| Pages: [1] :: one page |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Jim McGregor
   |
Posted - 2008.09.20 08:18:00 -
[1]
 Quote:
I expect that in the next generation we'll write 100 percent of our rendering code in a real programming languagełnot DirectX, not OpenGL, but a language like C++ or CUDA. A real programming language unconstrained by weird API restrictions. Whether that runs on NVIDIA hardware, Intel hardware or ATI hardware is really an independent question. You could potentially run it on any hardware that's capable of running general-purpose code efficiently.
Coding directly against the graphics card
This is pretty cool stuff. Not only from a technology standpoint, but also because it opens up a wide array of options. The only reason Windows is the gaming platform of choice is because of DirectX. Imagine what will happen when the games dont need it anymore. You could run the same game in Linux, on a Mac or on a handheld device with the only limitation for performance being the graphics card itself.
Im looking forward to throwing Windows out completely in the future. 
---
Originally by: Roguehalo
Can you nano Titans?
|
Mea Lustra
Amarr
United Sentients
|
Posted - 2008.09.20 08:36:00 -
[2]
Edited by: Mea Lustra on 20/09/2008 08:45:18
Edited by: Mea Lustra on 20/09/2008 08:37:29
They have been stating that for years, MMX and al the derivatives. In the end there's always a supercool videocard that makes it go faster and better, so we all buy it and use it.
I don't WANT my processor to do the graphics, I want it to put it's full use to the game and let some card focus 100% on graphics, that way you get the best games. Integration never was the answer, especially not with a rapid evolving thing as games.
Also, I want standardisation. I want things to WORK instead. You can ***** and moan at M$ all you want (and feel cool by doing so, since it's the hip thing to do) but if anything, they brought standardisation.
|
Karma
Eve University
|
Posted - 2008.09.20 08:45:00 -
[3]
Originally by: Mea Lustra
I don't WANT my processor to do the graphics.
Where do you get the idea that it would?
|
Jim McGregor
|
Posted - 2008.09.20 08:45:00 -
[4]
Originally by: Mea Lustra
I don't WANT my processor to do the graphics, I want it to put it's full use to the game and let some card focus 100% on graphics, that way you get the best games. Integration never was the answer, especially not with a rapid evolving thing as games.
I dont think you see the scope of this. Its not extra cpu instructions like with MMX. This is code that gets interpreted by the cpu in the graphics card, eliminating the middle hand of DirectX.
---
Originally by: Roguehalo
Can you nano Titans?
|
Mea Lustra
Amarr
United Sentients
|
Posted - 2008.09.20 08:49:00 -
[5]
Quote:
CPU's become so fast and powerful that 3D hardware will be only marginally beneficial for rendering, relative to the limits of the human visual system, therefore 3D chips will likely be deemed a waste of silicon (and more expensive bus plumbing), so the world will transition back to software-driven rendering.
The whole article to me feels like "I'm being paid my Intel to try and open up the market a bit, intel wants to get in on Nvidia's and ATI's share more than they do now".
|
Mea Lustra
Amarr
United Sentients
|
Posted - 2008.09.20 08:52:00 -
[6]
Originally by: Jim McGregor
Originally by: Mea Lustra
I don't WANT my processor to do the graphics, I want it to put it's full use to the game and let some card focus 100% on graphics, that way you get the best games. Integration never was the answer, especially not with a rapid evolving thing as games.
I dont think you see the scope of this. Its not extra cpu instructions like with MMX. This is code that gets interpreted by the cpu in the graphics card, eliminating the middle hand of DirectX.
And what use would that be, all of a sudden you lose the standardisation and all of a sudden we go back "hey I've got a Commodore, can it run Spectrum software?" age of things. Again, this is just started by an entity that is NOT ATI or Nvidia, to try and break open the market and doign their best to gain support. Nothing wrong with that as such, but don't be fooled by it.
|
DigitalCommunist
Obsidian Core
|
Posted - 2008.09.20 16:35:00 -
[7]
OpenGL is pretty much screwed now anyway, so its a question of whether DX10/DX11 will remain popular choices. I would love to see that monopoly get destroyed, simply because PC gaming is the only thing tying many people to MS. I actually think its kept me back from getting to know Linux as much as I would if it were my everyday OS.
|
Pwett
Minmatar
QUANT Corp.
QUANT Hegemony
|
Posted - 2008.09.22 17:07:00 -
[8]
Of course it is intel's intention that everything be processed by the CPU. They've been trying to make GPU's obsolete for a while now.
And they just came public with it recently.
_______________
Pwett
CEO, Founder, & Executor
<Q> QUANT Hegemony
|
Dantes Revenge
Caldari
|
Posted - 2008.09.22 21:30:00 -
[9]
Originally by: Jim McGregor
Coding directly against the graphics cardIm looking forward to throwing Windows out completely in the future.
WOW a blast from the past. Direct graphics coding was always possible prior to windows 95 and still to some extent until Windows XP. It's the Microshaft insistance that the OS does everything that stopped it because XP would not let anything directly access hardware. All graphics functions had to use DirectX or XP would crash the application if it couldn't refuse to run it.
Most of the reasons for DOS games being so fast was that the GPU did everything and was accessed directly by the game, that goes for sounds as well. The drawback was that some games did not support certain cards because they had to go to every manufacturer to get tech specs for every card and code each and every one. Since there were no standards as such (Vesa and Soundblaster aside), it meant if you upgraded your graphics or sound, your game may not run properly any more.
Half these games that run slow or in very low res for optimum performance under windows would blast along if windows wasn't present, mainly because Windoze uses so much processing power to do unnecessary background tasks. I don't need to check my network connection if I'm not playing an online game, I also don't care what my wifi card signal strength is. Windows also scanned this file for viruses, spyware and checked it's hash value 200 times before, in fact, every time I have loaded it while playing this game, it's a jpeg loading screen for every level FFS. It's also done it for the laser sound file, the enemy ship mesh file and every other file that loads a hundred times every minute while I play.
I used to have a game called Archimedian Dynasty. A futuristic submarine game with 65K colors, garaoud shading and amazing graphics, by the standards of the 80's. It ran on a 386 running at 33mhz with 2meg memory with a 512K graphics card in 640x480 res (outstanding res for a game in those days). Then I got my first Windows 3.11 game with 32K colors, 640x480 res dithered and not a great deal more. It ran at half the speed, Required a 1meg graphics card and 4 megs of memory. It wasn't until I got a 486 running at 66mhz that I managed to get it to run at a reasonable rate. BTW, the name of the game was Dune 2, the first ever of the 'Command & Conquer' strategy type games. At around the same time, I got helicopter sim 'Commanche - Maximum Overkill'. It ran like a snail on tranquilisers in Windows 3.11 with just half the specs of Archimedian Dynasty on a 486/66.
I've always said programmers don't use half the processing power of either the CPU or GPU now because of DirectX limitations. It's about time they ditched Windows and created a gamers OS that went back to direct hardware control for games.
--
There's a simple difference between kinky and perverted. Kinky is using a feather to get her in the mood. Perverted is using the whole chicken. |
| |
|
| Pages: [1] :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |