Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

MS Says Windows 7 Will Run DirectX 10 On the CPU

kdawson posted more than 5 years ago | from the aero-capable dept.

Microsoft 503

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."

cancel ×

503 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Oh boy. (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25931213)

So we can play things at 7fps with ultra low settings. Whoopee.

Seriously, buy a goddamn graphics card.

Re:Oh boy. (5, Funny)

White Flame (1074973) | more than 5 years ago | (#25931225)

Seriously, buy a goddamn graphics card.

I did, but then I only got 5fps. :-P

Re:Oh boy. (1)

davester666 (731373) | more than 5 years ago | (#25931623)

Didn't Microsoft redefine "works well" so that Vista could ship on product's with Intel's Integrated Graphics?

And if it doesn't need any special graphics chips or vector instructions, why can't they make it work on my 486 box?

Re:Oh boy. (1)

arkane1234 (457605) | more than 5 years ago | (#25931733)

For the same reason that Windows xp isn't terribly good on a 386. Sppppeeeeeeeeeeeed.
The only thing that works good in todays world on a 486 is Minix, Linux, BSD, Windows 95, and DOS.

Re:Oh boy. (5, Funny)

jadedoto (1242580) | more than 5 years ago | (#25931255)

But what if I want to play Crysis on my EeePC during that boring office meeting!?

Re:Oh boy. (5, Funny)

Mad Merlin (837387) | more than 5 years ago | (#25931409)

But what if I want to play Crysis on my EeePC during that boring office meeting!?

Your 8 core Core i7 EeePC?

VNC (1)

ChunderDownunder (709234) | more than 5 years ago | (#25931455)

Have a 'server' with a decent GPU and use the magic of TCP/IP.

Performance surely couldn't suck any worse than running it locally?

Re:Oh boy. (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25931483)

Remote Desktop.

Re:Oh boy. (1)

arkane1234 (457605) | more than 5 years ago | (#25931741)

Amen. For Windows, probably the best idea.

Wish they had done a press conference... (5, Funny)

WiiVault (1039946) | more than 5 years ago | (#25931309)

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.

But that's the GOOD news! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25931709)

we can play things at 7fps with ultra low settings

The bad news is that they were rendering a black cube on a black background. Color and lighting are expected for the new version, at lower fps.

Software rendering (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25931217)

What a revolutionary & useful idea.

Yes. (5, Insightful)

James_Duncan8181 (588316) | more than 5 years ago | (#25931219)

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.

Re:Yes. (-1, Troll)

binarylarry (1338699) | more than 5 years ago | (#25931247)

Well, word to Intel: You can plug laptops into power outlets now.

So you can put the performance back in under those situations!

Re:Yes. (5, Insightful)

GigaplexNZ (1233886) | more than 5 years ago | (#25931325)

Servers are plugged in at all times, and we still want minimal power draw to save money and heat output (and for people who care, the environment). It isn't just about battery life.

Re:Yes. (5, Insightful)

afidel (530433) | more than 5 years ago | (#25931473)

Yes, but running something like a 9600GSO will require less power than pushing 8 cores on the Core i7! The TDP on the Core i7 is 130W, my 9600GSO has a max power draw of 65W. Not only that but you can get PLAYABLE framerates, like 30fps@1080P.

Re:Yes. (1)

GigaplexNZ (1233886) | more than 5 years ago | (#25931505)

That is true, but that has nothing to do with being plugged in to the wall. That is being more efficient.

Re:Yes. (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25931621)

Running DX10 games on servers? Get back to work you lazy servermonkey!

Quickly, bash microsoft. (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25931229)

they've had an idea, those BASTARDS!

Re:Quickly, bash microsoft. (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25931311)

Well in all fairness it's a pretty dumb idea. An 8 core CPU managed 7fps? Whoooopeeee!

How about instead of wasting time on this, they work with vendors and get properly working drivers for the stand-alone graphics cards?

Re:Quickly, bash microsoft. (5, Insightful)

RiotingPacifist (1228016) | more than 5 years ago | (#25931381)

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.

