Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Vista delayed... DX10?

Tags:
  • Graphics Cards
  • GPUs
  • Windows Vista
  • ATI
  • Graphics
  • Product
Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
March 21, 2006 11:58:45 PM

Vista is now said to be coming in January to the consumer space. Since DX10 is tied to Vista, this puts ATI and NV in an interesting bind.

G80 from NV was right around the corner, with R600 from ATI slated for Fall. Since DX10 is tied to Vista, there is really no point having these GPUs released this year. This means the 7900GTX and X1900XTX will probably remain the high-end single GPU solutions for the next 10 months.

The negative impact I guess is that it means we are stuck with DX9 even longer :/  I guess the good news is that drivers and the GPU roadmap should be fleshed out well. Who this may hurt most is NV. If they were aiming for a Summer G80 launch, by January 2006 they are looking at having to decide between (A) pushing the refresh through or (B) pushing out the G80 series and either pushing back the refresh or cutting G80 short. A 3 months delay for ATI may mean they get their chips out on time :lol: 

This also has some interesting side effects on processing node. There were rumblings about the half node 80nm process being slow to get underway at TSMC, so the extra time may help both -- which may help consumers. The extra manufacturing time might mean more GDDR3/GDDR4 and better pricing. ANYTHING that means faster GPUs on day 1 of Vista is good--we want the "low end" to be as good as possible.

The Vista delay does cause a bit of problems... I am sure OEMs are ticked, as well are some of the developers pushing out DX10 games. Who knows, I would guess the consumer edition may get pushed back even further, maybe into late Spring. Gonna suck waiting for DX10! Oh well, I was gonna wait for the refresh parts anyhow.

More about : vista delayed dx10

March 22, 2006 12:03:00 AM

I haven't heard anything about a Vista delay.
March 22, 2006 12:03:21 AM

I haven't heard anything about a Vista delay.
Related resources
March 22, 2006 12:14:50 AM

Quote:
You have link for the Vista delaying info?

Also, even if Vista came out in the Fall, we probably would see DX10 cards, G80 and R600 early next year.


Here is is: Vista Delayed
March 22, 2006 11:33:34 AM

Quote:
G80 from NV was right around the corner, with R600 from ATI slated for Fall. Since DX10 is tied to Vista, there is really no point having these GPUs released this year.


Why?

With the possible exception of Halo 2, it's not as though any DX10 _games_ would have been released this year, and it will be years before any games actually require true DX10 chips.

I'm sure both will run DX9 games faster than current chips, so what's the problem?
March 23, 2006 11:35:29 AM

Actually, Microsoft is smart this time. They're planning to simultaneously launch a few games with Vista. Using DX10 of course. One such game would be Crysis. And aren't nVidia and ATI going to release their DX10 cards this year? Lots of speculation on when, but I'm pretty sure they'll be out this year. :) 

Too bad that's probably also going to be delayed now that Vista's doing it again. :roll:
March 23, 2006 11:59:07 AM

If you read the TG Daily article you will find that it is the the OEM's who are asking for the delay to janurary instead of just apush back to Novemeber. So yes they will be hurt slightly, but I would surmise that most people who buy PC's from OEM's during the holiday's don't buy it for the OS. Thats not to say someone won't be dissappointed, but the vast majority probably don't care at all.

Does anyone have a link to info about Halo 2 coming to the PC, I've been waiting for that. BF2 is getting a bit nuts with all the rambo wanna be's. Grr.

As for directx 10, I don't think it will hurt NV and ATi as much as some people think. I would like to see the cards come out before the games do rather than visa versa. I like the idea of being ready with dx10 hardware before a game hits the shelf so that once the game does come out all I have to do is pop in the CD and let the effects amaze me. Conversely, if I have to wait for dx10 cards and I have the dx10 game, I feel its a waste because I'm not getting the maximum eye candy, but thats just my 2 cents.

i'd like to see dx10 cards in Oct/Nov timeframe (not really sure why but 3 months prior to vista sounds good :p  )
March 23, 2006 12:20:41 PM

What functionalities will DX10 add over dx9.0c + HDR + ... ? To what OpenGL capabilities would those relate?

