GT200 will get a 40nm DX 10.1 refresh

[Scali]

Originally posted by: apoppin

AMD is working hard to get developers to take that step.

Who *really* cares what AMD does?


intel and Nvidia drive the market

AMD pushed 64 bit forever - MS didn't take it seriously till intel got involved

You can't compare that. With 64-bit, there was no 64-bit Windows version, so AMD couldn't push their technology to the masses.
DX11 is already there, and MS is pushing it themselves, as part of Windows 7. AMD is putting the hardware into developers' hands, and supporting them to use D3D11. AMD works together with game developers such as DICE, and organizes presentations to explain how to move from D3D10 to D3D11, and how to take advantage of the new API and hardware.

 

[Blazer7]

A couple of patched DX10 titles for this year are not enough for anyone to claim that DX11 is taking off.

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: Scali

Originally posted by: apoppin

AMD is working hard to get developers to take that step.

Who *really* cares what AMD does?


intel and Nvidia drive the market

AMD pushed 64 bit forever - MS didn't take it seriously till intel got involved

You can't compare that. With 64-bit, there was no 64-bit Windows version, so AMD couldn't push their technology to the masses.
DX11 is already there, and MS is pushing it themselves, as part of Windows 7. AMD is putting the hardware into developers' hands, and supporting them to use D3D11. AMD works together with game developers such as DICE, and organizes presentations to explain how to move from D3D10 to D3D11, and how to take advantage of the new API and hardware.

again .. who cares about AMD?
- MS is pushing it and Nvidia is getting their DX11 parts ready


and again ... *real* DX11 games - from the bottom up - not DX9c console ports with 'DX11 features' - take time
- JUST like when we transitioned from DX8 to DX9 - DX9 was popular, relatively easy to code for and there was no new OS required for it
- yet it took quite awhile for DeuSex to come out - and it was a badly coded resource hogg
--Thief DS came out 6 months later with much improved visuals AND with better coding ... expect the same thing with DX11

DX10 was an oddity designed by MS to artificially sell Vista to gamers - that is why there are SO few DX10 games yet
- not only that, it has barely been tapped and only one game engine i know of runs better on DX10 than DX9 {Hellgate: London's} - sad really and MS is to blame for their greed and lack of its adoption

Yes, DX11 will become popular .. but the real games will come later on
- not the DX9c ports with "DX11 game" on the box for the Walmart crowd

 

[Scali]

Originally posted by: apoppin
again .. who cares about AMD?
- MS is pushing it and Nvidia is getting their DX11 parts ready

Not sure what your point is here. I was talking about how DX11 has good backing from various companies, and how it's easy to adopt DX11 technology into a DX10 codebase, so developers have little reason not to adopt DX11.
Where are you going with this? Just want to downplay the fact that AMD has DX11 hardware first? It's irrelevant anyway. If nVidia was first, surely they'd be pushing developers just as hard, if not harder. So it probably doesn't affect the adoption rate much.

Originally posted by: apoppin
and again ... *real* DX11 games - from the bottom up - not DX9c console ports with 'DX11 features' - take time
- JUST like when we transitioned from DX8 to DX9 - DX9 was popular, relatively easy to code for and there was no new OS required for it
- yet it took quite awhile for DeuSex to come out - and it was a badly coded resource hogg
--Thief DS came out 6 months later with much improved visuals AND with better coding ... expect the same thing with DX11

Well, ofcourse a "*real DX11 game" is nice and arbitrary. Little point in arguing over that.
I don't think you can compare the DX9 era with today however. We have completely different hardware, tools and requirements for games now.

Originally posted by: apoppin
DX10 was an oddity designed by MS to artificially sell Vista to gamers - that is why there are SO few DX10 games yet
- not only that, it has barely been tapped and only one game engine i know of runs better on DX10 than DX9 {Hellgate: London's} - sad really and MS is to blame for their greed and lack of its adoption

You know that's rubbish. DX10 may not have been that big of a success, but it surely wasn't an 'oddity' and its purpose surely wasn't just to 'artificially sell Vista to gamers'.
Clearly DX11 builds on the groundwork laid by DX10, the new driver model, the simpler, slicker API. It just adds some new features. It's DX10 that is making DX11 possible, and as such, DX10 is actually MORE important from an architectural point of view than DX11 is.

