Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Hardware (DX11) questions.

Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
a c 130 U Graphics card
a b $ Windows 7
January 4, 2009 10:50:31 AM

My question/s revolve around these issues.

Tweak town ran an article last Nov about Windows 7 being "unlikely" to ship with DX11. Windows 7 is said to ship in 2010. AMD have said that their 45nm chips will ship in 2009 with support for DX11.

Im looking to upgrade my display to 22" from 19" and also my GPU and OS sometime in early 09 first half anyway.
Now im not an early adopter far from it and if W7 isnt likely to have DX11 then its a fair bet to me that Vista with which ever SP it is up to by then would be the way to go, it seems mature ish now and im guessing with Vista i will need the 64 bit version to allow for the ram the system will need to game properly ?
Do i worry about the DX11 thing and wait for the DX11 compatible 45nm parts from ATI ? Will a non DX11 card be at a great disadvantage when DX11 does come out. If as M$ are saying its unlikely to ship with W7 in 2010 then its not going to matter for a year or so anyway. I dont really have the money to just get say a 4850/70 now and upgrade if its needed so any insight in to supposed timings of the cards releases would be appreciated.
Also any suggestions on a good make or model for a 22" screen or suggestions for alternatives or features i should make sure it has. Im running a simple plug and play running through a standard VGA connection at the minute.

Thanks

Mactronix
January 4, 2009 10:58:47 AM

Hmmm............Need to get something with HDMI connection........ why using VGA? try DVI....
a c 130 U Graphics card
a b $ Windows 7
January 4, 2009 11:14:13 AM

Is it worth getting something with HDMI though ? I figure it would come with DVI anyway by now no ? If i get a HDMI one it would cost a lot more no ? Im in the UK bu the way.

Mactronix
Related resources
a b U Graphics card
January 4, 2009 12:08:14 PM

i have a feeling that hdmi will be a standard for videocards ranging from the budget up to the enthusiast segment, but like what strange said, an adapter will always do the trick (how about loss in image quality?).

i have a feeling too that prices will go down as soon as march approaches, you know, doing good before the end of the fiscal year bonanza. so if you're waiting, march will be that "early" time of the year to pick up a new samsung or lg lcd (i love korean monitors :D ).
January 4, 2009 12:30:04 PM

Ya... DVI to HDMI convertor or vice versa available in market.........
January 4, 2009 5:10:35 PM

DX11 launch day is undetermined and far away. You also have the lag time between when a new version of DX is available and when you get a game utilizing it. On top of that...who knows how good it will be...

Personally, I wouldn't wait around for a DX release to upgrade when it is so far away. Even if it is the bee's knees of DX versions, it will take a while for DX11 games to come out.
a c 271 U Graphics card
a b $ Windows 7
January 4, 2009 5:23:51 PM

Vista's been around for a while now and just look at how snowed under with DX10 only games we are and how no DX9.c titles are out there. [:mousemonkey] ;) 
a c 130 U Graphics card
a b $ Windows 7
January 4, 2009 5:40:09 PM

Oh yea i understand what you guys are saying about the launch and then support of the new DX i was just wondering if its worth waiting for the new ATI DX11 parts. I mean for all i know the 4 series may support parts of it ? What every i do i wont do it before may/ june so then if there is a definate date for the new cards say july/august, would the benefits of the card supporting DX11 be worth waiting for ?
As i said before im not going to be in the position to buy another GPU in six months time so what i get will need to cut it at reasonable resolution quality for a while. Im just worried as is always the case that DX11 will give a significant boost in performance and i missed it because i didnt wait a month or two.
I do know its the 64 thousand £/$ question in computing, just wondered if any one had any insight into what the pros and cons are in this case.

Mactronix
January 4, 2009 6:45:35 PM

By the time dx11 comes out your graphics card will be outdated anyway so if you are set on getting dx11 compatible card rather get a good value for money card now like a 8800gt ( very cheap ) and upgrade when dx11 comes out.
a b U Graphics card
a b $ Windows 7
January 4, 2009 9:30:16 PM

I would say DX11 on Win7 is a distinct possibility. Here's a screenshot of dxdiag on my test install of Build 7000:

a b U Graphics card
January 4, 2009 9:44:09 PM

Im thinking along the lines of what SS said. The early cards on most DX releases dont always perform the best at what the DX release gives. Also, W7 looks to be the OS itll land on, but either way, Vista is and will be compatible.
If youre waiting til May or June, its likely therell be DX11 compliant cards either here, or just around the corner. You have lots of time to decide, and therell be much more info out before then about the newer cards.
Also, depending on your bracket, the newer 40nm cards will be out, and yes, those will be worth waiting for
a c 130 U Graphics card
a b $ Windows 7
January 5, 2009 6:36:01 PM

