Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Closed

Down with XP, long live DX10 and up!

Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
a b U Graphics card
December 2, 2009 10:03:48 AM

Whatever may it be... its probably the one thing Microsoft owes its success to!
Score
0
a b U Graphics card
December 2, 2009 10:17:26 AM

XPs losing more than 2% of its marketshare a month now, has less than half the market, and steam does have over 70% of gaming market, so the numbers are pretty solid.
Maybe now we can just move on, and leave XP and its hold ups behind us
Score
0
Related resources
a b U Graphics card
December 2, 2009 10:24:24 AM

Its quite obvious XP will loose out now. Three DX versions have passed now, 10, 10.1 and 11. How long can DX9c hold on? But Microsoft extended the support for XP till 2014 since Vista was such a flop show! XP was supposed to retire in May 2008, i think!
Score
0
a b U Graphics card
December 2, 2009 10:50:37 AM

So...a newer OS finally has a higher share then XP? Took long enough; BTW, I assume that the Windows 6.x line is adding Vista + 7 together, right? (As theres no way Vista by itself has a larger share then XP)

And I do point out, just because XP has ~48% of the market doesn't mean it will be ignored; games code to the lowest common denominator (Hence why every game still uses DX9.0c/SM3 (6800 Ultra being the lowest "supported" card)).

So yeah, no major news here.

And on an aside: You can get all DX10 level features on XP, provided you use OpenGL...(The DX11 demo is being re-released with OpenGL support in a week or two :D )
Score
0
a b U Graphics card
December 2, 2009 10:53:21 AM

Aside from the fact that even my "agressive" guess of this happening has happened, and its rate is falling even faster than I thought.
Its mind share will fail within 6-7 months at this rate
@ gamer, need we look up your predictions here? Took long enough? 2011 comes to mind.
Score
0
a b U Graphics card
December 2, 2009 3:28:50 PM

^^ Still above 20%, isn't it? And again, combining Vista + 7 vs. XP?

Also: http://www.w3schools.com/browsers/browsers_os.asp

Quote:

2009 Win7 Vista Win2003 WinXP W2000 Linux Mac
November 6.7% 17.5% 1.4% 62.2% 0.7% 4.3% 6.7%
October 4.4% 18.6% 1.5% 63.3% 0.7% 4.2% 6.8%
September 3.2% 18.3% 1.5% 65.2% 0.8% 4.1% 6.5%
August 2.5% 18.1% 1.6% 66.2% 0.9% 4.2% 6.1%
July 1.9% 17.7% 1.7% 67.1% 1.0% 4.3% 6.0%
June 1.6% 18.3% 1.7% 66.9% 1.0% 4.2% 5.9%
May 1.1% 18.4% 1.7% 67.2% 1.1% 4.1% 6.1%
April 0.7% 17.9% 1.7% 68.0% 1.2% 4.0% 6.1%
March 0.5% 17.3% 1.7% 68.9% 1.3% 4.0% 5.9%
February 0.4% 17.2% 1.6% 69.0% 1.4% 4.0% 6.0%
January 0.2% 16.5% 1.6% 69.8% 1.6% 3.9% 5.8%


Claims XP still has 62.2% usage (as of November), which is a far more realistic figure. Remember, people who use Steam tend to be more game oriented, and more likely to gravitate toward new features (DX10+ in this case) then the general public.

Basically, I'm calling the graph above simply a snapshot of what OS gamers favor, and not having anything to do with actual usage overall.
Score
0
a b U Graphics card
December 2, 2009 3:50:44 PM

Were in the gfx section, talking about games, this isnt practice here, but about games (sorry for the Iverson ripoff heheh)
Steam has the single largest single usage of any group out there period, and as the thread states, its about DX10, not DX9.
If XP is currently at 48%, and is losing its overall impact in the worlds largest game market by 2+% per month, by June, it could very well be 33% and falling, so its only a matter of time before we see non DX9 games, as Im sure, most games starting now and for awhile now, are not DX9, and will be DX10+ exclusive.
Before the end of 2010, not 2011 or 2012, which you have said in the past, XP will have lost its relevance in PC gaming.
This is nothing but good news. We need to move on, and all the negatives by nVidia and others about DX10.1 and onwards needs to stop, as DX9 is not where the moolahs at.