The only thing I more or less agree with is that MS is to blame for the fact that so few games run better in DX10 than they do in DX9.
Partly it's because the transition from DX9 to DX10 was just too large, and many developers just didn't do a very good job of making the transition, resulting in inefficient engine design. Perhaps MS should have done more to make the transition easier, by providing efficient wrappers.
And the implementation in Vista isn't all that great. In Windows 7 the CPU overhead seems to be reduced significantly. This was actually one of the main design goals of DX10's new API and driver design. But somehow it didn't really work out that great in Vista. I've measured up to 30% increase in performance on certain CPU-limited tests with my D3D10 engine, going from Vista to Windows 7. That's D3D10 how we should have seen it from the start. But even in Windows 7, it's still D3D10. The idea behind D3D10 was fine, certainly not an 'oddity'.

 

[ShawnD1]

Originally posted by: Scali
The only thing I more or less agree with is that MS is to blame for the fact that so few games run better in DX10 than they do in DX9.
Partly it's because the transition from DX9 to DX10 was just too large, and many developers just didn't do a very good job of making the transition, resulting in inefficient engine design.

The problem is that DirectX10 requires Windows Vista. Steam's May 2009 hardware survey shows that only 29% of Steam clients have Windows Vista and DirectX 10 hardware. Developers are not retarded; they're not going to put a bunch of time into some special features that only 1/3 of gamers can use.

Does DirectX 11 require Vista as well? If so, you can expect it to fail just as hard.

 

[Scali]

Originally posted by: ShawnD1
The problem is that DirectX10 requires Windows Vista. Steam's May 2009 hardware survey shows that only 29% of Steam clients have Windows Vista and DirectX 10 hardware. Developers are not retarded; they're not going to put a bunch of time into some special features that only 1/3 of gamers can use.

Well, by your own metric, various developers ARE retarded, because there are quite a few games with DX10 'special features'. In fact, there's even a game called Stormrise, which is DX10-only. No, it's developed by Sega, not Looney Tunes.

Originally posted by: ShawnD1
Does DirectX 11 require Vista as well? If so, you can expect it to fail just as hard.

Yes, DX11 will only run on Vista and higher.
However, I don't quite think you can compare the situation with DX10.
Firstly, when DX10 came out a few years ago, Vista was brand new aswell. So unlike the 29% of people who have Vista and DX10 hardware, according to you... there were none back then.
In that sense we've already come a long way. DX11 will start with at least 29% of all gamers who have the ability to run it.

Secondly, Microsoft has done an incredible job promoting Windows 7 and making the public fall in love with it. Where people were reluctant to upgrade from XP to Vista, we may find people adopting Windows 7 at much higher rates, which will only add to the success of DX11.

So I think the criticism that DX10/DX11 will require Vista or higher is just something that will fade away in time. It's already faded considerably, being at 29% right now. If you were to put that 29% in perspective... Steam is a platform for TONS of games, including many smaller 'casual' games, which don't really require high-end machines.
So the Steam Survey is not measuring only the hardcore HL2/L4D type of gamer, but a much larger market. If you were to look at only such 'high profile' games, you'd see different results. I bet if you looked at people who play Crysis, there'd be a much higher percentage of people with Vista/DX10. Call it natural selection.

 

[Kakkoii]

Oh btw everyone, you can run DX10 on Windows XP

http://www.techmixer.com/insta...rectx10-rc2-pre-fix-3/

So far I've tried it with the Crysis series, Cryostasis, Bioshock, Stormrise, Gears of War and Assasin's creed.

Works wonderfully.

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: Scali

Originally posted by: apoppin
again .. who cares about AMD?
- MS is pushing it and Nvidia is getting their DX11 parts ready

Not sure what your point is here. I was talking about how DX11 has good backing from various companies, and how it's easy to adopt DX11 technology into a DX10 codebase, so developers have little reason not to adopt DX11.
Where are you going with this? Just want to downplay the fact that AMD has DX11 hardware first? It's irrelevant anyway. If nVidia was first, surely they'd be pushing developers just as hard, if not harder. So it probably doesn't affect the adoption rate much.

