Slashdot Mirror
MS Says Windows 7 Will Run DirectX 10 On the CPU
arcticstoat writes "In what could be seen as an easy answer to the Vista-capable debacle, Microsoft has introduced a 'fully conformant software rasterizer' called WARP (Windows Advanced Rasterization Platform) 10, which does away with the need for a dedicated hardware 3D accelerator altogether. Microsoft says that WARP 10 will support all the features and precision requirements of Direct3D 10 and 10.1, as well as up to 8x multi-sampled anti-aliasing, anisotropic filtering and all optional texture formats. The minimum CPU spec needed is just 800MHz, and it doesn't even need MMX or SSE, although it will work much quicker on multi-core CPUs with SSE 4.1. Of course, software rendering on a single desktop CPU isn't going to be able to compete with decent dedicated 3D graphics cards when it comes to high-end games, but Microsoft has released some interesting benchmarks that show the system to be quicker than Intel's current integrated DirectX 10 graphics. Running Crysis at 800 x 600 with the lowest quality settings, an eight-core Core i7 system managed an average frame rate of 7.36fps, compared with 5.17fps from Intel's DirectX 10 integrated graphics."
What a revolutionary & useful idea.
In other news, Intel graphics chips said to be designed for minimal power draw rather than all out performance. This power draw is decidedly not beaten by running a software renderer that will stress the CPU till it sucks power like an electric chair as the CPU is only general hardware, not specific. More at 11.
"To any truly impartial person, it would be obvious that I am right."
I did, but then I only got 5fps. :-P
How much is an 8-core system going to cost vs the system with integrated graphics? At that point, it seems wiser to invest more money in a graphics card than in faster CPUs if that's what you're going to be doing.
By far the more useful thing is that it's probably better for development because the driver developers will have a reference point of how the graphics are supposed to render. Also, larger game companies will be able to point out these differences to get bug fixes out of the graphics card companies. "Your graphics card renders this incorrectly with regards to the reference, fix it" is much more forceful than "your graphics card behaves differently than your competitor".
"Running Crysis at 800 x 600 with the lowest quality settings, an eight-core Core i7 system managed an average frame rate of 7.36fps, compared with 5.17fps from Intel's DirectX 10 integrated graphics."
So the game went from unplayable at the lowest settings possible, to being still unplayable at the lowest settings possible?
Great move MS, youv'e really solved a problem there.
cmd-q.co.uk - some sort of stupid fucking internet bullshit
But what if I want to play Crysis on my EeePC during that boring office meeting!?
Does anyone else remember the 'good old days' when certain 3D graphics cards (the ViRGE comes to mind), were actually SLOWER than software renderers?
The term used then was 'decelerator' and I think MS's stupid decision to (once again) bow to Intel on this should share the same term.
How long will it take for true 3D acceleration to become an expected standard feature on PC's?
"...Well, there's egg and bacon; egg sausage and bacon; egg and spam; egg bacon and spam; egg bacon sausage and spam..."
Running Crysis at 800 x 600 with the lowest quality settings, an eight-core Core i7 system managed an average frame rate of 7.36fps, compared with 5.17fps from Intel's DirectX 10 integrated graphics."
So they compared one unusable (and dirt cheap) setup to another, super-expensive and still unusable one, and then they brag about sucking 20% less?
This is typical for MS. They are mostly a software company, and there are too many people who advocate software-only solutions that make no sense, just because that's the only thing they know how to do (maybe.)
Say you get a new computer with a decent CPU, but no graphics card for work. You guys remember that thing, right? Work? Spreadsheets and documents and...yeah. That stuff.
Anyway, now you can play Tomb Raider on it. The original one. Sweet.
...about the impossibility of running DirectX 10 on Windows XP.
If you can run it on software you'll be able to run it on any OS version. Gee... that was another lie from Redmond, why am I not surprised... maybe 'cause I do run he DirectX 10 hack on my XP and no it didn't raise the CPU usage (as claimed be the union of MS Windoze Vista Fanboyz)... it lowered it.
/. is silly
they made this to run the desktop effects
not crysis xD
Just imagine the demo. "Here is the slooooow intel extreme, geez what a dog, they should be ashamed! Now check out the BRAND NEW straight out of the labs tech, this will blow your mind (cues 7fps slideshow). I know, I know, we do seriously kick butt.
To think that anybody would want to run a DX10 game on an 800mhz no SSE CPU is insane, even considering the company involved. Perhaps for DX 7,8 and perhaps 9 games this might be reasonable (though not likely) but jesus, no thanks!
"Every time Andy gives us more power, Bill takes it away".
