Jump to content

  • Log In with Google      Sign In   
  • Create Account

Banner advertising on our site currently available from just $5!


1. Learn about the promo. 2. Sign up for GDNet+. 3. Set up your advert!


DirectX 12 Announced


Old topic!
Guest, the last post of this topic is over 60 days old and at this point you may not reply in this topic. If you wish to continue this conversation start a new topic.

  • You cannot reply to this topic
79 replies to this topic

#1 imoogiBG   Members   -  Reputation: 1539

Like
6Likes
Like

Posted 06 March 2014 - 07:05 AM

http://blogs.msdn.com/b/directx/p/directx12.aspx

 

Just wanted to share it with you guys. 

Share your expectations!

 

EDIT :

Please DO NOT give me upvotes for that topic...


Edited by imoogiBG, 06 March 2014 - 12:43 PM.


Sponsor:

#2 noatom   Members   -  Reputation: 797

Like
0Likes
Like

Posted 06 March 2014 - 07:23 AM

DirectX 12 @DirectX12 Follow

Rumors of our demise have been greatly exaggerated... #DirectX12 is coming to #GDC http://aka.ms/directx12

 

That's the tweet.

 

Anyway,anyone else excited to see what new features dx 12 will pack?

 



#3 TheChubu   Crossbones+   -  Reputation: 6398

Like
0Likes
Like

Posted 06 March 2014 - 07:23 AM

Qualcomm? Interesting. DX12 for Windows RT devices I guess...


"I AM ZE EMPRAH OPENGL 3.3 THE CORE, I DEMAND FROM THEE ZE SHADERZ AND MATRIXEZ"

 

My journals: dustArtemis ECS framework and Making a Terrain Generator


#4 mark ds   Members   -  Reputation: 1654

Like
0Likes
Like

Posted 06 March 2014 - 08:40 AM

"For nearly 20 years, DirectX has been the platform used by game developer's to create the fastest, most visually impressive games on the planet. However, you asked us to do more. You asked us to bring you even closer to the metal and to do so on an unparalleled assortment of hardware."

 

 

(my highlights added for clarity)

 

Maybe it's taking ideas from AMD's Mantle (or developed alongside...) to give better direct access to the hardware more akin to consoles.

 

Edit: and possibly a Windows 9 exclusive?


Edited by mark ds, 06 March 2014 - 08:42 AM.


#5 ambershee   Members   -  Reputation: 528

Like
0Likes
Like

Posted 06 March 2014 - 09:05 AM

Not massively, but I am curious. With current console hardware pegged to Dx11, Dx12 is likely to go the same way as Dx10 - largely ignored.



#6 SymLinked   Members   -  Reputation: 938

Like
0Likes
Like

Posted 06 March 2014 - 09:17 AM

Requires an OS upgrade? I'll pass.



#7 Nathan2222_old   Members   -  Reputation: -400

Like
0Likes
Like

Posted 06 March 2014 - 10:43 AM

Amazing! :)

UNREAL ENGINE 4:
Total LOC: ~3M Lines
Total Languages: ~32
smile.png
--
GREAT QUOTES:
I can do ALL things through Christ - Jesus Christ
--
Logic will get you from A-Z, imagination gets you everywhere - Albert Einstein
--
The problems of the world cannot be solved by skeptics or cynics whose horizons are limited by the obvious realities. - John F. Kennedy


#8 frob   Moderators   -  Reputation: 28695

Like
1Likes
Like

Posted 06 March 2014 - 10:44 AM

Zero surprise.

 

MS announced years ago that DirectX was no longer a secondary component and had been integrated to the Windows API. They started doing it with Vista back in 2006 (8 years ago). When people kept asking when the next release would be they more formally announced the policy change about 4 years ago because some people didn't seem to see they were tying it to the SDK releases.

 

With the SDK update scheduled for April, having a DX announcement in March feels like non-news. Maybe if they were announcing a back-port to all the old supported versions of Windows it would be news, but given their recent stance I seriously doubt it is anything more than an announcement that 12 is the new version number.


Edited by frob, 06 March 2014 - 10:45 AM.

Check out my book, Game Development with Unity, aimed at beginners who want to build fun games fast.

Also check out my personal website at bryanwagstaff.com, where I write about assorted stuff.


