Very interesting read warning its 3 pages
not just the one that shows up first.

read all three pages

http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/graphics/2011/03/16/farewell-to-directx/1

Sounds interesting, but I think it places too much of the work on devs. The reason DX is so popular is because it makes things easier and it is an industry standard. Furthermore, they also mention how problematic direct-to-metal programming could be for all of the different hardware combinations out there.

Don't get me wrong, I wish all games could look awesome with zero overhead from an API, but the fact is that having code to make porting things easier has helped and hurt us a bit at the same time. We do see games on PC that probably wouldn't have been there otherwise if it wasn't an easy job to part. Should developers spend more time on the PC version after they hit the port switch? Absolutely! But, I don't think the idea of killing themselves over it may appeal to everyone since they have their own deadlines while developing for multiple platforms. Hopefully, their conclusions going along side GPGPU are correct and things become easier to code using this technique.

Wow, thanks for the link to that article. It was a very interesting read, although I am not familiar with 100% of the terms they used. It's something I've thought about as well though, that the reason were seeing better console than pc games at times, of course not talking just sheer graphics power, is that when it is an exclusive title they have all the ins and outs of that system to work with, all at their disposal to be tweaked and perfected to deliver the experience and vision they want their audience to have. I have to say I'd be very excited if PC game developers were able to get that kind of control while programming to show us what our current GPU's are truly capable of. Granted at the expense of a wider range of compatibility but the trade could be worth it.

Well that's a known issue. A PC with the same exact specs as an XBOX 360 won't even run games half as well, but we've reached the point that even low end PCs can outperform an XBOX 360 now.

The problem with low level hardware encoding on PCs is that devs would have to code seperately for every single GPU architecture out there, starting from G80 all the way to GF110. Similarly on AMD cards.

True for the moment at least multi-platform games are the biggest problem facing PC Gaming. Because at the low end of the market they eat into the profits of serious PC games like Crysis and Crysis Warhead.

wow this is indeed intreseting, changes my view on developers that dont make alot of pc games anymore such as rockstar.

Ah I love it when competition or in this case, people like this that are listening to gaming developers, to call the ball at what holds the PC market from screaming ahead like they did in the 90's. Here is what holds us back so consoles can keep afloat. Very interesting article and personally, I love it when people like this rock the boat from the giant.. Microsoft

"It's funny,' says AMD's worldwide developer relations manager of its GPU division, Richard Huddy. 'We often have at least ten times as much horsepower as an Xbox 360 or a PS3 in a high-end graphics card, yet it's very clear that the games don't look ten times as good. To a significant extent, that's because, one way or another, for good reasons and bad - mostly good, DirectX is getting in the way.' Huddy says that one of the most common requests he gets from game developers is: 'Make the API go away."

"I certainly hear this in my conversations with games developers,' he says, 'and I guess it was actually the primary appeal of Larrabee to developers – not the hardware, which was hot and slow and unimpressive, but the software – being able to have total control over the machine, which is what the very best games developers want. By giving you access to the hardware at the very low level, you give games developers a chance to innovate, and that's going to put pressure on Microsoft – no doubt at all. "

" Wrapping it up in a software layer gives you safety and security,' says Huddy, 'but it unfortunately tends to rob you of quite a lot of the performance, and most importantly it robs you of the opportunity to innovate."


Please feel free to read the rest of the article. http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/graphics/2011/03/16/farewell-to-directx/1

I'm a console gamer but that article's some good stuff. The reason I bought a console is because of the money factor & what my friends played on back when I bought it. I'm happy with my choice just as I would be happy if I went with a gaming PC. It really makes no difference to me. I would be getting a quality product either way. CRYSIS 2!!!!!!

Well of course. A PC with a 7800GTX won't even run games half as well as a PS3 which has the same GPU.

Coding directly for the GPU architecture is hundreds of times more efficient than coding through a gay software layer like DirectX.

Unfortunately, we've reached the point that modern PC graphics cards can over come this handicap since they've become so powerful.

But getting rid of DirectX is not practical...or developers would have to recode the same game 15 times over for every GPU architecture ranging from G80 all the way to GF110. Similar with AMD cards.

I understand where you're coming from, but isn't it a shame to cage the mind and unlock it's real potential to innovate? Our greatest gift from the mind is to create nothing out of thin air, and here we are, or the developers in this case. Confined to rules of one entity ( Intel ) that can control the market through a simple code. They can easily control the brakes so the market or consoles in this case, can keep up.

Problem : Intel -Direct X
Solution :Viva la revolución?

Thanks for the replies, loving the comments. It's an open door here so please feel free to speak your mind.

This will lead to one of two things (or possibly both): standardization of GPUs or developers making games exclusively for either AMD or Nvidia.

