DX10 cards won't be ontop long...DX10.1 already in the works

[Dil-tech]

http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=32524

This just follows the gamedev link I posted a few months ago, Microsoft is heavily ramping up the DX10 updates, they'll be in a much quicker succession than DX9 to DX9c or dx8 to dx8.1.

Basically, like I stated before, by the time DX10 becomes mainstay and used, you'll have to buy a new videocard for DX10.1.

[GuS]

I thought incremental step-ups in DX versions could be supported by new video drivers? Unless there are new features that require new hardware anyway.

[afrakes]

Just like you "have" to buy a 9.0c card to enjoy DX9 games? Even the most demanding games work fine with the older 9.0b specifcation. So I'd tend to think 10a wouldn't bring enough new stuff to the table to require an upgrade from 10, but if it does that would really suck for all the early adopters.

[Dil-tech]

New revisions of DX require new videocards.... It's microsofts way of helping out the GPU makers.

Also, afrakes, remember the difference between dx8 and dx8.1? It was quite a difference in pixel shader quality.

[Espion]

Could it be something to do with physics(the update)?

[SPD010273]

lol im playing DX9 games on a 5 yr old card with decent settings. Every time DX gets upped doesnt mean you have to buy a new card sheesh

[Mott]

Originally Posted by SPD010273

lol im playing DX9 games on a 5 yr old card with decent settings. Every time DX gets upped doesnt mean you have to buy a new card sheesh

For some of us it does my friend...

[GuS]

Granted, the difference between 8 and 8.1 was fairly big, but that was a longer time period in between. They are talking about releasing new versions at a faster rate - so in reality, they can't really incorporate a whole slough of new features that dx10 cards couldn't handle. I could be wrong, and probably am, but I would think whatever came out with the first "a" patch would be easily incorporated into the current dx10 level hardware with new drivers - not saying it would run well . . . but at least useable.

I guess we can't really make any assumptions until we see what dx10 really brings to the table I mean, they haven't even outlived dx9c's capabilities yet.

[Dil-tech]

Generally, or should I say everytime, new features have required an update to the hardware to be used.

A videocard driver has never covered a dx update, I see no reason why this time it would.

[mesce]

Dil, could you outline the differences from dx9.0a -> 9.0b -> 9.0c. Then we might be able to see what we could be looking at. I remember sm3 and hdr being gained from 9.0c but what much is left to implement? SM4 is coming with dx10.

[jonny]

Let me see........i think im gonna just buy a 7900gtx......and play games until i really wanna get vista. I dont really play the most up to date games anyway. I do,however,want to play alan wake.

God **** big corporations helping each other out.

[GuS]

Far as I recall, we weren't forced to buy new cards unless we wanted SM3 . . . and it was right around the time when the new gen of cards came out anyway . . .

I mean, I understand that if they brought out something completely new, well we'd obviously need new tech to handle it . . . but I don't think this is what they are saying. I don't really see them developing new technology every half year or so . . . there just wouldn't be a market to support that movement.

[Dil-tech]

DX9b and 9c came at the same time, so we'll just work on the differences between dx9 and dx9c. DX9B was ATi's version, DX9C was NVidia's version. Like with all DX revisions, both companies fight for who's standard gets used and it generally swaps back and forth. That's why the FX sucked in DX9, the standard was set after the chip itself was already designed, and Microsoft went with ATi's standard. Anyway, enough with the history lesson, lets get on with the show.

Now personally, I can't remember off the top of my head all the changes, so I'll name off the key ones.

Instancing is probably the most well known difference, plain and simple. This is more of a speed increaser than it is for effects, but higher framerates allows for more effects to be used. Think far cry's jungles and you know how this helps.

Higher floating point precision was another key feature, which hasn't been used nearly as much as it should have been, mainly due to the fact that they're trying to keep compatibility with ATi's 24bit FPP older DX9 cards.

Longer shader instructions was another big one, this is pretty self explanitory. Allows for more complex shaders, which obviously allows for better looking shaders/effects and in the end, better graphics.

HDR wasn't because of dx9c, but because DX9 cards from ATi lacked 32bit FPP, something required for the HDR modes found in games like far cry and SC:CT. DX9C requires atleast a 32bit floating point precision, thus the reason why most people draw the conclusion that DX9c was a requirement. Technically, HDR was possible on the FX series, but those cards had NOWHERE NEAR the horsepower required to use such effects.

