PDA

View Full Version : Windows Vista and DirectX 10


Shade01
07-30-2005, 02:03 AM
DirectX 10 With all the talk of next-generation consoles—and some very impressive screenshots floating around the web—fans of PC games are naturally wondering whether these powerful new systems are going to "kill" PC games. In a word . . . no.

The upcoming Xbox 360 and PlayStation 3 are based on DirectX 9 technology, in the case of the 360 it's "DirectX 9 and then a little more." But DirectX 10 is a whole different animal. It's a major revision to the API, almost a complete rewrite that requires substantially different hardware than the stuff we've seen so far.

To start with, let's clear up a few naming misconceptions. Over the past year or more, the graphics "stuff" coming in Windows Vista has been referred to by many names. DirectX Next and Windows Graphics Foundation 2.0 are two of the most prominent. The names have been changing internally at Microsoft, and it seems that they've all but settled on actually calling it DirectX 10. Contrary to some reports, it will ship with Vista, along with DirectX 9.L, a version of DX9 altered to fit the new LDDM driver model used by the OS.



DirectX 10 started by fixing what was broken in the previous APIs, like some stability problems and small batch performance, and then removing old unnecessary parts of the API (like the fixed function transform and lighting calls). This served as the foundation for a graphics API that could radically change the way games look and really take PCs to that next quantum leap, even over next-generation consoles.

The new graphics API will have much more stringent requirements for graphics cards, with a very particular guaranteed feature set. There should be no more "cap bits" needed to determine if your graphics cards can perform certain functions. The behavior of DX10 cards will be strictly defined, so developers can get the expected output from their code with no tweaking necessary for the eccentricities of different graphics cards from different vendors.

It also requires several new features of the hardware. The first is a new "geometry shader" function, which operates not on single vertices like today's vertex shader units, but on entire primitives: dots, lines, lines with adjacent vertices, triangles, and triangles with adjacent vertices. The huge performance penalty imposed by too many state changes should be a thing of the past as well. Render states are grouped into five different objects that can be cached by the hardware, with up to 4096 state objects of each type cacheable at once. DX10 also introduces a common shader core between pixels and vertices. Granted, this does not mean that the hardware itself needs to have ALUs that operate on either pixels or vertices, just that the language and functions have been fused into a single shader set.

The net result of these things should be games with an absolutely unprecedented level of detail, including a dramatic increase in "clutter," or the hordes of random and different stuff that exists in the real world but not in games. Obviously, rendering quality will shoot way up, too, with improved masking functions for antialiasing. It will also mean better object sorting, the ability to algorithmically generate content entirely on the GPU, and ultimately memory virtualization in the LDDM driver model to reduce bandwidth costs and provide more granular access to graphics data.

Right now, it's all a bit too much to take in. Some of the specs are still in flux, and you need an unabridged programmer-to-English dictionary to even comprehend the scope of the changes and their ramifications. Suffice it to say: When DirectX 10 games hit us, they're going to be of a quality that next-gen consoles can't touch.

http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,1697,1841223,00.asp

io-d
07-30-2005, 05:45 PM
Sorry but AFAIK you´re wrong. Playstation 3 will be based on opengl es api. For Directx 10, or what so ever will be it´s name, we can only wait and see.

Pent
07-30-2005, 05:49 PM
pc graphics, will and will always be far better then what a console can do, why, because consoles are frozen in time...

AKDesigns
07-30-2005, 05:58 PM
something tells me that a little bit of software will bring the consoles right up to speed....

L.Rawlins
07-30-2005, 06:13 PM
Next-generation consoles aren't even 'consoles'. They carry the hardware, the shared games library, the functionality and now it seems even the price of a typical PC.

Atleast that's the way I see it. :shrug:

Pin_pal
07-30-2005, 06:26 PM
pc graphics, will and will always be far better then what a console can do, why, because consoles are frozen in time...

Huh? Remember when a "simple" Nes, Sega master system, SNES, Genesis could produce better graphics then a PC at the time? Sure PC did catch up and surpass consoles for time, but the will change again.

And almost ANY console will outperform PC's when it come to good ol' 2D goodness.

It's all about dedicated hardware my friend :)

PP

XanderFX
07-30-2005, 06:47 PM
Consoles may be frozen in time and are tending to rise inprice but compare that to the problem when PC games are made that surpass the graphic quality of the current consoles they depend heavily on updated hardware to run the game with max quality settings. Half Life 2 required you to purchase one of the latest graphics cards on the market at the time to get all of the eye candy running at a resonable framerate. Consoles don't require a hardware upgrade, driver update, or game patch to run the game as it was intended to be.

Developers of PC games rarely try to develop low or mid grade PCs. Whenever the next big jump in graphics technology comes out it always says it will require the latest GPU and depending on if your current mobo is AGP a new Mobo and possibly a new processor to run the game with all of the bells and whistles. With a little creativity in how to utilize the consoles hardware many developers produce outstanding looking games that rival PCs. Notice how first generation console games look different than 2nd or 3rd generation. And last I checked it cost 400 to 500 dollars to buy the latest graphics card every year to run the most recent games and with the release of PCI-X a new mobo which is another 100 to 300 bucks, plus the time to put it in and reactivate windows if your current configuration changes to much for XP. Now compare that to the life of a console plus the ability to double as your DVD player and I bet the cost doesn't matter much.

Boone
07-31-2005, 03:55 PM
If MicroSoft keeps its promise on better stability & compatability then it should make a welcome addition to the DirectX series. :lightbulb

One of the things that makes me blue in the face is when asking for help with a DirectX-related problem( as in coding ) and you get replies such as "HAHA! You really should know how DirectX was developed - you're a mere idiot otherwise!" when faced with trying to place a sodding DOT on the screen. I shall quote Kyle Reese from Terminator...

"I DIDN'T BUILD THE ****ING THING!" :banghead:

switchstance
07-31-2005, 10:10 PM
And last I checked it cost 400 to 500 dollars to buy the latest graphics card every year to run the most recent games and with the release of PCI-X a new mobo which is another 100 to 300 bucks, plus the time to put it in and reactivate windows if your current configuration changes to much for XP.

to be honest, buying the latest graphics card EVERY YEAR is nonsense imo.

i bought my last pc in 2002, and the graphics card was by then already far away from the latest graphic card available by that time, and only after around 2 years i reached the limit,
where there were games out that i couldn't really play in a statisfying way ...
(and unless you are a super-hardcore gamer, you will hold out a half year/year too till you
can play the newest game that came out)

of course the development of software and hardware is speeding up drastically in the last years, but there is also a limit where companies will decide to sell the games to a majority and not to a special gamer-elite that is equipped with the newest graphics-card.
and additionally the production time of computer games is rising too, due to the fact that an engine that can do more, also needs more input to raise the wow-factor of the graphic :)

SimonPickard
08-01-2005, 01:34 AM
I've got a question about all this new DX10 stuff..
Having just spent a load of cash on a geforce 7800 is it going to be able to work ok with the new windows gfx system?
I was hoping that I could get away with not upgrading for a few years now.

Regards,
Simon.

SpaceRabbit
08-01-2005, 02:43 AM
One major thing to remember when comparing consoles to windows based pc's for gaming is overhead. Consoles aren't running windows in the background, hence far less overhead. Just a consideration when thinking about hardware comparissons.

201
08-04-2005, 01:47 AM
Did anyone try Beta1 yet? They released 10,000 to beta testers and more to msdn subscribers. We got one at work... can't wait to try it.

CGTalk Moderation
08-04-2005, 01:47 AM
This thread has been automatically closed as it remained inactive for 12 months. If you wish to continue the discussion, please create a new thread in the appropriate forum.