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

[JHoxley]

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

Definitely! There's also the saying "no pain, no gain" that could also be applied :smile:

Except it's illegal and harms the consumer.

Can't agree more.

Well the EU and DoJ seem to be having their fun with judging (and enforcing) what is and isn't allowed. That's a whole different topic and one that has been discussed to oblivion elsewhere

I meant it in a more fundamental/basic way. I don't fully understand the finer details, but CEO's of publicly traded companies are required to (attempt to) turn a profit for their share holders - and if that means tightening the strangle-hold on the market then that's just what they'll do. It's all about the money really.

If Apple, Sun or one of the Penguins managed to achieve such a high market share I'm sure they would do their best to stay at the top.

Due to my connections I suppose it's fair to say I have a bias in this matter - but I personally don't have a problem with the current situation. Quite simply it works fine for what I want to be doing (in the way I want to be doing it)...

Cheers,
Jack

 

[Blazkowicz]

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.

but WinFX and Avalon (which is WPF and the successor to GDI) are/will be there under windows XP and 2003. these are API for the .NET platform.
BTW I even had .NET 1.1 under windows 98 for running Nasa Worldwind (but I don't know about .NET 2.0 support under win9x and we definitely won't see WinFX and WPF on it)
I expect to see in the incoming years an open source, wine-like implementation of these API, running under Mono. So, "vista" apps under Linux (and why not Win9x, yes )

the most significant change of Vista to me (and maybe the only one I care about) is the WDDM, which obviously can't be fitted on previous versions of windows because of all the kernel modifications made for it.

 

[DOGMA1138]

so no DX9L for SM4.0 support on XP, atleast some support would'v be nice, but then when it comes to OSes most people switch rather fast so i realy dont know how needed would it be any way.
btw how much of SM4.0 has to do with WDDM and the other functions of Vista? i realy tought that it had little to do with the functionality of vista, and that theyll add SM4.0 for DX9 and just leave stuff lige GPU memory virtualisation for Vista.

 

[Demirug]

but WinFX and Avalon (which is WPF and the successor to GDI) are/will be there under windows XP and 2003. these are API for the .NET platform.
BTW I even had .NET 1.1 under windows 98 for running Nasa Worldwind (but I don't know about .NET 2.0 support under win9x and we definitely won't see WinFX and WPF on it)
I expect to see in the incoming years an open source, wine-like implementation of these API, running under Mono. So, "vista" apps under Linux (and why not Win9x, yes )

the most significant change of Vista to me (and maybe the only one I care about) is the WDDM, which obviously can't be fitted on previous versions of windows because of all the kernel modifications made for it.

I know that WPF used the codename Avalon. My first beta versions used the codename. The back porting of WinFX was a result of the changed development strategy for Vista. The original plan does not contain such a back port. But after the WinFX team was forced to build it on the stable Win 2003 Platform a back port was easy.

Even Win3.11 contains a kind of back ported Win32. Win32s if somebody remembers.

A D3D10 back port would requires an additional Runtime a new Driver interface and all this need to be tested and documented. Simply too much work for the DirectX team.

 

[Demirug]

so no DX9L for SM4.0 support on XP, atleast some support would'v be nice, but then when it comes to OSes most people switch rather fast so i realy dont know how needed would it be any way.
btw how much of SM4.0 has to do with WDDM and the other functions of Vista? i realy tought that it had little to do with the functionality of vista, and that theyll add SM4.0 for DX9 and just leave stuff lige GPU memory virtualisation for Vista.

ShaderModel 4 is not only the shader code itself. You need the whole infrastructure around and this ShaderModel 4 infrastructure is a big part of Direct3D 10. Direct3D 9 does not contain the necessary methods. As the shader needs access to the resource you need the video memory system that Vista offers. If you try to build Shader Model 4 based on the XP driver model it will behave different than on Vista. This is something that game developers not like.

 

[JHoxley]

how much of SM4.0 has to do with WDDM and the other functions of Vista?

Almost none. WDDM is relatively low-level by comparison and you also have DXGI sitting on top of that. Yes, Direct3D 10 makes substantial use of WDDM (+DXGI), but the pipeline feature set is much higher up the stack...

As I mentioned further up this thread, you can't really bolt SM4 onto D3D9 - you could think of the shader models as a method for expressing the features and functionality of the pipeline. Without the D3D10 pipeline features there isn't a huge amount that SM4 could add to D3D9 that you can't do via SM3 already.

I think it's a fairly safe assumption that any D3D10 hardware will also have XP/D3D9 drivers available. Given the required featureset of D3D10 I'd imagine that when it runs as a D3D9 part it'll appear as a turbo-charged SM3 GPU. There's still a huge number of things that developers can do with SM3

Cheers,
Jack

 

[Demirug]

I think it's a fairly safe assumption that any D3D10 hardware will also have XP/D3D9 drivers available. Given the required featureset of D3D10 I'd imagine that when it runs as a D3D9 part it'll appear as a turbo-charged SM3 GPU. There's still a huge number of things that developers can do with SM3

Cheers,
Jack

Maybe will will see some API hacks to offer some D3D10 functions with D3D9 on XP/Vista

 

[JHoxley]

Maybe will will see some API hacks to offer some D3D10 functions with D3D9 on XP/Vista

Wouldn't be the first time we've seen that sort of thing would it!

Jack

 

[Demirug]

Wouldn't be the first time we've seen that sort of thing would it!

