PCs have 10x console horsepower - AMD

By Robert Purchese Published 21 March, 2011

"DirectX is getting in the way."

PCs aren't just a bit more powerful than PS3 and Xbox 360 - they're up to 10 times more powerful. So why aren't PC games 10 times their console equivalents? Because of Windows' meddling DirectX API (application programming interface), that's why.

"It's funny. We often have at least 10 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 10 times as good," scoffed AMD graphics card mouthpiece Richard Huddy to Bit-Tech.

"To a significant extent that's because, one way or another and for good reasons and bad - mostly good - DirectX is getting in the way."

Huddy added: "I certainly hear this ['make the API go away'] in my conversations with games developers."

DirectX is made by Microsoft. To run a game on Windows - the most popular PC operating system around - you need to use DirectX. In simple terms, it's DirectX that controls what your graphics card can do.

On console that's not the case: developers there can program "direct-to-metal", as Huddy calls it.

"By giving you access to the hardware at the very low level, you give games developers a chance to innovate, and that's going to put pressure on Microsoft – no doubt at all," Huddy went on to say.

"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."

What sort of nut-case developer would want to program "direct-to-metal" on PC, you ask? Crysis maker Crytek; "Yes, that would appeal to us,' the developer said.

The Xbox 360 supports DirectX 9.0c. The PS3 doesn't use DirectX, what with it being a Microsoft technology. The most current version of DirectX is 11.

Picture of Robert.

About Robert Purchese

Bertie is Eurogamer's Senior Staff Writer. When he's not hunting down news stories he's often found playing with his kids or gabbling about fantasy games and strange online worlds. @Clert on Twitter.

Read more articles from Robert by visiting the Robert Purchese archive page.

You may also like...

Comments (72) Latest comment 1 year ago

Comments for this article are now closed, but please feel free to continue chatting on the forum!

  • bobfish09 #1 1 year ago

    But Crytek only support the latest hardware anyways, most developers just simply wouldn't have the resources to do what they currently do without the unified platform of DirectX.

  • darkmorgado #2 1 year ago

    Developers have enough trouble getting PC games to work on a wide variety of systems as it is, they certainly don't need even more headaches.

    Or have we already forgotten how much of a royal pain the in the ass the D3D/OpenGL/3Dfx days were?

  • crooky369 #3 1 year ago

    Showcase demo for a Linux distro?

  • marmaduke #4 1 year ago

    It's unlikely to get replaced any time soon. DirectX allows games to run on PCs regardless of what hardware they're using. Unless Captain Mouthpiece here is suggesting a standardised PC harware setup we're going to be using Direct X for a while.

    Advantages of a standardised PC hardware setup: we can ditch things like DirectX.
    Disadvantages: you won't be able to build your own PC anymore.

  • darkmorgado #5 1 year ago

    Also, wasn't this reported last week?

    Or was that just everywhere else on the internet?

  • superstu1337 #6 1 year ago

    Insert FlameWar below...

  • GamesProgrammer Verified Games Team Programmer, Eutechnyx Ltd. #7 1 year ago

    So what hes saying is PC gamers are paying through the nose for power they can never leverage, due to software blocks, thanks for the heads up AMD nearly wasted my money on the latest Radeon card there ;)

  • MrFlump #8 1 year ago

    DirectX has been a positive influence in getting games to run on various hardware configurations irrespective of the manufacturer of your graphics card. Lets not forget that DirectX also caters for input devices and audio devices as well.

    Is he really suggesting returning to the days where some games just wouldn't run if you weren't running Voodoo or Voodoo 2 cards? Yes, i'm sure that DirectX is a minor bottleneck in that there is some overhead, but I seriously doubt that graphics are being held back as a result of it.

  • davisorle #9 1 year ago

    Post deleted at 15:13:14 09-05-2012

  • Seoh #10 1 year ago

    You can't get rid of the Direct X API, consoles you can code directly for that GPU because it is standardized harware, for PC you don't have that luxury. It would at the very least lead to AMD or NVIDIA specific games which is not good.

