DX11 on ATI first: Does it even matter?

[MartinX]

So I was skimming over some headlines and I gather that one of the major gpu makers will probably have dx11 cards in stores before the other does.

I got to thinking, while that might look good from a marketing point of view, it seems to me to be an utterly trivial thing in real terms, for both gpu manufacturers, and silly to consider it important.

According to the most recent Valve hardware survey (april 09) less than 30% even have systems capable of DX10, and that's well over two years after it came out.

While I can think of several games that "support" DX10, I can't think of any where it makes a tangible difference other than making shadows a tiny bit nicer and reducing your frame rate.

While DX11 is a good thing (especially it's improvements in multi-threading), however it seems to me to be vaguely ridiculous to be making "first" important when "second" will still be long before it actually matters.

 

[Simmonz]

So I was skimming over some headlines and I gather that one of the major gpu makers will probably have dx11 cards in stores before the other does.

I got to thinking, while that might look good from a marketing point of view, it seems to me to be an utterly trivial thing in real terms, for both gpu manufacturers, and silly to consider it important.

According to the most recent Valve hardware survey (april 09) less than 30% even have systems capable of DX10, and that's well over two years after it came out.

While I can think of several games that "support" DX10, I can't think of any where it makes a tangible difference other than making shadows a tiny bit nicer and reducing your frame rate.

While DX11 is a good thing (especially it's improvements in multi-threading), however it seems to me to be vaguely ridiculous to be making "first" important when "second" will still be long before it actually matters.

It doesn't matter who has DX11 out first. DX10 was botched because of Vista. It was so horrible at release that few wanted it and therefore few could use DX10 because they were on XP. Game developers saw this and decided not to use DX10 for the most part. Also Steam has over 15 million users so 30% of that is over 4.5 million people. I am willing that many more people have a DX10 card that may not have Vista. They just need a good DX10 OS to migrate to. DX10 cards are very easy to find these days, in fact it is harder to find a DX9 card now.

 

[DeathFromBelow]

I wouldn't worry too much about it. Whenever a new version of DX comes out it seems to be best to wait for the next generation of cards since the first ones never seem to be powerful enought to run games that use the new DX standard.

DX10 was botched because of Vista. It was so horrible at release that few wanted it and therefore few could use DX10 because they were on XP.

The fail is strong with this one. Do you not remember how long it took for DX9 to become widespread?

 

[Ender1183]

DX10/11 wont take off until a year after 7 comes out. Not enough people to make it worth it to developers, other then the ones trying to grab headlines. The steam surveys are a good place to look when trying to guess when dx10/11 will start to take off. My guess is after 50% are capable we will start to see the new DX to become a majority.

 

[iPearl]

NO it does not matter LOL
BUT BUT !!! It does in a way, once they start douching it out and lower each other prices to stay competitive ^.^ Cheaper cards for us.

 

[Silus]

DX10/11 wont take off until a year after 7 comes out. Not enough people to make it worth it to developers, other then the ones trying to grab headlines. The steam surveys are a good place to look when trying to guess when dx10/11 will start to take off. My guess is after 50% are capable we will start to see the new DX to become a majority.

Wrong, because it might not even take off. DX10 didn't take off due to a very simple but numerous reason: consoles.
No console in the market supports DX10 and in a time where most developers focus their work on the console SKU and then just port it to the PC (if they even port it), they'll simply ditch DX10 altogether. DX11 will be no different. There will be one or two games that will show case it, but that's basically it, until a console that supports DX11 is released.

 

[Silus]

So I was skimming over some headlines and I gather that one of the major gpu makers will probably have dx11 cards in stores before the other does.

There are rumors for both. It's not just "ATI will have DX11 cards first". The latest rumor puts GT300 out of the door before RV870.

And actually, the only place that said ATI would have RV870 before GT300, was the Inquirer...

 

[JaguarSKX]

So I was skimming over some headlines and I gather that one of the major gpu makers will probably have dx11 cards in stores before the other does.

Wow. Really? One of them will release DX 11 before the other? What a relavation!!!

 

[Met-AL]

The fail is strong with this one. Do you not remember how long it took for DX9 to become widespread?

Let me answer that one please..

