Slashdot Mirror
DirectX 'Getting In the Way' of PC Game Graphics, Says AMD
Bit-tech recently spoke with Richard Huddy, worldwide developer relations manager of AMD's GPU division, about the lack of a great disparity between PC game graphics and console game graphics, despite the hardware gap. Quoting:
"'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, one way or another, for good reasons and bad - mostly good, DirectX is getting in the way.' Huddy says that one of the most common requests he gets from game developers is: 'Make the API go away.' 'I certainly hear this in my conversations with games developers,' he says, 'and I guess it was actually the primary appeal of Larrabee to developers – not the hardware, which was hot and slow and unimpressive, but the software – being able to have total control over the machine, which is what the very best games developers want. By giving you access to the hardware at the very low level, you give games developers a chance to innovate, and that's going to put pressure on Microsoft – no doubt at all.'"
I worked for Microprose in the 90's. Back then we had direct access to hardware, but the technology was limited. GFX power increased and new tricks came. Now a days it wouldn't be possible to do all that.
DirectX is the sole reason we have good games and graphics on PC. No one wants to reinvent the whole wheel and Microsoft works a lot with GPU manufacturers to come out with new technology.
DirectX is not the reason, it's the lazy developers who just port the game from consoles to PC. They don't spend the time to make a PC version that uses DirectX and newest graphics cards to their fullest capability, so why on earth they would do that if you remove DirectX.
There is no DirectX on Linux and just look at how laughtable the situation is. Yeah theres nethack and some clone of Civilization 2 with worse graphics, but it's far from both console games and PC games that gamers play. It's a joke.
Microsoft has supported PC gaming to great lengths. We all should thank Microsoft that the situation is even so good. Who we should bitch at are the lazy developers and AMD, who also has been lagging behind. NVIDIA and Microsoft is basically doing all the innovation, and their hardware is miles ahead of AMD's. Microsoft, Intel and NVIDIA. All great companies with great products that are truly working for PC games.
Isn't DirectX and OpenGL there so that developer can write application using DirectX 10 and have it working with any card capable of DirectX and having enough memory? Are we gonna have "Works best in Internet Explorer 6" again for graphic cards? I still remember that whole 3dfx thing and I didn't like it.
You can have as much technology as you want in a computer, in the end graphics can only be so good. Maybe the fact that console graphics can rival PC graphics (supposedly) says more about the PC than it does the console. Gaming PCs are still better than any console if you care about more than just how pretty your game looks on you monitor.
Before Windows 95 and DirectX there was MS-DOS. Let's at least give credit where credit's due; DirectX has had a huge positive influence on Windows and Xbox gaming.
I RTFA and i still didnt understand why the API is bottlenecking, why the draw calls are one third of the draw calls possible on the consoles and why going direct to metal gives you orders of magnitude performance boost after considering both hardwares. Does directX reject the stream processors? or what exactly?
Discaimer: I am a pro game developer, wrote a few engines for commercial games, etc. I know what this guy means and ill try to explain it a bit better. The biggest problem with the DX model (which was inherited from GL) is the high dependency on the CPU to instruct it what to do.
State changes and draw commands are all sent from the CPU, buffered and then processed in the GPU. While this speeds up rendering considerably (the GPU is always a frame ore two behind the CPU) it makes it limiting, to get feedback from the GPU about the rendering state, and since the all the DX/GL commands are buffered, retrieving state or data means flushing/sync.
From modern algorithms related to occlusion estimation, or global illumination to overall reduction of state changes, it would benefit greatly if, for most tasks, the GPU could act by itself by running an user-made kernel that instructs it what to do (commands and state changes) instead of relying on DX, but for some reason this is not the direction GPUs are heading to, and it really doesnt make sense. Maybe Microsoft has something to do with it, but since Directx9 became the standard for game development, the API only became easier to program in versions 10 and 11, but didn't have major changes.
So are they implying that they'd rather develop a game for a very specific set of hardware? Seems like an awful business model to me. Two of the reasons console games look good with lower specs on their hardware is because they are designed solely for gaming, and their specs do not change throughout the life cycle of the device so there is no need to develop for a broad base of hardware types. On the other hand, PC hardware is constantly evolving and multitasking is always going on. Scrap the API and develop directly for hardware, and see what it gets you. A lot of angry customers once they upgrade their card and it doesn't work anymore.
Old news.
My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
Alright AMD. Make a game for Linux. That will give you the lower level access you want. Impress me :)
OpenGL is the way to go, no more porting headaches because of very wide support across platforms.
I find also that OpenGL code tend to be more straightforward and cleaner.
10x better then a console graphics demos on Linux for AMD GPUs?
John Carmack is quoted as saying almost the exact opposite:
[ http://techreport.com/discussions.x/20580 ]
[ http://www.bit-tech.net/news/gaming/2011/03/11/carmack-directx-better-opengl/1 ]
Eight days ago
[ http://games.slashdot.org/story/11/03/11/1832205/Doom-Creator-Says-Direct3D-Is-Now-Better-Than-OpenGL ]
For the lazy clickers:
Speaking to bit-tech for a forthcoming Custom PC feature about the future of OpenGL in PC gaming, Carmack said 'I actually think that Direct3D is a rather better API today.' He also added that 'Microsoft had the courage to continue making significant incompatible changes to improve the API, while OpenGL has been held back by compatibility concerns. Direct3D handles multi-threading better, and newer versions manage state better.'
In case you're unfamiliar with the mighty Carmack, he co-founded id Software in 1990, and had a large part in programming Wolfenstein 3D and the original Doom and Quake games. Since then, id has rigidly stuck by OpenGL for both Doom III and Quake 4, while many other cutting-edge PC game developers have moved entirely over to Direct3D.
Well, I did say, almost.
-AI
For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion
It is possible for something which was innovative and liberating to become stale and restraining, you know.
Yeah, I had a sig once; I got bored of it.
That might make sense, were it a case that PC graphics weren't 10x ahead of console graphics, and yet we're maxing out our cards. We are not. A mid end card handles even the most visually intensive games very well at above console resolutions. Yes, we could get more power out of our cards, no, it is not the reason graphics are not improving.
1. Whiny gamers who want it NOW NOW NOW
2. Impatient gamers who want it NOW NOW NOW
3. M$/$ony who pay dev teams to develop for consoles first, thereby stifling advancements for the PC. You can only port so well, guys.
4. Dev teams who decide to get paid by M$/$ony in order to make money up front, instead of more down the road.
Switch gears, people. DICE shouldn't be one of the only companies that seems to give a damn about doing it kind of right. All of you should give a damn about doing it completely right.
The way things work on consoles is approximately similar to Windows/Linux/Mac, except for these important distinctions:
1. the hardware is a known target, as such the shader compilers and other components are carefully optimized only for this hardware, they do not produce intermediate bytecode formats or make basic assumptions of all hardware.
2. the APIs allow injecting raw command buffers, which means that you do not have to use the API to deliver geometry in any way shape or form, the overhead goes away but the burden of producing a good command buffer falls on the application when they use these direct-to-hardware API calls.
3. the APIs have much lower overhead as they are not a middle-man on the way to the hardware, but an API implemented (if not designed) specifically for the hardware. For example Microsoft had the legendary Michael Abrash working on their console drivers.
4. the hardware memory layout and access bandwidth is known to the developers, and certain optimization techniques become possible, for example rendering to a framebuffer in system memory for software processing (on Xbox 360 this is done for certain effects, on PS3 it is heavily utilized for deferred shading, motion blur and other techniques that run faster on the Cell SPE units), in some cases this has other special implications, like storage of sound effects in video memory on PS3 because the Cell SPE units have a separate memory path to video memory and thus can tap into this otherwise "unused" bandwidth for their purposes of sound mixing.
5. 3D stereo rendering is basic functionality on consoles.
The article is making the argument that we should be able to produce command buffers directly and insert them into the rendering stream (akin to OpenGL display-lists but new ones produced every frame instead of statically stored).
It is also making the argument that we should have explicit control over where our buffers are stored in memory (for instance rendering to system memory for software analysis techniques, like id Software Megatexture technology, which analyzes each frame which parts of the virtual texture need to be loaded).
There are more subtle aspects, such as knowing the exact hardware capabilities and designing for them, which are less of a "No API!" argument and more of a case of "Please optimize specifically for our cards!", which is a tough sell in the game industry.
AMD has already published much of the information that studios will need to make use of such functionality, for example the Radeon HD 6000 series shader microcode reference manual is public already.
Intel also has a track record of hardware specifications being public.
