Microsoft screws over ATi and NViDiA with DirectX 9.1

[Czar]

DirectX 9.1, which is expected around Spring 2003, will be the next chapter in the battle.

Over time, both ATi and NViDiA have had the advantage in the video card world, it was constantly changing. But DirectX 9.1 will change all that, it will have features which both ATi and NViDiA will not support (in the present/near future cards).
When DirectX 8 was released, ATi's current card at the time (the RADEON 7200) supported PixelShader1.0 and NViDiA had support for PixelShader1.1, but when DirectX 8.1 was released both were left in the dark with PixelShader1.4
RADEON 9700 and NV30 both support PixelShader2.0 but DirectX9.1 uses PixelShader3.0, ironically these cards are being called "DirectX 9.1 Hardware." The upcoming R350 and NV35 (both expected in Spring 2003) are expected not to carry support for PixelShader3.0.

sorry, no source yet since my friend sent me this over msn and he has now left for work, totaly sucks

 

[dowxp]

hmhmmm.... sucky. wonder why msft didnt tell them? or maybe they couldnt.. ?

 

[ElFenix]

i guess thats why we call them microshaft.

 

[Adul]

bendover they say

 

[Mem]

RADEON 9700 and NV30 both support PixelShader2.0 but DirectX9.1 uses PixelShader3.0

Look at it this way,how long do you think before games will use PixelShader3.0?

 

[Chadder007]

Originally posted by: Mem

RADEON 9700 and NV30 both support PixelShader2.0 but DirectX9.1 uses PixelShader3.0

Look at it this way,how long do you think before games will use PixelShader3.0?

....if any games ever take advantage of PixelShader 3.0 that is. We probably won't see any hardware to take advantage of this until close to DirectX10 comes out.

 

[Czar]

Originally posted by: Chadder007

Originally posted by: Mem

RADEON 9700 and NV30 both support PixelShader2.0 but DirectX9.1 uses PixelShader3.0

Look at it this way,how long do you think before games will use PixelShader3.0?

....if any games ever take advantage of PixelShader 3.0 that is. We probably won't see any hardware to take advantage of this until close to DirectX10 comes out.

More like after directx10 comes out, that is if we are lucky

 

[dawks]

Why is it DirectX 9.1.. They just decided to give up on 9.0? DirectX will never be X.0 anymore?

 

[UlricT]

hey... look on the bright side.

If this is true, its gonna encourage Nvidia and ATI to bring out products in spring that are more than just a die shrink, or a clock speed increase. Meaning we are going to see the prices of both the NV30 and the 9700 fall faster than we expect... yay for the consumers...

 

[Ben50]

I hope you all realize that this is a good thing. It doesn't matter if hardware is not immediately available to support it because no one will have games ready for it anyway. It give a chance for software developers to catch up to the hardware development curve. Right now software developers are targeting hardware that is 3 years old. If they have software specifications that are sure to be supported by future hardware, they could utilize those features now so when their game is ready to ship, everything will be in place. As long as graphics manufacturers and game designers work with microsoft to develop directx, this is the best way to have things work. I think the title of this thread should be change to microsoft helps develop more sales for the graphic and game industries.

 

[Czar]

still think this should belong in Directx10, going from ver 1.0 to 1.4 with a .1 version change but going from 2.0 to 3.0 also with a .1 version change is too much

 

[Pariah]

I don't see anything wrong with this. Looks like a good thing to me. If MS introduces it, everyone will be able to work on the same standards, unlike what we saw with post 1.0 pixel shaders, where ATi is supporting 1.4 while no one else is, and NVidia is supporting something else.

I fail to see what the version number has to do with anything. If they named it 2536132.432, what's the difference? They could have released the exact same thing as 2.1, and that would make it better?

 

[UlricT]

Whatever said and done, game devlopers are going to target the mainstram market with their products.... and mainstram means 2-3 year old tech. Only a verrry small % of the cummunityis going to go for the latest and greatest in technology. So, as long as adapting to new technology means that we have to spend ~$300, support is going to be a little slow in coming.

 

[spanky]

maybe msft is throwing full fledge support for trident and leaving both ati and nvidia in the dark

 

[bswail123]

Originally posted by: Chadder007

Originally posted by: Mem

RADEON 9700 and NV30 both support PixelShader2.0 but DirectX9.1 uses PixelShader3.0

Look at it this way,how long do you think before games will use PixelShader3.0?

....if any games ever take advantage of PixelShader 3.0 that is. We probably won't see any hardware to take advantage of this until close to DirectX10 comes out.

And then Direct X10 will be using PixelShader 3.5 and no cards will support that either, it a never ending upgrade battle

 

[VBboy]

I swear, kids. If I hear "PixelShader3.0" one more time, I will beat you all with a shovel!

 

[bacillus]

Originally posted by: Adul
bendover they say

:Q

 

[rb56]

Originally posted by: VBboy
I swear, kids. If I hear "PixelShader3.0" one more time, I will beat you all with a shovel!

LOL

 

[BD2003]

Microsoft didnt screw anyone over. They gave people another reason to buy a new video card.

 

[NOX]

Nothing new... there are features that are not currently support by todays hardware.

 

[Ilmater]

Originally posted by: PariahI fail to see what the version number has to do with anything. If they named it 2536132.432, what's the difference? They could have released the exact same thing as 2.1, and that would make it better?

Acutally, I have to disagree with you. There is a difference. Let's be honest; everyone expects more of a revision of, say, a patch from version 1.0 to 2.0 than they do from 1.01 to 1.02, or even more so from 1.01 to 1.01a. The naming of versions is pretty much universal, and that kind of deviance from the normal is unfair at least and misleading at worst.

Look at it this way: let's say I'm Joe Dumba$$ (basically everyone but those that would bother to post to internet forums when it comes to computers) and I'm walking in to Best Buy or some other retail outlet looking to upgrade my video card. I see that one box supports Directx 9.0 and another supports 9.1. Now, to the average consumer, there's little difference on face value between the two, so most price-conscious buyers will just buy the cheaper one since they're willing to miss the seemingly small differences between the two. Now, let's say that a buyer walked in and saw one box that supported 9.1 and another that supported 10. While I'm sure Microsoft will cook up something to make DX 10 seem like a necessity, it may not be much of an upgrade. However, to the user, it will seem like they're getting last generation's graphics card and make the heftier price difference seem more justifiable.

As far as my two cents goes, I'm sure that Microsoft will continue this trend, and will in fact make DX10 a smaller upgrade from 9.1 than 9.1 was from 9.0. That way, they can push DX 10 as a big step up to those that don't know, and DX 9.1 as a big step up to those that do. In the end, it means people will be coerced into buying into buying a new product.

 

[BD231]

Originally posted by: DaZ
Why is it DirectX 9.1.. They just decided to give up on 9.0? DirectX will never be X.0 anymore?

I think 9.0 is their* beta, and the X.1 is the final version, unless they find something wrong or need to add something, in which case they would add an "a" to the end of 9.1.