    What microsoft need to do is bring out a less restrictive tool that allows communication with the GPU.

  • BritishBlue1 #11 1 year ago

    Always knew DirectX was a crock of shit.

  • darkmorgado #12 1 year ago

    Maybe AMD are working on their own competitor to DirectX? Not sure how well that would work out, though.

  • DaemonSpawn #13 1 year ago

    So AMD guy doesn't like exactly the thing that helped PC gaming become so widespread in the first place?
    Does he even remember the time when every graphics hardware manufacturer supported own API, and when poor deveopers had to code different renderers for such hardware? And then came DirectX in the shining armour and helped everyone by giving access to all hardware through single API.

    With current trend of not bothering with PC versions it's hard to imagine somebody except for Crytek implementing a lot of special vendor-specific features. I'd be more glad if AMD and NVIDIA programmers released stable and bug-free drivers for a change.

  • ryandsimmons #14 1 year ago

    I remember PC gaming pre-DirectX. It was not fun trying to get games to run at all.

    Directx is the best thing that ever happened to PC gaming.

  • Malek86 #15 1 year ago

    "We often have at least 10 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 10 times as good"

    That's because today games are made for consoles and then ported to PC. But if you want to try and code directly in machine language, be my guest. Just remember to make it compatible with every single gfx card out there.

  • Sonic_D #16 1 year ago

    So if you actually read what he said in full:

    "To a significant extent that's because, one way or another and for good reasons and bad - mostly good - DirectX is getting in the way."

    You'd realise that he acknowledges the benefits as well as the constraints.
    Edited by Sonic_D at 21/03/11 @ 15:52

  • MENTAL1ST Verified Senior Software Engineer, Picsel UK Ltd. #17 1 year ago

    It's funny. We often have at least 10 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 10 times as good

    Or perhaps the reasons are:

    * Cost to produce assets
    * Size of likely target market of people with desktop PCs with top-level graphics cards.

    My home PC is five years old now, and this is the first time ever that a PC I've had hasn't been at the outer limit of expiring under the weight of new software after just four. I'm planning to play some Portal 2 - a brand new AAA game on it when it comes out.

  • DozyKipper #18 1 year ago

    What a load of crock. Microsoft insists that the 360 is programmed via DirectX in order to main compatibility across all hardware and possible backwards compatibility in a future console.

  • miiiguel #19 1 year ago

    AMD wants to "be a console" and have games made just for them.

  • Dizzy #20 1 year ago

    What an idiot. 360 is using DirectX as well. It is a price you pay for having a faster dev cycle.

  • funkateer #21 1 year ago

    What Sonic_D said :)

    He doesn't say DX is 'bad', he said it's a limiting (but necessary) factor when it comes to squeezing the most out of the hardware.

  • skuzzbag #22 1 year ago

    I remember Microsoft (when defending their Windows based console before it was anywhere near release) stating that it'd allow developers to have more power relatively because of the lack of an intermediate OS hogging the resources.

    A Windows based PC takes up more resources than XBOX so that compatibility is retained at a high rate across disparate PC setups.

    It's just par for the course, a completely expected and known aspect of coding games.

    Was this developer new to the industry or something?

  • Perfecto #23 1 year ago

    AMD - "we're talking shit"

  • Darren #24 1 year ago

    This was news last week, EG... ;)

    Anyway, what's holding back the PC in my view is developers' insistence on using the dated DirectX 9 for games instead of the newer 10 or 11. That means more often than not we PC owners get games with gimped lighting and/or no anti-aliasing support among other things. Considering that most modern games can only run on DX10 or higher cards, it baffles me why DX9 is still so prevalent.

    As for AMD, well they have great difficulty coding decent drivers based on my experience with their HD 5870 CrossFireX cards so I can't say I'm surprised that they're wanting to lay the blame somewhere other than themselves... ;)

  • FladgeMangle #25 1 year ago

    Maybe not 10x better but really, still good yes?

    This is the kind of obfuscating willy waving we don't need.