So, we can put this one to rest, as XP just doesnt count anymore for PC gaming.
You cant include potential users on an old OS, theyre irrelevent, and its only the new OS systems that count. You cant set your business model for XP seeing these numbers and these changes, as my numbers carry weight within the gaming community, not overall usage.
There simply are no more XP numbers going up, only less and less, even for non gaming usage, which doesnt apply to devs and ATI,nVidia or Intel.
Having Intel entering the fray here also gives this a boost as well.
RIP XP
Score
0
a b U Graphics card
December 2, 2009 7:50:19 PM

JD, you are clearly going insane now. Lowest common denominator = largest possible profit. I'm not arguing XP is ever going to go up, I'm mearly arguing the numbers you are using is based off on individual group within the PC community (gamers), and to use those statistics to make any sort of conclusion on overall OS usage is flawed beyond any hope of redemption.

I also remind you, Vista/7 will have split usage statistics for a while yet, and a lot of 7 users are going to be Vista converts...

Year Start:
XP: 69.8%
Vista: 16.5%, Windows 7 = .2% = 16.7%

July:
XP: 67.1% (-2.1%)
Vista: 17.7% (+1.2%), Windows 7: 1.9% (+1.7%) = 19.6% (+2.9%)

November:
XP: 62.2% (-4.9%)
Vista: 17.5% (-.2%), Windows 7: 6.7% (+4.8%) = 24.2% (+4.6%)

Its too early to draw a trend, but it looks like XP will drop at around 1.2-1.5% a month from here on out. Assuming all of that loss goes to 7 (a big assumption), then 7 will overtake XP (using the 1.5% a month)...in just over 18 months (or mid 2011). Again, early to draw a trend as 7 hasn't been released for too long to the consumer markets, but thats what the early data indicates.
Score
0
a b U Graphics card
December 2, 2009 8:47:02 PM

No, this is about DX10 and up. This is about gaming. It has nothing to do with all those millions of netbooks, or lil Suzy emailing or Joe on facebook for main usage.
It has nothing to do with Bob in accounting or Bill checking out the latest pron, its about games, game devs and DX10 on up.
Where do you go for the largest collection for usage?
Steam
Not DX9 or lower, ala W5 and lower, but Vista on up.
The trend is what the Steam tells us, and to ignore it if youre a gamer, a dev or a gfx company is foolish, and that trend tells us its 2+% a month.
So, when were talking about games, devs and usage, this whole thread is about games and their players, what OS they use, what HW they use etc.
Just some facts Im bringing, and how, where and why its applied, not something off target.
I'll ask you this, whats the % of DX10+ gfx cards used? Do you believe its only 52%? Do you honestly think itll be anywheres near that low by mid year 2011?
Before, the DX10 HW was there, but the OS usage wasnt, now its changing, and quickly
Score
0
a c 1392 U Graphics card
December 2, 2009 8:55:02 PM

I will probably upgrade next time I upgrade mobo/cpu. I have been using windows since it came out in version 1.1 (not really usable until 3.0) and XP is by far the best product that ever came from Microsoft except for DOS.
Score
0
a b U Graphics card
December 2, 2009 9:08:09 PM

W8 is due in 2012
Score
0
December 2, 2009 9:30:31 PM

I'm done with XP i demoted my XP to my laptop and promoted my desktop to windows 7 just today dam slow free shipping making me wait a week. It's was a good run calling india to get my XP activated after oh hell i don't know how long that has been going on 5 6 years now?

"Yes this is the only computer with this windows XP installed on."
Score
0
a b U Graphics card
December 2, 2009 9:42:27 PM

Quote:
So vista V3.


The Microsoft road map slides that were floating around label W7 as an update release, with W8 being a major new release. I'd expect it to be a relatively new entity.
Score
0
a b U Graphics card
December 2, 2009 9:44:54 PM

Actually, what were going to see in W8 will make XP quite outdated, as it will use multi threading and "APU"/gpgpu usage much better than what we have today, even with W7.
In the cpu section, in the AMD Intel general discussion sticky,early on, I gave links to W7 and its MT usage, and how its all going to change once we hit 8 cores on up, how itll leave XP in the dust.
These chips are due in 2010 and 2011, plus LRB and the AMD "APU" approach as well.
The windows are closing fast on XP, in many ways
Score
0
a c 230 U Graphics card
December 2, 2009 9:45:18 PM

Couple of things getting lost.....

