No matter whether we've got a low end or high end system, we all expect the realtime 3D revolution to continue until we achieve near parity with reality. The push forward is backed by many factors including pure hardware performance and brilliant advances in techniques for better approximating what we see. But there's another side to the equation beyond just hardware and developers: there is the graphics API.
Unlike CPUs, graphics hardware (GPUs) do not have a common instruction set upon which tools and software can be built. In order to get the power of the hardware out to the public, we need a common interface that works no matter what GPU is underneath. It's left to the graphics hardware designer to take the code generated by this application programming interface (API) and translate it into something that their chip can use. Because it's the developer's single point of contact, the graphics API is incredibly important. It defines how much flexibility programmers have in using hardware and shapes the world of high performance realtime 3D graphics.
Some of the key work done through the graphics API is taking descriptions of 3D objects in a 3D world, sending those objects and other resources to the hardware, and then telling the hardware what to do with them. There is sort of a step by step process that needs to be followed that we generally call a pipeline. Graphics API pipelines have stages where different work is done. Here's the general structure of a 3D graphics pipeline:
First vertex data (information about the position of the corners of shapes) is taken in and processed. Then those shapes can then be further manipulated and re-processed if needed. After this, 3D objects are broken down from 3D shapes by projecting them into 2D fragments called pixels (this step is called rasterization), and then these pixels are each processed by looking up texture information and using lighting techniques and so on. When pixels are finished processing, they are output and displayed on the screen. And that's the mile high overview of how 3D graphics work.
For the past dozen years (it seems longer doesn't it?), we've seen makers of 3D graphics hardware accelerate two very prominent APIs: OpenGL and DirectX.
We recently touched on advancements tangential to OpenGL in our OpenCL article, but today our focus will be on DirectX. Microsoft's DirectX graphics API is much more heavily used in game engines than OpenGL, in a large part because DirectX tends to move much more quickly and sets the bar for both the hardware and DirectX in terms of feature set and flexibility. That always makes upcoming versions of DirectX exciting to talk about: they define the future capabilities of hardware and expose improved tools to developers. Upcoming DirectX versions are glimpses into our graphical future. Currently we have a lot of DirectX 9 and DirectX 10 games available and in development, but DirectX 11 looms on the horizon.
As usual, Microsoft will be trying to time the release of their next DirectX revision with the release of compatible graphics hardware. As with last time, DirectX 11 will also be released with Windows 7. With the Windows 7 Beta already under way, we expect the OS to be done some time this year.
Microsoft has been rather aggressive with Windows 7 scheduling in light of the rejection of Vista, so it appears they are stepping up to the plate to get everything out sooner rather than later. There was a little more than 4 years between the release of DirectX 9 and DirectX 10. As it hit the streets with Vista in January of 2007, DirectX 10 has just turned 2 and we are already anticipating it's replacement in the very near future. As we will learn, this speedy transition should be very good for DirectX 11 adoption as DirectX 10 hasn't even become pervasive yet: many games are still DirectX 9 only.
But let's take a closer look at what we are talking about before we go any further.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
109 Comments
View All Comments
bobjones32 - Saturday, January 31, 2009 - link
Derek, Vista has been out for only 2 years. Take a look at XP's first two years and it was a phenomenal disaster comparatively. How people forget its far more significant performance and driver compatibility issues, and of course the Blaster worm, is totally beyond me.Just look at some of the nightmares: http://community.winsupersite.com/blogs/paul/archi...">http://community.winsupersite.com/blogs...8/06/30/...
Business uptake? Initial consumer uptake? Driver support? Gaming speed? Security? Compatibility? Vista's first two years have been incredibly successful compared to XP's first two years.
The difference? In 2001, sensationalist blogging making mountains out of molehills and purporting endless false perceptions without significant evidence wasn't nearly as popular. Apple's ads that only fed into peoples' ignorance only helped that false perception grow.
Zoomer - Monday, February 2, 2009 - link
Compare XP to 98SE.Now compare Vista to XP.
We have to take things in context.
CvP - Saturday, January 31, 2009 - link
TOTALLY AGREE.well said.
Goty - Saturday, January 31, 2009 - link
So the gist of this comment (Derek's) is that Vista doesn't suck, but you still say, "Vista sucks."I'm confused now.
Anyhow, I personally agree with the other people in the section that say Vista is a great operating system. I installed it in January of '07 and the only change I've made is to move from Business to Ultimate (thanks to the fact that I was using an ATI video card at the time and the fact that they didn't slack off on their driver development).
DerekWilson - Saturday, January 31, 2009 - link
Actually, that's an apt statement.Vista is currently something it was not initially. This made it "suck" in the hearts and minds of many people at the start, damaging the Windows brand and frustrating users. While, as I said, those issues are largely gone post SP1. This impacted Microsoft's ability to inspire confidence in the industry that everyone would eventually move to a platform that ran DX10, whether or not the OS eventually got to a stable place.
In spite of this, I use Vista: I have 6GB of RAM and I'm interested in DX10 for the sake of DX10 personally. I'm a bit of a technologist and I like things for the sake of the thing, really, but that doesn't mean that MS didn't drop the ball in their delivery of Vista.
just4U - Wednesday, February 4, 2009 - link
What made it suck in the hearts and minds of many people was the refusal to move away from what they allready knew. Changing your operating system has always brought alot of grumbling from the majority... but it's even more overstated with XP which has been around and in wide use far longer then previous Microsoft Operating systems.The beta form of Vista I found to be buggy as hell.. But ofcourse I was testing it on a 1800+ Tbird with 1G of ram. Later when I adopted it (before sp1) it was fine with very few problems. I'd even go as far as saying way way less then what XP had at launch.
CvP - Saturday, January 31, 2009 - link
and XP was much better *when* it was released?!until XPsp1, it was a piece of shit.
until XPsp2, it wasn't worth switching to XPsp2.
and all those lack of driver etc..it was not MS's fault.
poohbear - Saturday, January 31, 2009 - link
"calling it like it is"? i have vista64 premium and i much prefer it to win XP. I have the hardware to run it flawlessly ofcourse, and in that context it's anything but "sucks". would never go back to XP, so please vista has come a looooooong way and doesnt need superfluos opinions like this in 2009.mechBgon - Saturday, January 31, 2009 - link
Derek, if you take a look at Valve's monthly user survey, the ratio of Vista to WinXP users is now at about 1 to 2.1 and climbing by the month. That's not what I'd call "rejection of Vista." I think you've been reading The Inq too much :)As for your remark about Vista being a "WinME," I disagree. WinXP was the WinME of this era; it was basically Win2000 with a few bonus features, like WinME was a makeover of Win98SE. Once WinXP SP2 was released, *then* WinXP actually had some real merit over Win2000 in the security department, but that was late in the game.
Vista, however, is a paradigm shift, a watershed in Windows history. Stuff is not run at Admin level by default anymore, and never will be again. Pulling that off without breaking 80% of the existing software in the world was an amazing accomplishment that involved virtualizing the Registry and file system (a little-known facet of UAC, as it happens).
This is another misguided factoid:
"MS recognized that they had a problem and implemented and extended again and again downgrade options to Windows XP for customers who were unsatisfied with Vista."
Well heck, OEM Windows XP Pro comes with downgrade rights to run Win98 or WinME. It's not a backpedalling measure, nor a confession that WinME is better than WinXP. That's normal Microsoft policy so customers can license the current OS but use the previous version, temporarily or permanently, for whatever reason.
There will be downgrade rights with the appropriate versions of Windows 7, too.
suryad - Thursday, February 5, 2009 - link
I am not so sure you can just take Valve's survey which is just predominantly consisting of gamers as a good statistic. Thats just my 2 cents. An OS is not just meant for gaming...sure thats a good amount of Vista users in the survey but what about the rest of the people who are not gamers? I am pretty confident that most people who are on Vista and are on the Steam survey are/were sold by the appeal of DX 10 and next generation gaming and graphics and all that.