While I could see the advantage in programmable pixel shaders in dx9 compared to dx8 fixed PS, I fail to understand how DX10 would be so much better than dx9.
March 23, 2006 12:33:15 PM

Quote:
What functionalities will DX10 add over dx9.0c + HDR + ... ? To what OpenGL capabilities would those relate?

While I could see the advantage in programmable pixel shaders in dx9 compared to dx8 fixed PS, I fail to understand how DX10 would be so much better than dx9.


I've read a little bit about, but I am not even going to try and explain it because I don't understand it well enough myself to even start. I still have much reading to do. Best bet is to try and research it yourself, unless there is some Guru that understands it and wanders into this thread.
March 23, 2006 1:06:58 PM

You might find this article pretty informing:
http://www.gamespot.com/features/6143883/p-4.html

Quote:
-New constant buffers maximize efficiency of sending shader constant data (light positions, material information, etc.) to the GPU by eliminating redundancy and massively reducing the number of calls to the runtime and driver. New state objects significantly reduce the amount of API calls and bandwidth, tracking, mapping, and validation overhead needed in the runtime and driver to change GPU device state.
-Texture arrays enable the GPU to swap materials on-the-fly without having to swap those textures from the CPU.
-Resource views enable super-fast binding of resources to the pipeline by informing the system early-on about its intended use. This also vastly reduces the cost of hazard-tracking and validation.
-Predicated rendering allows draw calls to be automatically deactivated based on the results of previous rendering - without any CPU interaction. This enables rapid occlusion culling to avoid rendering objects that aren’t visible.
-Shader Model 4.0 provides a more robust instruction set with capabilities like integer and bitwise instructions, enabling more work to be transferred to the GPU.
-The D3D runtime itself has been completely refactored to maximize performance and configurability by the application.
March 23, 2006 1:11:33 PM

Thanks, that pretty well sums it up
March 23, 2006 1:18:58 PM

What I mainly saw referenced as having a big inpact on hardware is memory management - which rules out having an AGP card being DX10 compliant. The best we can hope for now is that current video cards will get increased performance from the more efficient model.
March 23, 2006 1:24:32 PM

By no means am I a guru on any topic, but due to my position I have had the liberty of seeing most of the tech releases, demo kits, and press releases for DX10...

2 things that seemed to be the common thread...

1) There was a large focus on physics, and how to delegate it... (Probably from input from the GPU companies as there are some basic structures to make programming for SLI-Physics(nVidia), Dynamic Load Balancing(ATI), Stand-alone Physics FPU's much easier (Ageia and the ilk)

2) Efficiency, many of the DX9 algorithims have been revamped and take less resources/time to execute which means faster performace with the same hardware.

As I said I'm no guru but from what I have seen physics is the big flogging stick this time around. And plain our better code was the second.
March 23, 2006 2:00:30 PM

Quote:
They're planning to simultaneously launch a few games with Vista. Using DX10 of course.


Didn't Microsoft say that DX10 won't be released on XP? If so, do you really think that any sane games company is going to release a game which won't run on 90% of PCs?

It's not as though many people are going to rush out and upgrade XP to Vista: XP already does everything that most people want from their PC. It will probably be two or three years before the majority of gaming PCs are running Vista rather than XP.
March 23, 2006 3:25:56 PM

Quite true. Most people won't buy Vista the day it comes out. But Crysis for example will also be playable with a DX9 card in XP. It's just that you'll get a lot more eye candy with it running under Vista with a decent GPU. Decent meaning a DX10 card in this case.

I'm not sure, but since DX10 and DX9 are quite different from what I've read, there might be two versions of the game as well. Or perhaps I'm wrong and the difference isn't that big and you can have the game (both versions) on one DVD.

Don't you think that Crysis and other games might be a good selling point for many people? New windows? You said yourself that XP can do most stuff, so why would you buy Vista? Enthusiast gamers will buy a new rig and Vista to play some of the quality games with highest detail & eye candy. And believe me, good DX10 games are better (graphics and physics wise) than 'old' DX9 games.
March 23, 2006 3:44:02 PM

Quote:
You said yourself that XP can do most stuff, so why would you buy Vista?


