Top
180°

Windows 7 allows DirectX 10 acceleration on the CPU

Custompc writes:

It turns out that Intel isn't the only company that's looking at performing Direct3D in software; Microsoft has just announced that it's also planning to introduce a new feature called WARP in Windows 7 that allows you to run Direct3D 10 and 10.1 on the CPU.

Read Full Story >>
custompc.co.uk
The story is too old to be commented.
TrevorPhillips3246d ago

So will this basically mean that you will be able to run crysis or crysis warhead on max? or not?

vitz33246d ago (Edited 3246d ago )

It means the CPU is going to be doing the same job it was always doing. They just rephrased it a different way.

Full graphics acceleration on a CPU is extremely inefficient. The whole reason we have GPU's is because the hardware is made specifically for calculating geometry, textures, post-processing etc.

A CPU is made for very generalized calculations, forcing it to do what a program would normally expect a shader pipeline to do would be ridiculously slow.

So no, no Crysis on max. If you ran Crysis on max even at just a low-res like 1024x768 on JUST a CPU even quad core, you'd be looking at 1-5 fps MAYBE, big maybe. It would be quicker to have the frames mailed to you.

What it MIGHT mean is that future laptops/desktops with this software might not need sh*tty intel integrated graphics chipsets, resulting in a cheaper laptop. You could run all your desktop apps from just the CPU without the need for a real GPU and still have the fancy windows flip 3d crap. Just not good enough for any gaming, 3d modelling, or intense video editing.

Bladestar3246d ago (Edited 3246d ago )

vitz3 is not looking at big picture... currently graphic API would not even try using the CPU to graphic related functions... that means that if CPU manufacturers create their CPUs with graphics in mind or if the CPU become so powerful that it can do graphics than since the OS do not support it... than all that power is never used and goes to waste.

"Full graphics acceleration on a CPU is extremely inefficient. " when he says that he is taking under concideration the existing CPUs that are NOT made for graphics since they are NOT designed with graphics in mind... that if you read anything online you will notice the sudden interest on AMD and Intel on graphics and making CPU capable of handling it...

I mean if you think about it... GPU are just CPUs optimized for graphics... they are not magical... there is no reason why CPU couldn't do the works if they are optimized for grpahics... and the first step towards this is enabling the OS to support these CPUs.

So, let's not think that we are smarter than all the engineers at Microsoft, Intel and AMD and simply reject the possiblity that CPUs cannot do the work. Maybe if they think it can work.. maybe it can..

vitz33246d ago (Edited 3246d ago )

Bladestar... Do you just spout sh*t from your fingertips just cause?

All of your points are worthless because it's all hypothetical. We don't live in the future, we live right now. No f*cking duh, x86 architechture isn't designed for specialized processing but of course something BUILT for it would. But right now nothing like that is on the market.

What the article is talking about though is using a regular CPU as a graphics solution through software, not your dream of a unified processor.

Think next time you post please.

I don't pretend to be smarter than engineers, but that doesn't mean you get to pretend you're smarter than me.

Final_Rpg3246d ago

Holy crap! BladeStar, you just got raped.

Kushan3246d ago

Hey guess what, every single version of Windows that supports DirectX already has this ability. It's just that it's completely useless. Go and download the DirectX SDK - when that's installed, you can use what's called a "reference device", which is DirectX running completely in software. It's useful for testing out features your Graphics card doesn't have, you can even run DX10 apps on XP if you like. There's just one teeny, tiny catch - it's painfully slow.

Although what Microsoft is harping on about here is a little different to what I'm referring to, it's not all that different and performance will be abysmal. This is taken directly from the article itself:

"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"

That's right, an 8-core system using Intel's latest CPU can't even hit double-digit figures in Crysis with all the settings at their lowest - this is not and never will be a substitute for a Dedicated graphics card. Even the lowest-end cards from NVidia and ATI can outperform this, the only reason it exists is to allow Windows 7 to run on more hardware. It's basically Microsoft's answer to Intel releasing crappy internal graphics setups that can't handle even the most basic effects. Microsoft is currently in a huge legal spat because of the "Vista Capable" stuff, which Intel is directly responsible for (They basically asked Microsoft to lower the "Vista capable" limits enough so that their internal graphics would be deemed "capable" when they couldn't even do Aero, let alone games) so by having this, they're protecting their own arses.

vitz33246d ago

@Kushan.

I agree and approve of this post.

cherrypie3246d ago (Edited 3246d ago )

Bladestar said;

"currently graphic API would not even try using the CPU to graphic related functions... that means that if CPU manufacturers create their CPUs with graphics in mind or if the CPU become so powerful that it can do graphics than since the OS do not support it... than all that power is never used and goes to waste. "

Which is 100% accurate and correct, and exactly what the article is telling you.

Which, if you read:
"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"

confirms.

The point is being able to run DirectX 10 graphics on machines without a GPU. Sure, you wont run it as *well* as you can with a GPU, but you'll be able to run DX10 for Aero (and other simple purposes (for graphics in the WMF UI for instance)).

MS knows that very low-end boxes may not have a GPU, like the slim boxes in kiosks and on inexpensive white-collar office machines, but they *will* have a CPU capable of running DX10 (via this WARP abstraction).

So, why dont you READ THE FRACKING articles before you run off at the mouth like an idiot.

vitz33246d ago

@ Cherrypie.

Didn't my first post just cover every "point" you just made?

Why did it take you such a big post to paraphrase that? Brevity is for the keen of wit they say.

+ Show (5) more repliesLast reply 3246d ago
labwarrior3246d ago

Thank god i did not install Vista, they can shove Windows 7 too

Thank god i am a console gamer, THANK THE ALMIGHTY GOD