Microsoft DirectX 10.1 Version – Final Update for DirectX 10

Microsoft DirectX version 10.1 is projected to be the last and final update to the DirectX 10 application programming interface (API), the head of developer relations of ATI, graphics product group of Advanced Micro Devices, recently said. While Microsoft DirectX 9 had several shader models, including versions 2.0, 2.0a, 2.0b and 3.0, the DirectX 10 will exist in two versions, 10.0 and 10.1, said Richard Huddy, worldwide developer relations manager of AMD's graphics product group at a conference recently.

The DirectX 10.1 is a relatively minor superset of DirectX 10, but it will last for quite a time, unlike the 2.0a or 2.0b versions of shader model 2.0 that were promoted back in 2003 and 2004 by Nvidia and ATI, which did not become popular due to availability of shader model 3.0. If Microsoft does not have plans to develop its DirectX 10 further and will concentrate on the DirectX 11 instead, developers of graphics processing units (GPUs) will not need to add any new functionality to their products and will therefore have to focus on performance, rather than on innovation of functionality.

View: The full story @ Xbit-Labs

Report a problem with article
Previous Story

Security giants fail VB100 virus test

Next Story

First In-game Screenshot of Star Trek Online

47 Comments

Commenting is disabled on this article.

i rember playing dx9 games on my radeon 9700pro the day it came out and everythign was as slow as crap same thing has happened with dx10 give it time everything will pan out

Every directX starts off badly, saying its a complete flop your an idiot. Look at the way DX9 started, look at it now. Games will look totally different in probably a year's time. Its just a waiting game for consumers.

Gabe3 said,
Every directX starts off badly, saying its a complete flop your an idiot. Look at the way DX9 started, look at it now. Games will look totally different in probably a year's time. Its just a waiting game for consumers.

in addition to that, everyone saying vista is a flop...look back 6 years or so to when xp came out...it was also a crap os...but now 2 SP's (with a 3rd on the way) later, its pretty rock stable....vista will be the same after SP1....2...etc

I challenge all you crap talkers to code a better OS yourselves.

Does anyone not read the specs? DX10.1 is SUPPOSED to have DX Sound support back in for Vista....this alone is HUGE since MS stupidly pulled it from 10.0. At least if it's a flop Graphics wise then it will make me happy for it having DX Sound support.

DX9 Games are looking sweet right now...Gears of War, UT3 for example. DX10 will catch up soon.

Ravensky said,
Does anyone not read the specs? DX10.1 is SUPPOSED to have DX Sound support back in for Vista....this alone is HUGE since MS stupidly pulled it from 10.0. At least if it's a flop Graphics wise then it will make me happy for it having DX Sound support.

DX9 Games are looking sweet right now...Gears of War, UT3 for example. DX10 will catch up soon.

They're not adding DirectSound back, they're adding in XAudio (that should be the name) It's the same audio used on the 360 and already being used by anyone with the XNA toolkit etc.

GP007 said,

They're not adding DirectSound back, they're adding in XAudio (that should be the name) It's the same audio used on the 360 and already being used by anyone with the XNA toolkit etc.

so sound hardware acceleration will be returning with that? EAX and 3d surround

Ravensky said,
Does anyone not read the specs? DX10.1 is SUPPOSED to have DX Sound support back in for Vista....this alone is HUGE since MS stupidly pulled it from 10.0.

It wasen't "stupidly" at all. DirectSound was pulled from the kernel and this is a GOOD thing. It means when your soundcard crashes it does'nt take the rest of the computer with it.
Vista supports directsound now, just in software. And games that use OpenAL have full hardware support just as before. One can also use alchemy to get hardware directsound back in some games.

This was a change that needed to be made and game developers will just have to use OpenAL which is a very good thing.

X'tyfe said,

so sound hardware acceleration will be returning with that? EAX and 3d surround :D

Only a handful of audio card manufacturers used hardware acceleration, and you can balance the ones that used it properly on one finger. (Hint: It's not Creative Labs) XAudio works great for 3D sound and it's for both XP and Vista versions of DirectX.

