AMD: There won't be a DirectX 12, BF4 apart of next AMD bundle

  • 51 results
  • 1
  • 2

This topic is locked from further discussion.

#1 Posted by Jebus213 (8919 posts) -

[QUOTE="Jebus213"]

can somebody tell me why another DX is needed?

DX11 is still barely used compared to DX9.

PublicNuisance

http://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey

A good chunk of the most popular video cards on there are DX11. Progress shouldn't stop for anything, especially people clinging to DX9.

 

Okay? Most people having DX11 cards means absolutely nothing. Also,  Steam=/=entire PC community

 

Why continue if we aren't pushing what we have now? It's a waste. DX11 has been for the most part tacked on just to get more sales.

#2 Posted by Tessellation (8813 posts) -

DirectX11 is a baby that is learning how to walk.

#3 Posted by Wasdie (50496 posts) -

Features like tessellation could have been included in DX10 anyway, it's simply that Nvidia bribed MS not to include it because their hardware didn't support it at the time. (unless you count "geo shaders" for a tessellation unit of sorts)

nameless12345

Do you really believe that? Are you that thick?

There is no logic or evidence to support that.

#4 Posted by NoodleFighter (7804 posts) -

I have the feeling Microsoft is purposely doing this so the nextxbox won't be left behind for a while

links

http://www.geeks3d.com/20130411/amd-there-wont-be-directx-12/

http://www.techpowerup.com/182416/There-Won-t-Be-a-DirectX-12-Battlefield-4-Part-of-Next-Bundle-AMD-Vice-President.html

seems to come into conflict with this:

http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/news/amd-roy-taylor-directx12/

http://www.neowin.net/news/microsoft-cuts-down-another-directx-shutdown-rumor

 

Advancements in PC graphics technology could be on the verge of a slump, according to GPU major AMD. In an interview with German publication Heise.de, AMD vice president of global channel sales, stated that his company doesn't believe there will be a DirectX 12 API, at least not as far as the company can see. The timing of this statement is particularly important, as both AMD and NVIDIA are expected to unveil next-generation graphics products by the end of the year.

Neither Microsoft's Windows 8 operating system, nor the rumored Windows "Blue" 8.1, could ship with a newer DirectX version. Taylor was responding to a question from Heise about next-generation GPUs and technologies they could be built around, to which he replied that normally, new DirectX versions stimulate introduction of new GPU architectures, but there won't be a DirectX 12, and so the company's next-generation GPUs will integrate other technologies. Answering another question, Taylor hinted that Battlefield 4, EA's upcoming entry to the hit online FPS multiplayer franchise, could be part of the company's next "Never Settle" bundle.

#5 Posted by lostrib (41316 posts) -

old news

#6 Posted by PublicNuisance (4582 posts) -

If Microsoft stops advancing PC graphics with DirectX that will just mean AMD, Nvidia and Intel will make more use of alternatives such as OpenGL or make their own tech. This will stop nothing, the master race will live on and our visuals will still reign supreme.

#7 Posted by Jebus213 (8919 posts) -

can somebody tell me why another DX is needed?

DX11 is still barely used compared to DX9.

#8 Posted by PublicNuisance (4582 posts) -

can somebody tell me why another DX is needed?

DX11 is still barely used compared to DX9.

Jebus213

http://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey

A good chunk of the most popular video cards on there are DX11. Progress shouldn't stop for anything, especially people clinging to DX9.

#9 Posted by Rocker6 (13358 posts) -

Hard to say, especially since there's so little native DX11 games on the market. DX11 still has plenty to offer, I'd say.

However, if DX eventually ends up standing in the way of graphics progress, something will come and replace it, I guess.

#11 Posted by faizan_faizan (7868 posts) -
So, DX API will die?
#12 Posted by NoodleFighter (7804 posts) -

Hard to say, especially since there's so little native DX11 games on the market. DX11 still has plenty to offer, I'd say.

However, if DX eventually ends up standing in the way of graphics progress, something will come and replace it, I guess.

Rocker6

I'm wondering what MS could pull off with a DX12, perhaps making it easier to use? Less overhead? Then again we'll probably have to wait for the new hardware innovations with Maxwell. Volta. and whatever AMD is working on to see what MS has in store for the next DX.

