Slashdot Mirror


DirectX 10 Hardware Is Now Obsolete

ela_gervaise writes "SIGGRAPH 2007 was the stage where Microsoft dropped the bomb, informing gamers that the currently available DirectX 10 hardware will not support the upcoming DirectX 10.1 in Vista SP1. In essence, all current DX10 hardware is now obsolete. But don't get too upset just yet: 'Gamers shouldn't fret too much - 10.1 adds virtually nothing that they will care about and, more to the point, adds almost nothing that developers are likely to care about. The spec revision basically makes a number of things that are optional in DX10 compulsory under the new standard - such as 32-bit floating point filtering, as opposed to the 16-bit current. 4xAA is a compulsory standard to support in 10.1, whereas graphics vendors can pick and choose their anti-aliasing support currently. We suspect that the spec is likely to be ill-received. Not only does it require brand new hardware, immediately creating a minuscule sub-set of DX10 owners, but it also requires Vista SP1, and also requires developer implementation.'"

12 of 373 comments (clear)

  1. More juice! by JosefAssad · · Score: 5, Funny

    4xAA is a compulsory That would seem to me to be the biggest change, that it requires batteries now.

    1. Re:More juice! by Solra+Bizna · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Support of the feature by the video card is mandatory. Use of the feature by the game is not.

      At least, that's how I understand it.

      That aside, am I the only person who remembers reading this "bomb" months back? The plan was that instead of checking for individual features (and coding around their lack case-by-case, like we will still get to do with OpenGL) the developer would check for a DirectX version, leaving fewer opportunities for wonky bugs from weird support combinations.

      -:sigma.SB

      (Disclaimer: I am a game developer who exclusively uses OpenGL for hardware 3D and I fully intend never to write a single line of DirectX code. Ever.)

      --
      WARN
      THERE IS ANOTHER SYSTEM
  2. Where is OpenGL when we need it? by imbaczek · · Score: 5, Interesting

    This seems like a window of opportunity for a new OpenGL standard. Anybody knows when it's due?

    1. Re:Where is OpenGL when we need it? by MrCoke · · Score: 5, Informative
  3. Such a disappointment by zdude255 · · Score: 5, Funny

    I'm sure the two developers using DX10 are gonna be pissed.

    1. Re:Such a disappointment by harry666t · · Score: 5, Funny

      > I'm sure the two developers using DX10 are gonna be pissed.

      I have dissociative identity disorder, you insensitive clod!

  4. Catchy title but... by Taagehornet · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "Now" is probably an exaggeration, considering that we're talking about Vista SP1.

    "Obsolete" ...I guess my DX9 card has been obsolete for a few years now, it still ticks on nicely though. Heck, all my hardware is probably obsolete.

    You could sum up TFA in a single line: "Microsoft discusses future extensions to the DirectX API. The current generation of hardware won't support those."

    Are anyone really surprised? Newsworthy?

  5. Re:I'm not really sure this matters all that much by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    Wow, what a load of FUD. OpenGL is completely supported under Vista and is in no way routed through DX:

    http://www.opengl.org/pipeline/article/vol003_9/

  6. A Bit Late To Notice? by Zephiris · · Score: 5, Informative

    That DirectX 10.1 is incompatible with 10.0 (along with new WDDM interface) has been known for at least a year now. It's a bit late for people to be in shock about it.

    Slashdot even covered it before.

    Just because Microsoft officially announced it at a conference doesn't *exactly* make it new news, since they made it very clear on roadmaps and everything else exactly what was going to happen, and why it wasn't the best idea ever to adopt DirectX 10.0 hardware, rather than hardware capable of 10.1 (or 10.2) and whatever the new superset of OpenGL happened to be (3.0 as it turns out).

    Also, the reason to bother with DirectX 10.1 isn't so much that it offers "brand new super features" to games, but the WDDM 2.1 bits, which would allow for far finer-grained context switching and task management. Being able to immediately switch from rendering one small bit, to starting to render something else, which would theorhetically make all of the compiz/Aero type stuff be able to run much more smoothly in conjunction with real 3D rendering (ie, games, CAD).

