NVIDIA's Pixel & Vertex Shading Language

Barkhausen Criterion writes "NVIDIA have announced a high-level Pixel and Vertex Shading language developed in conjunction with Microsoft. According to this initial look, the "Cg Compiler" compiles high level Pixel and Vertex Shader language into low-level DirectX and OpenGL code. While the press releases are going amok, CG Channel (Computer Graphics Channel) has the most comprehensive look at the technology. The article writes, "Putting on my speculative hat, the motivation is to drive hardware sales by increasing the prevalence of Pixel and Vertex Shader-enabled applications and gaming titles. This would be accomplished by creating a forward-compatible tool for developers to fully utilize the advanced features of current GPUs, and future GPUs/VPUs." "

Comments

Hype or innovation?

[moonbender]

You've got to wonder, is this yet another load of Nvidia corporate hype (a la "HW TnL will revolutionise gaming"), or is this useful technology? I wouldn't trust any of the current articles on answering that, judging by the previous Nvidia hypes, it takes a few months till anyone really knows if this is good or bad.

Re:Hype or innovation?

[Pulzar]

Have you seen what ID has been up to lately?

Have you read about how much effort JC has put into pushing polygons in Doom 3? We're hardly at a point where companies don't have to worry about speed issues..

If anything, companies have to put in even more effort into producing some stunning results, because everybody has been spoiled by recent titles.

Re:Hype or innovation?

[friedmud]

"If it means you don't have to waste your time writing *two* shaders (one for DX, and other for OpenGL) then that is a GOOD THING."

Even better then that! It means you don't have to waste your time writing *4* shaders:

Nvidia/DirectX
Nvidia/OpenGL
ATI/DirectX
ATI/ OpenGL

That is of course, pending a compiler for ATI cards - but I don't think it will be long... Unless ATI holds out for OpenGL2 - but in between now and when OGL2 comes out there is a lot of time to lose maket share to Nvidia because people are writing all of their shaders in Cg - and ATI is getting left out in the rain....

So I would expect ATI to jump on this bandwagon - and quick!

Derek

Re:Inefficiencies

[Have Blue]

I am being completely serious. A modern computer is an asymmetric dual-processor system. GPUs are already at least as complex as CPUs, and when the shader language becomes Turing-complete (when jumps, conditionals, and some other things are added) the GPU will be a CPU and it will be pointless to ship a computer with 2 unequal general-purpose CPUs.

OpenGL 2.0

[XenonOfArcticus]

IMHO, OpenGL 2.0 is more portable, less NVidia-specific and backed by more manufacturers. Cg is a ripoff of OpenGL 2.0's design, in a cheap attempt to turn it into a NVidia/Microsoft controlled standard.

Remember, NVidia may be good now, but they got where they were by being competitive and overturning old-guard 3D guys (like 3DFX who were themselves trying to lock the industry in to APIs they controlled).

Competition=good.
Single-vendor-controlled APIs=bad.
OpenGL2.0=good.

Now, Ilike my NVidia hardware as much as the next guy, but I fear lock-in. Seems like most of us have already experienced the downsides of lock-in.

Yes, NVidia is talking up the buzzwords "portable" and "vendor-neutral" but if that's what they were after, the wouldn't have created Cg at all, they would have gone with the already-available open standard, OpenGL2.0. This is embrace, extend and extinguish.