer builds his own pc so XP is just not an option there either. Vista + Win7 are slowly taking over an people need to get over the fact that XP is no longer as good as it used to be. My theory with Vista not being very popular was because everyone complaining about problems without having proof. I heard it all the time how bad Vista was but whenever i asked why, no one had an answer. This same thing will work reversed for Windows 7. A positive atmosphere is forming around Windows 7 which will increase its market share. Bye-bye DX9 (Finally!)
a b U Graphics card
June 30, 2009 6:52:20 PM

Heres where we need to come to an understanding of the uptake of DX11 vs DX10, as was described by TGGA, itll have trade offs,improvements, and some basic whole redesigns for full compliance.
Its my understanding that porting for alot of current DX10 games to DX11 (lite) if you will, is fairly easy, and the improvements can be seen on todays cards in those games. Thats the uptake Im talking about, and to say that we wont have DX10 type games til 2012 is just too much of a stretch.
I understand its (DX11) full implementation wont be direct, hell whod chance that on a first gen tesselator? in HW? Thats why I asked how the devs would react, not if wed see it. If porting over to DX11 can be seen as easy and economical, as its used in games, regardless of how much is used, its good to put it on the box, and that alone will help drive sales, because as you said, the average Joe just doesnt know that theres alot more to DX11 to come, DX10 for that matter, and moar is bettah, as they say. After all, DX11 is simply a superset of DX10
a b U Graphics card
June 30, 2009 7:55:16 PM

As enthusiasts, what really bothers me, and I dont understand is, why some of us have such a hard time letting go, for better things? Even brands, or sometimes, especially brands. At some point, your favorite is on top, and another it isnt. Im thankful for all that, and look forwards to it, and hold much skepticism towards those who cling to the old, and find it hard to accept the new. And average Joe? He wouldnt know anyways, and doesnt determine his choices like we do. If theres enough buzz, or if he just thinks its time, he'll get the newest, shiniest part he can afford. There was nothing truly compelling about xp when it first arrived, and had alot of compatibility problems, driver problems and security problems as well, but still, it was time for something new, and people bought it. Well, its time again
a c 176 U Graphics card
June 30, 2009 9:35:56 PM

Quote:
what really bothers me, and I dont understand is, why some of us have such a hard time letting go, for better things?


XP is old and familiar, while Vista is new and just seems to p!$$ me off. My neighbor bought a new machine and it naturally had vista on it. I for one like the prompts, as it stops him from doing stupid things. (or at least call me on the phone to make sure its ok.) I wouldn't want to be prompted that many times, but I hear you can turn that off.

What I do want is for everything to look the same. I go to work on his machine, and I can't find anything. Nothing is where its supposed to be. I can't even find folders that I know are there. (what do you mean you can't browse to the application data folder???) Sure, if I use it long enough I'll figure out where everything is, but couldn't they have given us the ability to make it a bit more like XPs interface? The one we at least know?
a b U Graphics card
June 30, 2009 10:55:18 PM

4745454b said:
Quote:
what really bothers me, and I dont understand is, why some of us have such a hard time letting go, for better things?


XP is old and familiar, while Vista is new and just seems to p!$$ me off. My neighbor bought a new machine and it naturally had vista on it. I for one like the prompts, as it stops him from doing stupid things. (or at least call me on the phone to make sure its ok.) I wouldn't want to be prompted that many times, but I hear you can turn that off.

What I do want is for everything to look the same. I go to work on his machine, and I can't find anything. Nothing is where its supposed to be. I can't even find folders that I know are there. (what do you mean you can't browse to the application data folder???) Sure, if I use it long enough I'll figure out where everything is, but couldn't they have given us the ability to make it a bit more like XPs interface? The one we at least know?

yeah i dont that problem with Vista/Xp/200/98/95/3.1 you name it, but i just cant get used to the Win7 interface. But i'm sure if you tried you'd be fine with Vista, just give it a chance
a b U Graphics card
June 30, 2009 11:20:00 PM

Quote:
See, I think that with the positive press win 7 is receiving it will lead to fast adoption, most of what was said about vista negatively was from people who had not used it or who were the source of their own problems.

I am on it right now and despite a lack of official support right now of a few apps due to it not being released it is alright, nothing that different from vista but significantly different for people coming from xp to go ooh!!!.

exactly. people just wanted to assume Vista was bad w/out trying it
a b U Graphics card
July 1, 2009 1:39:05 AM

It's about to be Canada Day here [:thegreatgrapeape] , and I'm leaving for the mountains in my patriotically coloured Mol-Stang (Mustang full of Molson Canadian [:thegreatgrapeape:3] ), so I'll be brief.