#13 Posted by NoodleFighter (7804 posts) -

old news

lostrib

there was a thread posted already!?

#14 Posted by KungfuKitten (21375 posts) -

I can ask my nephew, he can probably make something better than DirectX.

#15 Posted by Chozofication (3568 posts) -

can somebody tell me why another DX is needed?

DX11 is still barely used compared to DX9.

Jebus213

I mean, Witcher 2 was DX9 and that was the most advanced game out there, so there's tons of work to do with DX11, yeah.  DX is just a generalization anyways, it doesn't dictate graphics at all.

But we might see DX12 down the road, just not for a couple years at least.

#16 Posted by Cyberdot (3873 posts) -

I wouldn't worry since there are alternatives such as OpenGL that Nvidia and AMD can use.

#17 Posted by PC_Otter (1623 posts) -

[QUOTE="PC_Otter"][QUOTE="Mr_BillGates"]

Makes total sense. AMD will be out of business by the time DX12 comes out. applause.gif

Mr_BillGates

AMD out of business will mean higher prices on PC processors and possibly graphics processors too unless AMD releases the graphics division before it all goes to ****. There are quite a bit of reverberations to be had..............and it would affect the entire computing business from PCs, to servers, to even mobile devices due to the competitive relationship between the various corporations.

 

No worries. Intel will buy ATI division and give them the driver team they desperately need.

I don't think Intel really wants to make dedicated PC graphics cards. For "GPGPU like computing" they have Knights Corner. They already have a pretty decent iGPU on their current gen and next gen CPU. Like I said, PC CPU prices would balloon making ARM a viable alternative to x86, pushing ARM into the desktop market, perhaps pulling Nvidia away from the x86 graphics market altogether (remember Project Denver) and PC gaming altogether might have to go some rapid changes, including being relegated to an ARM device oriented market full of tablet and phone games instead of the full experiences we currently have, even if they are mostly ports from consoles.

My real problem here is stability and a stagnation in innovation for a few years if AMD goes bye bye because there will be no real graphics competitor to Nvidia (Intel would take a while to catch them), and of course, the only "real" competing x86 chip designer to Intel will be gone, leaving Intel to "reign" supreme until everyone revolts to ARM.

Moving to ARM isn't entirely bad, but it could spell the end of custom computer building, which is what keeps so much of us interested in the first place.  It is entirely likely ARM would just take x86's place there too.  There are plenty of custom boards out there for development, and AFAIK, ARM based boards can support established standards like PCI-E, so add in peripheral boards and co-processors can continue to be added and upgraded.

#18 Posted by Maddie_Larkin (6725 posts) -

I wouldn't worry since there are alternatives such as OpenGL that Nvidia and AMD can use.

Cyberdot

True, the second they stop advancing and evolving technology which includes API, said componant be it software or hardware will die in a forseeable future, so if we will not see a DX12 for many years, DX will become irellavent for alot of people. OpenGL will likely take that place again.

#19 Posted by osan0 (12922 posts) -

[QUOTE="Jebus213"]

can somebody tell me why another DX is needed?

DX11 is still barely used compared to DX9.

Chozofication

I mean, Witcher 2 was DX9 and that was the most advanced game out there, so there's tons of work to do with DX11, yeah.  DX is just a generalization anyways, it doesn't dictate graphics at all.

But we might see DX12 down the road, just not for a couple years at least.

