Direct3D feature levels discussion

NVIDIA said they are working with Microsoft to standardize Mega Geometry, maybe DXR1.3?

He also emphasized that since this mega geometry is a software technology, it can be supported by all RTX graphics cards up to the RTX 20 series. He said that this is not simply a technology exclusive to Nvidia, but that they are working with Microsoft to standardize it.​
quasarzone.com

GDC 2025ìì ë§ë ìë¹ëì ë´ë´ ë ëë§

ìë¹ëì GDC 2025  ìë¹ëìë GTC 2025(GPU Technology Conference)ìâ¦
quasarzone.com quasarzone.com
 
Jay said:
I'm always pushing for multiple options.
But do wonder why MS doesn't move DX to legacy and just go all in with Vulcan.
Moving forward what are they actually getting from putting in whatever work they do?

Do wonder if they are having those conversations now, with multi plat push etc now also
Click to expand...
that would remove another control they have about pc gaming.. and only anti-cheating kernel driver will remains (that a lot of people don't want or don't care at all)
 
DavidGraham said:
NVIDIA said they are working with Microsoft to standardize Mega Geometry, maybe DXR1.3?


​
He also emphasized that since this mega geometry is a software technology, it can be supported by all RTX graphics cards up to the RTX 20 series. He said that this is not simply a technology exclusive to Nvidia, but that they are working with Microsoft to standardize it.​


quasarzone.com

GDC 2025ìì ë§ë ìë¹ëì ë´ë´ ë ëë§

ìë¹ëì GDC 2025  ìë¹ëìë GTC 2025(GPU Technology Conference)ìâ¦
quasarzone.com quasarzone.com
Click to expand...
if it "can" be supported in the same way that would be added for sure, RTX20 and beyond has a big share of currently working gaming pcs.
 
Alessio1989 said:
that would remove another control they have about pc gaming.. and only anti-cheating kernel driver will remains (that a lot of people don't want or don't care at all)
Click to expand...
What control does it actually give them though?
Could understand in the past. Not sure what they get from the investment and I don't see them doing much from looking from the outside in regarding pushing things forward etc

Take that investment and work on windows game ui
 
Jay said:
I'm always pushing for multiple options.
But do wonder why MS doesn't move DX to legacy and just go all in with Vulcan.
Moving forward what are they actually getting from putting in whatever work they do?

Do wonder if they are having those conversations now, with multi plat push etc now also
Click to expand...
Microsoft can add new features to DirectX on its own. Adding features to Vulkan requires going through the Khronos Group. DX12 is a clean API focused on Windows PCs and Xbox. Vulkan has to support everything from console to mobile to embedded devices to PCs. PlayStation and Apple have their own graphics APIs, there's no reason Microsoft should get rid of theirs. And I think it goes without saying that the DirextX12 API team does not work on UI, ditching DirectX 12 will do nothing to improve Windows UI. Microsoft is perfectly capable of improving Windows UI/UX without abandoning core Windows features; if it does ditch Windows features and lay off the teams responsible for them that would be a pure cost-cutting decision, that money won't be redirected to improving anything else.

Also, the direction WebGPU is going in seems to be the final nail in the coffin for any hope that Vulkan could become the universal graphics API to replace all others.
 
Last edited:
raytracingfan said:
Also, the direction WebGPU is going in seems to be the final nail in the coffin for any hope that Vulkan could become the universal graphics API to replace all others.
Click to expand...
For now my post maybe premature but I hope you realize that just because WebGPU opted for a textual shading language like WGSL over a binary representation like SPIR-V doesn't mean that Vulkan can't be a 'universal' graphics API because why else would Microsoft choose to adopt SPIR-V or put in the effort to create a Vulkan driver if that weren't the case ?

Also if Microsoft are planning to "significantly diverge" DirectX SPIR-V from Khronos' Vulkan SPIR-V what exactly would Microsoft or IHVs gain from moving from DXIL ? Redundancy ? (No since vendors would have to effectively write two separate compilers for depending on the SPIR-V 'variant' in question and one of OpenCL's fundamental problem would've been resolved!) Cross-platform development ? (No because any developer planning to port their applications between PC (DirectX SPIR-V) or mobile (Vulkan SPIR-V) devices will need to meet BOTH of their additional constraints!) Having more vendors like Qualcomm participate in DirectX ? (Well no that just dissaudes any other potential HW vendors from cooperating because they can't implement Microsoft's higher standards.) Does Microsoft ultimately have any intention of heavily fracturing the SPIR-V standard ?

As the biggest opponent of using SPIR-V for WebGPU's binary representation, what does Apple do next with their game porting toolkit (D3D/Metal translation layer) ? Do they effectively just grind the development of GPTK to a halt just to keep spiting SPIR-V and to a lesser extent Khronos as well even if it means making their own users worse off in the end ? What other choices does Apple really have besides NOT implementing a SPIR-V compiler for shader model 7 (SPIR-V becomes the only supported IR for D3D at that point) ?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top