  • StolenGlory #26 1 year ago

    "DirectX is getting in the way."

    No it's not.

  • djarcas #27 1 year ago

    Hrm, on identical managed code, my 360 is ~40x slower than my oct-core beast of a PC.

    However, 40x faster doesn't equate to 40x better looking. I think the nice man hasn't heard of 'diminishing returns'

  • RobTheBuilder #28 1 year ago

    A programmer friend once told me Direct X (pre 9) was so buggy many games rely on errors in it to work!

  • Flabio #29 1 year ago

    Hmm, I'd say pre 6 was pretty weak. 6 was the first really decent version. Once the shader model came in though I couldn't keep up anymore so I gave up engine coding and stuck to gameplay.

  • Arwin #30 1 year ago

    Yes, this is something for the Crytek, Epic, DICE and Id type of developers probably, but those are responsible for quite a few games still.

  • thomaspower0 #31 1 year ago

    Crytek supports consoles, so Crytek screwed us, PC gamers. If there were less GPU's/CPU's and "standard" high end game systems for which developers can make games (for example, games are designed for an i7 2600 + AMD 6870/Nvidia GTX560 or better), I bet games would look much better.

  • Phishfood #32 1 year ago

    Programming direct-to-metal is going to be an extremely arduous task for the PC platform for all the different variations of GPUs out there. I don't its particularly feasible like it is with consoles, but developers should have the option if they feel up to it.

  • pure_virtual #33 1 year ago

    What a fantastic idea! Let's scrap C++ while we're at it and write everything in assembly.

  • knightmt #34 1 year ago

    I am glad the AMD is still competing with Intel. Just as Sony and Microsoft push each other.

  • SeesThroughAll #35 1 year ago

    Say what you will, but direct hardware access would allow today's PC developers to do amazing things with the same hardware.

    What a fantastic idea! Let's scrap C++ while we're at it and write everything in assembly.

    Even C++ is considered low level nowadays! If they would at least scrap C#!!

  • inutaihanyou #36 1 year ago

    I think DirectX was an industry changing creation. Say what you want about Microsoft, but that piece of genius singlehandedly made games much easier to program on the PC, much like Windows itself made the computer much easier to use for people not versed in DOS.

    Microsoft has had many great effects on the software industry, i applaud them.

  • butler` #37 1 year ago

    Why is everyone always so black and white on here? :\

    If you actually read what the guy said, I think he knows DirectX has been a hugely positive thing for PC gaming. That doesn't mean it isn't currently holding it back to some degree (which it clearly is, regardless of how you spin it).

  • Transmission89 #38 1 year ago

    "I think DirectX was an industry changing creation. Say what you want about Microsoft, but that piece of genius singlehandedly made games much easier to program on the PC,"

    This is wrong. OpenGL was/is far more capable, Microsoft just pulled out of the consortium to give them full control of an API. People always say "Directx is better for gaming". This is incorrect, there is nothing of the API that makes it better for coding a game than OpenGL. In fact, Direct X is often gimped by being restricted to official Microsoft updates. If a graphics card manufacturer works on some cool tech, he can make it an openGL extension. This could later be adopted for official release.

    An example of this is Directx 11's boasting feature of tesellation, this has been possible with ATI cards on OpenGL for years!!

  • Quixz #39 1 year ago

    Shouldn't he be trying to to find a way to beat the GTX580..

  • Machiavellian #40 1 year ago

    Yes, the PC current cards do have 10 times the horse power of our current consoles but it's not necessarily DirectX that is the bottleneck. The bottleneck is that only 1% or less has such powerful cards. Coding to the bleeding edge of PC hardware does not equate to actually receiving the same kind of support. Ask Crytek about how that worked out for them.

    Anyway I believe the guy is talking about adding extensions like you can do with OpenGL. This allowed for a standard API and then also be able to include any new features a video card has over it's competitor. Coding to the metal would be a nightmare but for the most talented developers and the return in such investment probably would not equal the amount of sales.

  • Machiavellian #41 1 year ago

    An example of this is Directx 11's boasting feature of tesellation, this has been possible with ATI cards on OpenGL for years!!

