WGF 1.0 requirements

[Joe DeFuria]

I raised this issue in some other thread and it went unanswered. (Because nobody really knows?)

All of the rumblings are that R520 and G70/80 are "WGF 1.0" compliant. This sort of implies that the current chips are not. I have not been able to find out exactly what is required for WGF 1.0 support...both from a shader level and other types of perhaps non shader related hardware. I've heard lots of mixed things like:

* WGF 1.0 requires SM 2.0 support (DX 9.0)
* WGF 1.0 requires SM 3.0 support (DX 9.0c)
* WFG 1.0 requires SM 3.0+ support (DX 9.0L)

I am starting to be of the opinion (based on nothing but some rational thinking and educated guessing) that WGF 1.0 requires SM 2.0 from a shader model perspective, but some other "hardware bits" that are not in currently available chips.

Does anyone know the real story?

 

[Demirug]

only Pixelshader 2.0. Vertexshader 2.0 is an option. They are some other things a GPU have to support but this should no problem for every Pixelshader 2.0 hardware out there.

The DX9 Version for Longhorn is called DX9.0L. The add something for hardware Cleartype support. But this is an option, too

 

[jvd]

aye wgf 1.0 needs sm2.0 and i don't even think its a full sm2.0 set up , but if you support sm2.0 you will be fine . This is most likely because of the intel chipsets

 

[suryad]

Just clarifying Demirug, but you are saying that if you have a graphics card that is PS 2.0b complaint then you are WGF 1.0 compliant?

 

[Joe DeFuria]

Is WGF 1.0 the same as DX9.L? (Names that can be interchanged?)

But basically, Any DX9 hardware can be said to support WGF 1.0, as long as it has drivers written for it that support DX 9.L. Correct?

 

[Demirug]

Is WGF 1.0 the same as DX9.L? (Names that can be interchanged?)

But basically, Any DX9 hardware can be said to support WGF 1.0, as long as it has drivers written for it that support DX 9.L. Correct?

Yes. but you don't even need a new WGF driver as WGF can use old WinXP drivers. But as the new drivermodel is better you should use a new driver.

Hardware Cleartype need a new driver because this is a feature that is new in DX9.0L.

 

[Geo]

Dave did say this:

http://www.beyond3d.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=21562&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=8

I was kinda surprised when I looked at the DXNext article on the front page (Which is where I looked first when this particular thread above started and I had the same question) that it isn't clear there, but it isn't.

 

[Demirug]

Just clarifying Demirug, but you are saying that if you have a graphics card that is PS 2.0b complaint then you are WGF 1.0 compliant?

Yes, because WGF 1.0 is only DX9.0L.

WGF 1.0 say nothing at all. You need to look for "Aero" and "Aero Glass" support and even than there are many options that a GPU can support but if they don't do it they will still get the Logo.

 

[suryad]

Just clarifying Demirug, but you are saying that if you have a graphics card that is PS 2.0b complaint then you are WGF 1.0 compliant?

Yes, because WGF 1.0 is only DX9.0L.

WGF 1.0 say nothing at all. You need to look for "Aero" and "Aero Glass" support and even than there are many options that a GPU can support but if they don't do it they will still get the Logo.

Thanks Demirug.

 

[Dave Baumann]

Hardware Cleartype need a new driver because this is a feature that is new in DX9.0L.

AFAIK this is a requirement of WGF1.0 and is implemented via PS2.0 instructions, however my personal suspicion is that this will be implemented as a specific instruction/operation by the IHV's in later hardware in order reduce the power consumption for operation of the interface.

WGF 1.0 say nothing at all. You need to look for "Aero" and "Aero Glass" support and even than there are many options that a GPU can support but if they don't do it they will still get the Logo.

Last I heard "Diamond" was added as the highest level of the Interface.

 

[Demirug]

AFAIK this is a requirement of WGF1.0 and is implemented via PS2.0 instructions, however my personal suspicion is that this will be implemented as a specific instruction in later hardware in order reduce the power consumption of the interface.

As WGF 1.0 is only the new name for DirectX 9.0L we will see again that everything is WGF 1.0 compatibel as long as you have a driver for it. You can even use a Windows XP driver. Because of this every GeForce or Radeon ever build will be WGF 1.0 compatible.