All of the above changes couldn't be "fixed" by a driver, they required hardware updates to work.

As for what could be added with this one? More efficiency to bring down that power usage. After reading about up to 300W's could be used by DX10 cards, I'm sure they're going to look for ways to bring that down, and the APi itself would be a good place to start.

Originally Posted by GuS

Far as I recall, we weren't forced to buy new cards unless we wanted SM3 . . . and it was right around the time when the new gen of cards came out anyway . . .

I mean, I understand that if they brought out something completely new, well we'd obviously need new tech to handle it . . . but I don't think this is what they are saying. I don't really see them developing new technology every half year or so . . . there just wouldn't be a market to support that movement.

They release new high end cards generally every 6 months, a tiny bit of tweaking to add in the next DX features wouldn't be that hard to do. Like I stated before, I posted the GameDev article that said that microsoft will be heavily ramping up the speed inwhich DX10 versions are released, and it was written by a Microsoft DX MVP!.. I'd be shocked if he was wrong.

We may all find ourselves feeling sorry for those early adopters....

[GuS]

I agree with what you are saying totally - stuff like that DOES require new hardware - but they are talking small steps. The things you mentioned took time to develop and implement, and by the time those things were finished development, it was time for a new gen of cards to come out anyway . . .

For all we know, dx10 could be something that can be manipulated however the development team sees fit - and it could just fit right into the same infrastructure that was established from the main code.

[ItsTheSource]

i havent had any luck getting a dx9 game to work with vista...sounds a little like they're getting ahead of themselves...

[Duffman]

Originally Posted by ItsTheSource

i havent had any luck getting a dx9 game to work with vista...sounds a little like they're getting ahead of themselves...

Most people have... not that it ran well but it ran on my x700

[Snake101]

I could have sworn I remember upgrading from 9.a to 9.c on my 6800...

[Dil-tech]

DX9 was DX9a.

DX9C was on the 6800, dx9b was on the x8xx series.

The 6800 came out before the release of DX9C, but the hardware was DX9C released. The hardware requirements were already set in stone, thus the reason the card came before the release of the API. Therefore you're right, you did technically upgrade from dx9 to dx9c, but your card was already 100% compliant. You couldn't upgrade a FX or 9800 to DX9C, as they weren't compliant. This is what I was talking about snake.

It's doubtful the first DX10 cards will be DX10.1 compliant. The DX10.1 standard isn't done yet, but both cards are for the most part ready.

[GuS]

All I'm saying is that there's no need to start fidgeting over the idea of needing new cards for each new implementation. The dx10.1 standard may not be finished, but maybe it's not a standard at all, maybe it's just an alteration or modification within the coding dx10 already uses. Therefore, there would be nothing "new" per say about the 10.1 coding, and would mean our cards could handle it more appropriately.

I dunno - I just think that if they are planning on bringing out new versions of DX faster than they have in the past - I don't see why they wouldn't make it more like a "patch" of sorts. Just something to fix up stuff so it's not so long before better things can be done with existing code.

I don't see them forcing us to upgrade every time they make changes . . . I mean - there just aren't enough people who can afford that decision and make it logical for the dx team to put in the effort to bring out new stuff faster. I, for one, would certainly not be dishing out another 400 bucks for a card just because they went to 10.1 . . . no way. Especially if it's only 6 months, or even a year, after the first implementation of dx10 came out.

On top of that, think of the confusion and struggle that would come into play with buying new cards. The market would surely crash, as there would be NO point in buying a dx10 card if 10.1 was on the horizon, along with better/faster cards. Then for those people who bought the dx10 cards, well they'd be stuck unless they could afford an upgrade to 10.1. Then there are the "in-betweener" shoppers who could come in and say "Hey, the dx10.2 cards are out now . . . but they've been out for 2 weeks, which means 10.3 is soon on it's way. May as well wait."

Obviously the stuff isn't going to come out quite that fast - but you can at least get what I'm saying here. The video card market, while booming, just wouldn't be strong enough to handle necessary upgrades every 6 months to a year just to use a new feature or two. It would make far more sense if they set up dx10 to be scalable in architecture. Then, they could upgrade it within the boundaries of the current gen card's capabilities . . . thereby only making one thing necessary - a new driver for your video card.

[ether.real]

Hard to speculate without more details about DX10.1. We have no idea when it will be out, or what it will include. If they plan on making revisions more often, then some of the revisions may be patched by software.