Are AMD Planning to become the de facto Graphics hardware platform?
bit-tech.net published an interesting piece yesterday about the differences between console gaming and PC gaming, and how the DirectX API limits developers. Speaking with AMD's Richard Huddy, a few interesting tid-bits could point to an aggressive new strategy for AMD to grab marketshare:
Click the link for the full 3-page article.
Running close-to-metal (CTM) poses problems for portability and compatibility of code, the main benefits of gaming on the PC - piece by piece assembly and upgrades, with a wide variety of price points to suit different consumers.
For AMD, the Fusion APU strategy gives them a common hardware platform with a single product that can be simply and easily used close-to-metal (CTM). Providing an API that removes a lot of the latencies and interpretation that slows down development of both titles and adds functionality and creativity could offer a method for increasing marketshare with better games and applications for users.
AMD have openly and frequently stated they are advocates of Open and Common standards, rather than proprietary technology. API's like DirectX become considered Common Standards by marketshare and adoption - if AMD can achieve significant market penetration with their APU strategy, will there be a case for CTM for specialized applications like Games?
Per title CTM tweaking doesn't make much sense, but in this age where game engines are licensed and used dozens of times, with four or five game engines powering nearly all the triple-A titles of today. If each Engine were CTM tweaked to AMD APU hardware, it could be beneficial for performance.
Console hardware drives the game engine technology use and methodology of most major developers. Until the gap in features and functionality narrows, Consoles will continue to dictate to PC gaming as games are ported from console to PC and gussied up with a little DX11 Tessellation and SSAO/DoF/Shadows. If rumors of AMD currently working hard on a new design to be the processor for a 2012 Next Gen console are true, it could provide them with the leverage to converge the platform functionality to become the common standard.
Another method for standardization could be to use hardware virtualization. Providing a hypervisor containing CPU, I/O, and GPU with high performance context switching could enable game engines to run as if there were no underlying OS or API's and run only what they want to run. This maintains compatibility with existing hardware and titles, and allows for the development of a close-to-metal open standard within the hypervisor for accessing the GPU's capabilities directly.
The second option, using Virtualization to create a CTM environment, leaves the playing field level for all parties to take a crack at it - and for consumers to select the hardware that supports their desired price/performance/feature mix. The first option leads to a path that indicates high priced hardware, forced obsolescence and a slowing of innovation. Of course, all this may not come to pass as Microsoft may be listening to ISV's and IHV's, planning and drafting future improvements to DirectX to keep everyone happy. Sounds likely, doesn't it?
'It's funny,' says AMD's worldwide developer relations manager of its GPU division, Richard Huddy. 'We often have at least ten times as much horsepower as an Xbox 360 or a PS3 in a high-end graphics card, yet it's very clear that the games don't look ten times as good. To a significant extent, that's because, one way or another, for good reasons and bad - mostly good, DirectX is getting in the way.' Huddy says that one of the most common requests he gets from game developers is: 'Make the API go away.'
Hold on, you might be thinking, weren't shaders supposed to enable developers to be more innovative with their graphics anyway? Indeed they were, and the ability to run programs directly on the graphics hardware certainly enables some flexibility, particularly once we got past the fixed-function shaders of DirectX 8. However, with the exception of a few quirky-looking indie titles, there's no denying that many PC games look very much like one another.
'The funny thing about introducing shaders into games in 2002,' says Huddy, 'was that we expected that to create more visual variety in games, but actually people typically used shaders in the most obvious way. That means that they've used shaders to converge visually, and lots of games have the same kind of look and feel to them these days on the PC. If we drop the API, then people really can render everything they can imagine, not what they can see – and we'll probably see more visual innovation in that kind of situation.'
Consoles also have a major bonus over PCs here, which is their fixed architecture. If you program direct-to-metal on the PlayStation 3's GPU, then you know your code will work on every PS3. The same can't be said on the PC, where we have numerous different GPU architectures from different manufacturers that work in different ways.
Click the link for the full 3-page article.
Running close-to-metal (CTM) poses problems for portability and compatibility of code, the main benefits of gaming on the PC - piece by piece assembly and upgrades, with a wide variety of price points to suit different consumers.
For AMD, the Fusion APU strategy gives them a common hardware platform with a single product that can be simply and easily used close-to-metal (CTM). Providing an API that removes a lot of the latencies and interpretation that slows down development of both titles and adds functionality and creativity could offer a method for increasing marketshare with better games and applications for users.
AMD have openly and frequently stated they are advocates of Open and Common standards, rather than proprietary technology. API's like DirectX become considered Common Standards by marketshare and adoption - if AMD can achieve significant market penetration with their APU strategy, will there be a case for CTM for specialized applications like Games?
Per title CTM tweaking doesn't make much sense, but in this age where game engines are licensed and used dozens of times, with four or five game engines powering nearly all the triple-A titles of today. If each Engine were CTM tweaked to AMD APU hardware, it could be beneficial for performance.
Console hardware drives the game engine technology use and methodology of most major developers. Until the gap in features and functionality narrows, Consoles will continue to dictate to PC gaming as games are ported from console to PC and gussied up with a little DX11 Tessellation and SSAO/DoF/Shadows. If rumors of AMD currently working hard on a new design to be the processor for a 2012 Next Gen console are true, it could provide them with the leverage to converge the platform functionality to become the common standard.
Another method for standardization could be to use hardware virtualization. Providing a hypervisor containing CPU, I/O, and GPU with high performance context switching could enable game engines to run as if there were no underlying OS or API's and run only what they want to run. This maintains compatibility with existing hardware and titles, and allows for the development of a close-to-metal open standard within the hypervisor for accessing the GPU's capabilities directly.
The second option, using Virtualization to create a CTM environment, leaves the playing field level for all parties to take a crack at it - and for consumers to select the hardware that supports their desired price/performance/feature mix. The first option leads to a path that indicates high priced hardware, forced obsolescence and a slowing of innovation. Of course, all this may not come to pass as Microsoft may be listening to ISV's and IHV's, planning and drafting future improvements to DirectX to keep everyone happy. Sounds likely, doesn't it?
Comment