PCGH: Valve about DirectX10 in the Source engine

[awdrifter]

While I understand their point I can't help but feel that they're just too lazy to bother. They'll join the DX10 party when DX11 will be in clear sight by looks of things.

That's not a bad strategy, Valve's games were never really about cutting edge graphics anyways. By the time DX11 releases, almost everyone should be on Vista and have an DX10 compatible card.

[Linchpin]

That's not a bad strategy, Valve's games were never really about cutting edge graphics anyways. By the time DX11 releases, almost everyone should be on Vista and have an DX10 compatible card.

It's certainly great from the financial perspective as well as targeting a very large audience but I just wonder what it would be like if Valve tried to combine their great gameplay with cutting edge graphics but I suppose that's asking a lot since most pretty games are rather forgettable gameplay wise nowadays.

[Swatrecon_]

The non-Orange Box source games aren't multi-threaded. Any core fluctuation you see is Windows trying to manage things. I hate when people refer to the uber "TASK MANAGER" for their multi-thread information.

[Arkangyl]

Makes solid sense, if only 13% of their customers could make use of it, why make EVERYONE wait 6-8 months? IMO DX10 stuff hasn't looked that much better (if at all) anyways.

I'm sure Valve will use DX10, their focus seems to be on making a quality product and so far they have yet to disappoint.

[MuffinFlavored]

I think they will skip DX10, and move directly to DX11.

Like Vista to Windows 7.

[Pacha]

don't be too hurried, DX11 and windows 7 will surely be released in 2047
remember the number of years vista was late, for a so-called "transition OS between XP and 7" so let 7 take its time to come
I wouldn't expect 7 to be released at least before 2010 or 2011

[Cooper]

i don't know where you take all this multithreaded things from. Last time I've been playing EP2 it only utilized one core

[Calmatory]

What on earth does multithreading have to do with how much CPU load you have, virtually all games multithreaded or not never push your CPU to 100% loads constantly.

100 % loads constantly? I can bid $100 for the fact that CS:S has NEVER loaded even one core of my CPU to 100 % ingame.

So what if the game is multi threaded when it can't take max out from the CPU?

Let's say that one core is 100 % efficient. Then 2 cores is max. 200 % eficcient. Then 4 cores is 400 % eficcient etc.

Now, if CS:S can get some 60-65 % out from a dual core CPU, it means that they can max 120-130 % from 200 %. So, 20-30 % efficiency due to this "multi threading".

...then let's consider the fact that Source engine is heavily CPU dependet, yet they still are able to get sub 30% efficiency out from their "multi threading".. I call it a joke.

[LuckyNV]

i don't know where you take all this multithreaded things from. Last time I've been playing EP2 it only utilized one core

this is because you are correct, NO SOURCE BASED GAMES ARE MULTICORE ENABLED YET.

The newer Source engine used by EP2/TF2 does contain multicore support but its disabled, you can enable parts of it as mentioned in an earlier post, but prepare for crashing.

We'll see Valve introducing multicore support for server clients first.

Calmatory, that 120% or whatever you're seeing is something else local to your computer, some sort of program or whatever, CSS is not multicore enabled, there is no other way of saying this.

Also as a general signpost - multithreaded is not the same as multicore.

[Calmatory]

this is because you are correct, NO SOURCE BASED GAMES ARE MULTICORE ENABLED YET.

The newer Source engine used by EP2/TF2 does contain multicore support but its disabled, you can enable parts of it as mentioned in an earlier post, but prepare for crashing.

We'll see Valve introducing multicore support for server clients first.

Calmatory, that 120% or whatever you're seeing is something else local to your computer, some sort of program or whatever, CSS is not multicore enabled, there is no other way of saying this.

Also as a general signpost - multithreaded is not the same as multicore.

Might be true though, but what is going to eat 10% of CPU for both cores when the only program running is CS:S, and before that CPU usage is in 0-1% when idling?

it IS CS:S what takes the CPU, I am sure about it. Wheter or not it is the actual engine, i dont know, but the CS:S IS taking it. Besides, after installing AMD Dual core optimizer my VST and ingame FPS quite much doubled. From 60 to well over 120, so it is multi threaded indeed, but it doesn't really use both cores.

[Ruroni]

I dont believe thats gonna happen. Valve has never made their product high end only. They always cater to the masses, meaning 300-500 dollar pc, which is by any standard is no high end.