Thanks JDJ just the kind of info i was after (about the 40nm cards).
Im in no rush per-say but research has to start somewhere thats why i started this thread to get some informed views on the future hardware, and any associated issues.
I can play FAR CRY 2 at high which is plenty good enough for me, but as im running XP and dont really know what performance differances to expect with vista i want the best tec i can get, if that means waiting an extra month then thats fine.

Mactronix
a c 130 U Graphics card
a b $ Windows 7
January 6, 2009 6:44:31 PM

Thanks JDJ, There's links to all kinds of usefull info in there. :) 

Mactronix
a b U Graphics card
a b $ Windows 7
January 6, 2009 7:39:14 PM

Its really simple; it will take several months after release for the first DX11 games to come out.

If Vista/Windows 7 do not BOTH have support for DX11 up at the same time though, fewer games will go this route, for the sake of compatability.

If XP still has > 20% market share, even fewer games will be based on DX11 (or even DX10), and instead will simply be beefed up DX9 based titles, again, for compatability (DX9 being the lowest common demoninator).

Hence the issue MS now faces: they can't dump XP for several more years, but have stopped all development for it. At the same time, they also need to support two new OS's with entirely diffrent driver requirements. Thats why even for the next two years, most titles will be DX9 first, and DX10 second. As long as XP remains relevent, no game will go exclusivly DX10 or DX11.
a c 271 U Graphics card
a b $ Windows 7
January 6, 2009 8:04:46 PM

Doom 3 only on XP and not ME and Halo only on Vista, gamerk316 you could be right.
a c 130 U Graphics card
a b $ Windows 7
January 6, 2009 9:09:45 PM

Well its getting a bit off topic but is related to why i asked in the first place,
What gamerk316 is saying is one way of looking at it but the way im thinking is that when DX11 does come then the performance (given what we have seen in DX10.1) should finally tip gamers towards migrating away from XP.
Im basically on the lip of that divide at the moment and am really looking for any info or indications as to if the above(the performance) will be the case.
Lets face it if Nvidia and their pocket money bargaining power can strong arm developers into making games to show their hardware in the best light, (alledgidly). Im fairly sure that M$ can entice some games house or other into developing a few kickarse games that show DX11 in a good light and then XP will be friendless.
The above is all supposition on my part but not to far fetched i dont think.

Mactronix
a c 271 U Graphics card
a b $ Windows 7
January 6, 2009 9:28:46 PM

The great and good that you speak of would never do such a thing because they love us. [:mousemonkey]
a c 130 U Graphics card
a b $ Windows 7
January 7, 2009 6:12:30 AM

Thanks guys i guess it going to be a case of waiting a little bit longer for and news of launches and i guess if there is nothing definite about by around June time i will have to upgrade with whats available.
OS wise im pretty sure its going to be Vista and not W7 as it will obviously have teething troubles and the graphics hardware i wil just have to play by ear i guess.

Mactronix
January 7, 2009 8:10:09 AM

i dont get it.
the software hasnt been made yet and the hardware isnt manufactured yet.

what is the point of it all.what is the rush? 6 months after dx11 they will mak dx11.1 and 12 and so on. its just a sales trick.
a c 130 U Graphics card
a b $ Windows 7
January 7, 2009 10:36:15 AM

Well the reason i asked is because there are people on these forums that will know things ahead of the average joe. Im not saying there are people leaking secrets or anything its just a case of knowing where to look for information and dealing with it in the course of their jobs.
As i said before DX10.1 showed a big improvement FPS and quality and from what i have seen and heard the DX11 parts will be good. I was just looking from some confirmation really.

Mactronix
a b U Graphics card
a b $ Windows 7
January 7, 2009 11:08:32 AM

The diffrence between past incarnations of DX is this; even 98 SE supports DX 9.0c (weather or not the game will install is a diffrent question though...). Not allowing XP to have advanced DX versions is going to hold back PC gaming another two years...at least.

You make a product to cover the most platforms at once; just like all cards are manufactured to meet the highest polution requirements so it can be sold in the most markets, games are made to cover the largest possible range of software to maximize sales oppertunities. And right now, the only DX version common to all windows is DX 9.0c. As long as XP holds market share, you won't be seeing many DX 10.0+ exclusive games. And unless we actually see advantages going up the DX ladder, you won't have people rush to switch their OS's, especially after the Vista debacle.