ClearType is an option (GRFX-40) for Aero Glass.

To support ClearType the driver have to support:
- New filtertype CONVOLUTIONMONO
- 1 Bit/pixel textureformat
- variable filtersize (up to 8*8) for this format
- composition operations for this format
- SRCCOLOR2 and INVSRCCOLOR2 blend options.

maybe it is possible to emulate most of this with pixelshader 2.0. But you still have to match the performace requirements. 6 ns/pixel is the limit. If the chip can do it in 3 ns/pixel it will work without the blend options and a pixelshader soultion will be much easier.

 

[Martin Eddy]

 

[Jodi]

Haha, I love the "confidential" at the bottom right of that picture

 

[Reverend]

OT : That particular slide could possibly be thoroughly confusing to those that aren't interested in 3D. Not that this is likely in this particular forum, since not many newbies dare to post here.

 

[Richard]

You know, a while ago I wondered how would WGF 2.0 (DX X/whatever) work if Longhorn is supposed to debut it and it's scheduled for May 2006. I mean, I assume we're talking about SM 4.0 right? (amongst other things) If R520 comes out say by the end of H1 2005, and I'm sure it won't be Sm 4.0, is it reasonable to expect a WGF 2.0 card from ATi (for instance) within less than 12 months? nVidia is in slightly better position since it already has a SM 3 part and can naturally evolve from there.

Unless WGF 2.0 is not such a big departure from Dx9 as we were led to believe. More "longhorn cuts" that started with WinFS as Microsoft scrambles to get a finished product?

 

[KimB]

It definitely makes the most marketting sense for both companies to release their WGF 2.0 parts at the same time that Microsoft releases the API. Yes, this may mean that ATI will have to bite a pretty big bullet on R&D with the R520 and its bretheren.

 

[Joe DeFuria]

It definitely makes the most marketting sense for both companies to release their WGF 2.0 parts at the same time that Microsoft releases the API. Yes, this may mean that ATI will have to bite a pretty big bullet on R&D with the R520 and its bretheren.

I would think that much R&D for SM 4.0 is going into R500 / Xenon. (No, I don't expect Xenon to be fully SM 4.0, but I do expect it to have many SM 4.0 features.)

 

[NocturnDragon]

It definitely makes the most marketting sense for both companies to release their WGF 2.0 parts at the same time that Microsoft releases the API. Yes, this may mean that ATI will have to bite a pretty big bullet on R&D with the R520 and its bretheren.

I would think that much R&D for SM 4.0 is going into R500 / Xenon. (No, I don't expect Xenon to be fully SM 4.0, but I do expect it to have many SM 4.0 features.)

I guess that what Chalnoth was trying to say is that if ATI is going to release a WGF 2.0 compliant part as soon as Microsoft releases the API, then all the cash spent on R&D for the R520 and it's derivates will be a lot considering how little the R520 generation is going to last.

 

[Joe DeFuria]

I guess that what Chalnoth was trying to say is that if ATI is going to release a WGF 2.0 compliant part as soon as Microsoft releases the API, then all the cash spent on R&D for the R520 and it's derivates will be a lot considering how little the R520 generation is going to last.

Well, yes and no. Much of the R&D is probably just for getting a complex part up and running on 90nm. (There are rumors that R520 taped out like a year ago.) That will be useful for all 90nm parts going forward. It remains to be seen exactly how "different" R520 is from R4xx in terms of architecture, of if its basically "R300, with FP32 support and SM 3.0 bolted on."

Clearly, ATI has spent a LOT of R&D time on the defunct R400 transformed into the R500/Xenon (and assumed to be basis for R600 PC chips). I'm thinking there really isn't all that significant R&D for R520.

 

[GRAKS]

what does this meen?.
what is this Advanced Driver Model that r520 has support for?.
how is that any different from what what i have in my 9700pro?

"Existing hardware will support the Basic Model of WGF once the manufacturer writes a driver for it. Features like resource virtualization etc. will only be available when using the Advanced Driver Model. R520 is the first GPU we know of to support it."