Games take 2 years minimum to be developed....then again, we can look at Duke Nukem Forever which might reach a decade if it ever comes out. How long has Blizzard been developing the next Starcraft ?

DX10 was a complete non factor.....nobody ever got upset because their puter didn't have DX10.

Using graphs like this to speculate on trends is iffy. If we take that approach, then it's obvious from the graph here

http://www.venganza.org/about/open-letter/

that the rise in earth's temperature over the last 200 years is directly related to the decline in pirate population.

Just cause grandma bought little johnny a new PC for XMas w/ windows 7 doesn't mean a) that anyone made a conscious choice to get DX11 and b) that when Mom goes out to buy a game for johnny to play with XMas day, that she is going to be focused on what DX version the game supports.

The average model year for cars on the road simply goes up because old cars die and are replaced with newer ones....it has nothing to do with whether the buyer thinks the 2009 had anything to offer better than the 2005 he warped around a tree last weekend.

If a new DX11 game comes out with great graphics, it's an erroneous assumption to assign the credit to DX11 until you have actually compared the graphics under Dx11 to the same sequence using DX10.


Score
0
December 2, 2009 9:47:02 PM

What is windows 8 suppose to be improving upon that couldn't be done via a patch to windows 7? Or is it just some like vague like target date to get an OS out bring Microsoft to do periodical os releases as their business structure.
Score
0
a b U Graphics card
December 2, 2009 9:57:10 PM

@ jack, yes we know, and thats what I was trying to say to gamer, but if lil johnny has a steam account and uses it, his number shows up on my graph
@ izzy, itll mainly be the floating point units being more used, or able to be used by W8, as well as better threading in a MT solution.
As devs write their code in a MT friendly way, the OS working with these new Int/FP solutions, cpus with gfx capable on chip, it all works hand in hand, from SW to OS to HW. Where still nowheres near where we want to be, but even W7 using a 8 core will simply trample XP they way it deals with MT right now, and no patch can change this, just like the kernal was changed on Vista for DX10, no patch makes XP actually play a DX10 game, only thru emulation SW, which is too slow to be effective. Same here with the new OS'
Score
0
a c 359 U Graphics card
December 2, 2009 10:27:47 PM

Win XP'er here. :hello: 

Got a HD 5850 in my primary PC.

But I admit I am currently looking at migrating over to Win 7. Still play DX9 games though (from time to time). I believe the only DX10 title I bought was Crysis all other somewhat recent games only supports DX9 (Fallout 3, X3: Terran Conflict, Mass Effect, Dead Space).

Score
0
a b U Graphics card
December 2, 2009 11:36:23 PM

JAYDEEJOHN said:
XPs losing more than 2% of its marketshare a month now, has less than half the market, and steam does have over 70% of gaming market, so the numbers are pretty solid.
Maybe now we can just move on, and leave XP and its hold ups behind us


Steam does not have over 70% of the gaming market, it has over 70% of the digital market (this figure is estimated by Stardock). This means that Steam provides approx. 70% of those who use digital distribution sites their games (there is still a very large number of gamers who buy their games as physical media, and don't subscribe to any media distribution site).
Score
0
December 2, 2009 11:40:53 PM

I know i don't buy my games though steam i want a physical copy so say 10 years from now i can always play that game even if the distributor is gone.

I just wiped off my childhood supersolvers game as i said that haha.
Score
0
a b U Graphics card
December 2, 2009 11:44:28 PM

pepperman said:
Steam does not have over 70% of the gaming market, it has over 70% of the digital market (this figure is estimated by Stardock). This means that Steam provides approx. 70% of those who use digital distribution sites their games (there is still a very large number of gamers who buy their games as physical media, and don't subscribe to any media distribution site).

While those numbers are actually higher if everyone/things included, youre right.
I just dont see buying personal media instead of steam as a difference in OS usage?

"Head man of Impulse distribution platform parent company Stardock, Brad Wardell, says his company's estimate puts Valve in charge of about 70 percent of the PC digital distribution market.

The nearest runner-up is the company's own Impulse, albeit with only 10 percent, whereas all the others make for a 20 percent remainder. This speaks volumes of just how important Steam is, but that's not all."
http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/steam-has-70-per-cent...

Score
0
a c 376 U Graphics card
December 3, 2009 12:50:38 AM

JackNaylorPE said:
Using graphs like this to speculate on trends is iffy. If we take that approach, then it's obvious from the graph here

http://www.venganza.org/about/open-letter/

that the rise in earth's temperature over the last 200 years is directly related to the decline in pirate population

Are you suggesting a different theory???
Sacrilege!!
Score
0
a b U Graphics card
December 3, 2009 1:01:20 AM

JAYDEEJOHN said:

I just dont see buying personal media instead of steam as a difference in OS usage?



I'm saying that basing your assumptions (and the assumptions of gaming software developers) regarding OS usage of gamers off of an estimate that isn't a representation of all gamers is ignorant (I'm not intending to insult you, but that's the most accurate word I can use).
Score
0
a b U Graphics card
December 3, 2009 1:12:11 AM

And what Im saying is, saying that XP being used overall isnt even close, and steam gives us an idea as to how the market is shifting, and ignoring such a valuable piece of info would be ignorant
Should this be the primary source? Im sure nvidia and ATI have better sources, but its still a source, and much more applicable than how many XP units are possibly out there, with alot sitting in businesses.
If this isnt a indicator, then if you have links, please share, as this would help solve this apparent mystery?
Score
0
a b U Graphics card
December 3, 2009 2:20:22 AM

I'm not saying that the market isn't shifting (it is); what I'm saying is it probably isn't shifting as rapidly as the Steam graph shows.
Using the Steam graph as a sole source (I should have worded it this way in my first post) is not an accurate view of the OS usage by the gaming community. I could give theories as to why the Steam graph might show a larger shift, but alas, I don't have sources for them.
Score
0
a b U Graphics card
December 3, 2009 3:03:39 AM

Steam graph shows the shift in the gaming world, coz of the relevant DX 11 thing. But gamers would be 20% of the world's total PC users only! Most of the people i know in offices still use XP, they never upgraded to Vista, even after its release.
Score
0
December 3, 2009 4:13:50 PM

For the mass gaming market that you refer to, your elation may be justified - if you live in a box with a swarm of other people living in boxes around you I guess you would actually appreciate (if not outright need ) the graphical bling of DX10 and up.
However, I live in one of the most beautiful, bountiful places on the planet, and it is getting tough to get kids to do much of anything in the real world - hunting, fishing and just plain old exploring and playing outdoors. Every hour that we can pry them away from a video screen to learn real skills and their own language and culture is a chance to help them be truly independent in the real world - the world where if you can hunt and fish you can actually live separate from the corporate world and discover what being a living part of nature feels like - not to mention the topic that never gets discussed in tech forums - what happens when the economy collapses ( and it will - it is only a matter of when, whether that be this coming year or many years in the future ), or what they can do when they want a break from the growing police state syndrome I see happening. DXwhatever may numb the pain if you're trapped in a police state, but it isn't going to free you or feed you.
Don't take this as a condemnation of computer tech - I'd just like to remind people of what we are losing amidst the rush.

And yeah - I'm still using XP.
Score
0
a b U Graphics card
December 3, 2009 6:41:19 PM

Recommended Frostbite PC Specifications for BFBC2 & BF1943
Processor: Quadcore
Main memory: 2GB
Graphics card: GeForce GTX 260
Graphics memory: 512MB
OS: Windows Vista or Windows 7
Free HDD space: 15GB for Digital Version, 10GB for Disc Version (BFBC2)
10GB for Digital Version (BF1943)
http://blogs.battlefield.ea.com/battlefield_bad_company...
While low end does include some of DX9s finest, and it can run on XP, this shows progress.
As to accuracy, sure, steam controls 80%, but that isnt just digital downloads only in these figures, so, saying digital only is excluding the numbers already included here.
Maybe the digital only numbers are actually much higher if non digital only is lower overall, and thus lowering the mixed total numbers being shown.
Either way, this is the way its going, with speeds only ramping from here, and I might add, PC sales are down by 30% yr to yr, and once it picks back up, the XP numbers will only drop faster.
New games requiring the highest DX9 HW has to offer is another sign XP is all but ended

