Send News. Want a reply? Read this. More in the FAQ.   News Forum - All Forums - Mobile - PDA - RSS Headlines  RSS Headlines   Twitter  Twitter
Customize
User Settings
Styles:
LAN Parties
Upcoming one-time events:
Greenbelt, MD 08/22

Regularly scheduled events

AMD Says No More DirectX?

An article on German magazine Heise.de from last week speaks with AMD Vice President of Global Channel Sales Roy Taylor, who seems to say that they do not believe Microsoft has any plans for DirectX 12. This is noted on Slashdot (thanks Ant by way of this story). This seems like one of those stories that will inspire a correction of some sorts, but here is what a Google machine translation makes of his comments, which do not sound nearly as final as Slashdot's write-up implies: "But there will be no DirectX 12th That's it. To our knowledge there are no plans for DirectX 12th If the vote should not and someone wants to correct me - wonderful. But now we really need excellent games like Crysis or Bioshock Infinite 3, on the one hand to encourage the industry and also to reward our buyers."

View
30 Replies. 2 pages. Viewing page 1.
< Newer [ 1 2 ] Older >

30. Re: RE: Follow up Apr 14, 2013, 02:07 TheEmissary
 
UConnBBall wrote on Apr 13, 2013, 20:01:
WaltC wrote on Apr 13, 2013, 13:34:
Wow..;) The BS in this thread runs deep...;) Microsoft takes its cues on the formulation of D3d versions from AMD & nVidia--of course--as these are the companies who support the APIs with their hardware.

WHAT? So AMD and NVIDIA want to support OpenGL AND DirectX and they control the API and the tools that the devlopers use???? LOL dude seriously need to not call people BS when you don't get the fact that no M$ no DirectX everyone uses OpenGL.

There are reasons why AMD and Nvidia would want to support DirectX. Case in point that Microsoft tended to introduce new features in to the core API lot faster than the bureaucracy of OpenGL Architecture board prior to the Khronos Group did. Not to mention the near monopoly that Microsoft has with Windows.

Supporting both APIs is kind of trivial as far as the hardware goes as the distinction comes in with the drivers. OpenGL can support the DirectX features through extensions.

AMD and few developers have been pushing hard for an API that is more light-weight in comparison to DirectX and something that treats the gpu as a general processor that can actually run complete programs. Lot of developers talk about wanting to write custom render methods that DirectX currently can't support or atleast very well. They want to leverage the processing power. Think Software rendering done on the the GPU itself probably done through OpenCL or DirectComputer or some close to metal API.

This comment was edited on Apr 14, 2013, 02:16.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
29. Re: AMD Says No More DirectX? Apr 13, 2013, 21:13 Rea1One
 
Microsoft might possibly go DirectX 11.2 next but after that they will definitely will make a DirectX 12 once technology advances even further.  
Avatar 57386
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
28. Re: RE: Follow up Apr 13, 2013, 20:01 UConnBBall
 
WaltC wrote on Apr 13, 2013, 13:34:
Wow..;) The BS in this thread runs deep...;) Microsoft takes its cues on the formulation of D3d versions from AMD & nVidia--of course--as these are the companies who support the APIs with their hardware.

WHAT? So AMD and NVIDIA want to support OpenGL AND DirectX and they control the API and the tools that the devlopers use???? LOL dude seriously need to not call people BS when you don't get the fact that no M$ no DirectX everyone uses OpenGL.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
27. Re: AMD Says No More DirectX? Apr 13, 2013, 13:35 jamiedj99
 
it doesnt matter if there is a dx12 any time in the next 5 years since the pc market is controled by console's. the new xbox will have full dx11 support. this will be what most pc will use over the next 5 years and look like there will be very few opengl games in the long run. i am sure microsoft is dev dx 12 they just holding it all back until there next console in 5-6 years. we have seen pc game company already nerfing graphics so that pc users dont get a visual advantage on some games so sales dont dip on console version. there will help put a stop to more games looking better on pc them console versions.  
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
26. Re: AMD Says No More DirectX? Apr 13, 2013, 13:34 WaltC
 
Wow..;) The BS in this thread runs deep...;) Microsoft takes its cues on the formulation of D3d versions from AMD & nVidia--of course--as these are the companies who support the APIs with their hardware. The fact is that simply because at this moment in time no one is talking about D3d12 doesn't mean there will never be a D3d 12. Period. That's it. (This thread sounds like something straight out of 1995--except those threads had a lot more pertinent information in them...;)) I guess if there is a way to misunderstand a comment, someone on the Internet will figure it out and do it just to make headlines.
 
Avatar 16008
 
It is well known that I do not make mistakes--so if you should happen across a mistake in anything I have written, be assured that I did not write it!
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
25. Re: RE: Follow up Apr 13, 2013, 13:05 Mashiki Amiketo
 
UConnBBall wrote on Apr 13, 2013, 11:36:
DirectX and Direct3D was a big road block.
Pretty much it right there, though it doesn't help we had the big pissing match over the changes in OGL a few years ago, and it dragged on, and on, and on, and on.
 
--
"For every human problem,
there is a neat, simple solution;
and it is always wrong."
--H.L. Mencken
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
24. Re: RE: Follow up Apr 13, 2013, 11:36 UConnBBall
 
Win for John Carmack over Bill Gates. They had a HUGE fight over OpenGL vs DirectX and I guess John Wins.

Also for the world to become OS Agnostic this needs to happen. I would like to think we are getting to a point where it doesn't really matter practically between Windows, OSX and Linux. DirectX and Direct3D was a big road block.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
23. Re: AMD Says No More DirectX? Apr 13, 2013, 11:07 theyarecomingforyou
 
Spektr wrote on Apr 13, 2013, 07:33:
Well no point in making a directx12 if directx11 isnt utilized yet. Consoles will most certainly use 11 so that means it's going to be around for 10 more years at least. MS might want to focus on developing products they can actually sell.
The problem is we'll end up stuck with outdated tech, just like we did with DX9. It was around for four years before DX10 came along and because Microsoft tied it to Vista it was still preferable for developers to target DX9. DX11 was a much more worthwhile improvement - tessellation, DirectCompute and 3D-support. More developers are targeting it now that it's been on the market for three years, yet there's no sign of a successor.

Without DirectX to guide graphics vendors we risk the vendor-exclusive fragmentation of old. It also makes it more difficult for nVidia and AMD to shift new cards, as there's only so many times you can print "faster" on the box without big features to sell it. The sooner DX12 is developed and released the sooner games can start to take advantage of it. Sure not all developers support DX11 as it is but there's a lot more pressure on them to.

Unfortunately Microsoft's obsession with consoles is yet again holding back PC gaming.
 
Avatar 22891
 
SteamID: theyarecomingforyou
Star Citizen: Blue's News
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
22. Re: AMD Says No More DirectX? Apr 13, 2013, 10:48 Tom
 
TheEmissary wrote on Apr 12, 2013, 23:04:
I doubt Microsoft is going to abandoned DirectX after how man years of trying to develop it as a viable alternative to OpenGL. They aren't going to just dump it unless something arguably better is coming out of this.

Except this is EXACTLY what Microsoft always does. They take their most popular, best loved APIs and technologies and just leave them on the vine to rot for years or decades. They'll do this while offering either no replacement, or a ridiculously inadequate replacement.

