Slashdot Mirror
ATI Talks Game Support, Future Of Graphics Cards
Sergio writes "Slo-Tech have posted an interview with ATI's representative in game developer support, Richard Huddy. He touched on many subjects, including the evolution of DirectX and OpenGL, why ATI doesn't provide much information to Linux driver developers, and the most common mistakes of game developers ('Nine out of ten games under-use the graphics card. That's amazing, and it's been true for the last three or four years.')"
...because I don't play 3D games on PC. For the price of a high-end graphics card I can buy an Xbox or PS2 already, and they provide better gaming experiences. On the Windows desktop, 3D acceleration is completely unused, and many people spend money on expensive graphics cards for no reason. I am looking forward to seeing how Longhorn utilizes 3D acceleration for the next generation Windows UI.
The reason I don't know what kind of card I have is that, although I purchased a brand new, shrinkwrapped Radeon 9500 Pro retail box, I noticed that the card looked somewhat different from the OEM (I think Sapphire) 9500 Pro I'd used for a few days previously. Didn't think much of this until I started seeing indications in places like the XFree86 log that the card might be a 9700, instead of a 9500 Pro (I do realize the two cards both use the R300 NE chipset). Also, that Antalus flyby score is meaningfully higher than what Tom's Hardware found for 1280x1024x32 on a much faster system than my two-year old Athlon 1.4GHz. Haven't bothered to crack the case open again since, so until I do I'll happily enjoy the illusion that I somehow ended up with a 9700 for the price of a 9500 Pro.
The driver I use is a binary-only one from a German reseller. They appear to be betas of forthcoming versions of ATi's own drivers. As I have XFree86 4.3.0 this has been a great blessing, as ATi's own Web site only has drivers for XFree86 4.1 and 4.2.
To hear an ATI engineer criticize NVIDIA drivers?
... my NVIDIA card works at nearly the same performance in both Windows AND linux. Kind of hard to critize NVIDIA when you're drivers barely work, on ANY OS.
... I can't count how many ATI users try linux just to find that their brand new shiny Radeon is worthless in the OS. In the meantime nvidia users are enjoying full support from their manufacturer.
I read it as a blatant attempt to persuade buyers that NVIDIA hardware is better than it actually is.
Well gee Rich
when they should be producing better drivers which could enhance the value of all their existing hardware in the market.
Maybe ATI should be the ones doing a little "enhancement of value"
Keep whining about IP issues with linux and trumpeting DirectX 9 compliance. What good is a card with horrible drivers?
Newer features are exposed in newer drivers. So they may be buggy and perform sub-optimally. There's a learning curve. And enough newer hardware is difficult to get for the developer, how many users will have it?
Build a modular engine. And try to squeeze in that feature in the next iteration.
"As we've seen from the recent furore over driver cheats it seems likely that they don't plan to let their own inferior hardware come between them and first place."
I kept expecting him to rip into Nvidia's momma at some point.
"...always new atoms but always doing the same dance, remembering what the dance was yesterday." -Richard Feynman
That is true. However, if you install the newest DirectX (which will install no matter how shitty your pc is), and you try to play a game written for say a GeForce4 and you have a TNT2, then your pc can figure out what the card should do and what the cpu should do. So, there is no reason for game designers to code to the least common denominator, they just have to code for the newest DirectX/OpenGL and the user's pc turns on available options for their card, and disables the others.
The reason that the graphics card is under-used is for two reasons. The first is that game designers, as you said, want the game to work well on lower end platforms. If your cpu is good enough you can add better graphical features even if your video card doesn't support it. For example Descent 3 adds motion blur if your cpu is L33t enough. However, the main reason that video cards are underused is that it's a fucking pain in the ass.
Let's say for instance that your name is not John Carmack, and you want to make a 3d game. You code it in C++, Cg, Objective C, Visual C++, OpenGL, DirectX9, whatever. You have all these different layers of 3d graphics you have to deal with, unless you just use someone else's engine. You've got shadows, lighting, colors, textures, mip mapping, bump mapping, shading, animating, it goes on and on with the insane number of things you have to do. When new apis emerge that let you use the video card to do more stuff it is very difficult to learn that much more crap.
It happens all the time no matter what you are coding. Ohhh, there's a function in that library that does that for me! I just wasted my time! Ohhh, there's a way that I can make the video card do that really easily and I will save some cpu and some ram! Nobody, sans Carmack, knows this stuff well enough that they can use the graphics card 100% of the time it is possible and better to do so. Except of course in the most graphically simple of programs. However, I do urge game developers to try to use the GPU more than the CPU. It results in many advantages for the gamer.
The GeekNights podcast is going strong. Listen!
I can buy an Xbox or PS2 already, and they provide better gaming experiences.
Really? That depends on what experience you're looking for. I play both PC and console games and I generally prefer PC games to consoles for the exact reason you cited: Better gaming experiences.
I like the available titles better. I like the graphics better. I even like the controls better. For example, playing an FPS with an Xbox or PS2 controller doesn't come close to the keyboard/mouse or keyboard/controller-of-choice combination on a PC.
What if I want to play a strategy game or a deep RPG? There are far more PC titles out there than consoles in both of those genres. Consoles are good for certain types of games, but PCs can offer the complete range. The fact is that most games aren't developed for consoles. That may change, but it's not the case right now.
I've played Halo. For a console game it's amazing. It understandably blew the minds of console-first gamers but I wasn't impressed. Halo was originally supposed to be a PC game with Internet online teamplay, then Microsoft bought Bungie. Now Xboxers have to wait for Halo 2 on Xbox Live to get the online experience, and PC gamers will get Halo as it was originally intended later this year, with all the online play they want and much better graphics (that's the plan anyway).
Why should I view my visuals on a TV that has fuzzy 320x240 resolution (or 640x480 for "high-definition") when I can view better visuals at a crisp 1024x768 or higher on my monitor?
Until recently, the only way you could have a reasonable online gaming experience at midnight was with a PC and the Internet (LAN doesn't do it unless you live in a dorm with dozens of other people, or head out to a LAN gaming center). I don't have to pay an extra subscription fee (Xbox Live) just so I can play online games. I just connect to servers or set up my own through my high-speed line which I needed for work anyway.
If I want to play some of EA's great sports titles, I can't get them on a console and I definitely can't play them online with a console - EA said no dice.
As for Windows not using 3D on the desktop, a 3D card makes for faster 2D renders, probably because the chip-makers put their latest technology (both 2D and 3D) into them. If you view or edit video or images, if you use spreadsheets or a word processor, if you browse the Web (there are of heavy sites out there), having a better graphics card will make a discernable difference.
So you really have to be careful and clear about what you mean when you say that consoles offer "better gaming experiences." Different? Yes. Better? Not necessarily.
What balls! ATI were the first to do 'application specific optimisations'! And their DX table fog (or was it vertex fog?) still doesn't work properly!
Can you say bullshit?
BULLSHIT, yup...I can say it
This guy has no idea what he's talking about claiming that ATi makes good drivers for Linux...they barely have ANY drivers for Linux. They have 2 RPMs, one for xfree4.1 and one for xfree4.2...xfree4.3 has be available for 6 months and they don't have squat for it. Unless you trust a third party driver for a card that is not even a Radeon, I would much rather see the CHIP MAKER releasing any kind of driver that works...binary or not
Not to mention these are only good for RPM based distros, if you are running something like Debian, Slackware or Gentoo you will need to futz around with Alien so you can even attempt to use the damn thing!
"Some things have to be believed to be seen." - Ralph Hodgson