DX10 Hardware at E3?

[Geo]

ExtremeTech seems to think it possible, in a "Five Predictions for E3" piece . . .

DirectX 10 Hardware Makes a Showing

Only behind closed doors, of course.

This is pure speculation on my part, but there are indications that very early DirectX 10 hardware may be on show at E3. If true, these showings will only be behind closed doors, under strict embargo. But if ATI and Nvidia had been planning on a Vista launch this fall, then it's about the right time for these parts to start taping out. Of course, the delay of the consumer version of Vista does give them a little breathing space to really tweak and tune the new GPUs. There's no point in shipping a DirectX 10 card when there's no DirectX 10 API available, right?

Well, maybe.

This industry thrives on having new product rolling out every few months. But there's no point in rolling out a new, non-DX10 GPU architecture in early summer, with Vista not all that far away. We may see refreshes of existing parts. But rolling out DirectX 10 GPUs prior to Vista's launch will give the GPU manufacturers the ability to scream "future proof your system!" So we may see DirectX 10 GPUs by late summer or early fall. Again, I'm only speculating here. But since the DirectX 10 cards will run DX9 and earlier software, it's almost a no-brainer.

http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,1697,1958696,00.asp
Any hints about that either IHV may have working hardware? There's been some hints that could suggest ATI either does, or is getting close. NV? Haven't seen anything on them that would suggest they might yet.

Props to Hanners/EB for the tip. . .

 

[Demirug]

At first ExtremeTech should learn that it is Direct3D 10 and not DirectX 10. With a public Vista Beta just around the corner I see a high chance that we will see hardware soon too. I hope so because for my current project I am in strong need for some D3D10 hardware.

 

[JHoxley]

It wouldn't surprise me too much if some people have at least details of the D3D10 GPU's, if not seen and possibly used them. I've spoken to a couple of developers who've reacted to my questions in a way that sort of backs this up...

Only behind closed doors, of course.

In light of previous statement, this doesn't really surprise me - nor would it be that interesting to "normal" people unless details were leaked.

I am in strong need for some D3D10 hardware

I'll fight you for it

Jack

 

[chavvdarrr]

hehe, what if this D3D10 hardware is Intel 965G ?
LOL

 

[Demirug]

I'll fight you for it

Jack

I am sure you could need one too. The problem is less the development. Refrast is slow but it works so far for me even if I have crashed it yesterday (Access Violation). I need some performances data to know if my project is on the right way.

chavvdarrr: I will take this solution. Better than nothing.

 

[JHoxley]

I need some performances data to know if my project is on the right way.

Right, well hows-about whomever wins the fight to get some D3D10 hardware (or, if we're lucky and both get win ) we do some performance analysis and post the results...

I was giving some thought the other day to writing a simple but huge set of shaders for an informal benchmark of D3D10. The unlimited shader length is nice, but as has been discussed before theres likely to be a practical limit. I figure that if I create a non-looping shader with 1,10,100,1000 lights per-pass in it that the practical limit will show up. On a graph i'd imagine (roughly) linearly decreasing performance with shader length, and at some point the performance would just drop off completely. Just an idea though...

Cheers,
Jack

 

[Acert93]

Hmmm Crysis is being shown and I guess they have shown the difference between the DX9 and D3D10 versions to IGN, so they should have hardware. Would we at least expect CryTek to be demoing Crysis on some D3D10 hardware?

 

[Temporary Name]

At first ExtremeTech should learn that it is Direct3D 10 and not DirectX 10. With a public Vista Beta just around the corner I see a high chance that we will see hardware soon too. I hope so because for my current project I am in strong need for some D3D10 hardware.

Microsoft is calling it DirectX10 Graphics: http://www.gamesindustry.biz/content_page.php?aid=16806

 

[JHoxley]

Hmmm Crysis is being shown and I guess they have shown the difference between the DX9 and D3D10 versions to IGN, so they should have hardware. Would we at least expect CryTek to be demoing Crysis on some D3D10 hardware?

depends if they pre-rendered the d3d10 footage on a refrast

could be done!

Jack!

 

[Nom De Guerre]

DX10 is unofficial. Even the discussion of it is not allowed (or, in a less strict term, discouraged when it comes to private correspondences -- I have ignored emails that touches on DX10).

I do not see any probable circumstances under which Microsoft would allow even "behind closed doors" demonstrations of DX10 hardware by any hardware vendors because the vendors will undoubtedly champion their hardware's "DX10-ness" to such an exclusive audience.

By "audience", I am assuming we're talking about the press/media (which is what I assume the ET article author and this topic's starter allude to). If the vendors do have DX10 hardware, E3 will not be the place to show it, neither to the press nor to exclusive industry confidants.

E3 would be too soon.

 

[Nom De Guerre]

At first ExtremeTech should learn that it is Direct3D 10 and not DirectX 10.

Au contraire, if such demonstrations are planned at an event like E3, which is already upon us, then it must be DX10 and not D3D10. At this stage, the hardware vendors may (but unlikely to me) be allowed the leeway of showing that their secret hardwares are capable of meeting Vista's requirements (D3D9 at the minimum, if not D3D10).

With a public Vista Beta just around the corner I see a high chance that we will see hardware soon too.

D3D10 is a part of DX10, which in turn is a part of Vista. You need only D3D9-compliant hardware to run Vista, the OS, however.

I hope so because for my current project I am in strong need for some D3D10 hardware.

I am sure many feel the same but it would be out of curiosity and not out of necessity at this time.

 

[Demirug]

Au contraire, if such demonstrations are planned at an event like E3, which is already upon us, then it must be DX10 and not D3D10. At this stage, the hardware vendors may (but unlikely to me) be allowed the leeway of showing that their secret hardwares are capable of meeting Vista's requirements (D3D9 at the minimum, if not D3D10).

There is no DirectX 10 and even the SDK lost the “9†last December. If you don’t believe me ask a DirectX MVP. They got all the memos about official names because the talk about it in public and Microsoft want them to use the right names. With Direct3D 9, Direct3D 10 and other more or less redundant technologies (DirectSound vs. XACT) in the SDK a version number for the whole SDK doesn’t make much sense anymore. Especially if we got an update every two month.

It’s right that you can even find in some Microsoft documents the name “DirectX 10†but it’s a large company and not everyone remember all names all the times. Additional the traditions to give the whole SDK a new number every time something changes make it hard to break out.

The vendors will show their hardware at the time they want. The feature set of Direct3D 10 is mostly public. The missing parts are more a problem that the documentation is not ready and not because anyone want to keep it secret.

Anyway in the context of GPUs anything else as the Direct3D part of DirectX doesn’t count at all. If we got graphics card that includes a sound solution we can include some more but as long they only gives us an image we need not care.

 

[Nom De Guerre]

You are talking about a naming convention that a large number of the community/enthusiasts have come to associate (look at the title of this thread). If you think it necessary to educate the public here about what has changed insofar as naming conventions go, it is welcomed and I would not complain.

The vendors will show their hardware at the time they want.

No, the vendors will show their next-API-compliant hardware (which is what this thread is about) when Microsoft has given its approval. if the vendors seek to publicize thei hardwares "next-API-compliancy".

The feature set of Direct3D 10 is mostly public.

Yes. "Public" does not mean "complete and final". Vendors attempting to show off D3D10 hardware most certainly must distinguish between the two.

The missing parts are more a problem that the documentation is not ready and not because anyone want to keep it secret.

Microsoft's DX team have notoriously been lacking in terms of adequate public documentation but I am of the opinion that this is a resourse they do not need to spare. I get everything I need. Many do not but that is why this industry exists.

Microsoft and its partners aren't keeping DX10/D3D10 a secret (not now anyway!). They are just making sure it all works out while allowing some PR to obviously and understandably "leak" through.

From what I gather, you appear to be well and confidentially (and probably legally) informed wrt to DX. The fact that you are hopeful of seeing D3D10 (as opposed to DX10) hardware at E3 seems rather confusing. Which is to say your response to my post addressed some semantics, yes, but didn't really rebut my reasons for why I think we will not see "D3D10" (and not "DX10" hardware... semantics, semantics... ) hardware at E3.

 

[dizietsma]

Unless of course Microsoft have already given their approval ( assuming they have to ), do you have any evidence that they have not ?

