ATI's R600 Will Have 64 Physical Pipelines

[REVENGE]

Reliable sources have disclosed that ATI's next generation high end GPU, the R600, will in fact have 64 physical pipelines. This, coupled with a 512 bit GDDR4 memory interface, a unified shader architecture, and high clock frequencies could put NVIDIA's G80 [a "dis-unified" GPU] in some big trouble. To put this into perspective, the R600 is expected to be an advanced version of the Xbox360's R500 Xenos GPU, which only has 48 physical pipelines. In addition, the R600 will be fully DirectX 10 compatible, meaning it will include Shader Model 4.0 support and run all of the best looking next generation video games as well as run DirectX 9.0 video games faster.

 

On a side note, these developments bring back the doubts I have about the new Intel Macs becoming a great gaming platform. Sure, transferring to the x86 architecture might make developing/porting games to Macs more feasible, but what happens when your platform cannot support the latest developments in graphics technology standards?

 

Upcoming games will soon begin taking advantage of the latest capabilities DirectX 10 hardware has to offer, but while DirectX development has been making leaps and bounds, what about OpenGL? OpenGL was originally intended for CAD applications only, and even with the latest OpenGL 2.0 and available add-on extensions, OpenGL has yet to implement a DirectX 10 / Shader Model 4.0 equivalent instruction-set. In addition, next generation games are expected to start using physics acceleration, and while Microsoft has already announced plans to develop a “DirectPhysX” type of library, I’ve yet to hear of a “OpenPL” project.

 

So unless Microsoft decides to port DirectWhatever to OS X, it seems that Mac gaming has just been out-monopolized once again.

[optikz]

SWEET!!! Thats Exactly what i was waiting for, but your right, Apple Needs to start depending on something other than opengl.

[sev7en]

n addition, the R600 will be fully DirectX 10 compatible, meaning it will include Shader Model 4.0 support and run all of the best looking next generation video games as well as run DirectX 9.0 video games faster.

Finally a great news! I was thinking DX10 for next ATi's establishment...

 

 

 

thanks REVENGE

[Ouch]

So why doesn't Microsoft port DirectX to the Mac?

[macprodan]

Why you wanna go do dat ah, ha.. ,

 

I dont ever see that happening.

[lord_muad_dib]

i think would be better if they try to develop better drivers.. than better hardware... both windows and linux drivers are always {censored}.

[Ouch]

I suppose on the flip side Apple is in a great possition to drive development of OpenGL - they have funding and, if they can get developers to port their games to the mac, the incentive.

[rogabean]

I still support OpenGL over DirectX. I think it's sad that DirectX has such a hold over the gaming industry.

 

I don't see MS ever porting DirectX over to Apple. It doesn't serve a purpose to them. And Apple's supporting Windows on their machines solidifies there being no reason for MS to port DirectX.

 

Apple has always been behind the edge when it comes to GPU's. I don't think that will change either (unless of course you'd like to see price go up with it). It's not Apple's market. They will never have "Gaming Powerhouse" machines simply because they do not have to. Games the get ported to OS X will be ported with the current system specs of Apple's in mind.

[schmedly]

SWEET!!! Thats Exactly what i was waiting for, but your right, Apple Needs to start depending on something other than opengl.

What else do you expect them to depend on? The entire drawing API of MacOS X depends on OpenGL, even for desktop rendering.

There are only two hardware accelerated graphics API's seeing substantial use in the industry. Direct3D/OpenGL on Microsoft platforms and OpenGL only on everything else.. including the PS3.

 

OpenGL was originally intended for CAD applications only

{censored}. SGI created IrisGL (which became OpenGL when it was opened for public consumption) for realtime graphics, not CAD applications. The fact that all major CAD applications (not to mention design software like Maya and 3DS Max, along with nearly all enterprise level visualization suites and medical imaging) use OpenGL doesn't change this either.

and even with the latest OpenGL 2.0 and available add-on extensions, OpenGL has yet to implement a DirectX 10 / Shader Model 4.0 equivalent instruction-set

Huh? Microsoft has yet to release DirectX 10 or Shader Model 4.0, so how exactly does the put them ahead? Also, let's not neglect the upcoming OpenGL 2.1 and GL Shading Language update in favor of a sensationally one-sided and illl informed comment.

