Intel Arc will not support DX9

I really hope AMD and nVidia will not follow this way for future Graphic Card Generations.

https://www.heise.de/news/Arc-Grafikkarten-Intel-knippst-DirectX-9-Support-ab-7220884.html

 

To be honest we are now at dx12 so buying a new Gen GPU to play Games running on an api that is 2 decades old sorry but I have limited empathy here

 

"Intel Arc GPUs use DirectX 9 to DirectX 12 emulator, no native DX9 API"
Depending on how their emulator works, it might be enough to ensure expected performance and quality.

That's a wrong way to put it. People rarely buy new GPUs to play one old game exclusively, they buy new GPUs to play any game they want. It's absolutely reasonable to expect new hardware to support games that are a bit old, because backwards compatibility was always a big thing in PC gaming.

DX9 games aren't as old as the API itself. If I'm not mistaken, Borderlands Pre-Sequel is a DX9 game and it was released in 2014. Or how about Titan Quest, its latest DLC was released last year.

 

So thats the wrog way because thats not YOUR way?
Well very diverse way of thinking you havd here then
People wants to play dx9, sorry to insist , old games and be sure it works then you keep your old Gpu and be happy

So again i will have limited empathy for people complaining as its always everybodys choice in the End

 

I explained why.

"DX9 is for old games, so you must be happy with your old GPU" works fine only for very small number of cases, i.e. when old games are all they play and they are happy with performance and their setup. But if their old GPU is not enough for new games, or even for DX9 games on a setup with high pixel count (4k/ultrawide/triple monitor), that argument doesn't work.

It's not about empathy, it's about how old a game should be to be expected not to run properly on a new hardware. And my opinion is that in the context of PC gaming 8 years is not too old for that. I mean, the very fact that DX9 will still be somewhat supported (even though not on a hardware level) shows that Intel agrees with that too.

 

Considering how many PCs less than 4 years old were left off the W11 supported list, it´s not too much of a surprise. Let´s see if for once they can actually make a decent graphics solution instead of the integrated drivel they have been releasing these years and which offered a gap in the market to Nvidia and others.

 

m8 sorry I like most of your posts but on this one you are going to have to try seriously harder

who in his/her sanity would buy today a next Gen GPU in order to upscale 20yrs old API Games, seriously?

I have bought Pascal; Polaris; Vega; RDNA2 GPUs in the last 5yrs, do you think I gave a damn about DX9 Games including RRE?
nope, not a single second because I have upgraded GPUs to follow the flow of the Games graphical progress and be happy extremely with it

I mean , with your reasoning, do you think the devs at Sector3 would make any more efforts to upgrade the Game to the reality of ALL serious Sims today in the market i.e getting DX11+?

so please bring on more scenarios as much as you wish and try harder to convince me because right now, as I said I have limited to zero empathy for users being against Intel decision and I wouldn't mind either if NVIDIA/AMD make similar announcement with their forthcoming RTX4000 and RDNA3 7000 series

world is moving, so is the PC industry (Moore,s law anyone?) so please deal with it and buy a new GPU to enjoy gaming!

 

You don't need Win11 to play games. At least not now. So that's not comparable.

Anyone who wants more performance in newer games.

What's your advice? Keep two GPUs in your PC? Or swapping them depending on what game you want to play?

Or what's your point? You keep saying DX9 is old, I keep answering it doesn't matter since most people play different games and they need hardware that supports all their games, not just some of them. Just because they sometimes play an old game doesn't mean they can't need a new GPU.