#9 DwarvesH   Members   -  Reputation: 482

Like
2Likes
Like

Posted 06 March 2014 - 11:02 AM

 

Maybe it's taking ideas from AMD's Mantle (or developed alongside...) to give better direct access to the hardware more akin to consoles.

 

Edit: and possibly a Windows 9 exclusive?

 

 

Yeah, that's my guess too. Looking at the history of DirectX from 9 to 11 that would be a likely direction for them. This applies for both performance and control and exclusivity

 

But if by some miracle they make the new DirectX available under Windows 7 and up, I will officially bury the hatchet, forget my recent animosity gained towards Microsoft and they will also acquire a huge buffer of good will, enough for one Microsoft employee to shit weekly on my doorstep for at least a year.



#10 Ravyne   GDNet+   -  Reputation: 10553

Like
0Likes
Like

Posted 06 March 2014 - 12:56 PM

Not massively, but I am curious. With current console hardware pegged to Dx11, Dx12 is likely to go the same way as Dx10 - largely ignored.

 

At least the Xbox One (and presumably PS4), goes beyond D3D 11.1, perhaps even 11.2 -- how much further is the stuff of NDAs, but it could be entirely possible that DX12 doesn't introduce new required hardware features -- it could just be a more-efficient API for accessing the existing features, and with possibly some additional non-required features. They did away with CAPS bits, but there are still mechanisms for having optional features.

 

At any rate, OS support will end up being the driving/detracting factor anyhow, more-so than whether the console supports it.


throw table_exception("(ノ ゜Д゜)ノ ︵ ┻━┻");


#11 Promit   Moderators   -  Reputation: 9546

Like
0Likes
Like

Posted 06 March 2014 - 01:53 PM

I for one am not holding my breath for Win7 support, that's for sure.



#12 Migi0027 (肉コーダ)   Crossbones+   -  Reputation: 3288

Like
0Likes
Like

Posted 06 March 2014 - 03:20 PM

AMD: "There will be no Directx 12" ( Actual statement )

 

IMHO, there is. ( I hope ) tongue.png

 

EDIT: It seems like AMD is a sponsor...


Edited by Migi0027, 06 March 2014 - 03:21 PM.

FastCall22: "I want to make the distinction that my laptop is a whore-box that connects to different network"

Blog about... stuff (GDNet, WordPress): www.gamedev.net/blog/1882-the-cuboid-zone/cuboidzone.wordpress.com/


#13 Aardvajk   Crossbones+   -  Reputation: 8453

Like
1Likes
Like

Posted 06 March 2014 - 03:25 PM

Slightly off-topic, but something I'm confused about with AMD Mantle - how can they give you this "closer to the metal" API without requiring you to write code specific for different hardware? I've read a lot of hype about Mantle, mainly from AMD, but I don't quite get how it can outperform, say, DX, while maintaining the same level of abstraction.

 

Just wondered what people's thoughts/knowledge on this subject were?



#14 DwarvesH   Members   -  Reputation: 482

Like
0Likes
Like

Posted 06 March 2014 - 04:22 PM

I saw an over 1 hour long talk and read some materials and that lead me to believe that the level of abstraction will be lowered, except for the creation of resources, which seems to be higher. You'll request more general resources and the entire validation is done a creation time and the result uploaded to the GPU, but then have finer control on what to do with them. But I think that Mantle will have a much higher batch count at that's about for straight advantages. Maybe some quality of life. I also believe that raw Mantle code will be longer that the equivalent DirectX. Anyway, I can't wait to try it out. Need to get my hands on an AMD GPU first.



#15 Mona2000   Members   -  Reputation: 771

Like
0Likes
Like

Posted 06 March 2014 - 04:42 PM

I've read a lot of hype about Mantle, mainly from AMD, but I don't quite get how it can outperform, say, DX, while maintaining the same level of abstraction.

It doesn't maintain the same level of abstraction.



#16 noatom   Members   -  Reputation: 797

Like
0Likes
Like

Posted 06 March 2014 - 06:01 PM

Every single time a new iteration of dx was announced,everybody was complaining about os support....



#17 mhagain   Crossbones+   -  Reputation: 9458

Like
0Likes
Like

Posted 06 March 2014 - 06:19 PM

I don't care much any more.

