Why would you want DX10 for XP?

[coolpurplefan]

I read somewhere someone cracked it to put it on XP. But, would that make sense? Would it mean you could no longer use DX9 as well?

 

[Matthias99]

I read somewhere someone cracked it to put it on XP.

You can't just "crack" DX10 to install it on WinXP -- even if you tricked the installer into running, it isn't going to work right. A lot of the changes are dependent on the new Vista driver model.

OpenGL should support the newer SM4 programmable shaders, and maybe there is some way to expose that functionality in DX9 as well, but you aren't going to get all of DX10.

 

[alaricljs]

And as for DirectX in general: DX9 contains DX8 contains DX7 ad nauseum... Backwards compatibility is part of each rev. Perhaps there were some breaks I'm not aware of... But I know DX7 games work in DX9 just fine.

 

[Cheex]

Microsoft would have known that people would want to try to get DX10 on XP. So I think they would have really tightened up in that regard but you know how it is.

Also keep in mind that as far as games go...DX10 is a major selling point for Vista.

 

[firebyyrd]

Also keep in mind that as far as games go...DX10 is a major selling point for Vista.

For me, the only reason.

 

[Aikouka]

Originally posted by: alaricljs
And as for DirectX in general: DX9 contains DX8 contains DX7 ad nauseum... Backwards compatibility is part of each rev. Perhaps there were some breaks I'm not aware of... But I know DX7 games work in DX9 just fine.

To my knowledge, they don't contain it, they're still separate, they just come with the old packages. Such as the dx7 dlls still exist and such.

 

[Munky]

Given how DX10 currently runs slower with the same settings as DX9, I don't care much for having DX10 on my system. So much for the hyped 6x-10x performance increase... :roll:

 

[Matthias99]

Originally posted by: munky
Given how DX10 currently runs slower with the same settings as DX9, I don't care much for having DX10 on my system. So much for the hyped 6x-10x performance increase... :roll:

A demo of a port of a console game is probably not the best way to measure its potential.

And who, exactly, was hyping a "6x-10x performance increase"? SM4.0 might allow some efficiency improvements (especially for some kinds of dynamic lighting), and unified shaders can help if you have unbalanced pixel/vertex shader loads, but it's not going to be an order of magnitude faster in most cases.

 

[m21s]

Originally posted by: Matthias99

Originally posted by: munky
Given how DX10 currently runs slower with the same settings as DX9, I don't care much for having DX10 on my system. So much for the hyped 6x-10x performance increase... :roll:

And who, exactly, was hyping a "6x-10x performance increase"?.

Believe it or not...Microsoft developers stated this.

 

[Matthias99]

Originally posted by: m21s

Originally posted by: Matthias99

Originally posted by: munky
Given how DX10 currently runs slower with the same settings as DX9, I don't care much for having DX10 on my system. So much for the hyped 6x-10x performance increase... :roll:

And who, exactly, was hyping a "6x-10x performance increase"?.

Believe it or not...Microsoft developers stated this.

Source?

I'm sure you can come up with certain scenarios or shader workloads where you could see a 5x-10x improvement, but that would be a case of designing code that just runs stupidly badly on DX9 but less badly on DX10. If they really claimed across-the-board 5x-10x improvements, they were full of it.

 

[m21s]

Originally posted by: Matthias99

Originally posted by: m21s

Originally posted by: Matthias99

Originally posted by: munky
Given how DX10 currently runs slower with the same settings as DX9, I don't care much for having DX10 on my system. So much for the hyped 6x-10x performance increase... :roll:

And who, exactly, was hyping a "6x-10x performance increase"?.

Believe it or not...Microsoft developers stated this.

Source?

I'm sure you can come up with certain scenarios or shader workloads where you could see a 5x-10x improvement, but that would be a case of designing code that just runs stupidly badly on DX9 but less badly on DX10. If they really claimed across-the-board 5x-10x improvements, they were full of it.

Here is a cut from a firingsquad article on DX10.

If you recall our DirectX 10 preview article from last year, there are two schools of thought on how game developers are going to integrate DirectX 10 into games. On one hand, due to its greater efficiency, DirectX 10 can be used to deliver performance improvements. Before Windows Vista and DirectX 10 were released, Microsoft frequently referred to performance improvements of up to 6X (!) that of DirectX 9 hardware running on Windows XP thanks to new state objects which help to reduce overhead.