In short: don't expect games to get much prettier then they are now until XP dies, and i don't think you will start to see this happen for at least another year.
a b U Graphics card
January 12, 2009 3:19:07 PM

DX10 was never released for XP because of WDDM. XP doesn't support WDDM at all, and MS designed DX10 with the intent of requiring WDDM support. DX11, as MS announced, will be backwards compatible with DX9 and DX10 hardware through the use of software based emulation. If you already have a GTX260, GTX280, 9800GX2, HD4870, HD4870X2...there's really no justification for replacing your graphics card unless you just want the "latest and greatest." Yes, you will see a slight performance loss due to the emulation, but if you're already running 150+ FPS....it's not going to hurt you all that much. MS also added some optimizations to DX10 for Win7. But, everyone would know that if they'd read all the articles on Win7 that have been published over the last several months.
a b U Graphics card
a b $ Windows 7
January 12, 2009 7:04:35 PM

How quickly everyone forgets XP's new driver model...last I checked, DX9 was ported to windows 98 SE...

Its all the same code in the end, its the implementation of the code that has been changed. Regardless of the OS, the card understands the same function calls assuming it supports DX10. Definition of any new functions is simple enough; its OS level functionallity which would need to be changed, which while difficult, is not impossible.

DX10 is still .dll files; don't make it sound like getting a Windows OS to read/undestand/send data from DLL files is suddenly a difficult task.
January 12, 2009 7:11:40 PM

Comparison from above link:




a c 130 U Graphics card
a b $ Windows 7
January 12, 2009 8:09:58 PM

Its not relevant to the post and its been done to death and proved to be a non starter.

Mactronix
a b U Graphics card
January 14, 2009 2:50:03 AM

Vista and Win7 use a different driver model than WinXP (which amazingly enough used the same driver model as NT5). Driver model had to change because Vista uses a completely different kernel from any previous version of Windows....but hell, if you'd done any reading you'd already know this. Also, downloading the "ported" Dx10 BS won't give you Dx10 in XP as the XP drivers don't support Dx10 (another lovely addition to WDDM1.0, which is explicit to Vista and no other version of Windows). Vista requires that the drivers support Dx10 as well as the card itself.
January 14, 2009 11:03:51 AM

I too think so..
January 14, 2009 11:52:07 AM

mactronix said:
My question/s revolve around these issues.

Tweak town ran an article last Nov about Windows 7 being "unlikely" to ship with DX11. Windows 7 is said to ship in 2010. AMD have said that their 45nm chips will ship in 2009 with support for DX11.

Im looking to upgrade my display to 22" from 19" and also my GPU and OS sometime in early 09 first half anyway.
Now im not an early adopter far from it and if W7 isnt likely to have DX11 then its a fair bet to me that Vista with which ever SP it is up to by then would be the way to go, it seems mature ish now and im guessing with Vista i will need the 64 bit version to allow for the ram the system will need to game properly ?
Do i worry about the DX11 thing and wait for the DX11 compatible 45nm parts from ATI ? Will a non DX11 card be at a great disadvantage when DX11 does come out. If as M$ are saying its unlikely to ship with W7 in 2010 then its not going to matter for a year or so anyway. I dont really have the money to just get say a 4850/70 now and upgrade if its needed so any insight in to supposed timings of the cards releases would be appreciated.
Also any suggestions on a good make or model for a 22" screen or suggestions for alternatives or features i should make sure it has. Im running a simple plug and play running through a standard VGA connection at the minute.

Thanks

Mactronix


When DX11 comes out (est Feb 09) there will be a handful of major players opting to code for it. Once again, coding a game for Vista/7 and XP will be nearly double the work and as such not greatly adopted. XP will be around for quite some time and as such you get the feeling that DX9 will be around for some time to come. The question is do you want to upgrade for a select few games when the time comes?