I'll buy it when I build a new PC in a couple of years, because I won't be able to buy XP at that time even if I want to. I can't help but feel that few companies will want to release both DX9 and DX10 versions of their games when DX9 will do for everyone: unless Microsoft have made the interfaces so similar that it's trivial to do.
March 23, 2006 3:49:48 PM

This whole DX10 thing stinks... I mean, how attractive can an OS be? The purpose of an OS is to link hardware level with user level in the most lamen of terms.

So I still say that MS has no concrete selling point. An OS with 3d features?? I don't see it enhancing my gaming experience... So let's throw SM4.0 into the pudding, and maybe we can actually sell a resource hog OS.
March 23, 2006 4:40:49 PM

Sigh, have you even used vista or know anything about it? :roll:
March 23, 2006 4:44:02 PM

With DX10 you can get a lot more out of a GPU. DX10 also saves CPU resources. Better quality games (graphics & physics) is something we all want, right? A new OS to support the new hardware & software is needed. Well, it probably is. XP is what..five years old? There's a lot of new hardware since that. SATA harddrives, for example, you can't install XP to them without drivers on a floppy disk. (or if you've made your CD/DVD yourself..)

I'd say it's time to get another Windows. Think how good it'll be after those two or three years when everyone DOES have it & DX10 cards etc.. :) 
March 23, 2006 5:14:21 PM

Also watch this video it will show some of the effects that will be avibale in DX10. I think the best one is interactive enviroments, seen the actully bush move when some going though it would be AWSOME. also its been said that the DX10 games with have the abbility to if you get shot in the game with lets say your right arm, you then lose that right arm, if you get shot in the leg you going to limp ETC.

ooh almost forgot the video http://www.gametrailers.com/gamepage.php?id=2363
March 23, 2006 6:06:22 PM

When exactly did DX 9 come out?
I know one of the first REAL DX9 games out come was FarCry in mid 2004.
Knowing this might help predict when real DX10 games using PPU will come out.
March 23, 2006 7:45:01 PM

Quote:
When exactly did DX 9 come out?
I know one of the first REAL DX9 games out come was FarCry in mid 2004.
Knowing this might help predict when real DX10 games using PPU will come out.


I know for a fact that there were DX9 games about before mid 2004. Flight simulator 2004 is full DX9 and i remeber buying that in september of 2003.
March 23, 2006 8:26:56 PM

I don't need to argue,
Flight Sim 2004 did require a DX 9 card, but I think it was missing a few things.
but I don't remember seeing any sm 2.0 featues in flight sim.:
bumpy reflections, refractions, volumetric glow effects, shinny surfaces, etc.
I still think FarCry was the biggest leap since halflife 1. (Even Unreal 2004 was a bit lame)

But this isn't my point anyway.
I am just trying to guess when DX 10 games will actually use most of the sm 4.0 hardware and advanced physics. Based on the Jan 2007 release date of DX 10
March 23, 2006 8:34:44 PM

Quote:
I know for a fact that there were DX9 games about before mid 2004. Flight simulator 2004 is full DX9 and i remeber buying that in september of 2003.


Define "full DX9"? There is a difference between having an extra shader path to add a couple nice SM2.0 goodies (ala HL2 to a large degree) and building a game as a full DX9 title. e.g. Oblivion and UT2007 are full DX9 titles. They are built, from the ground up, to be "full" DX9 games. Every art asset and feature is designed to run with DX9, no compromises with DX8.1 and older models.

The business of GPUs/Game design obviously necessitates the use of DX7/8 as a baseline (until now), but building DX9 games on top of DX8, while possible, will always have certain limitations. The difference between a full featured DX8.1 title and DX9 one is pretty big. Everything in between is just adding a couple layers of new paint ;) 
March 23, 2006 8:44:40 PM

Acert93-You are right about HL2, UT2007, Oblivion, etc.
What I said earlier was FarCry was the first of this type of game instead of the DX9 on top of DX8.
Maybe I am wrong.
So why did I "bash" Flight Sim 2004? Because I think flying over San Adreas actually looks BETTER in every way than Flight Sim 2004 (I know the map is smaller); GTA-SA is only a DX8 game.
March 24, 2006 7:07:48 AM

Since dx9 was revised 3 times, it's difficult to say when it 'came out'. 2003, I think.
As for games, Halo 2 will be DX10 only - of course, it's an MS game, so...