Re:Quickly, bash microsoft. (4, Interesting)

wwahammy (765566) | more than 5 years ago | (#25931609)

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.

it doesn't even need MMX or SSE (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25931237)

I fucking well hope that doesnt mean it doesnt make use of them. seems like a waste of time coding it so it can run without (what today is considered) standard fucking features of a cpu.
 
after vista, the os not capable of running useably on older hardware, it seems a bit dumb that they're not trying to claim they can do dx10 in software on an 800mhz cpu. but i guess thats why MS just keeps slipping, they have no fucking direction. you already forced all your customers to buy new PCs for vista. now is not the time to start worrying about running on non-vista capable hardware. those people are no longer your customers

Unbalanced comparison: cost (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25931245)

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".

Re:Unbalanced comparison: cost (5, Insightful)

Lord Crc (151920) | more than 5 years ago | (#25931447)

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".

DirectX already contains a reference rasterizer, which is better suited for that. This thing seems instead to be meant for applications that doesn't necessarily need more than "interactive" frame rates, but do need to run on a broad class of machines. Or for easing development of applications which could benefit from hardware acceleration when available (image processing f.i.).

From the MSDN page [microsoft.com] on WARP:

We don't see WARP10 as a replacement for graphics hardware, particularly as reasonably performing low end Direct3D 10 discrete hardware is now available for under $25. The goal of WARP10 was to allow applications to target Direct3D 10 level hardware without having significantly different code paths or testing requirements when running on hardware or when running in software.

Re:Unbalanced comparison: cost (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25931611)

Why didn't they compared Intel graphics card (BTW: which one?) to 1024-cores supercomputer? That would be even more unfair.

From the summary: (4, Insightful)

ben0207 (845105) | more than 5 years ago | (#25931251)

"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.

Re:From the summary: (2, Funny)

Captain Splendid (673276) | more than 5 years ago | (#25931289)

managed an average frame rate of 7.36fps, compared with 5.17fps

But, but, that's like, a 42% improvement! That's like, massive, man! MS are awesome!

42??? (0, Offtopic)

ryzvonusef (1151717) | more than 5 years ago | (#25931513)

Dear God, its, like, the answer to life, the universe and everything, man!!! Way to go MS, you are the second coming of Deep thought! (sorry, couldn't resist...)

Re:From the summary: (0, Redundant)

ChunderDownunder (709234) | more than 5 years ago | (#25931307)

640-core CPUs should be enough for anyone.

No, seriously, MS have just pioneered a revolution in gaming. It's called "super super super slow-mo".

Re:From the summary: (4, Funny)

cheater512 (783349) | more than 5 years ago | (#25931375)

No, the game goes full speed, you just die randomly however as someone runs in, head shots you, runs out and your computer is still trying to render the first frame.

Re:From the summary: (4, Informative)

Pr0xY (526811) | more than 5 years ago | (#25931433)

As I said in another post:

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.

Re:From the summary: (1)

danlor (309557) | more than 5 years ago | (#25931671)

Well... then they better try again. It still sounds like a complete failure to me. Since the integrated graphics is equivalent, there is no advantage, and no resolution to the problem. What exactly are you try to get at?

So does MS hate get an automatic upmod? (5, Interesting)

Sycraft-fu (314770) | more than 5 years ago | (#25931445)

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.

Re:From the summary: (1)

Revenger75 (1246176) | more than 5 years ago | (#25931469)

Maybe so, but maybe M$ figured that instead of benchmarking a game where it might actually make a difference and then having all of /. ask "But can it run Crysis?", they decided to answer that question.

Re:From the summary: (4, Informative)

hairyfeet (841228) | more than 5 years ago | (#25931477)

The direct link to their numbers is here [microsoft.com] , including number for quad and dual CPUs. And here [theinquirer.net] is the inquirer's take on it, which I tend to agree. This is about making sure that Win7 is put on as many machines as possible and doesn't have a "Vista Capable" debacle out of the gate. With this tech as long as they don't fuck up the CPU specs like they did with Vista(A 1GHz with 512Mb of RAM for Basic and 1Gb for all the others? WTF?) they should be able to give the Aero "experience" no matter how shitty of an Intel integrated GPU comes with your laptop. Of course it'll run so damned slow that the desktop will be pretty much the only thing you CAN run, but there won't be any more lawsuits because the machines can't run features. Anyway that is what I'm betting is going on in the mind of MSFT.