However NVIDIA is likely to require a non-disclosure agreement with each studio to unlock this kind of functionality, which prevents open discussion of techniques specific to their hardware.
Overall this may give AMD and Intel a substantial edge in the PC hardware market - because open discussion of graphics techniques is the backbone of the game industry.
On the fifth point it is worth noting that NVIDIA Geforce drivers offer stereo rendering in Direct3D but not OpenGL (despite it having a stereo rendering API from the beginning), they reserve this feature only for their Quadro series cards for purely marketing reasons, and this restriction prevents use of stereo rendering in many OpenGL-based indie games, another case of consoles besting PC in functionality for ridiculous reasons.
"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from a rigged demo." - James Klass
Perhaps then the GPU makers should have talking about implementing a common open spec for a hardware-based API
Build your own energy sources from scratch. http://otherpower.com/
I think a large part of the lack of perceived difference between consoles and PC's these days have a bit to do with the least common denominator, which unfortunately also happens to be an aging dedicated gaming console
As I understand it, the lowest common denominator console for "grown-up" consoles (Xbox 360) is far more powerful graphically than the lowest common denominator PC (any PC with integrated video). Half a GB of RAM and an AMD Radeon X1900 beat 2 GB of RAM and an Intel "Graphics My Ass".
Those of us who are old enough to remember a time before the GUI was the only show in town surely remember that "big" games almost always came with their own boot disk. Would it be so hard to go back to that, if the benefits were worth it? A DVD, or a flash drive, with a small Linux kernel, a library of drivers for the wide range of hardware out there and the game files - optimized for speed, with no loss of performance because a huge, bloated GUIed OS gets in your way. If the game developer uses an off-beat file system, it'll also prevent piracy!
Granted it'll also bring back the bad old days of cursing up a storm because the latest game didn't support your Gravis Ultrasound, but only the crappy SoundBlaster... and off course the game would have to include it's own TCP/IP stack if you want multiplayer... and a few gigs of drivers for the various motherboards, graphics adapters and so on and so forth that the casual gamer may or may not have - but at least you don't have to worry about a system put in place to simplify all that stuff getting in your way.
Everything in the world is controlled by a small, evil group to which, unfortunately, no one you know belongs.
By giving you access to the hardware at the very low level, you give games developers a chance to innovate
I am ready!
MOV DX, 03D4h
MOV AX, 06B00h
OUT DX, AX
Ubuntu is an African word meaning 'I can't configure Debian'
'Oh hey! Let's start coding the graphics engines for our multi-million dollar games in a basic low-level chip-specific language! That'll let us squeeze the most out of that 5 year old GPU we have to use!'
You do realize the 360 has a 500MHz ATI Xenos? Hardly top of the line. It's a 2005 graphics card.
Also:
Perhaps then the GPU makers should have talking about implementing a common open spec for a hardware-based API
Not sure if serious. This is exactly what shader languages are. GLSL, HLSL. This is exactly what shader languages are. The use of shaders should probably be (officially) separated into standalone APIs so that developers can utilize the hardware without GL/D3D driver management, but that's really just an extension of existing APIs.
...when addon GPU cards are a thing of the past, having been supplanted by superior CPU architectures. We'll still want APIs when this happens, but the market of available low-level APIs will probably expand rapidly due to the inevitable convergence (I'm an optimist!) of architectures and the resulting weakening of the stranglehold that companies like NVIDIA and AMD have over how developers do things on the metal.
I'm sure AMD would love to cajole developers into using proprietary AMD "non-"APIs. I'm also sure that (good) developers want no part in such nonsense. Been there, done that.
The Cell is a mini vector processor cluster which is not completely unlike graphics cards and was, at the time it was released, more powerful than them.
You had the usual C/C++ toolchain available, and it was a fairly simple architecture to use compared to a GPU (and even compared to an x86 -- SIMD is simpler on the Cell than on x86).
Yet it was a failure, because game developers were completely unable to use it. Game development is a quick and dirty process, and they need to be multi-platform to sell more. There is no time to learn the specifics of a platform and designing your game to exploit it.
That's why they prefer having one API to rule them all (DirectX).
Even within the whole of the Ubisoft studios, there are only a couple of people capable of getting near 80% of the Cell processing power.
You do realize the 360 has a 500MHz ATI Xenos? Hardly top of the line. It's a 2005 graphics card.
