1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

AMD: DirectX stifling PC performance

Discussion in 'Games, Gaming & Game-demos' started by Xzibit, Mar 19, 2011.

  1. Xzibit

    Xzibit Banned

    Messages:
    4,383
    Likes Received:
    0
    GPU:
    7970 Windforce
    Technology company AMD believes that to unlock the full potential of current PC hardware, it would be best to circumnavigate DirectX.


    According to the firm’s developer relations manager Richard Huddy, with DirectX, PC hardware is being restrained by prioritizing console development.

    “It’s funny,” he told bit-tech.net. “We often have at least ten times as much horsepower as an Xbox 360 or a PS3 in a high-end graphics card, yet it’s very clear that the games don’t look ten times as good.

    “To a significant extent, that’s because, one way or another, for good reasons and bad – mostly good, DirectX is getting in the way,” adding that many developers wish the application programming interface would just “go away.”

    “Being able to have total control over the machine, which is what the very best games developers want, by giving you access to the hardware at the very low level, you give games developers a chance to innovate, and that’s going to put pressure on Microsoft – no doubt at all,” said Huddy.

    Huddy goes on to say it was hoped that the introduction of shaders in 2002 would create more “visual variety in games,” but instead shaders are used in the most obvious way.

    “That means that they’ve used shaders to converge visually, and lots of games have the same kind of look and feel to them these days on the PC,” he said.

    A standard 3D API supposedly ensures that code can run on many different hardware options as possible, but Huddy believes access to shader tools is both a benefit and a liability.

    While some of the more vocal developers want to do away with the DX tech, Introversion’s Chris Delay doesn’t: “I don’t want anything to do with that, but presumably it depends on what you’re developing. If you’re making Crysis 3 or something like that, then it may be exactly what you want.”

    Source
     
  2. TwL

    TwL Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    1,828
    Likes Received:
    0
    GPU:
    2x5850 2x6950 + 9800GTX
    heh, funny.

    When they can't compete, can't code and can't make a decent support even to their own hardware this is pretty decent drop from PR. :)
     
  3. Mufflore

    Mufflore Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    11,251
    Likes Received:
    525
    GPU:
    Redacted by NDA
    To keep an OS/computer secure, nothing except the OS should be allowed to have full control of the hardware, especially not games.
    The NT HAL (Hardware Abstraction Layer) is a major security benefit of the NT series OS's over the previous DOS and Win9x OS's.
    Game devs live in cloud cuckoo land if they think they can have direct hardware control on an NT OS.

    The only time direct hardware access makes sense for a PC is if you have an impermeable machine (not possible) or the machine will never go online.
    I agree that it would benefit game devs, but they need to be realistic about what can be achieved.


    “It’s funny,” he told bit-tech.net. “We often have at least ten times as much horsepower as an Xbox 360 or a PS3 in a high-end graphics card, yet it’s very clear that the games don’t look ten times as good."
    This statement is a disgrace from a company built on this tech.
    10x the power does not net 10x the looks.
    For example, does doubling the screen res look twice as detailed?
    It doesnt because you need double the pixels in both directions which is 4 times the resolution.
    Also, with new features like Physics needing exponentially more power, 10x the power doesnt sound quite as good.

    I'm not denying that there is bloat and inefficient code in DX, but AMD need to stop discrediting themselves by speaking like rank amateurs!
    Instead, they should identify where DX and its interface to the OS can be improved realistically.

    /rant
     
  4. Vinnie

    Vinnie Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    7,685
    Likes Received:
    14
    GPU:
    2x AMD R9 290X

  5. Mkilbride

    Mkilbride Banned

    Messages:
    8,058
    Likes Received:
    2
    GPU:
    EVGA GTX470 1.2GB
    Yes, this same thing was said with Id about OpenGL, but then what do they go and do? Make Id Tech 5 DX9 onry.

    Id has actually changed it's stance:

    http://www.techspot.com/news/42827-id-software-co-founder-directx-is-better-than-opengl.html

    Carmack now says DX is better.

    Who to believe, AMD, a CPU developer whom isn't favored by Microsoft like Intel is, or John Carmack, a man whom openly supported OpenGL in all his games and made sure of it; but now is saying DX is superior?

    Tough to say.

    http://blog.wolfire.com/2010/01/Why-you-should-use-OpenGL-and-not-DirectX
     
    Last edited: Mar 19, 2011
  6. vbetts

    vbetts Don Vincenzo Staff Member

    Messages:
    14,607
    Likes Received:
    1,184
    GPU:
    RTX 2070FE
    ID Tech 5 is Open GL, not DirectX.
     
  7. ThatDelirium

    ThatDelirium Master Guru

    Messages:
    425
    Likes Received:
    0
    GPU:
    Radeon HD5850 1GB
    Yeah, like vbetts said, iD Tech 5 will still use OpenGL on the PC.
     