My guess is that Microsoft wanted their next OS to be virtualized on a server and yet still be able to run applications written for Direct-X.
Life is not for the lazy.
Is MS going to rewrite their GUI layers on top of their 3d API a la Apple?
They did that in Vista. They did it so poorly that customers sued over being sold "Vista-capable" machines which weren't -- including Intel video cards that weren't enough.
Meanwhile, Ubuntu runs on Compiz, which does just fine on Intel -- and Apple has been so far ahead that someone took the audio from one of the original Vista presentations, and combined it with video from Tiger, thus showing that really everything "new" about Vista was just playing catch-up with Tiger, while Leopard was just around the corner.
More to the point: I believe it's now possible to run a Windows Server without a video card -- or, indeed, any GUI at all, depending on what apps you need.
Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
How about the vendors learn to code and stop writing shitty drivers! I mean they have the full spec on the cards and still cant produce a driver as stable as some guys reverse engineering! Vista had a driver model ready for how long? Its not even like the change was unexpected.
IranAir Flight 655 never forget!
But what if I want to play Crysis on my EeePC during that boring office meeting!?
Your 8 core Core i7 EeePC?
Game! - Where the stick is mightier than the sword!
Running Crysis isn't the point of the demo. The point was that it was a DX 10 application running entirely in software. In the end, this means that systems without higher end 3D cards would be able to run Aero. THAT's the point.
They are trying to address the main complaint of the "Vista Capable" debacle. Running Crysis was just a way of demonstrating the capability.
Seriously, this is a good thing. One could compare it to Mesa 3D. You have the option of running graphics in software, if you lack the hardware to accelerate it. This is highly useful in two situations:
1) You have something intensive and need to see it on a computer that lacks the requisite accelerator. Though it won't be fast, at least you can see the output rather than just being SOL.
2) You have a non-intensive task and don't wish to purchase dedicated hardware. While Crysis crawls, I'm going to guess something like, say, Thief wouldn't.
This is just a software lawyer to allow the OS to do 3D rendering even if there's not an accelerator present. I'm sure that 99.99% of people who do 3D in any capacity will use an accelerator as they are extremely cheap and extremely high performance. However it isn't a bad thing to have a software implementation. MS has actually had one for a long time, however it only comes with the development version of DirectX. It allows you to check the expected output for a program against the reference renderer as compared to an actual card.
Sounds like this is the same thing, just sped up and packed for end user use, rather than just developers.
Could have applications in the future too. For example what will computer hardware be capable of in 15 years? Processors are likely to be much faster as compared to today. Well, this might allow for 3D to be useful when emulating Windows for old programs. People remember people emulate DOS today (see DOSBox) for various purposes. I don't think it is out of the question that a decade or two later people will emulate Windows 7. Ok however part of that will be dealing with the 3D layer. A large number of apps today make use of Direct3D. Well, if Windows 7 has a software 3D layer, and processors are blazing fast you are good. Just use that. If it doesn't you then have to make your emulator emulate the 3D hardware, since I'm guessing a decade from now the 3D subsystem will be vastly different than it is now.
This is not intended to be a "Oh you don't need a graphics card ever," thing. It is intended to give people the option to get 3D without having to have a graphics card. It won't be as good, but at least it'll work.
3D accelerators are an expected feature on standard PCs. I can't think of one you can get these days without one. All the current integrated Intel and ATi and nVidia chips are 3D accelerators. Not powerful ones, but they do the trick. Any ad in card is, of course, an accelerator.
However here's a better question: How long until we don't need that anymore? Personally, I'm not thrilled with the idea of having to have lots of dedicated hardware. The whole point of a PC is a general purpose machine that can do pretty much anything because it is all programmed in software. You replace dedicated units that did only one thing with a general purpose computer that does everything. Ok well that is somewhat undermined by the requirement of specialized hardware.
Now, I understand the need for it. Graphics are intense and there is just no way, at this time, for a CPU to handle it. A dedicated processor optimized for the kind of math graphics need is the way to go. However wouldn't it be nice if that weren't the case? Wouldn't it be nice if the CPU again did everything?
We won't see that day tomorrow, but perhaps we'll see it in a decade or two.
I look back to the changes in audio production and hope to see it come to graphics as well:
Originally, PCs used in audio production were little more than interfaces for complex dedicated hardware. A normal PC simply couldn't handle it. You had a PC that was loaded full of Pro Tool cards, which were massive bunches of specialized hardware, to do anything. Well as CPUs got better, you started to be able to do more on a regular PC. At first it was still nothing really useful in the pro market. You had to do everything non-realtime, spend lots of time rendering a change then listening to it and so on. But at least you could actually do it on normal computers. Yet more time passed and now non-destructive realtime software was available on normal systems. You could overload it pretty easy, you still had to bounce tracks and such, it wasn't the unrestricted power of an accelerated solution, but it worked pretty well and in fact lots of project studios did just that.
