From Evolution to Expansion and Multi-Threading: The Mile High Overview
The November DirectX SDK update was the first to include some DirectX 11 features for developers to try out. Of course, there is no DX11 hardware yet, but what is included will run on the current DX10 setup with DX10 hardware under Vista and the beta Windows 7. This combined with the fact that Khronos finished the OpenCL specification last month mark two major developments on the path to more general purpose computing on the GPU. Of course, DX11 is more geared toward realtime 3D and OpenCL is targeted at real general purpose data parallel programming (across multiple CPUs and GPUs) distinct from graphics, but these two programming APIs are major milestones in the future history of computing.
There is more than just the compute shader included in DX11, and since our first real briefing about it at this year's NVISION, we've had the chance to do a little more research, reading slides and listening to presentations from SIGGRAPH and GameFest 2008 (from which we've included slides to help illustrate this article). The most interesting things to us are more subtle than just the inclusion of a tessellator or the addition of the Compute Shader, and the introduction of DX11 will also bring benefits to owners of current DX10 and DX10.1 hardware, provided AMD and NVIDIA keep up with appropriate driver support anyway.
Many of the new aspects of DirectX 11 seem to indicate to us that the landscape is ripe for a fairly quick adoption, especially if Microsoft brings Windows 7 out sooner rather than later. There have been adjustments to the HLSL (high-level shader language) that should make it much more attractive to developers, the fact that DX10 is a subset of DX11 has some good transitional implications, and changes that make parallel programming much easier should all go a long way to helping developers pick up the API quickly. DirectX 11 will be available for Vista, so there won't be as many complications from a lack of users upgrading, and Windows 7 may also inspire Windows XP gamers to upgrade, meaning a larger install base for developers to target as well.
The bottom line is that while DirectX 10 promised features that could bring a revolution in visual fidelity and rendering techniques, DirectX 11 may actually deliver the goods while helping developers make the API transition faster than we've seen in the past. We might not see techniques that take advantage of the exclusive DirectX 11 features right off the bat, but adoption of the new version of the API itself will go a long way to inspiring amazing advances in realtime 3D graphics.
From DirectX 6 through DirectX 9, Microsoft steadily evolved their graphics programming API from a fixed function vehicle for setting state and moving data structures around to a rich, programmable environment enabling deep control of graphics hardware. The step from DX9 to DX10 was the final break in the old ways, opening up and expanding on the programmability in DX9 to add more depth and flexibility enabled by newer hardware. Microsoft also forced a shift in the driver model with the DX10 transition to leave the rest of the legacy behind and try and help increase stability and flexibility when using DX10 hardware. But DirectX 11 is different.
Rather than throwing out old constructs in order to move towards more programmability, Microsoft has built DirectX 11 as a strict superset of DirectX 10/10.1, which enables some curious possibilities. Essentially, DX10 code will be DX11 code that chooses not to implement some of the advanced features. On the flipside, DX11 will be able to run on down level hardware. Of course, all of the features of DX11 will not be available, but it does mean that developers can stick with DX11 and target both DX10 and DX11 hardware without the need for two completely separate implementations: they're both the same but one targets a subset of functionality. Different code paths will be necessary if something DX11 only (like the tessellator or compute shader) is used, but this will still definitely be a benefit in transitioning to DX11 from DX10.
Running on lower spec'd hardware will be important, and this could make the transition from DX10 to DX11 one of the fastest we have ever seen. In fact, with lethargic movement away from DX9 (both by developers and consumers), the rush to bring out Windows 7, and slow adoption of Vista, we could end up looking back at DX10 as merely a transitional API rather than the revolutionary paradigm shift it could have been. Of course, Microsoft continues to push that the fastest route to DX11 is to start developing DX10.1 code today. With DX11 as a superset of DX10, this is certainly true, but developer time will very likely be better spent putting the bulk of their effort into a high quality DX9 path with minimal DX10 bells and whistles while saving the truly fundamental shifts in technique made possible by DX10 for games targeted at the DX11 hardware and timeframe.