Personally I'll just be happy if Win7 doesn't run like a damned slug. because I'm really getting tired of playing "find a working driver" for all those damned laptops that keep getting dumped on my desk to be "downgraded" from Vista. I shudder to think how all those Best Buy and Wal Mart sub $600 laptops would have run if Vista would have had this "feature" at launch. How about making a nice lean functional OS instead of trying to out pretty Apple MSFT? Because frankly when you try to do Apple pretty you just end up sucking the big wet titty. Just accept the fact that you suck at pretty and move on. Win2K and WinXP weren't pretty and look at how much cash you made. Those of us that work with Windows will take compatibility and speed over pretty any day of the week. Just beg Allchin to come back and make backwards compatibility job #1 again and you'll find your customers will be happy.

Re:From the summary: (1)

this great guy (922511) | more than 5 years ago | (#25931569)

One 10-20W Intel IGP: ~$20.
Two 130W quad-core Core i7 920 processors: $568
Using the latter to barely manage to match the performance of the first: priceless.

Remind me to short MSFT when the market opens tomorrow morning.

Re:From the summary: (1)

SeaFox (739806) | more than 5 years ago | (#25931625)

I just find it hilarious these are the result of using a processor that is just now being released on what is considered too low a resolution by today's standards anyway.

If you can afford a system with a Core i7 processor, having a decent graphics card will not be a concern to you.

Re:From the summary: (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25931679)

Could be worse [xkcd.com]

Grrrreat! (4, Insightful)

Chordonblue (585047) | more than 5 years ago | (#25931257)

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?

Re:Grrrreat! (1)

WiiVault (1039946) | more than 5 years ago | (#25931321)

Sadly, never as long as the GUI works most Joe and Jane sixpacks will be just fine; and yes I do know about the Vista debacle but I think the point is still valid.

Re:Grrrreat! (1)

vux984 (928602) | more than 5 years ago | (#25931383)

Sadly, never as long as the GUI works most Joe and Jane sixpacks will be just fine; and yes I do know about the Vista debacle but I think the point is still valid.

Then you'd be mistaken. Both OSX and Microsoft effectively require hardware 3D acceleration for their desktop effects. All new Macs and any PC that actually meets Vista's real requirements feature 3D acceleration.

Re:Grrrreat! (1)

WiiVault (1039946) | more than 5 years ago | (#25931395)

I have some cheap as hell NVidia integrated that tells me a different story.

Re:Grrrreat! (5, Insightful)

A Life in Hell (6303) | more than 5 years ago | (#25931387)

Sadly, never as long as the GUI works most Joe and Jane sixpacks will be just fine; and yes I do know about the Vista debacle but I think the point is still valid.

How is that sad? If people don't need it, it seems like a waste of money to me.

Re:Grrrreat! (4, Interesting)

hairyfeet (841228) | more than 5 years ago | (#25931549)

Actually I think you are wrong, and here is why. I have been having lately a lot of customers, including older folks that wouldn't play a game if their life depended on it buying graphics cards. As a matter of fact on Monday I'll be picking up a passive cooled Geforce 6200 for a guy that I know hasn't played games since the age of DOS.

So why the sudden interest in graphics cards? One word: Video. Folks are getting these nice cheap LCD monitors that do 1400 or 1600 res and they are quickly finding that while the integrated will render the screen, the second they try watching videos on it full screen it really starts to suck. So they come to someone like me asking for a video card since the want to watch....well, videos. Having a dedicated card for video, even an older one like I am going to get this gentleman(he has PCI only and a limited budget) with dedicated RAM simply stomps any integrated I have yet come across. Integrated may work well for rendering office docs and excel spreadsheets, but full screen video at a decent resolution? Not so much. So I think folks will be getting upgrades for those cheap desktops and wanting more and more to see videos run on the laptops before picking them up. Otherwise it really isn't a good viewing experience IMHO.

Ummmm (4, Interesting)

Sycraft-fu (314770) | more than 5 years ago | (#25931493)

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.