Then we come to now. Now, the hardware accelerated audio production system is a relic. They are still made, but they are unpopular. Most professional studios don't bother, they just get a nice powerful PC (by PC I mean personal computer, Macs are included in this) with a couple of multi core processors and go to town. The CPUs easily handle large number of tracks with multiple effects and so on all in realtime. There is simply no need for dedicated hardware, and not using it means much greater flexibility. Everything is just changed in software.
So, I'd love to see that same sort of thing come to graphics. At this point, CPUs have a long way to go. But then, technology moves fast. Everything I'm talking about in the audio world has happened in about 2 decades. In just 20 years or so it went from something you could only do with amazingly expensive special hardware to something that is easy for a $1000 computer to handle.
20 years from now, may be the same deal with graphics.
I wish I had mod points to use on the parent. The GPU companies (emphasis on Nvidia though) knew the Vista driver model 18 months prior to its release and they still couldn't come up with decent drivers on time or ever two years later. I finally gave up on Nvidia's shitty drivers when a driver update in June caused all AVI files to skip when emule was open. Combine that with Nvidia refusing to implement DVD anti-aliasing on hardware for Vista (something that they have in the XP drivers) I had had enough being a free beta tester for Nvidia. My new ATI card works just fine and I don't have to install additional crapware for its drivers. I don't plan on ever going back to Nvidia.
Running Crysis at 800 x 600 with the lowest quality settings, an eight-core Core i7 system managed an average frame rate of 7.36fps, compared with 5.17fps from Intel's DirectX 10 integrated graphics.
and this is ball-slapping good news?
Don't be apathetic. Procrastinate!
Because, quite frankly, people were upset that their 'Vista Capable' computers couldn't run Vista with Aero enabled. The integrated cards don't have the 'oomph' for Aero's glassy transparency effects, but Microsoft had tooted the horn of 'Look! Shiny!' loud and long, so people expected that functionality. In addition, there are other places extended graphics capabilities are used (the Vista DVD maker program, for instance), where if your card isn't up to snuff, you can't use those programs.
By showing 'we can make this work in software, slowly, but work,' they're trying to address that. This isn't for gaming, despite the demo. This is an attempt to solve the problem out of the gate in Windows 7 so that they don't have another Vista Capable type class action suit.
--Rachel
Isn't this the point of openGL? An API to dedicated graphics hardware with a backup software renderer if the hardware isn't supported?
Whose idea is this again? It doesn't look like much of an idea, more like a step backwards..
Eight cores at 3GHz beat one core at 400MHz!!!
Film at eleven.
No sig today...
Just use the Intel ray tracer...
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7079133482718383307
Much more impressive than "DX10 rasterizer".
No sig today...
And it's not just the GPU companies. Creative took their sweet time releasing Vista drivers for their previous generation of audio cards. I believe they were actually released after Vista was, and they're still just dreadful.
My Audigy 2 is not that old, but after much fighting I still couldn't get 4.1 sound and EAX to work in any capacity. Part of it was Creative insisting on their own competing implementation of how to configure speakers which does not play nicely with the one included with Vista. Other issues are due to the general crummy nature of the drivers. Still other issues apparently only occur on Vista64 with 4 or more GB of RAM. Just awful. Eventually, I had to stop using the Audigy and use the onboard RealTek branded Intel HDA chip which seems to work fine, though the sound is less clean than what I got with my Audigy.
Another piece of hardware, a Playstation/Gamecube/Dreamcast to USB controller adapter, from EMS Production (http://www.hkems.com) won't work with Vista64 either. Two years in and the company, still alive, has yet to release any Vista64 drivers and the Vista32 drivers are still listed as "beta".
The annoying thing here is that the damn thing shouldn't even *need* an adapter. In Linux it is simply recognized as a HID gaming device and works fine. Vista actually recognizes it as such and DirectX controller diagnostic program can properly read values from the controller, but Vista steadfastly refuses to list the device in the "Game Controllers" control panel dialog, making it pretty useless for anything.
Sigh... at least both these pieces of hardware work perfectly well in Linux...
