Why did NVIDIA skip the revision of Direct X 10.01 on their 9800 GTX/GX2/GTX 260/280?

[Xion X2]

Originally Posted by nekrosoft13

true but look at my other point, dx11 hardware will probably be out before dx11 gets released.

It doesn't really matter. Developers cannot code for DX11 until the API is released to the public.

So if DX10.1 is already available (which it has been as developers are already working with it) then it has a good head start on DX11, obviously.

dx11 hardware will be also compatible with dx10.1

My worry is that the recent GT350 rumor could be true and they'll skip DX10.1 and DX11 altogether. Despite whether or not ATI supports it, Nvidia is a big influence on developers.

Hoping that doesn't happen. I honestly don't think it will. It would be pretty &$&@^ of Nvidia to withhold performance increases from a large crowd just because they didn't want to support it with hardware. They've already delayed its implementation with their current-gen lineup. I mean, hell.. ATI has supported it since last gen. It's time for Nvidia to do the same so that we can all benefit from the performance enhancements.

[Digital_Trans]

Will Direct X 11 be an exclusive feature of Windows Vista or will it be exclusive only to code name Windows 7?

[rap1d^]

Originally Posted by Digital_Trans

Will Direct X 11 be an exclusive feature of Windows Vista or will it be exclusive only to code name Windows 7?

DX11 will be on both Vista and Windows 7

The new API is expected to ship with Windows 7 (which is expected in late 2009/early 2010), but the good news is that DirectX 11 will also run on Windows Vista. On that note, we're hoping that DirectX 11 won't be given the same treatment as DX10 because backwards compatibility is there and, as you'll see over the coming pages, there are some features that could even prove beneficial to current DirectX 9.0 and 10/10.1 hardware.

Taken from this article

[Digital_Trans]

So new hardware will be required for Direct X 11 just like with Direct X 10 with the 8800 GTX/Ultras.

[walterman]

I do not understand why we still need a new GPU for each new DX revision, if the GPU makers stated that the actual GPUs are totally programmable.

A change in the API should not be a problem if the GPU is totally programmable. After all, they want to sell us the GPU as a general purpose processor.

[Xion X2]

Originally Posted by Digital_Trans

So new hardware will be required for Direct X 11 just like with Direct X 10 with the 8800 GTX/Ultras.

Yep. But considering that DX11 is nowhere near public release, and taking into account development time, it will probably be anywhere from 12-18 months before you'll see anything surface for it. Maybe longer.

Meanwhile, we all could've been enjoying a glimpse of what it will offer with DX10.1 in a plethora of games had Nvidia implemented it into their hardware already since their influence on developers is substantial. There are a few teams working with ATI on its implementation at the moment, but that group could've been much larger with support from both vendors.

[fivefeet8]

From a development standpoint, it's a bit dissappointing that Nvidia also doesn't support Dx10.1. There are some real tangible benefits of it as evident by Assassins Creed even if it's only a small upgrade.

From a gamers standpoint, it's not that much of an issue. There hasn't really been a killer app which really differentiates between SM3/SM4 yet.

As to why Nvidia hasn't with their current offerings. A lot of people seem to think it meant they had to re-design some of the G8x architecture to make them fully compliant with 10.1 and that die space prevented them from doing such a re-design or addition of extra transistors.

[fivefeet8]

Originally Posted by walterman

I do not understand why we still need a new GPU for each new DX revision, if the GPU makers stated that the actual GPUs are totally programmable.

A change in the API should not be a problem if the GPU is totally programmable. After all, they want to sell us the GPU as a general purpose processor.

Current GPU's are not full programmable. Their shading cores are fully programmable(almost), but the entire GPU still uses some fixed function hardware. Dx11 also doesn't do away with fixed function hardware because the tessellation unit is not part of the programmable shader core.

[jimmyjames123]

Originally Posted by Xion X2

This isn't true. There are several games in the works:

Wow, aren't you the chief AMD/ATI crusader.

There is a difference between DX10.1 games being available now (which is pretty much next to nothing at the moment) vs what might be in the works in the future. At the moment, and probably in the future too, we aren't going to see DX10.1 get any traction. Period. End of story.

And they also said this:


Quote:
Originally Posted by Global Director, Games for Windows - Microsoft
The ATI Radeon HD 3000 series and now the ATI Radeon HD 4800 series hardware delivers on the promise of DirectX 10 gaming with significantly improved visuals and enhanced performance,” said Kevin Unangst, Global Director, Microsoft Games for Windows.

Where does the guy from MSFT say anything about DX10.1? He only talks generically about DX10 and the ATI cards. He could make the exact same statement about the 8800 DX10 cards compared to the prior generations.

Depending on the design of one's hardware, it may not be all that easy to just simply add functionality for .1 . It doesn't make sense for NVIDIA to even attempt to release a DX 10.1 card if it requires them to make serious changes to their existing hardware. It's great that ATI/AMD was able to have DX10.1 compliance, but I just don't see NVIDIA going that route.

[walterman]

Originally Posted by fivefeet8

Current GPU's are not full programmable. Their shading cores are fully programmable(almost), but the entire GPU still uses some fixed function hardware. Dx11 also doesn't do away with fixed function hardware because the tessellation unit is not part of the programmable shader core.

So, they aren't fully programmable after all.

I like what Tim Sweeney stated here:

http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/video/d...ing_Units.html

Tim Sweeney, chief executive officer of major game developer Epic Games, said in an interview that he expected 3D graphics cards used to accelerate rendering of video games as well as major applications programming interfaces (API) to vanish into thin air in the coming years. According to Sweeney, software rendering will return, but this may reshape the whole computer graphics industry.

“In the next generation we’ll write 100% of our rendering code in a real programming language – not 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," said Mr. Sweeney in an interview with Ars Technica web-site.

So, DirectX/OpenGL will end as kernels for the future graphics processors. I want to see this

[Xion X2]

Originally Posted by jimmyjames123

Wow, aren't you the chief AMD/ATI crusader.

Wow, aren't you the troll that likes to spout clueless insults at people.

Look here to find this "ATI Crusader" spending over 1500$ on Nvidia hardware:

http://www.nvnews.net/vbulletin/show...=xion+poseidon

And look here to find this "ATI Crusader" trading in his 2900XT for an 8800 Ultra just last year:

http://www.nvnews.net/vbulletin/show...postcount=1288

And look here to find this "ATI Crusader" telling guys within the last few weeks to go with an Nvidia card over ATI's current offering depending upon their needs:

http://www.nvnews.net/vbulletin/show...66&postcount=7


Alright, now that we got that bull$#&@ out of the way...

There is a difference between DX10.1 games being available now (which is pretty much next to nothing at the moment) vs what might be in the works in the future.

What you think makes a "difference" doesn't matter one iota, because that's not what Rollo said. He said developer support was lacking because there wasn't a "single DX10.1 game" on the radar, which is incorrect. There are some in development, and the developers on each project give very positive feedback about the benefits of 10.1.

At the moment, and probably in the future too, we aren't going to see DX10.1 get any traction. Period. End of story.

Yes, because Nvidia didn't support it. Which was my point. Thanks again for clarifying it.

Where does the guy from MSFT say anything about DX10.1?

Are you blind? Read the first sentence of his quote again:

We welcome AMD’s broad support for DirectX 10.1 compliant hardware and we’re pleased to see our newest technology brought to market so soon.

How could that be any MORE clear?

Thumbs down to your overdefensive rant. You'd better bring something better than that next time.

[jcrox]

I don't see what the big deal is. Games are still designed with DX9 as the primary API with DX10 being mainly an add-on or alternative for what amounts to a fairly small percentage of the overall gaming market. DX10 likely needs to become more mainstream before we see a real push for anything else that would amount to DX10.1 being something substantial beyond a marketing gimmick or niche that can be applied to a few games.