 

I loved Direct3D, I adored the fact that we had a great API with fantastic driver and tool support.  Microsoft wrecked that.

 

The artificial tying of D3D versions to Windows OS versions for marketing rather than technical reasons destroyed it.  The breaking changes destroyed it.  The nosedive in documentation quality destroyed it.

 

Start by reversing the Windows OS version dependency.  Give us D3D12 on Windows 7 with a simple upgrade that doesn't break other stuff.  Then I'll start getting excited.  But right now there's too much damage to be undone.


It appears that the gentleman thought C++ was extremely difficult and he was overjoyed that the machine was absorbing it; he understood that good C++ is difficult but the best C++ is well-nigh unintelligible.


#18 Mona2000   Members   -  Reputation: 771

Like
0Likes
Like

Posted 06 March 2014 - 07:08 PM

Driver model changes are a marketing reason? Huh, you learn something new every day.



#19 Hodgman   Moderators   -  Reputation: 38432

Like
0Likes
Like

Posted 06 March 2014 - 08:17 PM

[I merged the two D3D12 threads, hopefully that hasn't thrown post ordering too much out of whack]
 



At least the Xbox One (and presumably PS4), goes beyond D3D 11.1, perhaps even 11.2

I've read other reports that say that the Xbone provides a superset of the D3D11.1 feature-set, and the the PS4 provides a superset of the D3D11.2 feature-set.
 
Unfortunately NDAs prevent confirming or denying such statements though... wink.png

it could be entirely possible that DX12 doesn't introduce new required hardware features -- it could just be a more-efficient API for accessing the existing features

If it's D3D11.2, with some of the unnecessary abstraction cut away, with Windows 7 support... then that would be about the best I could hope for biggrin.png
 

with AMD Mantle - how can they give you this "closer to the metal" API without requiring you to write code specific for different hardware? I've read a lot of hype about Mantle, mainly from AMD, but I don't quite get how it can outperform, say, DX, while maintaining the same level of abstraction.

D3D/GL both provide an unecessary amount of abstraction. Largely around command-buffer generation, submission of work to the GPU's front-end, and management of "video memory".
 
We've all got this idea that we've got to give buffers to the API, and have it schedule an "upload" to the GPU at some point. For the longest time though, things haven't really worked that way. The OS can map device-memory into a processes address space -- 0x12345678 might be a pointer you get back from malloc that's stored in main/system RAM, and 0x12349876 might be an address inside the GPU's RAM. If your CPU-side code tries to write to that address, you'll be sending data across the bus and into the GPU.
A GPU resource, like a texture for example, is just a very small header (e.g. a few in32's) and a pointer to the data (which may or may not be in vram). Those two things are all you really need to pass to the API. The API also doesn't need a "CreateTexture" function at all; it just needs malloc, and a function to initialize your header structures. Given that kind of API, all the resource management falls into the hands of the engine, rather than the driver's best guesses.
 

Driver model changes are a marketing reason? Huh, you learn something new every day.

XP->Vista introduced a new driver model. D3D10/11 still could've been implemented for XP if they cared about supporting it though... e.g. GL4 exposes all the D11 functionality on XP...

 

More recently: There's no reason to restrict the D3D11.1 update to Windows 8!


Edited by Hodgman, 06 March 2014 - 08:40 PM.


#20 Mona2000   Members   -  Reputation: 771

Like
0Likes
Like

Posted 06 March 2014 - 08:46 PM

D3D/GL both provide an unecessary amount of abstraction. Largely around command-buffer generation, submission of work to the GPU's front-end, and management of "video memory".

There's nothing wrong with abstraction, the problem is the lack of a way to go around it for those who really know what they're doing.

 

XP->Vista introduced a new driver model. D3D10/11 still could've been implemented for XP if they cared about supporting it though... e.g. GL4 exposes all the D11 functionality on XP...

I'm sure it could have been, but there's a lot more than marketing going on there. Agree on 11.1 restrictions being a bit silly, even if it's not just marketing either (new WDDM and DXGI versions).


Edited by Mona2000, 06 March 2014 - 08:49 PM.





Old topic!
Guest, the last post of this topic is over 60 days old and at this point you may not reply in this topic. If you wish to continue this conversation start a new topic.



PARTNERS