AMD Doesn't Think DirectX API Has a Future Beyond DX11

34

Comments

+ Add a Comment
avatar

John Pombrio

Funny that I did a search on DX12 and this post was directly under the post announcing DX12 by MS. Irony abounds!

avatar

BernardBlack

This is no surprise. There has been a stalemate (so to speak), with the API's. Right now, OpenCL, OpenGL and DirectX are all locked in some sort of weird power struggle...thing, right now.

Aside from that, who knows...maybe there just aren't that many changes/ updates that have to be made, to warrant for a complete overhaul. In the past, DX has always underwent radical changes. We may finally be starting to see the light of day, where, the difference between DX's goal in achieving fluid, CG-like graphics, can be done with DX 11.2, like functionality. I remember when DX9 released, and as usual, Microsoft was using their Flight Simulator, as a demo of what DX9 can do. They stated that they were close to achieving CG level graphics with it, but that the hardware for that much muscle was still, not quite there. Since then, DX has gotten much more efficient and faster and we can finally see the CG quality getting close, with demonstrations like the new Unreal Engine, which looking strikingly real.

avatar

beta212

Geesh, maximumpc must do some research before just copying articles. The guy is Roy Taylor, the same guy who was partly responsible for twimtbp in Nvidia before he jumped ship. And today the majority of games are still using dx9, there wouldn't be any point of releasing dx12 until dx11 gets widespread use. The new generation of consoles coming out this year should help alleviate that issue, hopefully we'll see some more high quality ports using dx11 after the new xbox and ps4 come out.

avatar

Nimrod

Why the fuck do people keep saying that the majority of games still run DX9? Its because they are STUPID thats why.

avatar

BernardBlack

Probably, because MMO's all still use DX9, in order to try to remain compatible with XP, which a lot of MMO player's still use...and A LOT of PC players, are MMO gamers these days. World of Warcraft, Guild Wars, SWTOR. I think Warcraft is the only one currently using DX10 or 11 (last I heard).

avatar

BernardBlack

...and even, if these MMO's introduce support for 10 & 11, it doesn't change that the game was developed for DX9. Just read all the responses from the Guild Wars 2 creators...because of the angry gamers wanting at least DX10 support, they responded with something like, "Guild Wars 2 was developed off of DX9, due, to the large amount of gamers who still use XP, but future updates may enable Direct X 10 or 11-like features, however."

avatar

Hey.That_Dude

What they mean to say is that the majority of games don't have all the eye candy, that DX11 brought, turned on or even implemented. In this respect, they are correct as far as I can see.
Is that sufficient, good hunter?

avatar

H1N1theI

FYI: The PS series runs OpenGL, last time I checked.

Only XBox uses DirectX.

avatar

Vano

Hopefully we won't see any freaking ports. EVER!
It's like enlarging a photo - result is awful

avatar

aaronj2906

Another fallacy.

Right up there with "everything that can be invented has been invented".

... next ...

avatar

wumpus

The issue is that anybody will care about whatever Microsoft does a few years from now. Right up there with:
"IBM Mainframes will be the only important form of computing in the future".

avatar

bnajbert

LOL..This is from a company that holds less than 20% of the discrete graphics market.

http://www.maximumpc.com/article/news/intel_gains_graphics_market_share_expense_amd_nvidia2013

avatar

wumpus

Nice troll. Intel's share of the "discrete graphics market" of course remains 0%. Discrete graphic marketshare was never mentioned on that page.

avatar

Chronologist

In terms of discrete GPU's, Nvida: 60-65, AMD: 40-45 percents.

CPUs: Intel: around 80 percent, AMD: bottomed at 16.1-17% last I checked.

avatar

popetorak

Translation: DirectX is too hard for us, and if we do use it then people will know we suck. We going to stick to opengl because that technology is 15 years old, like our video cards.

avatar

fung0

popetorak, I'm not sure I get your meaning. But here are the facts...

Microsoft has made its agenda painfully clear: to compete with Apple by appealing to undemanding consumers. Microsoft killed its own games division, and fired everyone working on Flight Simulator. All its emphasis has been on the Xbox, which may be based on similar technology to DirectX, but is obviously antithetical to the DX principles of standardization and compatibility across different hardware configurations.