Originally posted by: apoppin
and again ... *real* DX11 games - from the bottom up - not DX9c console ports with 'DX11 features' - take time
- JUST like when we transitioned from DX8 to DX9 - DX9 was popular, relatively easy to code for and there was no new OS required for it
- yet it took quite awhile for DeuSex to come out - and it was a badly coded resource hogg
--Thief DS came out 6 months later with much improved visuals AND with better coding ... expect the same thing with DX11

Well, ofcourse a "*real DX11 game" is nice and arbitrary. Little point in arguing over that.
I don't think you can compare the DX9 era with today however. We have completely different hardware, tools and requirements for games now.

Originally posted by: apoppin
DX10 was an oddity designed by MS to artificially sell Vista to gamers - that is why there are SO few DX10 games yet
- not only that, it has barely been tapped and only one game engine i know of runs better on DX10 than DX9 {Hellgate: London's} - sad really and MS is to blame for their greed and lack of its adoption

You know that's rubbish. DX10 may not have been that big of a success, but it surely wasn't an 'oddity' and its purpose surely wasn't just to 'artificially sell Vista to gamers'.
Clearly DX11 builds on the groundwork laid by DX10, the new driver model, the simpler, slicker API. It just adds some new features. It's DX10 that is making DX11 possible, and as such, DX10 is actually MORE important from an architectural point of view than DX11 is.

The only thing I more or less agree with is that MS is to blame for the fact that so few games run better in DX10 than they do in DX9.
Partly it's because the transition from DX9 to DX10 was just too large, and many developers just didn't do a very good job of making the transition, resulting in inefficient engine design. Perhaps MS should have done more to make the transition easier, by providing efficient wrappers.
And the implementation in Vista isn't all that great. In Windows 7 the CPU overhead seems to be reduced significantly. This was actually one of the main design goals of DX10's new API and driver design. But somehow it didn't really work out that great in Vista. I've measured up to 30% increase in performance on certain CPU-limited tests with my D3D10 engine, going from Vista to Windows 7. That's D3D10 how we should have seen it from the start. But even in Windows 7, it's still D3D10. The idea behind D3D10 was fine, certainly not an 'oddity'.

you sure nitpick to miss the point

DX10 was *odd* in that it required Vista to run it; unlike DX9 and DX8 before it in that you were not required to buy a new OS
- therefore the *oddity* was that DX10 depended on Vista sales to be successful .. they had ZERO installed DX10 user base before Vista

. . . .and it WAS *very hard* for the devs - we agree that MS should have done MUCH more

HOWEVER, do not MISS that DX11 still takes a LOT of work to port over - we STILL do not see mass porting of PC games to 64 bit because the sales are not driving it - Those SAME Devs can *ADD* DX11 "features" and call it DX11

that is the NATURE of the industry .. and we saw it happen with DX6, DX7, DX8, DX9 and DX10 - they "PATCH IN" the new coding so as to have a new MARKETING angle but it takes TWO years to get a new DX firmly established and "mainstream"
- it just took longer because of the *oddity* with DX10 and Vista

 

[Scali]

Originally posted by: Kakkoii
Oh btw everyone, you can run DX10 on Windows XP

http://www.techmixer.com/insta...rectx10-rc2-pre-fix-3/

So far I've tried it with the Crysis series, Cryostasis, Bioshock, Stormrise, Gears of War and Assasin's creed.

Works wonderfully.

Yea? Sounds like a joke to me.
Seems they ripped the D3D10 files from the DirectX redistributable and hacked the installer to install on Windows XP (I've checked the included d3d10 DLLs against a regular Vista installation, they appear to match).
The InfoAfter.rtf actually advises you to rename CryRenderD3D9.dll to CryRenderD3D10, and then run the game with the DX10 switch. Well, because you switched it, you're still running the DX9 version I'm sure

I don't see how these D3D10 files are going to work when there's no DX10 driver underneath to power them (if they did, why would you have to rename the Crysis DLL in the first place?).

