Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

directx 10.1 requirement?

Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
August 5, 2008 9:35:20 PM

Hello all,

I am currently in the process of researching hardware parts for my first build... and I was wondering about the requirements of directx 10.1...

i came across couple of articles online saying how directx10.1 is only available for vista+service pack 1... this made me think twice about the gpu that i really want --> radeon hd 3580

i am unclear even after reading articles such as
http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/video/display/radeon-h...
and
http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/video/display/200708151233...

my questions:
- will i be able to get all the features of directx 10.1 on my system?
- if the statement of "directx10.1 is only available for vista+service pack 1" is true, does that mean that xp users are out of lucK? is vista the only choice if i want directx 10.1?
- if that statement is true, are there any updates for win XP that allows me to use the directx 10.1 features?

CONSTRAINTS (and other information - dunno if they'll help):
- i will be running Windows XP
- q6600 - not planning on overclocking until i need to
- either gigabyte x38 or x48 based board - whichever is cheaper that i can find, when i go looking
- plan on running single gpu radeon hd 3850 for now.. crossfire later, maybe, dont know yet
- i am poor


thanks in advance

More about : directx requirement

August 5, 2008 9:38:37 PM

answers to your questions:

1.will i be able to get all the features of directx 10.1 on my system?
answer no
2.if the statement of "directx10.1 is only available for vista+service pack 1" is true, does that mean that xp users are out of lucK? is vista the only choice if i want directx 10.1?
correct , only vista + sp1 can use it
3.- if that statement is true, are there any updates for win XP that allows me to use the directx 10.1 features?
no there isnt

and more to the point if your using a quad core and new kit , vista is something you should seriously consider , as vista 64bit uses your cores more effectively
August 5, 2008 9:47:37 PM

^

Yes, you might as well go Vista 64 if you have to get a new OS anyway.

Directx 10(.1) is for Vista only, and will probably never come to XP.
Related resources
Can't find your answer ? Ask !
August 5, 2008 9:50:06 PM

You could always invest millions of dollars yourself to try to hack DX10.1 into XP... or just buy vista.
August 5, 2008 9:52:10 PM

samuraiblade said:
answers to your questions:

1.will i be able to get all the features of directx 10.1 on my system?
answer no
2.if the statement of "directx10.1 is only available for vista+service pack 1" is true, does that mean that xp users are out of lucK? is vista the only choice if i want directx 10.1?
correct , only vista + sp1 can use it
3.- if that statement is true, are there any updates for win XP that allows me to use the directx 10.1 features?
no there isnt

and more to the point if your using a quad core and new kit , vista is something you should seriously consider , as vista 64bit uses your cores more effectively


is that so? i did not know that.. i figured that all the efficiency comes from the programmers of the software... i guess i do not know enough about vista...
its just that all the terrible stories i hear about vista... but then again, people say that there arent as many problems as people say there are because of people's ignorance of the operating system... although that may be true and although it may be a stable system - i know for a fact that xp works for me so why try another when i am content with my current OS? anyways, thats my reasoning for staying with XP - besides why pay for a new OS when i already have XP for free

anyways, if your statement about vista utilizing the four cores more efficiently is true, then i will probably opt for vista ...

i will start my research...

thanks for the reply samuraiblade
a c 84 U Graphics card
August 5, 2008 10:04:53 PM

samuraiblade said:
, as vista 64bit uses your cores more effectively
huh? never heard about this before, got a link?

to OP: dx10 is only for vista and so is dx10.1
anyhow those cards play dx9 games just superb and so far there hasn't been any 'dx10 only' games
August 5, 2008 10:12:10 PM

ok... just making sure..

the latest dx10.1 can support games from back in the day? like a directx 8 game?

so to my understanding... xp can only handle directx 9?

why cant they make updates for previous OS's - like how they allow you to use (for example) an old divx player and load new codecs on them
August 5, 2008 10:22:42 PM

I think all the directX versions are compatible with the old ones. The one exception might be with Direct Sound :( 
It is the one regret I have about upgrading to Vista from XP, my Audigy Fatality edition is kind of under used (still works well enough but I feel like it worked best under XP lol)
Alchemy helps a little bit with the Direct Sound issue :) 
August 5, 2008 10:23:01 PM

They can't do directx 10 on XP because the level it works on in the OS. XP would pretty much have to be rewritten as I understand it.
August 5, 2008 10:50:14 PM

hmm interesting... i wasnt even thinking about the sound part.... but then again i am not heavily interested in sound - as long as it sounds good im ok with it - not like im producing music or something like that....

one thing i just thought of...

would you guys know off the top of ur head - are there any AS CAPABLE AS HD3850 cards out there in terms of the following conditions:

- directx 9 (minimum) support
- ATI (or amd) cards
- crossfire support (NOT sli)
- same or close to 3850's specifications and benchmarks

i dont know waht to do anymore really.... i mean i want the 3850 because of the performance to price ratio, as well as it being a ati/amd product (because of my crossfire motherboard)

i really dont want to switch to vista... but if my hardware requires them, perhaps i have to...

should i even worry about dx10.1? i mean im trying to generally future proof (or future resist) my system... let me know your tho9ughts and opinions...

on another note.......... +4 gigs of ram would be nice on the vista....

just remember, im poor
a b U Graphics card
August 5, 2008 11:14:46 PM

Just so you know, Crossfire support mandates ATI cards. Just like SLI mandates nVidia cards. So if you want to go Crossfire, you have to use ATI cards. This limits your options in the market, as you have to buy an ATI card if you want to go Crossfire.

DirectX 9 as a minimum spec is, well pretty old. If you can buy a video card right now that doesnt' support DirectX 9 you're buying a very... old used card. So don't worry about this.

Because you're looking for something similar to a 3850, that is ATI/Crossfire, you are pretty much stuck with ATI cards. Frankly you're either going to have to buy a 3850, or a slower or faster card. So, for performance, either get an ATI 3850, 3870, or the new 4850/4870 cards.

Now, if you purchase a video card which has DirectX 10.1 support, that does not mean it won't work with XP or DirectX 9. In fact, any DirectX 10 card will also support DirectX 9.

However, DirectX 9 cards will NOT support DirectX 10.

Just like Windows Vista supports DirectX 10 & 9. Windows XP ONLY supports DirectX 9.

If you really want to "future resist" your computer, buy the newest ATI 4850 instead of the 3850. Otherwise you're already buying last year's equipment. Really though, this idea people have spread about "future proof" and "future resist" is pointless. Just buy the best you can afford at the time. Even if you buy the highest end video card out right now, in 6 months someone will have something better. That's just how it works.
August 5, 2008 11:19:08 PM

About RAM, Vista has nothing to do with 4Gb.
The thing is that with a 32bit OS you will only have around 3Gb of memory, for the OS cannot work with more than that, no matter if it is Vista or XP.
If you need more than 4Gb (I just wonder why), you either use Vista 64 or XP 64, if you can still find it.
a b U Graphics card
August 5, 2008 11:27:28 PM

galta said:
About RAM, Vista has nothing to do with 4Gb.
The thing is that with a 32bit OS you will only have around 3Gb of memory, for the OS cannot work with more than that, no matter if it is Vista or XP.
If you need more than 4Gb (I just wonder why), you either use Vista 64 or XP 64, if you can still find it.


IF the OP wants to use Vista 64, I'd definitely recommend 4GB of RAM. I ran my system with 2GB and it ran fine, but I noticed some delays in games and when Tabbing out of games. When I installed 4GB, my system began to run noticeably smoother.

