DirectX 11 Won't Define GPU Sales: NVIDIA

[ste2425]

of course it wont affect nvidias sales at all - they dont have any DX11 cards.

dnt no why but i like that,

an on the original post i agree with what allot of people say, yes theres some very good points there and what they say about dx11 is true but i think there trying to bring ppls atention not on there offerings (nvidia) but mainly away from ati's

 

[Benetanegia]

Well lets just hope PhysX finally dies. Off topic: WTF time is it in your part of the world BTA? I mean why the hell are you posting at this time?

Let's just hope it doesn't, otherwise we would be left with Intel owned Havok only, no competition. What you all don't get is that OpenCL, DX11 Compute and etc are not complete physics engines, PhysX and Havok are. OpenCL, and DX Compute are APIs or platforms (you can build on top of them) that enable and make it "easy" creating GPU accelerated physics, but it already existed a platform that enables the creation of physics engines and that it's the easiest of all of them: dadaaaa... x86

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.

 

[ArmoredCavalry]

People are going to say this is sour grapes. That they (Nvidia) is just saying this because they do not have a DX11 GPU out before ATI. However I honestly think they may be just speaking from their past experience with DX10.

Nah, I'll hold back. I think the article speaks for itself.

 

[Noggrin]

LOL, I wonder if this is anything to do with this....http://www.semiaccurate.com/2009/09/15/nvidia-gt300-yeilds-under-2/

Oh my.. Charlie aka the douchebag is back at it again.. gonna read just for the lulz, this idiot and his fantasies are just too funny.

 

[pr0n Inspector]

Comments written in high school English are hard to read.

 

[[I.R.A]_FBi]

Comments written in high school English are hard to read.

not nice

 

[HTC]

I'm curious as to how DX11 games will be made. I mean: it's obvious they won't make them for PCs with DX11 compliant only cards, right?

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?

 

[Riou]

I'm curious as to how DX11 games will be made. I mean: it's obvious they won't make them for PCs with DX11 compliant only cards, right?

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?

They have to make it compatible with older DX10/9 generation cards. The developers would be cutting themselves out of a large consumer base if they did not.

 

[erocker]

Aren't new releases of Direct X based upon previous generations of Direct X anyways?

 

[HTC]

They have to make it compatible with older DX10/9 generation cards. The developers would be cutting themselves out of a large consumer base if they did not.

Exactly.

Aren't new releases of Direct X based upon previous generations of Direct X anyways?

Look @ crysis: they made it for DX9 and added DX10 elements, which is why it has better FPS on XP then on Vista, correct?

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.

 

[Kitkat]

I'm curious as to how DX11 games will be made. I mean: it's obvious they won't make them for PCs with DX11 compliant only cards, right?

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?

9 is always gonna be the "standard" or lowest and for most DX10 games there is a 9a version a very high 9a. Not quite on the Crysis tip.... It was a new engine that tested hardware to the bone yes... but a WAYYY SMARTER Cysis came after maintaining the same effects with less hurt better code and new tricks. Yes it was a new GAME engine and new and flawed DX10 (which DX11 kills in performance).

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.

 

[trt740]

I'm curious as to how DX11 games will be made. I mean: it's obvious they won't make them for PCs with DX11 compliant only cards, right?

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?

No most will be DX10 because the Xbox is DX10 as is the PS3 and they don't want to rewrite an entire game just for PC it's easier to port it.

 

[pr0n Inspector]

No most will be DX10 because the Xbox is DX10 as is the PS3 and they don't want to rewrite an entire game just for PC it's easier to port it.

LOL WHAT?

 

[Mussels]

LOL WHAT?

the 360's GPU meets the early (before nvidia messed with them ) DX10 standards. its not compliant with DX10 as we know it (so he is wrong), but has a lot of similarities.

 

[raptori]

+1... exactly... theyre just trying to pull a Baghdad Bob on their investors. "No No... we ARE winning the war... ATI is cowering in fear, and our customers don't care about new tech at all... its just not important."

Hell yea that's true.

 

[pr0n Inspector]

the 360's GPU meets the early (before nvidia messed with them ) DX10 standards. its not compliant with DX10 as we know it (so he is wrong), but has a lot of similarities.

Actually now that I read it again, the "as is the PS3" part is even more hilarious.

 

[Mussels]

Actually now that I read it again, the "as is the PS3" part is even more hilarious.

the PS3 is pure DX9, its based off an Nv 7900 series card (whereas the ATI xenos in the 360 is at least a DX10 "prototype"

 

[pr0n Inspector]

the PS3 is pure DX9, its based off an Nv 7900 series card (whereas the ATI xenos in the 360 is at least a DX10 "prototype"

Not to mention PS3 doesn't use DirectX at all.

 

[Wile E]

Not to mention PS3 doesn't use DirectX at all.

They mean from a hardware equivalency standpoint, not literally.

 

[pr0n Inspector]

They mean from a hardware equivalency standpoint, not literally.

No he said

No most will be DX10 because the Xbox is DX10 as is the PS3 and they don't want to rewrite an entire game just for PC it's easier to port it.

despite the fact that game devs have to make at least two distinct versions(PC/Xbox360 and PS3) of their cross-platform game anyway.

 

[Zubasa]

Let's just hope it doesn't, otherwise we would be left with Intel owned Havok only, no competition. What you all don't get is that OpenCL, DX11 Compute and etc are not complete physics engines, PhysX and Havok are. OpenCL, and DX Compute are APIs or platforms (you can build on top of them) that enable and make it "easy" creating GPU accelerated physics, but it already existed a platform that enables the creation of physics engines and that it's the easiest of all of them: dadaaaa... x86

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.

No body is saying Havok is going down, because guess what? OpenCL allows Havok to be run on ATi's GPU
It is only the stupid nV only Physx that is going the way of the Dinosaur.

 

[Mussels]

No body is saying Havok is going down, because guess what? OpenCL allows Havok to be run on ATi's GPU
It is only the stupid nV only Physx that is going the way of the Dinosaur.

physx is proprietary and only runs on nvidia systems, therefore when its used in games its always as an add-on pretty effect. it never affects gameplay, and all it ever does it hurts FPS - physx is never used to boost FPS, always to add more crap on top

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

 

[Zubasa]

physx is proprietary and only runs on nvidia systems, therefore when its used in games its always as an add-on pretty effect. it never affects gameplay, and all it ever does it hurts FPS - physx is never used to boost FPS, always to add more crap on top

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 physx (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

I hope you meant "games using it for physics"

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.

 

[Mussels]

typo fixed, oopsies.

 

[PP Mguire]

Gotta love these stupid nvidia/physx-ati/havok threads. I love new releases but sometimes i just have to ignore the extra posts on these threads.