62 posts in this topic

Posted

I am interested in the truth. When you have biased sources like Gabe going around making quotes like that and nobody else, who am I supposed to believe?

Do I believe that D3D 11.x is faster than OpenGL? I have not tested it myself. I know there are developers that would say that.

Can you find independent sources (that means more than one) and that doesn't have a connection with Valve that point and say that D3D 11.x is not as fast as OpenGL?

Can you do that for me? Because right now I have to be honest, I don't believe you.

 

Did you look at the source article? As it's not from or has anything to do with Gabe. As I've said multiple times now.

 

Seriously, this is like pointing to Steve Ballmer and saying he alone is Microsoft. And is solely responsible for everything the company says and does/releases.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Did you look at the source article? As it's not from or has anything to do with Gabe. As I've said multiple times now.

 

Seriously, this is like pointing to Steve Ballmer and saying he alone is Microsoft. And is solely responsible for everything the company says and does/releases.

http://blogs.valvesoftware.com/linux/faster-zombies/

This is the article that I looked at. This is Valve. Gabe Newell is the "co-founder" of Valve. D3D version is never specified. That is interesting, why is that?

hmmm, I wonder.... They were probably using the source engine under "emulated" D3D 9 which is slower than the latest OpenGL and it is also out of date.

See, D3D 11 is more modern and more up to date and I find it almost impossible to believe that OpenGL vs D3D 11 is going to be faster. So, until we get more proof from many different suitable sources(meaning sources without an agenda), I am going to have to call this false for right now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

As far as DirectX goes on the PS4 - it's possible if Sony are willing to invest enough money into the software implementation as the GPU already conforms. The question really is, is the value in making porting between the two consoles as easy as possible worth that investment?

If you think DirectX is even a possibility on the PS4, you're high.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

http://blogs.valvesoftware.com/linux/faster-zombies/

This is the article that I looked at. This is Valve. Gabe Newell is the "co-founder" of Valve. D3D version is never specified. That is interesting, why is that?

hmmm, I wonder.... They were probably using the source engine under "emulated" D3D 9 which is slower than the latest OpenGL and it is also out of date.

See, D3D 11 is more modern and more up to date and I find it almost impossible to believe that OpenGL vs D3D 11 is going to be faster. So, until we get more proof from many different suitable sources(meaning sources without an agenda), I am going to have to call this false for right now.

 

Valve uses a flat structure, Gabe doesn't order people around. Heck, the first and only assignment a new hire gets at Valve is to tell Gabe what to work on. So yeah, if you're really so caught up with attacking character, attack the dudes of the Linux cabal - Phoronix has a few articles on them.

 

Gabe-nonsense aside, now go read the joint nVidia-Valve presentation I linked above. (There link attached to "here")

 

If you think DirectX is even a possibility on the PS4, you're high.

 

Oh, and what is your basis for saying that?

 

It may be unlikely, but let's not pretend that it isn't possible without the right amount of $$$. If projects like ReactOS are possible, coming up with a software implementation for a single API is well within the realm of feasability, especially if a large corporation deems it vital to their success.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Oh, and what is your basis for saying that?

 

It may be unlikely, but let's not pretend that it isn't possible without the right amount of $$$. If projects like ReactOS are possible, coming up with a software implementation for a single API is well within the realm of feasability, especially if a large corporation deems it vital to their success.

1) DirectX would have to be ported to a FreeBSD platform. Looking at years of work and testing.

2) Microsoft would NEVER hand the source code to Sony to port it in the first place.

3) There's more to just "Using DirectX" it just wouldn't work.

 

Thennnn, after all that work. It'd be slow as hell anyway because it would of been a rushed port what doesn't sit align well with the hardware and the OS what sits on-top. So may as well use an OpenGL wrapper, with some other libraries (forget the abbreviations) and then be done with it. Which they have done.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

1) DirectX would have to be ported to a FreeBSD platform. Looking at years of work and testing.

2) Microsoft would NEVER hand the source code to Sony to port it in the first place.

3) There's more to just "Using DirectX" it just wouldn't work.

 

Thennnn, after all that work. It'd be slow as hell anyway because it would of been a rushed port what doesn't sit align well with the hardware and the OS what sits on-top. So may as well use an OpenGL wrapper, with some other libraries (forget the abbreviations) and then be done with it. Which they have done.

 

Whoa now, you've gone and jumped into the deep end.

 

Firstly, it wouldn't be a port since as you stated (???) Microsoft would never yield the source. It would be a from scratch implementation of the Direct3D spec - similar in nature to ReactOS.

 

Now considering Sony would only be implementing Direct3D rather than a partially undocumented entire OS, and would be doing so as a corporation with money to spend - rather than a bunch of FOSS devs in their free time.

