Will WGF 2.0 video cards be usable in XP/2000?

[{Sniping}Waste]

I hope this is the right forum for this.
From what info I found, WGF 2.0 is not the same as DX and wounder if WGF 2.0 GPU/VPU can install and work 2D and 3D modes in Windows XP/ 2000.

 

[DOGMA1138]

im guessing there will be some form of D3D10 port for XP/2003 based systems. but any way there should be a fallback for older API's in the drivers. beacuse from my understanding the code for unified hardware will be quite diffrent. so even if you wont have DX9L or any other D3D10 port for older OSes the cards should still be functional under older API's.

 

[Richteralan]

im guessing there will be some form of D3D10 port for XP/2003 based systems. but any way there should be a fallback for older API's in the drivers. beacuse from my understanding the code for unified hardware will be quite diffrent. so even if you wont have DX9L or any other D3D10 port for older OSes the cards should still be functional under older API's.

I would guess first generation of D3D10 parts are not really that "unified" in hardware.
So yes by the help of driver you can still use it with old OS and DirectX versions.

 

[Demirug]

It’s all about drivers. As long as the chip developers write a driver any D3D10 card will work well with wit Windows 2000 and Windows XP.

Dogma1138, I would not bet on a D3D10 port for Windows XP because D3D10 requires a new graphics subsystem that is not part of Windows XP. To include it the kernel must be changed. Something that Microsoft did never in the past because it caused many problems.

 

[Acert93]

http://www.gamespot.com/features/6143883/p-4.html

This covers a bit of Vista/DX10 information.

 

[KimB]

I still think that MS should update DX9 to support SM4. Sure, users won't get the performance benefits of DX10, but I hate the idea of being forced to upgrade just to use the features in newer hardware.

 

[Blazkowicz]

D3D9 driver would be needed anyway for compatibility for any games using direct3D from version 2 to 9, no?
so, as long as NV or ATI still provide a WDM version of the drivers and not WDDM only, I expect quite a number of years of vid card support for the good old NT 5.x, at least gentle enough to run, even if the driver does SM3 and not SM4.

is SM4 really that big of a deal? what does it bring on the pixel side, and are the vertex/geometry features really that important? (no game really use HOS, displacement mapping or vertex texturing)
NT 5.x will lack the advanced memory virtualization as well, which looks as important or more important to me and is here with DX9L (D3D9V? D3D9 EX?) if I'm not mistaken.
Think of Carmack's "unique texturing", and how much BF2 wastes RAM with max textures. So the situation is already not great regardless of SM4.

 

[KimB]

D3D9 driver would be needed anyway for compatibility for any games using direct3D from version 2 to 9, no?

A different D3D9 driver is required for Vista, but I still expect nVidia and ATI to support XP and previous for some time to come.

 

[{Sniping}Waste]

What Im thinking is that DX9 and the older DX use GPU/VPU that are set pipeline in hardware but the a fully complient WGF 2.0 is not and uses unified shader setup and will not work with DX9 and lower. What im thinking is both ATI and Nvidia may not release a fully complient WGF 2.0 card before Vista is out. Vista is coming around the end of this year I think and if you look at the time ATI want to release the R600 its with te release of Vista or just after. The rumers for Nvidia is there G80 will come out in about 2 to 3 months from now. If the G80 is fully WGF 2.0 complient with unified shaders then this could be a problem with the card not working with Windows XP/2000 so why relase a card thats not usable at that time.

If this is true then G80 could be just a WGF 1.0+ with a DX9.0c setup is some of the specs of WGF 2.0 like SM4 that will still work with Windows XP/2000.

 

[JHoxley]

Firstly, the "Windows Graphics Foundation" / WGF naming has gone now. It's still mentioned here-n-there, but it's now officially going under the name of Direct3D 10 (WGF2) and Direct3D 9Ex (WGF1).

I would guess first generation of D3D10 parts are not really that "unified" in hardware.