Towards the end of our DX10 article with spoke with Epic?s Tim Sweeney; Tim confirmed to us that this was the direction they were leaning towards for Unreal Engine 3: ? Unreal Engine 3 will make full use of DirectX 10, and many of our and our partners' games will ship in 2007 with full support for DirectX 10 and Windows Vista. But, despite the marketing hype, DirectX 10 isn't all that different from DirectX 9, so you'll mainly see performance benefits on DirectX 10 rather than striking visual differences.?

Article Here


I have also read this numerous times, Just cant hunt down all the links right now.

 

[Munky]

Of course I never believed the hyped 6x improvement from DX10 because most games are still limited by the gpu HW, but I didn't expect DX10 to run slower.

 

[Cheex]

Originally posted by: firebyyrd

Also keep in mind that as far as games go...DX10 is a major selling point for Vista.

For me, the only reason.

Case in point = My point proven.

 

[Jeff7181]

Originally posted by: firebyyrd

Also keep in mind that as far as games go...DX10 is a major selling point for Vista.

For me, the only reason.

Really? I don't give 2 shits about DX10 considering the lack of DX10 games and the fact that you'll need a $500-600 video card to have an enjoyable gaming experience.

 

[Acanthus]

Originally posted by: m21s

Originally posted by: Matthias99

Originally posted by: munky
Given how DX10 currently runs slower with the same settings as DX9, I don't care much for having DX10 on my system. So much for the hyped 6x-10x performance increase... :roll:

And who, exactly, was hyping a "6x-10x performance increase"?.

Believe it or not...Microsoft developers stated this.

The best case ive heard from MS is 20%.

Ive never heard anything about the kind of increases youre talking about, anywhere.

Edit: after reading your reference, this refers to specialized situations... obviously.

 

[NicColt]

will these DX10 games be able to run on DX9/XP machines or not ?

 

[Canterwood]

Originally posted by: NicColt
will these DX10 games be able to run on DX9/XP machines or not ?

I would imagine for the first year or so then they'd be backwards compatible with DX9.

It would be foolish for games developers to cut out the vast market of XP users that will still be around for a couple of years.

Microsoft however are making Halo 3 Vista only, but hey its only Halo, so no great loss to anyone tbh.

As to the OP's question, I believe there's some sort of DX10 emulator being developed, but I'd imagine there would be a pretty big performance hit running DX10 on XP.

 

[EarthwormJim]

Originally posted by: NicColt
will these DX10 games be able to run on DX9/XP machines or not ?

They'll be compatible for awhile, games are still made that can default to dx7 and dx8 modes.

Plus XP probably has the largest install base of any Windows OS.

 

[jgassen]

Comparing DX9 in vista and XP are like comparing apples to oranges. 9 was built on Xp and vista was built for 10. And the performance increase relates to if the game was coded in dx10 compared to the exact game coded in dx9.

 

[aka1nas]

Originally posted by: munky
Of course I never believed the hyped 6x improvement from DX10 because most games are still limited by the gpu HW, but I didn't expect DX10 to run slower.

I am pretty sure neither ATI or Nvidia made Dx10 performance a priority in their current Vista drivers. There wasn't really any software to run it with until last week.

It'll get better.

 

[Keysplayr]

Originally posted by: munky
Of course I never believed the hyped 6x improvement from DX10 because most games are still limited by the gpu HW, but I didn't expect DX10 to run slower.

But he just said the demo was a console game port and shouldn't be used as indicitive of DX10 performance. Did ya miss that? He's kind of right. Don't get me wrong, I don't believe that 6-10x performance boost either, but it should have some advantages.

 

[evolucion8]

Originally posted by: jgassen
Comparing DX9 in vista and XP are like comparing apples to oranges. 9 was built on Xp and vista was built for 10. And the performance increase relates to if the game was coded in dx10 compared to the exact game coded in dx9.

DX9 is a stand alone API that can be integrated on Windows 98 or above, but the updated versions can be found only on Windows 2k and above. DX10 is more dependant of Vista due to the new driver model and Dcom objects (Dont remeber the correct word) So probably it could be ported to XP but for sure the benefits of DX10 will be taken away like reduced driver model overhead and even geometry shaders, transforming it to just an another version of DX9.

 

[AVP]

Not a real wiz here but I thought I read that the changes in dx10 were written into the kernel or required certain changes to the kernel or some such (lingo may be wrong here), that made it impossible to run dx10 in xp. Completely on a whim here but it seems to me like you cannot run true dx10 in xp, maybe you can get sm4 or something like that, but not the true "enhancement"