Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Wow Gay move, 9800 GX2 Vista Exclusive!

Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
April 13, 2008 4:53:07 AM

http://forums.slizone.com/index.php?showtopic=18787

The GX2 in SLI (meaning Quad enabled) is a vista Exclusive:S

Thats really screwed up, I mean I love Vista, but they shouldn't pressure it on ppl like that!
April 13, 2008 5:23:35 AM

If I'm not mistaken, the reason that it's Vista Exclusive is because Vista is the only M$ OS that can make use of it.

From what I remember, Vista can do something where you can make up to 4 frames at a time, but XP is limited to 2 (hence why there's no Tri or Quad-SLI for XP). I could be wrong though.
April 13, 2008 5:25:31 AM

I think XP is limited to 3 frames.

-mcg
April 13, 2008 5:35:59 AM

didn't kno about the limit. So what about the 7950 GX2, in quad same problem?
a b U Graphics card
April 13, 2008 5:52:35 AM

I love the title of this thread, anyways, it doesnt matter to me, I own both OS.
April 13, 2008 5:54:46 AM

Yeah you caught that eh? lol I meant to say SLi but I can't edit threads:p  alteast I don't know how:p 
April 13, 2008 6:16:10 AM

MrCommunistGen said:
I think XP is limited to 3 frames.


anything that has to do with computers ALMOST NEVER happens in threes especially not something that has to do with processing, the only way it could be three is if the GPUs render 1 frame each (as opposed to scizzors or cross-sections)

I always figured 3 way SLI was 2 cards processing and one card extra mem/physics and what not (cuz as I said it all goes in multiples of 2)
April 13, 2008 7:34:31 AM

" 2) The best performing games with Quad SLI used AFR (Alternate Frame Rendering) to divide up the rendering workload, where each GPU was responsible for rendering its own frame. The result is that GPU 1 would render frame 1, while GPU 2 would work on the next frame, GPU 3 would work on the third and GPU 4 would work on the fourth. DirectX 9 unfortunately only allowed for a 3-frame render ahead, meaning that this AFR mode wouldn't work. With the vast majority of games being DX titles, this posed a significant problem to Quad SLI performance."
Source: http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=3183&p=2

At this point in time physics on a graphics card is non-existent.

-mcg
April 13, 2008 7:47:00 AM

I'd hoped that with Vista virtually being treated as "Windows ME Too", that Microsoft would release DX10 for XP, but that won't happen. I guess all you guys with XP will migrate to the next Microsoft OS in 2009.

My wife didn't like Vista, so she wanted me to take her PC back to XP, DX10 or not. I don't mind Vista, as I'm playing DX10 games on a decent card, and I'm tolerant of the interface.

a b U Graphics card
April 13, 2008 8:29:18 AM

Is anyone else even remotely concerned about the latency involved with rendering something 4 frames ahead of time?
April 13, 2008 9:06:15 AM

We don't know how nvidia sync the rendering of graphic cards and input devices, so maybe it's not as bad as rendering 4 frames ahead on a single card. Beside rendering 4 frames ahead on 4 cards is likely to be faster on a single card, isn't it?
April 13, 2008 9:09:32 AM

How pathetic. Is this another Microsoft move to goad people into using Vista?
April 13, 2008 9:35:09 AM

John Vuong said:
How pathetic. Is this another Microsoft move to goad people into using Vista?

Read above, no it isn't!
It's a limitation of DX9.
You can't run 2 3870X2's in CF for the same reason.
April 13, 2008 12:07:25 PM

MagicPants said:
Is anyone else even remotely concerned about the latency involved with rendering something 4 frames ahead of time?


Yup. Thats just silly. I dont even want to think about it. Diferent PCBs, all the Busses involved, everything working Out of order, etc etc etc. Its those things we can see it might never work well. Like Intel Graphics.

