Project to Run DX10 on XP

2007-07-05 17:10:37

#1

Ryan: Member; +1,230|7122|Alberta, Canada

You'll be happy to know that there will be a future program that can run DX10 on Windows XP

It's called the Alky project; and the goal: trying to port DirectX 10 back to Windows XP. And although a great idea I say there are three variables that you need to get DX10 games running in Windows XP. First off, the actual game, then DX10 ... and here's where I think the project can fail .. your graphics card driver needs to be DX10 compatible. The latter one poses the biggest issue.

So they might make it work after all.
It also states:

"Now this is getting even more interesting because it allows DX10 gameplay with your DX9 graphics card."

Last edited by Ryan (2007-07-05 17:11:02)

2007-07-05 17:13:47

#2

_j5689_: Dreads & Bergers; +364|6996|Riva, MD

Ryan wrote:
It also states:

"Now this is getting even more interesting because it allows DX10 gameplay with your DX9 graphics card."

That's bullshit, the game has to be programmed to use DX10 stuff in order to perform DX10 gameplay. It'd probably be unstable from that anyway.

Edit: Although seeing this make it to Guru3D.com seems to make it seem a bit more believable.

Last edited by _j5689_ (2007-07-05 17:15:49)

2007-07-05 17:13:59

#3

Bertster7: Confused Pothead; +1,101|6861|SE London

rofl

What's the fucking point of that?!?!?
DX10 titles in DX10 mode push DX10 cards pretty hard as it is, running through software emulation no DX10 titles will run at anything even approaching playable speeds.

Interesting idea, but ultimately fundamentally flawed and pointless.

2007-07-05 17:16:19

#4

Freezer7Pro: I don't come here a lot anymore.; +1,447|6476|Winland

Hmmm... To run DX10 hardware accelleration on a DX9 card, it'd need massive software emulation; You'd basically need a free Quad-Core for the DX10 emulation... And you'd win on getting Vista infront of that

To get Vista display drivers hacked/patched to run on XP can't be that hard...

Last edited by Freezer7Pro (2007-07-05 17:17:28)

The idea of any hi-fi system is to reproduce the source material as faithfully as possible, and to deliberately add distortion to everything you hear (due to amplifier deficiencies) because it sounds 'nice' is simply not high fidelity. If that is what you want to hear then there is no problem with that, but by adding so much additional material (by way of harmonics and intermodulation) you have a tailored sound system, not a hi-fi. - Rod Elliot, ESP

2007-07-05 17:16:24

#5

Bertster7: Confused Pothead; +1,101|6861|SE London

_j5689_ wrote:
Ryan wrote:
It also states:

"Now this is getting even more interesting because it allows DX10 gameplay with your DX9 graphics card."
That's bullshit, the game has to be programmed to use DX10 stuff in order to perform DX10 gameplay. It'd probably be unstable from that anyway.

I think you're getting mixed up. They're not saying it makes non DX10 titles DX10 - just that you can run DX10 games, in DX10 mode on DX9 hardware, with the extra stuff done through software emulation - which will make them unplayable - 'cos they'll all be way too slow.

2007-07-05 17:20:42

#6

Bertster7: Confused Pothead; +1,101|6861|SE London

Freezer7Pro wrote:
Hmmm... To run DX10 hardware accelleration on a DX9 card, it'd need massive software emulation; You'd basically need a free Quad-Core for the DX10 emulation... And you'd win on getting Vista infront of that

To get Vista display drivers hacked/patched to run on XP can't be [i]that[i/] hard...

You'd need a lot more than that.

It'd be ridiculous. Maybe if you had 2 quad core clovertowns and their emulation software was very effectively written to use all the cores properly, you might get performance similar to that of an 8500GT, maybe even an 8600GT.

It's a silly idea.

2007-07-05 17:24:40

#7

Ryan: Member; +1,230|7122|Alberta, Canada

Well, we'll see how it turns out once it's out.
I bet the project will fail anyways.

2007-07-05 17:27:51

#8

_j5689_: Dreads & Bergers; +364|6996|Riva, MD

I copied the stuff into my directory but I saw everything you had to do to test it, so I figured "Fuck it, i'll wait till there's something else I can use it with"

2007-07-05 17:32:33

#9

ncc-1709: Member; +0|6441

Its designed primarily so that you can run Dx10 games on a DX10 card in a Dx9 enviroment, basically making Dx10 games run on XP. the fact they are trying to make it run on Dx9 cards is a bit silly, but most Dx9 games run a like 200 FPS ATM on the 7800's / 7900's. so it would probably drag it down to 50fps, which is still playable.
as for cpu usage, it would require only 2 cores, as the emularion would just close off the second core to the game to emulate it. it wouldent take that much more than running your game pluss a few other items like Bf2cc and media player and msn.

i doubt the project will fail on the basis of making DX10 for XP, as most of that is allready done, but getting it to run on Dx9 cards is gonna be the chalange. if it works, then they will make a lot of dosh.

