What Does DirectCompute Really Mean For Gamers?

[Th-z]

William, I think you need to present your article in a more logical way so it's easier to follow. On page 2, you talked about using DirectCompute for "ambient occlusion" - as a general term, you didn't specify which type of AO. On page 6 you added that SSAO is pixel shader-based. This information should be given at the intro, where you should talk about different types of AO before digging in.

On page 4, you provided BF3's SSAO and HBAO screenshots, but not enough information was given on why you showed them (also happened in your previous article), not until 2 pages later you said HBAO is more realistic. Again, you need to make that point earlier, on page 4.


And perhaps you can clarify the fourth paragraph on page 4:

"Like most games, Battlefield 3 still relies heavily on compute shaders for most of its effects and has to devise work-arounds to cope with shader limitations. For instance..."

"Future iterations...or DirectCompute may step in to fill the need."

DirectCompute is an API that uses compute shaders. If compute shaders have limitations, how does DirectCompute fill in the need? If you meant future iterations/versions of compute shader/DirectCompute API can achieve full resolution, then the last phrase is not needed, it only adds confusion.

 

[holdingholder]

[citation][nom]hunshiki[/nom]I don't think you owned a modern console Theuniquegamer. Games that run fast there, would run fast on PCs (if not blazing fast), hence PCs are faster. Consoles are quite limited by hardware. Games that are demanding and slow... or they just got awesome graphics (BF3 for example), are slow on consoles too. They can rarely squeeze out 20-25 FPS usually. This happened with Crysis too. On PC? We benchmark FullHD graphics, and go for 91 fps. NINETY-ONE. Not 20. Not 25. Not even 30. And FullHD. Not 1280x720 like XBOX. (Also, on PC you have a tons of other visual improvements, that you can turn on/off. Unlike consoles.)So .. in short: Consoles are cheap and easy to use. You pop in the CD, you play your game. You won't be a professional FPS gamer (hence the stick), or it won't amaze you, hence the graphics. But it's easy and simple.[/citation]

Obviously A newer PC is faster but what he is saying is that you are getting far diminished returns on hardware that is far more powerful. What do you think would happen if you tried to run BF3 on a pc with a comparable processor and GPU to the 360 or PS3? you would be lucky to get double digit fps on the lowest settings. Consoles can do more with less thanks to the consistency of the platform.

 

[A Bad Day]

[citation][nom]holdingholder[/nom]Obviously A newer PC is faster but what he is saying is that you are getting far diminished returns on hardware that is far more powerful. What do you think would happen if you tried to run BF3 on a pc with a comparable processor and GPU to the 360 or PS3? you would be lucky to get double digit fps on the lowest settings. Consoles can do more with less thanks to the consistency of the platform.[/citation]

The problem isn't that the consoles are weak, it's their excessively long refresh schedule.

PS3 and 360 were released in 2005 or 2006, and the successors aren't expected to arrive until past 2014. That's nearly a decade long refresh schedule, which is unheard of in the computer industry.

Nobody is buying 2002's most fuel efficient cars to save gas, they're going with the 2012's models.

Nobody is buying Pentium 3s or 4s. They're buying Sandy Bridges.

Nobody is buying 2002's GPUs, they're buying 2011-2012's GPUs.

 

[shin0bi272]

[citation][nom]A Bad Day[/nom]The problem isn't that the consoles are weak, it's their excessively long refresh schedule.PS3 and 360 were released in 2005 or 2006, and the successors aren't expected to arrive until past 2014. That's nearly a decade long refresh schedule, which is unheard of in the computer industry.Nobody is buying 2002's most fuel efficient cars to save gas, they're going with the 2012's models.Nobody is buying Pentium 3s or 4s. They're buying Sandy Bridges.Nobody is buying 2002's GPUs, they're buying 2011-2012's GPUs.[/citation]

And as a result of the consoles long refresh cycle we end up getting pc titles that dont stress the hardware at all and can be maxed out by either an old dx10 card or a 100 dollar dx11 card... Thus we have a lull or a lack of urgency to develop new hardware that really pushes the gaming graphics forward... because for the most part no games are going to take advantage of it. Well that is to say till the last few years of the console's life cycle when the PC gamers start griping about last gen graphics.