Also, if Intel does pull off something spectacular with Larabee then I'm seeing very interesting times. According to what I read, Larabee aims to move away from hardware being tied to a shader model and will allow for the hardware to be fully programmable (upgradable) as API's are changed which I stand for. Why must I upgrade if Directx changes to experience better visuals? It's debatable if this is going to be fast enough but if they pull it off then we can move to fully programmable shader as NV and Ati will have to follow suit. You end up buying faster graphics card in the pure sense of the word.

a b U Graphics card
January 14, 2009 12:58:05 PM

Intel has to get Larrabee to market first. Second, they have to prove they can compete with nV and ATI before they will have any real impact on the graphics market. I like the idea of moving away from hardware dependency in the sense of having to buy a new card for every new version of Dx, but I don't see Intel's solution as being capable of causing that move any time soon. I would love to see Intel's Larrabee spit in the face of nV, as they've been overly critical of Intel since Larrabee was announced. From my point of view, nV appears to be worried more about Larrabee than they are the Radeon cards. Why else respond to Intel in the manor they have? Intel is a larger company with vastly more experience than nV...as well as more resources. If Larrabee is successful...I can see a future Larranee card being based on Nahelem later. I think that is a big concern of nV as well. Nahelem's raw power is amazing...and I think it'd be a perfect step for Intel to take IF they can succeed with Larrabee's initial launch.
January 14, 2009 9:01:06 PM

DirectX v10.1 is bundled with Windows Server 2008.... Also on Vista Service Pack 1, it is said to have supporting 10.1
a b U Graphics card
January 14, 2009 9:33:41 PM

yes, Vista SP1 includes Dx10.1....but it doesn't work on nVidia cards, so it has almost no support at all.
January 15, 2009 3:54:16 AM

sykozis said:
Intel has to get Larrabee to market first. Second, they have to prove they can compete with nV and ATI before they will have any real impact on the graphics market. I like the idea of moving away from hardware dependency in the sense of having to buy a new card for every new version of Dx, but I don't see Intel's solution as being capable of causing that move any time soon. I would love to see Intel's Larrabee spit in the face of nV, as they've been overly critical of Intel since Larrabee was announced. From my point of view, nV appears to be worried more about Larrabee than they are the Radeon cards. Why else respond to Intel in the manor they have? Intel is a larger company with vastly more experience than nV...as well as more resources. If Larrabee is successful...I can see a future Larranee card being based on Nahelem later. I think that is a big concern of nV as well. Nahelem's raw power is amazing...and I think it'd be a perfect step for Intel to take IF they can succeed with Larrabee's initial launch.


Intel will not be competing with NV and Ati necessarily. Assuming they launch this product on a worst scale of fitting in the mid range market and actually being fully programmable it will create a market space that they are the only ones in (if NV and ATi don't push for something similar in Q2 09).

The bottom line here is they are doing something that should've been done a long time ago. Allow the hardware to depict the speed and not the quality. If a graphics card can last for two major API changes it gives you longer running cycles even though performance will deteriorate during this time frame. But you can buy a GPU that runs game X at 75FPS for the first API revision. Next API rev you drop to 45FPS BUT you retain the image enhancement that comes with the new API.

Business wise it becomes a bit obscured - but with our economy situations I can not see how this is bad in any case seeing that you need to pay a large work force to release a new GPU twice a year. If Intel pulls it off and NV and ATi can compete we end up with three choices, and a more robust and longer life cycle graphics card.

I'd like to see what NV and ATi has on the road map for Q2 if Intel does in fact get Larabee to market this year. And I find it mildly ironic that Windows 7 is so close in the 09/10 time frame...
a b U Graphics card
January 15, 2009 4:16:43 AM

sykozis said:
..Vista requires that the drivers support Dx10 as well as the card itself.


No it doesn't.

Vista requires that cards support DX9 in hardware (most importantly VS2.0 for Aero), not DX10, read the specs. [:thegreatgrapeape:2]


Quote:
yes, Vista SP1 includes Dx10.1....but it doesn't work on nVidia cards, so it has almost no support at all.


Only about as many major titles as support PhysX.

It's not widely adopted, but it's not about to become less supported as we push towards DX11.
a b U Graphics card
January 15, 2009 3:55:05 PM