DX10 is interesting as a concept, it's like those projects in Linux using OpenGL to display X - it can lead to fast performance, add many interesting effects and such - SuSE's Xgl is very impressive.

What it leads to, though, is a better HAL concerning 3D hardware: it's not 'add-on' anymore, allowing better interaction between the system and the 3D interface.

What it may also mean, is that a buggy 3D driver can completely crash the system - like in Win98 with bad 2D drivers.
March 24, 2006 7:38:45 AM

Quote:
What it may also mean, is that a buggy 3D driver can completely crash the system


Unlikely. Display is now in user mode rather then the kernel with vista.
March 24, 2006 7:45:35 AM

Quote:
Unlikely. Display is now in user mode rather then the kernel with vista.

True, you can even have a GUI-less Vista if you want (will we get a brand new command line terminal?) - but if your 3D game or app crashes the GUI, it's more than likely that any application that was open at the time will crash too.

So much for multitasking...
March 24, 2006 8:09:24 AM

Quote:
but if your 3D game or app crashes the GUI, it's more than likely that any application that was open at the time will crash too.


Why would that happen?
March 24, 2006 8:23:44 AM

If every app uses the 3D subsystem, and the 3D subsystem crashes...
March 24, 2006 9:26:52 AM

vista sux cox

install dos 1.0and a 9600 baud modem so u can dial up to boards to dl porn
March 24, 2006 9:30:47 AM

DX10 delays will NOT impact when new GPUs are released, though it may impact what they do with them.

Both cards were already slated to be releasted July-September, both were supposed to be DX10 compatable (ATI already has the shaders combined, Nvidia will have a driver workaround for this on their first card).

You see, there will be speed increases even for DX9, so with the crown and rep on the line, they aren't going to slow down.

As for DX10 being only on Vista, I doubt that, simply because when Windows XP came out, it had an exclusive DX version (It may have been 9), that eventualy made it's way to Win2K.
March 24, 2006 11:06:46 AM

DX8 was shipped with WinXP - and a complete DX package was released for nearly all M$ OSes:
- DX 8.1a was the last Win95 DX version (Win95 never came with a DX embedded version)
- DX9.0c was released on Win98 (over DX5), 98SE, Millenium (over ??), Win2000 (over DX7)
- DX9.0c was integrated into WinXP SP2 and 2k3 SP1. It is still available as a standalone upgrade for Win9x/Me/2k/older XP.

While DX is used by a large bunch of applications, it is still a non necessary system element - it can, for example, be removed from Win2k, and revert to pure Win95 capabilities.

However, since DX is now a GUI platform instead of a secondary mode - and XP's kernel is programmed with embedded GUI elements - , XP would need a kernel rewrite to give it DX10 support.

I mean, MS didn't even want to correct 2k's kernel to better its ACPI support, do you think they'd rewrite XP's to radically change its GUI handling, only to support near to be obsolete OSes (XP Home support will end in June 2006) ?
March 24, 2006 11:18:10 AM

Quote:
Sigh, have you even used vista or know anything about it?


I have. I didn't see anything that would make me want to buy it.

The jump from Windows 3.1 to 95/98 was huge. 95/98 to XP was beneficial (e.g. it crashes less) but small. XP to Vista looks insignificant in terms of actual, real benefits to me as a user. It's like Microsoft Bob++.

Quote:
its been said that the DX10 games with have the abbility to if you get shot in the game with lets say your right arm, you then lose that right arm, if you get shot in the leg you going to limp ETC.


Yeah, because no game has ever been able to do that before.

As far as I can see the only real benefit that Vista provides to 3D graphics is a different driver model which may be more efficent (though I'm not exactly convinced of that until I see it). Anything else could be done just as well on XP, but then why would we pay Microsoft even more money for another operating system?

And that's the real issue: Microsoft are running out of reasons for users to upgrade. Heck, my girlfriend still runs Win98 on her laptop, which is nearly ten years old: she doesn't do anything that needs an operating system more sophisticated than that.

Quote:
Knowing this might help predict when real DX10 games using PPU will come out.


Releasing a DX9 game didn't cut you off from 90% of the market: only Win95 wasn't supported. Releasing a DX10 game will cut you off from any customers who don't have Vista.