DX9 was great and had a long life (extended further by the consoles) and dx10 was essentially a flop which gave dx9 (and the consoles) even longer life. But when dx11 came out and there was a marked improvement with graphics and it was 3 years or so before the console refresh we started seeing games made for pc in dx9 with dx11 patches (crisis 2) and now dx11 standalone.

Just imagine how much farther pc titles would be if DX10 had been a hit like dx9...

 

[alchemist07]

I dont think that the title of this article really fits what it was about: Ambient Occlusion using different AMD systems.

It might have also been useful to have some reasonable Nvidia and Intel comparisons using DIrect Compute, and if not possible on their hardware then at least highlight that.

 

[andywork78]

I always turn off the shadow option if game allow it.
Useless to me...

 

[drbaltazar]

isnt directcompute made by microsoft?so why is microsoft being ignored?i hope in the futur you ll cover remote differential compression and donnybrooks!(both from microsoft)cause they would help online gaming way more then a lot of other techno existing!

 

[ghnader hsmithot]

[citation][nom]andywork78[/nom]I always turn off the shadow option if game allow it.Useless to me...[/citation]
Agreed.It takes away more than 30fps off my average fps.

 

[jemm]

I hate depth of field. Really hate it. I hate Metro 2033 with its DirectCompute-based depth of field filter.

It’s unnecessary for games to emulate camera flaws, and depth of field is a limitation of cameras. The human eye is able to focus everywhere, and free to do that. Depth of field does not allow to focus where the user wants to focus, so is just an annoyance, and worse, it costs FPS.

Depth of Field adds dramaticity to games. Yes, it is very annoying should you wish to aim to a target on FPS game, but that´s point of DOF. It incorporates some realistic difficulties for the player, when it is used correctly.

DOF is used in many games like Crysis 2, Far Cry 2, etc. For instance, when you run to much in real life things may become blur, like it happens in Far Cry 2 -- after running for a while things becomes a lot blur -- the same occurs in Crysis 2 when you get shotted.

 

[leakingpaint]

Dear Tom's

Please include a lightbox style gallery for your images. Trying to enlarge your images is tedious. We have to click the image and then wait for the next page with an image almost the same size and then click it again to view the full size? Seems a little crazy...

 

[leakingpaint]

@marraco lol camera flaws? depth of field isn't a camera flaw. It isn't a limitation of cameras either.

Your eyes focus automatically without your brain realizing it. It's definitely not a camera flaw or limitation. Without out DOF in photography and movies everything would look pretty boring. It's an addition to cameras which makes them a thousand times better.

If it really bugs you then 3D gaming is probably a better bet. In games devs should just allow players to switch it off if it bugs them. But camera flaw....never in a million years.

 

[Wisecracker]

Why ... would you run an HD7970 with a Llano A8-3850, and then chastise people for doing what you just did? That's a big Fail.

But 55FPS is still great game, and 115FPS is just as dead, presumably with the same visual fidelity and effect.

 

[army_ant7]

Ambient occlusion can also be performed via pixel shaders. Developers have a choice between which method to use and, going into this article, we were a bit in the dark about why DirectCompute might be preferable. After all, we’d seen enough early benchmarks showing that using DC-enabled effects could significantly impact graphics performance (and not in a positive way). Using compute resources to achieve a feature that couldn’t be done otherwise was one thing, but why pick DirectCompute when shaders were already getting the job done? Well, for starters, DirectCompute has no more of an impact on performance than pixel shaders.

I've pondered on this for quite a while. It's just that this line seems contradictory in a way:

Using compute resources to achieve a feature that couldn’t be done otherwise was one thing, but why pick DirectCompute when shaders were already getting the job done?

After I finished reading the article, I though that if DirectCompute allows certain features/affects unachievable with shaders, then the first part of that statement is true and the latter is not (though it can be a subjective opinion as to if it in fact gets the job done).

Sorry. I just had to point that out for clarification's sake. This was a really great article TH! 🙂