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

[Leech]

I just thought I'd interject some thoughts on this first off and say that Microsoft should die....

Well now that I've gotten that off my chest...

Why is it that a .x release should require new hardware at all?

Going from from 7-8 fine, 7-9 fine, 9-10 Ok. But 10.0 to 10.1? Seriously?

And so if a developer is programming for Dx10 and they see ONE single feature of 10.1 that they like, they have to switch their development API to 10.1 and suddenly the people with hardware that supports up to 10.0 are screwed? How retarded is that.

Forcefully obsoleting people's computers like they have already done with Windows Vista and their previous operating systems, is seriously aggravating to customers.

I don't really see any mention yet of what benefits 10.1 brings to the table besides performance. That's what everyone is pointing out anyhow. So what's the big deal? wouldn't it be better to just optimize what's in DX10 instead of making an API change, which is what this sounds like. Why don't they at least call it DX11-pre or something. 10.x would be bug fix releases, not API changes.

Where's Ballmer, I want to punch him in his monkey balls.

Leech

P.S. If you feel I'm bashing Microsoft too much in this, please know that I've had to spend the last two weeks trying to get Outlook (all versions including 2007) to work properly with a postfix email server using SSL. Seriously, you can change the settings to use SSL click Apply and Ok, it won't send an email. Go back into the settings and check them again and they have reverted to what they were BEFORE you changed them. Sorry for the off topic P.S. Just had to get it off my chest!

[gstanford]

Not that I wish to be seen as supporting microsoft here, but, I think you are blaming the wrong company.

ATi brought out hardware with extended dx10 features and microsoft chose to support them as DX revision/extension. Its not the first time ATi's done it either (R200 and DX8).

Not saying this is necessarily a bad thing, but, imo if you are going to do it then you need to give the spec a worthwhile bump, like nvidia did with SM3.0 & nv40, otherwise I wouldn't bother and its more hassle than its worth to developers (ends up like the SM2.x situtation with DX9 pretty much ignored until SM3.0 was released).

[Leech]

I actually blame all of them together. It should be a matter of having an API that is standardized across all platforms / video cards, and that the higher end cards just support more extensions and if the developers decide to use the extra extensions for the high-end stuff they can.

Oh wait, I think I just described OpenGL....

I still point the blame towards Microsoft. If they're going to add new features into their API, that makes it somehow incompatible with other cards that support the major version number, then they should change the major version number, right?

Otherwise, if 10.1 has features that a 10 card doesn't support, then 10.1 should actually be 11. Every other software development house knows that's how version numbers work. Minor versions should always be compatible under the same Major version.

Do we even have any list of features besides better performance that 10.1 provides?

I always thought though that the DX10 cards were supposed to support DX11.

Well, it's not like Microsoft hasn't forced people to update their hardware before....

Leech

[XMAN52373]

Originally Posted by Xion X2

It's Microsoft's API.. they're the ones who built the OS, and they're touting it as a performance booster.

ANd we all know how truthful MS is right? Come on man. While DX10.1 has some merrits, it is going to along the lines of DX8 1.4 few games using it.

Originally Posted by Xion X2

I mean, get real. You can't expect ATI, a competing graphics company, to quell its own ambitions for a superior physics processing and humbly take shelter under Nvidia's PhysX umbrella knowing they would always play second fiddle to them. If Nvidia really wanted partnership on this venture, then they wouldn't have bought Ageia to gobble up all the technology to themselves. Their primary focus is gaining marketshare.. just the same as ATI.

Why not? They have for thier laptop add in cards that fit into actual slots. If you remember they both, NVidia and ATI, came up with a standard for laptops to use for gpu cards. Nvidias MXM is used for both ATI and Nvidia GPUs.

[Xion X2]

Originally Posted by XMAN52373

Why not? They have for thier laptop add in cards that fit into actual slots. If you remember they both, NVidia and ATI, came up with a standard for laptops to use for gpu cards. Nvidias MXM is used for both ATI and Nvidia GPUs.

Originally Posted by Rage3D

Eric Demers: Irrespective of what nVidia says, the truth is that CUDA is their proprietary solution, which means that if we were to use it we'd be stuck being second place and following their lead; that's not really a position we want to be in. Another characteristic of CUDA is that it's very G80 centric, so first we'd have to build a G80 in order to have a reason to use CUDA. So, no, we're not going to support/use CUDA in any foreseeable future.

For ATI, PhysX is a proprietary solution much like CUDA. What you and Rollo are suggesting is not logical from a business perspective. Proprietary solutions shut the door on ever having flexibility or scalibility that is desired by companies striving to be the best at what they do.

[gstanford]

Leech, you are correct that it microsofts API and its a mess compared to OpenGL. Until someone brings some API competition or gives Linux DX capabilities though, we are stuck with it (and the abominable company responsible for it).

To be quite blunt about it, ATi and their "more ardent" supporters are the ones trying to whip up a DX10.1 frenzy on the internet, not microsoft or anyone else. I think they will be as successful as they were with DX8.1 in DX8's lifetime however...

[Madyasiwi]

NVidia and ATI GPUs have their own featuresets. And one could argue that NV GPUs has more features based on the number of functionalities exposed through their OpenGL extensions. However, it seems that for some reason ATI successfully manage to lobby MS to include in DX 10.1 some features which they are better prepared to implement than NVidia. DirectX is Microsoft's proprietary, so nothing can stop them from giving one IHV a favor over another. And Microsoft may have some good reasons to favor ATI in this regard. Think about how much ATI did to help them making DirectX and Windows OS the only viable gaming platform on PC by impairing OpenGL in their drivers troughout history. So, no, DX 10.1 is not in anyway an "equal ground" to start with as it only benefits ATI. NVidia supporting DX 10.1, at least at this time, is as much as illogical as ATI supporting CUDA from a business perspective. The sales of their G92 GPUs and its derivatives currently in stock and production could be instantly killed if they do so.

If the devs are so willing to give you 10% extra performance due to multi sample read-back capability (as DX 10.1 offer) then it can also be done on NV hardware via custom extension. But why would one wanted to support three different APIs (DX 9, 10, 10.1) with all the coding and maintenance nightmare when they could choose to support just two of them and spend their effort more on the game's stability, efficiency and features for much more broader audience?

There could be more to it in regard of GT2XX though. Believe it or not GT2XX is an relatively older technology than G92. It designed around the same time with G80 or slightly later. (Hence they're using very similar boards.) Back then DX 10.1 hasn't been specified yet. There were rumors/plans that NV was going to release it at late 2007, but it was cancelled. Probably because the lack of competition from ATI (at that time) doesn't justify its production cost.

[Heinz68]

Originally Posted by Madyasiwi

NVidia and ATI GPUs have their own featuresets. And one could argue that NV GPUs has more features based on the number of functionalities exposed through their OpenGL extensions. However, it seems that for some reason ATI successfully manage to lobby MS to include in DX 10.1 some features which they are better prepared to implement than NVidia. DirectX is Microsoft's proprietary, so nothing can stop them from giving one IHV a favor over another. And Microsoft may have some good reasons to favor ATI in this regard. Think about how much ATI did to help them making DirectX and Windows OS the only viable gaming platform on PC by impairing OpenGL in their drivers troughout history. So, no, DX 10.1 is not in anyway an "equal ground" to start with as it only benefits ATI. NVidia supporting DX 10.1, at least at this time, is as much as illogical as ATI supporting CUDA from a business perspective. The sales of their G92 GPUs and its derivatives currently in stock and production could be instantly killed if they do so.

If the devs are so willing to give you 10% extra performance due to multi sample read-back capability (as DX 10.1 offer) then it can also be done on NV hardware via custom extension. But why would one wanted to support three different APIs (DX 9, 10, 10.1) with all the coding and maintenance nightmare when they could choose to support just two of them and spend their effort more on the game's stability, efficiency and features for much more broader audience?

There could be more to it in regard of GT2XX though. Believe it or not GT2XX is an relatively older technology than G92. It designed around the same time with G80 or slightly later. (Hence they're using very similar boards.) Back then DX 10.1 hasn't been specified yet. There were rumors/plans that NV was going to release it at late 2007, but it was cancelled. Probably because the lack of competition from ATI (at that time) doesn't justify its production cost.

Absolute nonsense. Can you give us some source about your accusation or is it just in your head?
Some links please and don't waste time with forum post like yours, some people have no problem to repeat it.
For example about this conspiracy ; "ATI successfully manage to lobby MS to include in DX 10.1 some features which they are better prepared to implement than NVidia. DirectX is Microsoft's proprietary, so nothing can stop them from giving one IHV a favor over another." I wonder why we didn't hear NVIVIDIA or the game developers screaming murder about it?

AMD/ATI is first to support new extensions for OpenGL 3.0 with official drivers.

ATI have released new drivers for their Radeon products, bringing the first shot at OpenGL 3.0 support since the Khronos Group took the lid off the new standard at SIGGRAPH recently.

LINK or Google for more.

[K007]

Originally Posted by Heinz68

Absolute nonsense. Can you give us some source about your accusation or is it just in your head?
Some links please and don't waste time with forum post like yours, some people have no problem to repeat it.
For example about this conspiracy ; "ATI successfully manage to lobby MS to include in DX 10.1 some features which they are better prepared to implement than NVidia. DirectX is Microsoft's proprietary, so nothing can stop them from giving one IHV a favor over another." I wonder why we didn't hear NVIVIDIA or the game developers screaming murder about it?

AMD/ATI is first to support new extensions for OpenGL 3.0 with official drivers.
LINK or Google for more.

he....has 1 post -.-

[jimmyjames123]

Originally Posted by ATI DX10.1 Maverick - Xion X2

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

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.

You truly are missing the point. That quote says absolutely diddly squat about anything other than the fact that ATI's latest hardware is DX10.1 compliant, and that they were the first to bring DX10.1 to market, and MSFT's guy acknowledges that. So what? Tell us something we don't know. What does that sentence have anything to do with game developers supporting it?

Next time, don't throw around random quotes that don't really do anything to bolster your argument. To state or even imply that DX10.1 is going to gain any traction is simply pure nonsense. That's unfortunate for 48xx owners like you and many others, but that's just the reality of the situation.

[Rollo]

Originally Posted by Heinz68

Absolute nonsense. Can you give us some source about your accusation or is it just in your head?
Some links please and don't waste time with forum post like yours, some people have no problem to repeat it.
For example about this conspiracy ; "ATI successfully manage to lobby MS to include in DX 10.1 some features which they are better prepared to implement than NVidia. DirectX is Microsoft's proprietary, so nothing can stop them from giving one IHV a favor over another." I wonder why we didn't hear NVIVIDIA or the game developers screaming murder about it?

Gstanford is correct. DX10.1 is pretty meaningless. There are no games that support it. When will there be games? Who knows. What games have been announced that will support it? A handful of RTS games. When will they launch? Who knows.

Someone like me who doesn't play RTS games has no reason to care about DX10.1 at all.

Someone who plays RTS games might have a reason to care, but they may not. By the time the handful of games are released, current hardware may be slow. Anyone else remember "Better have a 9700 for Half Life 2!" and then by the time it launched a 9700 was a slow card, and worse yet it's DX9 performance was abysmal?

The same may well happen here- by the time the handful of RTS games supporting DX10.1 launch, there will likely be much better DX11 cards.

Of course, underneath all this is we have no idea what DX10. 1 will bring to the table for the handful of RTS games. A small speed increase?

Is a small speed increase in some a few unreleased RTS games worth losing out on PhysX and stereo totally? When the stereo monitors launch this year, there will be support for 350 titles. 350 is a lot more than 5, and seeing things in true 3d is a lot better than the small performance increase of 10.1. There are currently 3 titles that support PhysX, with more coming next month.

IMHO, anyone buying a card for DX10.1 just fell off the crazy train- it's a total non event, a fart in the wind.

Originally Posted by Heinz68

AMD/ATI is first to support new extensions for OpenGL 3.0 with official drivers.
LINK or Google for more.

Not that a few days matters a whole lot, but NVIDIA was claiming first OpenGL 3 support 3 days before that article:

http://www.nvidia.com/object/io_1218781153624.html



This whole topic is just pathetic. It's the equivalent of some ATi fanboys yelling "Why doesn't NVIDIA have a tesselator??! We all NEED a tesselator!!!"

And the response is "For what? No games use it, very, very few ever will."

ATi has a long history of introducing features that never really see the light of day, blaming NVIDIA for not making their bad choices is assinine.

[Heinz68]

Originally Posted by Rollo

Gstanford is correct.

First my reply was not about "gstanford" post I didn't even read it. But since you said he was correct how does this sound for correct?

Originally Posted by gstanford

ATi brought out hardware with extended dx10 features and microsoft chose to support them as DX revision/extension.

Originally Posted by Rollo

This whole topic is just pathetic.

What is pathetic is your reply to my post which was addressed towards 'Mayasiwi". Did you at least read it?
Before replying for him.

Actually you included only one point from my reply and I said "first official driver" about the OpenGL and the only reason I included it was Madyasiwi post.

Anyway let me say it one more time this thread is about:
"Why did NVIDIA skip the revision of Direct X 10.01 on their 9800 GTX/GX2/GTX 260/280?"

The DX10.1 is very much part of the "PC Gaming Alliance" (TheTechReport) which NViDIA recently signed. The Ageia PhysX, CUDA or the 3d glasses you say are more important is not part of it but you always bring it up, doesn't matter what the thread is about.

Originally Posted by Rollo

ATi has a long history of introducing features that never really see the light of day, blaming NVIDIA for not making their bad choices is assinine.

Well even your above undocumented accusation was true what connection it has with DX10.1?