That's a _huge_ difference, and one which I think is going to backfire on Microsoft.
March 24, 2006 11:29:04 AM

DX10 allowing better interactin with disabled limbs depending on where you're shot? Actually that already existed in VGA DOS-based games, so I don't think DX10 has much to do with that.

Vista is a huge leap forward for M$:
- componentized OS - yup, like GNU/Linux (1992)!
- separated user/admin accounts - yup like UNIX (1970)!
- the GUI is now separate from the kernel and runs in a different memory space - yup, like X11 (1986)!

The rest:
- new database-based disk format: nope, removed
- new network stack: update to latest BSD stack... Nope, done in Win2k
- new 3D interface: already in production in SuSE 10
- nicer looking GUI: 2D version looks like skinned XP, 3D version is a 3D adaptation of OS X 10.4.
- new Web server: not out yet, based on Apache's modular design.
- syntax highlighting notepad: keep dreaming.

Meaning that now Windows is only 20 years late compared to other OSes - what a powerful thing marketing is...
March 24, 2006 11:32:31 AM

Quote:
- separated user/admin accounts - yup like UNIX (1970)!


To be fair, XP has seperate user/admin accounts. It's just extremely difficult to run a lot of software as a non-admin user.

I doubt Vista will solve that problem with older software unless Microsoft remove backward compatibility.
March 24, 2006 11:39:06 AM

WinNT 4 had separated admin/user accounts - but it was easier to enforce it, since it was geared towards corporate use.

Win2K had very nice account rights managements, almost on par with *NIX provided you were using NTFS as a file system - however, while in *NIX preventing access to a device merely requires a file attribute to be set to 0, it's harder in winXX.

BUT, Win XP home stripped much of those settings out of the OS, and too many softwares were programmed assuming every user had administrator priviledges, since XP doesn't even ask you what rights a new account should get - it just sets it up as admin.
March 24, 2006 1:34:31 PM

Quote:
I mean, MS didn't even want to correct 2k's kernel to better its ACPI support, do you think they'd rewrite XP's to radically change its GUI handling, only to support near to be obsolete OSes (XP Home support will end in June 2006) ?
XP Home support will end in 2006? That can't be right.

On the seperate user/admin thing, XP Pro does that just fine, I just hope it's not stripped out of Vista Home.

As for the GUI needing to be rewritten, I don't think so, since they'll have to write a new layer of DX to run on XP anyway, so they simply leave the older GUI code in, and simply allow access to the newwer features, much like the current DX models.
March 24, 2006 1:58:15 PM

Quote:
As for the GUI needing to be rewritten, I don't think so, since they'll have to write a new layer of DX to run on XP anyway

Uh..? Why would they have to write a new layer of DX to run on XP? DX10 isn't coming to XP. At least it's not planned now. (it might come later, of course)
March 24, 2006 2:08:01 PM

Quote:
- componentized OS - yup, like GNU/Linux (1992)!


Where have you seen that its component based? I've run both Beta 1 and Feb. CTP and it doesn't appear that component based. I haven't dug into it much though so maybe I've missed it.

Of course then theres the gigantic size. 32 bit Feb CTP is 2.5GB download. 64 bit is 3.5GB. And thats just the ISO to burn on to the disk to install it. It unpacks to a much larger size when you install it like XP does. I forgot to look at how much hard drive space was used after the install of both but by comparison the XP SP2 ISO is like 550MB and expands to around 2GB. So about a 4x expansion. 2.2GB expanding out 4x would mean nearly a 10GB footprint on your hard drive. Kiss 20GB hard drives in laptops goodbye. Personally I don't know how any computer with anything short of a 1GB of RAM will run it. I originally installed it on a 2GHz Core Duo system running a Calistoga motherboard in a desktop chassis with 256MB of RAM on it. *shudder*
March 24, 2006 4:30:50 PM

Actually no ... But if you all get off some new OS then that's your cup of tea.

My point is not VISTA being bad, it's the whole DX10 with SM4.0 needed to really run it. That's forcing the market, and money runs linearly with it.
March 24, 2006 5:23:38 PM

Uh..? Why would you actually NEED DX10 and SM4.0 to run it? What's wrong with a fancy OS when you CAN run it without the eye candy? They're not forcing you to buy anything. You can run Vista with a really old machine with a crappy GPU if you like. It's a POSSIBILITY to make it pretty.
March 24, 2006 5:30:04 PM

Quote:
My point is not VISTA being bad, it's the whole DX10 with SM4.0 needed to really run it. That's forcing the market, and money runs linearly with it.