 

Oh boy

My point of a thread talking about buying a GPU to be launched in 2022 is exactly that, its 2022 and dx9 was launched in 2002
Yep thats 20yrs ago

So people should move on if they indeed want to buy a GPU in 2022

And would be great if at some point the devs of our favorite Sim could also make a move on that dx9 thingy, read upgrade please

So we wouldnt have this somehow silly discussion as well
Got the point or in needs for elaborating more

 

Again, a weird way to put it. No one buys a GPU for the sake of buying it. A GPU has no value in itself, its only value is running programs and games you want. And if a GPU doesn't support some of them, it simply makes it worse. If a GPU itself is more important for you than what you actually can do with it - i.e. you think it's fine to stop playing a game simply because of hardware limitations - then that's a rare set of priorities (I think it is, as you say you bought 4 GPU in the last 5 years). You do you, but don't try to picture it as the most rational choice for everyone.

15 years ago if we're talking about the latest DX9 version. And like I said, it absolutely doesn't matter how old a tech is. The only thing that matter is how old the games are.

So your advice is "move on" or in simple words, just don't play those games... And you don't understand those who don't like that prospect? Rare priorities indeed.

 

man I feel sorry for you so please enjoy whatever Game you want and suit your needs with the tools you have, but please don't blame people or Corporations who wants to either follow or push&lead progress in this GPU Field
have a great day

 

Anyway, time is running.
I'm curious what conclusions KW will draw.

 

I'm not blaming them for what they do, I just disagree with how you describe the situation.

 

If the dx9 emulator can use multiple cores to run then it will probably riun better than a single core trying to warm the planet

Andi

 

Will nvidia and amd support dx9 tho?

 

https://www.tomshardware.com/news/intel-xe-arc-swap-to-dx9-emulation

Seems this might actually be a good thing in terms of performance. I am more interested in the power consumption of the new chips. People who pay their own electricity bills may well prefer to stick with existing cards, especially as their prices are coming down.

 

There are millions of people at the timing of GPU new gen launch ready to either uograde to make use of new features or pulling more fps but also new buyers coming into PC Gaming who also want the latest tech

Why do you think the 2yrs GPU pricing
and shortage has been in the news for 2.5yrs?

So please refrain from making judgement about people describing a reality situation just because that reality is not what you want to hear

 

That sure was because people want new features and totally not because of production difficulties during the pandemic, rising demand for PCs to work from home and finally crypto mining.

Enthusiasts who want newest features and latest tech only make up a small portion of all buyers. Most of PC hardware sold is low- and mid-tier. And what do you think all those people care about the most? They care about playing their games, there's not much you can flaunt about such hardware.

Also, what does it all have to do with the topic? Do you think a high demand for new gen GPUs is a proof that people don't care about old features? No, that's doesn't prove it at all.
1) People don't upgrade their PCs every generation. So for presumed millions who are upgrading, there are also millions who don't.
2) As mentioned above, even among people who are upgrading the vast majority are buying hardware with the emphasis on budget and price-to-performance ratio, not on features and tech.
3) "New hardware" was never really an antithesis for "old features". Like I said, backwards compatibility was always important in PC space. There were only rare cases of hardware manufacturers dropping support for software that was still fine and often used 10 years ago (and it's still not the case now, BTW), so no one thought "yeah, some of my games will not work anymore, but that's a price I'm willing to pay for progress" while buying new PC hardware.

 

Thank you for the article, it was an interesting read.

Somebody correct me if I'm wrong, but this is what I got from it:
1) Dropping DX9 support has little to do with pushing/leading progress. Intel's drivers have significant problems and Intel want to save some manpower by dropping DX9 support and "outsourcing" that task to Microsoft's "DX9 on DX12" layer while they focus on DX11 and DX12 performance.
2) This layer is not an API, it's closer to a driver, so maybe it will work more stable/reliable than the likes of DXVK?
3) These DX9 performance issues that Intel tries to dodge might not be the case for nVidia and AMD drivers because these two companies worked with DX9 longer than Intel and have more experience.

Do you mean it will work faster? Doesn't look like that to me:
"...Performance should be nearly as good, if not just as good, as native DirectX 9 hardware support."

 

I was wondering this , if the emulation is passed so that multicores are used , this might give better performance for some one on a 4 core 3.4ghz proc , in our case instead of it all squeezing onto one core

Andi