Nvidia too thick to implement virtualised graphics memory.

[Sable]

http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=40913

DX10 is do-able on Windows XP

The original reason was that DX10 required graphics memory to be virtualisable, a laudable goal.

This would not work with XP, and that was fine and dandy. It was an honest technical reason why you could not backport DX10 to XP without a major rip and replace operation. Microsoft wasn't going to bend on this one at all.

Then something odd happened. Nvidia had about as much success implementing this required feature as it did with it Me II drivers, that is to say, none. It couldn't do it, but it was required for DX10. What's an arm twisting Vole to do? Backpedal obviously.

So, MS threw NV a life preserver and made GPU memory virtualisation completely optional. ATI, which had implemented a dandy memory virtualisation scheme got screwed, or at least got what everyone who partners with MS got. Oh wait, I said that.

In any case, in doing this, MS removed the only impediment to backporting DX10 to XP, it is now, and has been for quite a while, completely possible. MS is screwing its customers to force an upgrade and you are a pawn in their revenue generation scheme.

I'd say this may also explain the point Wreckage makes in this thread about the ATI cards having more transistors but less performance.

http://forums.anandtech.com/me...=2070628&enterthread=y

 

[tuteja1986]

You know wreckage is viral nvidia fanboy. He comes in teh form to only post threads about ATI failure and Nvidia awesome success.

Anyways you be surprised ATI and Microsoft are more of buddy than Nvidia. Nvidia slept with Microsoft years ago and nvidia screwed over microsoft in stupid contract agreement.

 

[Sable]

I know. Hence the flamebaiting "nvidia are thick" title.

Try to keep the "flamebaiting" to a bare minimum. Actually try not to at all. -thanks

Anandtech Moderator - Keysplayr2003

 

[BFG10K]

That article is full of holes. Assuming any of this is true (which I doubt) virtualized graphics address space isn't the only barrier keeping DX10 from coming to XP. There's the new driver model to think about, among other things.

 

[Ackmed]

I dont believe much, if anything from the Inq. Looks like more gibberish from them to me. Back it up with some facts, then they'll have something.

 

[Keysplayr]

I wonder if the fear of "The Vole" will keep DX10 for XP hacks from surfacing. Fear of law suits etc. etc. Some say DX10 on XP is 100% doable, others say it cannot be supported by XP. So it will be interesting to see what springs up.

 

[Sable]

Originally posted by: BFG10K
That article is full of holes. Assuming any of this is true (which I doubt) virtualized graphics address space isn't the only barrier keeping DX10 from coming to XP. There's the new driver model to think about, among other things.

I thought the driver model was just based on .NET which is doable in XP also.

(Sorry for flamebaitness btw. And didnt realise you'd been modded Keys. Nice. :thumbsup

 

[Keysplayr]

Originally posted by: Sable

Originally posted by: BFG10K
That article is full of holes. Assuming any of this is true (which I doubt) virtualized graphics address space isn't the only barrier keeping DX10 from coming to XP. There's the new driver model to think about, among other things.

I thought the driver model was just based on .NET which is doable in XP also.

(Sorry for flamebaitness btw. And didnt realise you'd been modded Keys. Nice. :thumbsup

Thanks.

I think BFG is right though. The difference between XP and Vista is pretty large from a driver model perspective. Look how long it has taken to get decent graphics drivers for Vista. And they're still working on them. I'm not saying the difference is as great as say Win9x/ME to NT/2000/XP, and I'm sure there are more things in common, but apparently it's a lot harder to write drivers for the hardware that runs under Vista. This will all be ironed out within a year I think. Just like we had to wait about that long for widespread XP support from hardware/software devs.

 

[Cookie Monster]

I didn't realize keys was a mod.. a video forum mod!!

Anyway moving from XP to Vista just for DX10 does brew all kind of foul smell, however from what i can tell DX10 could be possible on XP just like some are pointing out. I guess MS will do everything to stop this from happening (damage control) since the main buy point of Vista is DX10 (for gamers).

Well atleast SP1 is coming out rather soon for Vista. Maybe then ill jump ship.

 

[xtknight]

Is this Direct3D 9Ex on XP or Direct3D 10? http://www.microsoft.com/indonesia/msdn/wvddirectx.aspx

Anyway moving from XP to Vista just for DX10 does brew all kind of foul smell, however from what i can tell DX10 could be possible on XP just like some are pointing out. I guess MS will do everything to stop this from happening (damage control) since the main buy point of Vista is DX10 (for gamers).