    Yeah, go figure, tesellation is even in the Xbox 360. A 5 year old tech. How could MS be so late with such technology.

  • SentientNr6 #42 1 year ago

    Back in the days when I was doing DX and OpenGL development this guy knew what he was talking about.
    I guess he's still does.
    On the other hand:
    http://blogs.amd.com/play/2009/06/02/why...

  • Chufty #43 1 year ago

    I take it those who are arguing that DirectX means that all games run on all systems, have not had a PC game that just outright won't run on their system before? Because even these days, it still happens. Obviously it's the devs fault not a problem with DirectX.

    I've often thought that someone should write a gaming-focused PC OS. Windows puts so much crap between the hardware and the game that it must surely affect performance.

  • menage #44 1 year ago

    Meh, horsepower comes at to high a cost for me for just playing games anyway.

  • silversun #45 1 year ago

    He might have a point , tried out dragon age 2 demo before full game and could not go full graphics , i have a fairly powerful pc but i am on windows xp, i might need upgrade it to windows 7 to get full experience out of new games that come out but that really the only part of my pc i need update to run most new games atm.

  • richcz3 #46 1 year ago

    AMD is just seriously disappointed that they shelled out billions on ATI even as the discreet video card market had already peaked. Without the DirectX API, it would be a jungle of competing hardware APIs. It's true that Microsoft has significant interests in seeing the XBox 360 succeed, even at he expense of OS sales just based on the billions they've invested in the 360, but its also very true that the sales of desktop PCs has seen a significant decline in the past four years. That has less to do with DirectX and more to do with consumers doing their computing on netbooks, tablets, and mobile devices.

  • Dizzy #47 1 year ago

    BTW *nothing* is stopping devs from using low level GPU code. In reality nobody can't be arsed.

  • immateriaux #48 1 year ago

    Quick scan down the comments, so that makes only two people who actually read and understood the article? Admittedly, the puerile tone of the editorial doesn't help.

  • Ryuken #49 1 year ago

    "And then came DirectX in the shining armour and helped everyone by giving access to all hardware through single API. "

    Euh, the early days (no wait, it is early years) of DirectX were far from glorious to say the least. An aggravating installation method (which still hasn't really gone away) and a very poor performance most of the time. I can agree most folks prefer compatibility and singling out PC gamers because they don't have the hardware from a certain brand (Eyefinity and PhysX aren't the way to go imo) should never happen. Even John Carmack doesn't think OpenGL is that much better now. But I wouldn't object to another tool/program with the same functions but from another developer than MS even when DirectX now works pretty well. You gotta bring a bit of competition to the PC scene on all fronts, it shouldn't be a console.

  • septimus #50 1 year ago

    Yup you tell em AMD. Every game dev wants to have custom "to the metal" drivers for every piece of hardware out there, good call. It can be like DOS again where if you don't have the correct sound card you only get music and no sfx. Brilliant.

    Have they forgotten already what DX was actually for? To unify the platform.

  • CaptainKid #51 1 year ago

    I am getting tired of Microsoft.
    We REALLY need an alternative on PC.

  • Subdominator #52 1 year ago

    Nobody is keeping them from doing whatever they like with PC hardware. If they opt to use DirectX it's because they prefer compatibility over raw power. And AFAIK some stuff like shaders is programmed in assembler. Which is as raw as it gets.

  • Der_tolle_Emil #53 1 year ago

    I'm really not interested in going back to the days where you had to fiddle around with VESA drivers or having three to ten different executables because there were so many graphic cards out there. The early days of 3d gaming were horrible.

    DirectX has come a long way. In the early days every new DirectX version meant worse performance than before. These days are long gone; Besides, DirectX is so much more than just Direct3D.

    DirectX isn't really bad at all, far from it. I don't doubt for a minute that low level code for specific hardware could be faster, but the amount of work that has to go into the code just to squeeze out a few more FPS at best is simply not worth it. Personally speaking (mainly as a gamer but also hobby coder) the convenience DX offers is far more important than the performance loss it causes.

