GPU DirectX VS OpenGL support

Question

As I understand GPU vendors defined standard interface to be used by OS Developers to communicate with their specific driver. So DirectX and OpenGL are just wrappers for that interface. When OS developers decide to create new version of Graphic API , GPU vendors expand their interface (new routines are faster and older ones are left for compatibility issues) and OS developers use this new part of interface.
So, when it is said that GPU vendors' support for DirectX is better than for OpenGL, does it simply mean that GPU vendors primarily take into account Microsoft's future plans of developing DirectX API structure and adjust future development of this interface to their needs? Or there is some technical reasons before this?

Answer 1

As I understand GPU vendors defined standard interface to be used by OS Developers to communicate with their specific driver. So DirectX and OpenGL are just wrappers for that interface.

No, not really. DirectX and OpenGL are just specifications that define APIs. But a specification is nothing more than a document, not software. The OpenGL API specification is controlled by Khronos, the DirectX API specification is controlled by Microsoft. Each OS then defines a so called ABI (Application Binary Interface) that specifies which system level APIs are supported by the OS (OpenGL and DirectX are system level APIs) and what rules an actual implementation must adhere to, when being run on the OS in question.

The actual OpenGL or Direct3D implementation happens in the hardware's drivers (and in fact the hardware itself is part of the implementation as well).

When OS developers decide to create new version of Graphic API , GPU vendors expand their interface

In fact it's the other way round: Most of the graphic APIs specifications are laid out by the graphics hardware vendors. After all they are close to where the rubber hits the road. In the case of Khronos the GPU makers are part of the controlling group of Khronos. In the case of DirectX the hardware makers submit drafts to and review the changes and suggestions made by Microsoft. But in the end each new APIs release reflects the common denominator of the capabilities of the next hardware generation in development.

So, when it is said that GPU vendors' support for DirectX is better than for OpenGL, does it simply mean that GPU vendors primarily take into account Microsoft's future plans of developing DirectX API structure and adjust future development of this interface to their needs?

No, it means that each GPU vendor implements his own version of OpenGL and the Direct3D backend, which is where all the magic happens. However OpenGL puts a lot of emphasis on backward compatibility and ease of transition to newer functionality. Direct3D development OTOH is quick in cutting the ties with earlier versions. This also means that full blown compatibility profile OpenGL implementations are quite complex beasts. That's also the reason why recent versions of OpenGL core profiles did (overdue) work in cutting down support for legacy features; this reduction of API complexity is also quite a liberating thing for developers. If you develop purely for a core profile it simplifies a lot of things; for example you no longer have to worry about a plethora of internal state when writing plugin.

Another factor is, that for Direct3D there's exactly one shader compiler, which is not part of the driver infrastructure / implementation itself, but gets run at program build time. OpenGL implementations however must implement their own GLSL shader compiler, which complicates things. IMHO the lack of a unified AST or immediate shader code is one of the major shortcomings of OpenGL.

Answer 2

There is not a 1:1 correspondence between the graphics hardware abstraction and graphics API like OpenGL and Direct3D. WDDM, which is Windows Vista's driver model defines things like common scheduling, memory management, etc. so that DirectX and OpenGL applications work interoperably, but very little of the design of DirectX, OpenGL or GPUs in general has to do with this. Think of it like the kernel, nobody creates a CPU specifically to run it, and you do not have to re-compile the kernel everytime a new iteration of a processor architecture comes out that adds a new subset of instructions.

Application developers and IHVs (GPU vendors, as you call them) are the ones who primarily deal with changes to GPU architecture. It may appear that the operating system has more to do with the equation than it actually does because Microsoft (more so) and Apple--who both maintain their own proprietary operating systems--are influential in the design of DirectX and OpenGL. These days OpenGL closely follows the development of commodity desktop GPU hardware, but this was not always the case - it contains baggage from the days of custom SGI workstations and lots of things in compatibility profiles have not been hardware native on desktop GPUs in decades. DirectX, on the other hand, has always followed desktop hardware. It used to be if you wanted an indication of where desktop GPUs were headed, D3D was a good marker.

OpenGL is arguably more complicated than DirectX because until recently it never let go of anything, whereas DirectX radically redefined the API and stripped legacy support with every iteration. Both APIs have settled down in recent years, but D3D still maintains a bit of an edge considering it only has to be implemented on a single platform and Microsoft writes the one and only shader compiler. If anything, the shader compiler and minimal feature set (void of legacy baggage) in D3D is probably why you get the impression that vendors support it better.

With the emergence of AMD Mantle, the desktop picture might change again (think back to the days of 3Dfx and Glide)... it certainly goes to show that OS developers have very little to do with graphics API design. NV and AMD both have proprietary APIs on the PS3, GameCube/Wii/WiiU, and PS4 that they have to implement in addition to D3D and OpenGL on the desktop, so the overall picture is much broader than you think.