You do realize that the GMA isn't even as powerful as a 2005 graphics card?
Graphics are fine, we're slowly getting to a point where screaming "OMG LOOK AT TEH PRETTY PICTSHURS" isn't enough to sell a game anymore. Please keep it that way.
We should all go back to OpenGL!
Actually, while the pixel processor might be slow, it has 12 MB of very very fast EDRAM. This allows you to do render-to-textures (and thus, post processing) with very little load on the GPU. This makes a lot of effects very cheap (time-wise) and you can pull off a lot of nice things with that.
Xbox games (aside from the indie scene) are usually programmed in C/C++
I was under the impression that indie games had surpassed non-indie games in quantity; therefore, a randomly selected game would "most often" be an indie game and therefore use XNA.
APIs exist for a reason. They abstract out reusable functionality, which frees developers from the need to reinvent the wheel and/or maintain separate code for different types of hardware. There's always some cost in performance, but a well-designed API should minimize that cost. Take DirectX and OpenGL out of the equation and you'd see fewer games developed at a higher cost-per-game.
What AMD is trying to say is that they want to be able to give a game developer millions of dollars to "persuade" them into "optimizing" their game to such a point where it you essentially can't play their game with anything other than an AMD video card. No thanks. I would rather my game's graphics be a little more inefficient and not have to worry if my brand new nVidia card will play an AMD optimized game at all.
I don't think many (if any) game developers are using either OpenGL 4 or DirectX 11 at their full potentials yet. Especially DirectX 11 is designed to allow a lot of multithreading and decoupling the GPU pipeline from the CPU. If you implement a naive rendering engine with OpenGL or DirectX, sure, you'll find that most of the time you're just sitting around waiting for synchronization and buffers flushing. But if you design your software around multithreading and the new API features, you can squeeze a lot more juice out of the system. Also, I'm sure there's a lot of geometry shader pipeline tricks waiting to be discovered, which will further decouple the GPU from the CPU. I wouldn't be surprised if we "soon" see the merging of the vertex and geometry shader pipelines, might even together with compute shaders. When that happens, the differences between OpenGL and DX is propably going to be very minor (and very, very close to the hardware layer).
Single player, high-end pc games regularly have piracy rates of over 70%. That means fewer than 3 in 10 actually buy the game. How can anyone get upset with game developers for not wanting to focus on them?
As a game developer I can say that DirectX is not holding games back. Lazy developers who are more concerned about quick hacks than game quality are responsible for this. My team have built a from-scratch 3d game engine which can use OpenGL and DirectX depending on the compile options. Porting from Windows!DirectX to iPad!OpenGL was trivial (ignoring that the OpenGL API is complete /ass/ compared to the DirectX one) as all of the rendering code was abstracted to its own library. It took us twice as long with this method but the bug count after changing things is almost always 0.
TL;DR version: Good developers write good extendable code, Bad developers write bad breaky code.
Graphics are not the problem with games nowadays. Content is, or rather: lack of content. I don't care to be able to count the number of leaves on a tree of seeing or not the shadows of these leaves. I want to be able to interact with the tree. It's the corridor syndrom, I don't care the graphics of a corridor, it's still a corridor and it's only designed to be walked trough. How fun... Tell me why minecraft has so much success ? The funky design of the cubes maybe ?
If the issue is large overhead from the current version of DirectX, then change the architecture of DirectX for the next version, NOT 'get rid of DirectX'.
If you take a look at what modern lighting effects (Halflife2 gave you a hint of it with their tech demos) and also look at what you can do with ray-tracing (DirectX 12), it's really a matter of us not getting these in PC games because of everything being ported these days FROM the consoles, which lack the power to deal with such complex physics and lighting environments. This would require a complete ground-up rebuild of the engine for PCs and they simply don't do it. So we get rubbish like Mass Effect which looks and feels exactly like a console game on the PC.(great game, terrible graphics)
What it requires is for stand-alone PC only games that are essentially "PC Exclusives." ie - DirectX 10+ only. You can get a glimpse of this in a few online games, though, like DDO online and WoW, where the tech and overall look and feel is noticeably better because there is no console port for it. Even though they do use DirectX, the issue isn't DirectX itself. It's that the majority of console games are still using DirectX 9 to maintain compatibility with the gaming consoles. Freed of that limitation, the graphics can literally charge ahead and use all of the power at their disposal. Either to add better physics and effects, to support higher resolutions, or to free up the CPU so that it can concentrate more on AI and other features to make the game not such a joke to play against. And game developers DO do that without question. But it does mean that the games won't run on consoles or older systems without a whole other DX9 build.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_games_with_DirectX_11_support
The easiest way to see this in action is to download Dungeons and Dragons Online under Windows 7 (with a DX11 card of course). It's free and simply awesome looking. Even the DX10 version of most games is worlds better than a console Note - this means a full build vs "works under DX10", and few companies have done that.(or have jumped directly to DX11)
You can see this as well in several PS3 exclusives lately(which don't use DirectX of course). They are gorgeous and look far better than anything on an XBox 360 because the designers could focus on one set of hardware specs and run as far as they could with it.
Simply put, we need to drop Direct X 9 support as quickly as possible from the PC market and move on. I fear that we'll be looking at DX12 cards that are still running DX9 level technology due to the developers being caught in the XBox trap.
Isn't OpenCL supposed to allow a a lot of this offloading? Aren't you supposed to be able to give the gpu a kernel, then just send it data. Then aren't you able to send it to OpenGL to render on screen? I don't have access to a OpenCL capable gpu, yet, but asa soon as I do, that seems the best solution? Let me know if I am wrong, as I hate being right to much.
NDxTreme Content on the Edge.
What we really need is to push the API down. That is, have the hardware support a standardized mid-level interface (with a defined way to bypass it). All benchmarks should exclusively access that interface so the hardware vendors have to care about it. It's not like different graphics cards do radically different things.
I know it's just a pipe dream, but it would solve the problem.
I could swear this is something I read about ten years ago. And ten years before that - although, at that time the debate was more along the lines of assembly vs higher level languages. But the concept was the same. Maybe I'm just getting old.
I don't like graphics cards. It's a like a whole separate computer, with all that processing power and memory, not accessible from the main computer properly. It would be better to bring it all back to the centre. RAM is the best example of this. The graphics card can have nearly as much RAM as the rest of the system but day to day, my graphics needs are tiny. So why can't that RAM be used to cache disk, which would be much more useful to me. The processing power, ok, it's in the form of a bag of stream processors taking different instruction set to the CPU, but I'm sure it can be used for more than graphics. Yes there are APIs to do that already, and yes, we are clearly heading in this direction anyway. :-)
This doesn't take away DirectX or OpenGL, it just means you don't have to use them. It also means other, new breed, APIs can come along that generically use all that unified power, and don't care about make/model of hardware like graphics card. Like in the old days of software rending. Back then, the screen was just an address, and what you did with that address was up to you. You could use an off the shelf renders, but you where free to write some crazy thing of your own if you wanted. In Linux world, Gallium is interesting because it heading in this direction, making graphics APIs implementations hardware agnostic, but it doesn't have the game market to really go crazy with it. We could maybe hope for some crazy demos though.
It all depends on what you are comparing it too. An ATI GPU from 2005 probably wipes the floor with anything Intel.
A lot of games on the PC or Mac don't support Intel ANYTHING.
Very annoying really.
With Windows PC gaming really only supporting ATI and Nvidia, the situation on Linux doesn't seem nearly as dire.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
The Crysis engine would like to have a word with you. I remember the time when you'd have to pry the AMD hardware from my cold, dead hands - unfortunately the little company that could started to suck as it got larger. I can't believe the excuses you guys are coming up with now.
BeauHD. Worst editor since kdawson.
There's something about the phrase "bare metal" that triggers an amygdala release in most people, even people who were there and lived through it, and ought to know better though the potato peeler of hindsight.
We all know the story. Right around when really cool things become possible there's an outbreak of mass hysteria, with every hardware vendor and software library scrambling for momentary glimpses of nirvana (and market traction), with swollen trade rags tarting legions of pretenders in pancake drag; the entire industry begins playing the Jonestown edition of "Where's Waldo?"
I recall in particular some of those early 3D video cards awarded hot scores for performance breakthroughs deserving five hot turds for advances in low-pass filtering of the rendered pixel stream. You know, the 4x4 analog mud filter. But the heavy benchmark breathers barely seemed to notice the visual stench.
Sure, no one wants to return to the sketchy birth scene of a technology that's only made it halfway out of the birth canal. Some people hear "bare metal" and can't get past traumatic recollections of delivery forceps.
Eventually that day comes where Joe Radome paystud can afford to sacrifice ultimate performance in order to work twice as fast on top of an API that provides some shelter and refuge from the carnage of innovation. At this juncture, even poser pixels have spiffy RAMDACs. The wild west bifurcates into suburbs and scissorhands. Elite coders stick it out on the cactus mesas. The moon-shot is a harsh mistress, but there's glory in it; a sapho-stained gore-fest crosses the Rubicon into adolescent ground truth.
Less remarked upon is the comfortable third age: when the underlying hardware has become so powerful, that the fat API sheltering you from the gory details hinders what it abets. Every API begins life with the mandate to bring order to chaos. Later we regard the heroic efforts of developers leaping into the line of fire as "legacy cruft". The soul of the machine is steeped in blood sacrifice. There's a thin red line between pragmatism and incompetence. If only that API could talk, what stories it could tell.
Fast forward to Jetsonville, a retro fetish won't shackle you to kilobyte sample-buffer backflips, or optimizing SNR on a 16-bit integer DSP. Radial tires are here to stay, man. All the same, not every advance is a step forward. Floaty-boats from 1950-1970 had the plush suspension to conceal other engineering faults though mock levitation. Those faults are gone and no-one thinks that floaty-boat suspension is the only thing protecting the industry from Mad Max IV. A little agility greases the pavement.
I think in modern video cards the pain is not so much in Grangerford versus Shepardson pipeline architectures, but the extreme variation in resourcing and optimal orchestration. Isn't this one of the problems that Apple is attacking with clang/LLVM? It certainly gives me a slight tingle of bare metal blood lust.
In R, I've started to play with the Rccp and inline packages. Welcome to the bare-metal luxury resort. Barstool PTSD greybeards need not apply. Hey dude, sometimes the bare metal is 18-10 stainless or aircraft aluminum. You don't always get tetanus. You have to stop for a moment when someone hands you the chainsaw of yesteryear to ask which end of the chainsaw is being offered up and reflect on the general era of manufacture.
What Doom never taught you.
Make no little plans. They have no magic to stir men's blood.
And gentlemen in England now-a-bed
Shall think themselves accurs'd they were not here,
And hold their manhoods cheap whiles any speaks
That fought with us upon Saint Crispin's day.
There's something to be said for squeezing DirectX out the pinhole.
I don't think that AMD are saying that API like DirectX are a problem in themselves, its just that MS have geared the developlment of Directx to consoles. So basically there are features that could be harnessed in PC GPU that are not getting the proper treatment since they are being held back by DirectX roadmap.
Whats needed is an API thats specific for the needs of the PC. Yes that could be OpenGL or whatever but whatever it is it should not cripple PC development.
You're ALL talk, and you couldn't do any of what these game devs do to save your life.
The Xbox 360 beats the crap out of the LCD PC on every level but quantity of memory. On the other hand, if you shop sales you can literally build a faster PC for about the same price, today.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
If the goal is to make a game with bleeding edge graphics that blow everything else out of the water, then yes, going directly 'to the metal' would work.
If the goal is to make a game that is actually profitable, or if the goal is to make a game that can be used with the least amount of grief by the majority of your customers, then that kind of thinking is not going to help you meet that goal.
I think that any demand for PC specific API's that can take full advantage of the newest video cards is overstated. Simply put, while the PC user base is especially vocal, it is not especially profitable, and cash speaks louder then long and ranting forum posts about how the PC is a superior platform. At the moment, most developers are racing head long towards the iOS / Android smart phone platforms because the combination of low dev costs and large potential user base are extraordinarily tempting. Whether or not you think this is a good or especially wise thing (which I do not) is beside the point.
Do any of you think that so many developers are rushing to that platform because they expect to push bleeding edge graphics on it? If anything, DirectX is most likely going to be modified to make it easier to put decent graphics on the Windows phone long before improving the utilization of PC graphics cards becomes a priority.
END COMMUNICATION
Direct X is about direct access to hardware, its why Direct is in the name.
Funny how John Carmack suggests that Direct X is pushing PC gaming graphics further then OpenGL.
Do you always hesitate for what to buy jewelry.But now you didn't worry about,the Swarovski outlet is present different kinds of crystal jewelry for your selection.So if you have this desire you can visit Swarovski outlet online it may bring you different surprise.