    Besides, noone is being forced to use DirectX. Who says that is the case? Look at id games - probably the most prominent example of not using Microsoft's API (or rather Direct3D, they use other parts of DirectX). id has always been a big supporter of OpenGL. There are ways to do things without using Microsoft's API. However, nobody can be bothered to do so. Maybe someday engine developers like Epic or id will include low level code in their respective engines but I really don't see that happening anytime soon.
    Edited by Der_tolle_Emil at 21/03/11 @ 19:44

  • Murton #54 1 year ago

    Funny that at no point was this guy called out on his various innaccuracies.

    1: you can't go "direct-to-metal" on the 360, MS's TRCs require you to use their APIs.
    2: going "direct-to-metal" wouldn't work on PCs even if it were "allowed" because there are near infinite PC configurations and it would be nigh on impossible to guarantee that your software would work on even a minority of these configs.
    3: being hemmed in by the APIs probably allows for greater innovation rather than stifling it. Guys like Crytek will probably be okay with it, iD too, but everyone else will struggle and we'll see the bar move down from what DirectX can deliver to what "middleware X" can deliver, which I think we'll all agree is considerably worse than current.

    I would say that apart from those three minor point the argument is quite sound, but that would be an outright lie and we all know it.

  • darkmorgado #55 1 year ago

    @Silversun:

    "He might have a point , tried out dragon age 2 demo before full game and could not go full graphics , i have a fairly powerful pc but i am on windows xp, i might need upgrade it to windows 7 to get full experience out of new games that come out but that really the only part of my pc i need update to run most new games atm. "

    IIRC, DX10 and 11 will not work with Windows XP, which will be why you are prevented from using the best graphics settings.

  • gott_sei_dank #56 1 year ago

    2: going "direct-to-metal" wouldn't work on PCs even if it were "allowed" because there are near infinite PC configurations and it would be nigh on impossible to guarantee that your software would work on even a minority of these configs.

    Except that the drivers, i.e the important bit already target a broad range of hardware even the propriety Nvidia linux driver shares code with the Windows drivers. It is only when AMD and Nvidia get into a penis waving contest over the next big PC release that you see that there are already under the hood optimisations taking place which can detrimentally affect whichever side lost the bribing contest. I would guess a way around it would be to use a LLVM to spit out code that is closer to the metal and compatible across the board.

  • epiazk #57 1 year ago

    Ahem.

    I'm pretty sure one of the heads of the companies that makes your elaborate equipment knows more than hobby techs sat on a gaming forum.

  • Kaminari #58 1 year ago

    Mr. Huddy conveniently forgets to mention that devs cannot talk directly to the Xbox hardware either, since Microsoft forbids it. The 360 essentially runs under DirectX in most circumstances. Does that make it 10x less powerful than it should?

    AMD should know better than talking out of their arses.

  • zedzee #59 1 year ago

    Is this guy serious? Has he not gone to a single presentation from their own ATI division yet?

    What developer in their right f*cking mind would want to program a PC game using "direct-to-metal"??

    Isn't that a can of worms? Development cycles would multiply, incompatibilities would flourish and PC gamers would be cheesed off!

    The WHOLE POINT about a console is the stability of the hardware for a set period of time - devs then know what they can do and continue to squeeze as much as they can (honing their engines) during the lifetime of that console.

    If anything it should be the OTHER WAY ROUND. PC devs should demand a STOP to all the graphics card war madness that has maligned PC graphics, ever since the first double-banking capable adapters came out.

  • Dizzy #60 1 year ago

    "I'm pretty sure one of the heads of the companies that makes your elaborate equipment knows more than hobby techs sat on a gaming forum"

    Surely none of us are actual computer experts? I am sure everybody here is flipping burgers in the local Mc Donald.

    NOT.
    Edited by Dizzy at 21/03/11 @ 21:03

  • curtlikesmeat #61 1 year ago

    All I know is I bought a new PC two years ago, and there are still no games that can make it chug on max settings.

