Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

DirectX 'Getting In the Way' of PC Game Graphics, Says AMD

Posted by Soulskill on from the stairs-in-the-way-of-getting-to-the-basement dept.

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.'"

7 of 323 comments (clear)

  1. Unification? by paziek · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Unification? by smallfries · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The whole 3dfx era was horrific, and as someone has already pointed out below DirectX made a huge positive impact in PC gaming. The article describes a real problem though: if I want to hit 50fps then my rendering needs to execute in under 20ms. Performing 5k system calls to draw chunks of geometry means that each syscall needs to be less than 4us, or about 12000 cycles on a 3Ghz processor. That is not a lot of time to do all of the internal housekeeping that the API requires and talk to the hardware as well.

      The solution is not to throw away the API. The interface does need to change drastically, but not to raw hardware access. More of the geometry management needs to move onto the card and that probably means that devs will need to write in some shader language. It's not really lower-level / rawer access to the hardware. It is more that shader languages are becoming standardised as a compilation target and the API is moving on to this new target.

      --
      Slashdot: where don knuth is an idiot because he cant grasp the awesome power of php
  2. Credit by calzakk · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

  3. Re:Yeah right by SCPRedMage · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    Don't blame the lack of DirectX for the lack of games on Linux. OpenGL works just fine on it, as it does on Windows.

    And Mac, much to the delight of the four people who want to play games under OS X.

    As far as getting rid of graphics APIs, yeah, that's exactly what we need: to go back in time fifteen years, and make devs write their games for every piece of graphics hardware under the sun. There's a damn good reason the industry started using them, and its still as relevant today as it was back then.

    --
    My sig can beat up your sig.
  4. Re:Funny, John Carmack thinks just the opposite by bigstrat2003 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The two issues under discussion are different. TFA says that DirectX is holding back PC gaming, while Carmack says DirectX is better than OpenGL. Those two are not mutually exclusive.

    --
    "16MB (fuck off, MiB fascists)" - The Mighty Buzzard
  5. Re:Yeah right by CharlyFoxtrot · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Don't blame the lack of DirectX for the lack of games on Linux. OpenGL works just fine on it, as it does on Windows.

    And Mac, much to the delight of the four people who want to play games under OS X.

    Don't forget iOS ! Pretty popular gaming platform these days and it supports OpenGL ES 2.0.

    --
    If all else fails, immortality can always be assured by spectacular error.
  6. Re:Yeah right by Anthony+Mouse · · Score: 3, Insightful

    As a game developer you can bitch all you want (in fact I'm gonna bitch about you in a minute) but I sure as hell don't trust your coding skills which means letting you have "bare metal access" so you can make my PC as crashy as Win9x is a big DO NOT WANT.

    There is a difference between exposing lower level instructions on a GPU to the programmer and doing away with protected mode and virtual memory.