Jack

That was the reason why I mentioned it. I am only hope that ATI and nVidia would use the same hacks for the same functions. I am don’t want to blow up my custom caps check more than necessary.

 

[JHoxley]

That was the reason why I mentioned it. I am only hope that ATI and nVidia would use the same hacks for the same functions. I am don’t want to blow up my custom caps check more than necessary.

Maybe you'll be lucky - but if previous hacks are anything to go by, they'll do them in completely different ways to each other At times I think they get some sort of enjoyment out of confusing developers...

Jack

 

[Blazkowicz]

I know that WPF used the codename Avalon. My first beta versions used the codename.

I was vocally checking my facts, these multiple names can easily get confusing (WinFX sounds like "Win Effects" so it's easy to believe it's Avalon). and the same thing got called WGF 1.0, DX9.0L and D3D9Ex (what an awkard acronym).

I think it's a fairly safe assumption that any D3D10 hardware will also have XP/D3D9 drivers available. Given the required featureset of D3D10 I'd imagine that when it runs as a D3D9 part it'll appear as a turbo-charged SM3 GPU. There's still a huge number of things that developers can do with SM3

yes, raw power alone would be good for stuff like taking 16 samples on a shadow map or bingo-whizz super occluded paraparallax mapping (I'll make a demo soon ); and the FP16 blending + AA , maybe HQ aniso filtering, would make G8x much better versus G7x

 

[KimB]

I meant it in a more fundamental/basic way. I don't fully understand the finer details, but CEO's of publicly traded companies are required to (attempt to) turn a profit for their share holders - and if that means tightening the strangle-hold on the market then that's just what they'll do. It's all about the money really.

Well, sure. But there are ways to turn a profit without using underhanded tactics to eliminate competition. The consumer would be far better off today if, for example, the #1 OS in the nation was GNU/Linux (I also contend that if this were the case, then Linux would be vastly more user-friendly than it is now).

 

[JHoxley]

the FP16 blending + AA

I'd have to check the details tomorrow (can't read XLS files under Vista as I haven't bothered installing Office), but I'm pretty sure that FP32 + Blending + AA is a basic feature in D3D10. Not sure about filtering though.

DXGI_FORMAT_R32G32B32A32_FLOAT returns support for D3D10_FORMAT_SUPPORT_RENDER_TARGET, D3D10_FORMAT_SUPPORT_BLENDABLE and D3D10_FORMAT_SUPPORT_MULTISAMPLE_RESOLVE...

Thus it would be conceivable to assume the G8x can do FP32+Blending+AA under D3D9... although, in my recent experimentation the visual difference between FP16 and FP32 is often either minimal or exceptionally difficult to identify!

Cheers,
Jack

 

[KimB]

FP32 blending support would be primarily beneficial for GPGPU type stuff.

 

[doob]

Everyone talks about the types of FP blending and HDR but what about vertex texturing? That combined with HDR must be one heck of an eye candy! Will those early cards be able to handle such tasks?!

Or will it just be able to bring improved HDR at higher res's? Im curious on what you ppl think.

(if im not mistaken, since im confused, but i think the new farcry on xbox360 has some sort of vertex texturing on the water shores, so that's why i throwed these questions)

 

[bloodbob]

The answers is MAYBE not. Since well they will be designed for vista and I was under the assumption that vistra was doing away with legacy vga. So if they decide to scrap VGA support they may be unusable without actually drivers ( IE safe mode might not work ).

 

[Armored_Spiderman]

I'd have to check the details tomorrow (can't read XLS files under Vista as I haven't bothered installing Office), but I'm pretty sure that FP32 + Blending + AA is a basic feature in D3D10. Not sure about filtering though.

DXGI_FORMAT_R32G32B32A32_FLOAT returns support for D3D10_FORMAT_SUPPORT_RENDER_TARGET, D3D10_FORMAT_SUPPORT_BLENDABLE and D3D10_FORMAT_SUPPORT_MULTISAMPLE_RESOLVE...

Thus it would be conceivable to assume the G8x can do FP32+Blending+AA under D3D9... although, in my recent experimentation the visual difference between FP16 and FP32 is often either minimal or exceptionally difficult to identify!

Cheers,
Jack

what makes me think is if the initial DX10 hardware (R600 and G80) will have enough firepower to take advantage on this stuff...

if im understanding right....HDR in DX10 will be made with FP32 right? ...+ MSAA...it can be really heavy to a VGA ....dont know if DX10 will boost performance enough to the hardware be able to use all this stuff....geometry shaders..full FP32...etc

but im just gessing...

ps. yeah my english sucks

 

[suryad]

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.

Thanks for the great explanation!

I got another question though. So when Vista ships, it will have both these Direct3D versions correct? Why 2? Is it for backwards compatibility of the Aero interface on older non-Direct3D 10 class hardware?

 

[KimB]

if im understanding right....HDR in DX10 will be made with FP32 right? ...+ MSAA...it can be really heavy to a VGA ....dont know if DX10 will boost performance enough to the hardware be able to use all this stuff....geometry shaders..full FP32...etc

There's not really any reason to use FP32 for HDR in games. It would pretty much only be useful for GPGPU or GPU acceleration of offline rendering.

 

[Armored_Spiderman]

There's not really any reason to use FP32 for HDR in games. It would pretty much only be useful for GPGPU or GPU acceleration of offline rendering.

but...isnt DX10 full FP32 without any support to other precision?...i thinked that in DX10 wouldnt exist FP16 or FP24...only FP32