GreyWolfSC said,

Only a handful of audio card manufacturers used hardware acceleration, and you can balance the ones that used it properly on one finger. (Hint: It's not Creative Labs) XAudio works great for 3D sound and it's for both XP and Vista versions of DirectX.

my question was for games that used the old method that doesnt work in vista atm
will they work with this XAudio?

X'tyfe said,

my question was for games that used the old method that doesnt work in vista atm
will they work with this XAudio?

No, but they still work with DirectSound, just not with 3D audio. XAudio is a new API.

Developers are still learning how to code for it. Drivers are still being optimized. Also there are really no DX10 pure games. Everything is a DX9 game with some stuff tacked on as an after thought. Everything will bet better. I think people have had DX9 for so long they forget it was the same thing when it came out. In addition we also have a new driver model and DX10 is new from the ground up.

archer75 said,
Developers are still learning how to code for it. Drivers are still being optimized. Also there are really no DX10 pure games. Everything is a DX9 game with some stuff tacked on as an after thought. Everything will bet better. I think people have had DX9 for so long they forget it was the same thing when it came out. In addition we also have a new driver model and DX10 is new from the ground up.

Finally someone else that has some logic. DX9 games didn't just sprout out overnight and give us great DX8 beating performence either. Give the game devs time, and let nVidia/ATi optimise their drivers for the new driver model in Vista. A new API and a new Driver model are both things that will take time to show what they can really do.

X'tyfe said,
directx10 was indeed a flop

but its not totally at fault, as it came with vista
which contributed to this

Thanks for the trollish opinion. The only problem I have with Vista is comments like yours. The OS itself is fine.

GreyWolfSC said,
Thanks for the trollish opinion. The only problem I have with Vista is comments like yours. The OS itself is fine.

care to explain then how you have it so good?

many people here im sure would like to know your secret

X'tyfe said,

care to explain then how you have it so good?

many people here im sure would like to know your secret


It works perfectly.

If you install ****ty drivers, chinese hardware and don't know **** about computers, then yes you are a idiot and yes Vista still works perfect.

and1direct said,

It works perfectly.

If you install ****ty drivers, chinese hardware and don't know **** about computers, then yes you are a idiot and yes Vista still works perfect.

Thank you! That's basically what I was going to say.

X'tyfe said,

care to explain then how you have it so good?

many people here im sure would like to know your secret

Vista works great for me, the only problem I'm experiencing is choppy audio.

GreyWolfSC said,

Thank you! That's basically what I was going to say.

I'm sorry but if you mean to tell me you need to use the best quality hardware and have expertise in the computing industry for an operating system not to be ****ty then I think you need to step back and take some perspective. That's pretty much the definition of a ****ty operating system -- unless they marketed it for the IT professional, and I seem to recall the reverse.

Don''t get me wrong; I don't really have any serious issues with Vista but that was probably the dumbest comment you could make. Actually, the only thing I can think that comment indicated was that you really have no clue...

Pewpew12 said,

I'm sorry but if you mean to tell me you need to use the best quality hardware and have expertise in the computing industry for an operating system not to be ****ty then I think you need to step back and take some perspective. That's pretty much the definition of a ****ty operating system -- unless they marketed it for the IT professional, and I seem to recall the reverse.

Don''t get me wrong; I don't really have any serious issues with Vista but that was probably the dumbest comment you could make. Actually, the only thing I can think that comment indicated was that you really have no clue...

Attacks aren't necessary. I don't see why you think it's unrealistic to use supported hardware with the recommended requirements. It was easy to get my computer to run Vista. I have Intel motherboard, reliable RAM, nVidia reference board, a DVD drive and a decent hard drive. I tossed my Audigy card because Creative Labs doesn't know how to write drivers and use on-board Realtek HD audio. The OS runs just fine for me. No secrets. What clue am I missing?

GreyWolfSC said,

Attacks aren't necessary. I don't see why you think it's unrealistic to use supported hardware with the recommended requirements. It was easy to get my computer to run Vista. I have Intel motherboard, reliable RAM, nVidia reference board, a DVD drive and a decent hard drive. I tossed my Audigy card because Creative Labs doesn't know how to write drivers and use on-board Realtek HD audio. The OS runs just fine for me. No secrets. What clue am I missing?

The average user wouldn't know what an nVidia reference board is. They wouldn't know what defines reliable memory. They wouldn't know that CL can't write drivers to save their lives.

The clue your missing is what defines a 'good operating system'. Something that is user friendly and works out of the box for the majority of hardware on it's supported list is a big step forward; something Vista is definitely lacking. My main problem is with the "dont know **** about computers" comment -- can he be serious? You need to 'know **** about computers and not be an idiot' to get effective use of an operating system? Get serious.

DON'T BELIEVE THIS FOR 1 SECOND. NOTICE:

Quote - Article!
Microsoft DirectX version 10.1 is projected to be the last and final update to the DirectX 10 application programming interface (API), the head of developer relations of ATI ... recently said.

Microsoft is designing DirectX, not AMD or Nvidia or Intel or anyone else. I wouldn't trust this enough to buy the next DX 10.1 card that comes out. These video card manufacturers could easily allow users to upgrade their video cards for each new DX revision. Be Careful if you're going to believe this article.

What's the problem anyway? DirectX 10 will be forwards compatible with DirectX 10.1 except for the pretty rare changes compared to what came with DX10 itself.

As for the progression... Well, there's always new versions on the horizon. This is the field of computer tech, after all.

Not true kaiwai, translation layers on vista are only a fallback if the graphics card does not have opengl drivers (more specifically, an opengl icd). This only happened in the early months of vista when ati and nvidia were slow to get opengl drivers out the door

Vista's not the fault for non-DX10 games, it's the decision by Microsoft not to provide XP with DX10 that has killed development. If only OpenGL 3.0 could use the opportunity to get back in the game.

Budious said,
Vista's not the fault for non-DX10 games, it's the decision by Microsoft not to provide XP with DX10 that has killed development. If only OpenGL 3.0 could use the opportunity to get back in the game.

Unfortunately on Windows its a non-go; they would be forced to use a translation layer between DX and OpenGL 3.0.

With that being said, I'm surprised they haven't done more to get people to use their console - include a free keyboard and mouse, and get more games on there.

kaiwai said,

Unfortunately on Windows its a non-go; they would be forced to use a translation layer between DX and OpenGL 3.0.

With that being said, I'm surprised they haven't done more to get people to use their console - include a free keyboard and mouse, and get more games on there.

This is a common misunderstanding. OpenGL's performance is the same on Vista as DirectX's performance.

Kushan said,

This is a common misunderstanding. OpenGL's performance is the same on Vista as DirectX's performance.

OpenGL on Windows Vista has go to through a translation layer; so essentially OpenGL API is recreated by creating a wrapper around the DirectX API - even Microsoft admitted that there will be a performance penalty because of that design decision.

kaiwai said,
OpenGL on Windows Vista has go to through a translation layer; so essentially OpenGL API is recreated by creating a wrapper around the DirectX API - even Microsoft admitted that there will be a performance penalty because of that design decision.

No, Microsoft scrapped that idea long ago. OpenGL in Vista probably works even better than in XP. OpenGL 3.0 fully supports DX10 hardware effects (Shader 4.0) and acceleration. Right now OpenGL 2.1 already supports 8x00 cards, but only through Nvidia's extensions, which ATI won't officially support. So no games can require those extensions.

http://www.opengl.org/pipeline/article/vol003_9/

Thank god!

Releasing 2 major versions of DX10 in a year was a dumb idea. Now that the developers of hardware, games etc, know what they're programming for for the next x years, maybe we'll start to see some games rolling out for it that actually give us a reason to upgrade!