The answer is a HELLA Long Time!

I bought my 9700-pro in 2002 for the upcoming DX9 Half Life 2 (and Doom 3 which is OpenGL though) and by the time that game came in Nov 2004, my 9700-pro was way outclassed.

 

[bass_ec]

DX8 was absolutely worth it, and necessitated getting a new card. I imagine when the benefits are more tangible than they are now...people will upgrade.

 

[Menelmarar]

Let me answer that one please..

The answer is a HELLA Long Time!

I bought my 9700-pro in 2002 for the upcoming DX9 Half Life 2 (and Doom 3 which is OpenGL though) and by the time that game came in Nov 2004, my 9700-pro was way outclassed.

While this is true, the 9700PRO, at least mine, ran both of those games very well.

 

[evilsofa]

It's irrelevant which GPU maker puts out DX11 cards if DX11 itself hasn't been released yet. After that, it will only matter if one of the GPU makers screws up really bad and doesn't release DX11 cards months after the other one does, which is very unlikely; I'll bet they release their DX11 cards within a month of each other. Woohoo, we released a DX11 card a week before you did... big deal.

 

[Red Falcon]

Long answer with a YES!
Short answer, with a no...

 

[Simpson5774]

Wait a minute here. When ATi came out with cards that could support dx10.1, It was the next big thing, if your card didn't have it, it was junk and dx10.1 was going to take off. Now that it is believed that nvidia will have DX11 first, "its worthless", "you don't need it", "its going to take forever to adopt, and when it does, that card you bought will be worthless to render it"

Do I smell a pattern?

The problem with DX10 and 10.1 first and foremost is consoles, they are the bane of the existence of high quality graphics in games everywhere, all of a sudden making a game that needed more than 256mb of vmem to run good was developmental sacrilege. Now I think its been a few years since all these developers bailed to consoles, and they are truly showing their age your going to see a bit of a comeback to PC development, which means they are going to want to use w/e graphic renderer is best. which will be atleast DX10 if not 11.

What people forget here is, hardware is what drives the software. You can code the best game imaginable, if you don't have the hardware to run it, it wont run, period.

 

[Raap]

IMO, DX11 isn't the best thing about the upcoming cards, the performance is. If the rumors are true, both ATI's and Nvidia's next cards are going to be a big step up from the current generation.

 

[Oh4Sh0]

It matters to the vendors. If they can market their systems as being DX11 ready, an advantage over others in some way, they want it.

 

[Red Falcon]

Wait a minute here. When ATi came out with cards that could support dx10.1, It was the next big thing, if your card didn't have it, it was junk and dx10.1 was going to take off. Now that it is believed that nvidia will have DX11 first, "its worthless", "you don't need it", "its going to take forever to adopt, and when it does, that card you bought will be worthless to render it"

Do I smell a pattern?

The problem with DX10 and 10.1 first and foremost is consoles, they are the bane of the existence of high quality graphics in games everywhere, all of a sudden making a game that needed more than 256mb of vmem to run good was developmental sacrilege. Now I think its been a few years since all these developers bailed to consoles, and they are truly showing their age your going to see a bit of a comeback to PC development, which means they are going to want to use w/e graphic renderer is best. which will be atleast DX10 if not 11.

What people forget here is, hardware is what drives the software. You can code the best game imaginable, if you don't have the hardware to run it, it wont run, period.

I don't ever remember people being up in arms about DX 10.1 and how if you don't have it your system is crap. Hell, to this day, only STALKER: Clear Sky can even take advantage of 10.1 features.

However, people were like DX 10 is the best, if you have 9, you're old and crappy!
It took quite some time before games with DX10 features started to emerge.

DX11 will most likely be the same thing. However, it in itself won't be relevant until a game comes out that will take advantage of those features.

I have still yet to see a game that is COMPLETELY DX10, not just using "features" or textures with DX9 at the heart of it.

 

[MartinX]

Wow. Really? One of them will release DX 11 before the other? What a relavation!!!

I think I detect sarcasm, but I could be wrong.

My point wasn't that someone would release it first, it was that people would even care, both manufacturers will probably be on their second generation of DX11 cards by the time any notable dx11 games even come out.

It's like being the first boxer to get to the ring, there's still only one bell.

It just struck me as an odd thing to consider important.

 

[Red Falcon]

IMO, DX11 isn't the best thing about the upcoming cards, the performance is. If the rumors are true, both ATI's and Nvidia's next cards are going to be a big step up from the current generation.

+1

I want the performance too. Yeah, that's great it can do DX11 (salad), now let's get to the meat and potatoes!

 

[Drexion]

Wrong, because it might not even take off. DX10 didn't take off due to a very simple but numerous reason: consoles.
No console in the market supports DX10 and in a time where most developers focus their work on the console SKU and then just port it to the PC (if they even port it), they'll simply ditch DX10 altogether. DX11 will be no different. There will be one or two games that will show case it, but that's basically it, until a console that supports DX11 is released.

This is the correct answer.

Partially due to consoles, DX9 will still be the "mainstream" API for the next few years. DX10 was too much of a marketing gimmick and a failure in comparison to previous versions, due to Vista's reputation and secondly for NOT providing the same jump that DX8 -> DX9 did.

Microsoft needs to TAKE BACK DX from their STUPID MARKETING DEPARTMENT which thinks its a good idea to use it to try and force new OS's down people's throats, and give it back to the developers who truly cared about making graphical advancements for PC applications.

And finally to those of you expecting awesome performance benefits from DX11, while its true some of the new techniques along the pipeline will indeed have the potential for performance increases - ask your self this - How many devs are going to take the time and money to port their DX9 console game to PCs AND at the same time re-write/update the code to support DX11 and its optimizations ? Especially when a very small % of PC Gamers will support it and ZERO % of consoles support it.

 

[Raap]

Well, let's face it; very many games today use the same few game engines( with only slightly personalized touches ). It's these 'for-sale' engines that really drives DX usage forward. When stuff like Unreal Engine 4.0 is released, most likely with DX11 support, we'll eventually see more and more games support it as well. Until then we'll only see a few very graphics-focused games utilize it.

 

[shansoft]

This is the correct answer.

Partially due to consoles, DX9 will still be the "mainstream" API for the next few years. DX10 was too much of a marketing gimmick and a failure in comparison to previous versions, due to Vista's reputation and secondly for NOT providing the same jump that DX8 -> DX9 did.

Microsoft needs to TAKE BACK DX from their STUPID MARKETING DEPARTMENT which thinks its a good idea to use it to try and force new OS's down people's throats, and give it back to the developers who truly cared about making graphical advancements for PC applications.

And finally to those of you expecting awesome performance benefits from DX11, while its true some of the new techniques along the pipeline will indeed have the potential for performance increases - ask your self this - How many devs are going to take the time and money to port their DX9 console game to PCs AND at the same time re-write/update the code to support DX11 and its optimizations ? Especially when a very small % of PC Gamers will support it and ZERO % of consoles support it.

lol...I really don't think console will be party of this ...

just look at Capcom, all their new game since Lost Planet 2 all feature DX10 that is port from console

and Far Cry 2 is another one that support DX 10.1 which both on console and PC...same goes to H.A.W.X ...etc...

which your statement does not quite make sense at the end...

I do agree DX10 is a complete failure due to bad reputation on Vista, but I do think DX 11 would be huge jump since DX8-DX9 if it actually bring what it promise...

PS: I can smell Crysis 2 is now under DX 11 .....

 

[risqu3]

win7 is going to be a streamlined vista, and its been getting very good publicity, it will help push dx10/11 cards into the mainstream, and developers will start to use the technology available to them.

 

[Met-AL]

While this is true, the 9700PRO, at least mine, ran both of those games very well.

Right, but for the year or two that I spent playing SOF2 with it, I could have done that with a cheap card like a Ti-4200 and saved the $350 I paid for the 9700 and picked up a X800 when DX 9 actually started getting used.



The 9700-Pro was a rare card that was so powerful at the time that nothing took advantage of it. I still use the card by the way... my sons play BF2, 2142, COD4, and Serious Sam 2 on it. Heck of a card.

 

[jmorel33]

The XBOX360 is partially DX10 as it uses a unified shader architecture.