  8. Ryu5uzaku

    Ryu5uzaku Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    6,768
    Likes Received:
    105
    GPU:
    5700 XT UV 1950~
    Hardware manufacturer AMD has suggested that by bypassing software interface programs to enable interaction with other software - in other words, APIs like DirectX - would be the best way to unlock the full potential of current PC hardware. Like some others, AMD believes that current PC hardware is being held back by the prioritization of console development.

    In a recent interview with bit-tech.net, AMD's GPU worldwide developer relations manager Richard Huddy had quite a bit to say about the matter.

    'It's funny,' says Huddy, 'We often have at least ten times as much horsepower as an Xbox 360 or a PS3 in a high-end graphics card, yet it's very clear that the games don't look ten times as good. To a significant extent, that's because, one way or another, for good reasons and bad - mostly good, DirectX is getting in the way.' Huddy says that one of the most common requests he gets from game developers is: 'Make the API go away.'

    "...being able to have total control over the machine, which is what the very best games developers want. By giving you access to the hardware at the very low level, you give games developers a chance to innovate, and that's going to put pressure on Microsoft – no doubt at all.' Huddy added.

    The advantage of using standard 3D APIs like DirectX is that your game will run on a wide range of hardware and that you'll get easy access to the latest shader technologies. Huddy suggests that developers are gaining one thing while losing another.

    "Wrapping it up in a software layer gives you safety and security," says Huddy, "but it unfortunately tends to rob you of quite a lot of the performance, and most importantly it robs you of the opportunity to innovate."

    Huddy says thanks to APIs, many games have the same look and feel these days on the PC. Programming "direct-to-metal" isn't for every games developer though, according to Introversion's lead designer and developer Chris Delay.

    "I don't want anything to do with that, but presumably it depends on what you're developing. If you're making Crysis 3 or something like that, then it may be exactly what you want."

    In any case, if game developers are looking to create cutting edge graphics, DirectX may not be in the equation anymore.

    http://gamrfeed.vgchartz.com/story/84891/are-consoles-holding-pc-gaming-back-amd-thinks-so/

    same text different source.... sounds bit better to me. lol

    i can believe coding directly to the metal would give performance benefits, but there is the problem of pc's sooo many configurations that it's impossibility.
     
    Last edited: Mar 19, 2011
  9. DeMS

    DeMS Master Guru

    Messages:
    291
    Likes Received:
    0
    GPU:
    MSI R9 270X HAWX 2GB
    While every API is a compromise between developer usability and performance, the case with DirectX is a bit different.

    There's a conflict of interests by Microsoft :
    - They need to sell their console which works with Dx9.0n only
    - They need to push PC graphics which are the competition to their console... So they can secure there's going to be a company able to design a GPU for their next console.

    OpenGL, even if they're still playing catch up with DirectX's features, is being developed freely without all those ties, so the potentia for innovation is there - there's no one to justify why you're chasing new tecniques to improve performance or to get new effects.

    Sadly, OpenGL is not in a position where it can be a threat to DirectX.
     
  10. The Chubu

    The Chubu Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    2,540
    Likes Received:
    0
    GPU:
    MSi GTX560 TwinFrozrII OC
    OpenGL its not pressed by game developers or SOs developers, but it is pressed by CAD developers, and thats the main force in the OpenGL development and thats the reason for a lot of hiccups on the latest versions. Their focus isnt game development, so, their feature lists arent game oriented either.

    Its not a matter of beliefs, but a fact. The lower the level of the code, the most perf you can get out of it. That said, coding a 3D engine using assembly isnt for everyone. I've seen sound effect software with low level code, but not a 3D engine. Must be a rare sight.
     

  11. deltatux

    deltatux Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    19,051
    Likes Received:
    13
    GPU:
    GIGABYTE Radeon R9 280
    I think you forgot that OpenGL is used in the Sony PS3, Wii, iPhone, the Android, Symbian and plethora of platforms that do run games.

    Seeing the rise of mobile game like iPhone, DS, PSP, Android, Symbian phones and etc. OpenGL will become a lot more important. As long as Microsoft can't gain dominance, DirectX is just a duplicate of OpenGL. Do note that OpenGL has been the de facto standard until Microsoft came along and vendor locked people into buying Windows.

    There's only really focus on DX is because most applications are on Windows, most developers don't really like to write multi-platform games and the OpenGL implementation in Windows is generally crappy, hence developers rather develop and push DX over OpenGL. However, when Windows isn't a necessity, more developers will push back on a multi-platform rendering technology which is OpenGL.

    deltatux
     
  12. p3ps1c0la

    p3ps1c0la Master Guru

    Messages:
    276
    Likes Received:
    0
    GPU:
    Asus Strix 480 8gb
    ROFL "Introversion’s Chris Delay doesn't" And?? Go take a look at what kind of graphics Introversion is pushing out and tell me you give two ish about what he says. Not saying Multiwinia isn't a fun game cause it's a blast but seriously?
     