Main difference between Consoles and Gaming PCs is that on the PC side you have to model your PC based on the requirements of the game where on the console its the game that has to be based on the requirements of the Console

Console is far cheaper even if "ultimate" version will never make it onto that platform...I rather have a console and just buy a game and know it will work out the box without the need to tweek

Main difference between Consoles and Gaming PCs is that on the PC side you have to model your PC based on the requirements of the game where on the console its the game that has to be based on the requirements of the Console

Console is far cheaper even if "ultimate" version will never make it onto that platform...I rather have a console and just buy a game and know it will work out the box without the need to tweek

Ahhh, but isn't it so in this case the PC is stifled to the confines of attenuation? I do see your point of plug and play without problems per-say. For someone like me, it's like unlocking the extra cores more or less. If it's their, I want to use it to it's maximum. After all I built the PC, not purchased a console. One way or option is dismissing Direct X in this case as Richard Huddy suggest and letting the developers use their talents to create.

Shameless bump as a viable answer as of no DX11 support.

Main difference between Consoles and Gaming PCs is that on the PC side you have to model your PC based on the requirements of the game where on the console its the game that has to be based on the requirements of the Console

Console is far cheaper even if "ultimate" version will never make it onto that platform...I rather have a console and just buy a game and know it will work out the box without the need to tweek

The reason I dont play console is the very reason you play console ^^
I love to tweak and customize rather than sticking with non-customizable hardware.

There are alway new technologies and equipment to play with why stuck with the same old tech for almost 10 years at a time (for example PS1,PS2, XBOX360).

I think I buy new computer every 3 years and upgrade it 2-3 times within that 3 years.
I really cant stick with one machine for too long = =

I another aspect, PC give developer an open space to develop games with new innovation and technologies without fixed hardware limitation (like Crysis 1).
Something like that cannot be done on console (Thats why Crysis 2 is dumped down, so it can run on console).

The good thing about console is developer can sell more copies and make more $$$, which is good for them and it is understandable.

and here is another topic about it
http://www.gamesas.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=21&t=10519

Not really therockk, in fact the interview states that dx11 is better

Regardless, i get the feeling that the AMD dude has a few facts mixed up. He seems to think a 360 has the ability to generate more calls than a dx based pc when the xbox is dx based (that's where the x come from in xbox - directxbox) too. DirectX does hold back PC's a little, but not vast amounts. We all know that the headroom over consoles is still massive.

PC gpu's in the upper midrange are about 10 times faster. It takes about 4x more power to run at a real resolution like 1920x1080 compared to puny sub 1280x720 resolutions, and then about an extra factor to run all the nicer textures and slightly better effects PC games usually have. So right out of the gate a simple port at 1080p can be pushing around 5x the gpu usage of the console equivalent. This can be usually cut down a bit, but there is a reason why console games are so cut back on resolution and texture quality. The extra power is where we're starting to see all the extra effects like HBAO ect. taking up residence, and is why more and more PC games that are also on console are seeing more and more extra effects because pretty much every 'gaming' from ￡250 can now run a console game at 1080p.

In this forum (General Forum, Discuss all things Crysis here)
Direct X related topics is considered Off Topic ? ROFL....hidden meaning ?.. Hmm

see, it got moved
http://www.gamesas.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=22&t=10318

There are several aspects as to why games aren't suddenly looking 10x as good as they did before. Part of it may well be performance issues caused by APIs such as DX and OpenGL, but I honestly don't think this is the real problem (or at least, if it were I suspect a lot of big companies would be putting more pressure on the major GPU manufacturers).

I think the big problems are firstly and most obviously in recent times, that game developers target consoles alongside PCs for the same game. It's been true of all of the biggest titles recently, and it's most definitely true for Crysis 2.*
Another problem is just the undertaking of producing something that looks 10x as good - hell, consider how much hard drive space the textures and models of today's games take up!

It's entirely possible that 3D APIs as they stand slow things down a little, but at the moment there is no other option. Not to mention that since all the major houses are targeting consoles too it all but doesn't matter...


* Yes, I said it, Crysis 2 is mildly consolified, especially compared to the original. They have, however, done a pretty good job of the PC version it seems - I'm here and posting this because of the PC demo, having pre-ordered on the basis of how fun it was, and how good the performance was.

I always wanted to write my own 3D render-engine from the ground up because I have worked out some tricks how to make some things more efficient than through DirectX. But it makes most sense for fixed hardware (consoles). On pc it has to be assured that it works on every machine.
That is why you can potentially get more power out of consoles than on a comparable pc.

But still blaming directx to be slow is a joke. The main reason why the games don't look 10 times better is simply that the hardware is not 10 times better. Technological progress on hardware stagnated some years ago, not so much because of the consoles but because of physical barriers we cannot break. Making multi-cores is just a sign that technological progress stagnated. If you have 10 cores doesn't mean your software will run 10 times faster. We now try to improve on architectual and software - side, and that is a very hard playing field.

I wouldn't just take AMD at it's word. This article is clearly selling Fusion isn't it because it's a call to action to standardize the PC. That will just result in dumbing down at a hardware level anyway.