Plus, most DX10 games will be backward compatible for a few years. Crysis allready works on DX9 yet its a Dx10 game, just dosent look as nice.

2007-07-05 17:32:41

#10

Freezer7Pro: I don't come here a lot anymore.; +1,447|6476|Winland

Bertster7 wrote:
Freezer7Pro wrote:
Hmmm... To run DX10 hardware accelleration on a DX9 card, it'd need massive software emulation; You'd basically need a free Quad-Core for the DX10 emulation... And you'd win on getting Vista infront of that

To get Vista display drivers hacked/patched to run on XP can't be [i]that[i/] hard...
You'd need a lot more than that.

It'd be ridiculous. Maybe if you had 2 quad core clovertowns and their emulation software was very effectively written to use all the cores properly, you might get performance similar to that of an 8500GT, maybe even an 8600GT.

It's a silly idea.

Time to get out my old Pentium Pro server ^^ It's actually got 16 200MHz PPro's in it, but neither AGP or PCIe That oughtta be as good as four Quads!!! And the incredible ammount of FOUR GB disk space! Maybe I can fit XP on it???

The idea of any hi-fi system is to reproduce the source material as faithfully as possible, and to deliberately add distortion to everything you hear (due to amplifier deficiencies) because it sounds 'nice' is simply not high fidelity. If that is what you want to hear then there is no problem with that, but by adding so much additional material (by way of harmonics and intermodulation) you have a tailored sound system, not a hi-fi. - Rod Elliot, ESP

2007-07-05 17:32:55

#11

Bertster7: Confused Pothead; +1,101|6861|SE London

For a workable looking project to run DX10 content on XP, Linux and MacOS - check out winehq.org.

They've already done a DX9 version for Linux - which of course runs stuff slower than the XP version.

2007-07-05 17:42:01

#12

Bertster7: Confused Pothead; +1,101|6861|SE London

ncc-1709 wrote:
Its designed primarily so that you can run Dx10 games on a DX10 card in a Dx9 enviroment, basically making Dx10 games run on XP. the fact they are trying to make it run on Dx9 cards is a bit silly, but most Dx9 games run a like 200 FPS ATM on the 7800's / 7900's. so it would probably drag it down to 50fps, which is still playable.
as for cpu usage, it would require only 2 cores, as the emularion would just close off the second core to the game to emulate it. it wouldent take that much more than running your game pluss a few other items like Bf2cc and media player and msn.

i doubt the project will fail on the basis of making DX10 for XP, as most of that is allready done, but getting it to run on Dx9 cards is gonna be the chalange. if it works, then they will make a lot of dosh.

Plus, most DX10 games will be backward compatible for a few years. Crysis allready works on DX9 yet its a Dx10 game, just dosent look as nice.

lol

What are you talking about?

Running a DX10 game, like Lost Planet, Call of Juarez etc. is hard work for top end DX10 cards which can complete the SM4 operations in hardware. An 8800GTX gets about 30fps average on those sorts of titles (may have improved slightly with better driver support).

Without hardware SM4 support you are looking at a substantial drop in performance, really substantial - I don't know how substantial, but it'll be a LOT SLOWER, maybe 70-90% - that's before you take into account the fact that no DX9 cards are as fast as the 8800GTX anyway.

2007-07-05 17:47:04

#13

Freezer7Pro: I don't come here a lot anymore.; +1,447|6476|Winland

A way to go could be one of those motherboards with four PCIe slots and four 7950GX2's and run the software emulation on 3 7950 cores and use one for rendering. GPUs own CPUs on large number calcs... So, on that job, some really fast DX9 GPUs might just make it to 10-20FPS...

The idea of any hi-fi system is to reproduce the source material as faithfully as possible, and to deliberately add distortion to everything you hear (due to amplifier deficiencies) because it sounds 'nice' is simply not high fidelity. If that is what you want to hear then there is no problem with that, but by adding so much additional material (by way of harmonics and intermodulation) you have a tailored sound system, not a hi-fi. - Rod Elliot, ESP

2007-07-05 17:49:58

#14

Bertster7: Confused Pothead; +1,101|6861|SE London

Freezer7Pro wrote:
A way to go could be one of those motherboards with four PCIe slots and four 7950GX2's and run the software emulation on 3 7950 cores and use one for rendering. GPUs own CPUs on large number calcs... So, on that job, some really fast DX9 GPUs might just make it to 10-20FPS...