Elrond, Duke of URL
"This is the most fun I've had without being drenched in the blood of my enemies!"-Sam&Max
I'm sorry, but Peter Gutmann is not a reputable source for accurate information on Vista graphics, or anything related to Vista at all. Several of his claims have been widely proven to be exaggerated or downright false, and when asked to provide proof, he has refused. His claims have been picked apart on numerous sites both directly and indirectly through the sourcing of benchmarks.
I suggest you read these articles for instance, which provide a good overview:
http://blogs.zdnet.com/Ou/?p=673
http://blogs.zdnet.com/Ou/?p=718
Some of his points are admittedly valid, there are genuine flaws in the new graphics driver device spec., but he's clearly most concerned with pushing an anti-Vista agenda, even if that requires resorting to FUD.
Choose your "experts" carefully.
I presume you're referring to the article in which he described Vista as something like "quite possibly the longest suicide note in history"? I read it back in 06 shortly after it was initially published, I didn't know Gutmann's work terribly well before reading that, but he came highly recommended.
However, that article cost him about 98% credibility with me. Some of it - even some of the really bad stuff - might in fact be true. However, there were trivially verfiable claims he made which were blatantly untrue (an example being that ATI, nVidia, and other graphics companies were going to need to switch away from unified drivers, and provide a different driver for each card model - which by the time the article went public was an obvious falsehood since you could download and install the beta Vista drivers for any card in a given family and they would work fine).
If the man can't be bothered to do even that minimal an amount of research (it also didn't help that he refused to disclose any of his sources) then he has no business publishing in anything but tabloids, nor does he have any place in academic circles. I am a student, not a professor, but if I had written such tripe and submitted it to anybody who knew what I was talking about, I'd have been laughed out of the department.
Incidentally, the article has been edited at leas three times since its initial publication. While I have no objection to revising, it is usually done prior to publication, not afterwards. Furthermore, while some of the more blatantly false claims are missing from the latest version, Gutmann neither addresses nor explicitly retracts those statements. It is although he wishes to remove the original statements entirely, though nothing controversial on the Internet ever vanishes so thoroughly as that.
There's no place I could be, since I've found Serenity...
Nope, correct question would be:
your eeepc with 800x600 resoultion?
Yes, the battery life is awesoNOCARRIER
-- "So, what's the deal with Auntie Gerschwitz et all?"
At one frame per meeting, you're at least better off than people who play Quake over email ;)
Windows 95 didn't invent disk compression. Stacker and Doublespace were some products that did the same thing for DOS.
"Not to mention all the idiots who use words like boxen."
Anonymous Coward on Monday August 04, @06:49PM
The news here is not the existence of a software renderer, but one with good performance (such that a high-end CPU is competitive with a low-end GPU for some tasks). I wonder how the trusty Mesa GL renderer compares to Microsoft's latest offering? (They implement different APIs, but Wine provides DirectX 10 on top of OpenGL, so you can get an apples to apples comparison.)
-- Ed Avis ed@membled.com
To: "John"
Subject: Re: Quake
Boom headshot!
Much better frame rate than Halo over e-mail, where half the e-mails are spent teabagging each other.
I had been always confused by software advertising (especially Microsoft's). When they say it (i.e. a new version of Windows) would run faster than previous versions, I thought: "Hey! This will work great on my old computer!" - until I saw that the product requirements included the next generation of CPUs. WTF?
Granted, it may be for some of the new CPU instructions that eliminated latency, but still, I felt kinda deceived.
Next thing you'll be telling me is Windows didn't invent the concept of OS.
And in fact, DOS 6 also had disk compression. You could even see that they had illegally copied Stackers code because they forgot to take out Stackers copyright notice.
In every quake (except 4), all hit areas are equal.
Please hand over your geek card.
Enter Arch Linux. Installed to a CLI in about 10 minutes. Getting the wi-fi working from the cli with wpa_supplicant and the zd1211 firmware for my card was a breeze. Then I proceeded to download and install xorg and icewm. All told, at a cli with wi-fi working it idles at eleven MB. Logged in to icewm it sits at 17. And with firefox running, a grand total of 51 Megabytes. And of course, it's blazing. With Firefox 2, it's at least as fast as my Pentium 4 laptop running Debian with Firefox 3. And, of course everything works in Firefox. Flash 10, etc.
Although what I've said doesn't speak completely to your point, suffice it to say, depending on your setup, you aren't doomed to a slower computer when running reasonably up to date software.
The soylentnews experiment has been a dismal failure.
At the time that DOS 6.0 came out, and the Stacker copyright was still in the code, MS had NOT licensed anything from Stac Electronics. They did not buy the software. They did illegally copy it. So, no joke, AND not uninformed.