Btw, this seems like a really stupid limitation. SLI exists for ages now. Although it worked diferently.
a b U Graphics card
April 13, 2008 12:08:10 PM

Surely 'all' you'd have to do to get away from the 3 frame problem is to start rendering the 4th frame only after the 1st frame is complete and 'sent' hence meaning that the 4th is only 3 frames ahead of 'now'. This reduces the problem with latency that magic pants alludes to. And as each core is doing less it will be cooler (when my 8800gtx is vsynched, it is a lot cooler), and hence could be perhaps clocked higher.

What i'm trying to say is that there's no reason to start off all four, renderings at the same time. Therefore the Dx9 problem shouldn't be one?
April 13, 2008 2:04:51 PM

Well now we know why Micro$oft is not porting DX10 to Windows XP.
So all the gamers will go out and buy Vista DX10 rigs.
Though 3/5ths of computer advances come about because of games.
The other 2/5ths do to Video (porn).
April 13, 2008 7:21:39 PM

I was just thinking of the different ways that the video cards in SLI/CF render frames, as you know you can split the screen in sections (1 section per GPU) or make them render 1 frame each, what if you took 4 GPUs, put 2 to work on each frame (by splitting each frame in two), would the same problem occur?

EX:
GPU1: top section of frame one
GPU2: bottom section of frame one
GPU3: top section of frame two
GPU4: bottom section of frame two
April 13, 2008 8:40:58 PM

Rendering so many frames in advance like that does introduce some input lag, but if the framerates are high enough then it should be tolerable. If you want to see for yourself then try playing an older game with vsync and triple buffering enabled. That would have a similar effect.

By the way, awesome thread title :whistle: 
April 13, 2008 8:59:02 PM

yipsl said:
I'd hoped that with Vista virtually being treated as "Windows ME Too", that Microsoft would release DX10 for XP, but that won't happen. I guess all you guys with XP will migrate to the next Microsoft OS in 2009.

My wife didn't like Vista, so she wanted me to take her PC back to XP, DX10 or not. I don't mind Vista, as I'm playing DX10 games on a decent card, and I'm tolerant of the interface.



I don't know why everybody is crying about vista. It's not that bad. Yes I did have a few problems when it first came out just due to the hardware manufactures didn't have the drivers out. But now I am not having any more problems than I did with xp. I think its a great OS. I can't believe that people compare vista to Windows me. ME was horrible, and Vista is now 100 times better than ME.
April 13, 2008 9:03:25 PM

jonyb222 said:
I was just thinking of the different ways that the video cards in SLI/CF render frames, as you know you can split the screen in sections (1 section per GPU) or make them render 1 frame each, what if you took 4 GPUs, put 2 to work on each frame (by splitting each frame in two), would the same problem occur?

EX:
GPU1: top section of frame one
GPU2: bottom section of frame one
GPU3: top section of frame two
GPU4: bottom section of frame two




This is actually what they did with the 7950gx2, I forget why it didn't work. There's an article somewhere. I'll edit if I find it.

EDIT- found it
http://www.legitreviews.com/article/679/1/

The first generation Quad SLI technology seen on the GeForce 7950 GX2
back in 2006, used a hybrid mode of split frame rendering (SFR) and
alternate frame rendering (AFR) to enable concurrent rendering on four
GPUs. With the latest games utilizing complex shaders, inter-frame
effects, and multi-pass rendering, SFR becomes less efficient.



said:
The first generation Quad SLI technology seen on the GeForce 7950 GX2
back in 2006, used a hybrid mode of split frame rendering (SFR) and
alternate frame rendering (AFR) to enable concurrent rendering on four
GPUs. With the latest games utilizing complex shaders, inter-frame
effects, and multi-pass rendering, SFR becomes less efficient.



April 13, 2008 10:04:02 PM

crazywheels said:
I don't know why everybody is crying about vista. It's not that bad. Yes I did have a few problems when it first came out just due to the hardware manufactures didn't have the drivers out. But now I am not having any more problems than I did with xp. I think its a great OS. I can't believe that people compare vista to Windows me. ME was horrible, and Vista is now 100 times better than ME.

