DirectX 11 OTW
\"just a few days ago\"... uh... DX10 was released one and a half years ago. Guess time flies for some.
GPGPU will have some impact on some games; probably more on those that benefit from highly parallel architectures. I also doubt DX11 is only intended to address that. New graphics technologies come out fairly regularly, after all. The problem is that GPUs are struggling enough with their current job sometimes (Crysis?), so moving even more off to the GPU when CPUs are becoming increasingly parallel themselves might not make a lot of sense.
Open-sourcing DirectX doesn't seem to have much purpose, in my mind. For video cards to manufacture compliant cards, there does need to be a standard implementation; so at the end of the day the decisions regarding what will and will not be included need to be made at one place. I'm not seeing how opening it up to all and sundry will actually help that.
Also, some video cards do already run cooler than others. I recall the GF6xxx generation used less power than the 5xxx generation; even these days it's still possible to get cards that don't have massive power consumption. Usually at mid-range to lower end, unfortunately, but if the high-end had low power consumption you could safely release a higher-clocked version of the same card and get a new high-end card, so...
GPGPU will have some impact on some games; probably more on those that benefit from highly parallel architectures. I also doubt DX11 is only intended to address that. New graphics technologies come out fairly regularly, after all. The problem is that GPUs are struggling enough with their current job sometimes (Crysis?), so moving even more off to the GPU when CPUs are becoming increasingly parallel themselves might not make a lot of sense.
Open-sourcing DirectX doesn't seem to have much purpose, in my mind. For video cards to manufacture compliant cards, there does need to be a standard implementation; so at the end of the day the decisions regarding what will and will not be included need to be made at one place. I'm not seeing how opening it up to all and sundry will actually help that.
Also, some video cards do already run cooler than others. I recall the GF6xxx generation used less power than the 5xxx generation; even these days it's still possible to get cards that don't have massive power consumption. Usually at mid-range to lower end, unfortunately, but if the high-end had low power consumption you could safely release a higher-clocked version of the same card and get a new high-end card, so...
- Krom
- DBB Database Master
- Posts: 16058
- Joined: Sun Nov 29, 1998 3:01 am
- Location: Camping the energy center. BTW, did you know you can have up to 100 characters in this location box?
- Contact:
If you look at the amount of actual work being done per watt, GPUs shouldn't be doing that bad really. Also, look at the idle power consumption of the latest GTX280 parts from Nvidia, they use pretty aggressive clock gating and other power management techniques to lower the idle power consumption. Although load power is another story, 1.4 billion transistors on a now dated 65 nm process get pretty hungry when they kick into full speed.
I seem to recall reading the other day that the newer GPU's that Nvidia is having printed is on much smaller architecture. I'll see if I can track that article down. It was a couple months back. But you are correct. 65nm is extremely antiquated. There shouldn't be any reason they are still building transistors the same size the pentium had. .. or was the 486?
- TIGERassault
- DBB Admiral
- Posts: 1600
- Joined: Tue Aug 10, 2004 3:33 pm
Re:
Well, you can't say anything bad about a new DirectX being released!
Except for DirectX turning Vista-exclusive. But I sincerely doubt there'll be anyone still using XP and expecting to be able to run all the new games once they start only using post-Dx9 properly.
Except for DirectX turning Vista-exclusive. But I sincerely doubt there'll be anyone still using XP and expecting to be able to run all the new games once they start only using post-Dx9 properly.
Yup, totally. A company releasing it's 11th coding platform version free is a sure sign that they're planning on putting a price on future versions. Sure.BUBBALOU wrote:So does this mean when windows 7 comes out with it's yearly subscription plan that Dx-XX will have a pay to download feature rates??
Microsoft will not take second seat to BLIZZARD
- TIGERassault
- DBB Admiral
- Posts: 1600
- Joined: Tue Aug 10, 2004 3:33 pm
Re:
Yeah, but I was just getting really fed up with the big-companies-like-to-take-advantage-of-customers jokes and stereotypes.Sirius wrote:Pretty sure Bubbalou wasn't being serious there.
Re:
thx. that makes a lot more sense.Sirius wrote:0.045 micron (45 nm), which is why a different measurement unit is used these days.
Dude! Are you joking??!! that is THE worst thing about it. It's called strong arming your customer base. And yeah it's free. It's in their best interest. Give it people free and REQUIRE the industry to use it. ppfft.Tigerassault wrote: Well, you can't say anything bad about a new DirectX being released!
Except for DirectX turning Vista-exclusive. But I sincerely doubt there'll be anyone still using XP and expecting to be able to run all the new games once they start only using post-Dx9 properly.
-
- DBB Supporter
- Posts: 1444
- Joined: Tue Aug 07, 2001 2:01 am
Re:
I think the PC version of Shadowrun also requires DX10 but thats a MS game too. Could be wrong though.Sirius wrote:The industry isn't required to use it, though. I still haven't heard of any DX10+-only games coming out, although it may not be too much longer.
P.S. Except Halo 2, which is a bit of a special case, and ... really, a bit of a joke.
- TIGERassault
- DBB Admiral
- Posts: 1600
- Joined: Tue Aug 10, 2004 3:33 pm
Re:
same thing. You can't run vista on Dx9(you aren't even given that option) and you can't run Dx10 on XP.TIGERassault wrote:Halo2 and Shadowrun are really classed more as Vista-exclusive than Dx10 exclusive.
- TIGERassault
- DBB Admiral
- Posts: 1600
- Joined: Tue Aug 10, 2004 3:33 pm
Re:
I think you've been drinking too much Duper, your sentences are backwards.Duper wrote:You can't run vista on Dx9
Re:
JMEaT wrote:Still pimping GF6 and 7 series here. (And Windows XP!)
1x GF 6800
2x GF 7600 GS
1x GF 7950 GT
same here, XP Pro, Skt 478 P4EE 3.4, 7800GS AGP
Re:
*edit* retort removed by me.TIGERassault wrote:I think you've been drinking too much Duper, your sentences are backwards.Duper wrote:You can't run vista on Dx9
Sorry to be so snappy Tiger.
What I was meaning in that statement and not conveying it well was it's nearly impossible to run Vista on Dx9. you might be able to but I assume it would involve a "major" hack job to do it as it was mentioned by Krom (I think?) that Dx 10 is installed with Vista.
not that any of this REALLY matters.