Great news then... (3, Funny)

tftp (111690) | more than 5 years ago | (#25931273)

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.)

can i do this? (1)

sirmonkey (1056544) | more than 5 years ago | (#25931283)

call "dee dee dee" on microsoft?

or are they off limits? like real down syndrome people and such?

For server use, I guess? (1)

White Flame (1074973) | more than 5 years ago | (#25931285)

Many server motherboards come with some chintzy onboard video, yet have plenty of CPU and RAM to throw around.

But who is going to be running D3D10.1 apps on a server? Is MS going to rewrite their GUI layers on top of their 3d API a la Apple?

Re:For server use, I guess? (5, Insightful)

DigiShaman (671371) | more than 5 years ago | (#25931359)

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.

Re:For server use, I guess? (3, Insightful)

SanityInAnarchy (655584) | more than 5 years ago | (#25931379)

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.

Heck Yeah! (0, Redundant)

WiiVault (1039946) | more than 5 years ago | (#25931287)

This is awesome, I can finally run a game from last year at 7FPS on my brand new eight core machine that just came out a few weeks ago. Thanks MS! But wait, why not try the same thing on my 'ol 800 mhz P3 oh man does that baby have a whole new life!

Well...I think it's kinda cool. (3, Insightful)

Antlerbot (1419715) | more than 5 years ago | (#25931295)

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.

Re:Well...I think it's kinda cool. (1)

Antlerbot (1419715) | more than 5 years ago | (#25931315)

Or, you know. Call of Juarez. If you want to get all technical. Flight Simulator X. That sort of thing.

Whatever.

...and kills their own argument / lie... (4, Interesting)

Hymer (856453) | more than 5 years ago | (#25931297)

...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.

Re:...and kills their own argument / lie... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25931313)

Unfortunately, too late, even if it makes it technically possible.

Re:...and kills their own argument / lie... (1)

Hymer (856453) | more than 5 years ago | (#25931517)

Unfortunately, too late...
That is correct, at least from Microsofts point of view, but Win XP is still the most used OS in the world.
It wouldn't have mattered earlier either, MS wouldn't have kept XP alive.

Re:...and kills their own argument / lie... (2, Insightful)

Suddenly_Dead (656421) | more than 5 years ago | (#25931593)

How does that even make sense? Not to defend Microsoft's bullshit, but how does coding a software renderer on one OS suddenly mean it should work with every OS? There's no possible logical leap there. Hell, why not DOS?

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.

What? There is no way to use DX10 on XP at this time; the only "hacks" are game-specific, allowing you to use DX10 games on DX9, or bump up the graphics detail on games when in DX9 mode to something closer to what they do in DX10 mode. All that proves is that these particular games don't actually need DirectX 10 to run, or that their DirectX 9 modes are being intentionally crippled.

Re:...and kills their own argument / lie... (1)

Hymer (856453) | more than 5 years ago | (#25931645)

so... I even don't know that hack, do you ?

Re:...and kills their own argument / lie... (1)

Suddenly_Dead (656421) | more than 5 years ago | (#25931731)

so... I even don't know that hack, do you ?

What?

Re:...and kills their own argument / lie... (1)

jimicus (737525) | more than 5 years ago | (#25931605)

...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.

It was always a lie. Basic computer science theory shows that.

Now, if they'd said "We can't port DirectX 10 to XP because it requires a whole bunch of changes to the underlying graphics system which simply aren't practical to make", or "We can't port DirectX 10 to XP because the sales and marketing teams won't let us", either of these may have been closer to the truth. But would have been significantly less snappy, and when was the last time Microsoft explained the reasoning behind their decisions in any great detail?

Re:...and kills their own argument / lie... (2, Insightful)

ozphx (1061292) | more than 5 years ago | (#25931663)

I know, they could have backported all of Vista to work on Windows 98! Some people said it wasn't technically possible! All they had to do was put the 98->XP upgrade and then the XP->Vista upgrade on one DVD. But they didn't....

Oh wait... thats because its a _completely retarded idea_. Adding DX10 to XP would mean backporting a bunch of kernel mods, the new driver model, etc - which while "possible" would certainly be a hell of a lot of work.

So shut the fuck up freetard and just buy the new OS... you had the old one for six fucking years, do you expect it to be supported forever?

