| Pages: [1] :: one page |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Creepin
   |
Posted - 2008.06.16 19:58:00 -
[1]
Edited by: Creepin on 16/06/2008 20:00:22
Well ok, I'm planning to buy new CPU, rather hi-end one, so hardware will be definitely more than enough to support premium EVE client. The thing is that I'm not going to touch Vista with a long stick even if I'll be paid for this.
I've read of some unofficial attempts of implementation of DX10 under XP, but before I dig deeper into this problem, which is quite a feat itself for my non-IT brains, I'd like to ask community if there's already something was done, hopefully succesfully, towards bringing premium to XP? Or at least it's already proven that it's impossible?
|
Creepin
|
Posted - 2008.06.16 19:58:00 -
[2]
Edited by: Creepin on 16/06/2008 20:00:22
Well ok, I'm planning to buy new CPU, rather hi-end one, so hardware will be definitely more than enough to support premium EVE client. The thing is that I'm not going to touch Vista with a long stick even if I'll be paid for this.
I've read of some unofficial attempts of implementation of DX10 under XP, but before I dig deeper into this problem, which is quite a feat itself for my non-IT brains, I'd like to ask community if there's already something was done, hopefully succesfully, towards bringing premium to XP? Or at least it's already proven that it's impossible?
|
Aurix Lexico
Slacker Industries
Cruel Intentions
|
Posted - 2008.06.16 20:36:00 -
[3]
Whatever you are on, I'll have 2.
(here's a hint, premium graphics doesn't require DX10)
|
Elysarian
dudetruck corp
|
Posted - 2008.06.16 22:00:00 -
[4]
Premium gfx is DX9 (there is no DX10 implementation of Eve yet)...
due to the different driver model used Between XP and Vista it will never be possible to implement DX10 in XP.
If you want DX10 you need to get Vista (preferably x64 if you want to address more than around 3GB of Ram) - it really isn't as horrible as people make out.
|
Creepin
|
Posted - 2008.06.17 04:10:00 -
[5]
Huh?
AFAIK DX10 is the only one real difference between Vista and XP, game running-wise, so if premium client doesn't require DX10 why doesn't it work on XP in the first place?
|
Mia Den
Rubra Libertas Militia
R0ADKILL
|
Posted - 2008.06.17 07:41:00 -
[6]
Premium has always worked on XP for me 
|
Creepin
|
Posted - 2008.06.17 13:41:00 -
[7]
Holy crap, you serious? Man, I was sure it works only on Vista for some reason. I guess it turns out to be quite stupid question after all, but thanks for the good news nevertheless! Gotta hurry to buy new PC then! :) |
ChaseTheLasers
|
Posted - 2008.06.17 16:16:00 -
[8]
Premium has never needed DX10.
Even if it *did* have a DX10 codepath, it would still run on XP fine, but only using DX9 features 
Having said that DX10 is not a huge jump. Sure, you can find the screenshots that Microsoft are pitching direct from their marketing team, but when you actually compare games that use it, very few have a big difference.
For example: http://uk.gamespot.com/features/6182140/index.html
|
Elysarian
dudetruck corp
|
Posted - 2008.06.17 17:42:00 -
[9]
(slightly OT): Another difference between XP and Vista is that a game or driver falling over in Vista is much less likely to bring down the entire OS due to changes in the way drivers load (user-mode rather than kernel -mode), graphics driver problems used to bring my PC to a halt but on the rare occasion they happen in Vista it just kills and reloads the graphics driver.
|
TurboAAA
|
Posted - 2008.06.17 22:45:00 -
[10]
Also, if you want to better run games the best thing to upgrade as of now is the video card. If you upgrade to either the 8800GT or 9 series from nvidia or the HD 3800 series from ATI, you will see a much bigger difference in performance than with the fastes CPU.
Reason? The cards I mentioned above take almost all the work off the CPU, allowing you to keep your processor longer.
|
ChaseTheLasers
|
Posted - 2008.06.18 01:19:00 -
[11]
 Originally by: TurboAAA
Reason? The cards I mentioned above take almost all the work off the CPU, allowing you to keep your processor longer.
Thats non-sense and no such card exists. GPU's do not "take almost all the work off the CPU" unless you are software rendering 
The most important thing about a gaming PC is that its balanced. There is no point buying a top end card and having a poor CPU to power it. You would be *much* better off getting a midrange graphics card and a newer midrange CPU to go with it.
Having mismatching parts will waste so much money.
|
TurboAAA
|
Posted - 2008.06.18 03:22:00 -
[12]
Interesting, seeing as how the cards I mentioned are designed to take almost all rendering off the CPU. Go to nVidia's website and check it out or grab a copy of CPU, Computer, or PC Gaming magazines and let me know what you find.
Please do not voice opinions, that is counter productive and accomplishes nothing. Also don't come back and complain that I corrected you, I can't be held responsible for you not keeping up with the industry.
1. Knowing this stuff is not only an enthusiast's hobby, its also my job.
2. I have first hand experience and proof of this technology. Bench testing on different platforms kinda gives you a good idea of how things work.
The only thing you had to add that I could pull from your post is having a balanced machine. Which has been true for the longest time. However, with todays tech you have a little more flexibility.