Witcher 2, though very impressive, has some pretty nasty technical problems, especially around the area of managing detail in the distance. it is the pinnacle of a DX9 game but is also an apt demonstration of its problems. DX also does have a say in graphics in terms of the technology that can be used. the whole reason new versions of DX are released is because someone found a way to do something better and it needed to be standerdised. e.g. if a dev is using DX9 they can not use geometry shaders or direct compute. if someone again finds a replacement for unified shaders or a new type of shader that would make something like ray tracing a cinch it wouldnt be used until DX makes it a standard. in saying that your overall point stands. what needs to be improved on in DX11? its got multi core rendering, gpgpu, all existing shader tech supported and all that good stuff. the design of graphics cards doesn't look like its going to radically change anytime soon. itll just be a case of continuing to cram as many shaders in as possible and optimising the layout of everything to give the best performance. DX does not put a limit on the number of shaders or the amount of ram on a graphics card or anything like that. so in that sense graphics cards will still certainly improve. it could also be argued now that the advancement of graphics falls back on the shoulders of the software developers. the hardware available now is overkill for many games so its up to devs to make newer tech like tressFX to use the benefits in DX11. when games cause the best hardware to fall to its knees due to some sort of massive advancement then the eye can be focused back on AMD and co to look for hardware advancement. i hope we do see another crysis type game at some stage next gen. a game developed to make a mockery of all commercial hardware currently available. its unlikely due to the sheer cost but it would be cool to see. as for DX12, i suspect MS will now be releasing new version of DX maybe a year before the xbox 4 (give some time to work out the kinks and for devs to play with it before the console is ready). i wonder will we see a push from the openGL side of things.
#20 Posted by Mozuckint (830 posts) -

Intel wants to keep X86 as an option not destroy it, and for that they need AMD.

This is why Intel has essentially been pricing itself out of certain markets so that AMD gains stability.

If AMD goes under, regulatory agencies around the world will be all over Intel like mold on a shower curtain.

#21 Posted by Zeviander (9503 posts) -
Why continue if we aren't pushing what we have now? It's a waste. Jebus213
Because we can? Why haven't you upgraded to DX11 yet? It's the people who are refusing to upgrade from DX9 why developers are still having to make their games compatible with it.
#22 Posted by ronvalencia (15433 posts) -

I have the feeling Microsoft is purposely doing this so the nextxbox won't be left behind for a while

links

http://www.geeks3d.com/20130411/amd-there-wont-be-directx-12/

http://www.techpowerup.com/182416/There-Won-t-Be-a-DirectX-12-Battlefield-4-Part-of-Next-Bundle-AMD-Vice-President.html

seems to come into conflict with this:

http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/news/amd-roy-taylor-directx12/

http://www.neowin.net/news/microsoft-cuts-down-another-directx-shutdown-rumor

Advancements in PC graphics technology could be on the verge of a slump, according to GPU major AMD. In an interview with German publication Heise.de, AMD vice president of global channel sales, stated that his company doesn't believe there will be a DirectX 12 API, at least not as far as the company can see. The timing of this statement is particularly important, as both AMD and NVIDIA are expected to unveil next-generation graphics products by the end of the year.

Neither Microsoft's Windows 8 operating system, nor the rumored Windows "Blue" 8.1, could ship with a newer DirectX version. Taylor was responding to a question from Heise about next-generation GPUs and technologies they could be built around, to which he replied that normally, new DirectX versions stimulate introduction of new GPU architectures, but there won't be a DirectX 12, and so the company's next-generation GPUs will integrate other technologies. Answering another question, Taylor hinted that Battlefield 4, EA's upcoming entry to the hit online FPS multiplayer franchise, could be part of the company's next "Never Settle" bundle.

NoodleFighter

There would be "DirectX Blue". http://www.fudzilla.com/home/item/30666-next-directx-codenamed-blue

#23 Posted by Chozofication (3568 posts) -

[QUOTE="Chozofication"]

[QUOTE="Jebus213"]

can somebody tell me why another DX is needed?

DX11 is still barely used compared to DX9.

osan0

I mean, Witcher 2 was DX9 and that was the most advanced game out there, so there's tons of work to do with DX11, yeah.  DX is just a generalization anyways, it doesn't dictate graphics at all.

But we might see DX12 down the road, just not for a couple years at least.