Well atleast SP1 is coming out rather soon for Vista. Maybe then ill jump ship.

I don't really see the point of DX10 on XP. Won't most DX10 games have DX9 modes, or is this supposed to save them from having to do this alternate DX9 engines? I didn't think DX10's performance was that great, either, despite its numerous new features.

The control panel is based on .NET, although the driver model definitely isn't. (Running drivers in a VM like .NET is kind of a paradox since it needs direct, fast access to the HW.) The drivers are still done in C, they just aren't placed in such a high level, so they are less likely to crash the whole system when something bad happens (it's probably still possible somehow). There is actually one kernel mode driver and another user mode, according to the MS link. The new WDDM (Vista's display model) allows multiple graphics apps at once (scheduling on the GPU). Memory allocation has been simplified for game devs (they just tell the GPU they want memory and the GPU gives it to 'em, they don't have to look for it themselves).

 

[Cookie Monster]

See thats the problem. Will DX10 games have DX9 modes, heck even DX8? Can devs really afford to do that not to mention fall back shader models e.g S.M 4.0/S.M 3.0/S.M 2.0 etc. I guess it really depends, and this sometimes makes me think Id made a good choice, sticking with OpenGL since they can produce the same things that DX10 offers.

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: Cookie Monster
I didn't realize keys was a mod.. a video forum mod!!

Anyway moving from XP to Vista just for DX10 does brew all kind of foul smell, however from what i can tell DX10 could be possible on XP just like some are pointing out. I guess MS will do everything to stop this from happening (damage control) since the main buy point of Vista is DX10 (for gamers).

Well atleast SP1 is coming out rather soon for Vista. Maybe then ill jump ship.

there are now TWO of us

and Vista 32 surprised the heck out of me ... it IS ready for primetime even now

 

[Cookie Monster]

Glad we got actual mods in here.

With X38s and nVIDIAs new intel chipsets hitting near Q4, ill have to wait since im saving abit of money. (currently at $2500ish NZD)

 

[miker75]

Originally posted by: keysplayr2003

Originally posted by: Sable

Originally posted by: BFG10K
That article is full of holes. Assuming any of this is true (which I doubt) virtualized graphics address space isn't the only barrier keeping DX10 from coming to XP. There's the new driver model to think about, among other things.

I thought the driver model was just based on .NET which is doable in XP also.

(Sorry for flamebaitness btw. And didnt realise you'd been modded Keys. Nice. :thumbsup

Thanks.

I think BFG is right though. The difference between XP and Vista is pretty large from a driver model perspective. Look how long it has taken to get decent graphics drivers for Vista. And they're still working on them. I'm not saying the difference is as great as say Win9x/ME to NT/2000/XP, and I'm sure there are more things in common, but apparently it's a lot harder to write drivers for the hardware that runs under Vista. This will all be ironed out within a year I think. Just like we had to wait about that long for widespread XP support from hardware/software devs.

Without knowing either the exact DirectX10 spec, or how to write drivers in Vista, I think you're getting the "DirectX 10 specification" and "Vista driver model" incorrectly mixed together..

I believe what the Inquirer was trying to say was, without the virtual graphics address space, the DirectX10 specification is "doable" in Windows XP, as that was the only real thing you couldn't do in XP.

As for writing drivers in Vista.. that's a completely different matter.. whether it be for DirectX9 or DirectX10..

 

[Chadder007]

So its the virtulization of the memory that has possibly slowed the ATI cards down comparibly to other cards, when MS allowed NVidia to do without it?

 

[Keysplayr]

Originally posted by: Chadder007
So its the virtulization of the memory that has possibly slowed the ATI cards down comparibly to other cards, when MS allowed NVidia to do without it?

Key word "possibly", but there have been other explainations as to why the 2900XT isn't as fast as it's specs indicate it should be when compared to specs of it's competition, specifically, the radically different architectures and efficiency of each.

 

[Ackmed]

Originally posted by: Sable

(Sorry for flamebaitness btw. And didnt realise you'd been modded Keys. Nice. :thumbsup

I guess we'll see if he stops the trolling, flaming, name calling, etc. now. This sections sure does need a mod, he wouldnt be my pick however. Guess we'll wait and see... I dont spend much time here anymore anyways, went down the tubes.

 

[Keysplayr]

Originally posted by: Ackmed

Originally posted by: Sable

(Sorry for flamebaitness btw. And didnt realise you'd been modded Keys. Nice. :thumbsup

I guess we'll see if he stops the trolling, flaming, name calling, etc. now. This sections sure does need a mod, he wouldnt be my pick however. Guess we'll wait and see... I dont spend much time here anymore anyways, went down the tubes.

Yes, mods were needed in here pretty badly. And Ackmed, I was asked to help moderate for a reason, and I'm fairly certain that if I was trolling, flaming, name calling as you say, no such invitation would have been graciously extended to me, or any other new moderator here.
Anyway, that's all the explaination you need.

Have a good day.

Keys

 

[dreddfunk]

I'm fairly certain that if I was trolling, flaming, name calling as you say, no such invitation would have been graciously extended to me, or any other new moderator here.

Congratulations to both you and apoppin for being appointed moderators. I wouldn't necessarily agree with your logic, however.

While you've both shown a passion for video-related issues, have been somewhat even-handed in your reactions to the ATI/nVidia debate and are also frequent posters on the boards, none of us are immune to poorly-considered words, rash statements and incivility.

Recall the Roman generals who were accompanied by a slave on their victory parade, who whispered the words, "memento mori," in their ears even as the general basked in the adulation of Rome's populace. This is the line famously rendered "Remember, thou art mortal" in English.

Great job on the review my friends, and your appointments as moderators. Maybe you all can coordinate a GTS 320 vs. GTS 640 shootout at various resolutions & AA settings.


Cheers...and...

[whispers]

Memento mori.

 

[schneiderguy]

The article sounds fishy to me... and it wouldn't be the first time that the inq lied about something to make ATI look better

 

[monk3yboy]

I like the latin dreddfunk, it makes me want to add it to my email sig at work.

And I also would love to see a GTS 320 vs 640 shootout as those are the most current cards I'm debating between. I just don't think my 7900GT will cut it with my new 22in WS LCD.

Done with the thread jack now...

 

[Keysplayr]

Originally posted by: monk3yboy
I like the latin dreddfunk, it makes me want to add it to my email sig at work.

And I also would love to see a GTS 320 vs 640 shootout as those are the most current cards I'm debating between. I just don't think my 7900GT will cut it with my new 22in WS LCD.

Done with the thread jack now...

Yeah, I had a 7900GT when I bought my 22" LCD. I had to back off on settings in certain games to get decent "multiplayer" framerates. It was ok, but the 8800 made all that go away.

 

[dreddfunk]

That's actually right where I'm at monk -- I currently only have an old Sony 18" 1280x1024 LCD, but it's starting to show its age. While the 320 would be more than enough card for me right now, if I were to but a new LCD, it would certainly have a default resolution of 1680x1050 (whether 20" or 22", who knows).

Given that, I just can't for the life of me figure out where the framebuffer limitation really kicks in. It seems to be a very game-specific limitation.

Once we have a few more DX10 titles, I'm really going to be interested in how the 256/320MB cards do versus the 512/640/768/1024MB ones.

Are we entering an era when resolutions and texture quality will begin to make 512MB the minimum for good performance? I don't know for certain, but I'm beginning to suspect so.

 

[dreddfunk]

Oh, and I had to look up the Latin. It's not like I remembered the Latin version just off hand (though I did remember the Roman tradition--jeez what does that say!).

 

[shortylickens]

Originally posted by: dreddfunk
Are we entering an era when resolutions and texture quality will begin to make 512MB the minimum for good performance? I don't know for certain, but I'm beginning to suspect so.

I suspect so.
I started FEAR and BF 2 when I had a 256 Meg card and when I upgraded to a 512 meg card I saw tremendous improvements.
The problem with that scenario was the GPU was also more powerful and I cant figure a way to determine which had the stronger effect.
Its not like the Radeon 9000 days when they had 4 cards with the same GPU and a wide variety of RAM. You could actually get a feel for which games needed more VRAM and which could benefit from more processing power.

I dont think I've seen anything from a 7800GT to a 7900GTX have much varience in the VRAM. How can we tell whats needed for real-world performance these days?
Its not like they're going to put out an 8800 thats deliberately gimped with 256 megs.