But, as Galta stated, 4GB of RAM really only gets used if you have a 64bit operating system. (Windows Vista and XP are usually 32bit unless you specifically purchase the 64bit version)
August 6, 2008 12:16:08 AM

interesting points guys... didnt know vista had a 32 bit version...

thanks for the replies/suggestions guys - i am currently in the process of researching/comparing 3850's and 3870's... next time i come to school (to use the computer cuz i dont have one at home) i will research/compare the 4xxx series

and to jerreece - i know what you mean by
"this idea people have spread about "future proof" and "future resist" is pointless. Just buy the best you can afford at the time. Even if you buy the highest end video card out right now, in 6 months someone will have something better."
i use the term "future proof/resistant" in terms of my poor condition (i dont have much money), hence - i wont upgrade to another system for at least 5 yrs.. yes new tech. is inevitable - which makes my system obsolete in terms of new software when that time comes, but that doesnt mean i cant word process or surf the web... as these are the majority of the tasks that i do on the computer
but as the tech gets newer and my system gets older, i want to experience all the technology and software that will pass by WITH the constraint of my lack of money in mind - so i cant get the top of the line stuff that are out currently - but i can settle for a card that is not that old and can handle new and old games - such as the radeon hd3850

anyways, keep the comments and suggestions coming! thanks again!
a b U Graphics card
August 6, 2008 12:36:42 AM

Right now, its pointless to get a card because it supports DX10.1 becuase I can't think of a single game that uses it. Besides, DX11 will be out in a year anyway.

Also forgot to mention: On XP, all previous DX versions prior to 9 will usually run. On Vista, only the DX9 and 10 binaries are included, so previous DX versions are implemented via a compatability layer. As a result, some games (mostly 95/98 era) will not run, or will not run as they should.


Your best be might be to get xp now, and wait for Windows 7, and install that on a seperate HD when it comes out.
August 6, 2008 12:45:22 AM

gamerk316 said:
Right now, its pointless to get a card because it supports DX10.1 becuase I can't think of a single game that uses it.



Assasin's creed unpatched, w00t.

Yeah I agree with you, realistically speaking there isn't any use for DX 10.1 yet.
August 6, 2008 12:49:15 AM

By future proofing, you may want to buy the best bang for
the buck that is current as of this year....and research
Overclocking both your ram, cpu and gpu for future necessary
speed and compatability issues.
After all, the main components of any system is the ram, cpu, gpu
and mobo...and maybe the psu under the right circumstances.
All other componentry is likely to adhere to the fsb standards and
be able to be used in future upgrades therby saving you more cash.
good luck
August 6, 2008 6:57:54 PM

thanks for the input guys!


gamerk316 said:
Right now, its pointless to get a card because it supports DX10.1 becuase I can't think of a single game that uses it. Besides, DX11 will be out in a year anyway.

hmm havent really thought about that....

gamerk316 said:

Also forgot to mention: On XP, all previous DX versions prior to 9 will usually run. On Vista, only the DX9 and 10 binaries are included, so previous DX versions are implemented via a compatability layer.

what do you mean compatibility layer? like a patch or update? so vista will only allow dx9 and 10?
gamerk316 said:

As a result, some games (mostly 95/98 era) will not run, or will not run as they should.

so does that mean i can't play counterstrike1.6 on vista? cuz thats a really old game - came out in the mid 90's but i still love it
gamerk316 said:

Your best be might be to get xp now, and wait for Windows 7, and install that on a seperate HD when it comes out.

thanks for the suggestion... its just that i already have a copy of xp... didnt want to pay to get a new OS.... btw when is win7 coming out? also whats the purpose of separate HD?

you guys think i should just get a budget card and wait for dirx11? wont the 3850 drop in price?

thanks everyone, again
August 7, 2008 3:25:05 PM

ironsung, you can play any level of directX on Vista. DX9 is 100% backwards compatible.
a c 88 U Graphics card
August 7, 2008 6:17:20 PM

I wouldnt be too concerned with it, Directx 10.1 is dead , Directx11 is the next
!