3Dmark07: DX10 (and thus Vista)-only.

Discussion in '3D Hardware, Software & Output Devices' started by Geeforcer, Apr 28, 2007.

  1. Geeforcer

    Geeforcer Harmlessly Evil
    Veteran

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2002
    Messages:
    2,297
    Likes Received:
    465
  2. TheAlSpark

    TheAlSpark Moderator
    Moderator Legend

    Joined:
    Feb 29, 2004
    Messages:
    21,174
    Likes Received:
    6,530
    Location:
    ಠ_ಠ

    I'd say it doesn't matter if this is Vista only.
     
  3. trinibwoy

    trinibwoy Meh
    Legend

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2004
    Messages:
    10,537
    Likes Received:
    589
    Location:
    New York
    I completely agree with Futuremark's decision to make this DX10 only. It's not their fault that DX10 is Vista only. We have no need for another DX9 benchmark and would not benefit from it in any way. Given that they won't share game developers' burden of creating a DX9 path they can focus on DX10 goodies and push those cards to the max.
     
  4. dizietsma

    Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2004
    Messages:
    1,172
    Likes Received:
    13
    Yes I agree, it should be DX10, or maybe one really technical DX9 game and then X number of DX10. Of course I won't be moving up to Vista any time soon so that is a shame.

    I assume DX10 was never for XP purely for financial reasons rather than technical ?
     
  5. Albuquerque

    Albuquerque Red-headed step child
    Veteran

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2004
    Messages:
    3,845
    Likes Received:
    329
    Location:
    35.1415,-90.056
    You assume incorrectly. DX10 isn't as much about new features as it is efficiency enhancements -- efficiency brought on by major improvements in the Windows kernel and driver architecture.
     
  6. TheAlSpark

    TheAlSpark Moderator
    Moderator Legend

    Joined:
    Feb 29, 2004
    Messages:
    21,174
    Likes Received:
    6,530
    Location:
    ಠ_ಠ
    Well, it could be financial in the sense that an overhaul/retrofitting of WinXP would be extremely expensive, but I take it you meant it as a strong-arm tactic to get people to buy Vista. ;)
     
  7. Demirug

    Veteran

    Joined:
    Dec 8, 2002
    Messages:
    1,326
    Likes Received:
    69
    D3D10: Yes
    Vista Only: Maybe not.
    I am willing to take bets that we will see it on a Windows XP system too.
     
  8. Albuquerque

    Albuquerque Red-headed step child
    Veteran

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2004
    Messages:
    3,845
    Likes Received:
    329
    Location:
    35.1415,-90.056
    You might see some hobbled together "emulator" for DX10, but you'll never see it at full speed -- or anything remotely like it -- under the XP OS.
     
  9. Demirug

    Veteran

    Joined:
    Dec 8, 2002
    Messages:
    1,326
    Likes Received:
    69
    I believe it would be possible to get ~90% of the native Vista D3D10 performance. A problem could be the missing “application specific driver optimizationsâ€￾.
     
  10. Albuquerque

    Albuquerque Red-headed step child
    Veteran

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2004
    Messages:
    3,845
    Likes Received:
    329
    Location:
    35.1415,-90.056
    I'll take your bet and say that you get nothing that close on XP on equal hardware. I'd be pleasantly surprised if they could hit 70% at absolute best, and I'd wager that doesn't come for a year or more.

    The only time an emulated D3D10 interface is going to go fast on XP is when using non-D3D10-specific instructions (ie texturing one screen-sized polygon). Batch up about 1,000,000 polygons and throw in about 1000 shaders and XP will grind to a halt long before Vista does.
     
  11. Demirug

    Veteran

    Joined:
    Dec 8, 2002
    Messages:
    1,326
    Likes Received:
    69
    Well how long it would take to get it running is another bet. I am not sure why you throw in the poly and shader count. I believe you talk about the higher draw call overhead on Windows XP. This is more a Direct3D than a general XP problem. The draw call overhead with OpenGL is lower. With Long Evans and Mount Peaks it should reduced even more. The final sped you can gain with such an experiment would highly depend on the driver quality. But it should be good for more than 70%.
     
  12. Albuquerque

    Albuquerque Red-headed step child
    Veteran

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2004
    Messages:
    3,845
    Likes Received:
    329
    Location:
    35.1415,-90.056
    And as OpenGL continues to reduce overhead on the XP side, Vista's driver quality will continue to improve. The problem is, you aren't always dealing with API overhead, you're also up against kernel and driver overhead -- something that will not change on XP.

    You will never get 70% speede out of any DX10 XP wrapper using true DX10 featureset. And I don't understand how you think OpenGL of any flavor is going to map directly to DX10 calls...
     
  13. Demirug

    Veteran

    Joined:
    Dec 8, 2002
    Messages:
    1,326
    Likes Received:
    69
    The OpenGL overhead should be reduced with Long Peaks and Mount Evans later this year on Windows XP, too.

    There would be no direct mapping but beside of some fixed function render states the D3D10 feature set is mostly defined through shader model 4.0. Converting this 4.0 shaders to OpenGL shaders would cause some higher setup costs but you have to pay this only once until they are compiled and linked.

