AMD: No DirectX 12, Microsoft: Hold on a minute

[Plimogz]

But it gets to the point where I wonder if the GPU makers are building to the latest DX spec in order to really push the latest tech, or to avoid missing out on having the "Latest DX!" logo on their boxes or because the game makers are really calling for it. While it does sometimes work out for some gorgeous games, mostly it pans out as largely irrelevant with leading edge PC hardware-only features being added in almost as an afterthought.

Here's to there no being any major changes in DX for a couple of generations: get everybody on the same page as the new consoles while the PC cards are at that same point (in technology, not performance). So the vast majority of games made cater to DX11 and PC gamers keep enjoying their 60 FPS (120?! *awed gasp*), superior resolutions, increased AA and hopefully higher tesselation factors and physics particle counts.

If AMD can successfully push their open-brand of physics on the world, (which could very well happen seeing as how theirs is the hardware that will apparently get developed for this time around) it'll level the playing field between vendors and create a neat vertical stack that game makers can design towards; all the way from cheap APU's, through consoles and up to high performance PC's.

Give me games like what was shown in the best DX11 demos for the last few years, throw in more realistic physics (not necessarily their heavy graphic depictions: save the bulk of those for folks with high-end graphics hardware) which have quantifiable impact on the game -- And I'll happily buy a brand new DX11.something GPU a couple of years down the line when it pushes double the polys, lights and tesselated geometry than my current ones can.

If the previous generation of consoles is any guide, we'll be stuck in their rut for a few years past when the novelty wears off -- and it would be nice to enjoy a brief period when cross-platform games are made with pretty much only one overarching hardware standard in mind.

 

[cmdrdredd]

When you have tech demos like what we have seen recently on current DX revisions, why would anyone say "oh that sucks we need a new directx because this looks bad" you have to be blind. We do need hardware to render it 100% in realtime with AA and at high resolutions. That's really all there is to it.

Just look at games like Crysis 3, Battlefield 4, and the new Unreal engine. These are newly developed and totally outclass the rest of the field as far as I am concerned. A new DX version doesn't mean a generational leap in graphics. Remember Crysis in DX9? You could do almost everything that the DX10 version did but run a ton faster. Where we are at now, looking at what developers can do with their engine. I am not seeing a reason to want a new version of DX at this time. I think some people want a new DX version because they can wave some new api in the face of console gamers and say "you can't do this.." since now the new consoles are on par with the PC in terms of capabilities even if they won't necessarily be on par in terms of raw performance.

 

[JAG87]

When you have tech demos like what we have seen recently on current DX revisions, why would anyone say "oh that sucks we need a new directx because this looks bad" you have to be blind. We do need hardware to render it 100% in realtime with AA and at high resolutions. That's really all there is to it.

Just look at games like Crysis 3, Battlefield 4, and the new Unreal engine. These are newly developed and totally outclass the rest of the field as far as I am concerned. A new DX version doesn't mean a generational leap in graphics. Remember Crysis in DX9? You could do almost everything that the DX10 version did but run a ton faster. Where we are at now, looking at what developers can do with their engine. I am not seeing a reason to want a new version of DX at this time. I think some people want a new DX version because they can wave some new api in the face of console gamers and say "you can't do this.." since now the new consoles are on par with the PC in terms of capabilities even if they won't necessarily be on par in terms of raw performance.

Exactly!

DirectX is the biggest scam in computing. Once MS realized that developers and hardware manufactureres would stand behind their money grab, they just kept upping the number with practically no tangible benefits to the end user.

Look at the latest Source engine. It runs in DX9. It looks great, comparable to a DX11 title, and runs butter smooth too. But hey, let's make DX10 so that people can buy a new OS and a new graphics card. Then let's make DX12 so people can buy a new OS and a new graphics card again. And so on. Yet the graphics have barely improved from DX9.

I really hope developers wake up and start supporting OpenGL. It can do almost everything that DirectX does, faster, and cross platform.

 

[cmdrdredd]

Exactly!

DirectX is the biggest scam in computing. Once MS realized that developers and hardware manufactureres would stand behind their money grab, they just kept upping the number with practically no tangible benefits to the end user.

Look at the latest Source engine. It runs in DX9. It looks great, comparable to a DX11 title, and runs butter smooth too. But hey, let's make DX10 so that people can buy a new OS and a new graphics card. Then let's make DX12 so people can buy a new OS and a new graphics card again. And so on. Yet the graphics have barely improved from DX9.

I really hope developers wake up and start supporting OpenGL. It can do almost everything that DirectX does, faster, and cross platform.

Well, opengl isn't faster by default. Maybe it is easier to code for or something though, i don't know. I remember opengl being slower than directx in the same game at times. Probably due to the driver. Opengl if I remember right, was the answer to counter the proprietary glide api from 3dfx. Eventually people said that opengl was superior in terms of capabilities at the time (32bit vs 16bit color) and could run on other video cards that didn't have 3dfx chips in them. Now we have the reverse if you look at it with a certain point of view. Directx runs on all hardware but it is proprietary to windows and Microsoft controls it. I couldn't pinpoint exactly when the transition to directx being mainstream occurred. Maybe with windows xp? Still I don't hate directx, but with it basically being the only way to game on the PC right now I can see where Microsoft would use it for leverage.

BTW: didn't the source engine start off as opengl in the beginning?

 

[Pottuvoi]

BTW: didn't the source engine start off as opengl in the beginning?

At least original half life was built on top of Quake engine..

 

[Dribble]

GL came first - it was an SGI standard for graphics super computers. They first released open gl for more then SGI's.

gl-ide was just a cut down GL for 3dfx graphics cards which were fast but basic (e.g. only 16 bit textures).

As graphics cards improved they no longer needed to use the cut down glide feature set and could happily support the full open gl feature set. glide died fast along with 3dfx.

Direct X was MS's take on open gl but because MS was specifically backing it then it ended up better integrated with windows, being updated more consistently and with better dev tools. Having one powerful company actively back and develop your product works much better then a committee who have to debate everything for years and none of which are going to put the resources into opengl that MS do with direct X.

OpenGL survived because all the non windows devices needed it (mac, ps3, linux, other unix vendors, etc). That doesn't mean in any way it's better then direct X - but if you have to code a product/game for PS3, linux, or mac as well as windows you'll need an open gl renderer so might as well use that on windows too.