Stop being an ass hole and start being productive.
|
ChaseTheLasers
|
Posted - 2008.06.18 14:02:00 -
[13]
Edited by: ChaseTheLasers on 18/06/2008 14:03:28
Originally by: TurboAAA
Interesting, seeing as how the cards I mentioned are designed to take almost all rendering off the CPU. Go to nVidia's website and check it out or grab a copy of CPU, Computer, or PC Gaming magazines and let me know what you find.
Please do not voice opinions, that is counter productive and accomplishes nothing. Also don't come back and complain that I corrected you, I can't be held responsible for you not keeping up with the industry.
1. Knowing this stuff is not only an enthusiast's hobby, its also my job.
2. I have first hand experience and proof of this technology. Bench testing on different platforms kinda gives you a good idea of how things work.
The only thing you had to add that I could pull from your post is having a balanced machine. Which has been true for the longest time. However, with todays tech you have a little more flexibility.
Stop being an ass hole and start being productive.
If you make a job out of spreading non-sense like this, I'd love to know who employs you!
I *work* in the GPU industry (specifically the 3D design area, working with and testing cards like the Quadro daily). While I have never designed my own GPU from the ground up, I do have good knowledge on how they work.
A GPU does *not* take workload off the CPU in the way you are describing. You talk about nVidia's website - please provide a quote to back up what you're saying from there then. Todays modern GPU's deal with mainly rendering, you will not find a CPU dealing with these instructions.
For a start there are huge difference is the architecture. A x86 based CPU would die under the floating point calculations that a modern GPU does. They are both designed differently from the ground up and the instructions from one are not directly interchangeable to the other.
Quite simply a GPU renders and a CPU does not - unless you are running it in software mode. To imply that certain graphics cards will work better because they "are designed to take almost all rendering off the CPU" is silly. Thats what a GPU does. It takes the 3D workload away from the CPU entirely. There are no magical cards out there that will compensate for a poor CPU driving the system. The cards you mention will not take any more workload off the CPU than a bottom of the barrel 6100TC card or top end 9800GTX. If the CPU can't drive the cards, you'll have a bottleneck there and the system suffer as a result.
The exception to this is acceleration in other areas, such as x264 - which while it takes load off the CPU has nothing to do with gaming at all.
Then again, I'm not sure why I'm spending my time explaining this to you. If you're the kind of person that's going to start calling others an 'ass hole' for disagreeing with them, you're not the kinda person who's going to listen to what others are saying. Stop being so pompous in your replies and you may learn something - This isn't WoW.
|
Dracthera
|
Posted - 2008.06.19 23:40:00 -
[14]
Originally by: Creepin
Edited by: Creepin on 16/06/2008 20:00:22
I'd like to ask community if there's already something was done, hopefully succesfully, towards bringing premium to XP? Or at least it's already proven that it's impossible?
I'm not sure what the issue is other than your hardware. I've been running Premium on XP using an ATI Radeon 1650x ever since I first installed the game a few months ago. No issues whatsoever.
|
Kazuo Ishiguro
House of Marbles
Zzz
|
Posted - 2008.06.20 23:59:00 -
[15]
Originally by: ChaseTheLasers
Originally by: TurboAAA
Interesting, seeing as how the cards I mentioned are designed to take almost all rendering off the CPU...
To imply that certain graphics cards will work better because they "are designed to take almost all rendering off the CPU" is silly. Thats what a GPU does.
Strictly speaking, he didn't imply what you claim he did; he only suggested it, and I'd say almost certainly not intentionally. The two of you plainly agree on the nature of graphics cards, but you're at cross purposes over a small point of language.
Zzz research towers
Direrie
NEW: Liekuri
20:1 low-end compression |
Shereza
|
Posted - 2008.06.21 09:43:00 -
[16]
Edited by: Shereza on 21/06/2008 09:53:55
Actually, there was some preliminary work done on making DX10 compatible with Windows XP. The project was abandonned in the alpha stage, however, but they did apparently have some minor success.
For those who either do not believe and/or wish to see for themselves here's the URL for said project: DX10 on XP
EDIT: By the way, TurboAAA, dude, I sincerely hope your job revolves around knowing that the stuff works, not a bone deep understanding of how and why it works.
Don't get me wrong, I've had first-hand experience that a video card that is, compared to the rest of the system, high-powered can help the computer play games a system-comparable card couldn't. After all, I can play EVE on classic graphics on a P3 733 MHz system that has under 400MB of RAM and still get tolerable FPS.
However saying that any graphics card released since the day of VGA cards is better equipped to reduce CPU load or that it will help you "keep your processor longer" (what does that mean anyways?) honestly makes little sense. In the case of the former statement any "graphics accelerator" card was designed expressly for the purpose of taking over the entire job of graphics output thereby negating the need for the CPU to handle it and the latter just sounds like random nonsensical gibberish that might, possibly, mean that using a graphics card will keep your CPU from burning out sooner than it would without one, which is still a rather absurd thing to say.
I'm going to extend the benefit of the doubt to you that you know what you're saying but that you have a very hard time actually saying it correctly. It's a problem lots of people have. My roommate knows what she's talking about when she talks about her computer but half the time she can barely talk about it because she doesn't know how to say it.
____________________
Minmatar in Fantasy or Duct Tape Goes Medieval. |
| |
|
| Pages: [1] :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |