Thursday, September 17th 2009
DirectX 11 Won't Define GPU Sales: NVIDIA
"DirectX 11 by itself is not going be the defining reason to buy a new GPU. It will be one of the reasons." This coming from the same company that a few years ago said that there was every reason to opt for a DirectX 10 compliant graphics card, to complete the Windows Vista experience, at a time when it was the first and only company to be out with compliant hardware. In the wake of rival AMD's ambitious Evergreen family of DirectX 11 compliant graphics cards being released, NVIDIA made it a point to tell the press that the development shouldn't really change anything in the industry.
Speaking at the Deutsche Bank Securities Technology Conference, NVIDIA's VP of investor relations said "DirectX 11 by itself is not going be the defining reason to buy a new GPU. It will be one of the reasons. This is why Microsoft is in work with the industry to allow more freedom and more creativity in how you build content, which is always good, and the new features in DirectX 11 are going to allow people to do that. But that no longer is the only reason, we believe, consumers would want to invest in a GPU."
"Now, we know, people are doing a lot in the area of video, people are going to do more and more in the area of photography… I think that the things we are doing would allow the GPU to be a co-processor to the CPU and deliver better user experience, better battery life and make that computers little bit more optimized," added Mr. Hara
NVIDIA, which was until very recently a firm believer in graphics processing horsepower to serve as the biggest selling points of new GPUs, now switches its line on what it believes will drive the market forward. All of a sudden, software that rely on the raw computational power of GPUs (eg: media transcoding software), and not advanced visual effects that a new generation API brings with it (in games and CGI applications), is what will drive people to buying graphics processors, according to the company.
Mr. Hara concluded saying "Graphics industry, I think, is on the point that microprocessor industry was several years ago, when AMD made the public confession that frequency does not matter anymore and it is more about performance per watt. I think we are the same crossroad with the graphics world: framerate and resolution are nice, but today they are very high and going from 120fps to 125fps is not going to fundamentally change end-user experience. But I think the things that we are doing with Stereo 3D Vision, PhysX, about making the games more immersive, more playable is beyond framerates and resolutions. Nvidia will show with the next-generation GPUs that the compute side is now becoming more important that the graphics side."
The timing of this comes when NVIDIA does not have any concrete product plans laid out, while AMD is working towards getting a headstart with its next-generation GPUs that are DirectX 11 compliant, and also has compliance with industry-wide GPGPU standards such as DirectCompute 11 and OpenCL.
Source:
Xbit Labs
Speaking at the Deutsche Bank Securities Technology Conference, NVIDIA's VP of investor relations said "DirectX 11 by itself is not going be the defining reason to buy a new GPU. It will be one of the reasons. This is why Microsoft is in work with the industry to allow more freedom and more creativity in how you build content, which is always good, and the new features in DirectX 11 are going to allow people to do that. But that no longer is the only reason, we believe, consumers would want to invest in a GPU."
"Now, we know, people are doing a lot in the area of video, people are going to do more and more in the area of photography… I think that the things we are doing would allow the GPU to be a co-processor to the CPU and deliver better user experience, better battery life and make that computers little bit more optimized," added Mr. Hara
NVIDIA, which was until very recently a firm believer in graphics processing horsepower to serve as the biggest selling points of new GPUs, now switches its line on what it believes will drive the market forward. All of a sudden, software that rely on the raw computational power of GPUs (eg: media transcoding software), and not advanced visual effects that a new generation API brings with it (in games and CGI applications), is what will drive people to buying graphics processors, according to the company.
Mr. Hara concluded saying "Graphics industry, I think, is on the point that microprocessor industry was several years ago, when AMD made the public confession that frequency does not matter anymore and it is more about performance per watt. I think we are the same crossroad with the graphics world: framerate and resolution are nice, but today they are very high and going from 120fps to 125fps is not going to fundamentally change end-user experience. But I think the things that we are doing with Stereo 3D Vision, PhysX, about making the games more immersive, more playable is beyond framerates and resolutions. Nvidia will show with the next-generation GPUs that the compute side is now becoming more important that the graphics side."
The timing of this comes when NVIDIA does not have any concrete product plans laid out, while AMD is working towards getting a headstart with its next-generation GPUs that are DirectX 11 compliant, and also has compliance with industry-wide GPGPU standards such as DirectCompute 11 and OpenCL.
194 Comments on DirectX 11 Won't Define GPU Sales: NVIDIA
As a game developer, under x86, using C++ (just one of the alternatives) you can easily create your physics engine, no need to deal with APIs or extensions. There's no easier way of creating your own physics yet most game developers use either Havok or PhysX. Epic games and apparently EA uses PhysX (CPU PhysX running in x86, in Xenos, XB360 CPU and Cell, PS3 CPU), as well as many others, but Havok has/had a greater market share. Anyway, between both, they easily make 90% of the physics that we find in games. In fact the only developer that makes their own physics that I can think of now and that actually has some good physics is Crytek.
So under this circumstances. When most developers choose to use 3rd party engines for the relatively easy physics that can be done on the CPU, do you really think that because now they can make them run on the GPU (allowing for far more complex physics) they are going to start making their own engine? Did the introduction of pixel and vertex shaders make developers create their own 3D engines or did they continue using Epic's or ID's engines for a long time? How many developers have their own engine versus a 3rd party engine even today?
PhysX or Havok are not going to disappear anytime soon.
Will they make 2 versions of the game? Make them for DX11 and then add support for DX9/DX10/DX10.1? The other way around? Other way that doesn't currently occur to me?
Unless option 1 (doubtful), it will be like Crysis all over again, no? Or is my reasoning flawed?
Will they resort to this way for DX11?
For a developer, i think they would go with a cost saving option and that would be like crysis, be it exactly like it (made for older version of DX with added elements of newer version of DX) or just the opposite: made for DX11 and, with what could not be run with older cards, added with DX9/DX10 (if i'm making any sense). Preferably, though, if the developer made 2 versions of the game, then one could really see how much better/worse DX11 really is.
As for a "THE GAME" there will always be one that KILLS a set of video-cards that everyone will say "Yes but will it play ______." Game companies will always push hardware further. True everything was not coded in the first Crysis as well as the second version but once they improved they will push the bar right back up to where it was or someone else will. You'll always have to worry about "A GAME".
As for a DX10 versions of DX11 games u might see alot more really high 9a's then that. Wont have all the same native effects or texture tricks as DX11 or be as crisp or run the same amount of effects ect. But the cards will be so strong itll look good. But then again there will be some SUPER OVER KILL games in DX11 that will use every effet every trick ever limit and u wont see them try to port back to DX9 back unless they make a Xbox 360 version or so.
It is only the stupid nV only Physx that is going the way of the Dinosaur.:roll:
AMD/ATI got in bed with havok early, so that when DX11 launches officially they can have openCL drivers ready and working with havok from the get go - and we WILL see games using it for physics (with no software option, so its going to have gameplay effects) simply because every Nvidia cuda or ATI stream capable GPU (therefore, all DX10 GPU's) is capable of running openCL (and therefore hardware accelerated havok)
even worst case, they make this the integral engine, and GPU support merely boosts the FPS
Another point is, many people here are getting messed up, DirectX 9.0 aka Shader Model 2.0 is in effect dead,
and is not supported in many (most) new games, it is only Shader Model 3.0 aka DX 9.0c that is supported.
Try running RE5/DMC4 etc on a X800XL.
Edit: Even Rainbow 6 Vegas 2 will not run on a 9600Pro.