    It all seems an exercise in futility to me, as far as the "DirectX 10" hardware goes. I like faster, I like more features, but there just seems no real reason to upgrade beyond my Geforce 6800 for the price point (which I got 18 months ago). Not to a 7800-series or comparable, and certainly not to an 8x00 or upcoming 9x00 Geforce, unless driver stability improves dramatically, and they can add more real-world-useful features, particularly without the need for Windows Vista. I'm back using WinXP "for a while" again, but I generally won't buy hardware anymore unless it's a notable and drastic improvement in Windows, Linux, and FreeBSD.

    I digress, but the point is, the news has already been covered before. If it apparently wasn't that attention-worthy a year ago, is it now? New DirectX versions *always* require brand new hardware, whereas most minor OpenGL revisions have almost always included new features that also work on old hardware (OpenGL 1.5's Vertex Buffer Objects humming along happily on a Geforce 256, for instance), and while full compliance is the best, all you really need to care about is if something implements certain clearly defined extensions, rather than wondering if Nvidia or ATI have 'misinterpreted' specifications over DirectX. Both have been panned in the past for 'creative' adoption of pixel shader standards and bizarre interpretations of DirectX 9.

    I'd just hope that eventually, there's more actual competition again, and both companies (and new companies) actually respect and care about standards compliance and that both they and the standards bodies start to care about what customers actually doing with their hardware.

    --

    "A Goddess rarely smiles for she is forced by others to be an island unto herself." - Zephiris
  7. Re:Since when is DirectX a standard? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    DirectX is a standard and de facto standards are a subset of standards: the minority that are actually used.

    A standard is just a set of rules. If I wrote a blog article "Rules for wiping ones arse" that would be a standard. In the unlikely event it became widely accepted it would be a de facto standard. If the international community became concerned about global arse-wiping inconsistency it could ultimately become an ISO standard.

  8. Re:Wait... by Professor_UNIX · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I am hoping they finally started to figure risks of using a MS only technology rather than platform independent, documented frameworks such as OpenGL, OpenAL.
    I've always wondered about this. It seems that the single biggest problem with porting Windows games to Mac or Linux is lack of DirectX support, so why do developers even use this broken technology to begin with instead of OpenGL? Is it easier to program for? Presumably Windows also supports OpenGL so why not make games that are easily ported like id does?

    Or did they simply state "We can't sell Vista otherwise, those FPS racing teens will buy it for DX10".
    Well, obviously that is the reason. There's no reason Windows 2000 Pro wasn't sufficient to run today's modern games if they had just released the latest DirectX libraries for it, but then they wouldn't have sold Windows XP and dragged gamers into the wonderful world of DRM and activation. I was more than happy to keep using Windows 2000 Pro on my gaming machine and didn't need any of the features of Windows XP.
  9. This is one deluded discussion... by arse+maker · · Score: 5, Insightful

    First off.. technology is made obsolete??? no shit! Its hard to imagine the slashdot crowd finding this to be news. This doesn't mean your dx10 card doesn't work anymore, you don't install SP1 and your PC wont boot with DX10 hardware. If you get upset every time people make revisions and improvements to software and hardware, I suggest you packup your computer and return it to avoid further heart ache. If you are an early adopter of the latest hardware and don't read any reviews (which all from memory said it will be some time before dx10 is going to matter) then thats your fault. Microsoft have explained in numerous interveiws (and documentation of course) how DX 10 will work, they even suggested 10.1 would be out BEFORE vista shipped. Graphics card features change ALL THE TIME, you have to write miles of CAPS checking code and render paths to support the zoo of cards and features. Now with DX10 they roll all the features up and any DX 10.x card will support the featuers, even if you write a DX 10.0 and DX 10.1 path, its only two options you have to support. You didn't see "ATI MAKES LAST CARD OBSOLETE BY INTRODUCING NEW PRODUCT", even though those changes could be far, far more difficult to develop for by having a bunch of changed caps and maybe even a few new proprietary ones. A fixed feature set is what allows developers to squeze out every drop of performance from PS2 hardware to make amazing looking graphics, even though your mobile phone might have more processing power available to it. And lastly.. people who mock the, apparent, modest real world improvments dx10 is offering.. what is your point? Intel brings out a new processor every x months with ~1-3% improvements, by your logic they should just stop bothering making new processors. Of course thats stupid, you wait till the improvment is enough for you to find it compelling.