Developers don't develop for vista cause there are a lot more xp users. We are not interested in programming for a 5% of clients. That's plain stupid from a comercial POV

Eredain said,
Developers don't develop for vista cause there are a lot more xp users. We are not interested in programming for a 5% of clients. That's plain stupid from a comercial POV

XP won't last forever. Even if Vista fails completely, Microsoft will release a new version in a couple years that will be better, and people will upgrade. Developing solely for a 6-year-old platform is idiotic if you expect to sell any of your product in a year. Besides, a lot of gamers ARE using Vista, without any problems. You just don't hear about them because they have nothing to complain about (I'm one of them).

El Sid said,
Thank god!

Releasing 2 major versions of DX10 in a year was a dumb idea.


DX10.1 is not a major update; it's mostly just stricter graphics card specs.

DX10.1 is not a major update; it's mostly just stricter graphics card specs.

Yes, adding 0.1 overstates what it does, really should be called 10.01 or something. Most of the changes are about making life for programmers easier (stricter standards, removed obsolete stuff etc.), gamers won't directly see much benefit.

Jugalator said,

DX10.1 is not a major update; it's mostly just stricter graphics card specs.

It has a few minor gfx updates, all shader model 4.1 stuff, but it's there. The big change is in AA and the big one is adding in XAudio. But everyone forgets about the Audio news.

Swordnyx said,

lol thats BS.. Did you even see the differences? Do you play any games?


Do you?

This is just one of many reports of its kind:
http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=3029

I have first-hand experience from the performance myself... Most games, including DX10 games released just a month ago, seem to suffer from anywhere between 20-50% performance degradation. That's MASSIVE. For not the godly graphics one might expect for that penalty. I've played games in 35-40 fps in DX9 mode, and got 15-20 fps when moving to DX10... How can one not call that a flop? Sure, I'm not on a Geforce 8800GTX, but I am on a Core 2 Duo E6660 w/ 8800GTS 640 MB. I thought it would keep up a little bit better than it have. There hasn't been a single DX10 game that has ran well on this platform with respectable settings on. You often end up having to play around with disabling AA and things like that. Or better yet, turn to DX9 mode. Your performance can skyrocket from 25 to 50 fps average.

I also put absolutely no faith in that this will magically improve soon. The NVIDIA drivers haven't seen major DX10 improvements in quite some time (around early 2007) besides when there's been blatant bugs, and the game devs obviously seem to put up with the bad performance. And DirectX 10.1 will be a very minor update to DX10. The new revision will not include speed improvements.

I think the only way out of this is things like the Geforce 9 generation. More horsepower. I don't think anything else will help. Waiting months for game "maturity", driver "maturity", it's all just wishful thinking and unicorns. Not that new graphics cards will help Geforce 8 owners trying to play games in high resolutions on playable frame rates, having expected to be able to do so since they could in DirectX 9. Of all things, Microsoft's claims that DX10 would *improve* performance particularly reeks of bull manure.

Tantawi said,
Yes it's, sadly.

You realise that it typically takes developers about 2 years before they begin to really utilise a new version of the API that's backwards compattible ANYWAY? How long do you think it'll take before they migrate to one that isn't?

Jugalator said,

Do you?

This is just one of many reports of its kind:
http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=3029

I have first-hand experience from the performance myself... Most games, including DX10 games released just a month ago, seem to suffer from anywhere between 20-50% performance degradation. That's MASSIVE. For not the godly graphics one might expect for that penalty. I've played games in 35-40 fps in DX9 mode, and got 15-20 fps when moving to DX10... How can one not call that a flop? Sure, I'm not on a Geforce 8800GTX, but I am on a Core 2 Duo E6660 w/ 8800GTS 640 MB. I thought it would keep up a little bit better than it have. There hasn't been a single DX10 game that has ran well on this platform with respectable settings on. You often end up having to play around with disabling AA and things like that. Or better yet, turn to DX9 mode. Your performance can skyrocket from 25 to 50 fps average.

I also put absolutely no faith in that this will magically improve soon. The NVIDIA drivers haven't seen major DX10 improvements in quite some time (around early 2007) besides when there's been blatant bugs, and the game devs obviously seem to put up with the bad performance. And DirectX 10.1 will be a very minor update to DX10. The new revision will not include speed improvements.