 

while Microsoft has already announced plans to develop a “DirectPhysX” type of library, I’ve yet to hear of a “OpenPL” project.

And what relevance is this? Novodex and Havoc (physics API's) are in no way reliant on Microsoft. With either an Ageia PhysX card or ATI and nVidia's propsed Physics on a GPU idea, how does a Microsoft wrapper around one of these make any difference?

 

Don't get me wrong it'll be cool to have a dedicated 64 pipe card, but that is derived from a chip in a Microsoft product doesn't make it any less usable by other means.

[TheCleaner]

What Gates and Jobs need to do is forget about the past and think of the future and join forces so DX gaming can be performed on Macs. Talk about the ultimat gaming machine, Imagine DX10 games on a Mac Pro

[rogabean]

What Gates and Jobs need to do is forget about the past and think of the future and join forces so DX gaming can be performed on Macs. Talk about the ultimat[e] gaming machine, Imagine DX10 games on a Mac Pro

 

^^

Everytime I try, I feel queasy.. is this normal?

 

How about MS abandon DX for GL... don't like do ya? Didn't think so.

[TheCleaner]

I still support OpenGL over DirectX. I think it's sad that DirectX has such a hold over the gaming industry.

 

I don't see MS ever porting DirectX over to Apple. It doesn't serve a purpose to them. And Apple's supporting Windows on their machines solidifies there being no reason for MS to port DirectX.

 

Apple has always been behind the edge when it comes to GPU's. I don't think that will change either (unless of course you'd like to see price go up with it). It's not Apple's market. They will never have "Gaming Powerhouse" machines simply because they do not have to. Games the get ported to OS X will be ported with the current system specs of Apple's in mind.

if M$ was smart is to port DX10 to Macs and charge like $19.99 U.S. for it. PPL would pay for it and M$ can take advantage of all those Cha-Chings

 

 

^^

Everytime I try, I feel queasy.. is this normal?

 

How about MS abandon DX for GL... don't like do ya? Didn't think so.

DX is the industry standard for PC games. if it was ported. Macs would have much more choices when it comes to gaming

[gwprod12]

Microsoft doesnt develop libraries like Direct X to be nice. They do it to make Windows attractive to people. What reason would they have to make windows unattractive as a gaming platform?

[rogabean]

if M$ was smart is to port DX10 to Macs and charge like $19.99 U.S. for it. PPL would pay for it and M$ can take advantage of all those Cha-Chings

DX is the industry standard for PC games. if it was ported. Macs would have much more choices when it comes to gaming

 

 

MS would not make back the development costs of porting back. It simply has no benefit to MS.

 

And I think we've gotten offtopic...

[sandmanfvrga]

I remember back when DirectX was an "add on" and OpenGL was the main thing, like in Unreal Tournament (1999 version). Now, DirectX IS the rendering layer and it sucks. Everytime I play a game under Linux or whatnot that uses pure OpenGL over DirectX, I see how poor DirectX is. Will OpenGL be the primary rendering tool again? No, but maybe with OSX and Linux using OpenGL game makers will now make games DirectX/OpenGL since OSX is on X86 and can be programmed for.

[REVENGE]

{censored}. SGI created IrisGL (which became OpenGL when it was opened for public consumption) for realtime graphics, not CAD applications. The fact that all major CAD applications (not to mention design software like Maya and 3DS Max, along with nearly all enterprise level visualization suites and medical imaging) use OpenGL doesn't change this either.

 

My apologies, you are correct. That was not the intended statement; the intended statement is: OpenGL was not created specifically for gaming applications while DirectX was. So what's the point here? IMO, most "non-gaming" realtime 3D graphics applications don't have the same "demand" on graphics capabilities as games.

 

Huh? Microsoft has yet to release DirectX 10 or Shader Model 4.0, so how exactly does the put them ahead? Also, let's not neglect the upcoming OpenGL 2.1 and GL Shading Language update in favor of a sensationally one-sided and illl informed comment.

 

The specifications, beta, and beta SDK for DirectX 10 are now availabe, albeit many DirectX 10 specific features will not be usable until Vista RC1 is released.

