Will 3DMark_Next support DirectX10.1 [Shader Model 4.1]

[Mintmaster]

For DX10.1 perhaps... but notice the thread title says "Shader Model 4.1" too. So I was suggesting to the 3dsmark team if would be possible to wait a few and use OpenGL Mount Evans (3.1) and other more portable libraries instead of Microsoft's exclusive/propietary technology in order to port 3dmark to WinXP, linux and mac. ...

What?! Rather than using the API that 99% of the PC games market will support, you want FutureMark to instead wait for an undetermined amount of time to make a games benchmark on an API that isn't even ratified yet?

Sure, you can pay Apple $100/year to have the latest OS, or you can pay Microsoft $125 once and get significant free updates and service packs for years. Sure the pricing model may be different where you live, but OSX is trivially more expensive than Vista here.

Not to mention hundreds more for the hardware to run it (unless you're willing to use some hack). With MS you'll usually buy one or two OSes per PC. With Apple you'll buy many, and need to buy their hardware to boot. That's why Apple can charge so much less for their OS.

 

[Entropy]

No way - both Vista and DX10 are doing just fine. DX10 is just as fast or faster than DX9; the people who say things to the contrary really have no idea what they're talking about, usually in that they're comparing apps with greatly differing rendering paths/quality for each API. There are always whiners when new stuff comes out, but I've been quite happy and impressed with the speed at which people are upgrading to DX10-capable hardware and software.

This is bizarre.
After more than a year of sales, and just under a year of retail availability, Vista has 10% of the market. According to the Valve survey, its adoption among gamers is somewhat higher, 14%. After a year. And in spite of Microsoft accepting (in desperation?) widespread piracy even though they have the means to stop it.

It has created a nasty situation for developers and consumers both, where consumers need to pay for underachieving power hogs, supporting features they will never benefit from, and developers need to confront the fact that their customer base are largely going to consist of DX9 users for the foreseeable future.

How anyone could be happy and impressed with this situation is beyond me.

 

[santyhammer]

With Apple you'll buy many, and need to buy their hardware to boot. That's why Apple can charge so much less for their OS.

That's true. MacosX's price is fine because in theory you need to buy their HW to execute it. Things like the family pack helps but I think, in general, Mac HW is overpriced... that's why I prefer to make my own PC using components and to use linux.

What?! Rather than using the API that 99% of the PC games market will support, you want FutureMark to instead wait for an undetermined amount of time to make a games benchmark on an API that isn't even ratified yet?

Well, they could:

1. Release 3dmark 2008 for Vista and DX10.0 now.
2. Patch it for DX10.1 once SP1 is out ( add some new tests or run the same test with new tech )
3. Patch again once the OGL3.1 Mount Evans spec is out and we got prepared drivers.
4. With the OGL3.1 help, port it to other OSs if the costs worth the effort.

However this can be too much work and too many patches. That's why perhaps is better to wait, see how Vista and DX10 consolidates or grow its market share... wait for the SP1... and wait for OGL3.1 and decide then. The market is too unstable and DX10.1 added even more turbulence!

 

[Sc4freak]

That's true. MacosX's price is fine because in theory you need to buy their HW to execute it. Things like the family pack helps but I think, in general, Mac HW is overpriced... that's why I prefer to make my own PC using components and to use linux.


Well, they could:

1. Release 3dmark 2008 for Vista and DX10.0 now.
2. Patch it for DX10.1 once SP1 is out ( add some new tests or run the same test with new tech )
3. Patch again once the OGL3.1 Mount Evans spec is out and we got prepared drivers.
4. With the OGL3.1 help, port it to other OSs if the costs worth the effort.

However this can be too much work and too many patches. That's why perhaps is better to wait, see how Vista and DX10 consolidates or grow its market share... wait for the SP1... and wait for OGL3.1 and decide then. The market is too unstable and DX10.1 added even more turbulence!

The thing is that they don't have to. Just as with any other Microsoft OS, they know in advance that Vista will gain traction and become widespread eventually.

Mt Evans is slated to be released 3-5 months after OGL3. And, according to Wikipedia, OGL3 is probably going to be released at the very end of this year or the beginning of next year.

That adds up to between 4-6 months before OGL will see Direct3D10 level features. That's a long time to wait for a graphics benchmark. And even then, Direct3D10 would have had 1.5 years to mature and stabilise, while OGL3 may still be lacking good driver support.