PS Note the obvious minimum requirements? Its what we have on our consoles folks, and again, thats minimum
Score
0
a c 271 U Graphics card
December 3, 2009 7:02:05 PM

But it's always been that way, a new game comes out and the recommended spec is the newest stuff, if it was DX10/11 only then I'd say you have a point but as it is this is just the start (finally) of the transition that we didn't get with Vista's arrival nothing more.
Score
0
a b U Graphics card
December 3, 2009 7:09:49 PM

And only as the start, XP is already not the main OS combined with DX9. Thats the point, it only snowballs from here, as everything is pointing away from it, which just not long ago, all these things werent.
I more or less am saying these last few changes, W7, DX11, MT usage, new games and their minimums etc, are the final nail in XPs coffin
Score
0
a b U Graphics card
December 3, 2009 7:42:11 PM

JAYDEEJOHN said:

... As to accuracy, sure, steam controls 80%, but that isnt just digital downloads only in these figures, so, saying digital only is excluding the numbers already included here.
Maybe the digital only numbers are actually much higher if non digital only is lower overall, and thus lowering the mixed total numbers being shown.


You're contradicting shown facts; Steam owns approx. 70% of digital market (technically not a fact but an estimate), and your OS usage chart only applies to those who subscribe to Steam (aka 70% of those who use the digital market) so yes, those numbers do only apply to those who use Steam. Those who do not use Steam and/or only buy their games as physical copies are not represented in Steam's data. That being said, this data is an indicator regarding gamers' OS usage, but it is not as accurate as it seems since (as I've said before) it does not include all corners of the gaming community.
Score
0
a b U Graphics card
December 3, 2009 8:08:14 PM

And as to my link, another 10% is also owned by them, so the numbers are as they are.
When you sign up for updates or whatever, your specs are included, so yes, there is some crossover here, which ignoring this is also not including parts of the gaming industry.
Its what a few devs and coders etc have brought up elsewheres as an indicator, so me bringing it up here is appropo, and is only a part of the larger scenario, but a vital one.
Its our only indicator, unless theres others, and not the overall office/business aunty em and everyone else that never games indicators, but something specific.
To ignore it or discredit it, is fruitless, and its only a part of it all

I point alot of this out, as alot of us have spent our monies and waited, only to see DX10.1 being discredited also, and anything DX10 with Vista as a "flop", and the delays, and also even the taking away of DX10.1 in 1 title.
We need to move on. Its time, the indicators are here, and maybe the economy will accelerate it even faster, but it is time.
nVidia has even moved on, and will have a DX11 card coming, DX11 games are coming, everythings pointing towards it. By placing more importance on steam alone than what I am and ignoring all other things is just that, and its not steam alone, and we all know that
Score
0
a b U Graphics card
December 3, 2009 8:55:19 PM

LumberWagon said:
For the mass gaming market that you refer to, your elation may be justified - if you live in a box with a swarm of other people living in boxes around you I guess you would actually appreciate (if not outright need ) the graphical bling of DX10 and up.
However, I live in one of the most beautiful, bountiful places on the planet, and it is getting tough to get kids to do much of anything in the real world - hunting, fishing and just plain old exploring and playing outdoors. Every hour that we can pry them away from a video screen to learn real skills and their own language and culture is a chance to help them be truly independent in the real world - the world where if you can hunt and fish you can actually live separate from the corporate world and discover what being a living part of nature feels like - not to mention the topic that never gets discussed in tech forums - what happens when the economy collapses ( and it will - it is only a matter of when, whether that be this coming year or many years in the future ), or what they can do when they want a break from the growing police state syndrome I see happening. DXwhatever may numb the pain if you're trapped in a police state, but it isn't going to free you or feed you.
Don't take this as a condemnation of computer tech - I'd just like to remind people of what we are losing amidst the rush.

And yeah - I'm still using XP.


I wouldn't hunt or fish or any of that primal stuff if someone payed me. I'll stay connected thanks.

And for the record I live way out in the country in Madison County, GA so I know what the outdoors are like and I would love to live in a box with other boxes swarming with people all around me instead of the middle of nowhere.
Score
0
December 4, 2009 1:36:03 AM

Apologies Jaydee, but this post is way off topic - but c'est la vie, it'll be off the radar by morning anyway...

edeawillrule said:
I wouldn't hunt or fish or any of that primal stuff if someone payed me. I'll stay connected thanks.