 

[noobman]

Right, but for the year or two that I spent playing SOF2 with it, I could have done that with a cheap card like a Ti-4200 and saved the $350 I paid for the 9700 and picked up a X800 when DX 9 actually started getting used.



The 9700-Pro was a rare card that was so powerful at the time that nothing took advantage of it. I still use the card by the way... my sons play BF2, 2142, COD4, and Serious Sam 2 on it. Heck of a card.

Even in DX8.1 the 9700pro kicked major you-know-what... it was the perfect card! You haven't lived until you've played your favourite game at (then) a whopping 1600*1200 w/ 6xAA and 16xAF.

I remember when I first got the 9700pro... I don't think DX9 was even officially released yet. Then they released DX9 + the DX9 compliant drivers and, TBH, I had more fun watching the ATi DX9 demos than I did playing games!

 

[Met-AL]

I had more fun watching the ATi DX9 demos than I did playing games!

I showed everyone I could the Animusic demo. That thing was awesome.

http://ati.amd.com/developer/demos/r9700.html

 

[bangmal]

the "failure" of dx10 has nothing to do with vista as some moron said, the real problem is pc games are dying, there are fewer and fewer pc games worth the time. microsoft cant know it better hence shifted to consoles

 

[MrGuvernment]

i recall back in the days when NVIDIA had what DX9 first, alot of people choose NVIDIA because they thought it would be future proofing to buy a DX9 card, even though when DX9 came out those cards ran it like ass (may have been DX8, not sure, 8 or 9)

but it does help for those who like every new little feature on a card, if it can run it or not.

the "failure" of dx10 has nothing to do with vista as some moron said, the real problem is pc games are dying, there are fewer and fewer pc games worth the time. microsoft cant know it better hence shifted to consoles

Ya, PC gaming is dieing..

how many people play WoW
How many people play Valve games

both those numbers combined out number console players by a massive scale.

but that is another conversation beaten to death, and it was EA who said pc gaming is the way to go recently.

 

[shansoft]

the "failure" of dx10 has nothing to do with vista as some moron said, the real problem is pc games are dying, there are fewer and fewer pc games worth the time. microsoft cant know it better hence shifted to consoles

lol that is what console people are saying since their little console is the one that is failing ..

but the reality actually turn out TV Console is the one that is dying......

handle held console is taking over the console industry sooner or later...

 

[RavenousNewt]

Originally Posted by Drexion

This is the correct answer.

Partially due to consoles, DX9 will still be the "mainstream" API for the next few years. DX10 was too much of a marketing gimmick and a failure in comparison to previous versions, due to Vista's reputation and secondly for NOT providing the same jump that DX8 -> DX9 did.

Microsoft needs to TAKE BACK DX from their STUPID MARKETING DEPARTMENT which thinks its a good idea to use it to try and force new OS's down people's throats, and give it back to the developers who truly cared about making graphical advancements for PC applications.

And finally to those of you expecting awesome performance benefits from DX11, while its true some of the new techniques along the pipeline will indeed have the potential for performance increases - ask your self this - How many devs are going to take the time and money to port their DX9 console game to PCs AND at the same time re-write/update the code to support DX11 and its optimizations ? Especially when a very small % of PC Gamers will support it and ZERO % of consoles support it.

While not Totally correct you do make a point, that the biggest graphical advances, in PC Games, will be made in the first year of a new consoles release. Then the investment in Graphics R&D can be used more effectively, because after a console launches the hardware (& for the most part the API) can't change. Therefore the developer won't be wasting time on an engine that has features that can't be used on other systems.

 

[Conker]

The first cards in any new directx were slow for the new version. Happened on every directx so far.

 

[Elledan]

DX11 doesn't matter. Why? Because it doesn't really add anything new or relevant.

DX9 was really worth it because every preceeding DX version had been a PITA. 9 was the first time when MSFT got it right. Then DX 10 came along and added a few shortcuts to accomplish things which took a few more lines of code in DX 9 and mostly changed the API, making it only of interest for developers. 10.1 crammed in a few more shortcuts.