  • Der_tolle_Emil #62 1 year ago

    All I know is I bought a new PC two years ago, and there are still no games that can make it chug on max settings.

    Define 'chug'. If you are seriously saying that your computer is able to run every game on max settings with at least 30fps (let alone vsynced 60fps) then I think you are lying :)

  • 3william56 #63 1 year ago

    10 times as powerful, 20 times the cost. So?

  • BlinkeredAxis #64 1 year ago

    My radeon 4850 with quad phenom CPU , 4GB RAM still won't run Crysis on full. Still, DX must have improved, as I used to be running DXDiag for almost every game to try to find out what was wrong.

    TBH, I run mostly on console now, as ease of use outweighs all the faffing about with PC.

  • Ryze #65 1 year ago

    @Darren

    Windows XP.

    Most likely the reason for DX9's continued support.

  • hollowroom #66 1 year ago

    BlinkeredAxis "TBH, I run mostly on console now, as ease of use outweighs all the faffing about with PC."


    Well, I have a PS3 as well as a (5year old) PC. The PS3 is plugged into a 46" TV and can be played from a couch.

    And I do 80% of my gaming on the PC.

    Three reasons: It's easier (really), graphics are better and finally: keyboard and mouse.

    3william56: "10 times as powerful, 20 times the cost. So?"

    Bullshit. My PS3 was 300 Euro. You could buy my PC setup now for about 600 all in.

  • kosigan #67 1 year ago

    "PCs aren't just a bit more powerful than PS3 and Xbox 360 - they're up to 10 times more powerful."

    ...and 15 to 20 times the price, too.

    http://www.ukgamingcomputers.co.uk/zeus-...

  • subedii #68 1 year ago

    @kosigan:

    Hahaha, wow dude. Not only are you really, really reaching there, but you know you are as well.

    Seriously? TWO GTX 580's? 12 Gigabytes of RAM?

    Were you planning on playing games or modelling weather patterns across the globe for the next few days?


    EDIT: I mean seriously, if you are genuinely interested in a good PC to play games now, I'm sure a lot of people here could give you advice on what hardware to go with.

    And quite possibly save you a LOT of money it seems.
    Edited by subedii at 22/03/11 @ 09:07

  • captainCandy #69 1 year ago

    This is total nonsense. Games are made primarily for consoles these days, PC gets mostly ports. Also it's expensive to make graphics that would utilize the state of the art GPUs these days...

  • kosigan #70 1 year ago

    @subedii: the AMD guy was quoting how much better PCs can be; it seems only reasonable to put that into perspective with the price. Yes, the link was for the most expensive one on that site, but you can easily spend over 2 grand on a games PC as opposed to £200-£250 for a console.

  • subedii #71 1 year ago

    Yeah, spend two grand if you're crazy maybe. Grief dude, my PC is four years old (played Crysis on high / very high when it came out and pretty much nothing has troubled it since) and didn't even cost close to that much when I bought it. Today the prices have only gone down.

    But to begin with, the entire comparison is retarded, and it's impossible to make some sort of real analogue. You use PC's for much more than just gaming. And in the meantime I know people who are on their 3rd or 4th 360 now.

    The whole price argument is overly simplified and can't really applied with any relevant context when all the factors are so arbitrary, and then you try to bring an argument by bringing in a £4000 PC? And then when you're called out on that you say it still costs £2000 really. I'm sorry but all you're doing here is taking what was originally a nutty comparison and then skewing it to even crazier levels.

    What's next after calculating the theoretical super-top-end PC and posting that as some sort of relevant argument? Are we going to calculate the cost of the desk to keep it on? The additional desk chair? Maybe the house around it?
    Edited by subedii at 22/03/11 @ 12:52

  • kosigan #72 1 year ago

    @subedii: You're right, it's impossible to make a meaningful comparison - yet that's what the AMD guy (with a vested interest in selling you PC equipment) was trying to do. I was simply taking the argument to its logical extreme in order to point out its absurdity. Try reading some Douglas Adams, he did it a lot.