We all know how technology especially in PC sector rapidly growing and improving all the time. When it comes to comparison of gaming between console and PC, it’s clear that technology uses in PC is far superior to that of console and evolving at the same time. Compare the GeForce GTX 580's count of 512 stream processors with the weedy 48 units found in the Xbox 360's Xenos GPU, not to mention the ageing GeForce 7-series architecture found inside the PS3. The result is that PC versions are only slightly superior to their console counterparts on a visual sense even though a high-end graphics card has at least ten times the horsepower of the Xbox 360's Xenos GPU and the PlayStation 3's GeForce 7-series architecture.
Hardware horsepower that is use in PC may be ten time superior than console but the question remains are we getting as much as ten times graphics improvement? It seems pretty amazing, then, that while PC games often look better than their console equivalents, they still don't beat console graphics into the ground. Many games that built permanently for the console later ported over for the PC AMD think this situation can change if PC game developers were able to program games hardware directly at low-level rather than relying on API such as DirectX.
In a recent interview held by Bi-Tech, AMD's worldwide developer relations manager of its GPU division, Richard Huddy claims that developers actually want that the API go away that is getting in the way of true amazing graphics power of PC. 'It's funny,' says, 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.' "I certainly hear this in my conversations with games developers," he told Bit-Tech in an interview. "And I guess it was actually the primary appeal of Larrabee to developers – not the hardware, which was hot and slow and unimpressive, but the software – being able to have total control over the machine, which is what the very best games developers want. 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." What this means is that-- although PC graphics are better than the console version-- developers can't tap into the PC's true potential because they can't program hardware directly at a low-level, forced to work through DirectX instead. The interview goes on to define the performance overhead of DirectX, explaining that the actual amount depends on the type of game in development. Huddy also talks about the possible problems of developing for a multiple GPU architecture on a low-level if the API is ignored.
"The problem with the PC is that you ideally want a PC that doesn't crash too much, and if a games developer is over-enthusiastic about the way they program direct to the metal, they can produce all sorts of difficulties for us as a hardware company trying to keep the PC stable," he said.
To get the full scope of the interesting interview read here
So,will we see a completely new concept of Pc game programming in future or the DirectX will continue to be a dominant factor in the Gpu industry that question is remain to be seen, but for now the popular API from Microsoft retains the Crown of all the attraction when it comes to pc gaming.