    Anyway I am sure that we will see 3DMark 07 on XP and then we can check who is right.
     
  14. Albuquerque

    Albuquerque Red-headed step child
    Veteran

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2004
    Messages:
    3,845
    Likes Received:
    329
    Location:
    35.1415,-90.056
    Yes, I understand that. You missed the part about driver and kernel overhead. Care to get me up to date on how OpenGL is going to fix the XP driver model and ring-level-zero kernel functions? Maybe I missed that part?

    Ok, so what about stuff that doesn't map over? You can't just reissue a "different" instruction from DX10 to OpenGL; recompiling a shader might solve a few cases, but certainly far from all of them. And in those far-greater cases, you're going to be stuck issuing multiple commands and/or processing it entirely through the CPU.

    We shall see :)
     
  15. Demirug

    Veteran

    Joined:
    Dec 8, 2002
    Messages:
    1,326
    Likes Received:
    69
    OpenGL ICDs already use nearly the same kernel driver model on XP that Vista use for Direct3D driver too. That’s the reason why the overhead is already much lower for OpenGL.

    EXT_GPU_Shader4 looks very promising for me. Remember that even Shader Model 4 compiles to a binary shader language. This language is assembler like and supports general basis operations. Not that hard to convert after you have understand the binary encoding system.

    I agree that you will never get 100% perfection with an API to API Wrapper. Therefore I am already saying that such solutions would not bring Direct3D 10 to another OS. They only provide a way that could allow D3D10 applications run on another host system than Vista.
     
  16. Entropy

    Veteran

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2002
    Messages:
    3,135
    Likes Received:
    1,105
    ;) :D
     
  17. Albuquerque

    Albuquerque Red-headed step child
    Veteran

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2004
    Messages:
    3,845
    Likes Received:
    329
    Location:
    35.1415,-90.056
    Obviously I bolded the wrong part for you, so let me try once more:
    Your ICD solves nothing about how the XP kernel is going to force you to access the video driver. XP's kernel interaction with drivers is far different than Vista's, and not in a good way.

    Again, this only solves problems when you're talking about shader power. What about virtualized resources? What about creating buffers for render targets? Sure, both API's have this functionality, but they provide it in different manners and handle them differently too. There are things you're blatently skipping over...
    What? You're saying that this solution wouldn't bring DX10 to another OS, but would allow DX10 apps to run ... on.. another...OS?? Huh? You're confusing the hell out of me. What are you trying to say?
     
  18. Demirug

    Veteran

    Joined:
    Dec 8, 2002
    Messages:
    1,326
    Likes Received:
    69
    It’s very different for Direct3D drivers. In the case of OpenGL ICDs the changes are less significant. The even loss some freedom as they have to give more control over the memory and the execution time to the graphics subsystem in the kernel. The kernel overhead was never a big problem for OpenGL on Windows XP. OpenGL have an another overhead problem that is caused by multiple extensions for the same GPU part.

    OpenGL resources are already mostly virtualized as OpenGL was designed as a client server model. FBOs solve another big part of this problem. I agree that there are some black holes but without some real world D3D10 applications it is hardly to say how intensive this parts of the D3D10 applications will make use of this area.

    Direct3D 10 is more than just the API. There is a DDI, too. Getting D3D10 work on another OS then Vista means that you have to make sure that the drivers would work too. I am sure we agree that this is hardly possible for most OS. Maybe ReactOS will handle this task. On the other Hand Direct3D 10 applications would not care about the DDI. They need only the API and most would not even need everything. Therefore it would be easier to get them running on different host systems. It is only a fine difference when I am talking about “getting D3D10 runningâ€￾ and “getting D3D10 applicationsâ€￾ running but it is significant when it come to possibilities and compatibilities questions. To make sure that you understand me right. I am never claimed that it is possible to provide a 100% compatible Direct3D 10 version for Windows XP for anyone else then Microsoft. I even believe that if they had decide to go this way they could not do it but game developers have to test against an official version anyway. I am only claimed that it would be possible to get applications (possible not everyone) that need Direct3D 10 running on Windows XP.
     
  19. Albuquerque

    Albuquerque Red-headed step child
    Veteran

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2004
    Messages:
    3,845
    Likes Received:
    329
    Location:
    35.1415,-90.056
    Yeah, I suppose that does make more sense; thanks for the deeper explanation on DX10 vs other OSes thing.

    I'm still not anywhere near agreement with your performance expectations for DX10-ish stuff on OpenGL under WinXP, but only time will tell.
     
  20. ANova

    Veteran

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2004
    Messages:
    2,226
    Likes Received:
    10
    The efficiency improvements are done through the updated directx api, the kernel or driver architecture should have little to do with that aside from maybe small improvements. I simply don't buy the "well it would have been impossible to port to XP" argument. Nothing is impossible, though it may have cost them more and I'm sure having it as an exclusive feature to Vista was a major incentive as well.
     
Loading...

Share This Page

  • About Us

    Beyond3D has been around for over a decade and prides itself on being the best place on the web for in-depth, technically-driven discussion and analysis of 3D graphics hardware. If you love pixels and transistors, you've come to the right place!

    Beyond3D is proudly published by GPU Tools Ltd.
Loading...