|
|
 |
| [Mar 18, 2011, 10:09 am ET] - Share - Viewing Comments |
Farewell to DirectX on bit-tech.net hears from Richard Huddy, head of GPU developer relations at AMD, who states that DirectX is holding back game performance. He blames this on consoles, though it seems logical that this would probably be less of an issue for AMD if they manufactured CPUs or GPUs for the Xbox 360 or PlayStation 3. Though programming more directly for the hardware on two different GPU architectures would be more difficult, he claims the most common request he gets from developers is to "make the API go away." Here's a bit: '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.'
Post Comment
Enter the details of the comment
you'd like to post in the boxes below and click the button at
the bottom of the form.
 |
| 44. |
Re: AMD Knocks DirectX |
Mar 20, 2011, 13:13 |
m0deth |
|
|
I get nightmares thinking about going back to having separate code-branches for every vendor and architecture
Just a question here, so don't bash me over the head, but really?
I'm seeing two viable code branches you could cut to, maybe 3 if your game/app is capable of running on intel architecture, but....otherwise, it's AMD and nVidia no? CPU optimizations aside of course.
I can't help but think that this massive push for a unified codebase in development is nothing but a cost measure, and has little to do with what can be done and still make a profit. I for one am sick of shitty PC ports from console games. This is a symptom of this mindset. It's also part of the reasoning for those harbingers of the PC gaming death crowd. It's artificial, and from a consumer point of view, stems from laziness(or corporate money tightening), neither of which are acceptable to someone paying a premium for a game. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
Twitter 