Things don't happen for technical or logical reasons at Microsoft. They happen for internal political reasons. As a result, anything (stupid) is possible. Their massive slide in competitiveness in recent years is entirely self-inflicted.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
21. Re: AMD Says No More DirectX? Apr 13, 2013, 10:46 Panickd
 
There is a distinction between DX and D3D. I don't think most aspects of DirectX have moved all that much in several iterations. And most of the Direct3D stuff has been pulled into Windows directly and out of the DirectX package. I can see a future where MS leaves DirectX as a discreet package behind and makes updates to Direct3D with OS updates. They may even stop calling it Direct3D because it's just part of the OS now.  
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
20. Re: AMD Says No More DirectX? Apr 13, 2013, 10:10 dj LiTh
 
Spektr wrote on Apr 13, 2013, 07:33:
Well no point in making a directx12 if directx11 isnt utilized yet. Consoles will most certainly use 11 so that means it's going to be around for 10 more years at least. MS might want to focus on developing products they can actually sell.

This. The new consoles wont even be able to utilize dx11 to its fullest. I'm betting very rarely will full tessellation be turned on.
 
Avatar 46370
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
19. Re: AMD Says No More DirectX? Apr 13, 2013, 08:07 Bhruic
 
TheEmissary wrote on Apr 12, 2013, 23:04:
I doubt Microsoft is going to abandoned DirectX after how man years of trying to develop it as a viable alternative to OpenGL. They aren't going to just dump it unless something arguably better is coming out of this.

Microsoft only fought so hard to make DX the standard because they wanted to protect Windows. They knew (rightly) that if OpenGL became the standard, it would be much easier to make multi-platform games, which would take away one of the large drawing points for Windows.

Right now there's no such threat that a DX12 would fix. The thing that's threatening Windows is mobile systems (phones, pads, etc). That's why all their attention is on trying to make a mobile Windows. There is no business advantage to making a DX12, so there's no reason for them to care about making it.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
18. Re: AMD Says No More DirectX? Apr 13, 2013, 07:33 Spektr
 
Well no point in making a directx12 if directx11 isnt utilized yet. Consoles will most certainly use 11 so that means it's going to be around for 10 more years at least. MS might want to focus on developing products they can actually sell.  
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
17. Re: AMD Says No More DirectX? Apr 13, 2013, 06:25 edaciousx
 
TheEmissary wrote on Apr 13, 2013, 03:17:
edaciousx wrote on Apr 13, 2013, 00:40:
tehnolan wrote on Apr 12, 2013, 21:09:
I can't even tell the difference between DX9,10,11.. that is until I get a screenshot bigger than my monitor to point it out

A lot of that stems from the fact that you can run the same exact graphics/game in dx9 or 10/11 without adding any visual benefits to the game's graphics from 9. In other words..... just because it's in 10/11 doesn't mean the developer's going to use all the cool bells and whistles offered in 10/11 to make the game look awesome.

There are a number of reasons why we didn't have DX10+ games until recently. The main factor really was Windows Vista tanking the big one and people holding on to XP until Windows 7 hit even though they had a DX10 class gpu.

The improvements that DX10+ brought were mostly under the hood such as getting rid of the fixed function pipeline and going for the unified shaders. DX10 is actually quite a bit faster when the complexity is equal.


Those are all true but the original comment that I replied to said that he can't tell the difference between dx 9 and 10 or 11. 10 did not have too many improvements, mostly shadows I believe over dx9 besides performance gains. dx11 has huge improvements over 11 but those improvement aren't utilized because it costs money to utilize those improvements. There's not much reason to pay someone to make a better visual game for "just PCs" when the larger market is comprised mostly of ps3/360s... you know?

tl;dr: there's no monetary value to produce dx11 games until very recently.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
16. Re: AMD Says No More DirectX? Apr 13, 2013, 03:35 Lord Tea
 
If the vote should not and someone wants to correct me - wonderful.

Hmm, yeah, Google translate.

"If I'm wrong and someone wants to correct me, fine."

The term DirectX may just be obsolete. If there's no DirectX there will be something else.
 