And for the record I live way out in the country in Madison County, GA so I know what the outdoors are like and I would love to live in a box with other boxes swarming with people all around me instead of the middle of nowhere.



I'm connected - just not as connected as some, I guess. I'm on an island in the Pacific ocean, but I used to live (relatively briefly) in a city many years ago.
Basically my point was that the civilization on this island has been around for between 13 to 15,000 years, going by the sites where people were buried ceremonially in much the same way for this whole stretch of time. I would rather my children and grandchildren keep a connection to this way of life which has a history and the potential to continue indefinitely, rather than be absorbed utterly into a culture where anything more than a few years old is obsolete and no longer compatible.
I just hope that the rush of tech be put in a larger perspective - in the span of my life entire swathes of jobs and tech have been wiped out, replaced by things that have a lifespan of a few short years before they also are going to be wiped out. DX10 is now "old" despite the fact that it never even became truly widespread.

I would like to advise you to think about something before you jump into one of the boxes in a major city - there are signs that the U.S. dollar is going to stop being the world reserve currency soon, and the massive debt that exists there ( with the financial derivatives bubble included ) of 30 times or more of your entire GDP, you do not want to be anywhere where you cannot feed yourself or in the middle of a million people who also cannot feed themselves and have found themselves enslaved by debt. This has happened in many other countries before, and I would not wish this on anyone. There is a reason that guns and ammo are selling so well in the U.S. right now and it isn't a very wholesome one - it ain't for fishing and hunting, but for taking food and goods from others, which is a very hard and dead end road.
Video games are fun, don't get me wrong, I play games as does my wife and family, but please don't let the shiny stuff blind you to what is going on in the world is all I'm saying. This high tech vision of a future has very little chance of surviving 15,000 years.
But wth, enjoy it while it lasts, kids. Hopefully I am wrong and you are right. Either way I am covered.

P.S. - Primal feels great. It's downright fun to be dangerously healthy and aware.
Score
0
a b U Graphics card
December 4, 2009 2:48:19 AM

I just want to chime in about all this XP non-sense -- enjoy being the lowest common denominator using it.
Score
0
a b U Graphics card
December 4, 2009 10:50:56 AM

JAYDEEJOHN said:
Recommended Frostbite PC Specifications for BFBC2 & BF1943
Processor: Quadcore
Main memory: 2GB
Graphics card: GeForce GTX 260
Graphics memory: 512MB
OS: Windows Vista or Windows 7
Free HDD space: 15GB for Digital Version, 10GB for Disc Version (BFBC2)
10GB for Digital Version (BF1943)
http://blogs.battlefield.ea.com/battlefield_bad_company...
While low end does include some of DX9s finest, and it can run on XP, this shows progress.
As to accuracy, sure, steam controls 80%, but that isnt just digital downloads only in these figures, so, saying digital only is excluding the numbers already included here.
Maybe the digital only numbers are actually much higher if non digital only is lower overall, and thus lowering the mixed total numbers being shown.
Either way, this is the way its going, with speeds only ramping from here, and I might add, PC sales are down by 30% yr to yr, and once it picks back up, the XP numbers will only drop faster.
New games requiring the highest DX9 HW has to offer is another sign XP is all but ended

PS Note the obvious minimum requirements? Its what we have on our consoles folks, and again, thats minimum


Speaking of Minimum requirements, theres a reason why every single game can still "run" (to various degrees of performance) on a 6800Ultra: DX 9.0c SM3. Thats the lowest supported standard, and will continue to be so for a while to come. Fact is, ~99% of the market can run DX9.0c SM3, where about 30% can run DX10+ SM4+. Guess which one remains the minimum requirements? (Its that same reason why most games can still run fine on a Pentium4; we've only just begin to see Core2's as the bare minimum in games)

And don't bring consoles into the debate: With the exception of the Xbox line, every gaming platform users OpenGL (Wii, PS3, Iphone, Android, Linux, Mac, etc), so I don't want to hear anyone proclaim that consoles are holding up progress.

And I should point out, unlike DirectX, you could easily enable the equivalent DirectX features on XP if you so wanted. I have a suspicion that we might see a few studios flip API's in the coming years, which would make the entire debate moot.
Score
0
a b U Graphics card
December 4, 2009 10:55:03 AM

And on a side note: If W7 is really as good with MT usage as is said: Why don't newer games run significantly (if any) faster in 7? Heck, any benchmark gain in 7 is minimal at best (I've yet to see a case of a 10% gain in any benchmark). Even games known to scale (Lost Planet) don't show any noticable gain on 7 over XP.

Fact is, the OS can only help so much with MT usage, but the only real way to take advantage of more cores is from within the program. Proper coding for MT support will have a far greater impact on the ability of programs to use more cores efficently.
Score
0
a b U Graphics card
December 4, 2009 2:48:51 PM

gamerk316 said:
Speaking of Minimum requirements, theres a reason why every single game can still "run" (to various degrees of performance) on a 6800Ultra: DX 9.0c SM3. Thats the lowest supported standard, and will continue to be so for a while to come. Fact is, ~99% of the market can run DX9.0c SM3, where about 30% can run DX10+ SM4+. Guess which one remains the minimum requirements? (Its that same reason why most games can still run fine on a Pentium4; we've only just begin to see Core2's as the bare minimum in games)

And don't bring consoles into the debate: With the exception of the Xbox line, every gaming platform users OpenGL (Wii, PS3, Iphone, Android, Linux, Mac, etc), so I don't want to hear anyone proclaim that consoles are holding up progress.

And I should point out, unlike DirectX, you could easily enable the equivalent DirectX features on XP if you so wanted. I have a suspicion that we might see a few studios flip API's in the coming years, which would make the entire debate moot.

Minimum Frostbite PC Specifications for BFBC2 & BF1943
Processor: Core 2 Duo @ 2.0GHz
Main memory: 2GB
Graphics card: GeForce 7800 GT / ATI X1900
Graphics memory: 256MB
OS: Windows XP
Free HDD space: 15GB for Digital Version, 10GB for Disc Version (BFBC2)
10GB for Digital Version (BF1943)
http://blogs.battlefield.ea.com/battlefield_bad_company...

Notice the minimum? Its as I said, not a 6800 but a 7800, or exactly whats in the consoles. So the bare minimum is whats in the consoles, not a lessor spec
Score
0
a b U Graphics card
December 4, 2009 2:54:18 PM

gamerk316 said:
And on a side note: If W7 is really as good with MT usage as is said: Why don't newer games run significantly (if any) faster in 7? Heck, any benchmark gain in 7 is minimal at best (I've yet to see a case of a 10% gain in any benchmark). Even games known to scale (Lost Planet) don't show any noticable gain on 7 over XP.

Fact is, the OS can only help so much with MT usage, but the only real way to take advantage of more cores is from within the program. Proper coding for MT support will have a far greater impact on the ability of programs to use more cores efficently.

If you read up on the difference of the 2 OS, once we have 8 cores that are usable, unlike HT unfortunately, both Vista and especially W7 will start to walk away from XP, and its only a matter of time for this to happen, and if AMDs CMT solution shows up anytime soon, we will maybe see it happening, as HT on Intels soluton doesnt work on games yet, tho DX11 and CS will change this somewhat, as well as Opencl
Score
0
a b U Graphics card
December 4, 2009 3:09:15 PM

Has anyone seen any dragon age comparisons for xp and seven yet? It is one of, if not the only, game out that is actually optimized to use quad cores.
Score
0
a b U Graphics card
December 4, 2009 4:03:30 PM

^^ I've been using Lost Planet for that test.

As to JD, BC2 is the first game I know of to require more then a 6800Ultra as its minimum. And I suspect the game will still run on a 6800Ultra, just at a low framerate the devs didn't want to be held accountable for...

Finally, Multi-threaded != Multi-core. Multithreading is basically just switching between two tasks at a rate where it appears both execute at the same time, nothing more.

Without multithreading, you wouldn't be able to do two things at once (eg, all other tasks would halt while a program was in execution, or opening an IE window would cause sound processing to stop).

An OS simply can't make something that is non-threaded (seriel in nature) act in a threaded manner. The OS has no clue how programs are structured; its easy for us to say that each major piece of code could run seperatly, but the OS doesn't know that; as far as its concerned, execution is serial, and executes whatever the program in question spits out. Unless the programmer uses long established libraries (pthreads in C, for example) to allow individual parts of the program to execute concurrently, the OS will have very, very minimal impact on program performance. And even then, unless the program is explicitly told to use more then one processing unit, its unlikely more then one unit will be used.