 

Yeah, I'm not sure if they'll do it - but it's hardly unattainable like you're trying to claim.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Valve uses a flat structure, Gabe doesn't order people around. Heck, the first and only assignment a new hire gets at Valve is to tell Gabe what to work on. So yeah, if you're really so caught up with attacking character, attack the dudes of the Linux cabal - Phoronix has a few articles on them.

 

Gabe-nonsense aside, now go read the joint nVidia-Valve presentation I linked above. (There link attached to "here")

 

 

Oh, and what is your basis for saying that?

 

It may be unlikely, but let's not pretend that it isn't possible without the right amount of $$$. If projects like ReactOS are possible, coming up with a software implementation for a single API is well within the realm of feasability, especially if a large corporation deems it vital to their success.

Okay, I read it now what? What am I supposed to see?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Okay, I read it now what? What am I supposed to see?

 

Proof that they weren't exclusively using Direct3D 9.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Proof that they weren't exclusively using Direct3D 9.

Yeah, they are talking about converting the different versions of D3D to OpenGL, but different versions of D3D are going to have different levels of performance.

I will give you an example of this. D3D 9 is going to be slower for many reasons than OpenGL 4.x or D3D 11, the reason being is that there are many more draw calls needed by D3D 9 than by D3D 11 or OpenGL. The number of batches of draw calls make a big difference in speed. Also draw calls take much longer in D3D 9. It's not so simple as D3D 11 has been highly optimized.

Think about it this way, why is OpenGL not used in the industry as much. I will give you a guess, poor driver support is a big one. Extensions also can cause problems.

ATI and Nvidia both offer great D3D 11 support, but only Nvidia offers OpenGL drivers at it's best. Think about what Architecture that both Sony's machine and Xbox run on and think about the proper driver support for both. hmmmmmmm

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Yeah, they are talking about converting the different versions of D3D to OpenGL, but different versions of D3D are going to have different levels of performance.

I will give you an example of this. D3D 9 is going to be slower for many reasons than OpenGL 4.x or D3D 11, the reason being is that there are many more draw calls needed by D3D 9 than by D3D 11 or OpenGL. The number of batches of draw calls make a big difference in speed. Also draw calls take much longer in D3D 9. It's not so simple as D3D 11 has been highly optimized.

Think about it this way, why is OpenGL not used in the industry as much. I will give you a guess, poor driver support is a big one. Extensions also can cause problems.

ATI and Nvidia both offer great D3D 11 support, but only Nvidia offers OpenGL drivers at it's best. Think about what Architecture that both Sony's machine and Xbox run on and think about the proper driver support for both. hmmmmmmm

 

Not sure why you felt the need to state the obvious there, the point was that Valve do have D3D10/11 codepaths internally even if public releases do not. Your accusation was that they were purely working with D3D9, and the presentation proves otherwise. Ironically enough, the presentation also shows that with togl a larger share of the market is capable of running at the D3D10 API level.

 

Valve have nothing to gain by fudging the numbers here - Microsoft are the only party that could stand to gain something from such kinds of action (Which they did during Vista's dev) due to the subsequent lockin. Making intellectually dishonest comparisons hurts their efforts just as much.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Not sure why you felt the need to state the obvious there, the point was that Valve do have D3D10/11 codepaths internally even if public releases do not. Your accusation was that they were purely working with D3D9, and the presentation proves otherwise. Ironically enough, the presentation also shows that with togl a larger share of the market is capable of running at the D3D10 API level.

 

Valve have nothing to gain by fudging the numbers here - Microsoft are the only party that could stand to gain something from such kinds of action (Which they did during Vista's dev) due to the subsequent lockin. Making intellectually dishonest comparisons hurts their efforts just as much.

I was talking about the Nvidia document. It simply did not say nothing about the performance of D3D 11. You are making something out to be nothing. What the document was about was converting different versions of D3d over to OpenGL and still keeping up performance. It had nothing to do with the performance of D3D 11 specifically. I have stated before that D3D 9 is slow, but D3D 11 is like a completely different API, it's been rewritten from the ground up as are the drivers, that was why D3D 10 was slow because they had to redo the drivers in the user space instead of having 100 percent in the OS Kernel.

It's not about trying to improve speed on D3D 11, it's that your OpenGL is faster than D3D 11 is FUD at best. You say that the stuff that I mentioned was obvious, yet you never addressed any of it. It's not obvious at all. In fact you never even mentioned it or took it into account, which is huge. Sorry, dude I can't buy what you are selling.

Nobody at Microsoft is trying to hide anything, you are just making up something that doesn't exist. You are trying to fix problems that are not there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Some of you make extremely good points, you just can't seem to do so in a civil manner.

 

Thread Closed

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.