Linked by fran on Sun 20th Mar 2011 20:02 UTC
AMD "AMD worldwide developer relations manager of graphics Richard Huddy has blamed Microsoft's DirectX and its APIs for limiting the potential of GPUs in PCs. '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... DirectX is getting in the way.'"
Thread beginning with comment 467014
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
dump
by antik on Sun 20th Mar 2011 20:14 UTC
antik
Member since:
2006-05-19

Then dump this piece of s..oops... and use OpenGL instead.

Simple!

Reply Score: 4

RE: dump
by UltraZelda64 on Sun 20th Mar 2011 20:20 in reply to "dump"
UltraZelda64 Member since:
2006-12-05

If only people would just do this and write proper cross-platform games to begin with. But that won't happen.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE: dump
by WereCatf on Sun 20th Mar 2011 20:41 in reply to "dump"
WereCatf Member since:
2006-02-15

Then dump this piece of s..oops... and use OpenGL instead.


One of the problems is that DirectX is nowadays quite some ahead of OpenGL. OpenGL is lagging behind badly.

Secondly, if you read more to the actual matter it's not really the fact that DirectX is somehow so bad or something that they want to get rid of it. Quite the contrary; they still want to use DirectX, they just want certain functions be implemented in hardware itself so the CPU doesn't get involved at all in certain operations. Like for example handling large lists of objects is an example of a case where the current implementation gets in the way: either you pass all the objects as a large, single bunch to the card which is fast, but manipulating those objects independently afterwards is really tedious and slow, or pass the objects separately but then the CPU is involved for every single pass.

Basically, this is again a rather sensationalistic "news article" for the devs calling for more direct access to certain hardware functions, which really doesn't have anything to do with DirectX either as OpenGL suffers from the same issues too.

Reply Parent Score: 8

RE[2]: dump
by reduz on Mon 21st Mar 2011 02:29 in reply to "RE: dump"
reduz Member since:
2006-02-25


One of the problems is that DirectX is nowadays quite some ahead of OpenGL. OpenGL is lagging behind badly.


What planet do you come from? Khronos is doing an excellent job since they took over OpenGL, and GL 4.1 is pretty much at the same feature set as DirectX11, plus it works on WindowsXP (DX11 doesn't).
The main features GL lacks are intermediate pre-compiled bytecode and that thread support is more messy (requiering multiple contexts), none of which are vital features for nowadays games or applications (bytecode shaders are recompiled for every card anyway and thread support does not gain much, as the article itself says). Most games nowadays are also written for OpenGL ES, so little by little as portable devices get better, DirectX is becoming irrelevant.

Reply Parent Score: 7

RE[2]: dump
by MORB on Mon 21st Mar 2011 08:45 in reply to "RE: dump"
MORB Member since:
2005-07-06

One of the problems is that DirectX is nowadays quite some ahead of OpenGL. OpenGL is lagging behind badly.

This is not the case currently and hopefully it will stay that way. OpenGL 4.1 provides the same feature set as directx11.

Reply Parent Score: 5

RE[2]: dump
by tomcat on Tue 22nd Mar 2011 00:20 in reply to "RE: dump"
tomcat Member since:
2006-01-06

Basically, this is again a rather sensationalistic "news article" for the devs calling for more direct access to certain hardware functions, which really doesn't have anything to do with DirectX either as OpenGL suffers from the same issues too.


Agree. It's not as if AMD has some alternative waiting in the wings. So, they should stop being so dramatic, and work with MSFT and others to build the technology they want.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE: dump
by vaette on Sun 20th Mar 2011 21:02 in reply to "dump"
vaette Member since:
2008-08-09

Read the article, the complaint is that DirectX is too high-level, and OpenGL is at least as high-level throughout.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE: dump
by Valhalla on Sun 20th Mar 2011 21:28 in reply to "dump"
Valhalla Member since:
2006-01-24

Well, since Windows basically IS the pc desktop games market then I can't really blame devs for going with DirectX, particularly since it's been geared at games development from the get go. In other graphically demanding segments like 3D content creation OpenGL is de facto standard.

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE[2]: dump
by d.marcu on Sun 20th Mar 2011 22:06 in reply to "RE: dump"
d.marcu Member since:
2009-12-27

Yeah right! ever heard of Humble Indie Bundle, windows users contributed with less than 55% of the cash. Those other platforms mac os with 5% and linux with 1% made up the rest. So your premise is false, the presumed 90% of the marketshare of windows does not mean that you can ignore the rest. Well, you can ignore them at your own loss.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE: dump
by reduz on Mon 21st Mar 2011 02:33 in reply to "dump"
reduz Member since:
2006-02-25

They fail at exactly the same. It's probably too difficult to explain why technically, but I think it can be best described as that most operations that APIs such as DX and GL do, the cards should be doing them themselves by running higher level game or rendering code in them, otherwise the CPU <-> GPU data exchange is an enormous bottleneck.

Reply Parent Score: 3