Please stop posting FUD, you obviously don't know what you are talking about.

1) You don't need DX10 or a DX10 GPU to operate Vista.

2) Everything in the computer industry is related to money. Any corperation (AMD, NV, ATI, etc) that offers a product does so to maximize profits.

3) MS did more for unity, competition, and quality in regards to consumer level 3D than any company on the market. No one has done as much as MS has in regards to improving their API, providing developers with quality tools, listening to IHVs and ISVs in regards to the direction of the market, and getting the market powers to agree to a roadmap to aid consumers and developers.

4) And I am still waiting for you to reply to my post about your previous accusations on these points and how DX10 is only a "money making stunt". I gave a number of reasons -- and there are dozens more in regards to the workflow, pipeline, features, usability, and platforming I did not even mention -- why DX10 (D3D10) is a HUGE step forward for consumers.

http://forumz.tomshardware.com/hardware/modules.php?nam...

The features MS has added to D3D10 -- based on conjunction with working closely with ATI & NV -- are huge wins for developers and for consumers.

It may not mean much to casual fans, but adding Geometry Shaders to shore up poor CPU performance and CPU<>GPU communication, removing cap bits and requiring all IHVs to fully support every feature in the API, unifying the shader language and featureset, adding full integer and bitwise instructs to the programmable shaders, so forth and so on are very significant moves that not only make GPUs more powerful but also more flexible. DX9 was an superficial upgrade of the DX7 fixed function architecture; DX10 is a clean slate that starts off from day 1 with programmability in mind with an emphasis on performance and usability.

You are right it is about money; but you could not be more incorrect in regards to it being a "stunt".
March 24, 2006 5:51:18 PM

Hell, you guys quickly get ur nickers in a twist. Please note the word I used "it's the whole DX10 with SM4.0 needed to really run it" - I never said it was a must.

And I believe this is a forum, so I can state my opinion can't I? Last time I checked democracy was alive and well on these forums. So if I make a mistake by freedom of speech, you can at least correct me. I admit I know jack about Vista, but I can still comment on the surface.

And yes, I see the benefit of DX10. No, I rarely back track on posts, so sorry for not replying to your previous questions. I have next to zero time to myself.

And if my previous posts seemed a bit anti Vista, along with my claims on it being a marketing stunt, I apologize for that aswell. I'm just naturally sceptic.

I have a question though - is VISTA required for DX10 API - in other words, can DX10 be run from XP, or does it require the functionality of Vista?
a b U Graphics card
March 24, 2006 6:58:22 PM

Quote:
You can run Vista with a really old machine with a crappy GPU if you like.


No you can't, just like you can't run XP on a 486!

You need a mionimum of DX9 feature-compliant card, and a recommended 64+MB of memory, preferably 256MB for running vfull blown vectored desktops.

It will NOT run on an old machine with a CRAPPY GPU anymore than XP did, or Win2K before it or W98SE before it. There's always a higher minimum spec and even the not glossy version of vista is a resource hog requiring minimum of 512MB and better at 1GB.
March 24, 2006 8:00:38 PM

Quote:
I have. I didn't see anything that would make me want to buy it.


Well I pity your stupidity.

Quote:
You need a mionimum of DX9 feature-compliant card


To run aero, yes. To run vista, no.

Quote:
My point is not VISTA being bad, it's the whole DX10 with SM4.0 needed to really run it. That's forcing the market, and money runs linearly with it.


As Acert93 said, stop posting FUD.
a b U Graphics card
March 24, 2006 9:28:12 PM

Well yes to run the AeroGlass part of it, which is the major component of Vista that makes it different from VMS or Unix (which seems to be where all OSs are headed), the GUI.

The integration is nice, but no one bought any previous M$ product because of the efficiency so much as the GUI and marketing. OS/2 would be better for stability and efficiency (especially after Warp).
March 24, 2006 10:14:11 PM

Without Aero it still looks pretty cool. Better then XP does and most people won't be able to tell the difference.
      • 1 / 3
      • 2
      • 3
      • Newest
!