And no, those DX10 hacks don't "support DX10 on XP" - they emulate a bunch of crap, and they emulated it badly.

The software is STILL IN BETA.... (1)

BulletMagnet (600525) | more than 5 years ago | (#25931299)

Or Alpha even ... when it comes out, they'll most likely crank up the FPS to something blistering in the neighborhood of 11 or 12 maybe....or if they're REALLY good, double it to 14 and some change!

lol (5, Insightful)

DigitalisAkujin (846133) | more than 5 years ago | (#25931305)

/. is silly

they made this to run the desktop effects

not crysis xD

Re:lol (4, Funny)

WiiVault (1039946) | more than 5 years ago | (#25931351)

If so then why would they demo Crysis?

Re:lol (1)

SanityInAnarchy (655584) | more than 5 years ago | (#25931391)

To prove that their implementation is complete, and doesn't completely suck, even if it mostly sucks.

And, if you think about it, this could be good for Larabee, which is supposed to be just a bunch of x86 CPUs on a card.

Re:lol (1)

WiiVault (1039946) | more than 5 years ago | (#25931415)

I certainly see the point you are making, its valid, however I would never, as a company trot around how the fastest Intel CPU's available (just recently) with the most cores can produce a slideshow of Crysis at crap resolution and detail.

Re:lol (1)

SanityInAnarchy (655584) | more than 5 years ago | (#25931563)

Then what would you use for such a demonstration of the completeness of your software engine?

Re:lol (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25931615)

Vista Ultimate, of course.

Re:lol (1)

Cyberax (705495) | more than 5 years ago | (#25931407)

Why not?

It certainly shows that their software renderer is fast and feature-complete enough to run fairly recent games.

Re:lol (1)

WiiVault (1039946) | more than 5 years ago | (#25931437)

Crysis came out in Nov 2007. The i7 is brand spanking new and hardly anybody buys (can afford) the 8-core. Please tell me this is a +1 Funny post. Nobody in their right mind would buy an 8-core CPU to play 3-4 year old games at 30+ FPS, or a year+ old game a 7.

Re:lol (3, Insightful)

Cyberax (705495) | more than 5 years ago | (#25931475)

DirectX 10 on CPU is _NOT_ intended for games.

It'll be used for rendering the Aero interface. And it requires several orders of magnitude less computing power. Hell, even my old 4-year old ATI Radeon 9600 can render Aero just fine.

Games make a useful test-case, though.

Re:lol (2, Interesting)

Barny (103770) | more than 5 years ago | (#25931509)

But then, isn't the whole point of aero (excusing the prettiness) to get load OFF the CPU and onto something else?

Re:lol (5, Insightful)

Cyberax (705495) | more than 5 years ago | (#25931571)

Sure. But you also need good-quality 3D drivers. This way Microsoft will be able to run Aero even on plain VESA framebuffer.

Also, consider this: the upcoming Intel Larrabee graphics card will consist of 64 independent programmable x86-compatible cores. NVIDIA CUDA also allows direct GPU programming.

I bet this renderer will be adapted to run directly on such GPUs bypassing their 'native' rendering pipelines. That'll give Microsoft freedom to experiment with new feature such as ray tracing without any help from hardware vendors.

Re:lol (1)

RiotingPacifist (1228016) | more than 5 years ago | (#25931413)

Do you run benchmarks copying one file from home to tmp and back again?
Crysis is a good place to test dx10 performance in a way people will understand, would you rather they said they could do x thousand polygon operations per second vs n thousand?

Re:lol (1)

RiotingPacifist (1228016) | more than 5 years ago | (#25931363)

Arg the first insightful post but in such a stupid form!

On the one hand I want you to get modded up, as on a modern system being able to use software to render desktop effects will be useful (I wonder what the FPS on aero is though). However I also wish you to die a horrible and painful death for using the subject "lol" and ending an unpuctuated post with an emoticon.

WOW! Someone buy microsoft a clue. (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25931329)

You'd think with that many people and that much money they could at least come up with the idea to BUY themselves a clue about what they need to do and what people want.

Microsofts biggest problem isnt google or yahoo or any other company.