I've inspected the installer and I don't see the crucial element required for DX10 to work on XP: a D3D-to-OpenGL API wrapper (which is what Alky tried to be).
I'm not even going to bother to try and install it on XP to see if it works. It may do many things, but making DX10 work on XP is not one of them.

 

[Scali]

Originally posted by: apoppin
DX10 was *odd* in that it required Vista to run it; unlike DX9 and DX8 before it in that you were not required to buy a new OS

You're acting like a new DX version requiring a new version of Windows is something that never happened before.
Cases in point:
DirectX 5.0, released in July 1997, never supported on Windows NT, which was launched in 1996 (!!!)
DirectX 8.1, released in October 2001, never supported on Windows 95.

Somehow this was never a problem before, even though the exact same thing happened: you had to buy a new OS.
Especially 8.1 was very successful.
Then again, certain people didn't have internet yet, back then.

Originally posted by: apoppin
HOWEVER, do not MISS that DX11 still takes a LOT of work to port over

Rubbish. It took me one evening to port my D3D10 engine over to D3D10.
Johan Andersson at DICE claims 3 hours in this D3D11 presentation:
http://developer.amd.com/gpu_a...et%20Started%20Now.pps

Originally posted by: apoppin
that is the NATURE of the industry .. and we saw it happen with DX6, DX7, DX8, DX9 and DX10 - they "PATCH IN" the new coding so as to have a new MARKETING angle but it takes TWO years to get a new DX firmly established and "mainstream"
- it just took longer because of the *oddity* with DX10 and Vista

You really can't compare all these different DirectX versions just like that. They have various levels of improvements depending on various levels of hardware support, which have various levels of feasibility.
I think you are forgetting that it's not just about the API, it's about the hardware aswell.
If you take a new API and throw every possible effect you can think of at it, you get something like Crysis: a game that has such extreme hardware demands that it takes 2 more years for videocards to develop the amount of performance required to run everything at full detail at high resolutions with decent framerates.
Although this used to be tradition in the gaming world (Wolf3D requiring a 286 processor, Doom requiring a 386 and localbus videocard, Quake offering 3d accelerator support back in the early days of Voodoo, when hardly anyone owned a 3d accelerator yet), it somehow went out of style at around the time when consoles like the XBox and PS2 became hugely popular.
These days developers just take it easy on the graphics detail, because they want to sell the games to far more PC gamers than just the enthusiasts running the latest hardware.

In cases they don't, it sometimes goes horribly wrong. Crysis was never that successful, so CryTek now tries to pursue the console market aswell.
Doom3 had lots of graphics features, really pushing hardware, but it took ID so long to finisht the game, that it was hardly spectacular by the time it was finally released. Newer hardware had already made Doom3's rendering methods obsolete.

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: Scali

Originally posted by: apoppin
DX10 was *odd* in that it required Vista to run it; unlike DX9 and DX8 before it in that you were not required to buy a new OS

You're acting like a new DX version requiring a new version of Windows is something that never happened before.
Cases in point:
DirectX 5.0, released in July 1997, never supported on Windows NT, which was launched in 1996 (!!!)
DirectX 8.1, released in October 2001, never supported on Windows 95.

Somehow this was never a problem before, even though the exact same thing happened: you had to buy a new OS.
Especially 8.1 was very successful.
Then again, certain people didn't have internet yet, back then.

Originally posted by: apoppin
HOWEVER, do not MISS that DX11 still takes a LOT of work to port over

Rubbish. It took me one evening to port my D3D10 engine over to D3D10.
Johan Andersson at DICE claims 3 hours in this D3D11 presentation:
http://developer.amd.com/gpu_a...et%20Started%20Now.pps

Originally posted by: apoppin
that is the NATURE of the industry .. and we saw it happen with DX6, DX7, DX8, DX9 and DX10 - they "PATCH IN" the new coding so as to have a new MARKETING angle but it takes TWO years to get a new DX firmly established and "mainstream"
- it just took longer because of the *oddity* with DX10 and Vista

You really can't compare all these different DirectX versions just like that. They have various levels of improvements depending on various levels of hardware support, which have various levels of feasibility.
I think you are forgetting that it's not just about the API, it's about the hardware aswell.
If you take a new API and throw every possible effect you can think of at it, you get something like Crysis: a game that has such extreme hardware demands that it takes 2 more years for videocards to develop the amount of performance required to run everything at full detail at high resolutions with decent framerates.
Although this used to be tradition in the gaming world (Wolf3D requiring a 286 processor, Doom requiring a 386 and localbus videocard, Quake offering 3d accelerator support back in the early days of Voodoo, when hardly anyone owned a 3d accelerator yet), it somehow went out of style at around the time when consoles like the XBox and PS2 became hugely popular.
These days developers just take it easy on the graphics detail, because they want to sell the games to far more PC gamers than just the enthusiasts running the latest hardware.

In cases they don't, it sometimes goes horribly wrong. Crysis was never that successful, so CryTek now tries to pursue the console market aswell.
Doom3 had lots of graphics features, really pushing hardware, but it took ID so long to finisht the game, that it was hardly spectacular by the time it was finally released. Newer hardware had already made Doom3's rendering methods obsolete.

i think we went over this before

after all is said and done, i believe you agree with me that we will see NO DX11 games this year
- correct me if i am wrong

. . . but a lot of retail packing PC game boxes with "DX11" on it

When do *you* think we will see DX11 games - that really take advantage if it ?
- make a prediction please

you know mine says "2011"

 

[Kakkoii]

Originally posted by: Scali

Originally posted by: Kakkoii
Oh btw everyone, you can run DX10 on Windows XP

http://www.techmixer.com/insta...rectx10-rc2-pre-fix-3/

So far I've tried it with the Crysis series, Cryostasis, Bioshock, Stormrise, Gears of War and Assasin's creed.

Works wonderfully.

Yea? Sounds like a joke to me.
Seems they ripped the D3D10 files from the DirectX redistributable and hacked the installer to install on Windows XP (I've checked the included d3d10 DLLs against a regular Vista installation, they appear to match).
The InfoAfter.rtf actually advises you to rename CryRenderD3D9.dll to CryRenderD3D10, and then run the game with the DX10 switch. Well, because you switched it, you're still running the DX9 version I'm sure

I don't see how these D3D10 files are going to work when there's no DX10 driver underneath to power them (if they did, why would you have to rename the Crysis DLL in the first place?).

I've inspected the installer and I don't see the crucial element required for DX10 to work on XP: a D3D-to-OpenGL API wrapper (which is what Alky tried to be).
I'm not even going to bother to try and install it on XP to see if it works. It may do many things, but making DX10 work on XP is not one of them.

This installer is based on the left over source files by Alky.

 

[Keysplayr]

I believe DX11 games are already here minus a few features.
Seriously though, DX11 games will come out when they come out. No point in predictions. That's just swagger.

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: Keysplayr
I believe DX11 games are already here minus a few features.
Seriously though, DX11 games will come out when they come out. No point in predictions. That's just swagger.

there are a lot of psychics that make a living off predictions

not to mention traders .. investors .. bible thumpers .. superbowl and horse racing odds ...

MY prediction for DX11 games that take real advantage of DX11 is .. not this year
... all bets can be handled by PM

 

[Keysplayr]

Originally posted by: apoppin

Originally posted by: Keysplayr
I believe DX11 games are already here minus a few features.
Seriously though, DX11 games will come out when they come out. No point in predictions. That's just swagger.

there are a lot of psychics that make a living off predictions

not to mention traders .. investors .. bible thumpers .. superbowl and horse racing odds ...

MY prediction for DX11 games that take real advantage of DX11 is .. not this year
... all bets can be handled by PM

Then tell us. Are you Psychic? Will you be making a living off this prediction? Are you a trader, investor, bible thumper? If not dude then it's really not that important right now.

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: Keysplayr

Originally posted by: apoppin

Originally posted by: Keysplayr
I believe DX11 games are already here minus a few features.
Seriously though, DX11 games will come out when they come out. No point in predictions. That's just swagger.

there are a lot of psychics that make a living off predictions

not to mention traders .. investors .. bible thumpers .. superbowl and horse racing odds ...

MY prediction for DX11 games that take real advantage of DX11 is .. not this year
... all bets can be handled by PM

Then tell us. Are you Psychic? Will you be making a living off this prediction? Are you a trader, investor, bible thumper? If not dude then it's really not that important right now.

all of the above
--bets are still being accepted by PM


. . . and this topic is about DX10.1 and Nvidia possibly adding it to their GPUs on the 40 nm process - shortly

They might as well follow ATi, for a change
- better late than never; and i am sure we will hear how wonderful it is from their marketing finally

 

[Scali]

Originally posted by: Kakkoii
This installer is based on the left over source files by Alky.

Doesn't look like it.

 

[Scali]

Originally posted by: apoppin
after all is said and done, i believe you agree with me that we will see NO DX11 games this year

Nope, I don't agree.

Originally posted by: apoppin
When do *you* think we will see DX11 games - that really take advantage if it ?

As I already said, that is completely subjective, so no point in discussing this.

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: Scali

Originally posted by: apoppin
after all is said and done, i believe you agree with me that we will see NO DX11 games this year

Nope, I don't agree.

Originally posted by: apoppin
When do *you* think we will see DX11 games - that really take advantage if it ?

As I already said, that is completely subjective, so no point in discussing this.

so i can ignore everything you said about it

 

[Keysplayr]

Originally posted by: apoppin

Originally posted by: Scali

Originally posted by: apoppin
after all is said and done, i believe you agree with me that we will see NO DX11 games this year

Nope, I don't agree.

Originally posted by: apoppin
When do *you* think we will see DX11 games - that really take advantage if it ?

As I already said, that is completely subjective, so no point in discussing this.

so i can ignore everything you said about it

If only.

 

[Scali]

Originally posted by: apoppin
so i can ignore everything you said about it

Most of what I said was factual information, which may give people more insight into the situation, and which they may use to form their own opinion.
I don't just throw opinions around, that doesn't get very far.

 

[Acanthus]

We are no where near DX11 games that wont have some check mark feature.

Historically there's no reason to even consider "next gen" APIs near their launch. As others have said in here, the lead time to actual products using the technology is huge (years).

Boo at Nvidia for yet another refresh chip...

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: Scali

Originally posted by: apoppin
so i can ignore everything you said about it

Most of what I said was factual information, which may give people more insight into the situation, and which they may use to form their own opinion.
I don't just throw opinions around, that doesn't get very far.

You speculate the same as the rest of us

You gave us no insight as to "when" you even think DX11 games will show up although you did use a lot of words.

Just because DX11 SDK was available for awhile does not mean that Devs are jumping on it to build DX11 PC games
- i believe the consoles are still DX9c and the PC market is shrinking

we do not even know that 7 will be popular - although it looks like MS is pulling another Win2K>XP transformation and their marketing machine is in full swing with the early discounting.
- it *could* fail
:Q

 

[Scali]

Originally posted by: apoppin
You speculate the same as the rest of us

You gave us no insight as to "when" you even think DX11 games will show up although you did use a lot of words.

Well, there you are. I didn't speculate then, did I?

Originally posted by: apoppin
Just because DX11 SDK was available for awhile does not mean that Devs are jumping on it to build DX11 PC games

Perhaps you missed the various presentations from AMD, nVidia, Microsoft and various large software development houses on DX11.

 

[apoppin]

no, i got all the hype also

just like with DX10

and DX9 before it

and DX8 before that .. and before that

and EACH TIME - despite the fantasy spun by MS, AMD, Intel and Nvidia - it STILL took TWO years to make a transition to the next DX so that it there were actually more than a couple of titles that really used the new features of the new DX API

that is no speculation .. it is history and i believe it will repeat itself with DX11
- except we will shortly see a LOT of PC game boxes with "DX 11" in big letters on a DX9c console port