We are especially hopeful about a faster shift to DX11 because of the added advantages it will bring even to DX10 hardware. The major benefit I'm talking about here is multi-threading. Yes, eventually everything will need to be drawn, rasterized, and displayed (linearly and synchronously), but DX11 adds multi-threading support that allows applications to simultaneously create resources or manage state and issue draw commands, all from an arbitrary number of threads. This may not significantly speed up the graphics subsystem (especially if we are already very GPU limited), but this does increase the ability to more easily explicitly massively thread a game and take advantage of the increasing number of CPU cores on the desktop.
With 8 and 16 logical processor systems coming soon to a system near you, we need developers to push beyond the very coarse grained and heavy threads they are currently using that run well on two core systems. The cost/benefit of developing a game that is significantly assisted by the availability of more than two cores is very poor at this point. It is too difficult to extract enough parallelism to matter on quad core and beyond in most video games. But enabling simple parallel creation of resources and display lists by multiple threads could really open up opportunities for parallelizing game code that would otherwise have remained single threaded. Rather than one thread to handle all the DX state change and draw calls (or very well behaved and heavily synchronized threads sharing the responsibility), developers can more naturally create threads to manage types or groups of objects or parts of a world, opening up the path to the future where every object or entity can be managed by it's own thread (which would be necessary to extract performance when we eventually expand into hundreds of logical cores).
The fact that Microsoft has planned multi-threading support for DX11 games running on DX10 hardware is a major bonus. The only caveat here is that AMD and NVIDIA will need to do a little driver work for their existing DX10 hardware to make this work to its fullest extent (it will "work" but not as well even without a driver change). Of course, we expect that NVIDIA and especially AMD (as they are also a multi-core CPU company) will be very interested in making this happen. And, again, this provides major incentives for game developers to target DX11 even before DX11 hardware is widely available or deployed.
All this is stacking up to make DX11 look like the go-to technology. The additions to and expansions of DX10, the timing, and the ability to run on down level hardware could create a perfect storm for a relatively quick uptake. By relatively quick, we are still looking at years for pervasive use of DX11, but we expect that the attractiveness of the new features and benefit to the existing install base will provide a bigger motivation for game developers to transition than we've seen before.
If only Microsoft would (and could) back-port DX11 to Windows XP, there would be no reason for game developers to maintain legacy code paths. I know, I know, that'll never (and can't by design) happen. While we wholeheartedly applaud the idea of imposing strict minimum requirements on hardware for a new operating system, unnecessarily cutting off an older OS at the knees is not the way to garner support. If Windows 7 ends up being a more expensive Vista in a shiny package, we may still have some pull towards DX9, especially for very mainstream or casual games that tend to lag a bit anyway (and as some readers have pointed out because consoles will still be DX9 for the next few years). It's in these incredibly simple but popular games and console games that the true value of amazing realtime 3D graphics could be brought to the general computing populous, but craptacular low end hardware and limiting API accessibility on popular operating systems further contribute to the retardation of graphics in the mainstream.
But that's the overview. Let's take some time to drill down a bit further into some of the technology.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
109 Comments
View All Comments
Logikal - Saturday, January 31, 2009 - link
Derek , For the most part I enjoyed your column. Some of it was over my head, but generally it was very informative. I believe its "geek nature" to slander and pull bias in one direction or another regarding certain technology/software/hardware, but honestly What you call "just information" is more personal opinion about your experiences with Vista then anything else. this is evident when you talk about "slow or poor adoption" or "compares to Win ME" like you actually know for sure that was the case. I work for one of Canada's larger computer retail/corporate sales entities, and we had more people buying Vista at a faster pace then any other OS i can remember. the small amount of technical issues that were monumentally blown out of proportion by..maybe...the competition (which you notably mentioned making larger strides in its technology :) caused more "slow adoption" to DX10 then MS's OS and its proportionately smaller problems themselves. I can admit bias, jumping from Windows 2000 directly to Vista, that I haven't had any problems at all. Small ones, mind you (again in proportion to the sheers vastness of what a OS needs to be today) sure. But honestly Vista was a huge step in the right direction, and It did well all things considered. As an end-user, If you had 2 year old hardware, No vista was not going to run functionally. And if you were stuck in the past software wise, or you were backward thinking in that, then no vista wasn't going to work for you. But the step needed to be made, and today we are able to download Windows 7 (in its refined glory) and experience what the vista motif' can be. After all, look how long it took for them to polish up XP ? :)flexy - Saturday, January 31, 2009 - link
Logikal,an opinion is ALWAYS biased.