DX 11 adds:
- improved multi-threading support (developers),
- tesselation (developers, already supported by OpenGL for the last decade or so),
- compute shaders (for GPGPU tasks, similar to what GLSL (OpenGL), CUDA and AMD's Stream have done for years).
- some other small stuff like better texture compression.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct3D#Direct3D_11

So in short, DX 11 is mostly interesting due to the improvements it brings to DX 9/10, not because it's doing anything new or interesting.

Personally and business-wise (my company only uses OpenGL), I'm far more interested in the OpenGL implementation and extensions the new cards bring to the table. But that may just be me

 

[Technoob]

how many people play WoW
How many people play Valve games

both those numbers combined out number console players by a massive scale.

I think PC gaming is alive and well, but if you think valve games + wow is > console games, you're delusional.

 

[Yoda4561]

The computer shader is the one potentially interesting thing. I'm hopeful that dx11 will lead to the GPU being seamlessly utilized as a co-processor for things like video encoding and image manipulation without requiring lots of extra programming time for the software developers.

 

[R0N1]

This is not groundbreaking, but I'm still excited that DX11 is coming. Even though it will take some time before games arrives made especially for DX11, and benefit seriously from it. By then we could even possibly be hearing rumors about the next DX version. Good post by Elledan.

 

[firas]

DX developers keep developing DX, games developers and graphic card manufacturers do the same to their products, and they tend to market their achievements, at the end the costumer keeps getting better product quality, yes the process may not be happening in the most perfect scenario, but it’s happening, guess I should be working with “Microsoft stupid marketing department”

 

[Elledan]

The computer shader is the one potentially interesting thing. I'm hopeful that dx11 will lead to the GPU being seamlessly utilized as a co-processor for things like video encoding and image manipulation without requiring lots of extra programming time for the software developers.

But why not use an existing, cross-platform solution like CUDA, OpenCL, Stream or GLSL? DX GPGPU will restrict one to Windows-only. Then again I don't see the point of developing for Windows alone either in any respect.

 

[Modred189]

But why not use an existing, cross-platform solution like CUDA, OpenCL, Stream or GLSL?

The answer to this is money, compatibility and allegiances, or at least perceived ones.
Lets say that you are a company that makes a video encoding software, like Nero. Now, lets say that you choose to support CUDA, and incorporate CUDA to aid in encoding video. We'll call this product 'Move It'
http://www.nero.com/eng/moveit-introduction.html

Now, it works pretty well and it's a good product, however you have effectively shut out a large proportion of the market, because CUDA will not run on ATi cards. IN addition, ATi will now see you as having sided with the competition, and may not let you sell an ATi Stream enabled encoder. PLUS, considering the Intel-Nvidia spat, you run the risk of pissing them off, and I know many Nero products have the C2D/C2Q logo on the box. You may now lose that endorsement. BEST case scenario, you have to make two different apps for people with the different graphics cards in their system.

Now, lets take DX11 and the compute shader into account. Now, you have a standardized platform that will be in EVERY DX11 system, and is largely brand-neutral. You do not have to worry about making anyone mad, you only have to make one version, the licensing is included in DX11, and integrated into the OS. There's no guessing, less politics, and less cost.

DX GPGPU will restrict one to Windows-only. Then again I don't see the point of developing for Windows alone either in any respect.

Well, considering that Direct X is windows-only, and DX11 being the point of the post/conversation, your statement does not make any sense. Besides, the vast majority of companies who develop a GPGPU enhanced app will be doing so for windows. The alternative is the 8% of users on OSX, or the ~1% on various linux distros. That wouldn't make any sense (or cents for that matter, lol)

 

[Simmonz]

the "failure" of dx10 has nothing to do with vista as some moron said, the real problem is pc games are dying, there are fewer and fewer pc games worth the time. microsoft cant know it better hence shifted to consoles

Yeah i'm the moron yet your the one saying PC gaming is dying. People have been saying that PC gaming is dying for about 20 years yet it's still going. How come PC has more exclusives than any one console ? How come PC has more highly rated games at game sites ? How come PC software makes more money than any one console ? These are pretty good feats for a dying platform. I am talking about 2008 and prior since there isn't a lot of data for 2009. If you want data from my statements then wait for 6PM, i'm at work right now.