Do You Think DirectX 10 on XP is Possible?

Status
Not open for further replies.

rennervision

Distinguished
Jul 11, 2006
75
0
18,630
0
I realize DX10 is a Vista exclusive. But it seems like report after report shows a game running on Vista takes a major performance hit compared to benchmarks for the same game on XP.

I've been holding off on building a new PC while all of the quirks associated with Vista get worked out. Now it's almost a year after launch and I'm still reading these same performance reports, and much of my hardware still has drivers for XP only. So I'm tired of waiting. I want to build a killer machine and just install XP on it.

Except I'll be building a machine that's already out of date due to the whole DX10 issue. So is it feasible someone will one day create a wrapper that somehow enables games on XP to use DX10? Or is this just an impossible dream and I should come back to reality?
 

purplerat

Distinguished
Jul 18, 2006
1,519
0
19,810
6
DX10 on XP could probably only be implemented through some sort of emulation which would be a far greater performance hit then what you may or may not see with Vista. Huge performance hits on Vista are grossly misrepresented, though not nearly as much as it's "buggy-ness". I can tell you from my 3 very different systems that gaming performance is not very different between Vista and XP. If your hardware is so old that Vista drivers do not exist for it then it's not going to run newer games very well regardless of OS. If your thinking of building a new PC (for Vista or XP) prices are very reasonable for a good gaming machine. A C2D, 8800GT, 2GB RAM can all be had for relatively cheap and will run any game (excluding Crysis which pummels every system) at high settings with great performance. Take my system for example. Not quite comparable to what I recommended above yet it runs Oblivion, Bio Shock, and COD4 without any issue at max settings on Vista.
 

cfvh600

Distinguished
Oct 8, 2007
993
0
18,980
0
A DX10 graphics card will play DX9 games beautifully. Search for "falling leaf" and "the alky project" in Google with regards running DX10 on XP.
 

Alex The PC Gamer

Distinguished
Oct 24, 2007
981
0
19,060
37
I run dual boot system because I use to be in the same situation as you.

Let me start by saying that Vista is an awesome OS and I would recommend it regardless. Its not that buggy but you may have to update your drivers more often than you normaly would in XP.

Vista will have an impact whatsoever. Its like comparing Win98 and XP. Even today, if Win98 had the DX capabilities, it would technically run faster than XP. Anyways.

If I may make one important recommendation as a gamer wanting to build a new PC...exclude Crysis when building your new rig. Otherwise, it'll cost you a lot more than it should.

If you want to buy AMD/ATI hardware, now the time is good. You can get a cheap quad CPU and one of the latest ATI cards for very little to pay for. If you want to go Intel/Nvidia for the more enthousiast then the Q6600 is pretty cheap (and overclocking friendly if you know how) for a quad CPU and the 8800GT is performing very well for its price range.

Nota: I use to upgrade every 2-3 years but it seems these times are over. BUT, make sure you get a descent motherboard so that you won't have to replace everything next time. DDR3 mobo with CF or SLI?
 

thegatekeeper

Distinguished
Nov 11, 2007
475
0
18,790
1


It seems that the Alky Project may make it possible, but even if they succeed it would probably make the game run slower than if you installed vista, as the dx10 graphics would need to be created by the CPU instead of the graphics card. Still, it would be a nice thing to see.
 

xrodney

Distinguished
Jul 14, 2006
588
0
19,010
10

I don't see why it shouldn't be implemented to use graphic functions as well.

Only reason why there is no DX10 in XP is because Microsoft dont want it to be to sell more Vista and make more $$.
There is no physical or technical obstacles to make DX10 working on XP. Both systems exist on same hardware use same instructions. Yes Vista is little different from XP but it should be possible make DX10 API on XP.
 

thegatekeeper

Distinguished
Nov 11, 2007
475
0
18,790
1


It will use the CPU because it wont use the same procedure as vista, it will break dx10 down to its native form which only the cpu can process. At least, this is how i understood it.
 

amk21

Distinguished
Nov 29, 2007
12
0
18,510
0
Dx10 could have easily been distributed to all xp machines via Microsoft updates. It was MS strategic plan to keep it an vista exclusive, in order to bring in more sales.
 

purplerat

Distinguished
Jul 18, 2006
1,519
0
19,810
6


While it's true that there's no financial benefit in MS adding DX10 to XP, it's not as simple as an update. Direct X is not just an update. It's an entire interface of how hardware and software communicate. There are some very big differences in how this is done between XP/DX9 and Vista/DX10. Most of the advantages of DX10 are only available because of how it works with Vista specifically. Trying to emulate such effects in XP would most likely cause more overhead then that of Vista and thus worse performance and worse quality. What I don't understand is why do people want this? Wouldn't the cost and time involved be better spent improving Vista(or any other future products, not old out of date ones)? I'm trully baffled at how many people in the technology field are so stuck on sticking with old systems? Aren't we supposed to be more progressivly thinking; trying to acheive bigger and better things? Get over it people XP is the past, it's going away - Vista is better!
Ok I'm done with my little rant :)
 

Evilonigiri

Splendid
Jun 8, 2007
4,381
0
22,780
0
MS can easily patch XP to implement DX10. I'm quite sure of it.

Now the problem with Vista is that it's slow, it has problems, and it sucks. On the other hand, XP is matured and widely used by many people. MS just wants to make more money, that's it.
 

purplerat

Distinguished
Jul 18, 2006
1,519
0
19,810
6


Strong statements, however you're lacking anything to back it up. I'm guessing that you probably have no clue as to what DirectX actually is or does. What DirectX does is to allow software (specifically the OS) to communicate with hardware. DX10 was designed specifically for Vista to allow it to commincate with hardware more efficiently by taking advantedge of the core inner workings of Vista. XP is not the same as Vista so many of these features would either be impossible, useless or would tax performance too much. This is exaclty the same reason why DX9 games often run poorly on Vista. Vista was not designed for DX9, but in order to maintane backwards compatability Vista must use a sort of emulation at the cost of performance. This of course lends it's self to ignorant statements like "Vista is that it's slow, it has problems, and it sucks". First of all software does not have speed. If it did what would you say is faster, DOS or XP? Hardware on the other hand does have speed and since Vista allows for more RAM, more CPU cores and practicle 64bit processing it actually has the capabilities to operate much faster then XP. As far as problems go Vista is very stable and the most common complaint is a lack of compatability back and forth between Vista and XP. And of course that issue actually nullifies your original assumtion that DX10 could easily be achieved in XP
 

scryer_360

Distinguished
Jan 13, 2007
564
0
18,980
0
I'd imagineits possible with the 64 bit version of XP, but DX10 is a 64 bit program so getting it to run with only a 32 bit program is beyond it.
 

purplerat

Distinguished
Jul 18, 2006
1,519
0
19,810
6

DX10 is not 64bit exclusive. Most people using Vista are using the 32bit version. And even those using 64 (like myself) are still using mostly 32bit apps, including DX10 games.
 

UncleDave

Distinguished
Jun 4, 2007
223
0
18,680
0



I started answering your comment then realised that I would loose a large portion of my life arguing with you. Suffice to say that you also have no idea what DirectX actually is does, how it has been implemented or the design goals - I suggest that you engage in some research yourself.
 

rgeist554

Distinguished
Oct 15, 2007
1,879
0
19,790
3
Huge performance hits on Vista are grossly misrepresented, though not nearly as much as it's "buggy-ness". I can tell you from my 3 very different systems that gaming performance is not very different between Vista and XP. If your hardware is so old that Vista drivers do not exist for it then it's not going to run newer games very well regardless of OS.
I don't think the issue is between straight performance in Vista vs. XP. Rather the fact that DX10 often causes HUGE performance drops when compared to DX9. So you get smoother smoke edges or better shaders, but you lose half your FPS.

Now, in a direct Dx9 in Vista vs. XP, I'm betting it would be very hard to actually spot and notice the difference between the two. As far as DX9 vs. DX10 goes... DX10 is far from complete, mature, etc. / whatever.

Example - Call of Juarez in Dx10 (QX6700 w/ 8800GTX):
Source: http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,1697,2147119,00.asp
 

purplerat

Distinguished
Jul 18, 2006
1,519
0
19,810
6

The performance loss in DX10 has more to due with it being new and has yet to come even close to being even partially optimized or even utilizied. One of the benefits it will eventually show is better graphics at a much lower performance cost then DX9. The current drops in FPS are like I said more attributable to it's newness rather then it being power hunger. Many people forget that the same was true of DX9 when it first came out. Many games, COD2 for example, allowed for users to run the game in a previous DX mode much the same way Crysis allows users the option of playing in DX9.
 

rgeist554

Distinguished
Oct 15, 2007
1,879
0
19,790
3
That's what I said with this...

...DX10 is far from complete, mature, etc. / whatever
In response to:
The current drops in FPS are like I said more attributable to it's newness rather then it being power hunger. Many people forget that the same was true of DX9 when it first came out.
This always happens when anything new is released. Windows XP got the same treatment, now look at the support it has backing it. In a year or two, once most things are stable and the support is there, more people will begin to use said product.
 

purplerat

Distinguished
Jul 18, 2006
1,519
0
19,810
6

Agree completely.
 

purplerat

Distinguished
Jul 18, 2006
1,519
0
19,810
6


Could you have post something a little more outdated? Seriously the first link is to a thread from over a year ago, not to mention before Vista was even released. The only recent information there are the same two links you referenced. One of which is a reference to Alky project which has appearanlty now been dead longer then it even was alive. Then you have the most laughable of all, a horribly biased - anti Microsoft article from the Inquirer from last July, which does more bashing Vista as ME II and promoting Linux as a Windows alternative then it does to show that DX10 can be made available for XP. Also your "evidence" that DX10 could be done on XP adds nothing to this discussion since nobody has argued it's possibility, rather that doing so would basically cause more headaches then it's worth and that Vista is in fact an UPGRADE to XP.
 

gone fishin'

Distinguished
Dec 12, 2007
100
0
18,680
0
Lets revist Vista late next year after the patches and SP have come and gone, as for DX10, when you got 5 guys shooting at you and your jumping arround and firing back, can you see the difference?
 

purplerat

Distinguished
Jul 18, 2006
1,519
0
19,810
6

Actually one of the advantages of DX10 is supposed to be to allow for larger scale battles/fights (more characters on the screen) without using as much resources. So you may not necessarily notice things looking better in such a fight, but it would run smoother, even if you had 10 or 20 guys running around and shooting.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS