Tahiti: The First Direct3D 11.1 GPU

One of the many changes coming in Windows 8 next year will be the next iteration of Direct3D, which will be Direct3D 11.1. More so than any other version of Direct3D so far, D3D11.1 is best summed up as a housekeeping release. There will be some new features, but compared to even past point releases such as 10.1 and 9c it’s a small release that’s going to be focusing more on improving the API itself – particularly interoperability with SoC GPUs for Windows 8 – than it will be about introducing new features. This is largely a consequence of the growing length of time for all matters of development hardware and software. By the time Windows 8 ships Direct3D 11 will be 3 years old, but these days that’s shorter than the development period for some AAA games. Direct3D 11/11.1 will continue to be the current Windows 3D API for quite some time to come.

With regards to backward compatibility in D3D11.1, there’s one new feature in particular that requires new hardware to support it: Target Independent Rasterization. As a result AMD’s existing D3D11 GPUs cannot fully support D3D11.1, thereby making Tahiti the first D3D 11.1 GPU to be released. In practice this means that the hardware is once again ahead of the API, even more so than what we saw with G80 + D3D10 or Cypress (5870) + D3D11 since D3D11.1 isn’t due to arrive for roughly another year. For the time being Tahiti’s hardware supports it but AMD won’t enable this functionality until the future – the first driver with D3D11.1 support will be a beta driver for Windows 8, which we expect we’ll see for the Windows 8 beta next year.

So what does D3D11.1 bring to the table? The biggest end user feature is going to be the formalization of Stereo 3D support into the D3D API. Currently S3D is achieved by either partially going around D3D to present a quad buffer to games and applications that directly support S3D, or in the case of driver/middleware enhancement manipulating the rendering process itself to get the desired results. Formalizing S3D won’t remove the need for middleware to enable S3D on games that choose not to implement it, but for games that do choose to directly implement it such as Deus Ex, it will now be possible to do this through Direct3D.

S3D related sales have never been particularly spectacular, and no doubt the fragmentation of the market is partially to blame, so this may be the push in the right direction that the S3D market needs, if the wider consumer base is ready to accept it. At a minimum this should remove the need for any fragmentation/customization when it comes to games that directly support S3D.

With S3D out of the way, the rest of the D3D11.1 feature set isn’t going to be nearly as visible. Interoperability between graphics, video, and compute is going to be greatly improved, allowing video via Media Foundation to be sent through pixel and compute shaders, among other things. Meanwhile target independent rasterization and some new buffer commands should give developers a few more tricks to work with, while double precision (FP64) support will be coming to pixel shaders on hardware that has FP64 support.

Finally, looking at things at a lower level D3D11.1 will be released alongside DXGI 1.2 and WDDM 1.2, the full combination of which will continue Microsoft’s long-term goal of making the GPU more CPU-like. One of Microsoft’s goals has to been to push GPU manufacturers to improve the granularity of GPU preemption, both for performance and reliability purposes. Since XP things have gotten better as Vista introduced GPU Timeout Detection and Recovery (TDR) to reset hung GPUs, and a finer level of granularity has been introduced to allow multiple games/applications to share a GPU without stomping all over each other, but preemption and context switches are still expensive on a GPU compared to a CPU (there are a lot of registers to deal with) which impacts performance and reliability.

To that end preemption is being given a bit more attention, as WDDM 1.2 will be introducing some new API commands to help manage it while encouraging hardware developers to support finer grained preemption. Meanwhile to improve reliability TDR is getting a major addition by being able to do a finer grained reset of the GPU. Currently with Windows 7 a TDR triggers a complete GPU reset, but with Windows 8 and WDDM 1.2 the GPU will be compartmentalized into “engines” that can be individually reset. Only the games/applications using a reset engine will be impacted while everything else is left untouched, and while most games and applications can already gracefully handle a reset, this will further reduce the problems a reset creates by resetting fewer programs.

 

Building Tahiti & the Southern Islands Partially Resident Textures: Not Your Father’s Megatexture
Comments Locked

292 Comments

View All Comments

  • RussianSensation - Thursday, December 22, 2011 - link

    That's not what the review says. The review clearly explains that it's the best single-GPU for gaming. There is nothing biased about not being mind-blown by having a card that's only 25% faster than GTX580 and 37% faster than HD6970 on average, considering this is a brand new 28nm node. Name a single generation where AMD's next generation card improved performance so little since Radeon 8500?

    There isn't any!
  • SlyNine - Friday, December 23, 2011 - link

    2900XT ? But I Don't remember if that was a new node and what the % of improvement was beyond the 1950XT.

    But still this is a 500$ card, and I don't think its what we have come to expect from a new node and generation of card. However some people seem more then happy with it, Guess they don't remember the 9700PRO days.
  • takeulo - Thursday, December 22, 2011 - link

    as ive read the review this is not a disappointment infact its only a single gpu card but it toughly competing or nearly chasing with the dual gpu's graphics card like 6990 and gtx 590 performance...
    imagine that 7970 is also a dual gpu?? it will tottally dominate the rest... sorry for my bad english..
  • eastyy - Thursday, December 22, 2011 - link

    the price vs performance is the most important thing for me at the moment i have a 460 that cost me about £160 at the time and that was a few years ago...seems like the cards now for the same price dont really give that much of a increase
  • Morg. - Thursday, December 22, 2011 - link

    What seems unclear to the writer here is that in fact 6-series AMD was better in single GPU than nVidia.

    Like miles better.

    First, the stock 6970 was within 5% of the gtx580 at high resolutions (and excuse me, but if you like a 500 bucks graphics board with a 100 bucks screen ... not my problem -- ).

    Second, if you put a 6970 OC'd at GTX580 TDP ... the GTX580 is easily 10% slower.

    So overall . seriously ... wake the f* up ?

    The only thing nVidia won at with fermi series 2 (gtx5xx) is making the most expensive highest TDP single GPU card. It wasn't faster, they just picked a price point AMD would never target .. and they got i .. wonderful.

    However, AMD raped nVidia all the way in perf/watt/dollar as they did with Intel in the Server CPU space since Opteron Istanbul ...

    If people like you stopped spouting random crap, companies like AMD would stand a chance of getting the market share their products deserve (sure their drivers are made of shit).
  • Leyawiin - Thursday, December 22, 2011 - link

    The HD 7970 is a fantastic card (and I can't wait to see the rest of the line), but the GTX 580 was indisputably better than the HD 6970. Stock or OC'd (for both).
  • Morg. - Friday, December 23, 2011 - link

    Considering TDP, price and all - no.

    The 6970 lost maximum 5% to the GTX580 above full HD, and the bigger the resolution, the smaller the GTX advantage.

    Every benchmark is skewed, but you should try interpreting rather than just reading the conclusion --

    Keep in mind the GTX580 die size is 530mm² whereas the 6970 is 380mm²

    Factor that in, aim for the same TDP on both cards . and believe me .. the GTX580 was a complete total failure, and a total loss above full HD.

    Yes it WAS the biggest single GPU of its time . but not the best.
  • RussianSensation - Thursday, December 22, 2011 - link

    Your post is ill-informed.

    When GTX580 and HD6970 are both overclocked, it's not even close. GTX580 destroyed it.

    http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/graphics/display/...

    HD6950 was an amazing value card for AMD this generation, but HD6970 was nothing special vs. GTX570. GTX580 was overpriced for the performance over even $370 factory preoverclocked GTX570 cards (such as the almost eerily similar in performance EVGA 797mhz GTX570 card for $369).

    All in all, GTX460 ~ HD6850, GTX560 ~ HD6870, GTX560 Ti ~ HD6950, GTX570 ~ HD6970. The only card that had really poor value was GTX580. Of course if you overclocked it, it was a good deal faster than the 6970 that scaled poorly with overclocking.
  • Morg. - Friday, December 23, 2011 - link

    I believe you don't get what I said :

    AT THE SAME TDP, THE HD6xxx TOTALLY DESTROYED THE GTX 5xx

    THAT MEANS : the amd gpu was better even though AMD decided to sell it at a TDP / price point that made it cheaper and less performing than the GTX 5xx

    The "destroyed it" statement is full HD resolution only . which is dumb . I wouldn't ever get a top graphics board to just stick with full HD and a cheap monitor.
  • Peichen - Friday, December 23, 2011 - link

    According to your argument, all we'd ever need is IGP because no stand-alone card can compete with IGP at the same TDP / price point.

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now