Vista delayed... DX10?

Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
A

Acert93

Distinguished
May 29, 2003
230
0
18,680
Vista is now said to be coming in January to the consumer space. Since DX10 is tied to Vista, this puts ATI and NV in an interesting bind.

G80 from NV was right around the corner, with R600 from ATI slated for Fall. Since DX10 is tied to Vista, there is really no point having these GPUs released this year. This means the 7900GTX and X1900XTX will probably remain the high-end single GPU solutions for the next 10 months.

The negative impact I guess is that it means we are stuck with DX9 even longer :/ I guess the good news is that drivers and the GPU roadmap should be fleshed out well. Who this may hurt most is NV. If they were aiming for a Summer G80 launch, by January 2006 they are looking at having to decide between (A) pushing the refresh through or (B) pushing out the G80 series and either pushing back the refresh or cutting G80 short. A 3 months delay for ATI may mean they get their chips out on time :lol:

This also has some interesting side effects on processing node. There were rumblings about the half node 80nm process being slow to get underway at TSMC, so the extra time may help both -- which may help consumers. The extra manufacturing time might mean more GDDR3/GDDR4 and better pricing. ANYTHING that means faster GPUs on day 1 of Vista is good--we want the "low end" to be as good as possible.

The Vista delay does cause a bit of problems... I am sure OEMs are ticked, as well are some of the developers pushing out DX10 games. Who knows, I would guess the consumer edition may get pushed back even further, maybe into late Spring. Gonna suck waiting for DX10! Oh well, I was gonna wait for the refresh parts anyhow.
 
G80 from NV was right around the corner, with R600 from ATI slated for Fall. Since DX10 is tied to Vista, there is really no point having these GPUs released this year.
Click to expand...

Why?

With the possible exception of Halo 2, it's not as though any DX10 _games_ would have been released this year, and it will be years before any games actually require true DX10 chips.

I'm sure both will run DX9 games faster than current chips, so what's the problem?
 
Actually, Microsoft is smart this time. They're planning to simultaneously launch a few games with Vista. Using DX10 of course. One such game would be Crysis. And aren't nVidia and ATI going to release their DX10 cards this year? Lots of speculation on when, but I'm pretty sure they'll be out this year. :)

Too bad that's probably also going to be delayed now that Vista's doing it again. :roll:
 
If you read the TG Daily article you will find that it is the the OEM's who are asking for the delay to janurary instead of just apush back to Novemeber. So yes they will be hurt slightly, but I would surmise that most people who buy PC's from OEM's during the holiday's don't buy it for the OS. Thats not to say someone won't be dissappointed, but the vast majority probably don't care at all.

Does anyone have a link to info about Halo 2 coming to the PC, I've been waiting for that. BF2 is getting a bit nuts with all the rambo wanna be's. Grr.

As for directx 10, I don't think it will hurt NV and ATi as much as some people think. I would like to see the cards come out before the games do rather than visa versa. I like the idea of being ready with dx10 hardware before a game hits the shelf so that once the game does come out all I have to do is pop in the CD and let the effects amaze me. Conversely, if I have to wait for dx10 cards and I have the dx10 game, I feel its a waste because I'm not getting the maximum eye candy, but thats just my 2 cents.

i'd like to see dx10 cards in Oct/Nov timeframe (not really sure why but 3 months prior to vista sounds good 😛 )
 
What functionalities will DX10 add over dx9.0c + HDR + ... ? To what OpenGL capabilities would those relate?

While I could see the advantage in programmable pixel shaders in dx9 compared to dx8 fixed PS, I fail to understand how DX10 would be so much better than dx9.
 
What functionalities will DX10 add over dx9.0c + HDR + ... ? To what OpenGL capabilities would those relate?

While I could see the advantage in programmable pixel shaders in dx9 compared to dx8 fixed PS, I fail to understand how DX10 would be so much better than dx9.
Click to expand...

I've read a little bit about, but I am not even going to try and explain it because I don't understand it well enough myself to even start. I still have much reading to do. Best bet is to try and research it yourself, unless there is some Guru that understands it and wanders into this thread.
 
You might find this article pretty informing:
http://www.gamespot.com/features/6143883/p-4.html

-New constant buffers maximize efficiency of sending shader constant data (light positions, material information, etc.) to the GPU by eliminating redundancy and massively reducing the number of calls to the runtime and driver. New state objects significantly reduce the amount of API calls and bandwidth, tracking, mapping, and validation overhead needed in the runtime and driver to change GPU device state.
-Texture arrays enable the GPU to swap materials on-the-fly without having to swap those textures from the CPU.
-Resource views enable super-fast binding of resources to the pipeline by informing the system early-on about its intended use. This also vastly reduces the cost of hazard-tracking and validation.
-Predicated rendering allows draw calls to be automatically deactivated based on the results of previous rendering - without any CPU interaction. This enables rapid occlusion culling to avoid rendering objects that aren’t visible.
-Shader Model 4.0 provides a more robust instruction set with capabilities like integer and bitwise instructions, enabling more work to be transferred to the GPU.
-The D3D runtime itself has been completely refactored to maximize performance and configurability by the application.
Click to expand...
 
What I mainly saw referenced as having a big inpact on hardware is memory management - which rules out having an AGP card being DX10 compliant. The best we can hope for now is that current video cards will get increased performance from the more efficient model.
 
By no means am I a guru on any topic, but due to my position I have had the liberty of seeing most of the tech releases, demo kits, and press releases for DX10...

2 things that seemed to be the common thread...

1) There was a large focus on physics, and how to delegate it... (Probably from input from the GPU companies as there are some basic structures to make programming for SLI-Physics(nVidia), Dynamic Load Balancing(ATI), Stand-alone Physics FPU's much easier (Ageia and the ilk)

2) Efficiency, many of the DX9 algorithims have been revamped and take less resources/time to execute which means faster performace with the same hardware.

As I said I'm no guru but from what I have seen physics is the big flogging stick this time around. And plain our better code was the second.
 
They're planning to simultaneously launch a few games with Vista. Using DX10 of course.
Click to expand...

Didn't Microsoft say that DX10 won't be released on XP? If so, do you really think that any sane games company is going to release a game which won't run on 90% of PCs?

It's not as though many people are going to rush out and upgrade XP to Vista: XP already does everything that most people want from their PC. It will probably be two or three years before the majority of gaming PCs are running Vista rather than XP.
 
Quite true. Most people won't buy Vista the day it comes out. But Crysis for example will also be playable with a DX9 card in XP. It's just that you'll get a lot more eye candy with it running under Vista with a decent GPU. Decent meaning a DX10 card in this case.

I'm not sure, but since DX10 and DX9 are quite different from what I've read, there might be two versions of the game as well. Or perhaps I'm wrong and the difference isn't that big and you can have the game (both versions) on one DVD.

Don't you think that Crysis and other games might be a good selling point for many people? New windows? You said yourself that XP can do most stuff, so why would you buy Vista? Enthusiast gamers will buy a new rig and Vista to play some of the quality games with highest detail & eye candy. And believe me, good DX10 games are better (graphics and physics wise) than 'old' DX9 games.
 
You said yourself that XP can do most stuff, so why would you buy Vista?
Click to expand...

I'll buy it when I build a new PC in a couple of years, because I won't be able to buy XP at that time even if I want to. I can't help but feel that few companies will want to release both DX9 and DX10 versions of their games when DX9 will do for everyone: unless Microsoft have made the interfaces so similar that it's trivial to do.
 
This whole DX10 thing stinks... I mean, how attractive can an OS be? The purpose of an OS is to link hardware level with user level in the most lamen of terms.

So I still say that MS has no concrete selling point. An OS with 3d features?? I don't see it enhancing my gaming experience... So let's throw SM4.0 into the pudding, and maybe we can actually sell a resource hog OS.
 
With DX10 you can get a lot more out of a GPU. DX10 also saves CPU resources. Better quality games (graphics & physics) is something we all want, right? A new OS to support the new hardware & software is needed. Well, it probably is. XP is what..five years old? There's a lot of new hardware since that. SATA harddrives, for example, you can't install XP to them without drivers on a floppy disk. (or if you've made your CD/DVD yourself..)

I'd say it's time to get another Windows. Think how good it'll be after those two or three years when everyone DOES have it & DX10 cards etc.. :)
 
Also watch this video it will show some of the effects that will be avibale in DX10. I think the best one is interactive enviroments, seen the actully bush move when some going though it would be AWSOME. also its been said that the DX10 games with have the abbility to if you get shot in the game with lets say your right arm, you then lose that right arm, if you get shot in the leg you going to limp ETC.

ooh almost forgot the video http://www.gametrailers.com/gamepage.php?id=2363
 
When exactly did DX 9 come out?
I know one of the first REAL DX9 games out come was FarCry in mid 2004.
Knowing this might help predict when real DX10 games using PPU will come out.
 
When exactly did DX 9 come out?
I know one of the first REAL DX9 games out come was FarCry in mid 2004.
Knowing this might help predict when real DX10 games using PPU will come out.
Click to expand...

I know for a fact that there were DX9 games about before mid 2004. Flight simulator 2004 is full DX9 and i remeber buying that in september of 2003.
 
I don't need to argue,
Flight Sim 2004 did require a DX 9 card, but I think it was missing a few things.
but I don't remember seeing any sm 2.0 featues in flight sim.:
bumpy reflections, refractions, volumetric glow effects, shinny surfaces, etc.
I still think FarCry was the biggest leap since halflife 1. (Even Unreal 2004 was a bit lame)

But this isn't my point anyway.
I am just trying to guess when DX 10 games will actually use most of the sm 4.0 hardware and advanced physics. Based on the Jan 2007 release date of DX 10
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom