|
|
DirectX 11 optimises for multithreading and GPGPU
Author: Richard SwinburnePublished: 1st August 2008
DirectX 11 will feature a host of new changes, but still be backward compatible.
Microsoft is cited as claiming DirectX 11 will be important for not only PCs but console platforms as well - possibly leading the way to a uniform ground between the entire gaming race, lowering development costs but making ports between PC and consoles ever more common.
TGDaily had a chat with Kevin Unangst, Senior Global Director of Windows Gaming at Microsoft, who clarified a few points for the future:
- Games for Windows Live will be free for Windows users and developers
- Marketplace will come to Windows Live this Autumn
- Marketplace will offer the ability to distribute not only trailers, featured content but games too (just like Steam) however freely available games can be put on Marketplace free of charge
- DirectX 11 will be backward compatible with DirectX 10 and 10.1, like 9 was with 8, 7, 6 etc. This means that those who own Vista and don't want to upgrade to Windows 7 will still be able to get the benefits of the latest DirectX.
- DirectX 11 will better support multi-core and multi-threading machines so existing hardware will be better off.
- Tessellation will also be introduced and will work on DirectX 10, 10.1 and 11 hardware - this means those with ATI HD 2000, 3000 and 4000 series cards will see benefits from DirectX 11 because they currently support this feature.
Let us know your thoughts on the next generation (no Star Trek quotes, please) in the forums.
Related articles on bit-tech.net
Comments (41)
They better not make it exclusive to Win7 like DX to Vista.
Sorry had to do it...
I know a MS MVP, I'm gonna see if I can get inside details on Windows 7.
Windows 7 is Vista.
Like XP was over Windows 2000 (witch is based on NT1 in 1993, where no one knew that a virus and spyware was)... Just minor improvements a few features.
BTW, Vista is not crap. Just that you have 1 person that complained on the internet that his 200$ Dell laptop that can barely run Windows XP can't run Windows Vista and has issues. And for some reason it spread faster than a virus could ever do.
If you get to use it, or browse this forum, you will see that a great majority of users that have Vista, loves it and don't want to turn back to XP.
As it was talked in many forum posts, DirectX10 is impossible to have it on the XP, unless you do a changes to the OS to a point to have it as Vista.
Vista offered a foundation same for DirectX10. That was established, and now Microsoft is developing (Windows 7, and Direct X11) on it.
No, Windows 7 is the next version of Windows. So far, people have been saying it is what Vista should have been and can't come soon enough, but I will wait and see.
btw the news page doesn't seem to link here...
I can see a lot of people here being very unhappy with that.
2. I'm very glad that consoles and PC's will be so close to each other in coding because it will mean more great titles for both. Developers will take advantage of the extra horsepower that PC's have to offer to make the game load faster, and look better.
cant wait for dx11, I'll get a new card :D
I love Vista too.. I think a lot of people have slow-down problems because of all the bloatware you get on OEM systems and laptops.. Plus all of the OEM systems which didn't have enough RAM (just 1GB) which were on sale when Vista was released initially, before 2GB was identified as an absolute minimum for Vista for reasonable performance.
A nice, clean install is much faster.
I completely and wholeheartedly agree. I've been running 64-bit Vista for 10 months now and haven't had any problems with it. I keep wondering what people who're complaining about Vista are talking about. My wife has XP on her system and in comparison to Vista it's, well, crap.
Some people just love to complain. I think it's a way of seeming discerning or something. Except, it's not.
You don't need a DX10 card to run aero either... I used to run Vista's aero on my old laptops geforce go 7300, which is far from DX10, and it was fine.
I have no issues with Vista, tis stable, and easy to use, my only concern (which is tiny) is i can't play Red Alert 2 over my network because it can't find the tcp/ipx protocol, and that's it. Vista works for me, so, if it ain't broke, don't fix it is what some say.
Sam
What's the beat windows 7 performs exactly the same but people will like it cause the low end hardware will have caught up.
So that you don't have a malware/virus that access your system files, and if it tries to access it by moving your mouse and clicking, then you will be prompted and you can click on "cancel", and have Windows kill the application. And because the dialog box loads on a secure automatically generated account, the program can't send mouse movement or keyboard command for you to bypass it. Granted it's a bit excess and should have an option to have it only protect the system file and not the global account (so that when you delete a shortcut on the start menu, you don't have the UAC prompt). But hey you don't edit the start menu everyday.
I agree with Mentai, but showing the minimum system requirement surpass a game will be like Microsoft BOB that was in the old old days, it required so much power for the time that barely few people purchased it, and even thus now hardware cost has diminished significantly, it will be laugh out. And people will say "Is it worth it?". What Vista should had have is a system that detects your hardware and disables features that it judges not necessary at the moment your first start Windows (rendering the benchmark system/optimization it has more useful) and once done, give you a list of all the disabled features witch check marks to disable them, and enable other. Obviously this is technical, and probably should be in Vista Business and Ultimate edition only.
What Microsoft did bad is having a 32-bit version... granted that it would have been hard (remember that MS did not see all the complaining of Vista... as they did not release it), but assured that it's users would have proper computers and prevent people with 200$ Dell computer that can't even run XP smoothly say how crappy Vista is on it and of course, seriously push 64-bit applications and games. Moreover, as 32-bit was done at the last minute it had the most bugs, and because it was the default disk it came with Retail (except for Ultimate edition) edition of vista and OEMs choice, news didn't even report that problem is not in Vista 64-bit.
I hope Windows 7 will be 64-bit by default. If JUST seeing how crazy the performance is for videos using 64-bit codec on Vista with just Windows Media Player, I can't wiat to use all my software in 64-bit version, and a push to that technology is needed.
Probably Microsoft found it was more complicated then helpful, or realized to not change standards that was established for oh so many years, like the QWERTY keyboard and how you execute a program (unlike MacOS where it's Ctrl+O instead of Enter). Which probably explains why Microsoft totally canceled it (I mean the concept), it will end up (if it is included) to the same thing as we have now, just maybe deliver instant search results faster on your screen or something like that. Anyway, it's all so so vague... I guess we have to wait and found out.
P
But a very expensive service pack, lol.
Edit: By the way, for people who would respond to that like "Duh noob itz nt a srvs pck minge itz new", I was joking.
The article made it very clear that DirectX 11 would be Vista compatable, try reading it sometime.
Even extremely basic and free antivirus and firewalls stop such activity as remote desktop control, however, that would be a really crappy virus or cracker anyway as they would use somthing such as invisable command prompt and preset command files.
No.
Microsoft have plenty of time to change their mind. I was merly stipulating the scenario of DX10 to Vista.
Microsoft wants DirectX to be popular... I mean they invest money on it. To get used they need to present to companies market share. If few people have it, no games/software will be made for it. But if a lot, then yes. Now why DirectX10 is not for XP, simply, because they can't do it. I mean anything is possible, it's just business wise, time consumption spend on it is not worth it, especially that it will turn the OS to the OS that they try to sell. That would be dumb from them to do such thing.
Vista isn't any crapper than XP. This attitude boggles me!
It's going to vista with bells on. Like XP was to 2000. It's only an operating system at the end of the day.
Question is, in the article, what is "Games for Windows Live"? Is it a "Games for Windows, Live", or "Games for 'Windows Live'" or...? If that's the case, what is Windows Live? Is it just Windows?
Don't know if this is what is in windows 7, but I would guess you could do indexing of tags? So you could have one file under two tags instead of one directory. Or three tags. Or four.
Games for Windows Live is Microsoft's answer to Steam's integrated chat+server browser.
basically useless.
how do DirectX support multi-thread? it's already multi-threaded as it is with shaders going off to the 128 possible pipelines.
I know its hard when your beloved XP is full with a shipload of software and other crap "you don't need but really really wanted" and do not want to install again. Well with a fresh vista install you do not have too. And the "are you sure nag screens" can be disabled too, just google for it. It's not wise to do it, but if it really bothers you...
If your really like the XP look then you're probably the only one who likes the teletubbies. And vista looks can be changed with ease. And you got a nice sidebar where you can put in monitor tools like processor loads, network use, speedfan readings and other stuff.
You can stick to peanut butter every day for the rest of your life or try something new and refreshing.
Nearly all PC's sold these days are 64bit so why make a new 32bit OS?
Some companies are lazy, they know they have to create drivers for XP and it's easy enough to port over to 32bit Vista but then 64bit gets completely left out (case in point, my new Sony Alpha 350 camera Drivers only for XP & Vista 32bit so if I want to take the pics off my camera I need to either use Vista or a memory card reader - and the RAW conversion program won't work either).
I still struggle to get drivers for several devices (including my new camera) for the 64bit version whereas the 32bit drivers will work on either XP or Vista 32bit.
The other problem (in my case) is that my graphics card still crashes under vista (latest drivers installed).
I may be lucky and not a crash at all some days whereas others it will happen every 5 minutes. It could be because my card is too old and no longer supported by nVidia though (6600 GT). :S
I was using this video card recently for about 2 months (I sold my 8800) and I had no problem whatsoever under Vista 64.
And I was like "What does these people complain about... I have no issue (same for the 8800)?". Do you uninstall your drivers before installing the new ones? If you try both ways... then something is making Vista a monkey, hehe (Vista bug?!)
About the Win 7 = Vista SP2 it was a joke...as I said in my comment, about Microsoft changing their mind, they havn't ever done it before.
Are they going to cancel everything and have only 1 or 2 new features.... based on history it's most unlikely, but just IF they do then yes, we could say it's Vista SP2.
god, they are getting desperate.
it was just a hypothetical.