 

And what relevance is this? Novodex and Havoc (physics API's) are in no way reliant on Microsoft. With either an Ageia PhysX card or ATI and nVidia's propsed Physics on a GPU idea, how does a Microsoft wrapper around one of these make any difference?

 

The funny thing is that if Microsoft develops a hardware accelerated physics wrapper, it will probably become promptly incorporated into next generation games. Of course, this means nothing to gaming on Mac unless next-gen games start depending on hardware accelerated physics calculations. In that case, if Microsoft comes out ahead with an early unified API, and both hardware and software creators implement this API as a necessity, then Microsoft will proprietize another aspect of the gaming industry.

[schmedly]

My apologies, you are correct. That was not the intended statement; the intended statement is: OpenGL was not created specifically for gaming applications while DirectX was. So what's the point here? IMO, most "non-gaming" realtime 3D graphics applications don't have the same "demand" on graphics capabilities as games.

But DirectX wasn't made specifically for games. As a whole, DirectX (Direct3D is merely one part of it) was designed for multimedia. Remember that buzzword circa Windows95? And don't forget the many dismal attempts Microsoft released before they got to this point, and not without help at that. Direct3D 3, 5 and 7 were fairly well {censored}-laden. Thank nVidia for helping to rewrite the API for the XBox and D3D8.

As for gaming it's certainly possible to argue that shaders are more important in a visual sense, but it's not accurate to imply that OpenGL is somehow drastically behind the curve in this respect. There's no high level effect that can't be produced with either API (HDR, depth of field, motion blur, etc). Shaders in D3D9 are marginally more flexible than GLSL 1.1, but that's about it.

A visual sense? Huh, what you say? Yeah shaders can do non-visual things, aka GPGPU computing. Figured I'd cover my bases on that one.

The specifications, beta, and beta SDK for DirectX 10 are now availabe, albeit many DirectX 10 specific features will not be usable until Vista RC1 is released.

But there's no available DirectX10 compliant hardware to run it. So even if you magically torrent-ize a Vista install, this is a moot point. OpenGL is in the same state for this next iteration as well.

The funny thing is that if Microsoft develops a hardware accelerated physics wrapper, it will probably become promptly incorporated into next generation games. Of course, this means nothing to gaming on Mac unless next-gen games start depending on hardware accelerated physics calculations. In that case, if Microsoft comes out ahead with an early unified API, and both hardware and software creators implement this API as a necessity, then Microsoft will proprietize another aspect of the gaming industry.

Given the climate of non-Windows platform recognition these days, it would be a hard sell for Microsoft to capitalize on an Windows specific physics API. There are so many choices (even aside from strictly commerical offerings) that there's really no point in creating another one... Havok, Novodex, ODE, Tokamak, Renderware Physics. The true problem with this scenario is that accelerated physics are not integral to a game in the same way graphics or sound are. You can see the ball, and you might hear it bounce.. but notice how the physics of it would be dependent on the presentation? Accelerated physics will never be as ubiquitous as 3D polygons or positional audio... these day's it's just a gimmick for particle interaction, dead bodies and a bullet point on game packaging. So even if Microsoft manages to wedge an API in there, it's nowhere near as important as the other parts of the game... not even close.

[bigboss]

i think would be better if they try to develop better drivers.. than better hardware... both windows and linux drivers are always {censored}.

 

linux drivers (for ati atleast), i can attest to. however, in terms of windows driver quality, its improved a lot (still not up there w/ nvidia but still pretty good).

[e64]

Given the climate of non-Windows platform recognition these days, it would be a hard sell for Microsoft to capitalize on an Windows specific physics API. There are so many choices (even aside from strictly commerical offerings) that there's really no point in creating another one... Havok, Novodex, ODE, Tokamak, Renderware Physics.

that's not necessarily true. Microsoft may choose to make their API open source, since they have been doing those kinds of things with .net clr etc.

 

with a physics wrapper they don't actually need to force you to use their specific API rather just provide a uniform interface to all of them, just like the open source physics wrapper variant:

http://pal.sourceforge.net/

[Azurael]

I thought this post was new for some reason and I was about to say "WTF Mate! R600 is a year-old product" - that'll teach me to read.

 

Anyway, why the resurrection of a more than year-old thread?