The interesting thing is that you want to counter his opinion, but you don't really give a solid argument but rather list that "...more people were buying Vista" which hardly can be a serious argument, now in regards to technical details.
I share derek's opinion, i am not "selling" Vista but i work with all kind of OS for a long time already. The comparison to ME is legitimate, IMHO.
And yes, its Geek nature to be able to criticize, compare and see shortcomings where the "common" man (avg customer)might not see any. That's a good thing.
flexy - Saturday, January 31, 2009 - link
that he is so open and just says it.Yes, Vista SUCKS <---
Related to the subject:
I haven't read the entire article (yet)...but tesselatlion reminds me somewhat of a few years ago when we had Radeons 8500 w/ hardware tessellation features. What was it called again? Truform.
Sadly, in practice this feature rather flopped.
ltcommanderdata - Saturday, January 31, 2009 - link
On the issue of OpenCL's potential in games being limited by the availability of DX11 Compute Shaders, I think one way to get OpenCL incorporated into games is to rewrite the Havok physics engine in OpenCL. For one thing, OpenCL was developed to not only run on GPUs, but also CPUs, so the Havok engine can be GPU-accelerated on newer hardware with a software CPU fallback for older GPUs all with the same codebase. I'm not sure if DX11's Compute Shaders were designed to run on CPUs. OpenCL also has the largest target base allowing Havok to maintain it's portability across Windows including XP, OS X, and Linux compared to DX11 which would be limited to Vista and Windows 7. Havok itself is well placed to promote OpenCL since it's made by Intel, who would support it for their increasingly multicore CPUs and Larrabee, is actually backed by AMD over PhysX and who is now also promoting OpenCL over their own Brook+ language, and using OpenCL will also allow compatibility with nVidia GPUs unlike the proprietary CUDA PhysX. Havok already claims interoperability with 3ds Max, Maya, and XSI which rely on OpenGL, so going to OpenCL would be a natural fit in the development ecosystem. The more general nature of OpenCL compared to DX11 Compute Shaders would also help expand Havok's market beyond gaming to simulation and science which probably fits well within Intel's Visual Computing parent group. And of course, moving Havok to OpenCL may also encourage more game developers to use OpenGL, which probably isn't a bad thing.I'm actually kind of surprised with all the talk of DX10 not taking off because of the huge existing XP market that developers didn't think to switch to OpenGL since both nVidia and ATI exposed all the features of their DX10 GPUs in Windows XP through OpenGL extensions. The same will no doubt be true with DX11 GPUs with features available in XP through OpenGL extensions.
bobjones32 - Friday, January 30, 2009 - link
Derek needs to stick with the hardware and stop making the ridiculous comments about software. "Rejected" Vista? Slow adoption? Porting DirectX 11 to XP?Give me a break. I thought it was common knowledge by now that the only people "rejecting" Vista are those buying into the sensationalist blogosphere that built the ridiculous perception in the first place. And since when is 150-200 million users of an OS in 2 years considered "slow adoption"?
And finally, I would have certainly expected Derek to understand how ridiculous the proposition of DX10 or DX11 on XP is. One of the fundamental design purposes of DX10 was, as Derek actually pointed out, to interface with Vista's overhauled driver model.
Are you really expecting Microsoft to spend millions in development resources to back-port a completely different driver model to an 8-year-old operating system just to make it possible for DX10/11 to run on there too?
*sigh* Please. Stick with the hardware. Anandtech's informative articles are not where I want to see butthurt opinions. Save it for your blog.
AlphaTango1 - Saturday, January 31, 2009 - link
Derek, great article and very informative, thanks for taking the time in putting it together.
It's very interesting to see the changes in design and architecture from earlier DX versions, and improvements being made to assist in moving our current graphics forward.
It's hilarious to sit back and read through the replies and see the Vista purchasers barking out emotional comments, defending how they love using Vista on their own PC at home.