Microsofts biggest problem is microsoft. and time. they are both working aginst ms.

As to this current 'innovation'. I mean wtf. Oh yeah you got that big new 8 core system running your server... and you just HAVE to get a game of crysis in...

Re:WOW! Someone buy microsoft a clue. (4, Informative)

Pr0xY (526811) | more than 5 years ago | (#25931427)

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.

Re:WOW! Someone buy microsoft a clue. (1)

pandrijeczko (588093) | more than 5 years ago | (#25931561)

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.

I don't get this statement at all.

Why would you need a high end graphics card to run a desktop GUI? If you're a gamer with a good graphics card, then if you're into eye candy there's no reason not to turn up the settings on Aero to "full" to get a cool looking desktop while that graphics card isn't dealing with shifting game frames.

But if you're someone who writes letters, surfs the Internet and uses whatever Windows is on the new PC you buy, why would you buy a high-end graphics card just to be able to do that?

And what about server systems? What about if, as a server admin, you just want a slim GUI to run some admin tools on but nothing more graphics intensive than that.

Personally, I slim down any GUI I use to be as fast and light as possible (whether Windows or Linux) so eye candy does nothing for me - but I get that other people like it and if they've already got the machine to cope with it then why not.

But what you're saying really doesn't make any sense (unless I'm missing something), especially when we're also being told that Windows 7 is going to be a lot more modular.

Re:WOW! Someone buy microsoft a clue. (3, Informative)

Sparks23 (412116) | more than 5 years ago | (#25931703)

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.

Re:WOW! Someone buy microsoft a clue. (1)

pandrijeczko (588093) | more than 5 years ago | (#25931693)

The core problem with Microsoft is that it has absolutely no concept of competition or how to work with other companies in partnership.

I work for a US-owned telecoms company that is already well established in business PBX, call-centres, Voice-over-IP and voice messaging.

Last week, we had a team meeting and one of my fellow consultants gave us a quick overview of Microsoft's Office Communication Server. To cut a long story short, rather than embracing the strengths of their own corporate desktop presence and working *with* telecoms vendors like us to integrate with our systems, they're actually going all out to lock us out with proprietary codecs (for VoIP stream encoding & decoding) rather than using open codecs that already do the job perfectly well.

The problem is that Microsoft is trying to control far too many new markets rather than only focusing on what it does well - this means that it's spreading itself far too thin when it's trying to take on the already big players in those markets; Google is a classic example of this.

I don't see the logic behind it at all - look at the Internet in 2008 and compare it to, say, 1998, and the most popular and liked applications and protocols are those where the creators have embraced and used open standards (okay, with the exception of iTunes and AAC formats maybe).

I don't get it with Microsoft at all...

Imagine a DX 10 game on an 800mhz CPU -SSE/MMX (4, Insightful)

WiiVault (1039946) | more than 5 years ago | (#25931337)

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!

Re:Imagine a DX 10 game on an 800mhz CPU -SSE/MMX (1)

aurasdoom (1279164) | more than 5 years ago | (#25931521)

You seem to have missed the point.
It's not meant to play games, but to run Direct X 10 based apps without a direct x 10 card.

Re:Imagine a DX 10 game on an 800mhz CPU -SSE/MMX (1)

twomi (986768) | more than 5 years ago | (#25931545)

To think that anybody would want to run a DX10 game on an 800mhz no SSE CPU is insane, even considering the company involved.

I want to see someone run DX10 capable Windows on a 800Mhz CPU first, then we can talk about running games on top of that!

Re:Imagine a DX 10 game on an 800mhz CPU -SSE/MMX (1)

smash (1351) | more than 5 years ago | (#25931719)

this is notihng to do with running games on low end hardware. its more to do with enabling DirectX 10.x to be a standard that Microsoft can use for various other bits of software for the UI, office apps, etc.

If they code to DX10, and it can be run in software, then any vista platform will be able to run that app.

If you buy a system to run software directX to play games on, you're a fucking retard - that's NOT what this is about.