Windows can't even handle moving stand along programs to individual processing cores. So why do you expect Windows to be able to efficently move individual parts of an individal program in a simmilar manner?
Score
0
a b U Graphics card
December 4, 2009 4:28:30 PM

OK, so as you say, this is the first of many games to do so, or another sign.
The OS plays a huge role in MT. Arguing the single thread is the future isnt right. Its dying too, and thats where the better OS (Vista,W7) come into play.
If not for DRM, both of the newer OS would be better than XP even on single threaded apps. XP has nothing for the future, much like W98 did, its time to move on, and tho some would ignore steam or DX11 or MT thru OS better usage, an avalanche is coming, as thats whats supposed to be done from here on out, Intel, M$, AMD, nVidia (see baddaboom) ATI etc etc etc are geared for it, been doing it, its being taught in our uni's, and is replacing IPC and clocks in gpus and cpus, the things that make progress happen
Score
0
a b U Graphics card
December 4, 2009 4:35:26 PM

Heres an older article on it, a good read, and shows what can and will be done
http://www.infoworld.com/t/platforms/generation-gap-win...
As a result, current-generation software products incorporate additional optimizations to allow them to perform at their best in the low-latency, shared-cache world of multicore. This includes Windows Vista, which shipped at the beginning of the multicore transition, and Windows 7, of course, but not Windows XP.
Score
0
a b U Graphics card
December 4, 2009 4:50:16 PM

Multi threading isnt multi core, read my link.
gamer is saying SW and OS cant do what Ive just linked to, and hes approaching it from the single threaded POV, times have changed, OS have changed
Score
0
a b U Graphics card
December 4, 2009 4:58:40 PM

Basically, a OS is nothing but SW, just as apps are optimized, so too are OS, to run the HW so it can make better use of MT
Score
0
a b U Graphics card
December 4, 2009 5:27:25 PM

I don't understand this arguement.

Either an OS supports MT or not. It then puts those threads in a queue and assigns them to a core. What can seven do that XP cannot in terms of assigning those threads to the correct cores unless it is being contended that XP is so bad at dishing out the threads that it is letting CPU cores sit idle while many threads wait for the same core?

There are a billion reasons I ahve not used XP in years (except here at work... shudder) but really?

Sure, we can improve the ability and quality of the affinity it assigns to an application, but unless XP was fundamentally broken, the difference with todays anything will be minimal. Until we get many more cores that is (and they figure out what to do with SMT and CMT),

Perhaps I am missing something? Please correct me if I am.
Score
0
a b U Graphics card
December 4, 2009 5:41:04 PM

Going hand in hand with the multicore push has been the evolution of desktop Windows to support these new chips. Today's dominant flavors -- Windows XP, Windows Vista, and soon Windows 7 -- all support Symmetrical Multiprocessing (SMP) out of the box, a trait they inherited thanks to their Windows NT (New Technology) lineage. However, experience has shown that multiprocessing across discrete CPUs is not the same thing as multiprocessing across integrated cores within the same CPU.
As a result, current-generation software products incorporate additional optimizations to allow them to perform at their best in the low-latency, shared-cache world of multicore. This includes Windows Vista, which shipped at the beginning of the multicore transition, and Windows 7, of course, but not Windows XP.
http://www.infoworld.com/t/platforms/generation-gap-win...
I underlined it to make it easier
Score
0
a b U Graphics card
December 4, 2009 5:48:32 PM



Did you even read the entire article?

"Vista would ultimately overtake XP when the core count reaches between 32 and 64."

"Windows 7 is poised to overtake XP even earlier than Windows Vista -- perhaps at 16 or 24 cores"
Score
0
a b U Graphics card
December 4, 2009 5:55:21 PM

And when is a octo core with smt coming? Before 2012?

To say the XP perf is the same as W7 on multi cored cpus just isnt so, as the OS' dont use the same approach of MT, which gamer is saying.
XP uses the same approach as single threading here, and thats my point.
Read up on it, and again, Id point out Ive already mentioned the DRM issues which is the primary reason W& and Vista both are slower at all, IF youve read the thread amongst others explaining all this
Score
0
!