It's also funny to note that this is the main thing people have commented on from a multi page article that goes into great depths about graphics, and the future architecture our games will be utilising, and yet we have people still barking on about how much they love Vista.
Let’s forget your emotions for a minute, and the need to defend your purchase, or your love for Microsoft; and look at the actual outcomes to the user here in relation to graphics.
Derek's point about Vista is mainly that it's deployment strategy, marketing, performance issues and initial instability didn't assist in moving DX10 forward for us to significantly benefit from. It also resulted in setting some tracks in place that actually continued preference for DX9 over DX10.
I remember when DX10 was originally being marketed and pumped by Microsoft, and was going to deliver unparalleled graphics improvements to gamers. Comparison split screen vidoes of games were shown, with DX9 and DX10 samples, and talk of "a field of individual blades of grass all moving individually" etc
Well what has that actually provided you with today? What benefits are you seeing in your games now, versus the natural improvements developers have made over time by learning how to use DX9 even better? I've read countless articles comparing DX9 and DX10 versions of the same games, with screen shots in 1920x1280 and above, and you often literally have to sit there for a good minute to actually see some slightly extra textured dirt, or a slight increase in transparency in the water. "Oh, ok there's the DX10 feature...Hmmm was that worth the 20fps hit in performance?" These improvements are not substantial, and wouldn't be noticed during gaming anyhow.
Fact is, DX10 has not delivered on the promises and marketing hype, it will be purely a stepping stone in evolving DX11 to what it is.
For all of you now rushing to type replies of all those extra texture changes you've noted in your DX10 games, seriously don't bother. Even if you can come up with a few examples, you'd be fooling yourself to think DX10 has actually made a significant change to current games, versus the millions of dollars and thousands of person-hours spent developing it.
You'll also be madly trying to type a reply to defend yourself for the extra $$'s you've spent on hardware to get that DX10 game running, while your mate running the same game on XP with DX9 is laughing at you trying to defend your water transparency.
On that point, yes XP was shaky in the first period, but that's simply why you never adopt a new OS until a SP or two come out, otherwise you're just a lemming beta tester for MS. My gaming group has 20+ players, and those of us still on XP had many laughing and banter sessions during the first year or so of Vista. We'd regularly be in-game playing, while the guys with Vista were still trying to get the sound driver working with their new game, or getting the fps to a playable level (and these were IT peopl). I was always rock solid on XP, with DX9 and my game looked just as good and was running faster, and that to me is a good way to measure the success of something. What improvement was Vista and DX10 going to give me, and why in the heck would I bother changing!?!
Yes agree! Vista is probably quite fine for most people to use now, and the issues will have been ironed out. But back to the graphics topic, has it been worth it in relation to the DX10 experience received? This is what this should be about, not how much you love Vista! The question is, has your Vista vehicle and the associated DX10 version provided you with anything substantial? (Besides some Aero graphics interface to make you feel better for buying it).
From seeing and using both, I can say the answer would be a 'No', versus the cost you paid for Vista, the cost of extra hardware required, the marketing hype and spend; and then wrapping that up and comparing it to users on XP SP3 playing games on DX9. The justification ego of people and the effect of marketing can be a funny thing to watch.
I suggest some of you go an actually read some articles from industry researchers and advisors such as Gartner, and the view on Vista in the industry, and advice to Business on selection. Sorry to say, but it's a little bigger than your experience on your little PC and home.
From reading Derek's article I think he's trying to put forward the fact that DX11 has the potential to actually deliver on those DX10 promises and that we may actually see some results, and big changes in our gaming experiences. He also is saying that if the vehicle in which DX11 will be released on (i.e. an OS, Win 7 mainly in this case) is a success, then we have a good chance of it also being adopted in greater numbers by developers of the games we'll be playing.
DerekWilson - Saturday, January 31, 2009 - link
I NEVER said DX11 would or could be ported to WinXP as it is.However, there really is little reason that MS couldn't have chosen to design DX10 so that applications written to target DX10 could still run on XP. But they did not. For the sake of DirectX I think this was the wrong decision.