The D3D10 specification only requires the API to see/use the shader cores in a unified manner. There isn't anything stopping the IHV's from using a more traditional specialized implementation.

I would not bet on a D3D10 port for Windows XP because D3D10 requires a new graphics subsystem that is not part of Windows XP.

Correct - Direct3D 10 will never appear on Windows XP. Not even some "lite" version. The story of XP and DirectX finished with DX9.0c...

I still think that MS should update DX9 to support SM4. Sure, users won't get the performance benefits of DX10, but I hate the idea of being forced to upgrade just to use the features in newer hardware.

I've seen this sentiment a few times before, and it really confuses me :smile:

How could you do anything with SM4 without the rest of the D3D10 pipeline and API? They're not seperable entities - they're completely tied together. The only thing you could do is bring a few of the looping/branching constructs downlevel - but once you'd made them compatable with the rest of the API I don't think they'd offer much beyond SM3 anyway...

D3D9 driver would be needed anyway for compatibility for any games using direct3D from version 2 to 9, no?

Under Vista, no - previous API's (9c and below) get remapped to D3D9Ex in the same way that XP remaps 7 (or is it 6?) and below.

is SM4 really that big of a deal? what does it bring on the pixel side, and are the vertex/geometry features really that important? (no game really use HOS, displacement mapping or vertex texturing)

SM4 is definitely a big deal - but whether you could say it was specifically because of the shader model or more generally about the D3D10 pipeline. As I mentioned above, they're tied together such that it makes it difficult to say that individual parts are that big a deal...

I've been working with D3D10 and SM4 for around 10 months now, and it I could easily write pages and pages about the various features that are just amazing

For example, one of the things I wrote about in my developer journal last night was the possibility of running an entire material system on the GPU. I don't expect anyone here to find that exciting (doesn't produce any jaw-dropping visuals!) but from a developers perspective it's very interesting. Allows for much more flexibility, much more simplification and you can get much more concurrency between the CPU and GPU.

Put together lots of little things like that and you suddenly have a much richer graphics engine - not only capable of operating much more smoothly than they do now, but the extra efficiency, flexibility and features should allow for some truly jaw-dropping results

Vista is coming around the end of this year I think

Mid October was the last guesstimate I saw.

Jack

 

[suryad]

So I am confused. When Vista ships will it be shipping with WGF1.0 which is DX 10? Would that be unified or would the next version of WGF be unified which is WGF 2.0 and will then the DX moniker be dropped? I read that DX 10 or WGF 1.0 wont be backported to XP and that if you want to enjoy games that take advantage of that API you better upgrade to Vista. Sorta something like that crappy PC game Halo that MS is supposed to be releasing Vista only.

 

[compres]

These are very nasty news for me, and many people.

Basically you are saying: we are forced to upgrade to vista in order to keep up with the new graphics tech on PCs.

This is a very disapointing fact for me. Basically we are forced to do what Microsoft wants us to do if one is a PC gamer.

What happened to choice? I would prefer to choose between Mac, Linux or Windows. Right now we don't even have a choice between Microsoft's products, it's Vista or old tech, quite nasty.

Is OpenGL basically dead for the future? Wha can you do on Vista that you can not on OpenGL(Yes Vista since d3d10 is only in vista)?

 

[Demirug]

So I am confused. When Vista ships will it be shipping with WGF1.0 which is DX 10? Would that be unified or would the next version of WGF be unified which is WGF 2.0 and will then the DX moniker be dropped? I read that DX 10 or WGF 1.0 wont be backported to XP and that if you want to enjoy games that take advantage of that API you better upgrade to Vista. Sorta something like that crappy PC game Halo that MS is supposed to be releasing Vista only.

There is no DirectX 10. Beginning at last December DirectX has lost the version number in the SDK. Forget anything about WGF too. This name was used sometimes ago but not anymore.

Vista will contain any Direct3D version that was ever build plus two new versions. Direct3D 9EX and Direct3D 10. Direct3D 9EX is a improved version of Direct3D that is primary used for the new desktop (AERO). It supports current hardware. Direct3D 10 is the new version that will require new hardware, too.