UPSA = United Police States of America
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
15. Re: AMD Says No More DirectX? Apr 13, 2013, 03:17 TheEmissary
 
edaciousx wrote on Apr 13, 2013, 00:40:
tehnolan wrote on Apr 12, 2013, 21:09:
I can't even tell the difference between DX9,10,11.. that is until I get a screenshot bigger than my monitor to point it out

A lot of that stems from the fact that you can run the same exact graphics/game in dx9 or 10/11 without adding any visual benefits to the game's graphics from 9. In other words..... just because it's in 10/11 doesn't mean the developer's going to use all the cool bells and whistles offered in 10/11 to make the game look awesome.

There are a number of reasons why we didn't have DX10+ games until recently. The main factor really was Windows Vista tanking the big one and people holding on to XP until Windows 7 hit even though they had a DX10 class gpu.

The improvements that DX10+ brought were mostly under the hood such as getting rid of the fixed function pipeline and going for the unified shaders. DX10 is actually quite a bit faster when the complexity is equal.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
14. Re: AMD Says No More DirectX? Apr 13, 2013, 00:40 edaciousx
 
tehnolan wrote on Apr 12, 2013, 21:09:
I can't even tell the difference between DX9,10,11.. that is until I get a screenshot bigger than my monitor to point it out

A lot of that stems from the fact that you can run the same exact graphics/game in dx9 or 10/11 without adding any visual benefits to the game's graphics from 9. In other words..... just because it's in 10/11 doesn't mean the developer's going to use all the cool bells and whistles offered in 10/11 to make the game look awesome.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
13. Re: AMD Says No More DirectX? Apr 12, 2013, 23:45 Cutter
 
TheEmissary wrote on Apr 12, 2013, 23:04:
I doubt Microsoft is going to abandoned DirectX after how man years of trying to develop it as a viable alternative to OpenGL. They aren't going to just dump it unless something arguably better is coming out of this.

I can't see them getting rid of DirectX without having something that replace that functionality completely with tight access to the hardware. My guess is that since GPUS are becoming general purpose processors now is that MS will probably have a API that strongly favors that new paradigm. It will probably be a iteration on DirectCompute and less on fixed pipelines/render paths.


^
This. MS foguht long and hard to make this universally accepted and it's a good thing. How soon we forget the bad ol' days of trying to get games running under all manner of different APIs and libraries. In fact, it would behoove MS to drop the Xbox line, focus on PC gaming and DirectX to maintain their dominance in this regard. Hell, they should have done that from the get-go.
 
Avatar 25394
 
"The South will boogie again!" - Disco Stu
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
12. Re: AMD Says No More DirectX? Apr 12, 2013, 23:04 TheEmissary
 
I doubt Microsoft is going to abandoned DirectX after how man years of trying to develop it as a viable alternative to OpenGL. They aren't going to just dump it unless something arguably better is coming out of this.

I can't see them getting rid of DirectX without having something that replace that functionality completely with tight access to the hardware. My guess is that since GPUS are becoming general purpose processors now is that MS will probably have a API that strongly favors that new paradigm. It will probably be a iteration on DirectCompute and less on fixed pipelines/render paths.

 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
11. Re: More Big Picture Details Apr 12, 2013, 22:20 Evil Timmy
 
tl;dr 10 and 11 have more differences under the hood, but more powerful shaders are what you'd actually see

10 and 11 especially are mostly under-the-hood updates, moving to a new Windows driver model, 64-bit, and making many small tweaks to efficiency and ease of coding. The difference an end user would be able to see would really be apparent in how powerful shaders were, DirectX 9 had a fixed set of functions but 10 and 11 are fully programmable and can both be used more heavily and interact with more objects in the scene (ie not just paint the image but perform more actual functions in the game world). Bioshock Infinite on PC looks stunning if you enable the Alternate shader rather than the normal DX9-era bloom, and it's an effect that's DX11 only. Depth of field and a number of other mathematically-similar calculations benefited from DX11's improved rendering pipeline, they were possible before but not practical given the hardware of the day and lower efficiency in the code.
 
Avatar 19465
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
30 Replies. 2 pages. Viewing page 1.
< Newer [ 1 2 ] Older >


footer

.. .. ..

Blue's News logo