I get nightmares thinking about going back to having separate code-branches for every vendor and architecture

=WTE=MavericK wrote on Mar 18, 2011, 22:26:
Isn't the fact that Microsoft, starting with Vista, moved the video graphics adapter from kernel-mode to user-mode for more stability the biggest performance drain?

Creston wrote on Mar 18, 2011, 11:02:
That makes no sense. Why would DirectX be "dumbed down" for the consoles? The 360 runs DX9. DX10 and DX11 aren't being dumbed down for the sake of the DX9 implementation on the 360.

Creston

Mashiki Amiketo wrote on Mar 18, 2011, 17:12:

killer_roach wrote on Mar 18, 2011, 17:04:
OpenGL is flexible, but if you're talking about performance, it's an absolute joke.

That's probably more to do with the fact that most optimizations in drivers these days are built around DX, and DX related apps not OGL. OGL performance was 2nd to none behind 3dfx back 10 years ago(and sometimes higher) because everything was either OGL, or 3dfx. And DX was dead last, that changed after 3dfx folded, got eaten by nvidia, and MS decided that consoles were the latest hot shit, and gave special incentives for DX optimizations.

Mashiki Amiketo wrote on Mar 18, 2011, 17:12:

killer_roach wrote on Mar 18, 2011, 17:04:
OpenGL is flexible, but if you're talking about performance, it's an absolute joke.

That's probably more to do with the fact that most optimizations in drivers these days are built around DX, and DX related apps not OGL. OGL performance was 2nd to none behind 3dfx back 10 years ago(and sometimes higher) because everything was either OGL, or 3dfx. And DX was dead last, that changed after 3dfx folded, got eaten by nvidia, and MS decided that consoles were the latest hot shit, and gave special incentives for DX optimizations.

killer_roach wrote on Mar 18, 2011, 17:04:
OpenGL is flexible, but if you're talking about performance, it's an absolute joke.

Mashiki Amiketo wrote on Mar 18, 2011, 16:48:

KilrathiAce wrote on Mar 18, 2011, 15:59:
What matters is that most games that hit PC nowdays are console ports and thus they never take full advantage of PC capibilities.

You know if they could get dev's back on to the OGL train, after the 3.0 revision fuckup, this wouldn't be a problem.

Blue wrote on Mar 18, 2011, 15:37:

Creston wrote on Mar 18, 2011, 11:00:

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

Errr.... am I missing something?

http://interviews.teamxbox.com/xbox/1458/The-Power-of-the-Xbox-360-GPU/p1/

"Fast forward to 2005, Microsoft revealed that the Xbox 360 will feature a custom ATI graphics processor that clocks in at a blistering 500 MHz, with 48-way parallel floating-point dynamically scheduled shader pipelines and 10 MB of embedded RAM."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XCGPU#XCGPU

The Xbox 360 S introduced the XCGPU, which integrated the Xenon CPU and the Xenos GPU onto the same die, and the eDRAM into the same package. The XCGPU is the first mass marketed chip that combines a desktop class CPU, a powerful GPU, memory controllers and IO. It also contains a "front side bus replacement block" that connects the CPU and GPU internally in exactly the same manner as the front side bus would have done when the CPU and GPU were separate chips, so that the XCGPU doesn't change the hardware characteristics of the Xbox 360.

XCGPU contains 372 million transistors and is manufactured by GlobalFoundries on a 45 nm process. Compared to the original chipset in the Xbox 360 the combined power requirements are reduced by 60% and the physical chip area by 50%.[8][9]

Steele Johnson wrote on Mar 18, 2011, 15:35:
What should really go away is Windows as a gaming platform. It's getting to the point where you don't need a bloated operating system anymore. I'd like to see a stand-alone gaming platform that will run on any operating system, like Google Chrome, HP WebOS, etc. Those are the types of OS's we'll see in the near future (light, thin, and boots up like a light switch). DirectX does need to go away because just like anything Microsoft, it prevents advancements in technology.

KilrathiAce wrote on Mar 18, 2011, 15:59:
What matters is that most games that hit PC nowdays are console ports and thus they never take full advantage of PC capibilities.

Eric wrote on Mar 18, 2011, 16:11:
The Xenos GPU is an ATI design.

Blue wrote on Mar 18, 2011, 15:37:

Creston wrote on Mar 18, 2011, 11:00:

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

Errr.... am I missing something?

http://interviews.teamxbox.com/xbox/1458/The-Power-of-the-Xbox-360-GPU/p1/

"Fast forward to 2005, Microsoft revealed that the Xbox 360 will feature a custom ATI graphics processor that clocks in at a blistering 500 MHz, with 48-way parallel floating-point dynamically scheduled shader pipelines and 10 MB of embedded RAM."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XCGPU#XCGPU

The Xbox 360 S introduced the XCGPU, which integrated the Xenon CPU and the Xenos GPU onto the same die, and the eDRAM into the same package. The XCGPU is the first mass marketed chip that combines a desktop class CPU, a powerful GPU, memory controllers and IO. It also contains a "front side bus replacement block" that connects the CPU and GPU internally in exactly the same manner as the front side bus would have done when the CPU and GPU were separate chips, so that the XCGPU doesn't change the hardware characteristics of the Xbox 360.

XCGPU contains 372 million transistors and is manufactured by GlobalFoundries on a 45 nm process. Compared to the original chipset in the Xbox 360 the combined power requirements are reduced by 60% and the physical chip area by 50%.[8][9]