Witcher 2, though very impressive, has some pretty nasty technical problems, especially around the area of managing detail in the distance. it is the pinnacle of a DX9 game but is also an apt demonstration of its problems. DX also does have a say in graphics in terms of the technology that can be used. the whole reason new versions of DX are released is because someone found a way to do something better and it needed to be standerdised. e.g. if a dev is using DX9 they can not use geometry shaders or direct compute. if someone again finds a replacement for unified shaders or a new type of shader that would make something like ray tracing a cinch it wouldnt be used until DX makes it a standard. in saying that your overall point stands. what needs to be improved on in DX11? its got multi core rendering, gpgpu, all existing shader tech supported and all that good stuff. the design of graphics cards doesn't look like its going to radically change anytime soon. itll just be a case of continuing to cram as many shaders in as possible and optimising the layout of everything to give the best performance. DX does not put a limit on the number of shaders or the amount of ram on a graphics card or anything like that. so in that sense graphics cards will still certainly improve. it could also be argued now that the advancement of graphics falls back on the shoulders of the software developers. the hardware available now is overkill for many games so its up to devs to make newer tech like tressFX to use the benefits in DX11. when games cause the best hardware to fall to its knees due to some sort of massive advancement then the eye can be focused back on AMD and co to look for hardware advancement. i hope we do see another crysis type game at some stage next gen. a game developed to make a mockery of all commercial hardware currently available. its unlikely due to the sheer cost but it would be cool to see. as for DX12, i suspect MS will now be releasing new version of DX maybe a year before the xbox 4 (give some time to work out the kinks and for devs to play with it before the console is ready). i wonder will we see a push from the openGL side of things.

DX9 may have limited the game to a point, but the majority of the issues you're probably thinking of are just from how much the fairly new team was doing at the time, it was a huge undertaking, from Witcher 2 from 1 and making the engine simultaniously.  The biggest problem with it was glitches, really.

That being said, I only mentioned the game to point out how little usage DX11 is seeing, not that DX9 is good enough, and graphics API's do dictate graphics, but I was saying that DX specifically doesn't lord over progression, with plenty of other options out there.

#24 Posted by Jebus213 (8919 posts) -

[QUOTE="Jebus213"]Why continue if we aren't pushing what we have now? It's a waste. Zeviander
Because we can? Why haven't you upgraded to DX11 yet? It's the people who are refusing to upgrade from DX9 why developers are still having to make their games compatible with it.

 

I never said I didn't upgrade to DX11 yet. :lol: I've had a DX11 GPU since AMD 68xx series. Also, I don't upgrade my GPU for the newest DX version alone. That's stupid if you do.

It's not people refusing to upgrade from DX9. This isn't 2009. They're not using DX11 right now because they don't see a real need to. Especially devs who make multiplatform games.

#25 Posted by Consolessuck187 (199 posts) -
john carmack says pfft direct x
#26 Posted by HaloinventedFPS (4736 posts) -

Meh, there is still no DX11 game

& no Crysis 3 isn't a DX11 game, it's very much a console game

#27 Posted by Chozofication (3568 posts) -

DirectX11 is a baby that is learning how to walk.

Tessellation

Yeah.  Soon as PS4 comes out we will see its potential. 

We've had DX9 since 03, but it didn't get much use till 360 and PS3 came out.

#28 Posted by Tessellation (8813 posts) -

[QUOTE="Tessellation"]

DirectX11 is a baby that is learning how to walk.

Chozofication

Yeah.  Soon as PS4 comes out we will see its potential. 

We've had DX9 since 03, but it didn't get much use till 360 and PS3 came out.

wuahahahaha,the real potential will be seen on PC.
#29 Posted by nameless12345 (15125 posts) -

Next-gen consoles to hold back PC confirmed.

But to be honest, I don't think there's a need for a fully new DX that soon.

They can just keep improving DX11 like they were doing with the previous versions. (e.g. DX9.0, 9.0a, 9.0b. 9.0c, ect.)

Features like tessellation could have been included in DX10 anyway, it's simply that Nvidia bribed MS not to include it because their hardware didn't support it at the time. (unless you count "geo shaders" for a tessellation unit of sorts)

The future are hybrid raster polygon + ray-traced voxel engines. (see id Tech 6)

#30 Posted by Wasdie (50496 posts) -

We don't need DX12 right now. Most games still have a DX9 renderer which is really holding them back. DX11 will last a good 4-5 years. Each year more devs drop DX9 support (and with good reason).

#31 Posted by nameless12345 (15125 posts) -

[QUOTE="nameless12345"]

Features like tessellation could have been included in DX10 anyway, it's simply that Nvidia bribed MS not to include it because their hardware didn't support it at the time. (unless you count "geo shaders" for a tessellation unit of sorts)

Wasdie

Do you really believe that? Are you that thick?

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TruForm

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d8enuguM3lA

 

This is basically tessellation and is running on a 2001 graphics card.

#32 Posted by Bebi_vegeta (13558 posts) -

How long did we use Dx9 ?

#33 Posted by Wasdie (50496 posts) -

[QUOTE="Wasdie"]

[QUOTE="nameless12345"]

Features like tessellation could have been included in DX10 anyway, it's simply that Nvidia bribed MS not to include it because their hardware didn't support it at the time. (unless you count "geo shaders" for a tessellation unit of sorts)

nameless12345

Do you really believe that? Are you that thick?

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TruForm

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d8enuguM3lA

 

This is basically tessellation and is running on a 2001 graphics card.

"Basically tessellation"

It's a different tech than what is currently implemented. Thus it was more limited. Tessellating an object can be done in many different ways. TruForm was just one way. At the time the advantages weren't that great. It was limited because you had to develop your model with TruForm in mind. Current tessellation methods are much more adaptable than that. 

Current tessellation methods are adapted onto models much more seamlessly without issues. Developers can choose to use it or not without having to change the basic structure of their model if they wish. TruForm didn't gain industry support because it was limiting and took extra effort, not because Nvidia told Microsoft to not utilize it.

DX needs to be more adaptable, it cannot conform to one companies hardware. So obviously they wouldn't support it until they set some industry standards that cannot be monopolized.  

They are doing the same with DirectCompute. Nvidia has had GPU processing for a few years now with PhysX but Microsoft held out on support GPGPU operations until DX11 and DirectCompute which isn't hardware specific. Thus any GPU that has the DX11 hardware can do DirectCompute which makes PhysX obsolete. 

#34 Posted by Wasdie (50496 posts) -

How long did we use Dx9 ?

Bebi_vegeta

Way too long. From 2001 to today.

#35 Posted by PC_Otter (1623 posts) -

[QUOTE="Wasdie"]

[QUOTE="nameless12345"]

Features like tessellation could have been included in DX10 anyway, it's simply that Nvidia bribed MS not to include it because their hardware didn't support it at the time. (unless you count "geo shaders" for a tessellation unit of sorts)

nameless12345

Do you really believe that? Are you that thick?

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TruForm

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d8enuguM3lA

 

This is basically tessellation and is running on a 2001 graphics card.

Interesting, I remember hearing of Truform years ago, but I've never seen it in action.
#36 Posted by Bebi_vegeta (13558 posts) -

[QUOTE="Bebi_vegeta"]

How long did we use Dx9 ?

Wasdie

Way too long. From 2001 to today.

So there's no problem staying on Dx11 for a few years.

#37 Posted by nameless12345 (15125 posts) -

[QUOTE="nameless12345"]

[QUOTE="Wasdie"]

Do you really believe that? Are you that thick?

Wasdie

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TruForm

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d8enuguM3lA

 

This is basically tessellation and is running on a 2001 graphics card.

"Basically tessellation"

It's a different tech than what is currently implemented. Thus it was more limited. Tessellating an object can be done in many different ways. TruForm was just one way. At the time the advantages weren't that great. It was limited because you had to develop your model with TruForm in mind. Current tessellation methods are much more adaptable than that. 

Current tessellation methods are adapted onto models much more seamlessly without issues. Developers can choose to use it or not without having to change the basic structure of their model if they wish. TruForm didn't gain industry support because it was limiting and took extra effort, not because Nvidia told Microsoft to not utilize it.

DX needs to be more adaptable, it cannot conform to one companies hardware. So obviously they wouldn't support it until they set some industry standards that cannot be monopolized.  

They are doing the same with DirectCompute. Nvidia has had GPU processing for a few years now with PhysX but Microsoft held out on support GPGPU operations until DX11 and DirectCompute which isn't hardware specific. Thus any GPU that has the DX11 hardware can do DirectCompute which makes PhysX obsolete. 

 

The basic principle is the same, i.e. polygon subdivides.

Of course the tech has improved and is new fessible due to a high increase in processing power.

But despite this, most modern games still employ parallax (occlusion) mapping for most "bumpy" elements rather than "proper" tessellation.

For example the ground rocks in Arma 3 aren't tessellated and Crysis 2 used it in a "gimmicky" way. (I've even heard there is barely any tessellation in Crysis 3 but that may be just made-up stories, idk)

For a large part, DX11 tessellation is just a hyped marketing thing.

Before we actually see fully tessellated 3D models that give no trace of the typical polygonal "blockyness" it will already pass a lot of time.

And by then we could already be seeing some new graphical techniques. (like ray-traced voxel octrees or similar)

#38 Posted by Jebus213 (8919 posts) -

We don't need DX12 right now. Most games still have a DX9 renderer which is really holding them back. DX11 will last a good 4-5 years. Each year more devs drop DX9 support (and with good reason).

Wasdie

 

Thank you!

#39 Posted by Wasdie (50496 posts) -

 

The basic principle is the same, i.e. polygon subdivides.

Of course the tech has improved and is new fessible due to a high increase in processing power.

But despite this, most modern games still employ parallax (occlusion) mapping for most "bumpy" elements rather than "proper" tessellation.

For example the ground rocks in Arma 3 aren't tessellated and Crysis 2 used it in a "gimmicky" way. (I've even heard there is barely any tessellation in Crysis 3 but that may be just made-up stories, idk)

For a large part, DX11 tessellation is just a hyped marketing thing.

Before we actually see fully tessellated 3D models that give no trace of the typical polygonal "blockyness" it will already pass a lot of time.

And by then we could already be seeing some new graphical techniques. (like ray-traced voxel octrees or similar)

nameless12345

DX11 and tessellations are not a hyped marketing thing. They are a significant advantage over DX9 and even DX10 in many ways. What holds us back is how ever dev has to build their game for aging DX9 machines. High end DX11 machines are still the vast minority of games.

#40 Posted by nyzma23 (984 posts) -

now we use dx11.1 next update maybe dx11.5 ,the whole dx11 cycle not over yet maybe in 2015 we see new dx12

#41 Posted by clyde46 (47280 posts) -
Its people hanging on to XP that need to move on.
#42 Posted by Jebus213 (8919 posts) -

Its people hanging on to XP that need to move on.clyde46

 

Very little gamers still use windows XP.

#43 Posted by osirisx3 (2009 posts) -

Its people hanging on to XP that need to move on.clyde46
move on to what craptows 8? Vista?

#44 Posted by Mr_BillGates (3186 posts) -

Makes total sense. AMD will be out of business by the time DX12 comes out. applause.gif

#45 Posted by PC_Otter (1623 posts) -

Makes total sense. AMD will be out of business by the time DX12 comes out. applause.gif

Mr_BillGates
AMD out of business will mean higher prices on PC processors and possibly graphics processors too unless AMD releases the graphics division before it all goes to ****. There are quite a bit of reverberations to be had..............and it would affect the entire computing business from PCs, to servers, to even mobile devices due to the competitive relationship between the various corporations.
#46 Posted by Silenthps (7280 posts) -
Well then, there's always OpenGL I guess Oh and DX10 can do tessellation as well. Look up Holger Gruen's Vertex Shader Tessellation.
#47 Posted by Mr_BillGates (3186 posts) -
[QUOTE="Mr_BillGates"]

Makes total sense. AMD will be out of business by the time DX12 comes out. applause.gif

PC_Otter
AMD out of business will mean higher prices on PC processors and possibly graphics processors too unless AMD releases the graphics division before it all goes to ****. There are quite a bit of reverberations to be had..............and it would affect the entire computing business from PCs, to servers, to even mobile devices due to the competitive relationship between the various corporations.

No worries. Intel will buy ATI division and give them the driver team they desperately need.
#48 Posted by biggest_loser (24117 posts) -

[QUOTE="Jebus213"]

can somebody tell me why another DX is needed?

DX11 is still barely used compared to DX9.

PublicNuisance

http://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey

A good chunk of the most popular video cards on there are DX11. Progress shouldn't stop for anything, especially people clinging to DX9.

The games aren't getting any better to justify the updates in technology though.
#49 Posted by silversix_ (15597 posts) -
95% of games don't even support DX11 and you want DX12... DX11 is pretty good and im perfectly fine to play all my games in dx11 for the next 3-4 years.
#50 Posted by lhughey (4278 posts) -
In other words, don't wait to buy AMD cards. Get yours today!