 

[santyhammer]

Just as with any other Microsoft OS, they know in advance that Vista will gain traction and become widespread eventually.

Or perhaps very few gonna use Vista(like happened with ME) so Microsoft is forced to accelerate Windows 7 :

http://www.infoworld.com/article/07/11/14/Vista-in-danger-of-being-bypassed-by-businesses_1.html
http://www.news.com/8301-10784_3-9785337-7.html
http://ash-winvistanews.blogspot.com/2007/11/will-vista-be-remembered-like-windows.html

or even to include a DX10 patch for WinXP haha!

If the Vista adoption keeps as is and if futuremark decides to require DX10.1 that means the potential client quantity gonna be really reduced. The only card with DX10.1 support today are the ATI 3800s .

Well, I don't know what could be the right decision... but I suspect they are going to finish 3dmark 2008 asap using Vista and DX10.0 without DX10.1 support and pray for Vista market share to grow.

 

[Kaotik]

santyhammer, giving DX10 to XP would essentially mean turning XP to Vista first, or to completely re-develop DX10 so it would work with the old driver model, old kernels etc

 

[Sc4freak]

Precisely - it's not just a business reason to limit DX10 to Vista. There are severe technical limitations as well - porting DX10 to Vista means that they would have to rewrite significant portions of XP.

Oh wait, it seems they already did. They called the result Windows Vista.

 

[JHoxley]

The last press release I saw said that XP-SP3 is the last bundle of updates for the OS (although I assume any major security flaws would still get patched). That combined with most new copies of any OS (be it OSX/Vista/XP) come with new hardware should probably mean that the real adoption figures should be measured in 2008 rather than 2007. My thoughts are that we're still in the early-adopters phase, those technical savvy enough to buy a boxed OS and rebuild their machines themselves.

Anyway, back on topic...

3DMark'08 should definitely be a D3D10 benchmark, as was commented - there are two for the D3D9 generation of software/hardware so what would another one actually tell you that you don't already know?? I also think that it really should have a 10.1 path - maybe like previous ones where SM2 was the baseline and it had SM3 tests for hardware that supported it. Benchmarks are always detached from reality, so it really should cover the full spectrum to be a genuinely meaningful and useful tool.

 

[Shtal]

For now all we have are some screen shots of this DirectX 10.1 ready benchmark, which has for years been the most popular benchmark for the gaming community. http://legitreviews.com/article/658/1/

If my eyes does not deceives me then it looks to me it is DX10.1 as appose DX10 only benchmark, unless this is typo error.

 

[SuperCow]

Microsoft isn't the only developer downplaying DirectX 10.1. Cevat Yerli, CEO of Crytek, states,"We pride ourselves on being the first to adopt any important new technology that can improve our games so you would expect us to get with DX10.1 right away but we've looked at it and there's just nothing in it important enough to make it needed. So we have no plans to use it at all, not even in the future."

Any game making use of the depth buffer as a texture input can use a DX10.1 fast path to access the multisampled depth buffer as a texture instead of having to work around the DX10.0 limitation by performing a second geometry pass or using an additional render target to store depth into a color buffer. Having access to scene depth is useful for a lot of effects (depth of field, soft particles, deferred shadowing, screen-space ambient occlusion etc.) and most new games make use ot if, including Crysis (see their SigGraph presentations). So saying "there's just nothing in it important enough to make it needed" is a bit misleading, really. Crytek might not be interested in DX10.1 for implementing new features (as I doubt they will add new visual effects to the game now) but certainly the "MSAA depth buffer as texture" feature alone should be enough to justify an optimized DX10.1 implementation (and make this path more orthogonal at the same time).
I don't know if 3DMark next makes use of the depth buffer as a texture but I'd be surprised if it didn't. Thus we should reasonably expect it to include this DX10.1 path if the benchmark is really meant to scale with the capabilities of the latest API and graphic hardware.

 

[Shtal]

I don't know if 3DMark next makes use of the depth buffer as a texture but I'd be surprised if it didn't. Thus we should reasonably expect it to include this DX10.1 path if the benchmark is really meant to scale with the capabilities of the latest API and graphic hardware.