But still blaming directx to be slow is a joke. The main reason why the games don't look 10 times better is simply that the hardware is not 10 times better. Technological progress on hardware stagnated some years ago, not so much because of the consoles but because of physical barriers we cannot break. Making multi-cores is just a sign that technological progress stagnated. If you have 10 cores doesn't mean your software will run 10 times faster. We now try to improve on architectual and software - side, and that is a very hard playing field.

Go tell that to anyone working at AMD/Nvidia/Intel and they will punch you in the face. Hard. For example a hd5870 - a 16 month old card - has over 10 times the processing power of the entire ps3 cell. The last generation (hd6/gtx5) was a stop gap generation, but even then the fastest single gpu is still 40% faster than that, with the best card you can buy - the hd6990 - twice the performance of a hd5870 easily. So we have the situation where single cards are 20 times the power of a ps3 in computing power.

Making multiple cores was due to limits on clock speed synchronisation within a core, but creating more cores was not as easy as sellotaping two together, and they still are much faster than one core regardless It is not a sign of stagnation in any way, and whoever thinks that needs to pull their heads out of their ass (do you think a pentium 4 is even a quarter the power of a i5-2500K? nope, it's about 1/20th) Also, then you have CPU's like mine which run at 5GHz with 4 cores which are still ridiculously faster than CPU's from last year even at 3GHz!

Take it from someone who knows what they're talking about: technology has definitely moved on a lot since 2005. The reason why games aren't '10 times prettier' is because the average PC has only just started being about 8x more powerful, and you need around 4x the power used on a console to run a console game at real resolutions like 1080p at 60fps (consoles run at sub 720p usually at 30fps) So we're seeing developers start to play around with the extra headroom of the average PC gamer.

Yeah sure, you can even have 8 ghz, if you want. Or Intel even has a 48-core on a single chip (only for internal use). It doesn't imply technological progress. You have to consider the energy-consumption per computing power and how much of the hardware the software can use, since the software-performance isn't accelerated automatically like back then when technological progress used to happen. That is the problem.

Software is getting more complex while at the same time people need to be productive and assure solid software. From a software-technology perspective this article is sending you to the stone-age again.

But still blaming directx to be slow is a joke. The main reason why the games don't look 10 times better is simply that the hardware is not 10 times better. Technological progress on hardware stagnated some years ago, not so much because of the consoles but because of physical barriers we cannot break. Making multi-cores is just a sign that technological progress stagnated. If you have 10 cores doesn't mean your software will run 10 times faster. We now try to improve on architectual and software - side, and that is a very hard playing field.

Go tell that to anyone working at AMD/Nvidia/Intel and they will punch you in the face. Hard. For example a hd5870 - a 16 month old card - has over 10 times the processing power of the entire ps3 cell. The last generation (hd6/gtx5) was a stop gap generation, but even then the fastest single gpu is still 40% faster than that, with the best card you can buy - the hd6990 - twice the performance of a hd5870 easily. So we have the situation where single cards are 20 times the power of a ps3 in computing power.

Making multiple cores was due to limits on clock speed synchronisation within a core, but creating more cores was not as easy as sellotaping two together, and they still are much faster than one core regardless It is not a sign of stagnation in any way, and whoever thinks that needs to pull their heads out of their ass (do you think a pentium 4 is even a quarter the power of a i5-2500K? nope, it's about 1/20th) Also, then you have CPU's like mine which run at 5GHz with 4 cores which are still ridiculously faster than CPU's from last year even at 3GHz!

Take it from someone who knows what they're talking about: technology has definitely moved on a lot since 2005. The reason why games aren't '10 times prettier' is because the average PC has only just started being about 8x more powerful, and you need around 4x the power used on a console to run a console game at real resolutions like 1080p at 60fps (consoles run at sub 720p usually at 30fps) So we're seeing developers start to play around with the extra headroom of the average PC gamer.

Yes. besides 16 times better is only 2 subdivisions in the tessellation pipeline. We can probably do that on an entry level card in DirectX11. We don't need to bypass the API at all.

The reason I dont play console is the very reason you play console ^^
I love to tweak and customize rather than sticking with non-customizable hardware.

There are alway new technologies and equipment to play with why stuck with the same old tech for almost 10 years at a time (for example PS1,PS2, XBOX360).

I think I buy new computer every 3 years and upgrade it 2-3 times within that 3 years.
I really cant stick with one machine for too long = =

I another aspect, PC give developer an open space to develop games with new innovation and technologies without fixed hardware limitation (like Crysis 1).
Something like that cannot be done on console (Thats why Crysis 2 is dumped down, so it can run on console).

The good thing about console is developer can sell more copies and make more $$$, which is good for them and it is understandable.

This is why their is a HUGE rift between console kids and PC Players. The console kids just have no clue what they are talking about when they ask PC players why are they complaining? Its like saying get rid of your MP3 player and go back to vinyl records. Not going to happen.