DX9 Delayed until Q1 '03?

[Brimstone]

Look at the need for Microsoft to release DX 8.2 for networking issues. Assuming its just Direct 3d releated is a big assumtion.

 

[RM. Andersson]

There are no games that use DX9. If you own a 9700 DX9 and DX9-drivers would not make the DX8 games that you play look any better or run any faster.

So I dont think the DX9 delay hurts common consumers/gamers that own 9700 cards much.

Regards!

 

[Doomtrooper]

No but it delays developer support by not having the API, tech demos and other goodies can't run without it...so for every day the API gets delayed it pushes out a new title the same amount...as if DX9 has not been delayed enough...

I also disagree about games not running better, sure there is no titles out there but I also assume ATI is doing some tricky coding to ensure their DX9 card is capable of running older titles without the API the card was designed around.

 

[Tahir2]

They (ATI) shouldnt need to do any tricky stuff above and beyond the call of duty whether it is DX9 or DX8.1/2

Whether this is true or not I don't know. Just a thought.

 

[RussSchultz]

No but it delays developer support by not having the API, tech demos and other goodies can't run without it...so for every day the API gets delayed it pushes out a new title the same amount...as if DX9 has not been delayed enough...

Not to burst your bubble, but I imagine that any developer in any developer house of merit that needs to target DX9 is on the beta program, or has an MSDN subscription.

Unless, of course, you want to develope for ATI cards. Then you can't have it.

 

[Joe DeFuria]

I think that's kind of silly. Hardware-level quirks should be worked out entirely within the drivers. The API should be a level above that, independent of the hardware.

I this were OpgnGL we were talking about I might agree with you. Direct3D is not OpenGL.

IHVs do not have the ability to write as low level optimizations / tweaks in D3D as they do GL. This is why D3D drivers are easier to write, but at the same time more difficult to get as optimal as GL.

The API is independent of the hardware. D3D is more than an API though. It's more like the older Mini Client Driver GL struture.

Of course, nVidia and Microsoft having an agreement is possible, but it does sound rather odd.

To be clear, I am not saying that nVidia and Microsoft have some written agreement "thou shalt not relase DX9 until nVidia is ready." (Though that would not surprise me.)

I am saying that Microsoft may be waiting on some testing with nVidia hardware before releasing DX9.

Microsoft is not known to be terribly loyal...

But they are known to be ruthless with business practices.

If there are critical problems in DX9 they are not related to Direct3D, so all your ideas about "MS waiting for NV30 to show up" go right through the window.

Sure, that's possible. Source?

Look at the need for Microsoft to release DX 8.2 for networking issues. Assuming its just Direct 3d releated is a big assumtion.

Yes, it is an assumption. As I originally stated, I just find the DX9 delays and corresponding NV30 delays to be a bit more than coincidental.

So I dont think the DX9 delay hurts common consumers/gamers that own 9700 cards much.

The sooner it is out, the sooner it can be adpoted, the better for consumers. However, my main point is that I'm saying that it hurts ATI more than anyone else.

ATI could have gotten a lot of great press with "3D Mark DX9" or whatever, showing R300 solutions much "further ahead" of nVidia solutions than 3D Mark 2001 shows.

Much like nVidia got with 3D Mark 2000, back when DX7 was launched simultaneously with GeForce 246, and with D Mark 2001, when DX8 was launched simultaneously with GeForce3...

 

[Doomtrooper]

Futuremark (the artist formerly known as Madonion) will release approx around the same time as Nv30..as it always has with Nvidia products...it will be the only Benchmark that may expose the extra long shaders and of course will count for scoring unlike 3Dmark 2002 SE where the advanced pixel shader was considered a feature

 

[ben6]

I doubt we'll see "Futuremark 2003/DX9" anytime soon.

 

[KnightBreed]

DX9 end-user drivers are out.

 

[Ilfirin]

Now, for the question that actually matters - Where's the SDK?

 

[radar1200gs]

Where are the direct downloads; not this websetup crap?

 

[KnightBreed]

Now, for the question that actually matters - Where's the SDK?

Good question. Didn't even notice first time around those were the end-user drivers.

 

[T2k]

Where are the direct downloads; not this websetup crap?

There is no full set at this time. I've captured the downloaded and decompressed set (I have WinXP SP1) - if you give me an address I can upload somewhere...

 

[antlers]

I guess the people who gave the 12/19 date knew something after all.

 

[gkar1]

I doubt we'll see "Futuremark 2003/DX9" anytime soon.

LOL, just like the people who foretold a 256 bit bus 8X2 piped NV30 right?

 

[radar1200gs]

Can you create a yahoo account and upload it to your briefcase (segmented rar would be great)?

I'd download it myself, by my 'net machine is Win2k and my XP machine has no 'net connection. The entire websetup deal is stupid IMHO anyhow - what's wrong with allowing people to simply download the file?

 

[g__day]

I ran the 256KB websetup program - for WinXp it down loads 8.9MB and Win 2K Pro 9.1MB

Works fine on GF2 and 3 cards so far - dxdiag and 3dMark 2001SE

 

[IT]

Went to the link... nothing there.

It's a bunch of horse poop if they're waiting for the FX to come out until the DX9 sdk is released. What the hell is the big secret anyway??? It's not like their building top-secret nuclear weapons or something.

 

[g__day]

It was working fine 20 minutes ago... did someone let the cat out of the bag early? I have downloaded it to 5 of my 6 PCs now All is well for all of them!!!

* * * * * * *

The link no longer works to extract the downloader, but the downloader still works okay

If anyone can host a 292KB file give me your e-mail address and I will mail it to you!

 

[Ty]

Nvidia and Microsoft are making it easy to see the 'partnership' they have formed with the X-box deals (including Xbox 2).

Didn't MS take NVidia to arbitration about the cost of the X-Box chips NV was supplying? If so, doesn't sound like MS could be that happy.