Howev3er, maybe the IHV's will be showing behind closed door demo's on gx2 or r580+ ie clock increase with GDDR4 memory only though ?

 

[Demirug]

No, the vendors will show their next-API-compliant hardware (which is what this thread is about) when Microsoft has given its approval. if the vendors seek to publicize thei hardwares "next-API-compliancy".

The vendors have already started to talk about their next generation hardware. I am still remembering the launch of ATIs first D3D9 hardware. There was no final D3D9 available at this time but Microsoft gives anybody who wants a public beta and ATI could label their new hardware as D3D9.

From what I gather, you appear to be well and confidentially (and probably legally) informed wrt to DX. The fact that you are hopeful of seeing D3D10 (as opposed to DX10) hardware at E3 seems rather confusing. Which is to say your response to my post addressed some semantics, yes, but didn't really rebut my reasons for why I think we will not see "D3D10" (and not "DX10" hardware... semantics, semantics... ) hardware at E3.

You may have misunderstood me. The term “hopefullyâ€￾ does exactly mean what it says. I hope for it but I don’t know anything. If I had a strong felling that we will see something at E3 I had used “I believeâ€￾ but I only hope.

 

[Colourless]

DirectSound is being replaced with XACT
DirectInput is being replaced with XInput

So, what future does Direct3D have... will it become something like XGraphics?

 

[JHoxley]

Regarding the naming conventions... Demirug is correct :smile:

If you don’t believe me ask a DirectX MVP. They got all the memos about official names because the talk about it in public and Microsoft want them to use the right names.

We got asked to publicly use the D3D10 name instead of DX10 in December - just around the time that it went public.

DirectX is a suite of various components, several of which have different versions - thus having "DirectX 9" is a bit misleading - for example, DirectInput hasn't been updated since v8. You've also got XACT and XInput which are relatively new version-wise (not entirely sure what their official versions are due to their XBox background)...

But it does seem that the wider online community has adopted DX10 instead of D3D10 even if it is technically incorrect .

DirectSound is being replaced with XACT
DirectInput is being replaced with XInput

I dont think its been officially stated that they are being replaced. Chuck Walbourn made a comment about DInput's likely move to the PSDK a while back, but its not been officially stated.

So, what future does Direct3D have... will it become something like XGraphics?

I'm sure its name will change at some point or another - DirectX 8 introduced the name "DirectXGraphics" which still pops up here and there. There is now a core graphics group over at MS - facilitates some of the common interests/developments with the XBox360 and Windows/PC. However, you (or they) can call it whatever they want - from a functional point of view its not going anywhere anytime soon.

Cheers,
Jack

 

[Nom De Guerre]

The vendors have already started to talk about their next generation hardware. I am still remembering the launch of ATIs first D3D9 hardware. There was no final D3D9 available at this time but Microsoft gives anybody who wants a public beta and ATI could label their new hardware as D3D9.

By virtue of their announcing the availability of a beta-whatever (Vista in this case, or D3D10 if we want to be specific in this particular forum), Microsoft has officially announced their next-whatever product with certain specifics that goes with it (specifics of which usually aren't available in press releases/conferences that occur way before official beta releases). This then would understandably lead to a chain reaction of sorts, with various vendors "announcing" their next-generation hardware that meets the requirements of the latest software from Microsoft.

The point being the word "beta". I doubt any vendor would announce, behind closed doors or not, that they have D3D10 hardware if Microsoft has not officially stated what constitutes D3D10-compliancy. Unless, of course, such vendors remark with a smirk "Oh, we know what D3D10 will be in its final state" to those exalted behind-closed-doors audience. Is this likely? I mean, how carefully would a vendor word the demo of their "D3D10" hardware to such an audience with or without Microsoft's approval?

 

[KimB]

I find it extremely unlikely that Microsoft would change D3D specs late in development in a way that would make previously-compliant hardware noncompliant.

 

[Nom De Guerre]

I find it extremely unlikely that Microsoft would change D3D specs late in development in a way that would make previously-compliant hardware noncompliant.

The NDAs involved render the possible validity of your comment as completely irrelevant.

With more than half a year away from the availability of Vista, do you think we will see D3D10 hardware right now, during E3? That is the gist of my posts. The word "availability" is not governed by facts.