Is lack of DX10 in consoles hurting Vista?

Discussion in 'PC Gaming' started by kimg, Aug 27, 2007.

  1. kimg

    Newcomer

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2006
    Messages:
    59
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    norway
  2. _xxx_

    Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2004
    Messages:
    5,008
    Likes Received:
    86
    Location:
    Stuttgart, Germany
    Vista was a mistake to begin with, what's new?
     
  3. Davros

    Legend

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2004
    Messages:
    14,672
    Likes Received:
    2,120
    I still havnt seen any dx10 visuals that have impressed me
     
  4. Color me Dan

    Regular

    Joined:
    May 19, 2007
    Messages:
    300
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    Sweden
    This discussion seems to be one of convinience for devs. Mr. Newell should be well informed on their HL2 engine supporting DX6 for old hardware, Now how is DX6 holding the HL2 engine back?

    Having DX9 level (and i know this is a designation made for confusion...) "effects" and code on current consoles should be a non issue. If anything, shouldn't it be a good thing for multi-plat devs to be able to just focus on DX9 as a baseline. Also since Devs are targeting fixed hardware they can extend their code beyond the virtual limit (because it is really just a virtual limit) of a DX or OpenGL specification. This in turn leads to what people could call "DX10" effects being possible on DX9 gen hardware. So what is the big deal?

    I didn't really bother to read the link, sorry about that but my internet crapped out on the link; I just feel bad when i see these kinds of comments. So i guess i'm just ranting.
     
  5. Lux_

    Newcomer

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2005
    Messages:
    206
    Likes Received:
    1
    Steep system requirements, couple of bugs and small learning curve are hurting Vista. Relatively slow firstgen hardware is not of a help either - DX10 midrange is slower than DX9 midrange and no amount of porting the DX10 under older versions of Windows is going to change that.

    As for now, DX10 is a means to lose some fps for about same IQ (in Bioshock) or to lose lots of fps for prettier explosions (Company of Heores).
     
  6. Bouncing Zabaglione Bros.

    Legend

    Joined:
    Jun 24, 2003
    Messages:
    6,363
    Likes Received:
    82
    I think Newel's point is that it's fracturing an already fractured market. If DX10 was available on consoles, or Windows XP, there would be a much larger target market for DX10 games, and it would make the work worth the while of the developers.

    Devs are seeing a small minority of Windows gamers on DX10 with DX10 hardware. Developers doing DX10 programming work are seeing no benefits for the much larger WinXP/DX9 installed base, or even cross-platform for consoles.

    If DX10 had been available for Windows XP, it would be a good way to translate gamers from DX9 to DX10 relatively painlessly with development benefiting a large number of people, and thus increasing the cost-benefit of doing that DX10 coding at all.
     
  7. Arwin

    Arwin Now Officially a Top 10 Poster
    Moderator Legend

    Joined:
    May 17, 2006
    Messages:
    17,664
    Likes Received:
    1,191
    Location:
    Maastricht, The Netherlands
    I thought DX9 was limiting consoles? I.e., that developers on PC use DX9, whereas on consoles you're not bound by such an API and can go much lower level. So that doesn't seem to make much sense.

    On the other hand, he's probably right about his comments re XP and DX10.
     
  8. Lux_

    Newcomer

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2005
    Messages:
    206
    Likes Received:
    1
    But it seems that in every title/demo the DX10 mode is running slower than DX9 mode. And current DX10 hardware is not up to the task of running said apps in DX10 above 30 fps anyway (except for highend). The picture may be different same time next year, but the embracement of Vista will be different also.

    From technical standpoit - how would MS port DX10 under XP - all the features or only subset?
    - If subset, then it would be quite an exception, because AFAIK the DX has been uniform across all versions of Windows where said version was supported.
    - If all the features, including driver model, then AMD/NVidia/Intel had to maintain another set of drivers (XP Classic, XP DX10, Vista DX10; another two sets if you include 32 and 64 bit versions), and their driver departments are not excatcly out of work as it is.

