DirectX isn't an issue for all things affecting game performance, just
some things. You can't say for sure that the code is optimally
efficient if you haven't been inside or involved with the development.
You can only assume that. Sure, writing directly to hardware typically
results in the fastest performance...but if you read the article, they
are talking an order magnitude hit on drawing "chucks of geometry" for
not going direct to hardware. That's a hoooge hit. It ought to be like
70% or something like that.
Also, these days, it's just Intel, AMD, and nVidia. The work ought to
be a lot easier now.
On 3/27/2011 3:55 PM, [email protected] wrote:
That's not the issue. Ms has improved drastically on dx. How many games use
all the features of dx11? I can't think of any. The reason isn't ms. When
the largest installed graphic chips are intel onboard video and amd onboard
video, game makers look for product with the widest potential user base.
Nobody is going to write a game that requires an ati 65xx or nvidia gtx.
When you write for a console, the developer knows the exact hardware. Huge
difference
Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T
-----Original Message-----
From: "Anthony Q. Martin"<[email protected]>
Sender: [email protected]
Date: Sun, 27 Mar 2011 15:53:12
To:<[email protected]>
Reply-To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [H] AMD says DirectX slows everything down
if there driver were all that is needed, then it would have directX (or
the equivalent) built in. Then they'd have to do that for every card
and every card vendor. I'm sure the video card vendors wouldn't want that.
And why can't MS improve on Direct X? Is PC hardware inferior to
console hardware? I can't believe the abstraction layer needs to be so
inefficient. How do we know they haven't just decided that since the
hardware is so powerful that they don't have to work so hard on tweaking
the software to perfection? Look at those pics at the link I gave...do
consoles provide such high res images when you use 4 cards? When you
can throw that kind of horsepower at the task, why work so hard to beat
the software?
On 3/27/2011 3:25 PM, Steve Tomporowski wrote:
I can agree with you there. I don't know how they would do anything
different. What baffles me is what is AMD trying to get at by saying
this? Are they going to provide some drivers that allow hardware
level access and bypass DirectX. I never really understood why there
has to be so many layers of software between the operating system and
the hardware--You have Windows, then DirectX, then the video driver.
Shouldn't the driver be the interface between Windows and the
hardware? Maybe I just don't get it.
On 3/27/2011 2:51 PM, Anthony Q. Martin wrote:
DirectX can either be fixed or replaced, but we don't want to go back
to the old days.
Sent from my iPad
On Mar 27, 2011, at 2:22 PM, Steve Tomporowski<[email protected]>
wrote:
I do remember back to the days where you really had to read game box
to see if your soundcard was supported or if you had to depend on
system speaker. Dealing directly with the hardware means that
someone comes out the winner, like Creative in the old days. I
still have one game (Carnivores 2) which only has 2 selections for
3D display: Software and 3dfx.
More likely they will replace DirectX with something else. Remember
when Maximum PC called DirectX 'horribly broken'?
Steve
On 3/27/2011 11:32 AM, Anthony Q. Martin wrote:
Yeah, I read it. However, the first notion that PC hardware is 10x
more powerful but not 10x as good looking. That's highly subjective.
Then, the notion of writing directly to the hardware .... crashy,
crashy .... that was the whole point of an API in the first
place....so you develop a game on the console, and then do
device-level programming for different PC hardware? Not gonna happen.
Developers should get MS to improve on DirectX so that those
numbers come up!
On 3/27/2011 10:54 AM, Steve Tomporowski wrote:
You need to read the article. The guy from AMD contends that PCs
need much more hardware power to get the same/better results than
consoles and blames directX. Apparently consoles can run 10k to
20k 'draw calls' per frame compared to 2k to 3k for the PC because
directX does not allow mutliple objects per call.
That is , if I've got the gist of the article correct.....;-)
Steve
On 3/27/2011 9:39 AM, Anthony Q. Martin wrote:
I'm not a gamer, but I guess these guys must not be usign DirectX
games when they generate these high-res shots on their PCs:
http://hardforum.com/showthread.php?t=1530070
On 3/27/2011 9:19 AM, Steve Tomporowski wrote:
http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/graphics/2011/03/16/farewell-to-directx/1
This article talks about how, with 10x the power of consoles, PC
games only look 1/10 as good due to DirectX.
Steve