 

[JHoxley]

These are very nasty news for me, and many people.

In all fairness, it's not really news - this sort of information has been floating around in some form for about a year now

Basically you are saying: we are forced to upgrade to vista in order to keep up with the new graphics tech on PCs.

Yes, with one possible exception.

OpenGL is not so tied to the OS, such that if ATI and Nvidia create OpenGL drivers for XP that expose the full hardware feature set then you can (effectively) get D3D10 technology on Windows XP. But I would imagine they'll only do that if it's either an "easy" by-product of whatever else they're working on, or if game developers tell them they want it..

What happened to choice? I would prefer to choose between Mac, Linux or Windows.

You still can. Through various mechanisms (both controlled by Microsoft and the market in general) Microsoft is the dominant player - it is what it is...

Right now we don't even have a choice between Microsoft's products, it's Vista or old tech, quite nasty.

There's also the added bonus that Windows XP will go out of it's support period in a couple of years (like every other product eventually does)...


The bottom line is that Vista is a big transition - it's going to be painful for a lot of people (more so for developers than end-users) but it should be worth it. In the context of Direct3D 10 it's nothing short of a breath of fresh air to get a clean API without the baggage of 9 previous versions!

 

[KimB]

You still can. Through various mechanisms (both controlled by Microsoft and the market in general) Microsoft is the dominant player - it is what it is...

Sure, but Microsoft has been actively working to maintain its monopoly over the years. This is what pisses me off about Vista. It may have its good points, but it also acts to make Windows even more exclusive as an OS.

 

[JHoxley]

Sure, but Microsoft has been actively working to maintain its monopoly over the years.

I'm sure we could agree that ANY company that has a position such as Microsoft's would do their best to keep it that way

This is what pisses me off about Vista. It may have its good points, but it also acts to make Windows even more exclusive as an OS.

How you mean by "exclusive"? You mean that it's going to allow them to tighten their grip on the market, or that it's going to somehow exclude people from home computing?

Cheers,
Jack

 

[KimB]

I'm sure we could agree that ANY company that has a position such as Microsoft's would do their best to keep it that way

Except it's illegal and harms the consumer.

How you mean by "exclusive"? You mean that it's going to allow them to tighten their grip on the market, or that it's going to somehow exclude people from home computing?

The obvious, JHoxley.

 

[Demirug]

The bottom line is that Vista is a big transition - it's going to be painful for a lot of people (more so for developers than end-users) but it should be worth it. In the context of Direct3D 10 it's nothing short of a breath of fresh air to get a clean API without the baggage of 9 previous versions!

I am always compare it with the Windows 95.

DOS/WIN3.11 -> Win95

WIN16 -> WIN32
native Hardware programming -> DirectX

WinXP -> Vista

Win32 -> WinFX
Direct3D 9 -> Direct3D 10.

Sometimes it is necessary to break traditions to make the next step.

 

[Blazkowicz]

Under Vista, no - previous API's (9c and below) get remapped to D3D9Ex in the same way that XP remaps 7 (or is it 6?) and below.

yes, D3D9Ex and not vanilla D3D9 (both being very similar to me)
so as far as I can understand D3D9 (Ex) is there for a long time, for support of SM 2/3 card and the past 10 years of games.

For example, one of the things I wrote about in my developer journal last night was the possibility of running an entire material system on the GPU. I don't expect anyone here to find that exciting (doesn't produce any jaw-dropping visuals!) but from a developers perspective it's very interesting. Allows for much more flexibility, much more simplification and you can get much more concurrency between the CPU and GPU.

that actually speaks to me, as id software's Megatexture and unique texturing are supposed to contain material property I think (such as grass, dirt, road, even tires on vehicles); lot of material stuff going in UE3 as well.
that sounds nice and I guess such things will be helpful with the stall in CPU performance.

 

[compres]

Except it's illegal and harms the consumer.

Can't agree more.