If a theory behind is correct that Futuremark usually always supports latest API; then technically 3DMark-Next will support DX10.1 and their would be no secret.
Also Radeon HD3870 should scale better with DX10.1 as appose GF8800GT with DX10.0 only. Perfect example Radeon 8500 with PS1.4 vs. Geforce3 with PS1.1 in 3DMark2001SE Pixel Shader advanced test.


Edit:

If you have been waiting for Service Pack 1 for Windows Vista, well, you can now mark your calender. We just received word that Microsoft has scheduled Windows Vista Service Pack 1 for release to manufacturer (RTM) on Monday, February 4, 2008. That's just 3 days away! The OEMs will also receive Windows Vista Service Pack 1 during that week. http://www.techarp.com/showarticle.aspx?artno=505

Looks like DX10.1 will be officially available from MS and Radeon HD3870 will shine better.

 

[Mintmaster]

Having access to scene depth is useful for a lot of effects (depth of field, soft particles, deferred shadowing, screen-space ambient occlusion etc.) and most new games make use ot if, including Crysis (see their SigGraph presentations). So saying "there's just nothing in it important enough to make it needed" is a bit misleading, really.

My guess is Crysis doesn't do per-sample access when implementing their effects. That's likely a big reason that Crysis doesn't have a large AA hit.

Deferred shadowing would probably be less than ideal, but using it with MSAA and forward rendering is going to be flawed anyway.

 

[trinibwoy]

well $300 is quite a lot when u can buy a new PC at walmart for $200

In my experience an OS outlives many hardware builds over the years.

 

[CouldntResist]

It's funny really, people are fine with games costing $50, which last for what, 10-20h + possible multiplayer, but OS lasting for years and years costing $300 is something horrible

Wow. What an interesting spin on the fact of giving 300$ go to the monopolyst. Whose OS unit have widely known habit of earning over 5$ for every 1$ spent. And whose most recent product is of... disputable quality. And you have to jump through hoops to buy a computer without it.

Yeah, that perfectly compares with paying 50$ for a game.

 

[Humus]

I don't see what's wrong with that comparison.

 

[AlNom]

I don't see what's wrong with that comparison.

Well dur... you have to see it from the point of view that pirating Microsoft products is like foiling Satan's plans, which makes it right, right?

 

[I.S.T.]

Wow. What an interesting spin on the fact of giving 300$ go to the monopolyst. Whose OS unit have widely known habit of earning over 5$ for every 1$ spent. And whose most recent product is of... disputable quality. And you have to jump through hoops to buy a computer without it.

Yeah, that perfectly compares with paying 50$ for a game.

Um, an OS costs a hell of a lot of money to make and maintain. You think it costs a little to have to support over 500 millions PCs at any time?

 

[Npl]

Um, an OS costs a hell of a lot of money to make and maintain. You think it costs a little to have to support over 500 millions PCs at any time?

Seeing as that is for the most part a responsibility for HW-Manufactures to write drivers, I doubt thats very expensive.
Unlike a game it only has to run, and not run well, at a huge range of different setups.

I don't see what's wrong with that comparison.

I dont want an OS to do anything but beeing an OS, I dont want an included browser, included mediaplayer, included messenger, and what the hell else MS is adding. I dont use them and find them inferior to alternatives, yet it you buy windows you pay development of all that crap. And whats worse, some ppl even consider those programms "free" and go beserk if an better alternative costs a couple $.
Its comparable to paying 20 games and throwing 19 right in the trashcan

 

[Kaotik]

Seeing as that is for the most part a responsibility for HW-Manufactures to write drivers, I doubt thats very expensive.
Unlike a game it only has to run, and not run well, at a huge range of different setups.
I dont want an OS to do anything but beeing an OS, I dont want an included browser, included mediaplayer, included messenger, and what the hell else MS is adding. I dont use them and find them inferior to alternatives, yet it you buy windows you pay development of all that crap. And whats worse, some ppl even consider those programms "free" and go beserk if an better alternative costs a couple $.
Its comparable to paying 20 games and throwing 19 right in the trashcan

Yeah, and let's say you don't have anything backed up or you buy your first computer, do you want to go to shop and BUY at least that browser instead?
At least the "average people" want that their computer can be used when they pick it up from the store, it has browser, it plays music and so on.

 

[Npl]

Yeah, and let's say you don't have anything backed up or you buy your first computer, do you want to go to shop and BUY at least that browser instead?.

if that mean sthe OS sells for 50-100$ instead of 300$: Hell Yes!