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

Discussion in 'Architecture and Products' started by Shtal, Nov 14, 2007.

  1. Mintmaster

    Veteran

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2002
    Messages:
    3,897
    Likes Received:
    87
    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? :roll:

    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.
     
  2. Entropy

    Veteran

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2002
    Messages:
    3,196
    Likes Received:
    1,184
    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.
     
  3. santyhammer

    Newcomer

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2006
    Messages:
    85
    Likes Received:
    2
    Location:
    Behind you
    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!
     
  4. Sc4freak

    Newcomer

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2004
    Messages:
    233
    Likes Received:
    2
    Location:
    Melbourne, Australia
    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.
     
  5. santyhammer

    Newcomer

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2006
    Messages:
    85
    Likes Received:
    2
    Location:
    Behind you
    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 :roll: .

    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.
     
    #65 santyhammer, Nov 24, 2007
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 24, 2007
  6. Kaotik

    Kaotik Drunk Member
    Legend

    Joined:
    Apr 16, 2003
    Messages:
    9,088
    Likes Received:
    2,955
    Location:
    Finland
    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
     
  7. Sc4freak

    Newcomer

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2004
    Messages:
    233
    Likes Received:
    2
    Location:
    Melbourne, Australia
    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.
     
  8. JHoxley

    Regular

    Joined:
    Oct 18, 2004
    Messages:
    391
    Likes Received:
    35
    Location:
    South Coast, England
    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.
     
  9. Shtal

    Veteran

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2005
    Messages:
    1,344
    Likes Received:
    3
    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.
     
  10. SuperCow

    Newcomer

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2002
    Messages:
    106
    Likes Received:
    4
    Location:
    City of cows
    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.
     
  11. Shtal

    Veteran

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2005
    Messages:
    1,344
    Likes Received:
    3
    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:
    Looks like DX10.1 will be officially available from MS and Radeon HD3870 will shine better. :)
     
    #71 Shtal, Feb 3, 2008
    Last edited by a moderator: Feb 3, 2008
  12. Mintmaster

    Veteran

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2002
    Messages:
    3,897
    Likes Received:
    87
    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.
     
  13. trinibwoy

    trinibwoy Meh
    Legend

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2004
    Messages:
    10,582
    Likes Received:
    625
    Location:
    New York
    In my experience an OS outlives many hardware builds over the years.
     
  14. CouldntResist

    Regular

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2004
    Messages:
    264
    Likes Received:
    7
    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.
     
  15. Humus

    Humus Crazy coder
    Veteran

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2002
    Messages:
    3,217
    Likes Received:
    77
    Location:
    Stockholm, Sweden
    I don't see what's wrong with that comparison.
     
  16. TheAlSpark

    TheAlSpark Moderator
    Moderator Legend

    Joined:
    Feb 29, 2004
    Messages:
    21,578
    Likes Received:
    7,130
    Location:
    ಠ_ಠ
    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?
     
  17. I.S.T.

    Veteran

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2004
    Messages:
    3,174
    Likes Received:
    389

    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?
     
  18. Npl

    Npl
    Veteran

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2004
    Messages:
    1,905
    Likes Received:
    6
    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
     
  19. Kaotik

    Kaotik Drunk Member
    Legend

    Joined:
    Apr 16, 2003
    Messages:
    9,088
    Likes Received:
    2,955
    Location:
    Finland
    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.
     
  20. Npl

    Npl
    Veteran

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2004
    Messages:
    1,905
    Likes Received:
    6
    if that mean sthe OS sells for 50-100$ instead of 300$: Hell Yes!
     
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...