  13. vbetts

    vbetts Don Vincenzo Staff Member

    Messages:
    14,607
    Likes Received:
    1,184
    GPU:
    RTX 2070FE
    There are a couple of things though with that.
    1. Most consoles listed and mobile solutions don't use basic Open gl, they use OpenGL es. And as far as I know, it's not easy to port back and forth with.
    2. Microsoft has provided an API already for Windows, and while I do agree that OpenGL is way better for rendering and media creation, for game developers Direct X is a must more simple API to code for. John Carmack even said himself, Direct X is a better API for game development compared to OpenGL. Only reason him and his team aren't porting ID Tech 5 to DirectX is because they already have done so much work with it under OpenGL. Personally I wish more developers would use OpenGL, that would make porting them to Mac and Linux so much easier but right now DirectX holds the crown for game developers.
     
  14. The Chubu

    The Chubu Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    2,540
    Likes Received:
    0
    GPU:
    MSi GTX560 TwinFrozrII OC
    Based on OpenGL, most utilize their own implementations with their own extensions like Sony's PS3 OpenGL es like vbetts said.

    CAD is the thing that pushes Khronos Group, and the rest of the people use their own opengl implementations (as you said, for a lot of platforms, particulary, mobile ones) since its more accesible.
     
  15. deltatux

    deltatux Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    19,051
    Likes Received:
    13
    GPU:
    GIGABYTE Radeon R9 280
    1. OpenGL ES is just a strip down version of the whole OpenGL rendering API
    2. While that is true, with the push of developers transitioning to OpenGL for portable gaming market, I believe this will change in the future. Personally, I believe Microsoft and DirectX will slowly (very slowly) fade unless Microsoft can dominate that market. With Windows Phone 7, I highly doubt it unless the partnership with Nokia surprises market expectations.

    Sony doesn't use their own extensions, the whole point of OpenGL is that it's an open library API that's used by all. OpenGL ES is a subset of the OpenGL standard. Like I said above, it's just a strip down OpenGL API so that it will work on small devices. Personally, I don't know why Sony chose it over OpenGL since the Cell + RSX should be able to render OpenGL just fine unless they're basically admitting their console isn't powerful enough to use the whole OpenGL API...

    Yes, CAD is currently one of many industrial uses that uses OpenGL, other uses includes the animation industry but that's just one of the many uses for OpenGL. In the future, almost all browsers expect Internet Explorer will use OpenGL in the form of WebGL to render animations and 3D straight in the browser. With OpenGL, games like Quake Live is possible as well.

    There's a lot of opportunities with OpenGL. I'm not going to lie, I've been a supporter of OpenGL just because it's open unlike DirectX. Yes, it's biggest shortfall is that it's not geared towards gaming as it once was, but I believe that's going to change as more devices uses OpenGL for 3D rendering.

    As for AMD's call for elimination of APIs, I call bull**** ... you need APIs because APIs make programming standard across the board regardless of graphics card. With the elimination of APIs, then that means a gamer developer must run everything in kernel space and need to intimately know every single GPU architecture in order to create games? It's both stupid and a security risk waiting to happen.

    deltatux
     
    Last edited: Mar 20, 2011

  16. k3vst3r

    k3vst3r Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    3,351
    Likes Received:
    16
    GPU:
    Zotac 1070 Amp
    I find it strange ATI has always focused more on DX than opengl, hell years ago back when they had 9700 pro it ran opengl games at half speed of ti 4000 series range of Nvidia cards, but destroyed them in DX based games.
     
  17. Vector

    Vector Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    1,510
    Likes Received:
    0
    GPU:
    GTX 770 FTW 4gb w/bkplate
    OpenGL +2
     
  18. The Chubu

    The Chubu Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    2,540
    Likes Received:
    0
    GPU:
    MSi GTX560 TwinFrozrII OC
    @deltatux. Well... thats a matter of time, then we'll see if OpenGL turns into gaming direction once again. I doubt it, but market is changing, i'll give you that.
     
  19. Peerless

    Peerless Maha Guru

    Messages:
    1,494
    Likes Received:
    0
    GPU:
    GTX 980 sli 4gb
    I too am pulling for more opengl development. Like it has been stated it allows for games to run on different platforms and that will help. Out the industry more than just have games on the windows os.
     
  20. vbetts

    vbetts Don Vincenzo Staff Member

    Messages:
    14,607
    Likes Received:
    1,184
    GPU:
    RTX 2070FE
    I like ATI/AMD, but Nvidia has always had better openGL support compared to ATI.
     

Share This Page