So are you excited about DirectX 12?
Does the promise of better efficiency, reduced CPU load and
new features make you want to run out and scoop up that new Nvidia Titan Black
edition in anticipation of its release...someday. You do know you'll have to wait till holiday
2015...maybe. Microsoft is saying that 50%
of current hardware will be able to take advantage of it. They don't mention which 50%, however...
Maybe AMD's "Mantle"
is more your speed which pretty much offers the same thing so long as you have
the hardware to support it. If you haven't bought an AMD GPU in the past 2
years you're pretty much out of luck.
Only AMD 7000 series or above built with their proprietary GCN (Graphics
Core Next) architecture need apply.
At least Mantle is available now while DirectX 12 is still
vaporware. Assuming you meet all the
prerequisites you can try it out on Battlefield
4 and Thief. Reviewers are claiming marked
improvements using Mantle although they point out that it's not consistent
across all PC's.
Performance claims don't hold much water, however, as
Battlefield 4's continuing issues make any
claimed benefit suspect. Anyone
who regularly plays it knows that keeping it running more than 5 minutes
without crashing is an accomplishment at this point. Don't even get me started on the whole Netcode thing...
Here's the rub...
I could honestly care less...
How many times in the past decade have we been forced to
throw out perfectly good hardware because a highly anticipated game requires an
API our hardware doesn't support. Worse,
aside from efficiency improvements (hmm,
sounds familiar) we never really saw much of an improvement in gaming. The first time I got bit was the release of
Battlefield 2. That game required shader
model 3.0 meaning my "old" card with shader model 2.0 was destined
for the bin.
Did Battlefield 2 really look that much better than
Battlefield 1942? Let's be honest, it
didn't but it marked the beginning of the upgrade treadmill for me and
thousands of others. Hundreds of dollars
thrown to the wind for a piece of $40 software we'd tire of in a few months. A practice repeated at least half a dozen
times.
You have to remember that it wasn't always this way. Back in the 90's, DirectX was just one of a
handful of API's used for gaming. It was
only the rise of Windows (specifically
Windows 95) that pushed it to the forefront.
Veteran gamers remember the days of DOS when OpenGL and Dos4GW were the
foundation of 3D gaming. 3DFx was the
enthusiasts' choice creating now commonplace features like SLI and a graphics
API that allowed direct access (via Glide)
to special hardware functionality.
While technically superior compared to the early days of
DirectX and OpenGL the ability to program to an interface instead of
proprietary hardware was a boon for game developers. Soon GPU vendors found themselves entirely
reliant on Microsoft's DirectX specification.
Even if they could do better they were hamstrung by what had become an
industry standard.
So everything old is indeed new again. One of the promises of both Mantle and
DirectX 12 is closer if not direct access to GPU hardware. It's an old idea. Get the middleman out of the way and
performance will naturally increase.
Except..
We're right back where we started with proprietary
hardware. It's 3DFx all over again. DirectX is currently a universal API that any
GPU can use so long as it supports its basic feature set. With DirectX 12
squarely aimed at countering Mantle (or
perhaps AMD forcing Microsoft's hand) we're rapidly approaching the resurgence
of proprietary hardware standards. This
time around, however, it's Microsoft and to a lesser degree AMD calling the
shots.
Even more interesting is how much really isn't happening with all these purported
"advancements."
Early reviews
of Mantle show that while some improvement is seen with enthusiast grade
graphics hardware the real story is in the more pedestrian examples. Both Mantle and the upcoming DirectX 12 are
designed to take advantage of current generation graphics hardware. That means getting more cozy with the graphics
hardware and getting the rest of the system out of the equation as much as
possible. The result lightens the load
on your system's CPU thus freeing resources and eliminating possible CPU
bottlenecking.
So is it really any surprise that cheap video cards benefit? It isn't about any great advance in API
development. It's a page taken from the
days of 3DFx when the best performance came from leveraging the hardware and
getting clutter out of the way.
Great but let's not forget that Microsoft caused the problem
in the first place. They made
development easier but stuck a layer of abstraction between the game and the
hardware. A trade-off to ensure that
games continued to be developed for the platform regardless of how flawed the
end result.
It's not just about performance either. Anyone who plays online knows that cheating
is a persistent problem and with DirectX hacks are easy. If you have a chunky API between the player
and the game you have plenty of opportunity to exploit the condition.
Take for example a common hack in FPS games known as the
"Wall Hack" What makes it
possible is that DirectX requires all the information about an active game to
be available all the time whether its local or online. Hack into the area of memory containing
current player locations and you can literally see and maybe even shoot through
walls.
There's not a lot that can be done about it either. If the developer cares at all they may issue
a patch but everything they do is after the fact. The sin can't be prevented only addressed
when committed. This is where utility
trumps function and gaming has suffered for it.
Let's also not forget about Microsoft's shady history with
DirectX...
DirectX 11 was introduced in 2009 and with only marginal
changes has remained largely untouched.
Meaning graphics vendors will have waited 7 years before they finally
get to fully leverage their current hardware designs.
Remember DirectX 10? Back
in 2007 if your video card didn't support it you might as well throw away your
keyboard. Or so we believed. It had a relatively short shelf life once Windows
7 launched and introduced DirectX 11. In
spite of the hype there wasn't a whole lot of difference between them but
almost overnight graphics vendors found themselves with useless hardware
selling for bargain basement prices.
And for what?
It took years before developers took DirectX 11
seriously. Even recent blockbuster titles
like Bioshock Infinite were written for DirectX 9. Battlefield 4 with its shiny new game engine
(Frostbite 3) works perfectly fine in
DirectX 10 just like its predecessor Battlefield 3!
So what can we take from this latest announcement
from Redmond?
Not much. Some say
it's a reaction to AMD's Mantle while others claim it's been in the works for
years. Regardless, don't expect anyone
to take DirectX 12 seriously for at least 2 years. That's 2017 for most of us and with it will come
a graphics market even more influenced by Microsoft.
That's fine if you like things the way they are now but
don't expect much competition. The money
in enthusiast hardware is still on the Windows platform (which includes Xbox) regardless of whether or not the SteamBox
takes off. That translates into
Microsoft dictating hardware designs even more than they do now.
Which means nothing has really changed and we can still
expect baseless hype, inflated graphics card prices and empty promises. At least the cheap seats will see some
benefit and that's good news for all those board makers who make most of their
money on mainstream graphics hardware.
After all, you can only sell so many Titan Blacks.