Stormrise did fall short of sales, but so did Mirror's Edge and a bunch of other titles, however it's about making the effort to implement not about the results. Look at FartCry for the reverse where pushing the envelope created the franchise.

Like I said before the people who are hardcore gamers already have Vista or would easily buy it if the game they wanted required it, they also are those that pay fulll price in the first month of launch, those hemming and hawing over Vista still, are those that will search out the bargain bin $9.99 titles that no longer make much if any money for the dev (they essentially on pay the retailer's cost).

CS may be the most widely used game out there (outside of minesweeper and solitaire), but it neither drives development nor represents it.

There will still be those who make games that play on older platforms, but they will not be the exclusive anymore than DX10 or DX11 games will be and that's the main point. There will be DX11 titles sooner rather than later, and much quicker than DX10 took, but that's not to say all games will go that route, however many will, and especially those who really don't need older systems and require a goof solid 64bit platform to perform (XP 64 sucks worse than Vista ever did IMO), and that's why I expect to see some developers abandon XP as too much effort. They will be the minority at first for sure, but as time goes on that split will increase, just like it did for Win 95 & win 98SE, where eventually only the larger devs or those that still rely on weak systems (WOW, etc) will be left. Valve also supported DX7 hardware on HL2, but it didn't stop it's deminse on most other game engines because they supported it.

DX11 and Vista/Win7 are the future, but like AGP, and so many other splits, it's not going to happen overnight for either side, and long after DX12 or whatever, people will still code for XP and DX7, 8, 9 etc. it just likely won't matter to most gamers when they decide to build a system or buy software, nor be a driving force in the market place or, and it will become as niche a Linux gaming. :na: 

BTW, Jay I suspect we'll see some 'wall' tessellation first, and likely even a more HD implementation at first with option support to run the DX11 Hull and Domain method. It would be easy to implement on cave wall surfaces, mountain surfaces, brick/stone building surfaces, etc. because they would be easy to implement and not do too much moving outside of a plane, it also should yield easy performance improvements while also improving or maintaining IQ; next to replace things like armour where they can create easy models and replicate them on all NPCs and keep it simple (this to me would be the DX11 point of adoption making the break with the old HD method, then I would expect it to get greater where you would add it somewhat globally to wooden tables, trees, as well as making NPC and character's faces more intricate etc. That would be my expectation on it, somewhat guided by the initial implementation of ATi annV in their previous titles, and to me particularly Truform and Morrowind.

Anywhoo, I'm outta here, off to Celerbrate goof times... errrrr... GOOD Times C'mon !!! :sol: 
a b U Graphics card
July 1, 2009 1:47:54 AM

Have fun, and drink 1 for me, errr make that a couple
July 1, 2009 3:20:09 AM

Well i must say DX 11 looks very impressive from that white paper. AMD is definitely picking the perfect time to release their cards. DX11 is bound to catch on much faster than DX10 because of the positive press of W7 (and the fact microsoft releases a good OS every other time heh).
As for the topic of who and why would they make the jump to DX11? What i see happening is fairly gradual movements towards DX11. For example, only allow medium settings on DX9 setups and leave the high and very high settings for the DX11 gamers. Something like the settings in Crysis (very high locked to vista and DX10).
a b U Graphics card
July 1, 2009 3:26:22 AM

Love that pic, whered you get it?
July 1, 2009 4:00:34 AM

heh yeah one of my fav computer related pics. Got it from here
July 1, 2009 4:24:36 AM

i would have liked it to have the XPs interface or an option to turn it on
a b U Graphics card
July 1, 2009 4:32:53 AM

while i think we should move on with Os's, i agree. they should have had a legacy layout for vista even thought it actually isn't very different
July 6, 2009 10:19:24 PM

thats great news. Good start so far, i have a feeling others will jump on too looking for bragging rights heh. If that happens we should see a fairly fast uptake
a b U Graphics card
July 6, 2009 10:21:42 PM

And, it may also be why we see this reluctance in the acceptance of DX11, much like DX10.1. Im tired of being held back when the same people complain theres no real difference between DX10 and DX9, yet, if you take out DX10.1 and DX11, you simply dont have the resources to use the DX10 eye candy, let alone the DX11 eyecandy, which is mainly tesselation.
      • 1 / 2
      • 2
      • Newest
!