An interview this past October.

http://www.next-gen.biz/index.php?op...7422&Itemid=61

GN: We’re going to start seeing it now. We’re going to be releasing multicore versions of Counter-Strike and Day of Defeat and Half-Life 2 after we ship The Orange Box. The challenge is going to be going forward. Right now we just have to deal with an order of magnitude of difference between DirectX 9 and DirectX 7 in terms of fill-rate and number of polygons. That’s a set of scaling issues that we’ve managed to adapt to. Soon we will have to answer the question of how do you design a game experience that could go from ten characters on screen to 1,000 characters on the screen. And how do you turn that into something worth purchasing? Is having 100 persons on the screen really ten times as fun as having just ten people on the screen?

In 2008 and 2009 we’re going to do stuff that’s optimised for the new high-end that doesn’t scale down, and use Steam to reach those customers, so we can start to learn what to do with 1,000 smart creatures on the screen at once. Then hopefully we can backfill and do more scaleable experiences.

[Frank M]

no, only the newer Source engine introduced by EP2 has multicore support, the only other game using it is TF2. AFAIK neither game has it full enabled yet.

CSS/DODS have yet to transition to the newer engine.

Interesting, css unpatched since 2005 was using both cores to around the
same values when I first tried it on a DC system. It was also showing a great
performance improvement by going to DC from SC at compute-intensive parts
(many ai players). I think this counts as multi-core support, doesn't it?

[Cuthalu]

100 % loads constantly? I can bid $100 for the fact that CS:S has NEVER loaded even one core of my CPU to 100 % ingame.

So what if the game is multi threaded when it can't take max out from the CPU?

Have you ever thought that CS:S is an old game and it doesn't need 5GHz C2D? Of course it won't use or need all the power of good modern processors.

[Bo_Fox]

Roger that. COD4 was great. Crysis can almost do all of it in DX9 via tweaks. I like how they want to release good games rather than wait another 6-8 months just for DX10. Right now, I'm craving really good quality games, not just some tech show-off's because there were not many A-quality titles last year.

They could just jump to DX10.1. Who wants to play Bioshock in DX10 if it refuses to let us use AA with DX10 at all???

[[XC] Lead Head]

Might be true though, but what is going to eat 10% of CPU for both cores when the only program running is CS:S, and before that CPU usage is in 0-1% when idling?

it IS CS:S what takes the CPU, I am sure about it. Wheter or not it is the actual engine, i dont know, but the CS:S IS taking it. Besides, after installing AMD Dual core optimizer my VST and ingame FPS quite much doubled. From 60 to well over 120, so it is multi threaded indeed, but it doesn't really use both cores.

Idling is different then what a program is running. CSS is not multi threaded, that is fact. What you are seeing is other processes behind the scenes working to keep the game running, such as sound services, graphic drivers and other things. Normally during idle, none of these things are doing anything. Open up task manager, set it to display all tasks from all users. Then set the affinity of each task to CPU1. Then start up CSS, and set the affinity to CPU0, then start playing. You will notice that CPU1 will start getting useage spikes, while you are physically limiting CSS to one core.

[ColonelCain]

neadz moar portalz

IMO:
1.) Current Dx10 games are just Dx9 ports, or patches. Their extra
functionality was already/also available in Dx9. See Crysis: the Dx10-only
Very high settings could be unlocked with a hack, and it was running on
Dx9 hardware.
2.) Dx9 has not reached it's limits yet. Again Crysis: it has the best
graphics right now, and it runs on Dx9.
Dx9 has been around for some time now; but HDR only became popular
around 2006, when there was strong enough hardware for it. But the
much older, pre-Dx9 Morrowind already had similar (subtler and less
sophisticated) HDR-like effects! So probably the effects that currently
make dx10 "more" (like better fog, lightrays, etc.) could also be
implemented in Dx9.

So I sort of agree with Valve. Dx9 is not dead yet. Making games
natively/exclusively Dx10 would also mean that people will have to
change to Dx10 hw and Vista if they haven't done so up till now.

Exactly. Sure, it is kind of saddening that Valve will not try to be on the forefront of technology, but then again, take another look at the points that Frank M brought up.

Until I see a game where DX10 is utilized as a tool, and not imlemented as an afterthought, only then will I demand it from any developer.