    All in all I'm not unhappy that DX10 is Vista only - if MS/industry really wanted to have a "clean break", wanted to rewrite all and everything from ground up for 21st century, then let them have it and all the consequences, including slow uptake. It just seems unfair to force everyone else to support "DX10 on XP" temporary need, which goes away in couple of years, but has to be supported for 15.

    If it is hard for developers to show DX10 benefits from visual and performance standpoint (and currently it seems it is), then there is absolutely no need to demand support for it. If MS Technology Evangelists or gamedevs succeed in actual improvements, besides evangelism, then let us see the numbers! :cool:
     
  9. pjbliverpool

    pjbliverpool B3D Scallywag
    Legend

    Joined:
    May 8, 2005
    Messages:
    7,583
    Likes Received:
    703
    Location:
    Guess...
    DX10 is pretty much the same speed as DX9 in Bioshock. It also gives some nicer shadows and particle effects which while not a huge improvement, is good for free.

    Regarding Vista and DX10, theres no doubt its hurting the adoption of DX10 not being on XP but then MS doesn't really care about the adoption of DX10, it cares about the adoption of Vista and im sure being the only platform with DX10 is helping push sales (although by how much is debatable).
     
  10. Lux_

    Newcomer

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2005
    Messages:
    206
    Likes Received:
    1
    You are right - there is no performance difference in Bioshock, as benched by Firingsquad. Smoother particle effects (no fog clipping) is what I remember from another title also, which seems to be common improvement then.

    But what about World in Conflict, again benched by Firingsquad?
    Let's hope for significant improvements then.
     
  11. Albuquerque

    Albuquerque Red-headed step child
    Veteran

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2004
    Messages:
    3,845
    Likes Received:
    329
    Location:
    35.1415,-90.056
    Too many people are pointing to badly coded games as some sort of "reason" why DX10 = sux0r.

    The problem here is understanding the difference: some developer pulling DX10 out of their collective asses to make some HUGE change to the rendering path is not the same as using DX10 to optimize things that could already be done in DX9.

    Most of these developers used for examples in this thread are using DX10 as some sort of excuse to make big-jeezus whiz-bang things that absolutely destroy performance, and then point the finger at the new API versus the shoddy setup.

    Here's a reminder: damn-near anything you can do in DX10 can also be done in DX9. But here's the caveat: DX10 is VERY capable (ie: provably so) of performing quite a bit faster than DX9 in a very large number of places.

    Was DX7 in trouble because consoles didn't have it? If you answered "What the hell?!?", then you have the right answer. DX10 != Consoles just like DX9 != consoles just like DX(x) != consoles.
     
  12. MJP

    MJP
    Regular

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2007
    Messages:
    566
    Likes Received:
    187
    Location:
    Irvine, CA
    I wouldn't put an overwhelming amount of faith into firingsquad's abilities to spot graphical improvements, at least if their Bioshock evaluation is anything to go by. Their first comparison set, designed to show the difference in shadowmap edge filtering, is instead a very nice shot of a spotlight's penumbra.

    Of course we are talking about a feature that would probably need to be explicitly pointed out for most folks to actually notice, but I do think it opens the possibility that there analysis doesn't tell the whole story.
     
  13. Geoson

    Newcomer

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2007
    Messages:
    63
    Likes Received:
    0
    Isn't PS3 using a Playstation custom version of OpenGL?
     
  14. pjbliverpool

    pjbliverpool B3D Scallywag
    Legend

    Joined:
    May 8, 2005
    Messages:
    7,583
    Likes Received:
    703
    Location:
    Guess...
    They made an update whch shows the improved shadows. Thanks to a tip off from yours truly :wink:
     
  15. CouldntResist

    Regular

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2004
    Messages:
    264
    Likes Received:
    6
    The role of 3D API is to expose functionality of hardware. There is no technical basis for believing that any feature of g80 or R600 would have to be missing in such "subset".
    Driver model is not a feature of DX10. There won't be a DX10 game engine advertized "we use driver model to draw cool stuff". There won't be "driver model test" in the next 3DMark. 3D application doesn't talk to driver, it talks to 3D API. The I in API stands for interface. This interface is there to separate you from stuff you don't want to know. Making DX10 API available for XP apps doesn't imply necessity of moving Vista driver model to XP.
    It would be easier to believe that Microsoft's motive was to give industry "clean break", if Vista was 64-bit only.

    Both XP 64bit and Vista 32bit have their own backward compatiblity problems (and no amount of blaming "badly coded apps" would change that). Microsoft must have been aware of that in advance. Since it was clear for them that customers would be going to feel the pain of transition, any advantage of dragging 32-bit legacy evaporated. Not to mention that 32-bit limits are actually beginning to hurt today. Also, your argument about one less driver to write applies here too.

    From the standpoint of benefit of industry, MS have done double wrong, if you ask me. They should have tied 64-bitness to Vista, not DX10.

    Add to that Microsoft's brilliant idea to selling 32-bit and 64-bit Vista as separate products (OEM and Upgrade versions). Clean break my ass.
     
  16. Lux_

    Newcomer

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2005
    Messages:
    206
    Likes Received:
    1
    Apart from really weird hand I like the softer appearance of DX9 better :cool:.

    I get the opposite impression from our own Will Direct3D 10 ever come to Windows XP?.

    As for 64-bit Vista - I agree completely that MS should have been made 64bit at least default, if not the only option.
     
  17. Color me Dan

    Regular

    Joined:
    May 19, 2007
    Messages:
    300
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    Sweden
    A bit OT but i never got why they didn't just go 64bit. We've got to make the step someday and the sooner the better. Also it'd add incentive to upgrade to Vista when program x and y are 64bit that you need.
     
  18. Lux_

    Newcomer

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2005
    Messages:
    206
    Likes Received:
    1
    I think they would have, if they'd knew Vista would be ready only at the very end of 2006. As the release kept slipping, it was probably decided not to revise aging decisions, 32-bit-by-default among them.

    Take the recent "mp3 reduces netspeed" for example. As Mark Russinovich writes, there are hardcoded limits in Vista to guarantee glitch-free playback on singlecore CPU, 100MBit network (and all the "bloat" Vista brings along). This particular decision was probably made with an assumption that Vista would ship at least a year earlier.
     
    #18 Lux_, Aug 28, 2007
    Last edited by a moderator: Aug 28, 2007
  19. Color me Dan

    Regular

    Joined:
    May 19, 2007
    Messages:
    300
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    Sweden
    Even though Ms is saying "Windows 7 will be the last OS shipped in both 32 and 64bit versions"

    That descision is even weirder because then you suddenly have people on Vista with Core 2 duos and comparable AMD products which are all 64bit to be capable of "Vista premium". It just doesn't make sense, Windows 7 will even have backwardscompatibility with Dos! I just read it on Wikipedia and winsupersite.com and i don't get why they would do this. What are they going to do next, DX11 on 32 and DX12 on 64bit in 7? By the sounds of it they are capable of anything...
     
  20. pjbliverpool

    pjbliverpool B3D Scallywag
    Legend

    Joined:
    May 8, 2005
    Messages:
    7,583
    Likes Received:
    703
    Location:
    Guess...
    You have to see it in motion to see the real difference. The shadow edges in DX9 have a disjointed shimmery effect while in DX10 they retain their shape as them move.
     
Loading...

Share This Page

  • About Us

    Beyond3D has been around for over a decade and prides itself on being the best place on the web for in-depth, technically-driven discussion and analysis of 3D graphics hardware. If you love pixels and transistors, you've come to the right place!

    Beyond3D is proudly published by GPU Tools Ltd.
Loading...