Maybe so.

But then you'd be spending way more on hardware than just buying a DX10 card.

It's a joke.

To run DX10 stuff you need DX10 hardware.

2007-07-05 17:50:35

#15

Freezer7Pro: I don't come here a lot anymore.; +1,447|6476|Winland

Bertster7 wrote:
Freezer7Pro wrote:
A way to go could be one of those motherboards with four PCIe slots and four 7950GX2's and run the software emulation on 3 7950 cores and use one for rendering. GPUs own CPUs on large number calcs... So, on that job, some really fast DX9 GPUs might just make it to 10-20FPS...
Maybe so.

But then you'd be spending way more on hardware than just buying a DX10 card.

It's a joke.

To run DX10 stuff you need DX10 hardware.

Indeed.

The idea of any hi-fi system is to reproduce the source material as faithfully as possible, and to deliberately add distortion to everything you hear (due to amplifier deficiencies) because it sounds 'nice' is simply not high fidelity. If that is what you want to hear then there is no problem with that, but by adding so much additional material (by way of harmonics and intermodulation) you have a tailored sound system, not a hi-fi. - Rod Elliot, ESP

2007-07-05 18:48:34

#16

Ryan: Member; +1,230|7122|Alberta, Canada

Bertster7 wrote:
Freezer7Pro wrote:
A way to go could be one of those motherboards with four PCIe slots and four 7950GX2's and run the software emulation on 3 7950 cores and use one for rendering. GPUs own CPUs on large number calcs... So, on that job, some really fast DX9 GPUs might just make it to 10-20FPS...
Maybe so.

But then you'd be spending way more on hardware than just buying a DX10 card.

It's a joke.

To run DX10 stuff you need DX10 hardware.

But have you watched the Crysis comparisons? People are having truoble finding any significant differences between the two, meaning they are very much alike.

Yes, DX10 is more graphically appealing, but if the game is ran on a good graphics engine, like CryEngine 2.0, then the graphics will be good on DX9 as well.

2007-07-05 20:05:51

#17

weerdfoo1: Banned; +26|6444|California

Bertster7 wrote:
rofl

What's the fucking point of that?!?!?
DX10 titles in DX10 mode push DX10 cards pretty hard as it is, running through software emulation no DX10 titles will run at anything even approaching playable speeds.

Interesting idea, but ultimately fundamentally flawed and pointless.

actually, it doesnt have to be through emulation, all is needed is probably the right api files imported into xp to be compatible, it may go slightly slower, but it should still be playable

2007-07-06 03:52:57

#18

Freezer7Pro: I don't come here a lot anymore.; +1,447|6476|Winland

weerdfoo1 wrote:
Bertster7 wrote:
rofl

What's the fucking point of that?!?!?
DX10 titles in DX10 mode push DX10 cards pretty hard as it is, running through software emulation no DX10 titles will run at anything even approaching playable speeds.

Interesting idea, but ultimately fundamentally flawed and pointless.
actually, it doesnt have to be through emulation, all is needed is probably the right api files imported into xp to be compatible, it may go slightly slower, but it should still be playable

Not running DX10 games in DX10 mode on a DX9 card...

The idea of any hi-fi system is to reproduce the source material as faithfully as possible, and to deliberately add distortion to everything you hear (due to amplifier deficiencies) because it sounds 'nice' is simply not high fidelity. If that is what you want to hear then there is no problem with that, but by adding so much additional material (by way of harmonics and intermodulation) you have a tailored sound system, not a hi-fi. - Rod Elliot, ESP

2007-07-06 04:11:00

#19

Bertster7: Confused Pothead; +1,101|6861|SE London

Ryan wrote:
Bertster7 wrote:
Freezer7Pro wrote:
A way to go could be one of those motherboards with four PCIe slots and four 7950GX2's and run the software emulation on 3 7950 cores and use one for rendering. GPUs own CPUs on large number calcs... So, on that job, some really fast DX9 GPUs might just make it to 10-20FPS...
Maybe so.

But then you'd be spending way more on hardware than just buying a DX10 card.

It's a joke.

To run DX10 stuff you need DX10 hardware.
But have you watched the Crysis comparisons? People are having truoble finding any significant differences between the two, meaning they are very much alike.

Yes, DX10 is more graphically appealing, but if the game is ran on a good graphics engine, like CryEngine 2.0, then the graphics will be good on DX9 as well.