Microsoft has also worked very hard to undermine the credibility of PC gaming in general. For example, it doesn't even mention PC games at E3, even though its Windows OS remains one of the largest markets for games. And it has failed to deliver on many of its own specific promises for DirectX. Users were going to have a single control configuration that would carry over to all DX games. No sign of that, even though it presents no real technical challenges. On the contrary, today we see games supporting only the Xbox controller, and bypassing DX entirely... with no word of criticism from Microsoft. Clearly, Microsoft has abandoned any pretense of stewardship for PC gaming.

So why would anyone have trouble believing that DirectX was looking at an approaching 'sunset'? At this point, we're not even sure the Windows desktop has a future. And DirectX certainly has no place in Metro...

avatar

warptek2010

Dude, go smoke some weed or something.

avatar

T3RR0RH4WK

NONE of what you said was true in any way, or even funny.

avatar

wolfing

Maybe Microsoft is creating a new DirectY "much better than DirectX, exclusive to Windows 8" and discontinue DirectX only to see if they can force people to switch to W8.

avatar

pratikrawankar

there is sense in ur thought

but we know MS is retard

avatar

kevaskous

I can see this, OpenGL has been caught up for awhile now and is much lighter on overhead and generally faster than DX11, as far as i can tell. OpenGL is behind on a few things but not much. Then there is the fact that API's create much slow down and that is a large part of why consoles do more than they should for their power.

This would also mean Windows will have to do some serious innovating to keep itself relevant for gamers and the like as Linux is seeing love, and even more so if DX slows down. We'll see, but it does make sense to me.

avatar

vrmlbasic

Not according to my gaming experience and benchmarks. Unigene Heaven scoffs at the notion that OpenGL is on par with DX9 or DX11 for performance and graphical quality.

Consoles don't do more than they should for their power, at least not the PS3 & 360. I wouldn't call gaming at resolutions as low as 1024*720 and rarely higher than 1280*720 "doing more than they should", I'd call it defacing my semi-glorious 1920*1080 display with a netbook-resolution image and passing it off as the pinnacle of gaming.

avatar

H1N1theI

Just saying, OpenGL is crippled on windows, so that it couldn't compete with DirectX. When an unbiased implementation was first created on the NT kernel, it outran DirectX and ashamed Microsoft.

OpenGL, IMHO, is at least on-par with DirectX in the API implementation, although perhaps the hardware implementation is a bit lacking. Intel can most likely help by starting to move their iGPUs from 2.1 to 4.3...

avatar

Straegen

MS has a love/hate relationship with platforms and APIs. Listing the number of dead, soon to be dead and limbo platforms from MS would be lengthy. They also have a history of killing off these platforms without much notice. DX is a big one but it won't surprise me if DX finds its way to limbo and ultimately death.

avatar

Mikey109105

So Roy, you say DX12 is never coming? I can't WAIT to see your face and hear what you have to say about how incredibly stupid that statement was when DX12 actually DOES come out.

avatar

Hey.That_Dude

Either way, it will be behind OpenGL in functionality, again.

avatar

theplustwo

Open Source is great for a lot of things but being first to market is not generally one of them. Companies like Microsoft and Sony with multiple billion dollar revenue streams can throw money at things like DirectX until they have a competitive advantage, implementing bleeding-edge features at a pace open source development can rarely match.

avatar

H1N1theI

@theplustwo
Not really.

The Khronos group can draw up ideas in the snap of a finger...

Finalizing a draft, however, takes a few months, and implementing it hardware-wise takes forever for the GPU makers (mostly because they're tuned to the DirectX release cycle.)

avatar

popetorak

DirectX has always been ahead. Stop believing open source is the best

avatar

Hey.That_Dude

DirectX has always been behind. Don't believe M$ BS. They don't have a creative bone in their body.

avatar

T3RR0RH4WK

Only if you stop being an absolutist dick and talking about shit you don't know. ;)

avatar

Hey.That_Dude

Please look up the functionality of DirectX 11 and compare it to the functionality of OpenGL. I'm not being an "absolutist dick", I'm correct.

avatar

vrmlbasic

My experience goes along with this. OpenGL has always been #2.

avatar

Hey.That_Dude

Your experience must be very short lived. You should learn some tech history and look at the capabilities of the API's directly.

Log in to MaximumPC directly or log in using Facebook

Forgot your username or password?
Click here for help.

Login with Facebook
Log in using Facebook to share comments and articles easily with your Facebook feed.