It's truer than ever (4, Funny)

FranTaylor (164577) | more than 5 years ago | (#25931339)

"Every time Andy gives us more power, Bill takes it away".

impressive innvotation (0, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25931417)

Did we not do this already back in 1993? From the MESA project an excerpt: "August, 1993: I begin working on Mesa in my spare time. The ..."
So what is the news.

is this a "feature"? (1)

the1337g33k (1268908) | more than 5 years ago | (#25931491)

If only Microsoft would open source these things... Heck if DirectX was open sourced imagine how much farther Linux would have come in the gaming arena. Yet, there is wine and that is pretty damn close to an open source version of DirectX and windows altogether now. I mean its just as buggy as native windows, sometimes even less for me. Counter-Strike: Source doesn't crash wine like it crashes XP and Vista.

Microsoft needs to fix bugs before putting in new "features"

P.S: Where can I score one of them 8-core processors, that was the most interesting part of the announcement for me.

Re:is this a "feature"? (1)

bersl2 (689221) | more than 5 years ago | (#25931555)

The DirectX code would likely be a pile of dung. Most of the interesting things happen at the driver level and at the hardware level. After all, isn't Direct3D supposed to require hardware acceleration?

Re:is this a "feature"? (1)

pandrijeczko (588093) | more than 5 years ago | (#25931587)

DirectX doesn't need to be Open Source, there's already an open graphics programming standard called OpenGL that runs on just about any platform.

DirectX is "better" for games companies because Microsoft are very good at documenting APIs that lock people into their products - so for games programmers, it's probably quicker to use DirectX than OpenGL.

manycore apps (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25931503)

Glad to see we have found a way to consume those last cycles. Bravo!

Seriously... (1)

deanston (1252868) | more than 5 years ago | (#25931507)

... the marketing department came up with the name - WARP - before they started creating the software, right? Now Ballmer or Ozzie can stand up on stage some point in the future and say, "... and for Windows 7 (SP2) we introduce WARP 11! Even the USS Enterprise couldn't go that fast! (..hey I bet the geeks will love us now, yeah!)

It got 7fps on Crysis... (1)

mseidl (828824) | more than 5 years ago | (#25931551)

but, couldn't run Aero. Lets see... Where did I put those "Vista Capable" stickers?

Virtualization (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25931599)

So MS is doing this to avoid a "Vista ready" disaster with Windows 7?? That makes almost NO SENSE.

Windows 7 is going to be what, 3, 4, 5 year after Vista?? Even the shittiest integrated chipsets fully support Vista now, and by proxy, Windows 7.

However, this will be GREAT for future virtualization. 10 years from now, Linux with virtual Windows 7 on a thousand core computer will be able to run Aero, whoopie!

Why wait? (1)

Krakadoom (1407635) | more than 5 years ago | (#25931627)

Hm two things. If this is so great, why are they waiting to incorporate it in Windows 7 - why not add it to Vista to try and regain some momentum for that pile of fail?

The other thing to note is probably that it's a decent use of all the extra idle cores on newer systems - as long as programs aren't taking advantage of multicores more than they are, why not use half the cores to do graphics processing?

Will it somehow 'stack' with dedicated GPUs?

Seriously? (1)

Verble (1116757) | more than 5 years ago | (#25931635)

No one else has commented that WARP 10 is impossible? Even if MS pulls off WARP 10, it'll just turn them into some weird lizard thing. Though for Ballmer that could be a good thing.

Oww it hurts! (3, Funny)

Whiteox (919863) | more than 5 years ago | (#25931661)

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?

This is a swap file on a ram disk. (1)

Saysys (976276) | more than 5 years ago | (#25931673)

The point of the DX10 graphics in windows is to look cool and offload some of the processing onto the 3D card. It reminds me of putting the swap file on a ram-disk, wasting system resources to do something meant to get around having limited system resources.

That said, at least we won't see nearly as many lawsuits because of varying levels of "windows 7" compatibility.

"WARP"ing back in time? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25931695)

When I think of WARP I still think of OS/2 Warp. Seems fitting considering the reaction I'm seeing to this news.

Bad Summary! (1)

AlgorithMan (937244) | more than 5 years ago | (#25931717)

I already read about this in a different news mag - and the main purpose of this thing is FOR DEVELOPERS to test the rendering of their stuff on cheap, low-end PCs (which are often used for development)
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?