4 ms·

I can name a worse API: DirectX

by Xylemon 12y ago

wolfgke 12y ago
Can you give concrete arguments why you consider DirectX a worse API (other than "it only works on Windows")? When Direct3D 10/11 came out, it was considered as a lot better to prgram for than the corresponding OpenGL versions. See for example the following article from 2011 > http://www.bit-tech.net/news/gaming/2011/03/11/carmack-directx-better-opengl/1 http://www.bit-tech.net/news/gaming/2011/03/11/carmack-direc... where John Carmack clearly says that he now prefers Direct3D over OpenGL.
- fulafel 12y ago
  Times change, Carmack has recently been saying good things about the low overhead OpenGL model championed by NVidia (see "Approaching Zero Driver Overhead" etc) and how it can get an over of magnitude more draw calls than D3D. reference: http://vr-zone.com/articles/john-carmack-mantle-became-interesting-dual-console-wins/61108.html?utm_source=rss http://vr-zone.com/articles/john-carmack-mantle-became-inter...
  - wolfgke 12y ago
    Luckily rumours say that Microsoft took a lot of the good ideas from Mantle and will implement them in DirectX 12: > http://www.extremetech.com/gaming/177407-microsoft-hints-that-directx-12-will-imitate-and-destroy-amds-mantle http://www.extremetech.com/gaming/177407-microsoft-hints-tha... On the other hand: Even if the overhead for OpenGL can be lowered a lot (and I believe this is possible), this will be released as extension set - not as an elegant revised API as new DirectX versions do (see the Longs Peak fiasco).
    - fulafel 12y ago
      The zero overhead talk was done by guys from Intel, AMD and NVidia - I think it's rather probable that this will end up in core OpenGL later. Especially if MS is reacting to Mantle as well. It's not "will be released", it's in current drivers - some in extensions, some in core Opengl 4.4 or earlier. As far as OpenGL backwards compatible approach, I think that's pretty much a necessity as long when you consider the stakeholders. D3D and OpenGL are pretty similar from 10000 ft. Really the GPU vendors should just open up instruction sets, binary formats and ABIs for their devices, and focus on writing high quality open source compiler backends for them, and let people program GPUs whichever way they want.

I can name a worse API: DirectX

by Xylemon 12y ago

I can name a worse API: DirectX

Can you give concrete arguments why you consider DirectX a worse API (other than "it only works on Windows")? When Direct3D 10/11 came out, it was considered as a lot better to prgram for than the corresponding OpenGL versions. See for example the following article from 2011 > http://www.bit-tech.net/news/gaming/2011/03/11/carmack-directx-better-opengl/1 http://www.bit-tech.net/news/gaming/2011/03/11/carmack-direc... where John Carmack clearly says that he now prefers Direct3D over OpenGL.

fulafel 12y ago
Times change, Carmack has recently been saying good things about the low overhead OpenGL model championed by NVidia (see "Approaching Zero Driver Overhead" etc) and how it can get an over of magnitude more draw calls than D3D. reference: http://vr-zone.com/articles/john-carmack-mantle-became-interesting-dual-console-wins/61108.html?utm_source=rss http://vr-zone.com/articles/john-carmack-mantle-became-inter...
- wolfgke 12y ago
  Luckily rumours say that Microsoft took a lot of the good ideas from Mantle and will implement them in DirectX 12: > http://www.extremetech.com/gaming/177407-microsoft-hints-that-directx-12-will-imitate-and-destroy-amds-mantle http://www.extremetech.com/gaming/177407-microsoft-hints-tha... On the other hand: Even if the overhead for OpenGL can be lowered a lot (and I believe this is possible), this will be released as extension set - not as an elegant revised API as new DirectX versions do (see the Longs Peak fiasco).
  - fulafel 12y ago
    The zero overhead talk was done by guys from Intel, AMD and NVidia - I think it's rather probable that this will end up in core OpenGL later. Especially if MS is reacting to Mantle as well. It's not "will be released", it's in current drivers - some in extensions, some in core Opengl 4.4 or earlier. As far as OpenGL backwards compatible approach, I think that's pretty much a necessity as long when you consider the stakeholders. D3D and OpenGL are pretty similar from 10000 ft. Really the GPU vendors should just open up instruction sets, binary formats and ABIs for their devices, and focus on writing high quality open source compiler backends for them, and let people program GPUs whichever way they want.