I'm not having any difficulty seeing huge differences between the two.

2007-07-06 06:32:11

#20

JaMrulezass: Member; +47|6744|Hong Kong

Seriously, I;m with Ryan, I cant find much different between DX10 and 9, all i see are more trash objects on the floor and a lil more obvious lighting, apart from that, its pretty much it.

2007-07-06 07:31:28

#21

Freezer7Pro: I don't come here a lot anymore.; +1,447|6476|Winland

JaMrulezass wrote:
Seriously, I;m with Ryan, I cant find much different between DX10 and 9, all i see are more trash objects on the floor and a lil more obvious lighting, apart from that, its pretty much it.

DX10 stuff isn't so advanced yet; It hasn't even had a year to develope. When DX10 becomes mainstream, we'll see huge diffferance between DX9 and DX10.

DX9 has existed since 2003-2004 snd have had an enormous time to develope. Even my old nVidia GeForce FX 5200 in this computer supports DX9. And DX9 has many revisions; DX9.0a, b, c

DX9 cards (nVidia):

GeForce FX series, 5200, 5300, 5500, 5700, 5800, 5900, 5950
GeForce 6 series, 6100, 6200, 6600, 6800
GeForce 7 series, 7100, 7300, 7600, 7800, 7900, 7950
GeForce 8 series, 8400, 8500, 8600, 8800 and counting...

Total: 21

DX10 cards (nVidia):

GeForce 8 series, 8400, 8500, 8600, 8800 and conting...

Total: 4

So DX10 technology is not completely developed yet. If you give DX10 as much time as DX9, you'll see much differance. The differance between DX9.0a and DX 8.1 wasn't that great either. BF2 won't run on DX9.0a...

The idea of any hi-fi system is to reproduce the source material as faithfully as possible, and to deliberately add distortion to everything you hear (due to amplifier deficiencies) because it sounds 'nice' is simply not high fidelity. If that is what you want to hear then there is no problem with that, but by adding so much additional material (by way of harmonics and intermodulation) you have a tailored sound system, not a hi-fi. - Rod Elliot, ESP

2007-07-06 07:35:41

#22

kylef: Gone; +1,352|6772|N. Ireland

Don't expect it to be great. There are hundreds of these projects going on, but the fact of the matter is, it will only fully work on Vista. Why wouldn't you upgrade? Games are being built solely for Vista, it is much better than XP.

2007-07-06 07:38:50

#23

Bertster7: Confused Pothead; +1,101|6861|SE London

JaMrulezass wrote:
Seriously, I;m with Ryan, I cant find much different between DX10 and 9, all i see are more trash objects on the floor and a lil more obvious lighting, apart from that, its pretty much it.

Are all you people blind?

Or have you only been watching low res comparisons? You need to watch them in HD, otherwise of course you won't see much difference.

2007-07-06 07:45:07

#24

wah1188: You orrible caaaaaaan't; +321|6739|UK

Well yeah there is a lot of graphical improvement but I'm already amazed at Crysis's unbelievable graphics lets just shoot some crazy North Koreans!

2007-07-06 07:49:58

#25

Freezer7Pro: I don't come here a lot anymore.; +1,447|6476|Winland

leetkyle wrote:
Don't expect it to be great. There are hundreds of these projects going on, but the fact of the matter is, it will only fully work on Vista. Why wouldn't you upgrade? Games are being built solely for Vista, it is much better than XP.

A: $$$€€€$$$€€€$$$€€€£££€€€$$$£££€€€$$$£££€€€$$$£££€€€$$$

B: Performance on non-top-of-the-line machines

C: Compatibility; Many soundcards and keyboards are not supported, alon with lots of other hardware. I can't run RAID on my motherboard with Vista.

The idea of any hi-fi system is to reproduce the source material as faithfully as possible, and to deliberately add distortion to everything you hear (due to amplifier deficiencies) because it sounds 'nice' is simply not high fidelity. If that is what you want to hear then there is no problem with that, but by adding so much additional material (by way of harmonics and intermodulation) you have a tailored sound system, not a hi-fi. - Rod Elliot, ESP

BF2S Forums Project to Run DX10 on XP

Ryan wrote:

_j5689_ wrote:

Ryan wrote:

Freezer7Pro wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

Freezer7Pro wrote:

ncc-1709 wrote:

Freezer7Pro wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

Freezer7Pro wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

Freezer7Pro wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

weerdfoo1 wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

Ryan wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

Freezer7Pro wrote:

JaMrulezass wrote:

JaMrulezass wrote:

leetkyle wrote:

Board footer