I think the only way out of this is things like the Geforce 9 generation. More horsepower. I don't think anything else will help. Waiting months for game "maturity", driver "maturity", it's all just wishful thinking and unicorns. Not that new graphics cards will help Geforce 8 owners trying to play games in high resolutions on playable frame rates, having expected to be able to do so since they could in DirectX 9. Of all things, Microsoft's claims that DX10 would *improve* performance particularly reeks of bull manure.

First off, there are no full DX10 only games out. Even Crysis is still DX9 mostly, with some minor DX10 lighting tricks to make outdoors look better. DX9 drivers are how old now? 4-5, 6 years? And you wanna compare them to half a year old Vista drivers that have to deal with a whole new driver model to show performance gains. The slowdown isn't in the DX10 API, wait for a full 100% DX10 ONLY game and then we can see how performance is. Games that are DX9 and just tack on a minor DX10 mode for the sake of marketing it doesn't mean jack at this point. It's the whole Shader model 2.0 vs 3.0 debate back in 2003 between nVidia and ATi all over again.

You realise that it typically takes developers about 2 years before they begin to really utilise a new version of the API that's backwards compattible ANYWAY? How long do you think it'll take before they migrate to one that isn't?

Exactly.

Jugalator said,

Do you?

This is just one of many reports of its kind:
http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=3029

I have first-hand experience from the performance myself... Most games, including DX10 games released just a month ago, seem to suffer from anywhere between 20-50% performance degradation. That's MASSIVE. For not the godly graphics one might expect for that penalty. I've played games in 35-40 fps in DX9 mode, and got 15-20 fps when moving to DX10... How can one not call that a flop? Sure, I'm not on a Geforce 8800GTX, but I am on a Core 2 Duo E6660 w/ 8800GTS 640 MB. I thought it would keep up a little bit better than it have. There hasn't been a single DX10 game that has ran well on this platform with respectable settings on. You often end up having to play around with disabling AA and things like that. Or better yet, turn to DX9 mode. Your performance can skyrocket from 25 to 50 fps average.

I also put absolutely no faith in that this will magically improve soon. The NVIDIA drivers haven't seen major DX10 improvements in quite some time (around early 2007) besides when there's been blatant bugs, and the game devs obviously seem to put up with the bad performance. And DirectX 10.1 will be a very minor update to DX10. The new revision will not include speed improvements.

I think the only way out of this is things like the Geforce 9 generation. More horsepower. I don't think anything else will help. Waiting months for game "maturity", driver "maturity", it's all just wishful thinking and unicorns. Not that new graphics cards will help Geforce 8 owners trying to play games in high resolutions on playable frame rates, having expected to be able to do so since they could in DirectX 9. Of all things, Microsoft's claims that DX10 would *improve* performance particularly reeks of bull manure.

Sorry, but I fully expect an established 3D game developer to be able to optimize their code and polygon count to make it run decently on affordable hardware. The fact is that a lot of games are getting dumped on the market with a sorry excuse for quality assurance testing and that's not the fault of the operating system, game API or the hardware manufacturer.

GreyWolfSC said,

Sorry, but I fully expect an established 3D game developer to be able to optimize their code and polygon count to make it run decently on affordable hardware. The fact is that a lot of games are getting dumped on the market with a sorry excuse for quality assurance testing and that's not the fault of the operating system, game API or the hardware manufacturer.

this is more true then people think, and truly truly sad

Swordnyx said,

lol thats BS.. Did you even see the differences? Do you play any games?

I have seen differences that are not worth a $200 premium.

I don't blame Microsoft for this, I blame Nvidia. What they're doing with the 8x00 series is extortion. Once the fab is set up, it costs them LESS to produce a G92 core than earlier cores because of the die shrink. Don't think that just because a core is more complex, it is more expensive. Why do you think 65nm Core 2 Duos are so cheap and 45nm Penryns are even cheaper?

I hope Nvidia gets a visit from the FTC for price fixing.