Had you actually read and comprehended my entire post, you'd have figured out exactly what I was saying. Vista requires the drivers and hardware to support Dx10...otherwise, Dx10 goes completely unused. XP, as having no Dx10 support, has no use for Dx10 to be implemented within the drivers like it is in Vista. So, even though who are running the BS XP Dx10 "ports" still don't have Dx10 on XP. For a driver to received WHQL from MS on Vista...it has to conform to WDDM1.0 spec. Dx10 was intended to run only with drivers that conform to WDDM1.0 spec, with or without WHQL certification. Since XP drivers don't conform to WDDM1.0, as XP won't run WDDM drivers....no Dx10 on XP.
a b U Graphics card
a b $ Windows 7
January 15, 2009 4:40:08 PM

sykozis said:
Had you actually read and comprehended my entire post, you'd have figured out exactly what I was saying. Vista requires the drivers and hardware to support Dx10...otherwise, Dx10 goes completely unused. XP, as having no Dx10 support, has no use for Dx10 to be implemented within the drivers like it is in Vista. So, even though who are running the BS XP Dx10 "ports" still don't have Dx10 on XP. For a driver to received WHQL from MS on Vista...it has to conform to WDDM1.0 spec. Dx10 was intended to run only with drivers that conform to WDDM1.0 spec, with or without WHQL certification. Since XP drivers don't conform to WDDM1.0, as XP won't run WDDM drivers....no Dx10 on XP.


Funny how no one can EXPLAIN (technical details) why someone can't do a code conversion to something XP understands. Its all 0's and 1's people; get those to the card, and you have DX10.

The issue at hand is getting around WDDM. Getting XP to refrence the .DLL files where DX10 resides is simple enough (a few registry hacks); getting those functions to work without WDDM is significantly harder, although still possible.
a b U Graphics card
January 16, 2009 3:56:58 AM

sykozis said:
Had you actually read and comprehended my entire post, you'd have figured out exactly what I was saying.


I read it, but yeah didn't comprehend why you borked the wording to say something that it doesn't do.

Just like your mention of WDDM being the limitation as if that weren't an artificial limitation, it's the front end for the OS-driver interface and something added to it, just like WHQL certification, it's an artificial impediment. OpenGL would remove both of barriers, because their implementation restrictions, not hard limits.
The ONLY thing that is realistic is the issue of having to make significant changes to the kernel, to support all the extended features, but really, the major ones that made DX10 impractical on XP weren't implemented until DX10.1

Talking about WDDM and WHQL limitations is like saying a card can't go faster than 150 MPH because of an added electronic speed governor being place on the car, whereas the Kernel limitation is like the axle or aerodynamics going wrong at that speed. One's an artificial limit, one's a limit to the design as is without major rework. The 'governor' limitation makes sense in light of the hard limit, but it's not something that couldn't be worked around easier than the other limitation. That's why your statements need to be refined, because they skirt the issue and focus on the wrong things.

Seriously, Phil Taylor went through it many times and quite succinctly in the early days of the DX9-wrapper discussions;
http://blogs.msdn.com/ptaylor/archive/2007/02/14/why-dx...

Far more to the point.
a b U Graphics card
January 16, 2009 11:32:54 AM

The limitations exist because MS wants them to. Trying to argue points won't change that. Getting around WDDM isn't as hard as people think.....just a matter of actually hacking MS code....and nV's drivers...and ATI's drivers.....and in the future, Intel's drivers. Most people actually capable of doing it refuse to because it's completely pointless. XP is nearing 8 years old and performance wise...is nearing it's limit as an OS. It's kinda like trying to run Win95 on a 3.8ghz Prescott P4, if Win95 were actually capable of it....
a b U Graphics card
January 16, 2009 11:54:10 AM

sykozis said:
The limitations exist because MS wants them to. Trying to argue points won't change that.


I'm not trying to change that (I'm not in the camp that whined about DX10 being limited to XP, I had Vista before beta, just like WIn7), but I'm also not saying it's unrealistically impossible.

I always contended it just wasn't in M$' interest, both financially and from a marketing perspective, even before people like Phil confirmed it.
Like I mentioned thing that's interesting is that the major feature limitations are those same major features that got pulled from DX10 and pushed off to DX10.1, so for quite some time that hard limit wasn't really applicable either, despite it being parroted as a reason it 'couldn't be done' despite 'not being done' in DX10 either.

Just clearing that up, not trying to change it, because that would be like pi$$ing into the wind.
a b U Graphics card
a b $ Windows 7
January 16, 2009 12:11:16 PM

Back on topic, since DX11 will requiere SM 5.0, i guess no card right now will be DX11 compatable. Still, as i said WAY back, it'll be a few years before we see people go the DX11 route. I still give XP another two years, so i doubt we'll be seeing any DX10 only games for a while too...
a b U Graphics card
January 16, 2009 12:36:50 PM

DX11 will be more than just the change in the shader model, the addition of support for compute shaders and other such items might be worth it, but that remains to be seen. It won't be 'required' for a while, but it might become useful sooner, which would be a nice thing.
!