The change in driver model is very largely an issue in how the graphics driver is implemented to handle DX10. Graphics IHVs developed new DX9 drivers for Vista as well using WDDM, while they still had XP DX9 drivers using the old model. If MS had divorced the API from the driver model changes then they could have implemented DX10 in both XP and Vista with no problem and we'd see higher adoption today.
There is NO technical reason that the functionality in DX10 that is useful for graphics programming (pipeline changes, numbers of registers and resource constraints, stream out, programmable AA, etc.) could not have been implemented without requiring a new driver model.
Let me paint the picture: there is no reason you need fine grained power management and linked adapters to add the GS to the pipeline. Developers could have had an software interface that exposed the functionality of the hardware without the new driver model. Case in point is that OpenGL on Windows XP is able to exploit all DX10 hardware functionality that is not tied to the driver model (read everything that is really useful for programming a game).
So, yes, it would be stupid and wasteful to back port the driver model to XP. But it was stupid and counterproductive to design DX10 in a way that required the new driver model rather than being capable of running under both driver models (like DX9/DX9L).
Microsoft wanted DX10 to push upgrades. They wanted to give people a reason to buy a new OS. But by doing this they instead hampered the uptake of DX10.
LeStuka - Friday, January 30, 2009 - link
Vista adoption was slow. Driver support wasn't very good early on (not really Microsofts fault). It's resource intensive and runs more slowly than people expected. It performed tasks more slowly than other OS's.SP1 fixed a lot of issues - people seem to forget what it was like pre-SP..
Microsoft has admitted that Vista wasn't all it should have been. Why do you think Windows 7 is coming so quickly to market? Hint: It's not because Vista was a huge success and is still bringing in mountains of cash.
Also, the extended and re-extended support & supply of XP. Why? From a marketing perspective it makes no sense if Vista is a successful OS.
I'd like to see a link to this "150-200 million users" article/quote (that doesn't include bundled copies that were "down"graded to XP right?)
It'd also be interesting to see how many computers are running XP..
Derek sounds like he's just telling it like it is to me.
You sound like just another one of those internet tossers that take digs at other peoples work for the sake of it; just because it's there.
Are you sure you want to post this reply?
Are you sure you're sure?
Are you suuure...?
bobjones32 - Saturday, January 31, 2009 - link
It doesn't matter what the OS *was*, the only thing that matters is what the OS *IS*.Today. On January 30th, 2009.
XP was an utter piece of crap for the first two years of its release. Unstable, insecure, and far worse compatibility and driver support than Vista ever dealt with. But of course, you're not judging XP today based on XP on release, are you? Of course not. On the contrary, you're comparing XP now to Vista on release. Hardly fair, and absolutely not relevant.
Why do I think Windows 7 is coming so quickly? Based on what? You realize that the Windows Vista --> Windows 7 timeframe (~3 years) is *longer* than any other release of Windows outside of XP-->Vista, right? You realize that's nearly twice as long as any subsequent release of OS X, right?
Extension of XP, why? Because people are dumb enough to continue to think they need it. Microsoft already lost the perception war, may as well milk the uneducated while they can. However, the 150-200 million number is absolutely accurate:
http://www.microsoft-watch.com/content/vista/vista...">http://www.microsoft-watch.com/content/vista/vista...
Microsoft shipping 150 million licenses of Vista as of May of 2008. If you don't think that number of people are *using* vista by now, 8 months later, then you are completely oblivious.
Derek is not "telling it like it is." He's buying into the anti-Vista sensationalist nonsense without using real facts and figures to back it up, making ridiculous assumptions in lieu of evidence, and making impossibly absurd requests like asking for DX10/11 on XP.
leexgx - Saturday, January 31, 2009 - link
most of my customers prefer XP over Vista with AICH been used and no option to turn it off its an big fuss to get XP onto new OEM computers nowto run vista you need 2gb of ram good hard disk (250gb) and an dual core cpu, OEMs selling systems with single core cpus and 1 gb of ram with 256mb shared video on an 965 intel IGP that only needs 64mb for aero, no one likes vista for the lower end laptops
allso this comment box has not been tested with opera (box is to small)