Problem with Vista i have encountered several times is that its memory hungry, have bad compatibility with older programs and games and its pain in the ass if you are programer or working with such complex things as is most of constructive programs or SAP. And i am not even mentioning things like networking or administration issues.
a b U Graphics card
April 13, 2008 10:48:33 PM

Can you turn off some of Vista's "special" features to save memory? I know for XP my barebones non-internet (no security) setup can run between 100MB-150MB and the system I am running right now chows down nearly a 1GB. Oh well, maybe I'll try it this summer as a dual boot.
April 13, 2008 11:27:24 PM

Its getting pretty much off-topic here but you don't have to piss on Vista because you can't buy a machine to run it. Vista looks better, runs better, never crashed once since i have it, and is as fast as xp if not faster in games. When it came out i bought the home edition and to be honest i hated it, now i have a new machine and Ultimate x64 Vista and its just awesome.
April 14, 2008 12:31:55 AM

Vista isn't all gravy, but from my experience it's head and shoulders above XP. Most of the increased RAM usage is attributed to Vista's aggressive precaching of frequently used applications. It scales with how much RAM you have. Right now I'm sitting at 1.09GB memory usage doing nothing but making this post. Back when I only had 2GB of RAM my idle RAM usage sat at around 750MB.
April 14, 2008 12:40:44 AM

We're not pissing on Vista, I love the operating system, but I'll have to agree that the whole preload function and using the memory to launch programs faster, well it can have it's disadvantages.

While I would never go back to Xp, I still think Vista needs some work.

The only way I would go back to Xp would be if a game like Crysis came out with as bad of an optimization as v1.0 and I really want to play it.

Either way, I would recommend 64bit Vista over 32-bit. If your going to Vista 32 bit its just a waste, because the Extra ram sure could make ur experience alot better.
April 14, 2008 1:36:41 AM

Only OpenGL and Direct X10 support 4-way AFR; for the 7950GX2 to work, they used Split-alternate frame rendering to get performance gains.
April 15, 2008 6:11:52 PM

Actually go read up on Vista's LDA technology.

It's the key to how and why both Nvidia and Ati are running 4GPUs in Vista only.
April 16, 2008 10:42:43 AM

crazywheels said:
I don't know why everybody is crying about vista. It's not that bad. Yes I did have a few problems when it first came out just due to the hardware manufactures didn't have the drivers out. But now I am not having any more problems than I did with xp. I think its a great OS. I can't believe that people compare vista to Windows me. ME was horrible, and Vista is now 100 times better than ME.


My wife's issues are specific to Morrowind and Fate, two games she mods heavily for. I don't mod, so I can tolerate issues that Vista caused her. It has something to do with the way games are saved and mods are loaded into the games, but I forget the details. She forgets the hardware talk I direct her way and I forget her graphics and modding explanations. :lol: 

Anyways, I went Vista solely for DX10 and haven't been disappointed. I actually had a good experience downloading SP1 and the worst headache I've encountered is having to run Daggerfall in Dosbox instead of directly, which I could do under XP. I still go back and play some of those retro games now and again.

L1qu1d said:


Either way, I would recommend 64bit Vista over 32-bit. If your going to Vista 32 bit its just a waste, because the Extra ram sure could make ur experience alot better.


I went 32 bit and wish I had gone 64. I'd heard that there were issues with drivers and games under 64 bit. The Witcher needs more than 2 gigs of RAM, but otherwise, it's been okay. Since I don't want to spring for another upgrade, I'll just wait till Windows 7 in 2009 ends 32 bit overall.
April 16, 2008 3:18:14 PM

fair enough!
a b U Graphics card
April 16, 2008 3:40:38 PM

Windows 7 is still going to be 32bit. I asked before and was deluged about it here on the forums. So looks like 32 bit will still be here
April 16, 2008 3:50:24 PM

I hate that though, its about time to move on! I mean we keep switching cpus and graphic cards whats 1 more os type:(  lol
a b U Graphics card
April 16, 2008 4:31:54 PM

Business will be business
!